31.

LIBYA VS CHAD (1994)

FACTS:
Chad vehemently assailed the continued and ever-expanding occupation of its territory by the Libyan forces beginning 1970s
claiming to have rights over it, and that from 1971 to 1987, approximately 500,000 square kilometers of its territory was subject to
such incursion.

After several attempts of Chad, which all proved futile, for a peaceful settlement, in 1989, following the restoration of its diplomatic
relation with Libya, an agreement was instituted in Algiers, Algeria between the two States that had been duly notified by each of
the parties to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for registration, concluding therein that their failure to independently
reach a political settlement of their territorial disputes, they would submit the matter to the International Court of Justice. Hence,
this case which sought Court’s determination of the two States’ territorial boundaries.

In their respective memorials, Libya contended that there was not an established boundary to speak about as between the two
States, and that future determination of such must be based upon or in consideration of a series of international agreements. To
Libya, none of any of the existing international agreements had so fixed.

On the other hand, Chad controverted Libya’s claim by reiterating the existence of the 1955 Treaty between France and Libya, in
which a particular provision provided for the determination of frontiers by referring to series of relevant international agreements of
Colonial Powers establishing boundaries in the African region which were in force at the time of the constitution of the United
Kingdom of Libya. Chad, being a successor State to France, was, on its independence in 1960, entitled to the territorial base and
boundaries set forth under said 1955 Treaty.

Although Libya had not contested as to the existence of such treaty, it, however, questioned the validity of the series of international
agreements being referred thereto as bases for the delimitation to be not in force at the time it attained independence in 1951, and
were, therefore, inapplicable. Libya proceeded further with its contentions proposing that the 1955 Treaty it entered into with
France was concluded only for 20 years and that it was subject to unilateral termination.

ISSUE:

WON the 1955 Treaty, as regards the series of international agreements referred thereto as bases, was valid in delimiting the
territorial boundaries of, and therefore binding upon, Libya; and that the same, for the purpose of determining and defining the
territorial boundaries of the parties, ceases to operate at a specified time as expressly indicated therein.

HELD: Yes; No

a. The fact that the series of legal instruments listed in Annex 1 being referred to in Article 3 of said Treaty clearly indicates that
those were in force at the time, and that those were distinctly considered by the parties as bases for the delimitation of their
respective boundaries, otherwise the listing would have been pointless. Furthermore, the intentions of both parties to reach a
definitive settlement was clearly conveyed in the aforesaid Article. Any other interpretation of said construction would have been
contrary and incompatible with the fundamental principle of effectiveness in the interpretation of treaties consistently upheld by
international jurisprudence.

b. As to the provision in said Treaty that the same was to be concluded only for a period of 20 years did not essentially purport that
the frontier to be determined therein was of temporary character, since there was nothing in the whole Treaty that the boundary
agreed was to be interpreted as provisional. Thus, finality of the boundaries set must be presumed. A boundary established by treaty
achieves permanence which a treaty itself does not enjoy. A treaty can cease to be in force without affecting thereby the
continuance of the boundary.