Acceso usuarios
Boundaries are a key element of the exercise of states' power and sovereignty. One of the cornerstones of boundaries is consent, as the ICJ has made clear. One should then expect from states that they be extremely careful when concluding agreements in such a critical realm. The undisputed character of consent as the pillar of boundaries by no means implies that the existence of a boundary or the attribution of sovereignty over territory is always clear when states have negotiated on these issues. The purpose of this article is to illustrate the different modalities of disputes over boundary agreements, in the ICJ's jurisprudence over the first decade of the new millennium; to present the Court's pronouncements on this particular issue; and to offer a general overview of this jurisprudence. Basically, this case law reveals that there are two general kinds of dispute. First, there were controversies relating to the existence of a boundary agreement. The second type of dispute involved controversies relating not to the existence of a boundary agreement but to its validity. As a conclusion, it can be said that the Court's jurisprudence displays two trends. First, the Court was strict in finding the existence of a boundary agreement between the parties relating to a particular territory. Secondly, once the Court decided that a boundary agreement existed, it was reluctant to declare its unlawfulness.
