ABSTRACT
This chapter focuses on the flawed application of uti possidetis juris under international law. First, it discusses how the International Court of Justice has applied the rule to uphold borders despite convincing historical evidence to the contrary. Second, it discusses how post-colonialist scholars have attacked the core assumptions of uti possidetis juris and, in having done so, have raised serious questions as to whether it should be applied at all. Historically, uti possidetis juris implies a general agreement between former colonial powers and new states. This was reflected in the wide-scale border remapping that came after World War II, when Great Britain relinquished its rule in many parts of Africa. In post-colonial Africa, borders derived initially from "spheres of influence"—arrangements between European colonial powers that provided for noninterference by each party in the sphere of interest of the other. These spheres ultimately evolved into administrative boundaries as colonial powers further secured control over their respective territories.
