APPLIED ISSUES

IN INTERNATIONAL
LAND BOUNDARY
DELIMITATION /
DEMARCATION
PRACTICES

A
B
APPLIED ISSUES IN
INTERNATIONAL LAND
BOUNDARY DELIMITATION /
DEMARCATION PRACTICES
A Seminar organized by the OSCE Borders Team in
co-operation with the Lithuanian OSCE Chairmanship.

31 May to 1 June 2011

Vilnius, Lithuania.
This booklet was compiled by the OSCE Secretariat's Conflict Prevention Centre,
Operations Service (CPC/OS), Borders Team, Mr. JérÔme Bouyjou, Programme
Management Officer.

Borders Team contact point:

Mrs. Penny Satches Brohs
Senior Border Issues Adviser

Design & Layout: Sebastian Traxl, Vienna

Published by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE)

OSCE Secretariat
Wallnerstrasse 6
1010 Vienna
Austria

Telephone: +43 1 514 36 0

Fax: +43 1 512 36 6996
www.osce.org
Email: [email protected]

© 2011 OSCE

Rights and Permissions:

All rights reserved. The contents of this publication may be freely used and copied
for educational and other non-commercial purposes, provided that any such repro-
duction is accompanied by an acknowledgement of the OSCE as the source.
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction 5

Session I – Defining International Boundaries:

Concept, Aims and Approaches 6

Session II – Co-operation and Confidence Building in

Delimitation/Demarcation Issues 12

Session III – International Assistance in Land Boundary

Delimitation/Demarcation: Multilateral and Bilateral
Experiences 22

Summary of Discussions 26

Conclusion 31

3
“Upon what basis then can we divide the
­intrinsically complex and indivisible world? One
thing is clear; we can distrust from the start any
simple solution. We are not looking for the one true
method of division since there can be none; we are
looking for a more or less suitable method.”
Richard Hartshorne, 1949

4
Introduction
Since the adoption of the OSCE Border Security and Management Con-
cept (MC.DOC/2/05), the OSCE Conflict Prevention Centre’s Borders
Team has supported a number of participating States and OSCE field op-
erations in implementing this Concept, through policy, capacity-build-
ing, and networking initiatives. In doing so, the OSCE has encouraged
dialogue and co-operation between participating States and promoted
the political vision of open and secure borders in a free, democratic, and
more integrated OSCE area. Participating States, through the Concept,
also committed to co-operate following the principles of international
law, mutual confidence, equal partnership, transparency and predict-
ability, in a spirit that would facilitate friendly relations between States.

In this context, challenges related to international boundary defini-

tion and the lack of border demarcation / delimitation that a number
of participating States are facing is an obstacle to border security and
management in the OSCE area and a threat to the territorial integrity
of a number of participating States. It also undermines OSCE efforts
to build the capacity of border agencies to promote open and secure
­borders and facilitate the legal movement of persons and goods.

While bilateral negotiations on these politically sensitive issues are

­sovereign matters of participating States, the OSCE is able to provide
a forum for discussion of best practices and obstacles related to border
delimitation / demarcation processes that others have experienced and
are willing to share. Such exposure to examples of peaceful settlements
of border disputes and to best practices and lessons identified regard-
ing the definition of international land boundaries can be particularly
beneficial for those participating States that currently experience diffi-
culties or which are at an impasse on border delimitation / demarcation
issues, and thus promote stability in the wider OSCE area.

At the request of the Lithuanian OSCE Chairmanship, the Borders Team

organized a Seminar on “Applied Issues in International Land Boundary
Delimitation / Demarcation Practices”, which gathered experts, border
officials, lawyers and diplomats from over 20 participating States.

5
 Session I – Defining International
Boundaries: Concept, Aims and
Approaches
This session provided participants with an introduction to the con-
cept of international land boundary definition, its aim, the various
approaches to it, as well as with a common understanding and termi-
­

nology regarding to the process of border delimitation / demarcation. It

also highlighted the challenges that countries may face when jointly
undertaking border delimitation / demarcation initiatives.

Presentation by Professor Michel Foucher, Director of Studies

and Research, Institute of Higher National Defence Studies,
Paris, France
Mr. Michel
Foucher
(left) and
Ambassador
Andrew
Tesoriere,
Head of the
OSCE Centre
in Bishkek
(right)

Opening the first formal session of the seminar, Professor Foucher

gave a general overview of the recent evolution of international bound-
aries worldwide. He identified the new international boundaries cre-
ated since 1989, following the independence of the former Soviet and
­Yugoslav republics. He also identified those existing boundaries that
have been subject to new treaties or agreements. Focusing on the

6
borders of Central Asia, Professor Foucher outlined the many practical
problems that have emerged as former internal / administrative ­limits
have become international boundaries. In particular, he noted the
sharp distinction in border regimes adopted by neighbouring States
in the region. These include the often difficult difference between hard
borders, those sealing off cross-border movement, and soft borders,
which remain porous to cross-border movement. He highlighted the
impact such disparity in border regimes can have in complex territo-
rial situations such as those in the Ferghana Valley.
New
international
borders since
1990

He also examined the complex hydrological relationships across Cen-

tral Asian boundaries in the Amu Darya and Syr Darya river basins.
The variety of irrigation projects and reservoirs built along these ­rivers
has created sensitive relationships between upstream and downstream
users. Particularly affected are those downstream States with estab-
lished cotton industries that are almost solely dependent on the water

7
supply from these two rivers. Professor Foucher concluded by encour-
aging States to reach agreement on boundary delimitation and demar-
cation through peaceful means; and to improve border regimes that
encourage co-operative economic initiatives, improve trade links and
address the specific conditions of local border populations.

Presentation by Professor Martin Pratt, Director of Research,

International Boundaries Research Unit, Department of
Geography, Durham University, UK

Professor Pratt explained some of the subtle, but important distinc-

tions in the lexicon of border studies, distinguishing the English terms
‘boundary’ and ‘border.’ ‘Boundary’ is usually used in reference to the
line which divides the territory or maritime space of two States, while
a ‘border’ is what has to be crossed in order to enter a state. Sometimes
they coincide exactly, but it is more common for the border to include
infrastructure such as immigration checkpoints, customs facilities,
fencing and patrol roads which extend beyond the boundary; and, in
the case of international air- and seaports, the border may be located
hundreds of kilometres from the boundary. A boundary is essentially
a line of definition, while a border is usually a more complex entity
comprising several lines and / or zones, whose primary function is the
regulation of movement of people and goods.

Professor Pratt examined the historical evolution of the processes of

delimitation and demarcation in the traditional model of internation-
al boundary-making. An international boundary needs to be d ­ efined
in a treaty or other legally-binding instrument – a task referred to
as ­delimitation. Ideally, delimitation should be as unambiguous as
possible in order to avoid disagreement over where the boundary is
­located. Unfortunately, many of the world’s international boundaries
were initially delimited in very general terms leaving scope for con-
flicting inter­pretations, and many remain poorly delimited today. The
process of demarcation, by which a boundary is physically marked on
the ground, can be used to improve an inadequate delimitation, with
demarcation reports, which identify marker locations, being incorpo-
rated into the official boundary documentation. Most boundary ex-
perts agree that it is sensible for demarcation commissions to be given

8
a degree of freedom (in the words of one sensible boundary delimita-
tion agreement) “to make such minor rectifications, and adjustments …
as are necessary to avoid the troubles which might arise from a literal
interpretation of the treaty.” Demarcation does not have to be a one-off
procedure: boundary markers can be ‘densified’ over time as human
and financial resources permit.

Developing
the boundary-
making model

Professor Pratt suggested that a second important aim of demarca-

tion is to make the boundary visible to borderland populations. ­Unless
l­ocal people know where the boundary is located, neighbouring States
risk encroachment of settlement and / or land use across the bound-
ary, disputes about land ownership / resource entitlement, and the
­development of ‘no-man’s land’ areas in which potentially valuable
land remains unused and law enforcement uncertainty encourages
criminal activity. Without a single model for demarcation, Professor
Pratt r­ eported that the nature and frequency of boundary marking will
depend on the physical and human geography of the boundary land-
scape. Different approaches may be needed along different sections of
a single boundary. When developing boundary-making strategies, he
recommends that it is important not simply to ask “is the boundary
delimited and demarcated?” but to evaluate whether the boundary is
unambiguously delimited and appropriately demarcated given the par-
ticular geographical, political and cultural setting.

9
 Presentation by Mr. Ray Milefsky, Senior Analyst, International
Boundaries and Sovereignties Issues, Office of the Geographer
and Global Issues, US Department of State
Mr. Al
Arsenault (left)
and Mr. Ray
Milefsky (right)

Mr. Milefsky’s presentation focused on the often delicate transition

from the more general political decisions relating to the allocation or
division of respective territories, to the more technical procedures of
delimitation and demarcation, especially in post-conflict situations. He
examined the problems that can arise from deficiencies in boundary
mapping such as discrepancies with treaty texts, poor quality sourc-
ing, incongruence of scales, feature displacement and other problems
related to the symbols and toponymy on maps. Further challenges can
arise when the demarcated boundary on the ground does not reflect
the delimited line, or when historic delimitation sources conflict with
present-day realities on the ground. This is particularly acute with river
boundaries where the river may have shifted substantially from the
initial delimitation.

Given the numerous discrepancies that often emerge, Mr. Milef-

sky recommended that negotiations even at the highest political lev-
els during the allocation stage should recognize the likely problems
that will emerge on the ground and address them accordingly. He
recognized that some States have effectively agreed to disagree over

10
specific boundary discrepancies, such as the dispute between Brazil
and U­ ruguay over Brasiliera Island in the Uruguay River. Converse-
ly, he noted that in some cases the discrepancies emerge and raise
The challenge
of river
boundaries

Historic map of Landsat ETM image

Mississippi river of the Komadugu
channels (New Yobe river (Niger-
York Times) Nigeria)

problems that stall boundary negotiations. He advised that political

decisions made during the allocation phase should better address the
problems that are likely to emerge in the later stages of delimitation
and demarcation.

Presentation by Dr. John W. Donaldson, Senior Research

Associate, International Boundaries Research Unit, Department
of Geography, Durham University, UK

In his comments introducing the two sessions dedicated to the experi-

ences of individual States, Dr. Donaldson gave a brief historical over-
view of joint boundary commissions which are the primary tools of
delimitation and demarcation. Contrasting earlier boundary commis-
sions with some more recent examples, he suggested that good prac-
tices often depend on a commission knowing and understanding the
conditions of the local border landscape. More time in the field and a
greater degree of flexibility has allowed many boundary commissions
to address the ambiguities of boundary definition that were mentioned
in previous presentations.

11
With a flexible and adequate mandate, boundary commissions have
been able to resolve many disputes that could have sparked conflict.
Dr. Donaldson recommended that such a flexible approach avoids the
tendency to undertake boundary making processes as a contest where
territory is won or lost, and instead approach them as co-operative
responsibilities of neighbouring States. In addition, Dr.­Donaldson
emphasized the importance of long-term maintenance to prevent
boundaries from falling into disrepair and raising questions about
their position on the ground. He revealed that some permanent bound-
ary commissions, having developed a good platform for co-operation
­during the delimitation and demarcation process, have been given
­additional responsibilities for other aspects of border management.

Session II – Co-operation
and Confidence Building in
Delimitation/Demarcation Issues
This session focused on the practical forms of co-operation between
States on land border delimitation / demarcation issues. It also ex-
plored existing mechanisms and practices in this field, particularly on
the ground. This session also attempted to identify lessons and best
practices from a number of specific national experiences.

Presentation by H.E. Ambassador Andreja Metelko-Zgombić,

Head of the Independent Service for International Law, European
Integration Department, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Croatia

Ambassador Metelko-Zgombić explained that, following the disso-

lution of the former Yugoslavia, boundary negotiations between the
former republics were guided by Advisory Opinion 3 of the Badint-
er Commission. This opinion stated that the former administrative
boundaries of the respective republics would become the new inter-
national boundaries protected under the international legal principle
of uti possidetis. Likewise, at independence in 1991 Croatia inherited
the former external land boundary of Yugoslavia with Hungary (­under
a 1983 demarcation and maintenance agreement) and the maritime

12
boundary with Italy, as well as the previous administrative boundaries
with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, Serbia and Slovenia.

In reviewing the status of Croatia’s boundaries, Ambassador Metelko-

Zgombić highlighted the experience with Bosnia and Herzegovina
where the strong political will on both sides to define the boundary
paved the way for signing of the border treaty in 1999. The treaty took
just eight months of negotiation and outlined extensive preparatory
work for delimitation that included the preparation of a 1:25,000 map
series and the creation of a joint commission. Following joint identifi-
cation and demarcation of the boundary in certain sectors, the com-
mission prepared final documentation in 2005 to be attached to the
1999 Treaty. The 1999 Treaty has not been ratified by both States but is
respected in practice. Croatia has also agreed on a protocol with Serbia
that defines the agreed principles for boundary negotiations. The 2002
Protocol on the interim Regime along the Southern Border (area of
“Prevlaka” peninsula), which is now being applied between Croatia and
Montenegro, allows for a provisional determination of the land border
and provisional delimitation at sea.

Ambassador Metelko-Zgombić also explained the complex boundary

situation with Slovenia with whom negotiations began as early as 1991.
While negotiations on the land boundary were largely productive, both
sides maintained different interpretations of the maritime boundary
and no agreement could be reached. Negotiations were also ­mediated
through the good offices of former US Defence Secretary William
­Perry, but no progress was made and in 2005 Croatia proposed to send
the dispute to international adjudication. After four additional years of
negotiations, an agreement was signed on 4 November 2009 submit-
ting the dispute to an arbitral tribunal that will define the land and
maritime boundary. The 2009 agreement has gone through long and
complex ratification processes in both States and entered into force on
29 November 2010. However, arbitration procedures will commence
when Croatia signs the Treaty on Accession to the European Union.
After a variety of attempts at settlement, Croatia’s experience with
­Slovenia reveals that sometimes a boundary dispute cannot be resolved
through non-binding means and must be decided by a binding third
party decision, but this is not a quick or easy option.

13
Discussing
river
boundaries

Presentation by Dr. Zenonas Kumetaitis, Deputy Director,

Eastern Neighbourhood Policy Department, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of the Republic of Lithuania

Dr. Kumetaitis provided a general review of the status of Lithu-

ania’s boundaries with neighbouring Latvia, Poland, Belarus and
­Russia. Noting some of the historical background to these boundar-
ies, Dr. ­Kumetaitis revealed that Lithuania’s boundary with the Russian
enclave of Kaliningrad dates back to German and Prussian agreements
from 1422 and a marker established in 1545. At the centre of his pre-
sentation, Dr. Kumetaitis provided a most informative and inspira-
tional account of Lithuania’s boundary delimitation and demarcation
procedures with neighbouring Belarus. The boundary was based on
the ambiguous former administrative limits inherited from the Soviet
period. After a joint commission was created, demarcation work ­began
in 1996 and was completed in 2007, with documentation totalling
some 50 v­ olumes. This includes a topographic map series covering the
boundary at 1:10,000 scale. The only outstanding issue is resolution of
the tripoint with Poland.

The comprehensive fieldwork undertaken by the joint commission

­involved significant engagement in local border areas. The joint com-
mission defined the boundary with sensitivity to the local conditions,

14
taking into account the situation of the physical and human geography
on the ground. The co-chairmen were entrusted to make revisions to
the line, providing that there was an equal transfer of total territory. In
defining the boundary, the commission sought to respect the boundar-
ies of existing land and property and retain the integrity of transport
and communication infrastructure on either side. The d ­ emarcation
procedures eliminated any possible ambiguities by clearly defining the
line on the ground with adequate signs and marks. The commission
also addressed the very specific conditions of individual boundary riv-
ers and streams.
Markers on
the border
between
Latvia,
Lithuania and
Belarus

The excellent relationship within the joint commission was clearly ap-
parent as the commissioner from Belarus, Mr. Aleksandr ­A rkhipov,
added a few comments at the end of Dr. Kumetaitis’ presentation.
While they admitted that there had been a few disagreements through-
out their work, both commissioners agreed that they had built a strong
degree of trust and likewise were able to overcome these differences
within the commission. The Lithuania-Belarus experience was an ideal
example of how two States that had inherited an unclear administra-
tive boundary line were able to clarify that line with respect to local
conditions and achieve a clear and definitive boundary that is unlikely
to cause future disputes. The high level of trust that developed dur-
ing the delimitation and demarcation practices may pave the way for
­f uture co-operation in other aspects of border management.

15
 Presentation by H.E. Mr. Erik Asanaliev, Ambassador of the
Kyrgyz Republic in Belarus
Mr. Salamat
Alamanov
(left) and Mr.
Erik Asanaliev
(right)

Ambassador Asanaliev outlined the three difficult but inter-related

aspects of international boundaries, including: their legal significance
in defining the territories of two neighbouring States, the subsequent
security of the border and the role boundaries must play in foster-
ing transboundary co-operation. He emphasized the different his-
torical contexts of Kyrgyzstan’s boundaries and how this has affected
approaches to delimitation. Since the boundary with China was for-
merly an international boundary between the USSR and China, it has
been the subject of much more documentation. With negotiations
having started over 100 years ago, Kyrgyzstan participated with other
former Soviet republics in delimitation work with China in the 1990s.
Kyrgyzstan also began negotiations with other neighbouring States
in the 1990s. Joint commissions were established and working groups
have undertaken fieldwork.

The administrative limits of the former Soviet republics had been sub-
ject to changes that were often not based on geographical or defined
ethnic criteria which left lingering questions for boundary definition.
The boundaries in the Ferghana Valley present the greatest challenges

16
to Kyrgyzstan, given their long and complex history. However, Ambas-
sador Asanaliev held that these difficult challenges can be addressed
when supported by strong political will. He also explored how Kyrgyz-
stan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have undertaken bilateral and multi-
lateral co-operation that has included the establishment of bilateral
expert working groups, joint fieldwork that has liaised with local bor-
der populations and inter-agency co-operation that has engaged vari-
ous ministries and agencies across the three governments.

Ambassador Asanaliev raised the important, but often overlooked,

­issue of the pressures that can build up on members of joint boundary
commissions. While all boundary problems can be solved politically,
he highlighted the heavy burden felt by commissioners who may be
accused of treachery as a result of decisions that they make. Draw-
ing on a recent sociological study of the Ferghana Valley, Ambassador
Asanaliev suggests that parties attempting to resolve disputes should
be prepared for often lengthy negotiations and avoid the unnecessary
politicization of the subject of boundaries.

Presentation by Mr. Vladimir A. Glukhov, Expert, Federal

Security Service, Russian Federation

With eighteen neighbouring States crossing a wide variety of landscapes

across two continents, the challenges of defining Russia’s ­international
boundaries are truly vast. Mr. Glukhov emphasized the importance
of boundaries as “the firm and inherent attribute of the state.” In out-
lining the procedural aspects of boundary delimitation and demarca-
tion, Mr. Glukhov explained that Russia approaches demarcation work
in three stages. The preparatory stage includes geodetic, topographic
and (for large rivers) hydrographic work for composing boundary maps.
This is followed by the field stage, involving the construction of pil-
lars and signs, clearing of tracks between marks and determining the
­position of marks by co-ordinates. Finally, the demarcation documents
are ­assembled and organized during the document stage. These docu-
ments normally include: the boundary demarcation map, catalogue of
pillar co-ordinates and heights, sketches and dimensions of bound-
ary pillars, and the possible enumeration of specific islands allocated
­between the neighbouring States.

17
 The boundary agreements with many of Russia’s neighbouring States
date back decades, with re-demarcation efforts having been under-
taken periodically on a number of land sections. Recent agreements
have also delimited several of Russia’s maritime boundaries, including
the recent agreement with Norway. In a comprehensive review of Rus-
sia’s land and maritime boundaries, Mr. Glukhov explained that Russia
has completed land and maritime boundary definition with six neigh-
bouring States – Norway, Finland, Poland, Mongolia, China and North
Korea. Work has not been completed with six States including Latvia,
Lithuania, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and the United States of
America, while major unresolved issues have prevented the conclu-
sion of boundary definition with Estonia, Belarus, Georgia, A­ bkhazia,
South Ossetia and Japan. Russia has established commissions to deal
individually with each neighbouring state, all of which are co-ordinat-
ed and organized within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Plenary
session
discussions

Presentation by Mr. Nurlan Sakenov, Head of the Division of

International Law, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Kazakhstan

Kazakhstan’s general approach to the processes of boundary definition

with neighbouring States has involved three phases or strategies: har-
monization of material, topographic mapping and legal registration.
Mr. Sakenov highlighted the long and successful boundary relations
with China. Based on an initial 19th century treaty, five agreements have

18
been concluded since that time. After three years of work, demarca-
tion of the China-Kazakh boundary was completed in 2002. A separate
commission has been established to work with all other neighbouring
States that are former members of the USSR. Work with these neigh-
bours is based on the principle of keeping the territorial status quo
at the moment of independence (in accordance with the uti possidetis
juris principle of international public law) until further negotiations
can take place.

Mr. Sakenov explained that in Kazakhstan’s experience of conduct-

ing joint fieldwork, one important aspect was communication with
­local border residents, also known as ‘sensitization.’ Although this
­issue was touched upon by other participants during the seminar, Mr.
Sakenov noted the importance for local border residents to understand
­delimitation and demarcation processes. Experience around the world
­reveals that this not only helps to prevent conflict between residents
and the joint commission during their work in the field, but it also
helps erase any myths that may arise among local border people about
the boundary itself (such as the value of pillars) and fears about how it
will affect their lives.

Presentation by Mr. Gennadiy Breskalenko, Head of Legal State

Border Management Section, Directorate General for Treaties
and Legal Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine

Since independence in 1991, Ukraine has undertaken a four stage

approach to defining its boundaries. First, it has signed bilateral or
multilateral agreements with all of its neighbours that recognize sov-
ereignty over their respective territories and the inviolability of the
boundaries that defined them at independence. The second stage is the
preparation and signing of delimitation documents, which has been
completed with all neighbours except Belarus, followed by the third
stage – demarcation. The final stage will be to establish a permanent
joint commission to maintain the boundary through periodic review
and possible revisions through mutual agreement.

Ukraine has completed the first three stages with neighbouring ­Poland,
Slovakia, Hungary and Romania. Joint commissions set up with Poland,

19
Slovakia and Hungary have verified the boundaries on the ground and
are producing new demarcation material. A similar procedure is on-
going with Romania. There is a single national commission that deals
with both Russia and Belarus. While Ukraine has signed an agree-
ment with Russia to begin demarcation of their long international land
boundary, fieldwork is still awaiting verification of all relevant docu-
ments and a third party may be assisting both States with demarcation
work in the field. The boundary within the Sea of Azov and Kerch Strait
remains undefined but is considered by Ukraine to be part of the ‘mari-
time’ section of the boundary (under the purview of a separate maritime
commission). Procedures with Belarus which began with delimitation
work from 1992 to 1997 are currently at a stand-still. The delimitation
agreement has not yet been ratified by the two States largely due to
financial problems on both sides. There is the possibility that boundary
disputes may flare up if an agreement cannot be achieved.

Ukraine has undertaken significant work with Moldova, dating back

to 1995. A joint commission began activities in 2002 with the field-
work complicated by the Transdniestrian conflict in the central sec-
tion of the boundary. Initially only transitional marks were made in
this sensitive central section but demarcation has been completed with
support from European Union Border Assistance Mission to Moldova
and Ukraine (EUBAM). A major problem faced by the commission was
discrepancies between the information gathered at the delimitation
stage and the situation on the ground. However, minor disputes were
settled within the commission. It was emphasized that the main lesson
learned through Ukraine’s experiences in boundary definition was that
the quality of demarcation depends heavily on the quality of delimita-
tion data.

Presentation by Mr. Al Arseneault, (Retired) Deputy Canadian

Commissioner, Canada / United States of America International
Boundary Commission (IBC)

As the former deputy commissioner of the Canadian section of the

Canada-USA International Boundary Commission (IBC), Mr. Arse-
neault shared his wealth of experience and provided a window into
the inner-workings of one of the world’s oldest permanent boundary

20
commissions. Rather than having been delimited in a single instru-
ment, Mr. Arseneault emphasized that the Canada-USA boundary has
been defined by more than 20 treaties and conventions agreed over the
past two centuries. Following a 1908 demarcation treaty, the IBC was
made a permanent commission in 1925. Mr. Arseneault outlined the
structure of the IBC which is led by a Canadian commissioner who is
appointed by Order in Council and an American commissioner who is
appointed by the US President.
Maintenance of
the Canada-US
border

Along the longest land boundary in the world between two adjoining
countries, the IBC is responsible for maintaining all pillars / monu-
ments, and adding densifying monuments where necessary to clearly
indicate the boundary on the ground. It also clears vegetation from the
20 foot vista (10 feet on each side of the boundary). Mr. Arseneault ex-
plained that over 8600 markers (monuments) define the Canada-USA
border across a variety of physical landscapes. He noted that differ-
ent types of monuments were used in different terrain. For example,
lighter, bronze / aluminium monuments have been used in mountain-
ous areas because they are much lighter to transport. In addition to
demarcation and maintenance work, the IBC is also responsible for

21
updating boundary mapping when appropriate. It is also responsible
for all survey data along the line, and the IBC retains comprehensive
data for each boundary pillar / monument.

The mandate and trust within the IBC is so well developed that either
side is permitted to replace or repair pillars unilaterally and commu-
nicate the results to the other side. Annual field operations are ­usually
led by the two deputy commissioners who maintain close contact
throughout the year. While Mr. Arseneault admitted that the two
sides of the IBC have not always agreed, they have been able to resolve
any problems within the commission in all but a handful of situations
when issues were relayed to their respective governments. Mr. Arse-
neault indicated that the organization of the IBC in a permanent status
laid the foundation for on-going co-operation and the good relation-
ship that has kept the longest land boundary in the world between two
countries free from conflict for over a century.

Session III – International

Assistance in Land Boundary
Delimitation / Demarcation:
Multilateral and Bilateral
Experiences
This session looked into the various forms of technical assistance that
can be offered by the donor community in support of international land
boundary definition, at the request of interested participating States.
Within this session, national and international organizations elabo-
rated on available tools and gave examples of past and ongoing initia-
tives in this field.

Presentation by Mr. Kyoung-Soo Eom, Chief, Cartographic

Section, Department of Field Support, United Nations, New York

In reviewing the principal duties of the UN Cartographic Section,

Mr. Eom explained that it provides geographic information to several

22
branches of the United Nations including the Security Council and
Secretariat, and supports Peacekeeping Operations. The UN Carto-
graphic Section also provides technical assistance on international
boundary issues. It has assisted in demarcation of the Iraq-Kuwait
boundary, the determination of the Line of Withdrawal (Blue Line)
­between Israel and Lebanon and the Green Line in Cyprus. It has also
supported all phases of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission.
Currently, the UN is helping to facilitate demarcation of the Camer-
oon-Nigeria boundary following the 2002 decision of the International
Court of Justice (ICJ), continuing maintenance along the Blue Line and
the Iraq-Kuwait boundary, and providing technical assistance to the
North-South Sudan Border Committee and the African Union.
Mr. Kyoung-
Soo Eom
presenting the
UN experience

Mr. Eom noted that boundary-making efforts require a wide range

of expertise, which many States around the world do not have access
to. This situation can delay boundary-making efforts which can then
increase the risk of possible disputes. The UN can provide impar-
tial ­expertise that supports States in all phases of boundary making,
­including preparation, delimitation and demarcation. In the prepara-
tion stage, the UN Cartographic Section can assist in setting-up institu-
tions, in facilitating dialogue between the parties and in the collection
of cartographic material. In the delimitation phase, the UN Carto-
graphic Section may be able to serve as a facilitator within a boundary
commission and as the commission’s documentary secretariat. Base

23
mapping can be prepared from satellite or aerial imagery to help ana-
lyze documentary material, aid decision making and prepare for imple-
mentation. In demarcation, the UN Cartographic Section can support
field operations by assisting in survey procedures and pillar emplace-
ment, as well as by assisting the parties in technical issues of terrain
analysis and composition of demarcation maps.

Mr. Eom urged that negotiation, either with or without a third party,
is the best method of boundary making, but recommended that States
involve third parties as mediators or technical advisers. He also sug-
gested that in his experience, a base map is fundamental for all phases
of boundary-making and that States should take advantage of the geo-
spatial technologies available to avoid and resolve boundary disputes.

Presentation by Mr. Gerard Cosquer, (Retired) State Senior

Survey Engineer, Institut Géographique National-(IGN) France

Mr. Cosquer emphasized that, during delimitation, it is important for

technical experts and advisers to “bring the terrain” to the negotiating
table, allowing decisions to be made with the best possible geographi-
cal knowledge of the border. Any agreement reached in delimitation
should anticipate the demarcation stage and be phrased to reflect the
likely issues that may arise in implementing the agreement on the
ground. Drawing on his experience, Mr. Cosquer stated that building
boundary pillars is the most expensive part of boundary operations as
they must be durable, and adapted to specific soil conditions and the
characteristics of the line (density, visibility and durability). He holds
that this phase is usually subcontracted to civil engineering firms that
are managed by surveyors. Similarly, Mr. Cosquer advised that the
scale of final boundary demarcation mapping should be adapted to the
terrain and density of the population.

IGN is a State Company employing 1600 people. In 1986 it created a

private branch called IGN France International (IGN FI) that works
in over 120 countries worldwide, utilizing experts from the parent
Company IGN. The company undertakes map production and land
assessments for a variety of applications, including boundary defini-
tion. With its expertise in geodesy and mapping, Mr. Cosquer stated

24
that IGN FI can assist in the delimitation phase of boundary making
by analyzing older maps, converting older co-ordinates and compar-
ing old cartography with modern imagery. In addition, IGN holds over
500,000 historic and modern maps from around the world that can be
consulted.

Mr. Cosquer highlighted some of IGN FI’s recent experiences in inter-

national boundary making, including demarcation work. In 2003, IGN
FI assisted Benin and Niger in defining their boundary in the Niger
River by superimposing 1:50,000 mapping from the 1960s onto recent
satellite imagery. From 1996 to 1999, IGN FI, with the support of IGN
experts, was closely involved in the demarcation of the Qatar-Saudi
Arabia boundary which included the densification of the geodetic net-
work with a new datum system, and reconnaissance of pillar sites in
the preliminary phase. IGN FI also established the boundary pillars,
determined their final positions and completed final documentation
including maps at scales from 1:10,000 to 1:250,000 and a final cata-
logue of pillar co-ordinates.

Presentation by Mr. Ray Milefsky, Senior Analyst, International

Boundaries and Sovereignties Issues, Office of the Geographer
and Global Issues, US Department of State

In assessing the role of technical assistance in boundary delimitation

and demarcation, Mr. Milefsky first outlined the different ways a third
party may be brought into boundary negotiations. From the informal
non-binding engagement, a third party may serve as a mediator to
‘back channel’ negotiations, contract experts to consult on any con-
tentious issues and organize seminars / workshops for the negotiating
parties. Within formal, ‘front channel’ negotiations, a third party can
also offer good offices, mediation and conciliation in order to facilitate
dialogue. Binding third party involvement includes the involvement
of guarantor States mandated to aid and support the disputant States,
principled mediation where dialogue is conducted without the risk of
violence, as well as the more traditional legal mechanisms of arbitra-
tion and adjudication. Mr. Milefsky indicated that costs can rise as
procedures become more formalized and that adjudicated settlements
may still leave loose ends that must be resolved by the parties.

25
Various forms
SURVEY- SOURCE
of technical
ENGINEERING COLLECTION
support AND
SUPPORT
DIGITIZATION

GIS SUPPORT

MAPS

TECHNICAL
SUPPORT LEAGUE OF
NATIONS, 1932
“REPORT OF THE
COMISSION…“

FLY-THROUGH DIGITAL
VISUALIZATIONS DATA

GIS DATA LAYERS

(POINT, LINE, ELEVATION
POLYGON) DATA IMAGERY

Based on his experience, Mr. Milefsky explained how the Office of the
Geographer, together with US Government mapping agencies, has
provided technical assistance in informal and formal boundary nego-
tiations, particularly in post-conflict situations. The Defence Mapping
Agency, for example, first effectively used restricted three-dimensional
(imagery/elevation layer) fly-through technology in the 1995 Dayton
Peace talks. It was later used in the 1998 OAS led negotiations between
Ecuador and Peru. Geographic Information systems (GIS) applica-
tions were used in 1998 for negotiations concerning Cyprus and in the
2003 Key West negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan to bring
many details of the local border geography directly to the negotiating
table. Comprehensive imagery and terrain modelling were also used
by the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission in its so-called ‘virtual
demarcation’ exercise. Today, the ready availability of publicly-accessi-
ble technology, such as Google Earth, places terrain visualization and
analysis right into the negotiator’s hands.

26
Mr. Milefsky recounted his recent experience in the negotiations
­between Kosovo and Macedonia, again using imagery and terrain mod-
elling that allowed the negotiators to understand the boundary land-
scape in more detail. He also noted the documentation support that
can be offered from archives and repositories in the US. In ­reviewing
the current situation of the North-South Sudan boundary, Mr. Milef-
sky revealed how good technical assistance can identify potential dis-
crepancies and problems at an early stage of negotiations so political
decisions can be made to address them before they can provoke dispute.

Summary of Discussions
The discussions which followed the various presentations focussed on
a broad variety of issues. In reaction to questions from the floor on the
influence of geological and meteorological change on borders, experts
explained that phenomena such as tectonic shifts, sea rising, melt-
ing ice caps and the drying up / changing course of rivers could cause
changes in topographic and hydrographical maps. They also added that
shifts of land in some cases required the re-equilibration of GPS read-
ing. In some rather exceptional cases, countries have fixed their borders
rigidly to make border monuments insensible to such phenomena, but
borders cannot be fixed by the millimetre. Possible problems connect-
ed with river boundaries were also raised by a number of participants,
with the discussion focussing on the evolving nature of rivers and the
impact this has on the delimitation / demarcation of river boundaries.
While a number of participants stressed that border lines should not be
influenced by the changing course of a river, others claimed that such
changes should lead to modifications in topographic and hydrographi-
cal maps, as well as in the relevant legal documents referring to such
border lines. A number of participants stressed that legal documents
referring to border lines should be formulated in a way to avoid border
lines having to be redefined in reaction to the shifting course of a river.

Participants also touched upon bilateral negotiation formats regard-

ing border delimitation / demarcation and looked into the advantages
and disadvantages of good offices, international arbitration or court. It
­appeared from the subsequent discussions that border-related disputes

27
should ideally be addressed through direct bilateral negotiations, or
possibly through good offices. However, when the positions of the
negotiating States are very much opposed and do not leave room for
compromise, other options such as international arbitration or courts
would need to be envisaged. Regarding the bilateral negotiation pro-
cess itself, participants highlighted that delimitation / demarcation
processes should be compromise-oriented and reflect a strong politi-
cal will to reach an agreement. If this is not the case, delimitation will
be a protracted and cumbersome process. A number of participants
highlighted that during the first phases of negotiations, problematic
areas should be put aside by members of parity commissions and, when
possible, they should focus on those portions of the border that are
not subject to major disagreements. Pragmatic solutions found for less
problematic cases might then create momentum for the solution of
more challenging areas by building confidence between the commis-
sions. Regarding sensitive and strongly disputed areas, some partici-
pants recommended that a number of practical steps be made to reach
an agreement. The modality of “land exchanges” was put forward as
one of those possible steps. The use of the land in consideration for
exchange, as well as its infrastructure and modalities for passage are
important elements to be considered when negotiating land exchanges
to facilitate delimitation / demarcation.

Other practical and “human” aspects were also put forward as key ele-
ments to be taken into consideration such as the opinion of local au-
thorities and the situation of near border residents, their needs and
interests, which according to a number of participants should influ-
ence and legitimize the work of parity commissions. One participant
gave the example of a border which runs through a road and separates
local residents. Legal and acceptable changes should be made to ac-
commodate the concerned residents, in consultation with the neigh-
bouring country.

Still related to the work of border delimitation / demarcation commis-

sions, a number of participants stressed that the political will of a given
country to reach an agreement with its neighbours should be reflected
in the mandate, role and responsibilities that are given to its commis-
sions. The commission should be empowered, under the supervision

28
of relevant ministries and in consultation with parliaments, with the
full competences to represent the interest of its country and negotiate
on its behalf. A number of participants even suggested that such com-
missions should be independent bodies, within their mandates, which
they felt to be a prerequisite to successful negotiations. Others also
highlighted the importance of having commissions of neighbouring
countries working jointly as much as possible. The “ad hoc” character
of commissions was also discussed, with participants confirming that
a commission was set up to deal with a specific border with a given
country. Having several neighbours would require the establishment
of several commissions, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs being in
a co-ordinating position with regard to the negotiations within each
commission.

Further discussions focussed on the type and nature of documents to

be used as a basis for delimitation / demarcation-related negotiations.
A particular emphasis was put on the need for alternatives to maps,
as the latter were not always accurate and as maps used in some cas-
es do not match each other. A number of participants elaborated on
the need, even if accurate maps exist and match each other, to rely on
complementary sources of information such as land registers, forest
maps, plans and schemes of infrastructure, property rights, etc. Other
participants stressed that when maps are out-dated and do not prop-
erly reflect the area concerned, a written description could be helpful.
While some participants stressed that written descriptions had be-
come irrelevant with the development of new technologies that allow
for very precise mapping, others underlined the importance of such
descriptions, both for delimitation and demarcation, which in court
could take precedent over maps because they describe the intention of
the commission. Regarding the type and scale of maps that should ide-
ally be used in this process, participants referred to ortho-photo maps
and compared them with the more traditional form of topographic
maps, weighing the advantages and disadvantages of each as a basis
for delimitation / demarcation work. While there seems to be a trend
to increasingly rely on ortho-photo maps, which can be more precise
and are cheaper to produce, a number of participants stressed that
traditional topographic maps were better suited for delimitation / de-
marcation purposes. Others stressed that ortho-photo maps were a

29
 good basis but needed to be converted into topographic ones. The map
scale was also subject to significant discussions, some participants be-
ing more comfortable with a scale of 1:100,000, others sharing some
of their experience using a scale of 1:50,000. Finally, one participant
stated that, while the imagery was a significant element, agreeing on
the format and type of materials used for border delimitation / demar-
cation-related negotiations was even more important for the building
of trust between the countries concerned.
Participants
engaged in
a practical
delimitation
exercise

Participants also raised the issue of border monuments, and discussed

the material from which they were made and how far from each other
they should be established. Depending on the environment and on
whether borders are to be “fixed” or could be subject to natural chang-
es, the chosen intervals could vary from 100 metres to 2 kilometres.
Participants also acknowledged that border maintenance was of key
importance and should ideally be undertaken jointly with the neigh-
bouring country, through specific structures and arrangements.

30
Conclusion
The Seminar provided a good opportunity for representatives of over
20 OSCE participating States to share experiences and views on the
complex process of international land boundary delimitation / demar-
cation. The presentations of national officials and experts allowed the
participants to become familiar with the status of border delimita-
tion / demarcation in several countries and to exchange lessons and
best practices in this field. It also allowed for the exposure of partici-
pants to recent and successful completions of border delimitation / de-
marcation processes. Furthermore, this encounter was an opportunity
for neighbouring countries to informally interact and engage in dia-
logue on this subject.

The discussions showed that the process of delimitation and demarca-

tion is comprehensive, multi-phased and continues beyond the stage
of demarcation per se, with border maintenance being crucial. It also
highlighted that the most important element for successful delimita-
tion / demarcation was the strong political will of countries to reach an
agreement, through practical and compromise-oriented steps.

The role and activities of boundary commissions was also very much
discussed with significant exchanges of ideas and experiences regard-
ing the mandates and activities of commissions and with some guide-
lines on the work of commissions shared with all participants.

Finally, the event highlighted the complexity of the delimitation / de-

marcation process regarding natural borders (for example, river
borders) which are not fixed and evolve over time. Various forms of
technical assistance offered in this field by multilateral and bilateral
organizations were examined and a number of best practices could be
drawn from the Seminar.

31
33
34