Mgogoro wa malawi na tanzania- sisi sote tu ndugu

[Madikizela]

Malawi yaiomba Tanzania kuahirisha mkutano wa mpaka

Send to a friend

Sunday, 09 September 2012 10:02

Madikizela at Mbamba bay SERIKALI ya Malawi imeomba kuahirishwa kwa mkutano wa wajumbe wanaoshiriki katika kutafuta muafaka wa mgogoro wa mpaka uliotarajiwa kufanyika jijini Dar es Salaam kesho uahirishwe. Katika ombi hilo, ilieleza kwamba sababu kubwa ni kwamba hatua ya awali ya kuwakutanisha Wanasheria Wakuu wa nchi hizo mbili kubadilishana nyaraka muhimu ambazo Serikali zitazitumia katika kutafuta suluhu hiyo. Msemaji wa Wizara ya Mambo ya Nje ya Malawi, Quent Kalichero alisema jana kwamba wakati wa mkutano wa wajumbe hao uliofanyika Lilongwe, Malawi wiki mbili zilizopita walikubaliana kwamba Wanasheria Wakuu wan chi zote mbili wanatakiwa kukaa pamoja na kubadilishana uelewa wa kisheria wa mkataba wa Anglo Germany wa mwaka 1890, hasa ibara ya 1(ii) na sehemu ya (iv) ya mkataba wa Heligoland. Alisema mkataba wa Anglo Germany wa mwaka 1890 yalitiwa saini na Uingereza na Ujerumani ambao walikuwa wakoloni wa nchi hizo mbili wakionyesha kwamba mpaka upo katika kingo za ziwa Nyasa kwa upande wa Tanzania, lakini hili limepuuzwa. Katika mahojiano yake Alhamisi wiki hii, Kalichero alisema Wizara yake imeandika barua maalum kwa wenzao wa Tanzania wakiwataka waahirishe mkutano huo kwa kuwa Wanasheria hao wakuu wa nchi hizo hawajatimiza wajibu wao kwa wakati. :redface:

 

[ZeMarcopolo]

Kila nuikisoma habari ya hawa wamalawi naona hawana hoja. Wao kila kukicha Anglo-Germany tu. Hivi wanadhani ziwa limechimbwa mwaka 1890?

Mwanasheria wetu na negotiators wetu inabidi wawaulize mbona mikataba hiyo ya wakoloni iliwaweka wao chini ya Uingereza lakini leo wako huru?

Kwanini wanataka wao kuwa huru lakini ziwa kulifunga kwenye mikataba isiyofaa ya wakoloni inayokiuka haki za binaadamu?!

 

[Profesa]

Nimekutana na hii post kwenye Face book, kwa wale wanaojua Kiingereza vema it is something of interest and for knowledge base: Source: http://www.facebook.com/possimail

Jurisdiction is often a crucial question for the ICJ in contentious cases. The key principle is that the ICJ has jurisdiction only on the basis of consent. Article 36 outlines four bases on which the Court's jurisdiction may be founded.
First, 36(1) provides that parties may refer cases to the Court (jurisdiction founded on "special agreement" or "compromis"). This method is based on explicit consent rather than true compulsory jurisdiction. It is, perhaps, the most effective basis for the Court's jurisdiction because the parties concerned have a desire for the dispute to be resolved by the Court and are thus more likely to comply with the Court's judgment.
Second, 36(1) also gives the Court jurisdiction over "matters specifically provided for ... in treaties and conventions in force". Most modern treaties will contain a compromissory clause, providing for dispute resolution by the ICJ. Cases founded on compromissory clauses have not been as effective as cases founded on special agreement, since a state may have no interest in having the matter examined by the Court and may refuse to comply with a judgment. For example, during the Iran hostage crisis, Iran refused to participate in a case brought by the US based on a compromissory clause contained in theVienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, nor did it comply with the judgment. Since the 1970s, the use of such clauses has declined. Many modern treaties set out their own dispute resolution regime, often based on forms of arbitration.
Third, Article 36(2) allows states to make optional clause declarations accepting the Court's jurisdiction. The label "compulsory" which is sometimes placed on Article 36(2) jurisdiction is misleading since declarations by states are voluntary. Furthermore, many declarations contain reservations, such as exclusion from jurisdiction certain types of disputes ("ratione materia"). The principle of reciprocity may further limit jurisdiction. As of February 2011, sixty-six states had a declaration in force. Of the permanent Security Councilmembers, only the United Kingdom has a declaration. In the Court's early years, most declarations were made by industrialized countries. Since the Nicaragua Case, declarations made by developing countries have increased, reflecting a growing confidence in the Court since the 1980s. Industrialized countries however have sometimes increased exclusions or removed their declarations in recent years. Examples include the USA, as mentioned previously and Australia who modified their declaration in 2002 to exclude disputes on maritime boundaries(most likely to prevent an impending challenge from East Timor who gained their independence two months later).
Finally, 36(5) provides for jurisdiction on the basis of declarations made under the Permanent Court of International Justice's statute. Article 37 of the Statute similarly transfers jurisdiction under any compromissory clause in a treaty that gave jurisdiction to the PCIJ.
In addition, the Court may have jurisdiction on the basis of tacit consent (forum prorogatum). In the absence of clear jurisdiction under Article 36, jurisdiction will be established if the respondent accepts ICJ jurisdiction explicitly or simply pleads on the merits. The notion arose in the Corfu Channel Case (UK v Albania) (1949) in which the Court held that a letter from Albania stating that it submitted to the jurisdiction of the ICJ was sufficient to grant the court jurisdiction.
"Compulsory" jurisdiction is limited to cases where both parties have agreed to submit to its decision, and, as such, instances of aggression tend to be automatically escalated to and adjudicated by the Security Council. According to the sovereignty principle of international law, no nation is superior nor inferior against another. Therefore there is no entity that could force the states into practice of the law or punish the states in case any violation of international law occurs. Therefore, due to the absence of binding force, although there are 191 member states of the ICJ, the members do not necessarily have to accept the jurisdiction. Moreover, the membership of the UN and ICJ does not give the automatic jurisdiction over the member states, but it's the consent of each states to follow the jurisdiction that matters.