By Peter Der Makuer
Abstract
Territorial integrity is a foundational element of statehood under international law. For a young state such as South Sudan, unresolved boundary questions carry not only legal significance but also intergenerational consequences. This article examines the Ilemi Triangle dispute with particular emphasis on the distinction between de facto administration and de jure sovereignty. It argues that the increasing circulation of inaccurate maps risks misleading South Sudanese youth into accepting an erosion of lawful territorial claims. The article situates the Ilemi Triangle within colonial treaty law, the doctrine of uti possidetis juris, and international jurisprudence, and underscores the civic
responsibility of educating future generations on the legal realities of national territory.
Keywords: Ilemi Triangle, South Sudan, territorial integrity, uti possidetis juris, de facto administration, de jure sovereignty, international law, colonial treaties.
Introduction
Maps are powerful political and legal instruments. They do not merely depict geography; they shape perception, influence national consciousness, and, over time, can legitimize contested claims. In South Sudan today, the circulation and casual use of inaccurate maps, particularly those excluding the Ilemi Triangle from national territory pose a serious concern. This concern is not confined to present political debates but extends to the legal inheritance being passed on to future generations. When young citizens are repeatedly exposed to representations that contradict legal reality, the distinction between lawful territory and administrative convenience is gradually blurred.
The Ilemi Triangle dispute exemplifies this danger. While Kenya exercises administrative control over the area, the legal status of the territory remains unresolved. Treating administrative control as equivalent to sovereignty is not only legally incorrect but also detrimental to South Sudan’s long-term territorial interests. This article contends that South Sudanese youth must be equipped with a clear understanding of international law principles governing territory, particularly the distinction between de facto control and de jure title.
Historical and Legal Background of the Ilemi Triangle
The origins of the Ilemi Triangle dispute lie in the colonial period, when boundaries in East Africa were drawn through treaties and administrative arrangements rather than precise physical demarcation. The most significant legal instrument is the Anglo_Ethiopian Treaty of 15 May 1902, concluded between the United Kingdom, acting on behalf of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, and Emperor Menelik II of Ethiopia.¹ This treaty established the boundary between Sudan and Ethiopia and, through what later became known as the Maud Line, placed the Ilemi Triangle within Sudanese territory.
Subsequent arrangements, including the 1907 Anglo-Ethiopian exchange of notes, introduced administrative flexibility to accommodate pastoralist movements and security concerns.² Crucially, these arrangements did not constitute a transfer of sovereignty. They were administrative in nature, intended to facilitate governance rather than redefine legal boundaries. No treaty, agreement, or formal cession ever transferred the Ilemi Triangle from Sudan to Kenya.³
When South Sudan attained independence in 2011, it inherited Sudan’s colonial borders under the principle of uti possidetis juris, a cornerstone of international law in post-colonial state formation.⁴ This principle, repeatedly affirmed by the International Court of Justice, holds that newly independent states retain the territorial boundaries that existed at the moment of independence. Accordingly, any territory that legally formed part of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, including the Ilemi Triangle, passed to South Sudan as a matter of law.⁵
De Facto Administration Versus De Jure Sovereignty
A central source of confusion surrounding the Ilemi Triangle arises from the failure to distinguish between de facto and de jure authority. De facto control refers to the actual exercise of power on the ground, such as policing, administration, or service delivery.
De jure sovereignty, by contrast, denotes legal ownership grounded in treaties, recognized boundaries, and international law.
Kenya’s presence in the Ilemi Triangle constitutes de facto administration, not de jure. This reality, however, does not extinguish South Sudan’s de jure claim. International law is clear that prolonged administration or occupation does not automatically confer legal title, particularly where a prior legal title exists.⁶ Jurisprudence from cases such as Cameroon v. Nigeria (Land and Maritime Boundary Case) demonstrates that where treaty-based boundaries are clear, legal title prevails over effectivités.⁷
The uncritical acceptance of maps that reflect de facto control without legal qualification therefore risks normalizing an incorrect legal narrative. Over time, such normalization may weaken a state’s position by fostering acquiescence through silence or ignorance rather than through lawful consent.
The Intergenerational Dimension of Territorial Integrity
Territory is not the property of a single generation. It is a legal trust held on behalf of future citizens. Decisions made or neglected today shape the political and legal options available tomorrow. When the current generation of South Sudanese accepts inaccurate representations of national territory, it does not merely distort present understanding; it constrains future claims and undermines historical truth.
Young people, in particular, play a decisive role in this process. As future leaders, lawyers, diplomats, scholars, journalists, and policymakers, their understanding of national borders will influence how South Sudan articulates and defends its interests in regional and international forums. Educating them inaccurately, whether through textbooks, digital media, or public discourse, risks producing a generation detached from the legal foundations of statehood.
Maps, Education, and Civic Responsibility
Maps used in educational institutions and public spaces should reflect legal reality or, at a minimum, clearly indicate disputed territories. Presenting the Ilemi Triangle as conclusively outside South Sudan without legal explanation is misleading and inconsistent with international law. Civic education must emphasize that borders are legal constructs grounded in treaties and historical agreements, not merely reflections of present administration.
This is not an argument for confrontation or hostility. International law favors peaceful settlement of disputes through negotiation, mediation, arbitration, or adjudication. South Sudan’s claim to the Ilemi Triangle is a legal claim, best pursued through lawful and diplomatic means. However, peaceful pursuit presupposes clarity of understanding and fidelity to legal truth.
Conclusion
“The question of the Ilemi Triangle is not merely a cartographic or political issue; it is a legal and generational one. Confusing de facto administration with de jure sovereignty risks surrendering legal rights through misunderstanding rather than through law. South Sudanese youth must not be misled by inaccurate maps that obscure historical treaties and international legal principles. Territorial integrity is a responsibility owed not only to the present generation but also to those yet unborn. Preserving legal truth today is essential to safeguarding national dignity, sovereignty, and lawful claims tomorrow.” – Peter Der Makuer
Peter Der Makuer, President, National Forum – a Non-Political Coalition Founded on the Principles of Patriotism and Nationalism
Fourth Year Law Student, University of Juba, 2025
Email:peterder169@gmail.com
WhatsApp: +211929949898
REFERENCES
- Anglo–Ethiopian Treaty, 15 May 1902, UKTS 1902, Cmd 205.
- Anglo–Ethiopian Exchange of Notes, 1907, UKTS 1907, Cmd 482.
- See Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali) ICJ Rep 1986 554; Gabon v Equatorial Guinea ICJ Rep 2012 224.
- Principle of uti possidetis juris, as applied in post-colonial African boundary disputes, see James Crawford, The Creation of States in International Law (2nd edn, OUP 2006) 232–237.
- Crawford (n 5) 240.
- Land and Maritime Boundary Case (Cameroon v Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea Intervening) ICJ Rep 2002 303, paras 53–59.