Secession and Succession in Respect of Boundary Treaties and Boundary Regimes with Regard to Spain and the Neighbouring States

Fernández de Casadevante Romani, Carlos

doi:10.1007/978-3-031-04609-4_7

Carlos Fernández de Casadevante Romani²

149 Accesses

Abstract

Separation (agreed with the parent State) and (unilateral) secession of territorial entities are subjects of particular interest and current relevance in Spain as a result of the independence and secessionist plans of nationalist/independence political parties in certain Autonomous Communities. They are issues which also have implications for neighbouring States with Spain, because of their impact on the borders and on the regime of these borders established in treaties in force between them within the framework of their neighbourhood relations.

Despite the claims of the nationalist/independence parties, the reality is that no territorial changes are possible because International Law imposes the inviolability and continuity of this type of treaties. Thus, in addition to compliance with the obligations established by them, no territorial change will be possible as a result of a hypothetical separation or secession.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic

$34.99 /Month

Get 10 units per month
Download Article/Chapter or eBook
1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
Cancel anytime

Buy Now

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 129.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Modern State Sovereignty as Geometric Purification of Territory: Delimitation Theories and Practices in the 1864 Spanish–Portuguese Boundary Treaty

The Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission: A Legal Analysis of the Boundary Delimitation Decision of 13 April 2002 and Relevant Subsequent Decisions

Law and Politics in the Ethiopian-Eritrean Border Dispute, 2002–2019

Notes

1.
Salmon (2001), p. 1021.
2.
Remiro Brotons (1987), p. 378. He adds that, “in a broad sense, the relationship of succession covers any change in territorial sovereignty, including those which take the form of an increase in the territory of a pre-existing State with a corresponding decrease in the territory of the other” (ibid.).
3.
Succession that also arises in the case of newly independent States (arising from decolonization, non-self-governing territories and international trusteeship system), dismemberment, uniting and merger.
4.
Leaving aside, as the ILC points out, “any connotation of inheritance of rights or obligations on the occurrence of that event” (ILC, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, vol. II, second part, p. 231).
5.
Ibid.
6.
ICJ, Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening), Judgement of 11 September 1992, Reports 1992, p. 598, para. 399.
7.
Object of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties of 23 August 1978. It came into force the 6th November 1966 (United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1946, p. 3: International Legal Materials (ILM) 17 (1978). 1488). Not ratified by Spain.
8.
Object of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of State Property, Archives and Debts of 7 April 1983. Text: 22 (ILM) (1983), 298, 306.
9.
Both aspects reflect the views of States on the content of each treaty. Hence, although “under the term ‘State succession’ one could easily understand a set or even a system of legal rules, governing the consequences of territorial changes, nevertheless, for the various reasons to be discussed here, there is not yet such a complete system of legal rules, even de lege ferenda”. (Degan 1996, pp. 206–207).
10.
Degan (1996), pp. 206–207.
11.
Brownlie (2008), p. 650.
12.
González Campos et al. (2002), p. 558. This was established by the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Case (Great Britain, United States) when it declared “that one of the essential elements of sovereignty is that it is to be exercised within territorial limits, and that, failing proof to the contrary, the territory is co-terminous with the Sovereignty,” (Reports of International Arbitral Awards (R.I.A.A.), vol. XI, p. 180). Also the ICJ in the Aegean Sea Continental Shelf case, Judgment of 19 December 1978, when it stated that “to establish the boundary or boundaries between neighbouring States, that is to say, to draw the exact line or lines where the extension in space of the sovereign powers and rights” of one State meet those of the other (I.C.J. Reports 1978, p. 35, para. 85).
13.
That implies the fact that the State cannot be limited in its territory in the exercise of its sovereignty. As the ICJ stated as early as 1949 in the Corfu Channel case, Judgment of April 9th, 1949: “Between independent States, respect for territorial sovereignty is an essential foundation of international relations.” (I.C.J., Reports 1949, p. 35). The only existent limits are those established by international law.
14.
International jurisprudence has shown this on many occasions. For example, the PCIJ in The case of the S.S. Lotus, Judgement of September 7th, 1927, where it stated: “Now the first and foremost restriction imposed by international law upon a State is that –failing the existence of a permissive rule to the contrary- it may not exercise its power in any form in the territory of another State. In this sense jurisdiction is certainly territorial; it cannot be exercised by a State outside its territory except by virtue of a permissive rule derived from international custom or from a convention.” (PCIJ, Series A-No. 70, p. 18–19). Cf. also the judgment on the Sovereignty over the Island of Palmas case (Netherlands, U.S.A.), April 4, 1928 (R.I.A.A., vol. II, p. 839) and the Dissident Opinion of Judge Chagla on the Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Portugal v. India) case, ICJ, I.C.J. Reports 1957, p. 176).
15.
Opposability which implies that the State in question has sufficient legal title to its territory, otherwise its acts would be invalid. In relation to the title see Sánchez Rodríguez 1977–1978), pp. 53–88. Also, Brownlie (2008), pp. 119–120.
16.
Inviolability guaranteed by the peremptory international obligation prohibiting occupation and intervention in the internal affairs of third States and requiring respect for the sovereignty of others.
17.
This delimiting aspect of the border has also been highlighted by the doctrine. See, for example, Barbagelata (1911), p. 11; Brownlie (1979); Blumann (1980, p. 5; Schwarzenberger (1957); Díez de Velasco (1985), p. 277; Pastor Ridruejo (2019), pp. 363–3264.
18.
Cf. Bardonnet (1976-IV), pp. 9–166; id., “Equité et frontières terrestres” (1981), pp. 35–74.
19.
As the ICJ stated in the Case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thailand), Merits, Judgment of 15 June 1962: “In general, when two countries establish a frontier between them, one of the primary objects is to achieve stability and finality.” (I.C. J. Reports 1962, page 34).
20.
This is the case, for example, of the obligations relating to the prohibition of the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State and the prohibition of intervention in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any State, among others, conventionally codified in the UN Charter and in its nature as an institutional norm in Resolution 2625 (XXV) of the UN General Assembly, containing the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.
Of this same institutional nature, subsequently, in the Helsinki Final Act of 1 August 1975 of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, which contains the Declaration on Principles Governing Relations between Participating States, containing the Declaration on Principles Governing Relations between Participating States (https://www.osce.org/helsinki-final-act), which expressly affirms the inviolability of frontiers (section III) and respect for the territorial integrity of States (section IV); principles reaffirmed in the Charter of Paris for a New Europe of 21 November 1999 (ibid.). On the occasion of the break-up of the USSR and the disintegration of Yugoslavia, also in the Declaration of the Twelve on Guidelines on the Recognition of New States in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union of 16 December 1991 (31 I.L.M. 1485 (1992).
21.
C.I.J., Frontier dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgement of 22 December 1986, (Reports 1986, p. 564, para. 19. The Special Rapporteur of the ILC, Sir H. Waldock, in his Fifth report on succession of States in respect of treaties, also emphasizes this fact: “But in 1964, with reservations only from Somalia and Morocco, the Assembly of Heads of State and Government adopted a resolution which after reaffirming the principle in article III, paragraph 3, solemnly declared that “all Member States pledge themselves to respect the borders existing on their achievement of national independence”. (…). A similar resolution was adopted by the Conference of Heads of State and Government of Non-Aligned Countries held in Cairo in October 1964. This does not, of course, mean that boundary disputes have not arisen or may not arise between African States. But the legal grounds invoked must be other than the mere effect of the occurrence of a succession of States on a boundary treaty.” (ILC, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 1972, vol. II, p. 52, para. 22).
22.
Ibid., p. 565–566, para. 22. CIJ, Recueil 1986, p. 565 ff. And adds: “Indeed it was by deliberate choice that African States selected, among al1 the classic principles, that of uti possidetis. This remains an undeniable fact.” (Ibid., p. 567, para. 26). See, in this regard, Sánchez Rodríguez (1988/2), pp. 121–151 and López Martín (1997), pp. 91–115. In particular, pages 101–103.
23.
In fact, this is a projection of the protection afforded to respect and stability of borders by the above-mentioned peremptory norms (see ut supra note 21).
24.
Sir H. Waldock, Fifth report…, op. cit., p. 52, para. 21. And adds: “Accordingly, the attitude of States towards boundary treaties at the Conference on the Law of Treaties is believed to be an extremely pertinent element of State practice equally in the present connexion.” (Ibid.). On the United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties on this issue see ILC, Yearbook 1966, pages 283–284, para. 11 of commentary to Article 59).
25.
Ibid., p. 41, para. 12. Exception supported by the vast majority of States participating in the United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties.
26.
C.I.J., Aegean Sea Continental Shelf case, Judgement of 19 December 1978 (Reports 1978, p. 36, para. 85). This criterion was also upheld by the ICJ in the Frontier dispute case (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment of 22 December 1986 (Reports 1986, p. 566, para.19) and reiterated in the case concerning the delimitation of maritime boundary between Guinea-Bissau and Senegal in relation to the Franco-Portuguese Agreement of 26 April 1960 establishing the respective maritime borders (Judgment of 12 November 1991), along the lines of what the Arbitration Court itself stated in the case: ““from a legal point of view, there is no reason to establish different regimes depending on the material element on which the border is fixed” (R.I.A.A., vol. XX., p. 144, para. 63; RGDIP, 1990, p. 253, paragraph 63).
27.
C.I.J., Reports 1994, Judgement of 3 February 1994, p. 37, para. 72.
28.
Ibid., p. 37, para. 73.
29.
López Martín (1997), p. 100.
30.
In this respect, as far as maritime borders are concerned, the Arbitral Award of 31 July 1989 (Guinea-Bissau/Senegal), concerning the Franco-Portuguese Agreement of 26 April 1960, in which the ICJ “observes that the Award States that the 1960 Agreement “clearly determines the maritime boundary as regards the territorial sea, the contiguous zone and the continental shelf’“” (C.I.J., Reports 1989, p. 24, para. 62). It also found that “that the 1960 Agreement had the force of law in the relations between the Parties, and at the same time it defined the substantive scope of that Agreement. It also found that “that the 1960 Agreement had the force of law in the relations between the Parties, and at the same time it defined the substantive scope of that Agreement” with regard to the sole areas mentioned in that Agreement: the territorial sea, the contiguous zone and the continental shelf (ibid., p. 60, para. 58). Consequently, “the 1960 Agreement does not delimit those maritime spaces which did not exist at that date, whether they be termed exclusive economic zone, fishery zone or whatever” (Award, para. 85)” (ibid.). In this judgment, the ICJ is implicitly affirming continuity between the successors to the Franco-Portuguese Agreement of 26 April 1960 on the maritime boundaries of the territorial sea, contiguous zone and continental shelf.
31.
The same principle of intangibility is contained in Article 12 of the same Convention, concerning “Other territorial regimes”. On this Article 12, the ICJ states that it “reflects a rule of customary international law” and “finds that the content of the 1977 Treaty indicates that it must be regarded as establishing a territorial regime within the meaning of Article 12 of the 1978 Vienna Convention. It created rights and obligations “attaching to the parts of the Danube to which it relates; thus the Treaty itself cannot be affected by a succession of States. The Court therefore concludes that the 1977 Treaty became binding upon Slovakia on 1 January 1993.” (I.C.J., Projet Gabcikovo-Nagymaros (Hongrie/Slovaquie), Judgement of 25 September 1997, I.C.J., Reports 1997, p. 72, para. 123.
32.
The fact that Article 11 imposes the principle of continuity does not mean that the border treaty cannot be modified. There is unanimous agreement that the fact of succession alone cannot be invoked as an argument for this, “but the legal grounds invoked must be other than the mere effect of the occurrence of a succession of States on a boundary treaty” (Waldock (1972, II), p. 52, paragraph 22). The doctrine has also pointed out that the modification is possible by resorting to other arguments such as the fact that the border was poorly defined, was controversial, etc. So, for example, Bardonnet (1976-V), p. 102 and Yasseen (1978), pp. 59–113, p. 85.
33.
Concerning article 11 it is stated that: “27) The weight of the evidence of State practice and of legal opinion in favour of the view that in principle a boundary settlement is unaffected by the occurrence of a succession of States is strong and powerfully reinforced by the decision of the United Nations Conference on the Law of Treaties to except from the fundamental change of circumstances rule a treaty which establishes a boundary. Consequently, it is thought that the present draft must also except boundary settlements both from the moving treaty-frontier rule and from the clean slate principle contained in article 6.” (Sir H. Waldock, Fifth Report…, op. cit., p. 54, para. 27).
34.
In the field of jurisprudence, as the “principal judicial organ” of the UN ascribed to it by the Charter (Article 92), the ICJ states categorically: “There is no doubt that the obligation to respect pre-existing international frontiers in the event of a State succession derives from a general rule of international law, whether or not the rule is expressed in the formula uti possidetis. Hence the numerous solemn affirmations of the intangibility of the frontiers existing at the time of the independence of African States, whether made by senior African statesmen or by organs of the Organization of African Unity itself, are evidently declaratory rather than constitutive: they recognize and confirm an existing principle, and do not seek to consecrate a new principle or the extension to Africa of a rule previously applied only in another continent.” (I.C.J., Frontier dispute case (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment of 22 December 1986, Reports 1986, p. 566, para. 24).
With regard to this Article 11, the ICJ’s statement in the Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya) case, Judgment of 24 February 1982, is eloquent: “83. … this led to the conclusion of the “Convention relative à la frontière entre la régence de Tunis et le vilayet de Tripoli” of 19 May 1910, between the Bey of Tunis and the Emperor of the Ottomans. 84. The Convention duly entered into force and the frontier thus established became that between the Regency of Tunis under French protectorate and the Italian colony of Tripolitania after Turkey had ceded that region to Italy. Following decolonization, the 1910 frontier became that between the independent States of Tunisia and Libya. It had moreover been expressly confirmed by the Treaty of Friendship and Neighbourly Relations concluded on 10 August 1955 between the French Republic (on behalf of Tunisia) and the United Kingdom of Libya, implicitly confirmed by the Treaty of Fraternity and Neighbourly Relations between the United Kingdom of Libya and the Kingdom of Tunisia, of 7 January 1957, which was amended and completed by the Establishment Convention of 14 June 1961, and expressly confirmed by an exchange of letters at the time of signing of that Establishment Convention. The boundary remained unchanged throughout the vicissitudes of the two World Wars, and it exemplifies the principle declared in the 1964 Cairo Resolution of the Organization of African Unity, according to which “all Member States pledge themselves to respect the borders existing on their achievement of national independence”. This rule of continuity ipso jure of boundary and territorial treaties was later embodied in the 1978 Vienna Convention on Succession of States in respect of Treaties” (I.C.J., Reports 1982, p.51, paras. 83 and 84).
35.
Thus, for example, the Court of Arbitration in the Case concerning a dispute between Argentina and Chile concerning the Beagle Channel, Decision of 18 February 1977, in which it stated: “18. “Tratado de Límites” of limits—Boundary Treaty. This title suggests the spirit and intention of the Treaty as a whole, —for a limit, a boundary, across which the jurisdiction of the respective bordering States may not pass, implies definitiveness and permanence.” (Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. XXI, p. 89, para. 18) and refers to the ICJ’s statement in the Temple of Préah Vihéar (Reports 1962, p. 34): “when two countries establish a frontier between them, one of the primary objects is to achieve stability and finality”. Also in the Case concerning the location of boundary markers in Taba between Egypt and Israel, Decision of 29 September 1988: “The Tribunal considers that where the States concerned have, over a period of more than 50 years, identified a marker as a boundary pillar and acted upon that basis, it is no longer open to one of the Parties or to third States to challenge that long-held assumption on the basis of an alleged error. The principle of the stability of boundaries, confirmed by the International Court of Justice (see paragraph 210 above), requires that boundary markers, long accepted as such by the States concerned, should be respected and not open to challenge indefinitely on the basis of error.” (Reports of International Arbitral Awards, vol. XX, p. 64, para. 235).
36.
Thus, for example, Degan, who considers this Article 11 to be the most valid example of the “codification of existing law, that is, of what is not a mere application of the rules of the law of treaties already codified,…” (1996), p. 220). He adds that “This principle is amply confirmed in international jurisprudence” (ibid.). In the opinion of López Martín, the ILC “has thus enshrined a principle that had been applied in international practice, and which jurisprudence - as we have seen - had taken it upon itself to proclaim: continuity in boundary treaties, an exception to the clean slate rule”. (1997), p. 99).
37.
As revealed by the fact that State practice is not in line with it. This is the case, for example, with Article 34, which establishes the principle of continuity with respect to bilateral treaties. In this sense, cf. International Law Association (ILA), New Delhi Conference 2002, Committee on Aspects of the Law of State Succession, Rapport final sur la succession en matière de traités, p. 22.
38.
Cf. ibid.
39.
And in the same vein, as requested by the European Council, in the Declaration of Guidelines on the Recognition of New States in Eastern Europe and in the Former the Soviet Union of 16 December 1991, the Ministers of the Member States “adopt a common position on the process of recognition of these new States which implies”, inter alia, “respect for the inviolability of all frontiers which can only be changed by peaceful means and by common agreement;”. Previously they confirmed “their attachment to the principles of the Helsinki Final Act and the Charter of Paris, in particular the principle of self-determination” (‘Declaration on the “Guidelines on the Recognition of New States in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union”’ and ‘Declaration on Yugoslavia’, Extraordinary European Political Committee Ministerial meeting, Press Release No. 128/91 and 129/91, Brussels, 16 December 1991). See Quel López (1993), pp. 39–81. Vid. ut supra, note 20 of the present work.
40.
In both cases this is the practice of the successor state to the USSR.
41.
In its Report, the ILA stresses the great importance of this agreement from a political point of view because the delineation of this border derives from the Agreement of 29 June 1945 on the Cession of Transcarpathian Ukraine (p. 23).
42.
Article 1 of which expressly states that the border between the two States has existed since 16 June 1940 (cf. ILA, op. cit., p. 23). With regard to the Baltic States see GutiÕrrez Espada (1991), pp. 559–563.
43.
http://chnm.gmu.edu/1989/archive/files/germany-final-settlement_e0189c0884.pdf.
44.
Cf. ILA, op. cit., p. 23.
45.
I.C.J., Projet Gabcikovo-Nagymaros (Hongrie/Slovaquie), Judgement of 25 September 1997, ICJ, Reports 1997, p. 72, para. 123.
46.
On this subject, see Obradovic (1984), in Calamia, Mengozzi, Ronzitti (1984), pp. 95–140. In the same book, Vukas (2005), pp. 19–55. After the disintegration of Yugoslavia vid. Pustorino in Ronzitti (2005), pp. 11–28.
47.
Ministero degli Affari Esteri, “Comunicato Successione della Repubblica di Slovenia nei trattati bilaterali in cui era parte la Repubblica socialista federativa di Jugoslavia” (GU Serie Generale n.211 del 08-09-1992; https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/1992/09/08/092A4094/sg. Vid. Conetti (1992), pp. 1027–1032. This author states that the list includes practically all the treaties in force between Italy and Yugoslavia whose application may concern matters of interest to Slovenia (vid. op. cit., p. 1028).
48.
On maritime neighbourhood relations vid. Gestri in Ronzitti (2005), pp. 177–225.
49.
The text in Rivista di diritto internazionale, 1970, pp. 117 ff.
50.
In Pustorino’s view, this statement was presumably made because of the problems linked to the dispute between Slovenia and Croatia over the proclamation by Croatia of a fish and environmental protection zone (cf. Pustorino 2005, p. 16, note 20).
51.
On the neighbourhood relations between Italy and Yugoslavia, see Calamia, Mengozzi, Ronzitti (1984). After the disintegration of Yugoslavia vid. The collective work of Ronzitti (2005).
52.
Veterinary Convention of 26 March 1955 and Veterinary Agreement of 14 October 1966.
53.
Convention on Trade and Navigation of 31 March 1955.
54.
The Convention of 5 October 1959 on Railway Frontier Services, the Agreement of 12 November 1959 on Border Services between the Italian State Railways (FS) and the Yugoslav State Railways (JZ) and its Appendix of 7 June 1966. These treaties are repealed by the Convention concluded between Italy and the Republic of Slovenia on 22 June 1995 on cross-border rail services (Law No. 200 of 16 June 1997, GU, n°155, of 5 July 1997—Suppl. Ordinario no. 137). Entry into force of the law: July 6, 1997 (https://www.normattiva.it/uri-res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:legge:1997;200). Entry into force of the convention: 27 June 2001 (G.U., n° 188, of 14 August 2001).
55.
Thus, the Agreement of 31 March 1955 for local trade in the border area of Gorizia and Udine on the one hand and Sesana, Nova Gorica and Tolmino on the other and the Additional Protocol of 3 August 1957; as amended by the Exchange of Letters of 1 July 1967 and 2 October 1978. Also, the Agreement of 31 March 1955 for local exchanges in the border area of Trieste, on the one hand, and of Buie, Capodistria, Sesana and Nova Gorica, on the other hand, and its Additional Protocol of 3 August 1957 Amended by the Exchanges of Letters of 1 July 1967 and 2 October 1978.
56.
By the Protocol of 21 April 1959 on free access to the summits of Mount Mangart and Mount Canin.
57.
By Regulation on the use of the Sabotin road of 16 June 1981.
58.
Thus, the Agreement of 15 May 1992 on the regulation of traffic in persons and of land and sea transport between neighbouring areas.
59.
Thus, the Agreement of 14 February 1974 on collaboration in the protection of the Adriatic Sea against pollution. See all these treaties in Ministero degli Affari Esteri, “Comunicato Successione della Repubblica di Slovenia nei trattati bilaterali in cui era parte la Repubblica socialista federativa di Jugoslavia”, op. cit., ut supra in footnote 47.
60.
On this issue see Calamia in Calamia et al. (1984), pp. 141–170.
61.
See all these treaties in Ministero degli Affari Esteri, “Comunicato Successione della Repubblica di Slovenia nei trattati bilaterali in cui era parte la Repubblica socialista federativa di Jugoslavia”, op. cit., ut supra in note 47.
62.
Ibid.
63.
ILA, op. cit., p. 24. In the words of Remiro Brotons, “whatever the historical process and the extent of territorial change, whether or not it gives rise to new state subjects, the successor must always respect the boundary treaties with other states, as well as the regimes inherent in a given territory (running with the land)—demilitarization, neutralization, passage, navigation...—created in favour of one, several or all states in general. The continuity of these treaties is supported by diplomatic practice, by international jurisprudence (…) and by doctrine, proposing to cooperate, together with other rules of the Law of Treaties (see art. 62.2, a of the 1969 Convention), for territorial stability in the interest of peace by removing incentives to those who hold vindictive attitudes” (1987), p. 381).
64.
With France, Portugal, the Principality of Andorra, the United Kingdom and Morocco. With Italy, the maritime border.
65.
This is the case, with France, of the Basque Country, Navarre, Aragon and Catalonia. With Portugal, from Galicia, Castile and Leon, Extremadura and Andalusia, with the United Kingdom, from Andalusia. With Morocco, from the Autonomous Cities of Ceuta and Melilla. With the Principality of Andorra, from Catalonia. In this regard, in the case of Catalonia, Article 6 of Law 20/2017, of 8 September, on legal and foundational transience of the Republic (DOGC of 9 September 2017), declared unconstitutional and void by the TC in a ruling of 8 November 2017, states: “1. The territory of Catalonia, for the purposes of the exercise of its full sovereignty, is composed of the land space, including the subsoil, corresponding to its geographical and administrative boundaries at the time this Act enters into force, the territorial sea, including its bed and subsoil, the air space above the land space and the territorial sea of Catalonia. 2. Catalonia shall enjoy the rights of sovereignty and other rights recognised by international law in respect of its continental shelf and its exclusive economic zone.”
66.
As is well known, neighbourhood relations are relations of cooperation between neighbouring or adjacent States, which are created by the existence of the border; cooperation articulated between neighbouring States through international treaties and joint commissions set up to manage all the areas that are the subject of these neighbourhood relations. In general see Pop (1980); Andrassy (1951-II), pp. 77–181. On the Spanish-French neighbourhood relations see Fernández de Casadevante Romani (1985) and (1989).
67.
Regulated with France by the Additional Act of 26 May 1866 (Aranzadi, Nuevo Diccionario de Legislación, vol. X, no. 13674, pp. 788 ff.) and—with regard to fisheries—by the Convention of 14 July 1959 (BOE, no. 28, of 2 February 1965). To this respect see FernÃndez de Casadevante Romani (2016), pp. 261–300.
68.
On this point, with regard to France, see Fernández de Casadevante Romani (1987a), pp. 177–207. With regard to Portugal, see Pueyo Losa (1987), in Del Arenal Moyúa (1987), pp. 251–272.
69.
Not so the Exclusive Economic Zone, owing to lack of agreement.
70.
Due to France’s rejection of the principle of equidistance (cf. Acosta Sánchez (2016), p. 26). The delimitation of the continental shelf between Sardinia and the island of Minorca is regulated with Italy by the Convention of 19 February 1974 (BOE, no. 290, 5th December 1978). On this subject in extenso vid. Gutiérrez Castillo (2005).
71.
Whose article 42 limits itself to affirming that as “And as far as it looks at the Countries, and Squares that the Arms of France have occupied in this War on the part of Spain, why it was agreed in the Negotiation begun in Madrid in the year 1656, on which the present treaty is based, that the Pyrenean Mountains, which had formerly divided Gaul from Spain, would henceforth also divide these same two Kingdoms,...” (see the text of this treaty in Abreu y Bertodano (1874), p. 149).
72.
For example, the Treaty of Elizondo of August 27, 1785. See the text of this Treaty in Parry (1969) vol. 49 (1783-86), pp. 313 ff.); Del Cantillo (1843), pp. 594 ff.
73.
The drafting of these treaties was not an easy task. This is evidenced by the fact that the first attempts to achieve a stable border delimitation took place in 1851 and that they did not bear fruit in the first border sector (the western one) until 1856. The final result of this work—a border delimitation and its corresponding demarcation, as well as the resolution of all pending or controversial issues - is to be credited to the Commissioners of both States who travelled all over the Pyrenean chain, compiled and examined the existing titles and became thoroughly acquainted with the customs in force on this border, incorporating them as a legal rule into the Boundary Treaties.
74.
See the text in Aranzadi, op. cit., no. 13671, pp. 760 ff.
75.
See the text in Aranzadi, op. cit., no. 13672, pp. 771 ff.
76.
See the text in Aranzadi, op. cit., no. 13674, pp. 785 ff. and no. 13677.
77.
See the text in Aranzadi, op. cit., no. 13674, pp. 788 ff.
78.
De Clercq, Recueil des traités de la France, vol. X, p. 168: “Rapport officiel sur la délimitation de la frontière des Pyrénées, adressé le 5 août 1868 au Mtre. des Af. étrangères, par le général Callier, commissaire français”.
79.
BOE, no. 150, of 24 June 1975. Article 1 of which states: ·The demarcation of the border, as defined by the international agreements in force between the two States, must be established and maintained in such a way that the route is well determined and can be easily located along it”.
80.
Article 2. To this end, this Agreement sets up a Joint Making Commission.
81.
This is the case for the following: Exchange of Notes on the placement of milestone no. 1 in the Endarlaza Bridge, correct placement of milestone no. 35 and rectification of the distance separating border crossings 267 and 268, of 31 January and 7 February 1985 (BOE, no. 4, of 4 January 1986). In force: 7 February 1985; Exchange of Notes on the placement of track 297 and the marking of the border by intermediate marks between milestones 297 and 299, of 31 January and 7 February 1985 (BOE, no. 4, of 4 January 1986). In force: February 7, 1985; Exchange of Notes amending the Additional Agreement (Annex V) of December 28, 1858, to the Treaty of Delimitation of December 2, 1856, to take into account the reconstruction of milestone 232 in a new location on the border, of March 22, 1999 and November 12, 1999 (BOE, No. 46, of February 23, 2000). In force: 12 November 1999; and Exchange of Notes on the materialisation of the border between milestones 44 and 45 in the Collado de Lizarreta sector, of 22 September 1987 and 10 June 1988 (BOE, no. 161, of 6 July 1988). In force: 10 June 1988.
82.
Thus, the Exchange of Notes on the layout of the border line over the Puigcerdá-Llivia road’s New Bridge, of 22 September 1987 and 10 June 1988 (BOE, no. 161, of 6 July 1988). In force: 10 June 1988.
83.
BOE, no. 89, of 14 April 1982. According to Article 5 of this Convention: “This Convention shall appear as an Additional Act to Annex I of the Treaty between Spain and France of 14 April 1862, signed at Bayonne on 27 February 1863”. Therefore, within the framework of the delimitation of the land boundary. For the purposes of its description, we have preferred to place its reference under a specific heading devoted to the delimitation of the Spanish-French border inside the Trans-Pyrenean tunnels.
84.
In this respect, Article 12 of the Convention of 25 April 1991 merely states that: “The delimitation of the border between Spain and France shall be effected in the tunnel by the International Commission of the Pyrenees, in accordance with the international conventions in force” (BOE, no. 75, 27 March 1992). Completed by the Exchange of Letters constituting an Agreement between the Governments of the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic, complementary to the Agreement of 25 April 1991 between the two countries and the exchange of letters signed on 31 July and 20 August 2001, laying down the conditions of circulation in the tunnel of the Somport road, done at Malaga on 26 November 2002 (BOE, no. 36, 11 February 2003).
85.
BOE, no. 237, 3 October 1984. In force: 1 September 1984.
86.
BOE, no. 25, of 29 January 1998. In force: 11 December 1997. Article 4, entitled “Border and jurisdiction”, reads: “1. For all matters relating to the application of this Agreement, the border between Spain and France shall be materialized in the International Section by the International Commission of the Pyrenees, in accordance with the international agreements in force. 2. Rights over natural resources discovered in the course of the construction of the International Section shall be governed by the law of the State in whose territory the resources are located”.
87.
Article 9 of the Boundary Treaty of 2 December 1856. Chapitelaco-arria is the point where the boundary stone no. 1 of the Spanish-French border is located, where the river Bidasoa -which originates upstream in Navarre- becomes international and constitutes the river border between both States.
88.
See in extenso Fernández de Casadevante Romani (1989), pp. 167–186.
89.
Vid. Gutiérrez Castillo (2005), pp. 289–315.
90.
See the text in BOE, no. 28, of 2 February 1965.
91.
It follows from both Article 4 of the Convention of 14 July 1959 and Article 1 of the Franco-Spanish Convention of 29 January 1974 on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone: “This Convention applies in the Bay of Biscay, to the north of the Bay of Higuer, up to the limit of twelve miles from the French and Spanish baselines.” (BOE no. 159 of 4 July 1975).
92.
See the text in the Gaceta of 22 April 1879. Also in Ministerio de Hacienda—Dirección General de Aduanas, Recopilación de acuerdos internacionales con Francia y Portugal sobre límites y otros servicios de frontera, Madrid, 1948, p. 161. This Agreement was drawn up on the basis of the geographical configuration of the bay at that time and the location of both the existing anchorage and the course of the River Bidasoa at that time, which explains the unequal nature of the delimitation made. However, in 1959, the Spanish negotiators reiterated the same delimitation, a fact that was incomprehensible because since 1879, Spain had been demanding a revision of the previous delimitation to make it more equitable. On this background and on the consequences of the maintenance in 1959 of the same delimitation of the 1879 Agreement see Fernández de Casadevante Romani (1989), pp. 152–168.
93.
It is interesting to highlight here the two existing “main divisions”. The first one, from the point where the river Bidasoa becomes international in Chapitelaco-arria, to the imaginary line that joins internally the ends of the sea side of the breakwaters, or breakwaters, Spanish and French at the mouth of the river (breakwaters that channel the river in the mouth). And the second, which extends from this last line to the imaginary ABCD line that joins Cape Higuer and Punta Tumbas (that is, the imaginary line that closes the bay on the sea side and forms the Bay of Higuer). See the text in BOE, no. 159, of 4 July 1975.
94.
See the text in BOE, no. 159, of 4 July 1975. In force: April 14, 1975 (April 5, according to France).
95.
The baselines are constituted by this imaginary ABCD line of 3055 metres long. The reference point for drawing the boundary line of the territorial sea is point M (a meridian located in the middle of the abovementioned ABCD line). From this point M, the territorial sea boundary line extends to points P (six miles away) and Q (twelve miles away), both of which are equidistant from the baselines of the two States.
96.
Article 12 of which states: “1.Where the coasts of two States are opposite or adjacent to each other, neither of the two States is entitled, failing agreement between them to the contrary, to extend its territorial sea beyond the median line every point of which is equidistant from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of the territorial seas of each of the two States is measured.” (UNTS, Vol. 1080,1-16533). Also in BOE no. 307 of 24 December 1971). The 1982 Law of the Sea Convention maintains the same criterion in its art. 15.
97.
See the text in BOE, no. 163, of 9 July 1975.
98.
As Azcárraga points out, the dominant theses in the negotiations between the two States were “the special circumstances of the evident greater French platform advantage, with the aforementioned concavity of its coastline, closed by a straight baseline between the ‘Pointe de la Négade’ and the ‘Pointe du Raz’,...” (1975), p. 136).
99.
BOE, no. 163, of 9 July 1975. In force: 5 April 1975.
100.
See the text in BOE, no. 46, of 23 February 1978. In accordance with art. 1: “One. In a maritime area known as the exclusive economic zone, which extends from the outer limit of the territorial sea to a zone of two hundred nautical miles, counted from the baselines from which the width of the sea is measured, the Spanish State has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting the natural resources of the seabed and subsoil and of the waters above it.
In the case of the archipelagos, the outer limit of the economic zone shall be measured from the straight baselines joining the extreme points of the islands and islets which they are respectively comprised of, so that the resulting perimeter follows the general configuration of each archipelago”.
101.
See text in JORF of 18 July 1976, p. 4299 ff. Also in RGDIP, 1976, tome LXXX, p. 1225 ff.
102.
That is the case with Italy, regarding the delimitation of the continental shelf between Sardinia and the Island of Menorca, by means of the Convention of 19 February 1974 (BOE, no. 290, 5 December 1978).
103.
On this issue see Fernández de Casadevante Romani (1989), pp. 187–196.
104.
On this issue see Coret (1960).
105.
The other two characteristics are those relating to the opposability and inviolability of state sovereignty.
106.
See the text Aranzadi, Nuevo Diccionario de Legislación, vol. X, n° 13680, pp. 808 ff.
107.
In order to determine the order of the turns, a draw was held, the result being “that the exercise of said jurisdiction will henceforth correspond every year to France during the 6 months from 12 August to 11 February inclusive; and to Spain during the other 6 months, from 12 February to 11 August inclusive as well” (Irun City Council Archive, Legajo: Secc. E, Neg. 6, Ser. VI, Lib. 14, Exp. 1).
108.
BOE, no. 144, 16 June 1992. The Agreement was applied provisionally from 30 March 1992 “as agreed by the Parties” (ibid.).
109.
Border airport on Spanish territory, opened to traffic in 1955, which requires the use of French airspace when take-off and landing operations take place at the northern head of the runway. That is, the one facing France.
110.
They were motivated by a 1957 ‘preliminary draft agreement’ concerning this airport, the result of a bilateral commission set up specifically for this airport 2 years after it became operational. On this issue see Fernández de Casadevante Romani (1989), pp. 337–358; Idem. (1987a), pp. 121–141.
111.
See ut supra note 66.
112.
BOE, no. 296, of 10 December 1970. In force: 15 November 1970.
113.
BOE no. 187, of 6 August 1966. In force: 1 June 1966.
114.
BOE, no. 165, of 11 July 1969. In force: 17 June 1969.
115.
BOE, no. 116, of 15 May 1974. In force: 18 February 1974.
116.
BOE, no. 88, of 7 April 1980. In force: 4 March 1980.
117.
BOE, no. 75, 27 March 1992. In force: 14 February 1992.
118.
BOE no. 274, of 16 November 1994. Provisional application from 21 October 1994. In force: 26 September 1995. Correction of errata in BOE, No. 287, of 1 December 1984. Entry into force of the Exchange of Letters, dated 19 and 21 October 1994, constituting an Agreement between the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic for the construction of an international bridge over the River Major between the towns of Massanet de Cabrenys (Spain) and Coustoges (France), the provisional application of which was published in the Boletín Oficial del Estado (Spain’s Official Journal), No. 274 of 16 November 1994 (BOE, No. 259, 30 October 1995).
119.
BOE, no. 89, of 14 April 1982.
120.
BOE, no. 75, of 27 March 1992. Completed by the Exchange of Letters constituting an Agreement between the Governments of the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic, supplementary to the Agreement of 25 April 1991 between the two countries and the exchange of letters signed on 31 July and 20 August 2001, laying down the conditions of circulation in the Somport road tunnel, done at Malaga on 26 November 2002 (BOE, no 36, 11 February 2003).
121.
BOE, no. 67 of 19 March 2002. In force: 20 August 2001.
122.
BOE, no. 274, of 7 November 2003. In force: 1 September 2003.
123.
BOE, no. 274, of 7 November 2003. In force: 1 September 2003.
124.
BOE, no. 36, of 11 February 2003. In force: 26 November 2002.
125.
Provisions which also establish an obligation of prior information to the authorities of the neighbouring State concerning works for the repair and defence of the margins and prohibit any work which invades the river bed. All this is contained in the Additional Act of 26 May 1886 (Aranzadi, Nuevo Diccionario de Legislación, no. 13674, pp. 785 ff.).
126.
The text in BOE, no. 28, of February 2, 1965.
127.
This is the case of the Exchange of Notes for the implementation of various amendments to the Convention of 14 July 1959 on fishing in the Bidasoa River and the Bay of Higuer, of 20 April 2007 and 20 June 2011 (BOE, No. 42, of 18 February 2013). In force: 6 February 2013; and of the Exchange of Letters between Spain and France recognizing the transfer of powers from the Commander of the Bayonne Navy to the Delegate for the Sea and Coast, of the Department of the Atlantic Pyrenees, within the framework of the Agreement between Spain and France on fishing in the Bidasoa and Higuer Bay, of 14 July 1959, 15 July 2016 and 27 January 2017 (BOE, No. 115, of 15 May 2017). In force: 31 January 2017.
128.
Object of Title I of this Convention.
129.
For example, fines for violations of the provisions of the Convention.
130.
The Convention is accompanied by Regulations on the management of the Convention. These regulations were amended by the Exchange of Notes of 27 January 1970. See JORF, 20 July 1971, pp. 7144–7146. It came into force on 27 January 1970.
131.
JORF, 20 July 1971.
132.
BOE, no. 184, of 1 August 1964.
133.
This is the case of Articles 4 and 5 of Annex IV to the Treaty of 28 December 1858, annexed to the Treaty of Limits of 2 December 1856. Subsequent bilateral treaties have amended this Annex and updated the amount of the fines applied to the owners of the herds. Thus, the Additional Act of 15 March 1968 (BOE, no. 116 of 14 May 1968). In force: 1 March 1970; and amended by the Exchange of Notes of 4 and 13 March 1975 to double the amount of the fines applied to herd owners, by virtue of Articles 4 and 5 of Annex IV to the Treaty of 28 December 1958, additional to the Treaty of 2 December 1856, of 4 and 13 March 1975 (BOE, no. 156, 1 July 1975). In force: 1 January 1975; and the Exchange of Notes to amend the amount of fines imposed on herd owners who breach the regulations in force, of 19 February and 9 March 1987 (BOE, no. 166, 13 July 1987). In force: 1 May 1987.
134.
The text in JORF, of September 9, 1969. On this issue see de Arvizu (1992); Idem. (1997).
135.
Moreover, it is a customary law that the Boundary Treaties codify. It follows, for example, from the wording of Article 14 of the Boundary Treaty of 2 December 1856: “The Contracting Parties have agreed to preserve for the respective frontiers the right which they have always had to conclude among themselves, though for a limited time, which may not exceed five years, and with the precise intervention of the competent authorities, all agreements on pastures or others which may be of benefit to their interests and good neighbourly relations”. This Treaty refers to the Basque-Navarre border sector. Similar are art. 23, paragraph 3 of the Treaty of Limits of 14 April 1862, art. 29, paragraph 3 of the Treaty of Limits of 26 May 1866 and art. 10 of Annex V of the Additional Provisions of 11 July 1868. Cf. Aranzadi, Nuevo Diccionario de Legislación, vol. X, voz “Fronteras”, no. 13670 and following.
136.
BOE, no. 159 of 4 July 2003. Effective: 1 March 2003.
137.
BOE, no. 60, of 11 March 2017. In force: 20 February 2017. According to article 1: “This Agreement creates a mechanism of mutual assistance between the parties for the use of aerial means of fighting forest fires, in application of article 14 of the Treaty”. Article 14 of the above-mentioned “Treaty” is that of the Convention on Civil Protection and Civil Security of 11 October 2001. This Article 14 refers to the “Development of the Convention”, the implementation of which it provides for through “specific administrative arrangements necessary for the application of the Convention, in particular with regard to mutual assistance in the event of disasters or serious accidents.”
138.
BOE, no. 61, of 13 March 2017. In force: 20 February 2017.
139.
BOE, no. 106, of 3 May 1960. In force: 8 March 1960.
140.
BOE, no. 66 of 18 March 1966. It is supplemented by other subsequent treaties relating to road and rail traffic.
141.
This is the case for the following: Convention concerning juxtaposed national inspection offices and in route controls of 7 July 1965 (BOE, no. 66, 18 March 1966). In force: 24 February 1966; Final Protocol to the Convention on Juxtaposed National Control Offices and in route controls of 7 July 1965 (BOE, no. 66, 18 March 1966). In force: 24 February 1966; Exchange of Letters interpreting Article 4 of the Convention on Juxtaposed National Control Offices and in route controls of 7 July 1965 (BOE no. 66 of 18 March 1966). In force: 24 February 1966; Exchange of Notes constituting an Agreement on the creation in Irún, in Spanish territory, of a Juxtaposed Controls Office, of 16 and 22 July 1966 (BOE, no.65, of 8 March 1967). In force: 23 July 1966; Exchange of Notes on the creation in La Junquera (Barrio de los Límites), on Spanish territory, of a juxtaposed national control office, of 26 and 30 May 1969 (BOE, no. 165, of 11 July 1969). In force: 30 May 1969; Exchange of Letters concerning the establishment in Cerbère, at the place known as “Col des Bâlitres”, on French territory, of an office of juxtaposed national controls, of 9 July 1970 (BOE, no. 226, 21 September 1970). In force: 29 July 1970; Exchange of Letters approving the Agreement on the establishment of a juxtaposed national inspection office in Behobia, on Spanish territory, at the mouth of the new international bridge, of 27 and 29 September 1971 (BOE, no. 268, of 9 November 1971). In force: 29 September 1971; Exchange of Notes on the addition to the Agreement concerning the creation in Irún, in Spanish territory, of a juxtaposed national control office, at the exit of the new Hendaya-Irún international bridge of 7 July 1965 and confirmed by the Exchange of Notes of 16 and 22 July 1966, 29 September 1971 (BOE, no. 268, of 9 November 1971). In force: 29 September 1971; Exchange of Notes constituting an Addendum to the Exchange of Notes of 11 November 1970 concerning the creation in Behobia, in Spanish territory, of a juxtaposed national control office at the mouth of the Behobia-Behobie International Bridge, of 5 September 1973 and 20 August 1974 (BOE, no. 286, of 29 November 1974). In force: 20 August 1974; Exchange of Notes constituting an Addendum to the Exchange of Notes of 16 and 22 July 1966, relating to the creation in Irún, in Spanish territory, of a juxtaposed national control office, at the exit of the new Hendaya-Irún International Bridge (Santiago Bridge), of 5 September 1973 and 20 August 1974 (BOE, no. 286, of 29 November 1974). In force: 20 August 1974; Exchange of Letters concerning the creation in Biriatou, French territory, of an office of juxtaposed national controls, of 18 June 1976 (BOE, no. 174, of 21 July 1976). In force: 18 June 1976; Exchange of Letters concerning the establishment of a juxtaposed national inspection office in Le Perthus, French territory, of 18 June 1976 (BOE no. 175 of 22 July 1976). In force: 18 June 1976; Exchange of Letters establishing a juxtaposed national control office in Melles, on French territory, of 15 June 1978 (BOE no. 165 of 12 July 1978). In force: 15 June 1978; Exchange of Letters constituting the Second Addition to the Agreement of 8 July 1969 on Juxtaposed national controls in Hendaye, 10 January 1980 (BOE no. 265 of 10 January 1980). In force: 10 January 1980; Exchange of Notes of 9 February and 19 March 1990 amending the Agreements of 25 August 1969 and 12 March 1985 on the creation of Juxtaposed National Control Offices in Cerbère and Port-Bou (BOE, no. 99 of 25 April 1991 and corrigendum in BOE, no. 142 of 14 June 1991). In force: 1 May 1990; Exchange of Letters amending the Exchange of Letters of 29 July 1970 on the establishment of juxtaposed national controls at Cerbère-Col des Bâlitres of 5 September 1991 and 5 November 1992 (BOE, no. 27 of 1 February 1994). In force 1 January 1993; Agreement on the Office of Juxtaposed National Controls in Biriatou of 13 November 2006. Provisional application: 13 November 2006 (BOE no. 309 of 27 December 2006). In force: 11 April 2009.
142.
Exchange of Letters concerning the creation of the La Tour de Carik-Enveigt station, on French territory, of a juxtaposed national control office, of 15 June 1967 (BOE, no. 259, of 30 October 1967) In force: 1 July 1967; Exchange of Letters concerning the creation, on French territory, of a juxtaposed national control office at the station of Hendaye City, of 8 July 1969 (BOE, no. 213, of 5 September 1969). In force: 8 July 1969; Exchange of letters concerning the creation of a juxtaposed national control office at the Irún station on Spanish territory of 25 August 1969 (BOE no. 248 of 16 October 1969). In force: 25 August 1969; Exchange of Letters concerning the creation, on French territory, of a juxtaposed national control office at the station of Cerbère of 25 August 1969 (BOE no. 248 of 16 October 1969 and BOE no. 256 of 25 October 1969) In force: 25 August 1969; Exchange of Letters concerning the creation of a juxtaposed national control office at the Canfranc station on Spanish territory of 7 March 1970 (BOE, no. 86 of 10 April 1970). In force: 7 March 1970; Exchange of Letters concerning the Act amending the Agreement on the establishment on French territory of a juxtaposed national control office at the Cerbère station of 25 June 1971 (BOE no. 42 of 18 February 1972). In force: 25 June 1971; Exchange of Letters approving an Addendum to the Agreement on the establishment of a juxtaposed national control office at the Irun Station of 20 May 1969 and replacing the Addendum of 6 September 1973 and 20 August 1974, 10 July 1978 and 9 July 1979 (BOE no. 1 of 1 January 1980). In force: 9 July 1979; Exchange of Letters concerning the creation at Port-Bou station of a juxtaposed national control office for passenger and freight rail traffic of 6 February 1986 and 27 January 1988 (BOE, no. 41, of 17 February 1988). In force: 27 January 1988; Exchange of letters on the Second Addition to the Agreement of 20 May 1969 on the establishment of a juxtaposed national control office at Cerbère station of 11 February 1986 and 8 April 1987 (BOE, no. of 167, 14 July 1987). In force: 8 April 1987.
143.
The General Convention of 7 July 1965 is particularly relevant in this respect, as it specifies the legal regime applicable. It defines the concepts of “control”, “headquarters State”, “neighbouring State”, “area”, “officials” and “offices”. For example, the “area” is that part of the territory of the headquarters State within which the officials of the neighbouring State are authorised to carry out the control (cf. Article 1.4).
144.
BOE, no. 159 of 5 July 1967. In force: 1 August 1967. Correction of errata in BOE, no. 122, of 22 May 1998.
145.
BOE, no. 25, of 29 January 1998. In force: 11 December 1997.
146.
BOE, no. 236, of 30 September 2016. In force: 21 September 2016.
147.
BOE. no. 307, of 21 December 2016. In force: 20 December 2016.
148.
BOE, no. 282 of 21 November 2014. Correction of errors in BOE, no. 290, of 1 December 2014. In force: 1 December 2014. All this, as stated in Article 1, “in order to - ensure better access to quality health care for the populations of the border area as defined in Article 2, - guarantee the continuity of health care for these same populations, - optimise the organisation of health care provision, facilitating the use or sharing of human and material resources, - promote the complementarity of knowledge and practices.”
149.
BOE, no. 282 of 21 November 2014. In force: 1 December 2014. Linked to this Framework Agreement and with the aim of establishing “a framework of reciprocity to facilitate the transfer, by land only, of the mortal remains of deceased persons in the territory of one of the Parties”, they conclude the Technical Cooperation Agreement on the transfer of bodies by land, made in Malaga on 20 February 2017 (BOE, no. 59, of 10 March 2017). In force: 21 February 2017.
150.
On this issue see in extenso Fernández de Casadevante Romani (Fernández de Casadevante Romani 1987b), pp. 177–207.
151.
Vid. in extenso Fernández de Casadevante Romani (1989), pp. 362–377.
152.
There are four sub-commissions: 1. Demarcation and border police; 2. Trans-Pyrenean communications and infrastructure; 3. Agricultural, hydraulic and nature protection issues; 4. The problems of the Bidasoa.
153.
BOE, no. 150 of 24 June 1975.
154.
In the eastern sector of the Spanish-French border there was also another Commission concerning the Angustrina and Llivia Channel which has ceased to operate.
155.
JORF, of 20 July 1971.
156.
BOE, no. 184, of 1 August 1964.
157.
BOE, no. 82 of 5 April 1979.
158.
At this time the Spanish Constitution of 1978 had already been approved, configuring Spain as an autonomous State. The decentralisation of powers and administration is hence reflected in the composition of the Bidasoa Joint Technical Commission from Spain’s side.
159.
BOE, no. 159, of 4 July 2003. As we have already indicated, the Convention of 11 October 2001 repeals the Convention on Mutual Assistance between the French and Spanish Fire and Rescue Services, signed in Madrid on 14 July 1959, and the corresponding complementary agreements signed in Madrid on 8 February 1973 and in Paris on 19 June 1978, in force until its entry into force. Consequently, the Joint Committee set up by those treaties is also repealed and replaced by that provided for in Article 4 of the 2001 Convention.
160.
Composed of an equal number of representatives of both parties, “Its composition shall be established by the authorities competent for the implementation of the Convention, which shall also adopt its rules of procedure. This Commission shall meet at least once a year. It may also meet at the request of one of the Parties. The Joint Commission shall draw up the draft agreements provided for in Article 14 of this Convention” (Article 4).
161.
BOE, no. 106, of 3 May 1960. It deals with African swine fever, contagious bovine pleuropneumonia, varroasis in bees, rabies affecting in particular foxes and deer, and contagious agalactia in sheep.
162.
BOE, no. 66, of 18 March 1966. It is supplemented by other subsequent treaties relating to road and rail traffic.
163.
JORF, 9 September 1969.
164.
Ibid.
165.
On this matter see Jolivet (2015); Fernández de Casadevante Romani (2012), pp. 415–442.
166.
BOE, no. 144, of 16 June 1992.
167.
BOE, no. 224 of 18 September 2003. In force: 1 September 2003. On the part of Spain, it is developed by Resolution of 18 September 2003, of the Technical General Secretariat, which provides for the publication of the Declaration drawn up by the Ministry of the Interior in compliance with the provisions of Article 1 of the Convention on cross-border cooperation in police and customs matters between the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic, made “ad referendum” in Blois on 7 July 1998, which reads: “In compliance with the provisions of Article 1 of the Convention on cross-border cooperation in police and customs matters between the Kingdom of Spain and the French Republic, the Ministry of the Interior declares that the Department of Customs and Excise of the State Tax Administration Agency constitutes, within the scope of its powers, the competent service by the Spanish Party for the implementation and application of the Convention.”
It is implemented by two administrative agreements: the Administrative Agreement between the Minister of State, Minister of the Interior of the French Republic and the Ministry of the Interior of the Kingdom of Spain on the strengthening of cooperation in the field of training between the French National Gendarmerie and the Spanish Guardia Civil of 23 August 2017 (BOE, no. 242, 7 September 2017). In force: 1 September 2017. The other is the Administrative Agreement between the Ministry of the Interior of the Kingdom of Spain and the Minister of the Interior of the French Republic on the strengthening of cooperation in the field of training between the Spanish Guardia Civil and the French Gendarmerie, made in Madrid on 12 November 2018 (BOE, no. 293, of 5 December 2018). This Convention replaces the Agreement on the establishment of joint police stations in the common border area of 3 June 1996.
168.
BOE, no. 75 of 27 March 1992. In force: 14 February 1992.
169.
BOE, no. 67, of 19 March 2002. In force: 20 August 2001.
170.
Already mentioned. Article 7 reads: “ARTICLE 7. Joint Commission 1. An intergovernmental joint commission, composed of representatives of each Party, shall be responsible for monitoring the implementation of this framework agreement and, if necessary, proposing amendments. It shall meet once a year, and as often as necessary, at the request of either party. 2. Any difficulties relating to the application or interpretation of this framework agreement shall be resolved by the joint committee. 3. Each year the Joint Committee shall draw up, on the basis of information supplied in particular by the authorities referred to in Article 3, an evaluation report on the functioning of the cooperation arrangements.”
171.
Remiro Brotons (2007), p. 895. According to Remacha Tejada, “in this set we can establish the existence of two sectors. The first is the one contemplated by the Treaty of Lisbon of 1864. The second is the section between the confluence of the Caya and Guadiana rivers and its mouth in the sea.” (Remacha Tejada (1987), p. 236.
172.
Remacha Tejada (1987), p. 234.
173.
Gaceta de Madrid of 8 June 1866. Ratification: 19 May 1866.
174.
Gaceta de Madrid of 20 December 1906. The sector covered by the demarcation made by these treaties “therefore affects the Spanish provinces of Pontevedra, Orense, Zamora, Salamanca, Cáceres and part of that of Badajoz; and on the Portuguese side the administrative regions of Minho, Tras os-Montes and Alto Douro, Beira Alta, Beira Baixa and part of Alto Alentejo. It has a length of 700 kms, and includes the international sections of the Miño, Limia, Douro and Tagus rivers, as the main ones. This entire route is the main objective of the Treaty of Lisbon of 1864 and the General Act of 1906.” (Remacha Tejada (1987), p. 236).
175.
Remiro Brotons (2007), p. 895.
176.
Gaceta de Madrid of 6 December 1866. Ratification: 20 November 1866.
177.
Gaceta de Madrid, of 20 December 1906. See footnote 173 of the present work.
178.
Remiro Brotons (2007), p. 895.
179.
Gaceta de Madrid of 29 September 1893. Ratification: 5 September 1893.
180.
Gaceta de Madrid of 29 September 1893. In force: October 1 1893.
181.
Gaceta de Madrid 29 June 1927. In force: 17 June 1927.
182.
Remiro Brotons (2007), p. 895.
183.
Ibid. It is “a stretch of about sixty kilometres that coincides with the Guadiana going around Albalá, Olivenza, Villarreal, Alconchel, Cheles and Villanueva del Fresno. Approximately half of this section constitutes a border modification carried out in 1801 and is the only important one on the whole Spanish-Portuguese border”. (Remacha Tejada (1987), p. 239).
184.
BOE, no. 96, 22 April 1969. In force: 7th April 1969.
185.
Remiro Brotons (2007), p. 895. See Remacha Tejada (1987), p. 241.
186.
“Which remain undefined since 1801, the year in which Spain seized the Alentejo region of Olivenza from the Crown of Portugal in the so-called War of the Oranges” Rodríguez Carrión (2002), p. 416.
187.
BOE, no. 189 of 6 August 2018. Effective: 12 August 2018.
188.
First and second paragraphs of the Preamble.
189.
This is also the case in the Franco-Spanish Convention on Fishing in the Bidasoa and Higuer Bay of 14 July 1959. There, the imaginary line closing the Bay of Higuer constitutes both the limit of the internal waters (inwards) and the beginning of the territorial sea (outwards). See ut supra, note 95 of this paper.
190.
Art. 3.
191.
Art. 4.
192.
BOE, no.71, of 24 March 1998. In force: 27 February 1998.
193.
Along the same lines, article 14 of the Convention for the Construction of an International Bridge over the River Miño, between the towns of Goián (Spain) and Vila Nova de Cerveira (Portugal), of 19 November 1997: “The line of delimitation of the boundary between the two States shall be drawn on the bridge by the International Commission on the Boundary between Spain and Portugal, in accordance with the international agreements in force between the two States. (BOE, no. 275, 17 November 1998, in force 8 October 1998).
194.
Pueyo Losa (1987), p. 270.
195.
Remacha Tejada (1987), p. 244. Among such assumptions of lesser intensity, he mentions the border transit of workers or travellers: “The socio-economic circumstance that both sides of the border present a similar configuration, makes the exchange relations, in goods and in labour, relatively low”. (Ibid.).
196.
Gaceta de Madrid of 25 February 1841. Ratification: 21 September 1835.
197.
Gaceta de Madrid of 25 February 1841.
198.
Gaceta de Madrid of 17 September 1912. In force: 17 September 1912.
199.
BOE, no. 198 of 19 August 1966. In force: 19 July 1966.
200.
BOE, no. 96, of 22 April 1969. In force: 7 April 1969.
201.
BOE, no. 140 of 13 June 1977. In force: May 19, 1977.
202.
Article 2. (n) reads: “(h) In order to complete the hydroelectric development planned in Portuguese territory and affecting the River Mente, a difference in level of 50 (fifty) metres is reserved for Portugal in the lower part of the international section of the River Mente”. The purpose of the exchange of letters of 7 and 10 June 1988 is “to accept the amendment of Article 2(h) of the Lisbon Convention of 16 July 1964 concerning the use by Portugal, on Spanish territory, of a difference in level of SO metres in the River Arzoa, from its mouth on the international section of the River Mente, considering the rehabilitation of the period of exercise for a further period of fifteen years, since the period previously granted expired because it had not been used” (BOE, no. 224, of 19 September 1989).
203.
According to Article 1(e): “e. ‘Sustainable use’ means use that meets the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”
204.
According to Article 1(b): “b. ‘River Basin’ means the land area from which all surface run-off flows through a series of streams, rivers and possibly lakes into the sea at a single river mouth, estuary or delta, and the associated groundwater.”
205.
BOE, no. 37 of 12 February 2000. In force: 17 January 2000. On these issues see. Sereno Rosado (2011).
206.
Article 3.1. Article 47 of these Regulations repeals the previous one of 3 December 1980.
207.
BOE, no. 14 of 16 January 2010. Effective: August 5, 2009.
208.
BOE of 5 August 1927. In force: 30 July 1927.
209.
BOE, no. 126 of 26 May 1992 In force: 1 September 1992. Correction of errors in BOE, no. 194, of 13 August 1992. The Regulations came into force on April 27, 1992.
210.
BOE, no. 142, of 12 June 2008. In force: 12 May 2008.
211.
Provisional application. BOE, no. 95, of 21 April 2017.
212.
Provisional application: 28 February 1956. In force: 21 January 1957 (BOE, no. 53, 8 February 1957).
213.
BOE, no. 212, of 4 September 1971. In force: 1 September 1971.
214.
BOE, no. 42, of 18 February 1972. In force: 18 December 1971.
215.
BOE, no. 230, of 25 September 1972. In force: 6 September 1972. In general, both States conclude the Agreement supplementing the General Convention on Social Security, of 7 May 1973 (BOE, no. 135, of 7 June 1978). In force: 1 June 1978.
216.
BOE, no. 110, of 8 May 1974. In force: 15 April 1974.
217.
BOE, no. 29 of October 1985. In force: 1 October 1985.
218.
BOE, no. 160, of 3 July 1990. In force: 25 June 1990.
219.
BOE, no. 181, of 27 July 1996. In force 9 July 1996.
220.
BOE, no. 66, of 18 March 1997. In force: 28 February 1997.
221.
BOE, no. 66, of 18 March 1997. In force: 28 February 1997.
222.
BOE, no. 71 of 24 March 1998. In force: 27 February 1998.
223.
Ibid.
224.
BOE, no. 275, of 17 November 1998. In force: 8 October 1998.
225.
BOE, no. 196 of 17 August 1981. In force: 13 July 1981. In accordance with article 1.b), “Frontier nuclear installations” means: “Installations whose location is less than 30 kilometres from the frontier line between the two countries, or any other distance internationally defined and accepted by both parties.”
226.
See Article 2.
227.
Article 3.
228.
Cf. ibid.
229.
Article 4. The costs incurred in providing this information to the neighbouring State are to be reimbursed by the building State “in accordance with the same criteria as those applicable in its territory” (ibid.).
230.
BOE, no. 51, of 29 February 1984. In force: 12 February 1984. Correction of errors in BOE, no. 92, 17 April 1984. As is customary in treaties on this subject, the Convention contains definitions. For example, since the offices may be located in the territory of one of the two States, the “Area”: “That part of the territory of the headquarters State within which the officials of the neighbouring State are authorized to carry out control” (Article 1.4).
231.
BOE, no. 27, of 1 February 1988. In force: 11 March 1987.
232.
BOE, no. 28, of 1 February 1986. In force: 7 February 1986.
233.
BOE, no. 899, of 13 April 2010. In force: 24 April 2010.
234.
In order to: “(a) Ensure better access to quality health care for the populations in the border area as defined in Article 2, (b) Guarantee the continuity of health care for these populations, (c) Optimise the organisation of health care provision by facilitating the use or sharing of human and material resources, (d) Promote complementarity of knowledge and practices especially in the field of clinical and organisational quality and patient safety, innovation and new technologies in health.”
235.
Article 6 refers to the “Crossing of the common border”, specifying that both States “1 ... shall take all necessary measures to facilitate the crossing of the common border for the implementation of this Agreement, in compliance with the applicable regulations in force. 2. In the event of a health emergency notified within the framework of the World Health Organisation (WHO), this Framework Agreement shall not preclude the application, on either side of the border, of the provisions laid down in the International Health Regulations.”
236.
Cf. Articles 2.1 and 4 of the Framework Agreement and Article 1 of the Administrative Agreement.
237.
BOE, no. 175, of 23 July 1993. In force: July 2, 1993.
238.
Article 8 reads: “1. The Joint Commission referred to in Article 7 shall study and propose to the members of the Government responsible for civil protection in both countries an Additional Protocol to this Protocol covering, inter alia, aspects relating to procedures for requests for assistance or relief, border crossing formalities, precise detailed requirements for intervention, coordination and command guidelines, planning, information and communication systems. 2. Both Parties shall integrate the Red Cross and the Spanish Red Cross in the assistance or relief actions and in the appropriate intervention plans.”
239.
BOE, no. 34 of 7 February 2018. In force: 21 July 2004.
240.
BOE, no. 217, of 10 September 2019; 4 October 2019 (correction of errors). In force: 14 September 2019.
241.
BOE, no. 143 of 16 June 1995. In force: 24 February 1995.
242.
BOE, no. 231, of 26 September 1998. In force: 13 August 1998.
243.
BOE, no. 67, of 18 March 2008. In force: 27 January 2008.
244.
BOE, no. 33, of 8 February 2012. In force: 6 August 2009. Article 4.2 reads: “By agreement between the Parties, new ACMs may be created, depending on the needs detected in this field in the area of risk analysis of cross-border crime.”
245.
Ordesa and Monte Perdido National Park (Spain) and Parc Pyrénées Ocidentales (France). See Fernández de Casadevante Romani (2012), pp. 19 ff.; Jolivet (2015).
246.
BOE, no. 145 of 18 June 2013. Effective: 31 May 2013.
247.
In Article 4.
248.
The Treaty of Lisbon of 1926 mentions it in Article 14 and expressly grants it such competence. In exercising this power, “the Delegations of the two States which make up the Commission are in permanent contact and exchange proposals on any question of a frontier nature, seeking consensus solutions which they then present to their respective Governments. It is therefore a permanent negotiating body.” (Remacha Tejada (1987), p. 243). He adds that “its main tasks and results include the preparation of the instruments of delimitation and demarcation and of several others concerning international neighbourly relations (Conventions of 1960, 1968, 1973 and 1980)” (ibid.). The International Boundary Commission is also expressly cited in article VII of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation of 22 November 1977: “1. The Contracting Parties shall promote the work of the International Boundary Commission between Spain and Portugal by undertaking, in the spirit of good neighbourliness, to promote the protection and rational use of natural resources of common use and to coordinate their efforts to achieve greater and more harmonious economic and social development of the border areas. 2. Measures shall be taken to facilitate border traffic, to improve communication channels between the two countries and to establish mutual assistance in the event of accidents in border regions”. (BOE, no. 128, 30 May 1978).
249.
Article 1(h) of which reads: “h. The International Rivers Commission shall mean the Spanish-Portuguese Commission for the regulation of the use and development of international rivers in their frontier zones, established under the terms of article 17 of the 1968 Convention”. (BOE, no. 37, of 17 February 2000). The Boundary Treaties with Portugal, like those with France, affirm the common nature of all border waters, which requires consultation and exchange of information prior to any work or project affecting them.”
250.
Article 22.5.
251.
Article 29 provides: “Upon the entry into force of this Convention the International Rivers Commission shall be extinguished.” This is the International Commission for the hydraulic development of the international sections of the Miño, Limia, Tajo, Guadiana and Chanza rivers, which acted through five Sub-commissions: 1. Delimitation of International Sections; 2. Study, Information and Inspection of Development Projects, Uses and Public or Private Services and related Incidents; 3. Expropriations, Easements and Temporary Occupations and the Determination of Compensation; 4. Inspection and Divergences between Concessionaires; and 5. Legal and Administrative Affairs (BOE, No. 115, of May 14, 1971). On this point see Ponte Iglesias (1989), p. 342 ff.
252.
See the text in BOE, no. 139, of 11 June 1981. Article 45 adds the following: “a) Examine the questions arising from the application of this Regulation. b) Report annually to the respective Governments on the observation of the provisions of this Regulation. c) Propose every 3 years to the Limits Commission, for submission to the respective Governments, the updating of the value of the fines, as well as of the fishing licences, in the light of socio-economic developments. d) To suggest as many modifications to the Regulation as deemed convenient for the best use of the fish wealth of the Miño river. e) To promote the repopulation of the Miño river with salmonids and other species. f) To inform the competent Authorities of all matters of interest for the Miño river. g) To establish valid regulations every 3 years that must be made public at least two months before the date of entry into force regarding: 1) Characteristics of the gear to be used in the river 2) Fishing seasons and closed seasons for each fish species. 3) Restriction within these fishing seasons of the period of use of the different gears. 4) Areas of use of the different fishing gears. 5) Marking of fishing gear as well as safety measures for navigation, taking into account, as far as applicable, the International Conventions signed by the two Countries. h) To propose the modification or destruction of existing fishing gear when its use is found to be harmful to the conservation of species. i) To exercise, in the international section of the Miño river, consultative functions with respect to all those organizations to which the internal legislation of each country has entrusted the administration of the fish wealth or any other type of use that is made in the waters or in the bed of the Miño river. j) To interpret the doubts originated by the application of the present Regulations. k) To consult the representative Associations of the fishermen on matters that concern them, which are the object of modification or new regulation.”
253.
The text in BOE, no. 39 of 8 February 1957. This, “in order to ensure the application of the provisions of this Agreement”. In accordance with Article 8: “Either Contracting Government may convene, at least thirty days in advance, a joint meeting of the two Permanent Commissions in order to study and determine the measures to be proposed to each of the two Governments for the attainment of the objectives of this Agreement and to assess the benefits of collaboration and the results of the measures taken in each of the two Countries.”
254.
See text in BOE, no. 28, of 1 February 1986.
255.
Article 2 of the Agreement. Article 13 provides for the possibility of setting up working groups “to study the most appropriate ways of implementing its provisions.”
256.
See the text in BOE, no. 306, of 22 December 1984.
257.
See the text in BOE, no. 196, of 17 August 1981.
258.
Art. 11, which adds: “…, composed equally of specialists appointed by the competent authorities of the countries (sic) whose number may not exceed eight. The Permanent Technical Commission will meet alternately in Lisbon and Madrid, at least once a year, and extraordinarily, when there is a justified cause, at the initiative of one of the two countries in the place decided by common agreement.”
259.
Article 7 of the Agreement. Paragraph 2 of this article reads: “2. The Commission shall be composed of: a) A representative of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Sea, the Environment and Land Management of the Portuguese State; b) A representative of the Autonomous Body for National Parks of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and the Environment of the Spanish State; c) A representative of the Institute for Nature and Forest Conservation, I.P. of Portugal; d) A representative of the Regional Government of Extremadura’s Department of Natural Protected Spaces; e) Technical direction of the PITT.”
260.
Cf. Article 8(1).
261.
Acosta Sánchez (2016), p. 26. In the opinion of Remiro Brotons, “this eccentricity is explained by the ambiguous legal status of the Principality at that time, but not at this time, since Andorra was recognized as a sovereign and independent state in 1993, through the conclusion of a tripartite (Spanish-French-Andorran) agreement.” Remiro Brotons (2007), p. 896.
262.
Rodríguez Carrión (2002), p. 416.
263.
Ibid. Despite “the conclusion of the Treaty of Good Neighbourliness, Friendship and Cooperation between the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic and the Principality of Andorra, signed on 1 and 3 June 1993” (ibid.). In the same vein, Remiro Brotons stresses that the special legal status which the Principality of Andorra had until its establishment as an independent and sovereign State in 1993 also had repercussions on the matter of territorial delimitation, which translated into the logical absence of any international treaty with Spain on territorial delimitation. Remiro Brotons (2007), p. 896.
264.
See in this volume Remacha Tejada, “Borderlands of Spain in Andorra, Olivença, Ceuta, Melilla and Gibraltar”, heading 2. The boundaries in Andorra.
265.
Ibid.
266.
BOE, no. 155, 30 June 1993. Provisional application from 3 June 1993, date of last signature, as stated in article 10.
267.
Cf. Articles 1 and 2.
268.
Article 3. We do not know what the negotiators of this treaty intended by including such a provision. The fact is that it is striking because, given the geographical location of the Principality of Andorra, it is difficult to imagine the scenario envisaged in article 3. Also, because it is unimaginable that such a scenario could be provoked either by the Kingdom of Spain, the French Republic or a third State. In the opinion of Remacha Tejada “This agreement, which stipulates the integrity of the territory of Andorra in article 3, is the consequence of the condition of Andorra as a mini-state and reflects that the Principality is the last and only valley in the Pyrenees which has survived the centralizing dynamics of both neighbour States” (“Borderlands of Spain in Andorra, Olivença, Ceuta, Melilla and Gibraltar”, heading 2. The boundaries in Andorra. In this volume).
269.
Cf. Remacha Tejada (2015), pp. 277–282. The assignment, therefore, had some limits that, as Remiro Brotons says, have not been respected (2007), p. 896). See also, in the present volume, Remacha Tejada, “Borderlands of Spain in Andorra, Olivença, Ceuta, Melilla and Gibraltar”, heading 5.2. The Demarcation in Gibraltar.
270.
Ibid., p. 417.
271.
Acosta Sánchez (2016), p. 27. Based on the fact that Gibraltar is a colony according to the doctrine established by the UN, Remacha Tejada considers that as such it is a territory that could enter into a process of independence or self-determination. In his opinion, here a case of succession or secession of States could be raised in terms of treaties and borders. It would be between Gibraltar and the metropolis and the territory of the former colony would have to be delimited. Two options would be possible in this regard. A minimalist one, by reference to the delimitation resulting from the cession agreements that would lead to the demarcation of the space of Gibraltar as a City, with its Port and its Defences. And another maximalist, based on the possessory situation and the principle uti possidetis. This option will logically include all the space currently occupied by Gibraltar, with the Isthmus and the Waters. But here it will be necessary to prove a possessory situation in a sovereign capacity, without opposition and in good faith. This would be problematic according to Remacha Tejada (cf. (2015), pp. 231–255). He adds that the claimant must also reconcile the requirement of Resolution 1514, point 6 of the UN doctrine on decolonization.
272.
Remiro Brotons (2007), p. 896. The italics are from the original.
273.
Aranzadi Diccionario de Legislación, Ref. 29540.
274.
Janer (1869), pp. 209.
275.
Ibid., p. 192.
276.
AMAE Tratados 19 # 176 (reference taken from Remacha Tejada in his work in this volume).
277.
Gaceta de Madrid 6 April 1894.
278.
Gaceta de Madrid of May 14, 1895.
279.
BOE, no. 45, 26 February 1993. The italics are ours.
280.
See in extenso in the present volume, Remacha Tejada (2020), Borderlands of Spain in Andorra, Olivença, Ceuta, Melilla and Gibraltar.
281.
Regarding this treaty, Rodríguez Carrión (2002) states that it “proceeded to a real delimitation, establishing a commission for the purpose of demarcation and conservation of boundaries” (op. cit., p. 417).
282.
See in extenso in the present volume, Remacha Tejada, Borderlands of Spain in Andorra, Olivença, Ceuta, Melilla and Gibraltar.
283.
Acosta Sánchez (2016), p. 27 et seq.
284.
See in extenso in the present volume, Remacha Tejada (2020), Borderlands of Spain in Andorra, Olivença, Ceuta, Melilla and Gibraltar.
285.
“On the Moroccan side, a ditch was built in Ceuta parallel to the outer fence, and in Melilla the old fence was dismantled, but maintaining and respecting the existing lines of the past” (ibid.).
286.
A fact revealing the ignorance of both the different governments of Spain and the Cortes Generales as regards this issue, as well as regards the negative legal effects that such decisions have on the interests of Spain.
287.
BOE, no. 77, of 31 March 2015.
288.
Del Valle Gálvez and Sánchez Acosta in Salinas de Frías, Martínez Pérez (2020), p. 28. We thank both authors for kindly providing us with their work, currently in press.
289.
Ibid., p. 25.
290.
Remacha Tejada (2020), Borderlands of Spain in Andorra, Olivença, Ceuta, Melilla and Gibraltar. In the present volume.
291.
Ibid., p. 23 ff.
292.
Del Valle Gálvez and Sánchez Acosta (2020), p. 26.
293.
BOE, no. 290, of 5th December 1978. In force: 16 November 1978.
294.
The route of the dividing line is described in Article 1.2.

References

Abreu y Bertodano JA (1874) Colección de los Tratados de Paz de España, Reinado de Felipe IV, Parte VII, Madrid, 1874
Google Scholar
Acosta Sánchez MA (2016) Las fronteras internacionales de España en África: Melilla, ed. Reus, Madrid, 2016
Google Scholar
Andrassy J (1951) Les relations internationales de voisinage. Recueil des Cours 769(II):77–181
Google Scholar
Barbagelata, H D (1911), Frontières, contribution à l’étude de l’histoire du Droit International Americain, Paris
Google Scholar
Bardonnet D (1976) Les frontières terrestres et la relativité de leur tracé (problèmes juridiques choisis). Recueil des Cours 153(IV):9–166
Google Scholar
Bardonnet D (1981) Equité et frontières terrestres. In: Mélanges offerts à Paul Reuter. A. Pedone, Paris, pp 35–74
Google Scholar
Blumann C (1980) Frontières et Limites. In: La frontière, Colloque de Poitiers, S.F.D.I. A. Pedone, Paris, pp 3–33
Google Scholar
Brownlie I (1979) African Boundaries, H.C., London
Google Scholar
Calamia AM (1984) Ruolo e funzioni delle commissioni miste italo-jugoslave. In: Calamia AM, Mengozzi P, Ronzitti N (eds) I rapporti di vicinato tra Italia e Jugoslavia. Giuffrè, Milano, pp 141–170
Google Scholar
Conetti G (1992) La sucessione della Slovenia nel tratatti già conclusi tra Italia e Jugoslavia. Rivista di diritto internazionale:1027–1032
Google Scholar
Coret A (1960) Le condominium, L.G.D.J
Google Scholar
de Arvizu J (1992) El conflicto de los Alduides (Pirineo Navarro), Gobierno de Navarra, Departamento de Presidencia, Pamplona
Google Scholar
de Arvizu J (1997) La solución institucional del conflicto de los Alduides (Pirineo Navarro). Universidad de León
Google Scholar
de Azcárraga JL (1975) Comentarios a los Convenios de delimitación de Plataformas Continentales, Mar Territorial y Zona Contigua de 29 de Enero de 1974. Revista Española de Derecho Internacional (REDI) XXVIII(1–3):131–138
Google Scholar
De Clercq ME. Recueil des traités de la France, Tome 10/publ. sous les auspices du Ministère des affaires étrangères par M. Jules de Clerq, p. 162-167 (https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k96074t/f180.item#)
Degan V-D (1996) La succession d’États en matière de traités et les États nouveaux (issus de l’ex-Yougoslavie). Annuaire Français de Droit Int4rnational XLII:206–227
Article Google Scholar
Del Arenal Moyúa C (1987) Las relaciones de vecindad, IX Jornadas de Profesores de Derecho Internacional y Relaciones Internacionales, San Sebastián 3–6 junio 1984, Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad del País Vasco, Bilbao, 1987
Google Scholar
Del Cantillo A (1843) Tratados, Convenios y Declaraciones de Paz y de Comercio, (de 1700 a 1842), Madrid
Google Scholar
Del Valle Gálvez A, Sánchez Acosta MA (2020) Delimitación y demarcación de las fronteras y vallas de Ceuta y Melilla. ¿Cesión territorial a Marruecos? In: Salinas de Frías, A, Martínez Pérez, E (Coord.) La Unión Europea y los muros materiales e inmateriales: desafíos para la seguridad, la sostenibilidad y el Estado de Derecho, AEPDIRI. Currently in press. We thank both authors for kindly providing us with their work
Google Scholar
Díez de Velasco M (1985) Instituciones de Derecho Internacional Público, Tomo I, 7ª ed., Tecnos, Madrid
Google Scholar
Fernández de Casadevante Romani C (1985) La frontera hispano-francesa y las relaciones de vecindad. Especial referencia al sector fronterizo del País Vasco, Servicio Editorial de la Universidad del País Vasco, Bilbao
Google Scholar
Fernández de Casadevante Romani C (1987a) El régimen jurídico del aeropuerto de Fuenterrabía: análisis del Acta hispano-francesa de 11 de julio de 1957. Revista Española de Derecho Internacional XXXIX(1):121–141
Google Scholar
Fernández de Casadevante Romani C (1987b) Las Comisiones fronterizas en las relaciones de vecindad hispanofrancesas. In: Del Arenal C, pp 177–207
Google Scholar
Fernández de Casadevante Romani C (1989) La frontera hispano-francesa y las relaciones de vecindad. Especial referencia al sector fronterizo del País Vasco, San Sebastián
Google Scholar
Fernández de Casadevante Romani C (2012) Les relations de voisinage franco-espagnoles en matière d’environnement. Annuaire Français de Droit International:415–442
Google Scholar
Fernández de Casadevante Romani C (2016) Un anacronismo preconstitucional que requiere ser adaptado al bloque de constitucionalidad: el Convenio sobre la pesca en el Bidasoa y en la Bahía de Higuer, de 14 de julio de 1959. Revista Vasca de Administración Pública (RVAP), 104-I, enero-abril 2016, pp 261–300
Google Scholar
Gestri M (2005) I rapporti di vicinato marittimo tra Italia e gli Stati nati dalla dissoluzione della Iugoslavia. In: Ronzitti, N (dir.) (2005) I rapporti di vicinato dell’Italia con Craozia, Serbia-Montenegro e Slovenia, Luiss Univedrsity Press-Giuffrè, Roma, pp 177–225
Google Scholar
González Campos JD, Sánchez Rodríguez LI, Andrés Sáenz de Santa María MM (2002) Curso de Derecho Internacional Público, 2nd edn revised. Civitas, Madrid
Google Scholar
Gutiérrez Castillo V (2005) España y sus fronteras en el mar: estudio de la delimitación de sus espacios marinos. Dykinson, Madrid
Google Scholar
Gutiérrez Espada C (1991) Sobre la sucesión a los tratados en casos de separación de Estados (A propósito, por ejemplo, de la independencia de Estonia, Letonia y Lituania). Revista Española de Derecho Internacional XLIII(2):559–563
Google Scholar
International Law Association (ILA) (2002) New Delhi Conference, Committee on Aspects of the Law of State Succession, Rapport final sur la succession en matière de traités
Google Scholar
Janer F (1869) Tratados de España. Documentos Internacionales del Reino de Doña Isabel II desde 1842 a 1868, Collection published by order of Mr. Minister of State, Madrid
Google Scholar
Jolivet S (2015) La conservation de la nature transfrontalière, Bibliothèque des Thèses (droit public), mare & martin
Google Scholar
López Martín AG (1997) La reafirmación de la regla de la continuidad en los tratados de fronteras (a propósito de la sentencia del TIJ en el asunto de la controversia fronteriza Libia/Chad). Revista Española de Derecho Internacional XLIV(1):91–115
Google Scholar
Obradovic K (1984) Les traités bilatéraux en vigueur entre la Yougoslavie et l’Italie concernant la matière de voisinage: un point de vue yougoslave. In: Calamia AM, Mengozzi P, Ronzitti N (ed) (1984) I rapporti di vicinato tra Italia e Jugoslavia, A. Giuffrè ed., Milano, pp 95–140
Google Scholar
Parry C (1969) The Consolidated Treaty Series, vol. 49 (1783–86), Oceana, p 313
Google Scholar
Pastor Ridruejo JA (2019), Curso de Derecho Internacional Público, 23 ed., Tecnos, Madrid
Google Scholar
Ponte Iglesias M^aT (1989) La contaminación fluvial: cuestiones de responsabilidad internacional, Xunta de Galicia
Google Scholar
Pop I (1980) Voisinage et bon voisinage en droit international, Ed. A. Pedone, Paris
Google Scholar
Pueyo Losa J (1987) Aspectos actuales de la cooperación transfronteriza y análisis de las relaciones hispano-portuguesas. In: Del Arenal C, pp 251–272
Google Scholar
Pustorino P (2005) La sucessione di Croazia, Serbia-Montenegro e Slovenia nei trattati bilaterali conclusi tra Italia e Repubblica Socialista Federativa di Iugoslavia. In: Ronzitti, N (dir.) (2005) I rapporti di vicinato dell’Italia con Craozia, Serbia-Montenegro e Slovenia, Luiss University Press-Giuffrè, Roma, pp 11–28
Google Scholar
Quel López J (1993) La práctica reciente en materia de reconocimiento de Estados: problemas en presencia. In: Cursos de Derecho Internacional y Relaciones Internacionales de Vitoria-Gasteiz 1992. Servicio Editorial de la Universidad del País Vasco, Bilbao, pp 39–81
Google Scholar
Remacha Tejada JR (1987) La frontera hispano-portuguesa. In: Del Arenal Moyúa, C (1987) (coord.) Las relaciones de vecindad, IX Jornadas de Profesores de Derecho Internacional y Relaciones Internacionales, San Sebastián 3–6 junio 1984, Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad del País Vasco, Bilbao, pp 233–249
Google Scholar
Remacha Tejada JR (2015) Gibraltar y sus límites, Gijón
Google Scholar
Remacha Tejada (2020) Regreso a la frontera en Andorra, Olivenza, Ceuta, Melilla y Gibraltar. In: Fernández de Casadevante Romani C (2020) Consecuencias juridicas de la secesión de entidades trritoriales. Una visión para España, Thomson Reuters, Cizur Menor, pp 315–349
Google Scholar
Remacha Tejada JR (2022) Borderlands of Spain in Andorra, Olivença, Ceuta, Melilla and Gibraltar, in the present volume
Google Scholar
Remiro Brotons A (1987) Derecho Internacional Público. 2. Derecho de los Tratados, Tecnos, Madrid
Google Scholar
Remiro Brotons A (2007) (dir.) Derecho Internacional, Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia
Google Scholar
Rodríguez Carrión A (2002) Lecciones de Derecho Internacional Público, 5th edn. Tecnos, Madrid
Google Scholar
Ronzitti N (2005) I rapporti di vicinato dell’Italia con Craozia, Serbia-Montenegro e Slovenia, Luiss University Press-Giuffrè, Roma
Google Scholar
Salmon J (2001) Dictionnaire de Droit International Public, ed. Bruylant, Bruxelles
Google Scholar
Sánchez Rodríguez LI (1988) Uti possidetis: la reactualización jurisprudencial de un viejo principio. (A propósito de la Sentencia del T.I.J. (Sala), en el asunto Burkina Fasso/República de Mali), Revista Española de Derecho Internacional 2:121–151
Google Scholar
Schwarzenberger PHD (1957) International law, 3rd edn. vol. I, London
Google Scholar
Sereno Rosado A (2011) Ríos que nos separan, aguas que nos unen. Análisis jurídico de los convenios Hispano-Lusos sobre aguas internacionales, Fundación Lex Nova, Valladolid
Google Scholar
Vukas B (2005) Neighbourly relations between Italy and Yugoslavia and the establishment of a new type of regional co-operation in the Mediterranean. In: Ronzitti N (2005) I rapporti di vicinato dell’Italia con Craozia, Serbia-Montenegro e Slovenia, Luiss University Press-Giuffrè, Roma, pp 19–55
Google Scholar
Waldock SH (1972) Fifth report on succession in respect of treaties states. Yearb Int Law Commission II:1–73
Google Scholar
Yasseen MK (1978) La Convention de Vienne sur la succession d’États en matière de traités. Annuaire Français de Droit International, pp 59–113
Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgement

Study carried out as a part of the Research Project DER2016-76312: Legal consequences of the secession of territorial entities from a State, with particular reference to the human rights implications. Lessons for Spain, financed by the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness, as part of the National Plan for Scientific and Technical Research and Innovation 2013–2016.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

University Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain
Carlos Fernández de Casadevante Romani

Authors

Carlos Fernández de Casadevante Romani
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlos Fernández de Casadevante Romani .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

University Rey Juan Carlos, Madrid, Spain
Carlos Fernández de Casadevante Romani

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fernández de Casadevante Romani, C. (2022). Secession and Succession in Respect of Boundary Treaties and Boundary Regimes with Regard to Spain and the Neighbouring States. In: Fernández de Casadevante Romani, C. (eds) Legal Implications of Territorial Secession in Spain . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04609-4_7

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-04609-4_7
Published: 01 October 2022
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-04608-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-04609-4
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics