Colonial legacy of the principle of intangibility of borders and its endless effects.

By On

 


                                                               

In this article, I will explore the colonial legacy of the principle of intangibility of borders and its far-reaching impact, particularly on Africans—most notably, Rwandans and Congolese Rwandophones. Through this lens, I seek to unpack how historical boundary-making continues to shape present-day conflicts and identity struggles in our region.

The African states that gained official independence were quick to set up structural and politico-legal frameworks that strongly contributed to perpetuating and reinforcing the heavy legacy of the borders inherited from colonization. Thus, in their various fundamental laws, all post-independent African states maintain the “intangible character” of the borders inherited from the colonial era. It could therefore be said that the legal framework of post-colonial states constitutes a springboard for the legalization of borders that were nonetheless drawn by colonial arbitrariness. Similarly, one could note, not without a certain amount of bitterness, that this question of “African borders” has not really been included in the structural construction agenda of the young post-independent African nations.[1]

As African nations emerged from colonial rule, a fierce debate unfolded over their imposed borders. The revisionists saw these boundaries as unnatural and problematic, arguing that Africa’s political and economic struggles stemmed from the colonial state system, which failed to reflect indigenous realities. They called for a reconfiguration of borders to resolve tensions and promote stability. The anti-revisionists, however, took a pragmatic stance, warning that border changes could unleash even greater chaos and violence. Their position resonated more with African leaders and departing colonial powers, culminating in the adoption of the OAU’s principle of territorial integrity in 1963. This decision cemented the colonial borders, ensuring that Africa’s fragmented map would remain unchanged despite its historical contradictions.[2]

Dr./ Hamid Zaidi in his paper intitled PRINCIPLE OF THE INTANGIBILITY OF COLONIAL BORDERS IN THE FACE OF THE CHALLENGES OF LEGAL AND POLITICA STABILITY OF THE STATES OF NORTH AFRICA[3], showed that the principle of the intangibility of colonial borders is a well- established principle in international relations. It is considered an imperative norm of international law or, in other words, a jus cogens norm in contemporary international law, it is the most appropriate means for the settlement of border disputes and regional. "Uti Possidetis Juris (UPJ)" means "the principle of the intangibility of borders inherited from at the time of independence" is a principle of customary international law that serves to preserve the boundaries of colonies emerging as States; strict application of this principle is the only guarantee of peace, security and stability in the continent of Africa.

The principle of the intangibility of borders, also known as uti possidetis juris, means that newly independent states should inherit the borders of their former colonial administrative divisions, aiming to prevent territorial disputes and maintain stability. Which is what happened in the case of Rwanda and DRCongo, where Rwandans who were living on their own land found themselves being in another country and they started calling them strangers.  The Organization of African Unity (OAU), now the African Union (AU), formally adopted the principle of respecting the intangibility of borders in its Constitutive Act, with Article 4(b) stating that one of the principles of the Union is "respect of borders existing on achievement of independence".[4]

The fact the African Union a body that aimed to promote the African unity didn’t put much efforts in addressing the issue of boarders drawn by colonizers and call it to respect independence of borders, this shows the weakness of the organ.

Long before colonial rule reshaped Africa’s borders, boundaries were fluid and dynamic. Across the continent, different groups had their own ways of defining territorial limits. Some, like the Masai and Tuareg, moved freely across regions, barely recognizing fixed frontiers. Others, such as the Yoruba states and Buganda, maintained active contact with neighboring communities, forming zones of interaction. Meanwhile, vast forests and deserts separated certain regions, acting as natural barriers where no single group claimed authority. However, these frontiers were never static. African history was marked by expansionist wars, religious movements, and shifting alliances that continuously redrew the map. The 19th century saw aggressive conquests, such as the Mfecane in the south and Fulani jihads in the west, further altering boundaries. But with colonization, European powers imposed artificial borders, disrupting the natural evolution of Africa’s territorial divisions.[5]

Dr Lonzen Rugira in his article he showed the effects of he called the Birlinian challenge.[6] ‘’In its conflict with the DRC, Rwanda is driven by a refusal to tolerate the uniqueness of the manner in which the Berlinian challenge manifests itself along its border, and the decision by Congo’s leaders to weaponize it’’. He went on showing that, Colonialism left Africa with an enduring problem: borders drawn without regard for the people who lived within them. These arbitrary divisions resulted in states that were either too expansive for weak governments to control or too small to survive economically. Unlike in other parts of the world where borders evolved naturally, Africa’s statehood was imposed and deemed final. But people do not easily accept imposed identities, and the consequences have been profound. Across the continent, groups seek to either break away from their current states or merge with their ethnic kin in neighboring countries. This has placed an immense burden on African leaders, whose primary challenge is to unify their nations despite these grievances. Some, like Julius Nyerere, successfully fostered national identity, while others barely managed to hold their states together. At the worst extreme, Rwanda’s leadership in the years leading up to the genocide did not just fail to unify the country—it actively promoted division and violence. The lessons of Rwanda serve as a grim reminder of what happens when states fail to manage internal tensions, a lesson that continues to shape Africa’s political landscape today.

Colonial powers often shaped African borders based on convenience rather than fairness. When Germany first accepted a meridian line as the border with the Congo Free State, it seemed like a straightforward division. However, as more information about local geography and historical boundaries emerged, Germany realized that parts of Rwanda extended west of this line. Seeking to realign the border with natural features, Germany argued for Lake Kivu and the Rusizi River as the true frontier. This claim was eventually accepted, reinforcing the idea that natural and ethnic boundaries should be respected—at least when it served European interests. While Germany and Britain framed their actions as upholding fairness, their push for natural borders was, in reality, a calculated move to gain an advantage over the Congo Free State.[7]

The case of DRC and Rwanda challenges the notion that African borders were entirely arbitrary.[8] Water bodies played a crucial role in shaping territorial claims, contradicting a strong version of the arbitrary borders’ thesis. While colonial powers made strategic adjustments based on local features, they were primarily guided by geopolitical interests rather than indigenous considerations. The competition for access to water bodies—especially lakes and rivers—was a defining factor in the formation of borders. For instance, the Congo River was central to European rivalries, triggering the Berlin Conference itself. Similarly, Lake Kivu and the Ruzizi River, which form part of the present-day DRC-Rwanda border, were not randomly selected but based on historical territorial alignments. Germany, upon realizing that Rwanda extended beyond its originally agreed meridian boundary, sought to shift its claim to these natural frontiers, a move that was ultimately accepted. This demonstrates that European powers incorporated geographic features into border demarcations, albeit for strategic reasons rather than for the benefit of African populations.

The principle of intangibility of borders is no longer useful and it doesn’t match with the new direction of Africa. Colonizers never wanted to see a united Africa, that’s why they divided it. By dividing Africa in smaller nations and creating big countries like DRCongo for the purposes of stealing natural resources, rearranging borders without considering the reality led to some effects we still face today.  As Takele Uma Banti, former Ethiopian Minister of Minerals and Energy, argues in his article 'It is time for a new Africa beyond borders and boundaries' (published by Al Jazeera), Africa's urgent priority should be continental integration. He emphasizes the need to remove barriers to labor and capital mobility, accelerate the AfCFTA, and establish a 'Made in Africa' economic corridor. Despite Africa's vast potential, post-colonial borders and governance models continue to hinder progress, fostering conflicts and economic disparities. While redrawing borders is impractical, he urges leaders to rethink strategies for achieving unity, questioning whether it should be driven from the top down or through grassroots engagement.

 

Conclusion

The principle of the intangibility of colonial borders has been a cornerstone of Africa's geopolitical and socio-economic framework since independence. Initially designed to prevent territorial conflicts, its rigid application has instead entrenched divisions, fueled identity struggles, and contributed to regional instability—particularly in countries like Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.  The enforcement of borders drawn without regard for indigenous peoples' identities and realities has left many African communities in a state of political and social limbo, reinforcing historical grievances and exacerbating inter-state tensions.

As Africa confronts the challenges of the 21st century, it is essential to critically examine the limitations of the colonial borders inherited at independence. While a wholesale redrawing of these borders may be unfeasible, Africa must pursue pragmatic and legal solutions to foster greater regional integration, economic cooperation, and policies that prioritize human connections over artificial divisions. The African Union, as the premier continental body, must step up to address these colonial legacies, promoting a vision of unity that transcends borders while ensuring stability, peace, and sustainable development.

The time has come for African nations to redefine their collective future—not by revisiting past conflicts, but by crafting an inclusive, forward-thinking vision that embraces cooperation, economic unity, and the recognition of shared interests. Africa must reclaim its territorial and political destiny, not as a continuation of colonial legacies, but as a unified continent capable of self-determination and progress.


[3] Dr./ Hamid Zaidi, ‘’ PRINCIPLE OF THE INTANGIBILITY OF COLONIAL BORDERS IN THE FACE OF THE CHALLENGES OF LEGAL AND POLITICA STABILITY OF THE STATES OF NORTH AFRICA’’. file:///C:/Users/HP/Downloads/principle-of-the-intangibility-of-colonial-borders-in-the-face-of-the-challenges-of-legal-and-political-stability-of-the-states-of-north-africa.pdf

[4]CONSTITUTIVE ACT OF THE AFRICAN UNION, Article 4(b), https://au.int/sites/default/files/pages/34873-file-constitutiveact_en.pdf

[8] Idem 

I'm here to shed light on; Law, History, and Politics.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

So, you want to be the president.

By On
Image
                                                          You who’s reading this article you might be the president in the future. To be the president it has a lot of requirements to fulfil, be it age, having Rwandan nationality as the sole nationality and other requirements that are honestly not easy to get.  So, you still wanna be the president. Let’s go deep into the subject. In brief the president of the Republic is the Head of State. The President of the Republic is also the defender of the Constitution and the guarantor of national unity. In addition to that, the President of the Republic is elected for a five (5) year term and may be re-elected once. [1] Let’s go back in time to understand how the system of presidency came and we analyze it till today. Before presidency Rwanda was ruled under the absolute monarchy.  Rwa...
Read more

The concept of ubunywarwanda from a legal & historical perspective.

By On
Image
                    Rwandans have existed for centuries. After deciding to have a common country, they distinguished themselves from other kingdoms and became abanyarwanda. Through the expansion of the territory, different clans joined the country and also became abanyarwanda.  To have a country requires a territory, people and a name. As any other project it requires people to move it forward. Those people who got a sovereign territory establish rules that govern them in their territory. Through those rules and laws, they decide how outsiders might be integrated in their society. The time of conquering territories has ended, but conquering minds and hearts has never stopped. In those outsiders who may want to be in the society here we mean a country they follow laws established so as to be accepted. A country not only expands territorially but also in population size. Before independence Rwanda had never had any regulation on n...
Read more

Rethinking War: The Burden of Conflict on a New Generation

By On
Image
  My knowledge of war is primarily based on documentaries, movies, books and now news. The first book I read that walked me through the image of war in the book by Ishmael Beah, A Long Way Gone. The author tells his story as a forced child soldier in Sierra Leone. Politicians initiate the war; the businessmen finance it and the young ones go to the battleground. In the news we mainly see politicians explaining why the war is happening and analysts in different fields get busy in explaining what really happening.   We don’t need economists to explain to us that the economy is going bad while the prices are raising on a daily basis. People are fighting faraway from your country but the consequences are reaching you. I guess the world being a village isn’t entirely good. Its now close to ten years since I read Africa's World War by Gérard Prunier. Anyone who doesn’t know the cause of what’s happening in the great lakes region, that’s the right book to start with in my h...
Read more