J. Barron Boyd

African Boundary Conflict: An Empirical Study

Modern African life has been profoundly affected by the brief period of European colonial domination during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. While the past is prologue for all states, the ramifications of Africas colonial past have been felt with particular acuity in the current era due to the speed of Africas transition from colonial status to that of independence. Many aspects of contemporary Africa reflect the residual effects of colonialism, but few do so with the clarity of the boundary situation. This study will focus on one particularly important aspect of that boundary situation-boundary conflict. In particular, it will define the explanations for boundary conflict offered most often in the traditional literature and test their validity using empirical methods. The boundaries of modern Africa were the creation of European diplomats who partitioned Africa among themselves with little regard for, or knowledge of, the socio-cultural characteristics of the continent. As a result of the capriciousness of the European partition, a typical African boundary may group together many ethnic groups in one state, it may cut across many ethnic or national boundaries of the past, or it may create a state whose physical characteristics hinder political, social, or economic stability. Since the colonial boundaries were used, with few exceptions, as the basis for the devolution of sovereignty in Africa, the current leaders of the continent have had to deal with the effects of this boundary situation. African international relations have also been influenced by the presence of externally defined, artificial boundaries. Political boundaries mark sharp discontinuities in political jurisdiction, but in Africa few of those discontinuities correspond to the patterns of the socio-cultural environment. It has, therefore, been frequently charged that the artificial boundaries of Africa form the basis for conflict between the African states (Emerson, 1963: 105). In order to make their boundaries more congruent with the ethnic landscape, some states might attempt to adjust their boundaries at the expense of a neighbor. If Africas modern boundaries had been allowed to evolve in a more natural manner, or if the colonial powers had based their partition upon a more thorough appreciation of the ethnic contours of the continent, it is assumed that the states of Africa would be less prone to boundary conflict. The boundaries, however, were not allowed to evolve naturally, and many analysts share the view of I. William Zartman (1969:79) that:

Parchment Barriers Revisited: The U.S. and South African Bills of Rights

At first glance the U.S. and South African bills of rights appear radically different. Rights the United States codified in 1792 were exclusively civil and political, while South Africa, in 1996, recognized the full panoply of modern rights: economic, social and environmental, as well as civil and political. Such differences can be deceiving as both bills have important similarities. Both were political documents with origins in a complex and difficult social milieu. Both were post-colonial attempts to express a vision of an ideal new political and social order and to establish the rules to guide its realization. Though separated by two hundred years and created in vastly different contexts of rights consciousness, both documents were born in a spirit of compromise and conflict. They were less the result of doctrinal purity than of political struggle. Only with appropriate political will can the legacy of both bills be a genuine commitment to human rights leavening the force of political expediency and creating polities where bills of rights are more than just “parchment barriers” to tyranny.At first glance the U.S. and South African bills of rights appear radically different. Rights the United States codified in 1792 were exclusively civil and political, while South Africa, in 1996, recognized the full panoply of modern rights: economic, social and environmental, as well as civil and political. Such differences can be deceiving as both bills have important similarities. Both were political documents with origins in a complex and difficult social milieu. Both were post-colonial attempts to express a vision of an ideal new political and social order and to establish the rules to guide its realization. Though separated by two hundred years and created in vastly different contexts of rights consciousness, both documents were born in a spirit of compromise and conflict. They were less the result of doctrinal purity than of political struggle. Only with appropriate political will can the legacy of both bills be a genuine commitment to human rights leavening the force of political expediency and cr...

South Africa and its neighbours continuity and change in the post‐apartheid era

ABSTRACT The end of apartheid could be a mixed blessing for South Africas neighbours, if the new government yields to domestic pressures to end migrant labour and to use its dominance of the regional political economy for short‐term gain. This paper assesses the elements of continuity and change likely to characterize South African regional policy, and argues that the greatest challenge will be to reconcile domestic demands for jobs, welfare spending, and rapid economic expansion, with an interdependent regional economy. Finally, relevant policy implications are considered.