Originally from American Review of International Arbitration - ARIA

Preview Page

I. INTRODUCTION

Condemning ex aequo et bono decisions . . . discourages adjudicators—and the
parties who empower them--from pursuing the fair resolution of disputes when it
is most needed: when the law fails to react adequately to the need for justice.
We are confident that the Tribunal’s decision will be grounded on the facts and
the law, and will result in the settlement of the dispute that currently divides the
parties.

In July of 2009, the arbitral tribunal in the case of Government of Sudan v.
Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army issued its final and binding Award,
completing a crucial step in the Sudanese peace process. The international
community has watched the case with great interest, as the success of the
Sudanese arbitration will likely determine whether lasting peace in the Sudan will
be realized in the near future. The tribunal reviewed the decision of a panel of
experts with regard to the boundaries of the oil-rich Abyei region that the
Northern and Southern Sudanese had been fighting over during the decades-long
civil war. The arbitration, which set the final boundaries of the area, was seen by
all parties as pivotal in establishing a workable peace. During the arbitration
process, the parties touched on several basic problems involving the sources of
international law, in particular those relevant to border delimitation.