Rivers, Free Cities, And Condominiums
In some parts of the world you can be in two countries simultaneously.
The section of the Moselle river that follows much of the border between Luxembourg and Germany isn’t owned by either country, nor is it divided along the middle—instead it is shared by both sovereign nations. The border is more of a permeable membrane than a line of separation. It is what is called an international condominium between two countries, a rare arrangement meaning that both countries ultimately share sovereignty and responsibility over the river. This relationship has persisted, more or less, since the Vienna Congress of 1815. The arrangement has allowed for a level of shared use and cooperation that a conventional border would not.
An international condominium is a measure to resolve disputes over territory in a peaceful way without the issues that partitioning would create. While condominiums are typically implemented to resolve territorial disputes over water, where the main concern is transport, they have also been applied in disputes over populated areas..
Specifically, they have been used following major border movements to protect diverse communities that would otherwise be destroyed by harsh borders and divisions along lines of sovereignty and nationality. There is still a place for these agreements to ensure peaceful, equitable solutions to inter- and intranational conflicts that recognize the reality in areas of dispute.
A modern example is Brčko District within Bosnia and Herzegovina, which comprises a condominium between the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (primarily populated by ethnic Bosniaks) and the Republika Srpska (primarily populated by ethnic Serbs). Both spaces represent constitutional entities within the broader country. Brčko was a major source of contention in the Bosnian War due to its strategic location connecting two halves of Serb-held territory (what would become the Republika Srpska) and its large Serb minority. As a condominium it was formed as part of UN arbitration four years after the end of the war. This process resulted in a multi-ethnic district under the sovereignty of two ethnically distinct entities over which an international supervisor presides. Thus far it has been a successful resolution, but, as a 2014 article in The Guardian notes, the fate of Brčko District is uncertain—having only been formed in 1999 it is unclear if it will survive the ethnic divisions that divide the rest of the county.
The idea of condominiums as a way to resolve conflict over contested territory remains somewhat on the fringe of political reality—it requires a level of cooperation from the interested parties that is difficult when entrenched ideas of nationality are in play. While not condominiums per se, free cities like Danzig (Gdansk) and Fiume (Rijeka) created following WWI lasted only nineteen and five years respectively before being annexed by one or several powers.
Nevertheless, condominiums have been proposed as solutions to several ongoing international conflicts. For example, some people, in Jerusalem for both Israel and Palestine. During a 1995 visit to Harvard, Palestinian National Authority president Yasser Arafat voiced support for something similar, asking “Why not Jerusalem as the capital of two states, with no Berlin Wall?” The question would then become how to govern and administer such a relationship, though Whitbeck advocates for a “mixed court” solution were disputes between Israelis would be resolved by Israeli authorities, and disputes between Palestinians resolved by Palestinian authorities; disputes between Israelis and Palestinians would be resolved by a combination of a Palestinian Judge, Israeli Judge, and an international “tie-breaker” if needed.
[su_pullquote align=”right”]Shared ownership can be more desirable than perennial conflict or simply more natural than the sharp divisions we see in our world.[/su_pullquote]Of course, such a solution seems elegant from a detached perspective, but it is far messier for those Jerusalemites who would need to live with such a solution. This solution is also highly unlikely considering the region’s lopsided power dynamic, but it is still an interesting proposal in what seems like a quagmire of competing sovereign interests.
An international condominium relies on either it simply being a convenient relationship—as in the case of the Moselle river—or it relies on a high degree of international support and intervention as in the case of Brčko. Naturally, such international support would need unusual, exceedingly dangerous circumstances (like the Bosnian War) in order to be formed. Regardless, in a modern era where the idea of an absolute sovereign entity is virtually non-existent considering the influence of international bodies such as the UN and the European Union, it isn’t unreasonable to think that nations couldn’t adjust the concept of their sovereignty for the sake of a peaceful resolution. Ultimately, shared ownership can be more desirable than perennial conflict or simply more natural than the sharp divisions we see in our world.
Zachary Sorensen ‘21 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at zacharysorensen@wustl.edu.