## Facts

- The United Kingdom annexed the port of Walvis (Walfish) Bay in 1878 and issued a proclamation describing an adjacent land district with boundaries defined by coastal distance, named localities, and inland lines.
- Germany later established control over surrounding territory (German South-West Africa), leaving Walvis Bay as a British enclave within German-controlled territory.
- An 1890 Anglo–German agreement reserved the delimitation of Walvis Bay’s southern boundary for arbitration if the parties failed to reach agreement within a specified period.
- Local efforts to settle the line (including a 1904 joint commission report) did not resolve the precise boundary.
- The parties submitted the dispute to a sole arbitrator appointed through the King of Spain; the award was rendered in Madrid on May 23, 1911.
- Germany argued for a narrower boundary based on its reading of the 1878 proclamation and challenged the sufficiency of British occupation of the disputed strip; it relied in part on written witness declarations not tested by cross-examination.
- The United Kingdom argued the proclamation and related official materials established a larger district and that subsequent administration and German conduct supported British title.

## Issues

1. What was the correct southern land boundary of the British territory at Walvis Bay as established by the 1878 annexation and proclamation?
2. How should ambiguous terms and geographic references in the 1878 proclamation be interpreted using preparatory materials, maps, and subsequent practice?
3. What evidentiary weight should be assigned to official documents, maps, hearsay declarations, and statements of local inhabitants in proving occupation, possession, and acquiescence?

## Decision

- The arbitrator determined the southern boundary substantially in accordance with the United Kingdom’s position and confirmed British title to the disputed territory.
- The proclamation’s boundary language was construed by reference to its text, contemporaneous governmental correspondence, relevant geographic materials, and subsequent conduct.
- German witness declarations submitted without examination were treated with caution and were not given decisive probative value.
- Maps and charts were used as supporting material but were not treated as independent sources of territorial title.
- The arbitrator treated unilateral boundary assertions as nonbinding absent agreement or later acceptance in practice.

## Legal Principles

- Formal annexation, coupled with some exercise of authority, can establish territorial title in a colonial setting; the extent of the title depends on the annexing act and supporting conduct.
- Unilateral proclamations defining claimed territory are interpreted primarily by their text, informed by contemporaneous preparatory documents and subsequent practice.
- Official, contemporaneous governmental records generally carry greater weight than later cartography and untested hearsay statements.
- Maps are auxiliary evidence whose probative value depends on their origin, purpose, and consistency with other reliable materials; they are not themselves dispositive of title.
- Acquiescence or lack of timely objection by the other state may reinforce an established claim where consistent with the overall evidentiary record.
- An arbitral tribunal may determine the scope of its jurisdiction under the parties’ arbitration agreement.

## Conclusion

The arbitration resolved a bilateral boundary dispute by treating the 1878 annexation proclamation, clarified by contemporaneous official records and subsequent conduct, as the principal basis for fixing Walvis Bay’s southern land boundary, while discounting untested hearsay and using maps only as corroborative evidence.


Walfish Bay Boundary (Ger. v. U.K.), 11 R.I.A.A. 263 (1911)