In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The written record and oral history shows that Eritrea has been plagued by disputes over land since time immemorial. The need for land was at the root of many of the migrations to the area of present-day Eritrea and Ethiopia. “Whoever studies the history of Abyssinia, without preconceived and predetermined theories, realizes that this is nothing other than the history of ¤ghts and endless disputes of one group against another .”2 Eritrea has in proportion to its population an extremely small amount of fertile land. Over the centuries there have been enormous problems of land degradation and despoliation as the elements have taken their toll and warring armies ranged over all the country. The amount of land available for cultivation or grazing has decreased markedly. These are all the ingredients for classic battles over land, and it is surprising that there have not been more clashes. One source claims, citing the Ethiopian Ministry of Land Reform, that in the early 1960s, 30 percent of all civil disputes in Eritrea concerned resti, and these were the most bitter.3 In the past years, some 75 percent of civil cases brought to court in Seraye related to land ownership.4 Land disputes are paradigmatic to show how theories of legal pluralism and levels of analysis can enrich and complement each other, and how by their interaction we come to an improved understanding of particular situations. A number of charismatic individuals are frequently involved; the sub-national level is always important. When we introduced the actors in the ¤rst chapter, we referred to traditional law as a single subject, with a coherent and unitary body of rules. But as we have 131 Seven Land Disputes and Con®ict Resolution Together with histoires de femmes land disputes are the main issue dealt with by the tribunals. —A Kobben1 seen in subsequent chapters, each ethnie or sub-ethnie has its own rules at the micro level. The same proviso applies to šari "a—in Muslim communities tradition and religion mix and interrelate. The state also offers its own solutions and tries to impose them. And its interest may be different from that of the other actors. Once again the system is dynamic; equilibrium is fragile, and it changes all the time. The colonial and Eritrean states play vital roles at different periods. Religion and ideology are also crucial. Each of these “levels” expresses a particular set of rules, attitudes, and beliefs; their relationship is never static and varies from case to case. Rules may or may not con®ict with each other, but unless we look at a particular dispute we cannot see in practice how they interrelate. In this chapter we ¤rst of all examine a number of the major causes of disputes over land, using the traditional codes as a basis. These include disputes over property rights, pastures, reallocation of shehena/ diesa land, and boundary problems. Section two contains a number of selected cases arranged in ascending order of complexity. We start with con®icts among individuals and move onto intra- and inter-ethnie disputes . We then look at con®ict that has arisen directly out of a ruler’s attempt to govern—including that of the colonial Italian state, Ethiopia, and ELF/EPLF, as well as the sovereign Eritrean government. Our analysis ranges over time; one of its goals is to focus on whichever actors are the most important in each particular case—and the roles played by the supporting cast. In the ¤nal section we analyze in more detail the actors involved, beginning with those mandated to solve the con®ict in various time periods. We conclude with a description of how our case studies ¤t various models of dispute resolution. A number of cases have proved extremely dif¤cult to resolve; we try to give some explanation for these failures. We also show how ¤ve or six con®icts, including the festering Hazamo and Tor’a/Tsenadegle disputes, seem to have been successfully resolved.5 A part of the chapter embraces problems in the border areas with Ethiopia. The extreme violence of 1998–2000 cannot adequately be accounted for in terms of a simple model; it is essential to appreciate its complex and multi-causal nature. We examine this “con®ict over land” both through the lenses of “our” legal actors, each of whom sees it in a different way, and as a current level of analysis problem. It is dealt with as a land issue in order to...

Share