IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/cjssxx/v45y2019i5p841-857.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The DRC–Angola Offshore Oil Dispute: How Regime (In)Security Outweighs Sovereign Claims

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick Edmond
  • Kristof Titeca
  • Erik Kennes

Abstract

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has a legitimate claim under international law to large areas of oil-rich maritime territory currently held by Angola. Access to this territory would make the DRC the second or third largest oil producer in sub-Saharan Africa. Yet the DRC has repeatedly and consciously avoided making effective claims to this territory and its oil. By analysing the history of the Congolese actions (and inaction) towards this territory, this article demonstrates why this is the case. Primarily, both Kabila regimes became reliant on and indebted to Angola, and, as a consequence, effective and final claims to maritime zones were never made. These claims were, however, not absent: non-regime figures in the DRC kept some claims alive, and the regime has at different times used the dispute as political leverage in order to secure Angolan backing, which would otherwise be uncertain. Within this, we show how an apparent attempt at compromise was both skewed in Angola’s favour and undermined by DRC regime actions. Overall it is demonstrated that the DRC’s concerns about regime security are the primary determinant of outcomes in this dispute, and it has consistently prioritised regime survival and short-term rent-seeking over oil development.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick Edmond & Kristof Titeca & Erik Kennes, 2019. "The DRC–Angola Offshore Oil Dispute: How Regime (In)Security Outweighs Sovereign Claims," Journal of Southern African Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(5), pages 841-857, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:cjssxx:v:45:y:2019:i:5:p:841-857
    DOI: 10.1080/03057070.2019.1656962
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/03057070.2019.1656962
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/03057070.2019.1656962?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:cjssxx:v:45:y:2019:i:5:p:841-857. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/cjss .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.