Note the following observations:

1. The Algiers Agreement does not refer to an enforcement mechanism for the Hague decision.

2. The Cessation of Hostilities agreement specifies that Ethiopian troops must not advance beyond positions they held as of May 6, 1998, while Eritrean troops are required to keep 25 kilometer's (artillery range) away from the border.

3. The commitments of Ethiopia and Eritrea with regard to the military positions and termination of hostilities are guaranteed by the UN Security Council and the OAU

4. The Hague Boundary Commission decision is guaranteed by no one - it depends on acceptance and validation by the sovereign entities involved (Eritrea and Ethiopia)

The conclusion therefore follows:

With Ethiopia's reaffirmation of its commitments under the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, and Ethiopia's control of the disputed territories, the possibility of renewed conflict instigated by Ethiopia is nil.

There is no possibility of even an artillery exchange, let alone close combat between the Ethiopian and Eritrean armies. In fact, only a limited number of Eritrean militia are allowed to enter the 25-km demilitarized zone, located entirely within Eritrea.

Therefore, there is no immediate threat to peace and security along the Eritrean border that would require invoking Chapter 7 of the UN Charter against Ethiopia.

The most serious long-term threat is Eritrea's refusal to demobilize its army and its pointed refusal to recommit itself to peaceful resolution of the Ethio-Eritrea conflict. Eritrea may undertake a series of desperate measures to incite conflict and thereby force the UN Security Council to take some action, but this would likely result in sanctions against the Eritrean fuehrer's regime in Asmara.

Arbitration

The Hague Decision is an arbitration decision. It is not a UN Security Council decision. Although the Security Council has expressed its support for the Hague Decision and called on Ethiopia to cooperate fully with the commission, the Algiers Agreement does not establish the UN Security Council as the guarantor of the Hague Decision. The UN is simply the guarantor of the cessation of hostilities agreement.

The UN Security Council has no mandate to require Ethiopia to accept this arbitration decision. Sanctions under Chapter 7 of the UN charter are unlikely as long as Ethiopia does not violate its commitments listed in the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, and continues to work for peaceful delimitation and demarcation of the border. Chapter 7 of the UN charter is reserved for the really serious issues - those that meet the test of immediate threats to peace and security. Such is not the case along the Ethiopia Eritrea border.

On the other hand, we should not minimize the difficult position that has resulted thanks to the poor performance of the Ethiopian foreign ministry and the exceedingly poor leadership of PM Meles Zenawi. Verbal pressure from the UN Security Council and from other sources is likely to intensify. Individual measures may be taken by Europe and the USA to restrict aid. Navigation of this period will require using skillful diplomacy that is beyond the capability of the current Ethiopian Foreign Ministry. New, intelligent, worldwise, confident, and capable Ethiopian diplomats are badly needed.

Sovereignty

Sovereignty means the power to make laws for oneself. The Ethiopian people make laws to govern themselves. The UN does not govern Ethiopia. The Hague commission was empowered by Ethiopia and Eritrea, not the UN.

Ethiopia and Eritrea, as sovereign nations, are the only ones who can take the action to implement the Hague decision. For example, to make the issue clear, suppose the Hague Commission made a mistake and awarded Adigrat to Eritrea. Would Ethiopia then be expected to meekly accept this mistake simply because of the 'final and binding clause' ? No. Ethiopia would reject the decision on the grounds that it was not compatible with the Algiers Agreement. It would not be the Security Council's job to verify this. It would solely be Ethiopia's responsibilty to make this evaluation.

Now if we examine the actual Decision, the Commission made the mistake of awarding villages in the Zalambessa area to Eritrea when Eritrea presented zero evidence of administration. Ethiopia rejects this decision unless it is corrected. Similarily, the commission claimed that Eritrea had presented evidence of administration of Badumma when in fact Eritrea offered no (zero) evidence of administration regarding Badumma (aka Badime/Badme). This is a mistake, therefore Ethiopia is justified in requesting a correction of this flagrant error. As the commission refuses to correct its error, Ethiopia is obligated to reject the decision. No other entity can take this right and responsibility away from Ethiopia, and the UN will not either.

Why not?

Because the UN member nations would never allow this to happen to themselves. The USA, China, Russia, Great Britain, and France all do not want to establish precedents whereby the UN assumes responsibility for state functions that by right belong to a sovereign member of the UN. Arbitration would be a means to solve the various problems of the Falklands (British), Corsica (French), Chechnya (Russia), Taiwan (China), but none of these countries wants the UN to assume power over their sovereignty. Even if they accept arbitration at some point, they will reserve final judgement for themselves and not allow the UN to have this power. The US is even more fanatical in this regard.

Summary

UN Sanctions are unlikely to be applied to Ethiopia because:

1) They are not called for as part of the Algiers Agreement
2) Commitments specified under the Cessation of Hostilities continue to be observed
3) The five permanent members of the Security Council do not like to establish precedents widening the UN's power's and limiting state sovereignty because this could apply to them one day.

Additional reasons:
4) UN Security council members don't want to sacrifice their interests for crazy fuehrer Isaias
5) Ethiopians are united in rejecting the Hague decision; Meles could not impose it despite his best efforts
6) Eritreans are desperately fleeing to Ethiopia which indicates to the UN that capturing Badumma and Irob is the last thing on their minds now. (The latest uproar came just last week with a dozen or so Eritrean stowaways using UN peacekeeping vehicles to escape to Ethiopia).