text: Treaty was particularly obvious from the fact that. ' when France and the United Kingdom of Libya had signed the Treaty of Friendship and Good Neighbour­ liness in 1955. they had not deemed it necessary to mention that Treaty in the list of international instru­ ments relating to the frontiers between the territories of Tunisia. Algeria. French West Africa and Frmch Equatorial Africa. Paradoxically. the Libyan side stated that. between 195 I and 1969. Lihrn /we/ 1101 re{llfr he<'n fi·ee w1cl th{lf. accorcli11gly. {Ill c1;,cisio11s Juul h<'~'II i1111;osecl 011 it hy coloni{lli sm. In view of the impasse reached in the negotiations. the Chad side proposed a draft general agreement to govern all relations between the two countries. This was flatly rejected by the Libyan side. on the ground that the text had very wide political implications and that it preferred to refer it to the Tripoli authorities for instructions. Since those instructions never arrived. the two delegations parted, as on previous occasions. without drawing up minutes or issuing a communique. C. ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES INVOLVED I. 71,e {lrg11111e11r <!t' Lih_rn The Laml-M11.uoli11i Tr<'{lf_\': According to Libya. its presence in Tibesti is justified by the stillborn Laval-Mussolini Treaty of 7 January 1935 modifying the frontier lines defined by the Franco-British Con­ ventions of 1898 and 1919 (annexes I and V. below). Libya alleges. moreover. that agreements prior to 1935 are not valid and that they were signed by colonial Powers in their own interests. The 1955 Treaty of Friendship and Good Neighbourliness (annex X. below). despite the fact that Libya signed it in Ji,!/ .Hll'<'re'ignty with France. has been described by Libya as "replete with hypocrisy·· and its articles as ··ambiguous··. Consequently. the Libyan Gcll'<'rflfll<'lll does 1101 recog11i:.<' rite 7i·<'{lf\'. hecat1.H' it /,{Is hc'<'II grl'{lf/y 11-rc/f/gecl (IS " result <!f' it. 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing a territorial dispute between Libya and Chad, with references to treaties, borders, and historical agreements. The language used is formal and diplomatic, suggesting a context of international relations. The content does not seem to be related to economic development, natural resources, agriculture, industry, transport, international trade, health, education, employment, humanitarian aid, or culture. The focus is on the historical and political aspects of the border dispute, which suggests a category related to international relations.