Audience publique tenue le vendredi 8 mars 2002, à 10 heures, sous la présidence de M. Shi, vice-président, faisant fonction de président

Non- Corrigé

Uncorrecterj

Cour internationale International Court
deJustice of Justice

LAHAYE THE HAGUE

Audience publique

tenuele vendredi8 mars 200àIOheures, au Palaisde la Pak,

sous laprésidencedeM. Shi, vice-présidentf,aisant fonction deprésident,

en l'affairede la Frontière terrestreet maritimeentre le Cameroun et leNigéria
(Cameroun c.Nigéria;Guinéeéquatorialeintemenani))

COMPTERENDU

YEAR2002

Public sitting

held on FridayMarch 2002,at IOa.m., at the PeacePalace,

Vice-PresidentShi, Acting President,presiding,

in the caseconcerning the Land and Maritime Boundaiy between Cameroon and Nigeria
(Cameroon v.Nigeria: Equatorialinea intervening)

VERBATIMRECORDPrésents:M. Shi,vice-préside,aisantfonctiondeprésidenten l'affaire
MM. Ranjeva

Herczegh
Fleischhauer
Koroma
Mme Higgins
MM. Parra-Aranguren
Kooijmans

Rezek
Al-Khasawneh
Buergenthal
Elaraby,juges
MM. Mbaye
Ajibola,juges ad hoc

M. Couvreur,greffierPresent:Vice-President Shi, ActiPresident
Judges Ranjeva

Herczegh
Fleischhauer
Koroma
Higgins
Parra-Aranguren
Kooijmans
Rezek

Al-Khasawneh
Buergenthal
Elaraby
Judgesad hoc Mbaye
Ajibola

Registrar CouvreurLe Gouvernementdela Républiquedu Cameroun estreprésenté par :

S. Exc. M. AmadouAli, ministredYEtatchargéde lajustice, gardedes sceaux,

commeagent;

M. Maurice Kamto,doyen de la facultédes sciencesjuridiques et politiques de l'université de
YaoundéII,membrede la Commissiondu droitinternational,avocatau barreaude Paris,

M. PeterY. Ntamark,professeur à la facultédes sciencesjuridiques et politiques del'universitéde
YaoundéII, Barrister-ut-Law,membrede lYInnerTemple, anciendoyen,

commecoagents,conseilset avocats;

M. AlainPellet, professeurà l'université de ParX-Nanterre,membre et ancienprésidentde la
Commissiondudroit international,

commeagentadjoint, conseilet avocat;

M. Joseph Marie Bipoun Woum,professeur à la facultédes sciences juridiques et politiques de
l'universitédeYaoundéII,ancienministre, anciendoyen,

commeconseillerspécialeravocat;

M. Michel Aurillac,ancien ministre, conseillerdYEhonoraire,avocaten retraite,

M.Jean-PierreCot,professeur à l'universitéde Paris 1(Panthéon-Sorbonne),ncienministre,

M. MauriceMendelson,Q. C.,professeur éméritd ee l'Université de Londres,Barrister-at-Law,

M. MalcolmN. Shaw,professeur a la facultéde droit de l'université deLeicester,titulaire de la
chairesir RobertJennings, Barrister-at-Law,

M. Bruno Simma, professeur à l'université deMunich, membre de la Commission du droit
international,

M. ChristianTomuschat,professeur à l'universitéHumbold de Berlin, ancien membre et ancien
présidentde laCommissiondudroit international,

M. OlivierCorten,professeurà laFacultéde droit de l'Université lde Bruxelles,

M. Daniel Khan,chargéde cours à l'Institutde droitinternationalde l'universitéde Munich,

M.Jean-Marc Thouvenin, professeur à l'université de ParisX-Nanterre, avocat au barreau de
Paris,sociétéd'avocatLsysias,

commeconseilset avocats; TheGovernmentofthe Republicof Camerounis represenfedby:

H.E.Mr. Amadou Ali, Ministerof Stateresponsiblefor Justice, Keeperof the Seals,

asAgent;

Mr. Maurice Kamto, Dean, Faculty of Law andPolitical Science, University of Yaoundé II,
memberoftheInternationalLawCommission,Avocat at the ParisBar, LysiasLaw Associates,

Mr. Peter Y. Ntamark, Professor, Faculty ofLaw and Political Science, Universityof Yaoundé II,
Barrister-at-Law,memberofthe Inner Temple,formerDean,

as Co-Agents, Counsel and Advocates;

Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor, Universiof Paris X-Nanterre, memberand former Chairmanof the
InternationalLawCommission,

as DeputyAgent, Counseland Advocate;

Mr. Joseph-MarieBipoun Wourn,Professor, Facultyof Law and Political Science, University of

YaoundéII,formerMinister, former Dean,

as SpecialAdviser andAdvocate;

Mr. Michel Aurillac,formerMinister, HonoraryConseillerd'État,retiredAvocat,

Mr. Jean-PierreCot,Professor, University of Paris1(Panthéon-Sorbonne), former Minister,

Mr.MauriceMendelson,Q.C.,Emeritus Professor UniversityofLondon, Barrister-at-Law,

Mr. Malcolm N. Shaw, Sir Robert Jennings Professorof International Law, Facultyof Law,
UniversityofLeicester, Barrister-at-Law,

Mr. Bruno Simma, Professor, University of Munich, member of the International Law

Commission,

Mr. Christian Tomuschat, Professor, Humboldt University of Berlin, former member and
Chairman, International Law Commission,

Mr.OlivierCorten,Professor, Faculty of Law, UniversitlibredeBruxelles,

Mr. DanielKhan,Lecturer, International Law Institute, Universyf Munich,

Mr. Jean-Marc Thouvenin, Professor, University of Paris X-Nanterre, Avocat at the Paris Bar,
LysiasLawAssociates,

as Counseland Advocates; SirIan Sinclair, K.C.M.G., Q.C., Barrister-ut-Law, ancienmembre de la Commission du droit
international,

M. Eric Diamantis, avocataubarreaude Paris,Moquet, Bordes& Associés,

M. Jean-PierreMignard,avocatau barreaudeParis, sociétd'avocatsLysias,

M. JosephTjop, consultantà la sociétd'avocats Lysias,chercheurau Centrede droit international
deNanterre (CEDIN),UniversitéParisX-Nanterre,

commeconseils;

M. PierreSemengue,générad l'armée,contrôleur général dasrmées,ancien chef d'état-majores
armées,

M. JamesTataw, général de division, conseiller logistian,cien chef d'état-made l'arméede
terre,

S.Exc.Mme IsabelleBassong, ambassadeur du Cameroun auprès des pays duBenelux et de
l'Unioneuropéenne,

S.Exc. M. Biloa Tang, ambassadeurdu Camerounen France,

S. Exc.M. MartinBelinga Eboutou, ambassadeur, représentant permanent du Cameroauunprèsde
l'organisation desNationsUniesàNewYork,

M.EtienneAteba, ministre-conseiller, chargé d'affaires a.i.à l'ambassade du Cameroun,
à LaHaye,

M. Robert Akamba, administrateurcivil principal, chargéde mission au secrétariat génale la
présidencede la République,

M. Anicet Abanda Atangana, attachéau secrétariat généra dle la présidence dela République,
chargéde coursà l'universitéde YaoundéII,

M. ErnestBodo Abanda,directeurdu cadastre,membredela commission nationaledes frontières,

M. OusmaneMey, ancien gouverneurdeprovince,

Le chefSamuel MokaLiffafaEndeley, magistrat honoraire,Barrister-ut-Law, membredu Middle
Temple(Londres),ancien président delachambre administrative de Coursuprême,

MeMarcSassen,avocat et conseiljuridique, société PettTni,dema& Sassen(LaHaye),

M. Francis FaiYengo, ancien gouverneur de province, directeur de l'organisation du territoire,

ministèrede l'administration territoriale,

M.Jean Mbenoun, directeurde l'administrationcentraleau secrétariatgénérle la présidencede
laRépublique,Sir Ian Sinclair, K.C.M.G., Q.C., Barrister-at-Law, former member of the International Law

Commission,

Mr. Eric Diamantis,AvocatattheParisBar,Moquet, Bordes & Associés,

Mr. Jean-PierreMignard,Avocat atthe Paris Bar, LysiasLawAssociates,

Mr. Joseph Tjop, Consultant to Lysias Law Associates,Researcher at the Centre de droit

internationaldeNanterre (CEDIN), University of Paris X-Nanterre,

as Counsel;

General PierreSemengue, Controller-Generalof the Armed Forces,former Head of Staff of the
Armed Forces,

Major-GeneralJamesTataw, LogisticsAdviser,FormerHeadof Staffof the Amy,

H.E. Ms IsabelleBassong, Ambassadorof Carneroontothe BeneluxCountriesandto the European
Union,

H.E.Mr. Biloa Tang,Arnbassadorof Cameroonto France,

H.E. Mr. MartinBelinga Eboutou, Ambassador, PermanentRepresentative of Cameroon to the
United Nationsin New York,

Mr. Etienne Ateba, Minister-Counsellor, Chargé d'affairea.i. at the Embassy of Cameroon,
TheHague,

Mr. Robert Akamba,Principal Civil Adrninistrator,Chargéde mission, General Secretariatof the
Presidencyofthe Republic,

Mr. AnicetAbandaAtangana,Attaché to the General Secretariat otfe Presidencyof the Republic,
Lecturer, Universityof Yaoundé II,

Mr. Emest Bodo Abanda, Director of the Cadastral Survey,member, National Boundary
Commission,

Mr. OusmaneMey,former Provincial Govemor,

Chief Samuel Moka Liffafa Endeley, Honorary Magistrate, Barrister-at-Lawm , ember of the

Middle Temple(London), former Presidentof the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme
Court,

MaîtreMarcSassen,AdvocateandLegalAdviser,Petten, Tideman & Sassen(TheHague),

Mr. Francis FaiYengo, former ProvincialGovemor,Director,Organisation du Territoire,Ministry
of Territorial Administration,

Mr. Jean Mbenoun,Director, Central Administration, General Secretaritf the Presidencyof the
Republic,M.Edouard Etoundi, directeurde l'administrationcentrale au secrétariat générdae la présidence
de la République,

M.RobertTanda,diplomate, ministèredesrelations extérieures

commeconseillers;

M. Samuel Betah Sona, ingénieur-géologue, expert consultd aentl'organisation desNations Unies
pour le droitde la mer,

M.Thomson Fitt Takang, chef de service d'administration centrale au secrétariat général de la
présidencede laRépublique,

M.Jean-JacquesKoum,directeurde l'exploration,société nationaledeshydrocarbures (SNH),

M. Jean-Pierre Meloupou,capitaine de fiégate,chef de la division Afrique au ministère de la

défense,

M.Paul Moby Etia, géographe, directeu dre l'Institutnational de cartographie,

M.AndréLoudet, ingénieur cartographe,

M. AndréRoubertou, ingénieur généd rell'armement,hydrographe,

commeexperts;

Mme Marie Florence Kollo-Efon, traducteur interprète principal,

commetraducteurinterprète;

Mlle Céline Negre, chercheur aCuentre de droit internationalde Nanterre (CEDIN),Universitéde
Paris X-Nanterre

Mlle Sandrine Barbier, chercheur aCentrede droit internationalde Nanterre (CEDIN), Université
de Paris X-Nanterre,

M. Richard Penda Keba, professeurcertifiéd'histoire, cabinet du ministrede la justice, ancien
proviseurde lycées,

commeassistantsde recherche;

M.BoukarOumara,

M. Guy Roger Eba'a,

M.Aristide Esso,

M.NkendeForbinake,

M. NfanBile, -9-

Mr. EdouardEtoundi, Director, Central Administration, General Secretariatof the Presidencyof
the Republic,

Mr. RobertTanda, diplomat,Ministryof ForeignAffairs,

asAdvisers;

Mr. SamuelBetah Sona,GeologicalEngineer,Consulting Expertto the UnitedNations fortheLaw
of the Sea,

Mr. ThomsonFitt Takang, Department Head, Central Administration,General Secretariat of the
Presidencyof theRepublic,

Mr. Jean-JacquesKoum, Directorof Exploration, NationalHydrocarbonsCompany(SNH),

CommanderJean-PierreMeloupou,Head ofAfricaDivisionat the Ministryof Defence,

Mr. Paul MobyEtia,Geographer,Director,Institutnational de cartographie,

Mr. AndréLoudet,CartographicEngineer,

Mr. AndréRoubertou,MarineEngineer, Hydrographer,

asExperts;

Ms MarieFlorenceKollo-Efon,PrincipalTranslator-Interpreter,

as Translator-Interpreter;

Ms CélineNegre, Researcher, Centre d'étudesde droit international de Nanterre(CEDIN),
Universityof Paris X-Nanterre,

Ms SandrineBarbier, Researcher, Centre d'étudesde droit international de Nanterre(CEDIN),
Universityof Paris X-Nanterre,

Mr. Richard Penda Keba, Certified Professorof History, cabinet of the Minister of State for
Justice,formerHeadof High School,

asResearch Assistants;

Mr. BoukarOumara,

Mr. GuyRogerEba'a,

Mr. AristideEsso,

Mr. NkendeForbinake,

Mr. NfanBile,M. Eithel Mbocka,

M. OlingaNyozo'o,

commeresponsablesde la communication;

MmeRenéeBakker,

MmeLawrencePolirsztok,

MmeMireilleJung,

M.NigelMcCollum,

MmeTete BéatriceEpeti-Kame,

commesecrétaires dela délégation.

Le Gouvernementde la République fédérale duNigéria estreprésentpar :

S. Exc.l'honorableMusaE.Abdullahi, ministre dYEtat,ministre de la Justice du Gouvernement
fédéral du Nigéria,

comme agent;

Le chef RichardAkinjideSAN, ancienAttorney-General de la Fédération, membre du barreau
d'Angleterre etdu pays de Galles, ancien membde la Commissiondu droit international,

M.AlhajiAbdullahi IbrahimSAN, CON, commissaire pour les frontières internationales,

commissionnationaledesfrontièresduNigéria, ancienAttorney-Generaldela Fédération,

commecoagents;

MmeNella Andem-Ewa, Attorney-General et commissaire àlajustice, Etat deCross River,

M. IanBrownlie, C.B.E., Q.C., membre de la Commission dudroit international, membre du

barreaud'Angleterre,membrede l'Institutde droit international,

SirArthur Watts, K.C.M.G., Q.C., membre du barreau d'Angleterre, memb dreel'Institutde droit
international,

M.JamesCrawford,S.C.,professeurdedroit internationalà l'universitéde Cambridge,titulaire de

la chaire Whewell, membredes barreaux d'Angleterreet d'Australie, membrede l'Institut de
droit international,

M.GeorgesAbi-Saab, professeur honoraire à l'Institut universitaire de hautes études
internationalesde Genève,membrede l'Institutde droit international,

M. Alastair Macdonald, géomètre, ancien directeduerlYOrdnanceSuwey, Grande-Bretagne,

commeconseilsetavocats.

M.Timothy H. Daniel,associé, cabint . J. Freeman, Solicitors,City de Londres,Mr.Eithel Mbocka

Mr.OlingaNyozo'o,

as Media OfJicers;

Ms RenéBakker,

MsLawrencePolirsztok,

MsMireilleJung,

Mr.Nigel McCollum,

Ms Tete BéatriceEpeti-Kame,

as Secretaries.

The Governmentofthe FederalRepublicofNigeriais representedby:

H.E.the HonourableMusa E.Abdullahi, Minister ofStatefor Justiceofthe FederalGovemmentof
Nigeria,

as Agent;

ChiefRichard Akinjide SAN, Former Attorney-Generao lf the Federation,Member of the Bar of
EnglandandWales, former MemberoftheInternationalLaw Commission,

AlhajiAbdullahiIbrahim SAN,CON,Commissioner, International BoundariesN , ational Boundary
CommissionofNigeria, FormerAttorney-General ofthe Federation,

as Co-Agents,

Mrs.Nella Andem-Ewa, Attorney-Generaa lnd Commissionerfor Justice,CrossRiver State,

Mr. Ian Brownlie, C.B.E.,Q.C.,Member of the InternationalLaw Commission, Member of the
English Bar, Memberof theInstituteof InternationalLaw,

Sir Arthur Watts, K.C.M.G., Q.C., Member of the English Bar, Member of the Institute of
International Law,

Mr. James Crawford, S.C., Whewell Professorof International Law, Universityof Cambridge,
Memberof theEnglish andAustralianBars,Memberof the Instituteof International Law,

Mr. Georges Abi-Saab, Honorary Professor, Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva,
MemberoftheInstitute ofInternationalLaw,

Mr.AlastairMacdonald,LandSurveyor, Former Director, Ordnance Survey,Great Britain,

as CounselandAdvocares;

Mr.Timothy H.Daniel, Partner,D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, CityofLondon,M. AlanPerry, associé, cabinet DJ.. Freeman,Solicitors, Cityde Londres,

M. David Lerer,solicitor,cabinetD.J. Freeman,Solicitors,City de Londres,

M. Christopher Hackford,solicitor, cabinetD.J.Freeman,Solicitors,Cityde Londres,

Mme Charlotte Breide,solicitor,cabinetD. J. Freeman, Solicitors, CitydeLondres,

M. Ned Beale, stagiaire, cabineD. J. Freeman,Solicitors,Cityde Londres,

M. GeoffreyMarston, directeur du départementdes études juridiques au Sidney SusseC xollege,

Universitéde Cambridge, membredu barreaud'Angleterreet du Paysde Galles,

commeconseils;

S.Exc. l'honorable Dubem Onyiam , inistre d7Etat,ministre des affaires étrangères,

M. MaxwellGidado, assistant spécial principaldu président pourles affaires juridiques et
constitutionnelles, ancien Attorney-Generaltcommissaire à la Justice, Etatd'Adamaoua,

M. AlhajiDahiruBobbo, directeurgénéralc ,ommission nationaledes frontières,

M. A. O.Cukwurah, conseil adjoint,ancien conseiller en matièrede frontières(ASOP) auprèsdu
Royaumedu Lesotho, ancien commissairepour les frontières inter-Etats, commission nationale
des frontières,

M. 1.Ayua,membrede l'équipe juridiqueduNigéria,

M. F. A. Kassim,directeur généra dlu servicecartographiquede la Fédération,

M. AlhajiS. M. Diggi, directeurdesfrontièresinternationales, commission nationaldes frontières,

M. K.A.Adabale,directeur pour ledroit international et le droit comparé, ministe lajustice,

M. A. B.Maitama,colonel, ministèrede la défense,

M. Jalal Arabi, membre de l'équip eridique duNigéria,

M. GbolaAkinola,membre del'équipe juridique duNigéra,

M. K.M.Tumsah, assistant spéciad l u directeurgénéradl e la commission nationaledes frontières
et secrétairede l'équipe juridique,

M. AliyiuNasir, assistant spécialuministred'Etat,ministrede la Justice,

commeconseillers;

M. ChrisCarleton,C.B.E.,bureau hydrographique du Royaume-Uni,

M. DickGent,bureau hydrographiquedu Royaume-Uni,

M. CliveSchofield,unitéde recherchesur lesfrontières internationales, Université de Durham,

M. ScottB. Edmonds, directeur des opérations cartographique In,ternational MappingAssociates,Mr. AlanPerry, Partner,D. J. Freeman,Solicitors, CityofLondon,

Mr. David Lerer, Solicitor, ..Freeman, Solicitors, City of London,

Mr. Christopher Hackford, Solicitor,DJ.. Freeman, Solicitors,City of London,

Ms Charlotte Breide,Solicitor,D.J. Freeman,Solicitors,Cityof London,

Mr. NedBeale, Trainee, D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, CyfLondon,

Dr. Geoffrey Marston,Fellow of Sidney SussexCollege,Universityof Cambridge; Memberof the
Bar ofEnglandandWales,

as Counsel:

H.E. theHonourableDubemOnyia,Ministerof State for Foreign Affairs,

Mr. MaxwellGidado,Senior SpecialAssistantto the President (Legaland Constitutional Matters),
Former Attorney-GeneralandCommissionerfor Justice,Adamawa State,

AlhajiDahiruBobbo, Director-General, NationaB l ounday Commission,

Mr. A. O. Cukwurah, Co-Counsel, Former UN (OPAS) Boundary Adviser to the Kingdom of

Lesotho, Former Commissioner, Inter-State Boundaries, NationBoundaryCommission,

Mr. 1.Ayua,Member, NigerianLegalTeam,

Mr. F. A.Kassim, Surveyor-Generalof the Federation,

Alhaji S.M.Diggi,Director(International Boundaries), National oundaryCommission,

Mr. K.A.Adabale,Director(InternationalandComparativeLaw) Ministryof Justice,

Colonel A. B.Maitama,Ministry of Defence,

Mr. JalalArabi,Member,NigerianLegalTeam,

Mr. GbolaAkinola,Member,Nigerian LegalTeam,

Mr. K. M. Tumsah, Special Assistant to Director-General, National Boundary Commission and
Secretaryto the LegalTeam,

Mr. AliyuNasir, Special Assistantto the Ministerof StateforJustice,

asAdvisers;

Mr. ChrisCarleton, C.B.E.,UnitedKingdomHydrographicOffice,

Mr. DickGent, UnitedKingdomHydrographicOffice,

Mr. Clive Schofield, International Boundaries Reseahnit,Universityof Durham,

Mr. ScottB. Edmonds,DirectorofCartographicOperations, International MappingAssociates,M.RobertC.Rizmtti, cartographeprincipal,International MappingAssociates,

M.BruceDaniel,International MappingAssociates,

Mme VictoriaJ. Taylor,International Mapping Associates,

MmeStephanieKimClark,International MappingAssociates,

M.Robin Cleverly,ExplorationManager,NPAGroup,

Mme ClaireAinsworth,NPAGroup,

commeconseillersscientzyqueset techniques;

M.MohammedJibrilla,expert en informatique, commission nationale des frontières,

MmeCoralieAyad, secrétaire, cabineD t . J. Freeman, Solicitors, Cityde Londres,

Mme ClaireGoodacre,secrétaire,cabinetD. J. Freeman, Solicitors, Cityde Londres,

Mme SarahBickell,secrétaire, cabineD t .J. Freeman, Solicitors, Cityde Londres,

MmeMichelleBurgoine, spécialiste en technologiede l'information, cabinetD. J. Freeman,
Solicitors, Cityde Londres,

commepersonnel administratif:

Le Gouvernementde la Républiquede Guinéeéquatoriale, quiest autorisée à intervenirdans
l'instance,est représentépar:

S.Exc. M. RicardoMangueObamaN'Fube, ministre d'Etat, ministre du travail et de la sécurité

sociale,

commeagent etconseil;

S.Exc. M.Rubén Maye Nsue Mangue, ministrede la justice et des cultes, vice-président de la
commission nationaledes frontières,

S.Exc. M.CristobalMafianaEla Nchama, ministredes mines etde l'énergie,vice-présidentde la
commission nationaledes frontières,

M.DomingoMba Esono, directeur national de la société nationale de pétrole de
Guinéeéquatoriale,membrede lacommission nationale des frontières,

M.AntonioNzambiNlonga, Attorney-General,

commeconseillers;

M.Pierre-Marie Dupuy, professeur de droit international public à l'université de Paris
(Panthéon-Assas)et à l'Institut universitaire européen de Florence,Mr. RobertC.Rizzutti,Senior Mapping SpecialistI,ntémational MappingAssociates,

Mr. BruceDaniel, International Mapping Associates,

Ms VictoriaJ. Taylor,International Mapping Associates,

Ms Stephanie Kim Clark, International Mapping Associates,

Dr. Robin Cleverly, Exploration ManagerN, PAGroup,

Ms ClaireAinsworth,NPAGroup,

as Scientificand TechnicalAdvisers;

Mr. Mohammed Jibrilla, Computer Expert, National Boundar Cyommission,

Ms Coralie Ayad, Secretary,D.J. Freeman, Solicitors, CityLondon,

Ms ClaireGoodacre, Secretary,D. J.Freeman, Solicitors, Cityof London,

Ms SarahBickell, Secretary,D. J.Freeman, Solicitors, CityLondon,

Ms MichelleBurgoine,IT Specialist,D.J. Freeman, Solicitors,City of London,

asAdministrators.

The Governmentof theRepublicofEquatorial Guinea,whichhas beenpermitted tointervenein

the case,is represented by:

H.E. Mr. Ricardo Mangue ObamaN7Fube,Ministerof Statefor Labor and Social Security,

asAgentand Counsel;

H.E. Mr. Rubén Maye Nsue Mangue, Ministeo rf Justice and Religion, Vice-President of the
National Boundary Commission,

H.E. Mr. Cristobal MafianaEla Nchama, Ministerof Mines and Energy, Vice-Presidentof the
National Boundary Commission,

Mr. Domingo Mba Esono, National Director of the Equatorial Guinea National Petroleum
Company,Memberofthe National Boundary Commission,

Mr. Antonio Nzambi Nlonga, Attomey-General,

asAdvisers;

Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Professor of Public International Law at the University of Paris
(Panthéon-Assas) and at the European UniversiInstitutein Florence,M. DavidA. Colson, membre du cabinet LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P.,

Washington,D.C., membre du barreau de lYEtatde Californie et du barreau du district de
Columbia,

commeconseilsetavocats;

SirDerek Bowett,

commeconseilprincipal,

M.DerekC. Smith, membre du cabinet LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P.,
Washington,D.C., membre du barreau du district de Columbia et du barreau de 1'Etat
de Virginie,

commeconseil;

Mme Jannette E. Hasan, membre du cabinet LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene& MacRae, L.L.P.,
Washington, D.C., membre du barreau du district de Columbia et du barreau de 1'Etat de
Floride,

M.HervéBlatry, membredu cabinet LeBoeuf,Lamb,Greene & MacRae,L.L.P.,Paris,avocat àla
Cour,membre du barreaude Paris,

commeexpertsjuridiques;

M. Coalter G. Lathrop,SovereignGeographicInc., Chape1Hill,CarolineduNord,

M.AlexanderM. Tait,Equator Graphies,Silver Spring,Maryland,

commeexpertstechniques.Mr. David A. Colson, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene& MacRae,L.L.P., Washington,D.C., memberof
the CalifomiaStateBarand DistrictofColumbiaBar,

as Counseland Advocates;

SirDerek Bowett,

as SeniorCounsel;

Mr.Derek C.Smith,LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae,L.L.P., Washington, D.C., membeorf the
Districtof Columbia Barand VirginiaStateBar,

as Counsel;

Ms JannetteE. Hasan, LeBoeuf,Lamb,Greene & MacRae, L.L.P., Washington,D.C.,member of
the Districtof ColumbiaBar andFloridaStateBar,

Mr. HervéBlatry,LeBoeuf,Lamb, Greene & MacRae,L.L.P.,Paris, Avocatà la Cour,member of
the ParisBar,

as LegalExperts;

Mr. CoalterG.Lathrop, Sovereign GeographiInc., ChapeHill, NorthCarolina,

Mr. AlexanderM. Tait, EquatorGraphics,SilverSpring,Maryland,

as TechnicalExperts. The VICE-PRESIDENT,Acting President: Please be seated. 1 now give the floor to

ProfessorGeorgesAbi-Saab.

M. ABI-SAAB :Thankyou, Mr. Vice-President andgood moming.

LA RESPONSABILITÉINTERNATIONALE

1.Monsieurle vice-président,Madameet Messieursde la Cour,ce matinen ouverturede la

partie de nos plaidoiries sur la responsabilité internationalej,e me propose de faire quelques

remarques préliminaires à ce sujet et notamment en ce qui concerne la preuve de cette

responsabilité.

2. Monsieur le vice-président,on nous a livréchapitre aprèschapitre, à la manièredes

manuelsde droit international?des exposés de caractèreénéral sur les règlesprimaires supposées

être violéepsar leNigéria:l'interdictiondurecoursà laforce, le principede lanon-intervention,le

respectde l'intégritterritoriale,et mêmesurle principede I'utipossidetis; ainsique sur lesrègles

secondairesde la responsabilité internationae,t ses élémentsle faitgénérateur qu'esltaviolation

et l'attribution de cette violation1'Etaten question. Comme s'il y avait controverse surces

propositions générales; comme s' éiltaitdéjàétablique leNigéria,par ses actionset agissements, a

en faitviolétoutes ces règlesetinjonctions.

3. Par cette démarche, le Cameroun esquive à,ses propres risques et périls, les difficultés

réellesqui entravent sa démonstrationet qui se rapportent toutes àson devoir d'administrer la

preuvedes faits qu'ilallègueetde la véracitdes présomptions qu'il fait.

4.Permettez-moi, Monsieurle vice-présidentd, efaire quelquesremarquessur ces aspects-là,

etje m'excused'avancedu caractère par trop élémentaid e mespropos,queje n'auraisjamais osé

tenir dans cet auguste prétoires'ils n'étaientpas si ignorésde manière si flagrantepar l'autre

Partie.

Lachargede la preuve

5.Ma première remarqueporte sur la charge de la preuve, le fameux onus probandi. C'est

une règle élémentaiq rue cettecharge incombeau demandeur, c'est-à-dire que lapartie quiavance

une prétention assume la chargdee la prouver. 6. Le Camerouninvoque dans son mémoireune longue liste d'incidents supposés engager la

responsabilité internationaledu Nigéria envers lui. Maisdans sa réplique (p. 493, par. 11.25)'le

Camerounnous déclareque :

«Ce sont moins les incidents en eux-mêmes ep tris isolémentqui importent que
l'ensemble qui constitue et qui établit,au-delà de tout doute Ge souligne] que le
Nigéria doit êtrtenu pour responsable de violationsgraves, fréquenteset généralisées
des règleset des principes fondamentauxénoncés ci-dessus (voir supra, par.11.15) et
desviolationsrépétéeest délibérées dle a frontièreentre les deuxpays.»

7. C'est donc l'ensemble, etpas les incidents individuels, qui prouve ((au-delà de tout

doute», la responsabilité du Nigéria. MaisM , onsieur le vice-président,un ensemble, que ce soit

dans l'acception mathématiqueou celle courante du terme, est composé d'éléments. Si les

éléments n'existent pas, ce qui veut dire, dans notre contexte, s'ils ne sont pas juridiquement

prouvés un parun, comment peut-on prouver, ou mêmesimplement en déduire,l'existence de

l'ensemble,leur ensemble?

8. A moins qu'on acceptecomme nouveau standardde preuve, la preuve par insinuation, du

genre «il n'y a pas de fuméesans feu». Ce serait une innovation juridique révolutionnaire, maijse

n'ai pas besoin de la commenter.

9. 11est vrai que la Cour a rejeté, dans laphase des exceptions préliminairesde la présente

affaire, la sixième exceptionpréliminairedu Nigériavisant à lui faire déclarerinadmissibles les

demandes en responsabilitédu Cameroun, en raison de leur manque de précisionquant aux faits.

La Cour a considéréque l'article38, paragraphe2, du Règlement, ne requiert qu'un «exposé

succinct des faits et moyens sur lesquels cettedemande repose)) (C.I.J.Recueil 1998, par. 98), et

que c'est tout ce qui est demandépour les besoins de l'admissibilitéde la requêteen tant que

requête.

10. Mais la Cour n'a pas manquéde constater que : «C'est au demandeur de subir les

conséquences d'une requêtq eui ne contiendraitpas un exposé satisfaisant des faitset motifs sur

lesquelsrepose sa demande.)) (Ibid.,par. 101 .) Et elle a rappelé ce qu'elle adit dans son arrêt sur

les exceptions préliminairesdans l'affaire du Nicaragua :((C'est en définitive au plaideurqui

cherche à établirun fait qu'incombe la chargede la preuve;lorsque celle-ci n'est pas produite, une

conclusion peut être rejetéedans l'arrêt comme insuffisamment démontrée...)) (C.I.J.Recueil 1984,

p. 437,par. 101 .) 11.C'est précisémen cte que le Cameroun devaitfaireaustadeactueldu fond. Maisil ne l'a

toujours pas fait. Car c'est renverser la chargede preuve que de lancer des accusations non

étayées, basée ssr des faitsnon suffisamment identifiés,n s'attendantàce que l'autre partie les

précise pour pouvoir lesréfuter.

12. Malgré le flou artistique camerounais, dans l'identification des «éléments»de

lY«ensemble>f~ l,u faitd'absences,d'inexactitudes oude contradictionset de pas mal d'ambiguïtés

a propos des dates, des lieux, de leur toponymie, des parties et des faits impliquésdans ces

incidents; malgré celal,e Nigériaa fait un effort énormepour identifier cequi est identifiable et

établir la réaliées faits dans la mesuredu possible, ce qui démontre,pour beaucoup de cas, le

manque de sérieuxdes accusationscamerounaises,et mêmedans quelques cas, que ces incidents

prouvent exactement lecontraire, c'est-à-dire quela responsabilité qu'ilsengagent incombe en

réalitéau Camerounet nonpas au Nigéria.Je me permets devous référer àce sujetà la duplique

(chap. XI, p. 597-711)et a ce que dirontjuste aprèsmoi mes éminents collèguess,ir Arthur Watts

et le professeurJames Crawford.

13. Face a ce travail sérieuxde la part du Nigéria,le Cameroun se défileet adopte une

stratégied'évitement,en nous disant que ce qui compte ce ne sont pas les incidents individuels,

maisleur ensemble, commesi l'ensemble est autrechose quelasommedeses éléments.

14.Maispassons desfaits non avérés aux présomption nsnvérifiées.Ce quim'amène àma

seconde et dernière remarque,qui porte sur le rapport entre contrôle temtorial et responsabilité

internationale.

Contrôleterritorialet responsabilitéinternationale

15. Monsieur le vice-président, Madame e Mtessieurs de la Cour,mis àpart cet ensemble

mythique d'incidentsnonou mal identifiés oudéformésl,e Camerouninvoque uneautre source de

responsabilité. En effetl,emêmeparagraphede la répliquequiparle de l'ensembleplutôtque des ,

incidents qui le composent, commencepar la réserve suivante :«à l'exception des occupations

massives de parties importantede sonterritoire))(répliqueduCameroun, p.493, par.11.25).

16.Et leprofesseurCorten, iciprésentaujourd'hui,conclutsa plaidoirie dumardi26 février

ainsi: ((1importe endéfinitivede revenirà l'essentie:des faits reconnuspar les deux

Parties- le déploiementet stationnement continu de troupes nigériane esn territoire
camerounais -, des principes juridiques acceptéspar tous -en particulier,
l'interdiction durecours la force-, une conclusion :la responsabilitédu Nigéria.))
(CR200217,p. 45,par.35.)

17. Mais si les principes sonten fait reconnus par les Parties, et même si l'on assume

arguendo que les faits sont également reconnuspar elles, toute la construction logique de cette

affirmationdu professeur Corten,comme de toutes les autrespiècesde plaidoiriesdu Cameroun,

sont assises surune présomption qui ne sauraitprévaloir sanla preuve de sa véracitéde la partdu

Cameroun. Car ilne s'agitpas ici d'une présomption juridique, c'est-à-dire édicp tareune règle

de droit, et qui, par conséquent,renverse la charge de la preuve. Non, il s'agit ici d'une

présomption defaitérigép earle Cameroun,faute de pouvoirprouver lesfaits qu'ellepostule.

18.Cette présomptionest double :en premierlieu, queles faits en questionont eu lieu«en

temtoire camerounais)),et en deuxièmelieu, que ce territoire étaitcontrôlé etadministrépar le

Cameroun au moment du déroulementdes faits. C'est seulement si cette présomption, dans sa

double affirmation, est démontrée,par la preuve administréepar le Cameroun, comme

correspondant à la réalité defsaits;et si on assumeque les événementsse sont déroulécommeles

a présentés le Cameroun, et seulement à ces conditions-là,qu'on pourrait arriverà la conclusion

juridique queces faits engagent la responsabiliduNigéria.

19. Je me permets d'analyser ces deux affirmationsl'une après l'autre pour démontrer

pourquoi chacune d'elles, et les deux cumulativement, doiveê nttre prouvéepsar le Cameroun,

avantdepouvoirconclurejuridiquement a la responsabilitduNigéria.

20. 11est clair que la souveraineté surBakassi est l'objet mêmedu différend qui a été

originairementsoumis àla Cour. Si la Cour arrive à la conclusionque les temtoires où se sont

produites cesprétendues((agressionet occupation)),ou, pouremployer les termesplus neutresdu

professeur Corten,«le déploiement elte stationnement))desforces;si laCourarrive à la conclusion

que ces territoires appartiennentau Nigéria, etquele Nigéria les administraite moment-là,il est

évidentque cesactivitésseraientde simplesactesdemaintiende l'ordreet de défensedu territoire.

Laresponsabilité,si responsabilitéily a, est celle de celuiqui trouble l'ordreou viole le territoire,

leCameroun enl'espècedanscette hypothèse. 21. Si, en revanche, et par hypothèse improbable, la Cou arriveà la conclusionque le titre

surcesterritoiresappartient au Cameroun, cela ne suffiraiptas,comme leprétendent les plaidoiries

du Cameroun, àchanger la qualification juridiquedu ((déploiemenett stationnementdes forces))en

((agression et occupation». Caril reste à prouver qu'à ce moment-là, à la date critique si vous

voulez, le Cameroun administraic testerritoires,et qu'il a été attaet délogé par la force.

22. En effet, ce qui comptedans ce type de situation, oùil y a un différend territorial ou

frontalier,ce n'est pas tant letitre contesté par lesdeux parties, et dont l'appartenancene sera

clarifiéede manière définitivqeue par la suite, par accordou par arrêt.Mais entre temps, ce qui

compte c'est le contrôle et l'administration paisible du territoire, qui déterminentle statu quo

protégé par le droit.

23. Sur cepoint,les deuxPartiessont d'accord. Ainsil,arépliqueduCamerounnous dit que

ce que le Cameroun reprocheau Nigéria, c'est «la violation dustatu quo territorial et l'utilisation

de la force, armée ounon, pour imposer unilatéralement sulre terrain sa propre vision de la

frontière)) (réplique du Cameroup n.,490, par.1.15).

24. Cela s'accorde par ailleurs avec l'interprétationla plus autorisée de l'article2,

paragraphe 4 dela Charte, queporte la ((déclaration relative aux principes dd eroit international

touchantaux relations amicales)) (Assemblée générale, résolu2 tion5 XXV, 1970), où, sous le

principede l'interdictiondurecours à laforce, onpeut lire

«Tout Etat a ledevoir de s'abstenir de recourir à la force pour violer les
frontièresinternationales existantesd'un autre Etat ou comme moyen de règlement
des différends internationaux, y compris les différendsterritoriaux et les questions
relatives auxfrontièresdesEtats.)) (Lesitaliques sont denous.)

25. La pratiquedu Conseil de sécurité va également daln esmêmesens, par exemple dans

son traitement dela crise des îlesMalouines/Falklands,où les résolutionsdu Conseil ont réservé

expressément le différend territorial ho ds leur portée (cf. Oscar SchachterI,nternational Law in

Theoryand Practice, La Haye, Nijhoff, 1991,p. 116).

26. Ainsi,17Etatqui administre paisiblement un territoirà, titre de souverain, carcroyantde

bonnefoi, pour des raisons juridiques crédibles, que ce territoirlui appartient, est7Etatprotégé

par le droit, compris pour cequi est de l'intégrité territoriadle ce territoire;et cela, mêmes'ils'avère,par la suite, par exempleàl'issue d'un arbitrage,ue le titre sur ce territoire éàhunt

autre Etat.

27. Cet Etat, ayant agi paisiblement et de bonne foi,ne commet aucun tort et n'encourt

aucuneresponsabilitépar le simplefaitd'avoir administré le territoi. 'est l'essence même dla

doctrine, tantdécriée palr'autre Partie,honestbeliefand reasonable mistake))(quej'exprime en

anglais, carc'est une doctrine très connueen common law), doctrine qu'on a caricaturée pour

mieux la critiquer,commesi onne savaitpasde quoi on parlait.

28. Maisde grâce,il ne s'agitpas de commettre une agressionpar erreuret/ou de bonnefoi.

Il s'agit dela bonne foi de 1'Etatqui est déjàen possession paisible du territoire,qui l'adàinistre

titre de souverain, parce qu'ilcroit, pour des raisons juridiques créd,u'il est le souverain;et

cela même s'isl'avèrepar lasuite qu'il ne'estpas.

29. Ainsi, Monsieur le vice-président, Madam et Messieursde la Cour,je retourne à mon

point de départ.La responsabilité pour la prétendue agresside,même que la responsabilité pour

les incidents oupour leur ensemble, dépendde la preuve des faits. Et le fait déterminant ici est de

savoir qui était le possesseur paisibdu territoire, sur lequelil exerçait sa puissance publique

titre de souverainau momentdes événements.

30. Le Nigériaa démontré par le détail, en fournissantla preuve par quatre, qu'il était

toujours présent, luicomme ses prédécesseurs, à Bakassi; qu'ils ont habitéet gouverné sans

interruption, comme maîtres des lieux, et cela jusqu'à présentd,ans la ferme conviction qu'il

s'agissaitd'une partieduterritoire national.

31. Cette administrationétaittout à fait adéquateet adaptéeaux besoins de l'endroit, y

comprisen terme de force de l'ordre. Etsià la fin de 1993,le Gouvernementfédérad luNigéria a

dû accroître saprésencemilitaire et ses forces de sécuritéakassi (dupliquedu Nigéria, p. 118,

par. 3.131etsuiv.), il ne s'agissaiten aucune manière d'un déploiement et stationnemedetforce

dans un territoire où ellen'y étaitpas déjà. Maisil s'agissait d'un renforcement dicté pades

événements internes sans rapport avec le présent différendt qui sont décritsen détail dans la

duplique du Nigéria. Il est vrai que ce renforcement répondait égalemen àtune autre source

grandissante de préoccupation,à savoir, les incursions croissantes desagents et des gendarmes

camerounaisdans la région etleur harcèlement des habitants. 32. Dans ces conditions, il est toutà fait normal pour le Nigériade défendrecontre ces

incursionsce qu'il considèrecomme son territoire, mêmesi elles étaientmenéesau nom d'une

prétentionde souveraineté contradictoire.Ce sont ces incursions quiconstituent l'agression et qui

engagentla responsabilité de l'assaillant, qlue soit le sort de saprétentionquant au titre sur le

territoire.

33. Le Cameroun lui aussi, prétend avoiértéle possesseurduterritoire,et qu'il aété attaqué

et délogé par le Nigéria. Mais le Cameroun ne l'a pas prouvé. Il n'a pas prouvésa présence

effectivedans ceterritoire,ce qui est la prémisse essentide sonraisonnement. Il s'est contenté

d'invoquersa qualitéformelle de souverain,sur la base de titres qui sont contestableset contestés

par leNigéria.

34. En fait, le Cameroun, par la voix du professeurMendelson, a accusé le Nigéria

d'«empiler les preuves», comme si l'abondance de preuves de la possession paisible et de

l'administration effective du territoire,par le jeu d'une dialectique juridique qui dépasse

l'entendement,esten soi une preuve à l'encontre de celuiqui l'administre. Cependant,c'estsur la

preuve de cet élémene , non pas sur un quelconque titre contesté, qee décidela questionde la

responsabilité,en départageant l'assaillatustatu quo du possesseurpaisible et de bonne foi, qui,

lui, bénéficiee laprotection du droit.

35. Monsieurlevice-président, Madame et Messieursde la Cour,il n'y a pas d'échappatoire

devant l'évidence. Et l'évidence icic,e sont, en anglais «the rules of evidence)), les règles de

preuve, et surtout celle de la charge de la preuve qui incombeau demandeur, qui est ici le

Cameroun. Une charge qu'iln'a pas assumée. Cequi non seulement rendsans fondementsa

demande en responsabilité, mais l'expose a muêmetype de demande à rebours, car dansce genre

de situation,si onn'estpas l'assailli on est nécessairement l'assaillant.

Je vous remercie, Monsieurle vice-président,Madameet Messieursde la Cour.

The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: Thany kou, Professor Abi-Saab. 1now give the

floorto SirArthurWatts. SirArthur Watts youhavethe fioor. SirArthurWATTS: Thank you, Mr. Vice-President.

STATE RESPONSIBILITY

1. Mr. Vice-President,Members of the Court, the State responsibility aspects of this case

mustnotonlybe among themore extensiveto have beenbroughtbefore this Court, butalso oneof

the most muddled. Cameroon's presentation of thip sart of its case is an object lesson in

indecision,imprecisionand inadequacy.

2. Cameroon's case has involvedtwo aspects of alleged State responsibilityon the part of

Nigeria. Firstthere are a number of general allegations, coveringNigeria's allegedbreaches of

treaties or of general rules of international law. Second, there are a number ofparticular

allegationsof responsibilitysaidto arise outof specific incidentswhich Cameroonsays occurred.

3. The present hearings are not the first time thatthe Court has consideredthese issues of

State responsibility brought before the Court by Cameroon's ApplicationIst.is, in fact,thefourth

time. Itmightbe of assistanceif 1remindthe Courtofthe otherthree.

4. The first was in February 1996,when Cameroon soughtfiom the Court an indication of

provisional measures. Cameroon claimed that Nigeria had launched a series of aîtacks against

Cameroonianforcesin Bakassion 3 February 1996.

5. 1will consider later the factsof those so-calledattacks, but for the present 1need only

observe that,of course, Mr.Vice-President, within the fiamework of those proceedings,the Court,

in itsOrder on Cameroon's request for the indication of provisional measures', was unable to

decidewhatthe true facts were. However, in indicating variousprovisional measures which were

to be adopted by both Parties, the Court certainlydid not find that the Cameroonian allegations

were well-founded.The Court simplysaidthat the differing versionsof eventsgiven by the Parties

"have not enabled the Court, at this stage, to form anyclear and precise idea of those events",

althoughthe Courtdid consideredit clearthat therehadbeen military incidentsin Bakassi,and that

theyhad causedsuffering,including lossof life, to individuals aswell as materialdamage2. Even

so, the Courtobserved that, in the contextof proceedingsconcemingthe indication of provisional

'I.c.Reports1996,p.13.
20rder,para.38.measures, it could not make definitive findingsof fact or of imputability, andit left over further

consideration of factand argument forthe merits3.

6. Even at this early stage, the pattern of subsequent developments was beginningto

emerge - Cameroonmakes allegations, largelyunsubstantiated by anything in the way of serious

evidence and often vague as to details, and Nigeria responds, withevidence, demonstrating that

Cameroon's claims lack substanceand, in many instances, turn reality on its head- 1will give

specific exampleslater,Mr. Vice-President.

7. The secondtime that the Court consideredthese matters wasin the preliminary objections

phase of this case. Nigeria, in its sixth preliminary objection, submitted that the issues ofState

responsibility raisedby Cameroon should be declared inadmissible. Nigeria madethat submission

on the grounds that Carneroon's Applications and Mernorial were inadequate as to the facts on

which they were based, including the dates, circumstances and precise locations of the various

incidents which Cameroon alleged engaged Nigeria's international responsibility. And exactly

those same missing characteristicswere evident in the further alleged incidents which Cameroon

saw fitto add in its observationsonNigeria's preliminary objections.

8. In its Judgment of 11June 1998~the Court rejected this objection. Three elementsof the

Court's Judgmentare,nevertheless, relevant to subsequent developments.

- First, the Courtin effect held that Camerooncould add to the facts and grounds set out in its

Applications- so long, of course, as the result did not transform the dispute into one of a

different character;

- second, the Courtnoted that while Carneroon'sstatement of the facts and groundson which it

relieswas sufficientfor purposesof the admissibilityof the case,this did notnecessarilymeanthat

they wouldbe sufficientfortheconsiderationatthe merits phase. Asthe Courtputit, itsdecision

"does not, however, prejudgethe question whether,taking account of the information
submitted to theCourt, the facts alleged by the Applicant are established ornot, and
whether the grounds it reliesupon are foundedor not. Those questions belong to the
merits ..."';

3~rder,para. 43.
%C.J Reports1998,pp. 317-319,paras. 95-102; p. 326, 118(1)B.

'para. 100.- moreover- and this was the third element- the Court observed that, while the alleged

factual inadequacy in Cameroon's Applicationwas not such as to preclude the Court from

proceeding with the case, it "1s the applicant which must bear the consequences of an

applicationthat gives an inadequate renderingof the factsand grounds on whichthe claimis

ba~ed."~

9. SinceNigeria needed to be clear about which specificincidents it had to respond to, the

extent of Cameroon'sright to go on adding new incidentsto its charge-sheetagainst Nigeria was

the subjectofthe Court's third considerationof Stateresponsibilityissues. The Court deliveredits

Judgment on Nigeria's request for interpretation on 25 March 1999'. The Court in effect

confirmedthat Carnerooncould introduce intotheproceedingsfacts and incidentsother than those

specifiedin its Applications, evenincluding,apparently,yet further new incidentswhich might be

added in the future- always subject, of course, to the nature of the proceedings remaining

unchanged.

10. Cameroon did indeed continue to add new incidents to the original citations in the

Applications - "new" both in thesense of involving allegedrecent occurrences,and in the sense

of older eventswhich musthave been- or at leastshouldhave been - knownto Cameroonwhen

its various documentswere lodged withthe Court. Each newpleading addedyet more allegations,

with the threatened possibilityof even moreyet toome.

11.The position reached, therefore,as we approachedthis present,fourth, occasion for the

Courtto considerquestionsof Stateresponsibilitywas that Cameroonputbeforethe Courtnot only

a number of generalallegations ofStateresponsibility forsuchthings asbeingin breachof various

treaties or rules of general application,but also a considerablenumber ofparticularallegationsof

international responsibilitysingoutofawholesenesof specificincidentssaidto haveoccurredover

a considerablepenod - eachofwhich,accordingly,requiredseparateexaminationonitsownmerits.

12.Nigeria dealt carefullywiththat mixedbag of claimsin its Counter-Memorial, including

a lengthy refutation of Cameroon's claimsbased on the 82particular incidents which Cameroon

'~e~uestfor lnterpretationof the Judgment ofII June 1998in the Case concerningthe Land and Maritime
Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, Prelirninary Objections (Nigeriav. Cameroon), Judgment,I.C.J. Reports
1999.had said had occurred8. Nigeria showedthat virtually every single allegation put forward by

Cameroonwas either insufficiently specific as to the nature of theincident itselfor its location,or

was unsupported by evidence,or was too old to be a proper basis now for a claim ofState

responsibility, or concerned events which in no way involved matters for which Nigeriawas

responsible.

13.But then, at the finalstage of the pleadings, Cameroon,having engaged in a processof

steady inflationof its "State responsibility"case against Nigeria,changed its mind. In its Reply,

Cameroon withdrewits assertion of Nigeria's international responsibility for incidents taken in

isolation and on a separate and individual basis. Atleast, Mr. Vice-President, that iswhat

Cameroon appearsto have donealthough,as 1 shallexplain,a littleuncertaintystillremains.

14.Nigeria, of course,welcomesthis fundamental change in Cameroon's positionI.t is, on

Cameroon's part, a welcome acceptance of reality:those claims were, as Nigeria has shown,

unsustainable, andby now withdrawing themNigeria's patient and detailedresponse to eachand

every oneof themhas been completely vindicated. MoreoverM , r.Vice-Presidentand Membersof

the Court,as 1amsure you willappreciate,the task ofthe Courtis now greatly simplified.

15. In its Reply, when giving expression to its abandonment of these individual claims,

Cameroon suggestedthat Nigeriahad al1along been wrongin thinking that Cameroon wantedto

hold Nigeria responsiblefor each of the incidents taken as separate and individual incidents9.

Mr. Vice-President,this touchesthe borderline between beingdisingenuousand somethingworse.

Everythi tnat Cameroondid inand beforeits Memorial clearlyindicatedthat that wasprecisely

what Cameroon wantedlO. That was what its Applications involved; and that was what its

Memorial involved,where the alleged actswere describedas separateand individual incidentsand

werethusmanifestly includedwithinthe scopeof Cameroon'ssubmissions.

16. Moreover, Nigeria's understanding that Cameroon wasclaiming separate international

responsibility foreach incidentwas the evident basis for Nigeria's sixth preliminary objection-

on no other basis would Nigeriahave maintained that Cameroonhad provided inadequatedetail

8~ounter-~emorial of Nigeria, pp.653-795.

9~eplyof Cameroon,para11.1: and seeRejoinderof Nigeria,p. 602, para. 16.12,3.otnote
'O~ejoinderofNigeria, pp.602-604,paras1-16.20.about thevariousincidents,and on no other basis would Nigeria have requested fromthe Court an

interpretation related exclusivelyto Carneroon's continued introduction of new incidentsA . t no

time during those two sets of proceedings did Carneroonseek to deny Nigeria's evident

understanding,orto explainitsown positionas it hasdonenow.

17.DespiteCameroon'sattempt toexplainawayits volteface, the inescapable conclusionis

that Cameroonhasnow abandoned a major portionof this part of itscase against Nigeria.

18. But, Mr. Vice-President, its abandonmena tppears not to be total. Cameroonseeks to

draw a distinctionbetween,onthe one hand, its allegations that Nigeria hadviolated its obligations

in respect ofsomegeneral matters - to respect established boundaries, to refrain from occupying

Cameroonianterritory,and to observecertainso-called fundamentallegal principles- and, on the

otherhand,the particularactsbywhichthoseviolationshavebeenmanifest".

19. Thus Cameroon says that it "is at pains to reiterate, in the most forma1manner and in

order to avoid al1 ambiguity, that ... it is not so much the incidents in themselves, taken in
,312
isolation,which matter,as theincidentsasawhole ...

20. Later,Cameroonis even more specific. It says that Cameroon's"intention in presenting

these facts is not to ask the Court to accept that the Respondentis liable with respect to each of

thern,but to showthat Nigeriahas violated and continuesto violatethe rightsof Cameroon .. ."13;

in effect as embodied incertainbroad legal principles categorized by Camerooa ns "fundamental".

"the specific incidents... are not therefore the essential subjectof this claim ...[i.e.,
for responsibility]. It is not therefore a case of lodging a host of claims for

responsibility dealing separately with each aco tf incursion and then occupation by
Nigeria. ..the incidents referred to ,914wshould not be considered tobe autonornous
basesfor irnplyingresponsibility ...

21. That iscrystal clear. Such statements aremade separatelyin relation to Bakassi,Lake

Chad, and the land boundary betweenthem. Cameroon'swithdrawal ofseparate and individual

"Reply ofCameroon,paras.11.13-1.17.
'2~eplofCameroon,para. 11.25.

'3~eplof Cameroon,para.11.30.
'4~eplyofCarneroon,paras11.168,11.170,11.171.claimsis beyond anydoubt. Nigeria welcometshat development,belatedthoughit is- thoseclaims

should neverhave beenpresentedinthefirstplace.

22. Now, of course, Cameroon seeksto argue that its position has been misunderstoodal1

along - an argumentwhich is whollylackingin conviction. Equally unconvincing is Cameroon's

almost risible suggestionthat, by concentrating on the individualandseparate claims, Nigeria was

seekingto divert attentionaway from Cameroon's main cas e namelythe general claims relating

to certain broad principles of international law. Thatrefrain is familiar, Mr. Vice-President.

Earlier this week 1 had occasion to note Cameroon's contention that Nigeria only wanted to

examinespecific locationsalongthe land boundarysoas to divert attentionfrom Cameroon'smain

case seekingthe general affirmationoftherelevant boundary instruments.

23. In fact, Mr.Vice-President andMembers of the Court, that situation andthe present

situationhave two significant thingsin common. First,both involveissues which were put before

the Court by Cameroon- that is,the requestto specifythe boundary definitively, and the request

to findNigeria responsible in respectof a large numberof individual incidents. Secondi,nrelation

to both situations, onceNigeria picks up Cameroon'sissue and examinesit in detail, Cameroon

backs off: here, yet again,just aswith the land boundary, Cameroondeclinesto getits handsdirty

with detail. It muchprefers tomake largely unsupported allegations,trying to createprejudicein

the Court'smind, andthen, whenthe goinggets hard, Cameroonsays: "Oh,we meant something

else!"

24. Given, al1the same, that Cameroonhas now also backed away from these individual

claims of State responsibility, one must askwhat purpose Cameroon now thinks that these

individualincidents serve. In relation to theland boundary,we know: Cameroon hassaid in its

Reply of4 Apnl that itcited thevariousincidentsalongtheland boundary"onlytoprove, primarily,

that the disputeetweenthe twocountriesalsoappliestothispartofthelandbounda~y"'~.

25. But Cameroonhad obviously forgotten- Mr.Vice-President, 1 said at the beginning

that Cameroon'scasewas muddled - that nearlytwo years earlier,in June 1998, the Courthad in

''R~~Io~f Carneroon,par12.29.its Judgment on Preliminary Objections already rejectedthis argument. The Court,it will be

recalled, saidthat

"not every boundary incident implies a challenge to the boundary .. . Even taken

together with the existingboundary disputes [by which the Court was refemng to
thoseconcemingDarak, Bakassi andTipsan],the incidents andincursionsreported by
Cameroondo not establishby themselves the existenceof a dispute concerningal1of
theboundary between Cameroonand~igeria."'~

26.The Court's 1998 conclusion isnow al1the stronger giventhat, as wasexplained earlier

this week,Cameroonhas also now abandonedits allegation aboutthe dispute at Tipsan. Indeed,

Cameroonhaving abandoned its claimto Tipsan, and havingabandoned individual responsibility

claims,andhavingtriedto abandonitsrequestto havethe land boundary specified definitivelya ,nd

having abandoned a succession ofits earlier maritime boundary lines,the remnantsof Cameroon's

case arelookingrather tattered.

27.Cameroon still, however,appearstomaintainthe individualincidentsasfacts, evenifnot

as claims. We are told that theyare not "the essential subjectof this claim", that is, the claim for

re~~onsibility". Instead, they arevariously expressed tobe only "accessory issuesv'*o ,r "facts

proving the continued occupation by Nigeriaof part of Cameroon temt~r~"'~,or "grounds in

support of [Cameroon's] s~bmissions"~~,or "merely facts that test$ and illustrate this

~ccu~ation~~~'.

28. So let me look nowat the general, broad, claimsfor which Cameroonwould liketo use

these individual incidentsas supportingevidence. They seemto boil down to four, namelythat

Nigeria:

attacked and occupied Cameroonian territory;

violated theprincipleof utipossidetis juris;

violated the obligationto settledisputesbypeacefulmeans; and

violated theCourt'sOrderof 15March 1996.

16~.~.~eports 1998,para. 90: emphasis added.

1Replyof Cameroon,para. 11.168.

I8~eplyof Cameroon, par11.168.
19~eplyof Cameroon, para. 11.171.

'O~e~lyof Cameroon,para. 11.16: emphasisadded.
2Replyof Cameroon,para. 11.168. 29. The complaintthat Nigeria attacked and occupied Cameroonian tenitory is, of course,

question-begging. Before Cameroon can complain, forexample, of the military occupation by

Nigeria of its temtory, Cameroonmust show thatthe territorywas indeed Cameroon'sin the first

place. Cameroon useswords like "invasion" and "occupation" to describe Nigeria's military

actions- words which cany with them the implication that the landsaffected were somehow

already Cameroonian. Quite apart from Cameroon's inadequatelegal arguments to that effect,

evidence ofsucha stateof affairs isthin,ifnot completelylacking.

30. Indeed, as Mr. Brownlie showed aweek ago, with an ovenvhelming review of the

evidence, the principal characteristic of boththe Bakassi and Lake Chad areas was peaceful

administration byNigeria, well before the recentevents of which Cameroon complains.So far as

concems Cameroon's allegedpre-existing presence there,Mr.Brownlieshowed thatit wasnotable

foritsabsence - forexample,no Carneroonianhealthfacilities,no Cameroonianeducation facilities.

31. Along the land boundary we have seen, at Tipsan, what a muddled conceptof

"occupation of Cameroonian temtory" is applied by Cameroon. In Bakassi, from the 1960s

onwards, Nigeria introduced and implemented extensive local government changes. Arewe to

believethat Cameroonwas the goveming administrationin Bakassi, butchose .toSaynothing while

these changes weretaking place? The only realistic conclusionis that Cameroon simply was not

there- otherwise, perhaps,than onanunlawfuland ephemeral basis.

32. Let me remind the Courtof another significantmatter. Mrs. Andem-Ewa describedto

the Court last~eek*~the disputewhich, from thelate 1980sandintothe 1990~~ had takenplacein

Nigeria between CrossRiver State and Akwa Ibom State: the disputewas over which of them

shouldgovem the wholeof Bakassi. The disputewas both publicand widely publicized. It began

at a time- the late 1980s- when Cameroonsays it was alreadyin occupation of Bakassi. And

yet throughout the dispute Cameroon uttered not w aord of protest, or even concem. Somuch for

Cameroon'salleged pre-existing presence inBakassi.

33. So, Mr. Vice-President, the question beggedby Cameroon'sclaims against Nigeriastarts

with an answer whichstrikesat theveryrootof Cameroon'scase on State responsibility. But more

2 2 ~200211p.35,paras.31-34.is involved than the begging of questions. There is also the question of evidence. Not only

evidenceof Cameroon'spre-existing presence in Bakassi,which is singularlylacking,but evidence

of eventswhich are allegedto infringeCarneroon's rights.

34. And such evidenceis crucial. As Professor Abi-Saab has showni,t is for Cameroonto

produce the evidence to back up its claims. The evidence must unambiguously support the

proposition in respectof which it is introduced,must leaveno room forreasonable doubt, mustbe

precise and detailed, andmust be such as to enable the Court to "satisfj itself that each concrete

claim is well foundedin fact andin law". That, Mr. Vice-President, ishow the Courtput it inthe

FisheriesJurisdiction case23- a caseto which ProfessorCrawfordwillreturn more fullylaterthis

morning. In a matter as senous as a claimof State responsibility, Cameroon's burden of proof is

heavy. Ithas not discharged it.

35. Using words like "invasion", or evenmore so, "aggression",does not of itself establish

that that is, in law, what happened. Here Cameroon failsto draw a crucial distinction. It is the

distinctionbetween the absenceof a constituent element of a wrongful act, with the result thn ao

wrongfulacthas takenplace, and, onthe other hand, a defenceto Stateresponsibility which applies

so as to preclude an act, which prima facie constitutes a wrongful act, fiom giving rise to State

responsibility. Self-defence, forxample,normally belongsin the latter category, whereas thefact

that an actof force wasnot directedagainsttheterritorialintegrity of another Statewouldbe in the

former category.

36.Nigeria, for the reasonsgiven in its Counter-MemorialandRejoinder, deniesthat ithas

committedany internationally wrongful actagainst Cameroonby reason of the launching ofany

attackonthe territory of Cameroon,or staying onany Cameroonian territoryaftenvards.

37. To turn to the three remaining Camerooniangeneral allegations, Professor Abi-Saab

showed earlierthis weekthat inno way canNigeria beconsideredto have violated the principleof

utipossidetis, and thereisno needfor meto addto whathe said.

38.1can also be brief about theallegationthat Nigeria has beenin breach ofits obligations

to settle its international disputes bypeaceful means. Cameroon has not sought to justi@ this

'%c.J.Reports1974,p.204, para.76.allegation in any detail, and there is indeed no evidence, or even argument, whichsupports it.

Nigeria has, andis participatinginthesepresentproceedings; Nigeria has played its fullpart inthe

Lake Chad Basin Commission; Nigeriahas negotiated itsmaritime boundarieswith those States

which - unlike Cameroon- have soughtto settlethosematters by negotiationas required bythe

Lawof the SeaConvention. The long-standing statusquo inthe Bakassi andLakeChadareas, and

alongthe landboundary,hasbeen andstill is oneofNigerian administrationand sovereignty: it is

only Cameroonwhich, by its attempts to encroach uponNigerian territory, has destabilized a

previously stableregion and has led to the existenceof a dispute- one which is of Cameroon's

making and which Cameroon has maintainedby the actions of its own military forces and

gendarmerie.

39. To turn to the last head of Cameroon's generalclaims against Nigeria,conceming

alleged non-observance ofthe Court'sOrder of 15March 1996,Nigeria has alreadyrejected those

allegationsas~nfounded~~.

40. Counselfor Cameroonneverthelessarguedat somelength thatNigeria was in breach of

the Court's Order. This Order followed Cameroon'srequest to the Court following a military

incident whichoccurredinearlyFebruary 1996.

41. Let me first considerthe facts of that incident. Cameroon's story isthat Cameroon's

soldiers in WestAtabongwent to the beachfor a beer and aswim, and Nigerian forceschose that

moment to fire mortar shells ont0 West Atabong. Nigerianforces shelling a Nigerian town,

Mr. Vice-President? Thatdoes not seem likely. In fact, Nigeria's account is very different. As

explained to theCourt in 1996and also in Nigeria's ~ejoinde?~what happened was that,on what

was a peacefulmarket day in West Atabong, Cameroonianforces stealthily approachedWest

Atabong along the many creeks and watenvays- the Court saw them on the video the other

day- and fired mortar shells on the town. Nigerianforc,esresponded in self-defence, and the

Cameroonianforces fled- some, indeed,along the beach, butnot for a beer and a swim. While

the two storiesdiffer, one thing appearsnot to be in dispute-there was material damage, and-

24~ejoinderof Nigeria,p. 577, para. 15.53.

25~ejoinderof Nigeria,pp.685-693.more important- there was loss of life, and injury to people. In fact 12Nigerian soldiers and

civilianswerekilled, and atleast23 wereinjured.

42. Whatis particularlynotableisthe verydifferent qualityof the evidenceproducedby the

two Parties. Cameroon, eventhough it was the initiator ofthe 1996 proceedings,producedvery

little in the wayof evidenceto the Court(althoughit did producemore subsequently). Nigeria,by

contrast,suppliedthe Court during theproceedingswith the textsof the messagespassing between

the Nigerian militaxy units which came under attack and their headquarters. Those messages

clearly show theNigerian forces responding to a Cameroonianattack, and being orderedto do no

more than wasnecessarytodefendthemselves.

43. Cameroon seeks to dismiss the evidence by saying that the messages were

incomprehensible,and that it was only two-and-a-half hoursafter the first attack that Nigerian

troops senttheirfirst messageback totheirheadquarters.

44. Mr.Vice-President and Members of the Court, in a situation like that which had

occurred, a localmilitary unit is likelyto have two things above al1in its mind. First, to protect

itself. Second,to believe thatit was facedonly with some very minor local incident withwhich it

was well ableto cope. Ittakes a littletimeto realizethat the attackwas on a much larger scale. In

such circumstances, a two-and-a-half-hour delayis entirely understandable- and indeed it

conoboratesNigeria'sstory.

45. As for the alleged incomprehensibilityof the Nigerian military messages,let me just

make four shortpoints. First, soldiersarenot lawyers: they communicatewith each otherin their

own terms,not ours. Second,military abbreviationsare easyfor non-soldiersto understand,with

the applicationof just a little intelligence: "SITREP" is readily understoodas "situationreport",

"TPS" as "troops","POS" as "position", and so on. Third, in fact Nigeria "translated"- if 1may

use that word- the texts of the military messages in its ~ejoinder'~. Fourth, Nigeria's 1996

military messages areno more incomprehensible than are the messages put in evidence by

Cameroon afewweeks agorelating to the allegedaerial incursionin December2001-or indeed,

Cameroon'sownmilitarymessagesincludedas variousof itsAnnexesinits written pleadings.

--
26~ejoinderof Nigeria,688-690. 46. Let me now tum, Mr. Vice-President,to the alleged violation by Nigeriaof the Court's

interim measures Order. Counsel for Cameroon developed, in effect, three charges against

~i~eria". Thus Nigeriais saidtohave

continued trying to expelCameroon's forcesfromthe eastemhalf of Bakassi;

failedtoconserve evidence; and

takenadministrative action in relationto Bakassi whichprejudicestheposition of Carneroon.

Not oneof these allegationscanbe sustained.

47. Nothing that may have happenedsince the Order was made in March 1996 can be

regardedas an attemptto expel Cameroon military forces fiom the eastem half of Bakassi. The

incidentof April-May 1996,to which Cameroon referred,has alreadybeen dealt with in Nigeria's

~ejoinder". There was no breach by Nigeria of the Court's Order. The story shows, not some

Nigerianattempt to expel Cameroon,but rather Nigeria's self-restraint - for the fact is that it was

Cameroonwhich launched attacksagainst Nigerian positions between 21 Apriland 1May 1996.

Nigeria'sForeign Minister lodged a complaint with his Camerooniac nounterpart conceming these

and otherattacks inJune 1996'~.

48. Counsel sought also to identifj a breachof the Order in General Abacha's statemenitn

May 1996 - in response to Cameroon'sattackson Bakassi - that Nigeria would strengthen its

forcesinBakassi. But,Mr. Vice-President,theCourt's Orderrequiredthe Partiesnot to go beyond

their positions as they were in February 1996. This was a matter of location, not nurnbers. Any

aggravation of the dispute consequentialupon the events of April-May 1996 must be laid at

Cameroon's door, notNigeria's.

49. Counsel added a complaint about the transformation of the envisaged United Nations

fact-findingmission into a mere goodwill mission. Thenature of that mission was, however, a

political matter to be determined in New York. Al1that was eventually agreed upon was a

goodwillmission. Cameroonmight regret that,but that is the political fact - to which 1 would

2 7 ~200217,pp.58et segparas. 1etseq(Tomuschat).
28
Rejoinder of Nigeria, pp.694-697.
29~ounter-~emorialof Nigeria,p. 807,para.25.17; RejoinderofNigeria, App.to Chap. 16,p. 696, para. 173.only add that, even while these judicial proceedings have been in progress, a contributionto

"goodwill"is not tobe scorned.

50. Let me now tum to counsel's contention that Nigeriahas violated theCourt's Orderby

failing to conserveevidence30.The Orderdid indeed include a requirement"to conserve evidence

relevant to the present case within the disputedarea". And what, Mr. Vice-President,is Nigeria

allegedto havedone? Destroyed,it seems,some German-placedstonesat Tipsan! But, as 1noted

earlier in the week, Cameroon has never explained what possible relevance these allegedly

German-placed stoneshave tothe boundary atTipsan.

51. Counselalso referredto another pillarabout which Cameroon hadreceived information

that it had been removedby Nigeria. Cameroon"had received information"? We need evidence,

Mr. Vice-President. Counsel indeed cited some evidence- it consists of a report, dated

November 1996,refemng to an earlier report recording aflight over a borderarea. That earlier

report said that- without mentioning anydate- the Nigerian population of a village had

removed the boundary pillar,and the report proposed a meeting between Nigerian and

Cameroonian officialsto replace it. So, noevidence of action taken afrerthe date of the Court's

Order; no evidence of actionby Nigerian official organs; and no evidence of any difficulty as

between the officialson the two sides. In short, there is no evidence whatsoever of a breachby

Nigeria of the Court'sOrder.

52.The only other pointcounsel mentionedin thecontextof the conservationof evidenceis

the complaint that Cameroon doesnot haveaccess to its archives in Bakassi, andis thus deprived

of its evidence. Leavingasidethe facts that are assumedin that complaint, the Court orderedthe

consemation of evidence, and nothingCameroon says suggests that any evidence has been

destroyed.

53.But in any event,the evidenceto be conserved isonly evidence whichis relevantto the

present case, and relevance is obviously something to be established by evidence- of which

Cameroon submits none.

''CR200217,p.65,para14(Tomuschat). 54. As for administrativeactiontaken by Nigeria in relation toBakassi, there is nothing in

the Court's Order which requires al1civilian administration tocome to a halt. Counsel triedto

show that what Nigeria had done somehow prejudiced Cameroon'srights in the event thatthe

Court might decide in Cameroon's favour. But his attempt lacks al1 conviction. Thereis no

possible prejudiceto Cameroon's position in Nigeria continuingto make arrangements for the

health,the education andsocial welfareof the Nigerian populationof Bakassi, or to provideforthe

safetyof civil aviationin the skiesaboveBakassi.

55. Mr.Vice-President, Membersof the Court, Cameroon'sgeneral, broad claims against

Nigeria are thusevidentlywithout substance. Al1the same,it isin that contextthat Cameroon now

wants its various individual incidentsto be considered. Insteadof being, as hitherto, separate

self-standing claims ofState responsibilityin their own right, theyare now presentedas beingjust

"grounds in support of[Cameroon's]submissions",or "factsthat testifj and illustrate"them. This

bringsus backto the questionof evidence.

56. Cameroon'schange of presentationdoes Cameroonno good. In order to establishits

general, broadclaims against Nigeria, Cameroonmust supportthose claims with the facts which

showthat the claim issoundly based. But they stillhave tobe facts, Mr. Vice-President.

57. In seekingto reduce the significance of these incidentsin the way it has, Cameroonhas

donenothingtoreducethe evidentiary burden resting upon it: it must still substantiate themby the

production of evidenceof sufficientprobative value.

58. Allegationsabout particularhappenings are of no forensic value at al1unless theyare

supportedby evidencesufficient to establish thatthey did in fact occur in the mannerand location

alleged, and are relevantto the purpose for which they are relied on. This applies as much to

allegations about incidentsrelied onas evidence in supportofviolationsof general rules, as it does

to incidentswhich aredirectly relied onas themselves givingrise to international responsibilityon

thepart of Nigeria.

59. Carneroonpurports now to besimplytreating the incidents"as a ~hole"~',ratherthanas

separate, discrete events. But they must stillbe substantiatedby proper evidence, one by one.

3'~eplyofCameroon,para.11.25. Where somethingis allegedto have beendone "persistently"or "regularly", it must be proved to

have been done on severaloccasions,and not just once: indeed, such an allegation of persistent

conduct serves in a senseto increase the burden on theparty assertingit, for if the conductreally

was persistent, then it follows that theremust beplenty of evidence about it, so that the failure to

produceanyis al1the more remarkable.

60. Alleged incidents"illustrate"nothing, and"establish" nothing, except and to the extent

that they areproved by evidence. Without evidence, they are nothing. Andthe cumulativeeffect

of severalzeros is still zero.

61. Mr. Vice-President, Membersof the Court, 1 said at the beginning that the State

responsibility aspects of Cameroon'scase must be among the more muddled ever to have been

presentedto the Court, and 1need bnefiy to indicate anotherarea of muddle. As 1have shown, it

seemsclearenough onthe basis of what Cameroon saidin its Reply, thatCameroon haswithdrawn

or abandoned its international responsibility claimsso far as they arise out of the separate and

individualalleged incidentswhich Cameroon has put befortehe Court.

62.Yet if one looksat the final submissions inCameroon's~e~l~~o ~n,e sees that this may

not be quite the case. Those submissions make a numberof references to the use of force by

Nigeria, including"repeatedincursions, bothciviland military,al1alongthe boundary between the

two countries". Thencomessubparagraph(gjw ,hich assertsthat "the intemationallywrongfulacts

referred toabove and describedin detail in theMemorialof the Republicof Cameroon and in the

present Reply involvethe responsibilityof the Federal Republicof Nigeria".

63.Soone must ask- arethoseincidents stillalive,as particular and individual incidents of

Stateresponsibility,orhave theyinthat sensebeenabandoned? It is regrettablethat at this stagein

the proceedings, andin relation to such an important partof the case, Cameroon's changeable

conduct should still make it possibleto ask such a question. In view of the clear and repeated

statementsin the body of Cameroon'sReply,to the effect that these separateand individualclaims

of Stateresponsibility were being withdrawn, Nigeria assume tsat Cameroon cannotnow beheard

32~eplyof Cameroon, para.11.0to assert othenvise, and that Cameroon's submissions are to be interpreted in the light of those

statements.

64. On that basis, Mr.Vice-President, Nigeria will notat this stage go through al1these

individual incidentsone by one- although there aretwo which 1will mention in somedetail in a

moment.

65. It may, nevertheless, assist the Court1irecall Nigeria's overall conclusionsn State

responsibility,asset out in Chapter7of its Rejoinder. They areas follows:

"At the level of individual incidents,it is significanthow many of Cameroon's
allegations areaffectedby some oral1of the following deficiencies:

(a) having made the allegations in earlier pleadings, Cameroon has expressly or
tacitlyabandonedthem ...;

(b) they relateto locations whichare either unspecified, uncertain or mislocated;

(c) they concernlocalitieswhich are not the subject of any dispute, and thus have
nothing to do with the boundary dispute, or senes of boundary disputes, that
underliesthepresentcase;

(4 theyareunsupportedby anyfirst-hand evidenceo , ronlysupportedby evidencethat
wasspecificallypreparedforthepurposesofthe case;

(e) they do not on the face of theminvolve conduct attributableto Nigeria under
internationallaw;

the factsallegedareconsistentwithCameroon'sownresponsibility,or withneither
fl
Statebeingresponsible;

(g)the incidentsin question,if they occurredas alleged,were trivial, occasionaland
ephemeral;

fi) thereisno allegationthatanypersonorpropertywasactuallyharmed or damagedin
anyway;

they were resolvedlocallyat the time, or subsequentlyby agreement betweenthe
(i)
twoStates;

i;) no attempt was madeto exhaust local remedies in relation to the treatmentof
individualaliens;

(k) theywerenot thesubjectof timely,orany,protesttoNigeria;

(7) they arestaleandthustime-barred."

Thatis a categorizationof Cameroon's individual claims.

Mr. Vice-President,1have aboutanother 14 or 15minutesto go, would it be convenientfor

theCourtfor meto continue,orwoulditbe more convenienttohave a coffee break now? TheVICE-PRESIDENT: Ifitis convenient toyou,thenyou maycontinue.

SirArthur WATTS:Thank youverymuch,Mr.Vice-President.

66. Mr. Vice-President, Members of the Court,1 saidthat there weretwo of thoseindividual

incidents which 1would liketo mention insomedetail. 1do so for onereason only: they play a

seriouspart inthe story which has unfolded intheseproceedingsand areutterly without foundation

as claims of Nigerian Stateresponsibility, yet Cameroon has nevertheless seen fit topursue them,

even in its Reply. They demonstrate vividly Cameroon's unreliaba lnd cavalier attitude to the

evidenceitputs fonvard.

It has been dealt with
67. The first is the incident which occurredon 16May 1981.

previouslybyNigeria inconsiderable detai~~~an, d1will onlyrefer tothesalient points here.

68. It is the incidentfor which President Ahidjoof Cameroon,by a letter of 16July 1981~~~

made a fullapology toPresident ShagariofNigeria,andpaid compensationfor the losssufferedby

thefamiliesofthe Nigeriansoldierswhohad beenkilledby Cameroonarmedforces. In addition to

the regrets expressedorallyby the Cameroon Foreign Minister,who went speciallyto Nigeria for

the purpose35,PresidentAhidjothreetimes expressed,in writing in his letter of 16July,his regrets

at this incident.And Cameroonpaid compensation: Nigeriahas put in evidence a copy of the

~he~ue~~T .here canbe nodoubt that Cameroon acceptedatthe highestlevel that responsibility for

this affairrested with Cameroon. Yet,Cameroon has soughtto use thisincident as an exampleof

Nigeriaw 'rongfulactions: it is incomprehensible.

69. That, nevertheless, appearsstill to be Cameroon7sposition. It is manifestly incorrect.

Onthe factsof the incident,Nigeriarecalls that President Ahidjo'sletterof apology waswrittenin

responseto a letter fiom Presidentshagari3'.

70. That letter set out Nigeria's account of the facts which hadled to the Carneroonian

murderof the Nigeriansoldiers onNigerian territory, which differedfiom Cameroon'saccount as

33~ejoinderof Nigeria,p11-615, paras.16.35-16and,App.pp.631-645,paras. 29-45.

34~ounter-~emorialofNigeria, Ann.NC-M345.
35~ara. 4.66.

36~nn.NC-M 63.
37~nn.NC-M 344.given in President Ahidjo'searlier letter3'.PresidentAhidjo'sreplyto PresidentShagari'sletterin

no way contradictedor dissented from President Shagari's statemen otf the facts,aveonlythat he

referred to it as having occurred on the Rio del Rey, whereas, as President Shagari stated (and

repeated in a subsequent et ter^ita,ctually occurredon the AkpaYafe River, in Nigeria'sCross

River State.

71.Cameroon's compensation was in responseto Nigeria's assertion - not contradictedby

President Ahidjo- that

"Thefact of thematter isthatNigeriantroops havebeenmurderedand seriously
wounded by Carneroonian soldiers on Nigerian territory and Nigeria insists on its
demand of unqualifiedapology, full compensationand reparationsto the families of
the victims of the wanton aggression,and bringing the perpetrators ofthe dastardly
murderstojustice."

72. In these circumstancesthe paymentof compensationby Cameroon is aclear acceptance

of the correctnessof Nigeria'saccountofthe incident.

73. In the face of these admissions by Cameroon,at the highest level,of responsibilityfor

the incident and resultingloss of Nigerianlife, Cameroon'sattemptsto cast itsposition in a more

favourablelight areof no value.

74. The evidence originally invokedby Cameroon in supportof its version of events is

scarcely compelling; indeed, as Nigeria has shown in its written pleadings, itis wholly

unreliable4'.

75. Cameroon seeksto suggest that President Ahidjo's letter of 16July 1981, offering

compensation - and incidentally also offering regretfor the incident, butCameroon does not

mention this - was decided upon "extremely wisely . .. [as]. .. a political gesture of

appeasement'',andwas "merely a gestureof appeasement designed torestore a climate ofdialogue

betweenthe twocountries". This is toturnhistoryonits head.

76. Nigeria must recall what President Shagarisaid. He asserted"most emphatically and

unequivocally ...that the sad event ...didtakeplaceon Nigerianterritory"; he addedthat"it was

a deliberate, premeditatedand carefully preparedambush against Ourpatrol"; it "took place on

38~nn.NC-M343.
39~nn.NC-M346.

40~ejoinderofNigeria,ApptoChap. 16,pp.633-635, paras.34-35.Akwa yajiRiver [that is,the AkwaYafe],about 2 milessouth of Ikang, a Nigeriantown"; and he

added that it was "stretching credibility toofar" to Say,as Cameroondid, "thatNigerian troops in

two patrolboats openedfire first on an unsuspecting Cameroonianpatrol boat andyet killednot a

single Cameroonian soldier" while at the same time five Nigeriansoldiers were killed and three

othersseriouslywounded.

77. The facts set out in Nigeria's Rejoinderin full detai14'show that Cameroon'sconduct

was aggressive, recklessand irresponsible,and provided yet another illustrationof Cameroon's

repeated attemptsto advance its presence into Nigerian territory.Cameroon's conductinvolved

first, a major build-up of its armed forcesin the region; second, a carefullylaid ambush of a

Nigerian patrol; third,with the hope of provoking Nigeriainto starting a major, full-scalearmed

response; and fourth, thereby enablingCameroon tomake political capital by painting Nigeria as

an aggressor.

78.It was President Shagari whoseconduct prevented thisincident fromdevelopingfrom a

limitedambushintothe majorarmed confrontationwhichCameroonhad beentryingto provoke; it

was President Shagariwho wasableto quel1the Nigerianpeople's justifiedoutrageat this incident,

which, ashe said in his letter of 25 May 1981, "shook the entire Nigerian nation morallyand

politically"; and it was President Ahidjowho, after taking time for consideration, agreedto

apologize and pay compensation and topressthe matterno further.

79. The second allegation which1 should like to look at in some detail is Cameroon's

complaint about Nigeria's alleged occupationof- and 1 dare hardly mention the name again,

Mr. Vice-President- ~i~san~~C . arneroon's complaini ts that Nigeria,by locatingan immigration

post on Cameroon's side of the border, had occupied Cameroonian territoryand violated its

sovereignty: for which Nigeriabore international responsibility. This complaint hingeson the

locationof Tipsan andits relationto the fiontier in that area. On the screen now is a map of the

Tipsan area which you may recall fiomearlier in the week: it is at tab T in your folders. As

Nigeria has shown earlier this week, the fiontier in thatregion, as delimited by the

Thomson-Marchand Declaration,runs along the River Tipsan: the Nigerian immigration postat

4'~bipd.6,5, para. 16.45,andApp.to Chap. 16, pp. 63,aras.42-43.
"~ee Counter-Memorialof Nigeria,paras. 24.260-24.267;of Cameroon, paras.11.218-11.238 Tipsan and the villagewhich has formed around it are well on the Nigerian side of the river.

Moreover, Cameroon notonly acknowledgesthat the boundary in this area is delimited by the

Thomson-Marchand ~eclaration~~ but has now admitted in its Reply that the immigrationpost is

"undoubtedly situatedin Nigerian territ~r~"~~.Nevertheless, Cameroon, inthat part of its Reply

dealing with matters of international responsibility, puts fonvard different, and conflicting,

arguments. For reasonswhich willbecome apparentin a momentthere has been addedto the map

on the screen an arc of a circle showingthe distance betweenKontchaandthe immediately-facing

boundary with Nigeria.

80.Cameroon seeksto show thatup to 1994Nigeria waspresent atTipsan onlyby virtueof

Cameroonian consentto a presencein Camerooniantemtory. The presenceis saidto result froma

request,made apparentlyin the late 1970sby the local Nigerian inhabitantsof EthnieMoumie - a

place not identifiedby Cameroon- tobe allowedto move closer to Kontcha. They are said to

have been followed,in 1984,by the movementofthe Nigerian ImmigrationPost to ~i~san~~:and

the post is said to have been formerly at Mayo-Bagboua- "until that time, at the correct

boundary". But Cameroon makes no attempt to justifi this assertionthat the boundary was at

Mayo-Bagboua- it does not even locate Mayo-Bagbouaon any map: that location is not

mentionedin the Thomson-Marchand Declarationa ,nd if it werethe line of the boundaryit would

be totally inconsistentwith thatDeclaration'sclearstipulationthat the boundary followsthe River

Tipsan.

81. Cameroon seeks to support this accountby another report, dated 6 July 1993~~.This

recognizes that at thatdate there wasno disputebetween Cameroon and Nigeria with respectto

Tipsan. It, indeed, acceptsthat "theboundary [is]currentlysituated alongthe Tipsanwatercourse",

but it continues that "it should actually be well beyond this point onNigerian land at the

Mayo-Djigawal,a brook four km frorn Kontcha". Again, Cameroon does not tell us where the

MaioDjigawalis; nordoesCarneroonexplainwhythe Maio-Djigawalshouldbe theboundarywhen

43~eplyof Cameroon,para. 4.95.
44Ibid., para. 4.99: "est indiscutablementsitué en territoirenigérian"

45~eplyof Carneroon, para. 11.224:this quotes froma report by a local official dated, it may be noted, afterthe
commencementofthe present proceedings,squ'aloràlavraie limite".
46~bid.,ara. 11.225.it is nowhere mentionedin the Thomson-MarchandDeclaration and at 4 km fiom Kontcha is

inconsistentwith thatDeclarationwhich StatesthattheboundaryfoIIowstheRiver Tipsan,whichis at

about 3km&omKontcha.

82. A further report, dated 20February 1995, says thatthe result of the 1961 referendum

"subsequently caused a further delimitation of the boundarywhich is today situated 9 km from

Kontcha, thatis to Say,3km from the river Tipsan, whichitself is 3km fiom Kontcha". This

report- which, it mustbe noted, was only preparedafter these proceedings commenced, even

though it dealt with matters apparently occurring many yearsearlier is full of inconsistencies.

Thus it claimsthat there was some "further delimitation".Cameroon nowhereexplains what this

"further delimitation" consisted o,r indeedwhy it wasneeded at al1given the clearterms of the

Thomson-Marchand Declaration; nor does Cameroon explain why this new boundary should

prevail overthe terms ofthat Declaration; nor whythe boundary is,in this report,aid to be 9km

fiom Kontchawhen the previously mentioned report pui tt at only 4 km fiom Kontcha and while,

of course, theRiver Tipsanboundary itselfis about3 km fiom Kontcha.

83. Mr. Vice-President, 1 could go on almost indefinitely about the inconsistencies, and

indeedpureinventiveness,of Cameroon'sarguments aboutTipsan. But1will not: the detailsare

al1in Nigeria's pleadings. What is clear fiom this wholeepisode, however, is that Cameroon's

grasp of the local geography is non-existent, thatCameroon's so-called evidence is full of

inadequacies,and that nothing- absolutely nothing- even approachinga Nigerian occupation of

Cameroonianterritory hasbeen shownto have occurred.

84.This Tipsanaffair,just likethe 1981incidentmentionedearlier,exemplifiesCameroon's

mistakenapproach in puttingfonvardits claims of Nigerian international responsibility. Facts are

simply inverted in order to present a story which fitsCameroon's preconceptions, thereis a

complete disregard for the value of evidence,and legal considerations,which in other contexts

Cameroonemphasizes,it in these contexts disregards. Cameroon'streatment ofthese two alleged

incidentsdemonstratesin the clearest possible way theinadequacy which pervadesthe whole of

Cameroon's approach to the serious matter of alleging that Nigeria has incurred international

responsibility. 85. Mr. Vice-President and Members ofthe Court, that concludes my pleading on this

subject.1thank the Court for its patient attention. May1now invite you, Mr.Vice-President,to

cal1upon Professor CrawfordtoaddresstheCourt- but perhapsafier a coffeebreak,ifthat would

be more convenientfor the Court.

The VICE-PRESIDENT,Acting President: Thank you, Sir Arthur. The Court will now

adjoumfor tenminutes.

TheCourtadjournedfiom11.30to 11.45a.m.

The VICE-PRESIDENT,ActingPresident: Please be seated. ProfessoC r rawford,youhave

thefloor.

Mr. CRAWFORD: Thank youverymuch,Mr. Vice-President.

NIGERIA C'SUNTER-CLAIMS

Introduction

1.Mr.Vice-President,Membersofthe Court, Nigerianowtums to the lastpart of itsca-e

at last,you mightthink. Thisconcems its counter-claims against Camerconceming questions

ofStateresponsibility. Mypresentation will bein foursegments. First,outlinethe legitimate

purpose and emphasize the admissibilityof the counter-claims,both aspectsof which Cameroon

nowchooses to challenge. Secondly,1will tum to discuss someof the factualissues and some of

thedocuments concerningthe counter-claims. Thirdly,1will refute three general criticismsof the

counter-claimsmade in Cameroon's written observations. Final1will relateNigeria's position

onthecounter-claimsto Nigeria'scase as a whole.

2. 1 should like to acknowledge the considerable helpMr. David Lererof the lawfirm

D.J.Freeman inthe preparationof this speech.

TheNigeriancounter-claims,theiradmissibilityandtheirpurpose

3. 1turn to my first segment,the purposeof the counter-claims and their admissibility.Now

SirArthur Wattshas already traced the history ofState responsibility as part of this case. In its

Memorial, Cameroon raised aseries of allegations concemingincidents alongthe land boundary

from Chad to Bakassi, and presented State responsibility clwith respect to those incidents allegedto have occurredin and around BakassiandLake Chad. The Memorial calledon the Court

to declare ...

"(' Thatthe intemationallyunlawfulacts referredto aboveand described in detail in

the body of this Memorialinvolve the responsibilityof the Federal Republic of
Nigeria." (Replyof Cameroon,para. 9.1 (g ))

There wasno allegationof a systematicseries ofactsor of whathas sometimesbeen described asa

complexor compositewrongfulact. Rather, Cameroon called onthe Courtto condemn Nigeriafor

certain individually identified "intemationally wrongfu alcts... describedin detail in the body of

this Memorial". 1pauseto Saythat thephrase "describedin detail"was layingit ona bit thick- it

would have been moreaccurate to Say,"vaguely adumbrated". We have seen that Cameroon

alwayshas a problem withphrases suchas "describedin detail"or "definitively specified"; these

are chameleons whichturn out to meanmuch lessthan they appear. Butthat does not affect the

point that what Cameroonalleged wasa series of individualactswith noapparent relation to each

other,apartfromtheir location along the boundaryand the factthat theywere saidto havearisenin

thecourseofwhat Cameroon alleged tobe a singledispute conceming theboundary as awhole.

4. Nowthis approachto the matterplaced us in somethingof a dilemma. On the one hand,

asNigeriamadeclear atthe preliminary objectionsstage, it isunhelpfulto link togethera boundary

disputeor a seriesof boundary disputesand allegationsof Stateresponsibility associated with what

are, in the overall scheme of things- and despitetheir harmfuleffects on individuals and local

communities- comparatively minor incidents. This does not contribute to dispute settlement

between States.As anyonewith diplomatic experienceknows,it is betterto separateout individual

difficulties between two States than to put them al1 together as a single aggregate. Butit is

Cameroon thathas donethat. Moreover,as ProfessorAbi-Saabhasjust demonstrated,there is no

simple relationship betweena disputed territorialtitle and Stateresponsibility for incidents in the

disputedarea.

5. Furthemore, there has been no credible allegation that Nigeria has detained culturalor

other State property ofCameroon in the disputed areas, an allegationmade by Cambodiain the

Temple of Preah Vihearcase. Indeedthere is no indication at al1in the record that Cameroon has

any property in any of the disputed areas in Lake Chad or Bakassi. It is tnie that there may be

some CameroonStatepropertyin oneor two of theareas whereCameroonis encroaching along theboundary,for exampleat Turu,where thereis a Cameroonianscho01~~.But in general it remains

the casethat when Cameroon officials intervened in the various localities whichare the subjectof

the Stateresponsibilityclaimsandcounter-claims, it wasnot to construct butto abstract, itwas not

to bring State property but to take away the property of others. They were concerned not with

additionbut withsubtraction, if 1 canput it arithmetically.

6. So on the onehand, Nigeria found theState responsibilitypart of the case artificialand

unhelpful. But on the other hand,the claim had been brought. The dispute or series of disputes

concerningthe landboundary as a whole had been heldto be withinyourjurisdiction. The Court

had itself pointed to one particular place alongthe land boundaryas disputed, that is to Say,of

course,~i~san~'.And so Cameroon'sdual approach, boundarydisputes plus Stateresponsibility,

waswelland tmly launched.

7. Faced withthis situation,Nigeria had no choicebut to bring its own counter-claims. Not

to have done so would have been in effectto accept Cameroon's versionof the story: that of a

weak, inoffensiveneighbour continually threatenedby military incursionsalong the wholeof this

long border. But that version does not reflect the reality. The reality is that of a border with a

seriousdispute over one sector, Bakassi, where local civil administratioh nas been and isNigerian;

a seriesof localizedincidents alongthe land border, predominantly caused by incursionsby local

officialsfiom the Cameroonside; and incidents affecting civiliansin Lake Chad,again causedby

local Cameroon officials and essentially unrelatedto the ongoing, and unperfected,work of the

LCBC. That is the impression given by Nigeria's counter-claima s,nd it is anccurateimpression.

As theCourt saidinits Orderof 17December1997inthe Bosniacase, counter-claimsenableit "to

have an overview of the respective claims ofthe parties and to decide them moreconsi~tentl~"~~.

SotheCourtnowhasits overview.

8. Nigeria was frank in stating its position that the intermingling of claims of State

responsibility and a series of boundary disputes was not helpful. Bus tince "the parties are and

4See Rejoinder ofNigeria, Chap.18,App.,para.34,with references.

48~andand MaritimeBoundary between Cameroonand Nigeria (Cameroov.Nigeria), Preliminary Objections,
Judgment,I.C.J.Reports1998, p.14para.87.
49~pplicationof the Conventionon the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Counter-Claims,
Orderof 17December 1997,I.C.J. Reports1997,p. 257, para.30.mustbe in a positionof equalitybeforethe Courtin al1respects", Nigeria brought counter-claims

with respect to a range of incidentsinvolving the international responsibilityof Cameroon along

the boundary. The Court heldthe Nigerian counter-claimsadmissible in full, as presented by

Nigeria.

9. In theCourt'sOrderof 30 June 1999,youreached yourown appreciationof the situation.

Youmade two findings. First, you saidthat Nigeria's claims "reston facts ofthe same nature as

the correspondingclaims of Cameroon ... al1ofthosefacts arealleged tohaveoccurred alongthe

frontier between thetwo States". And secondly, you said "the claims in question of each of the

Parties pursue the same legal aim, namely the establishment of legal responsibility and the

determination ofthe reparation dueonthis account". It was onthe basis of these two independent

findings that you held the counter-claims admissiblein full. As you said, "the counter-claims

submitted by Nigeria are admissible as such and form part of the present proceedings".

Incidentally, it seems that the Courtis quite fond of the phrase "as such", as well. Nigeria's

counter-claimsdidnot involveany allegationof a systematicattack by Cameroon; they involveda

series of individual incidents along thevarious sectors of the boundary. They affected Nigerian

territory, and communities and individualsn that territory. Theydid so inanunsystematicway.

10. Now at this late stage Cameroon now challenges the admissibility of Nigeria's

counter-claims,orof someofthem. It does so ontwo grounds.

11.The firstis basedonthe factthat the counter-claims involve, amongotherthings, damage

sufferedby individualswho aremembersof theNigeriancomm~nities'~.Butthat has alwaysbeen

true. Nigeria'scounter-claimsas presented inits Counter-Memorialconcemeddamagesufferedby

individualsand communities. The Court held that these "rest on facts of the same nature as the

corresponding claims of Cameroon ... al1of those facts are alleged to have occurred along the

frontier between the two States". Itmay be that Cameroonbelieves the Court only held the

counter-claims admissible becauseCameroon didnot object- but that isnotwhat the Courtsaid.

Or else Cameroonmay havethought the counter-claims admissible on the ground that therules of

lawinvoked in the claim and counter-claim were identical''. But again that is not what you said.

So~arneroon'sObservatio4Juiy2001,paras. 44-52.
''lbi dar,.49. Under Article80 the criterion for admissibilityis one of factualconnection,not legal relationship.

A counter-claimdoes not have to rely on the same rule as the claim with which it is connected.

That is neither a necessary nor a sufficientcondition for the purposes of Article 80. Afteral1the

Court is not giving a set of lectureson the application ofules: this is not The Hague Academy.

The Court is deciding disputes between States. In holding the counter-claims admissibleyou

reachedyour ownappreciation,based on similarityof factsand on the relationshipof thosefactsto

the areasin dispute. And your determinationof admissibilityis final.

12.Mr. Vice-President,Membersofthe Court, theseare not diplomaticprotection claims on

eitherside. They are claims about incursionand harassmentof individualsandcommunities inthe

course of a boundary dispute or rather- in Nigeria's view- a number of different boundary

disputes. When the officiais of one side intrude on territoryadministered by another Stateunder

claim of right and beat up or detain people,then primafacie there is an internationallywrongful

act, and it is not one within the frameworkof diplomaticprotection. Peaceful civil administration

of tenitory under claim of right, whateverthe underlying situation of title may beyis not to be

subverted by such means; and 1 would stress that there has at no stage been a peaceful civil

administrationby Cameroon over any of the areas concernedin this case, as my colleagueshave

shown. Moreoverit is a curiousconceptionof responsibilitythat relegates death and injury and

terror causedby gendarmestothe realmof diplomaticprotectionwith al1its constraints,butallows

as per se actionable any intrusion on territory claimed by Cameroon, whether or not it causes

damage. Cameroonhas an exclusivelytemtorial conceptionof this case, ignoringthe factthat the

areas in disputehouse substantialhumanpopulations. Theinternationallaw of territorialtitle does

not treat populatedand unpopulatedregionsin the sameway. Yet Cameroon'sapproachimplies

that unpopulatedareasare actuallyprivilegedby the lawof State responsibilityso far as incursions

are concemed.

13. There is a second complaint of inadrnissibility, which relates to the additional

counter-claims put forward in Nigeria's ~ejoinder'~. Again, however, Cameroon ignoresthe

positionbetweenthe Parties. It has continuallyand consistentlyreserved therightto addnew State

52~bid.p,arIO. responsibilityclaims, and the Court specificallyupheld itsright to do so in the Judgmenton the

request for interpretation of 25 March 1999~~.This was, 1 would stress, prior to Cameroon's

change of position on State responsibility, whenit was stillasserting State responsibility claimsin

relation toincidents "as such", as well as the right to add further incidents. The Court upheld

Cameroon'sright to do so. In its Counter-Memorialat paragraph 25.6, Nigeria reserved the right

to present evidence of additional incidents, tothe same extent as Cameroon. Of course, like

Cameroon, Nigeria's additional incidents couldnot transform the case, or alter its essential

character; butthey do notdo so and indeed Cameroondoesnot even allegethat they do. Interms

of the equality of the Parties beforethis Court, it cannotbe that Cameroonhas the right to add

additionalincidentsofthe same general characteras those already advanced, whereas Nigeria does

not. Sothisobjectionlikewise fails.

14.Thusthe counter-claims are, asthe Courthas alreadyheld, admissibleto the sameextent

as are Cameroon's claims of State responsibility contained inthe Application, the Additional

Applicationand the Memorial.

15. Now, it is true that since the decision on the request for interpretation, Cameroon has

conducted astrategicretreaton State responsibility. Or perhaps it is a tacticalretreat. Wearenot

sure, because,as SirArthurhas shown, even now itis not entirely clear what Cameroonis doing.

It seekstodistinguishbetweenthe incidents"as such" or "inthemselves", which are notthe subject

of claims, and the incidents "as a whole". It says that Nigeria has violated not particular

obligations on particularoccasionsbut certain general principlesin some systematic way. To the

extent that this involves Cameroon not pressing its individuaS l tate responsibility claims, that is a

matterforCameroon. Nigeria, however, isunderno obligationto do the same,as we will see. It is

entitledto adhere to its ownview ofthe Stateresponsibilitysituation, bothin respectof claimsand

counter-claims,and to establishitby evidence.

16.Mr.Vice-President, Membersof the Court,this is not just cussedness onOurpart- if 1

may use, thistime, an American phase- it is because the Court has to appreciate the actual

"~e~uest for Inrerpretation of Judgrnent of 11June 1996 in rhe Case concerning the Land and Maritime
Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, Preliminary Objections (Nigeria v. Carneroon), Judgrnent,
1C.J.Reports 1999, para. 15.situation. Cameroon hassought to ignorethe actual situation inits strategic, or tactical,retreat.

Moreover it hasdone so evenif, as 1 havesaid, it isnotan unequivocalretreat.

17. On the one hand Cameroon seems to be saying that it is only concerned with the

systematicactionof Nigeria,and by implicationthatthere is no systematic actionalong thecentral

part of the boundary where it does not make a State responsibilityclaim. It may contradict what

Cameroontold you at the PreliminaryObjectionsstageabout the central part of the boundary-

but let that pass. The pointis that a reviewof Nigeria'scounter-claimsand of Cameroon'sclaims

taken together showsthat there is no grandplan, no overall"enterprise" in relation to any part of

theboundary, still less the boundaryasa who1es4.Theactual record,takingthe Stateresponsibility

claims and counter-claimstogether, reveals nothing of the kind. Leaving to one side entirely

questions of evidence and proof, Cameroon's own allegations amount to nothing more than

sporadic conduct in a variety of locations, spreadover many years, separated by considerable

distances,actuatedby a varietyof localcircumstances. Cameroon's assertionof whatamountsto a

quasi-criminal "enterprise"of a generalcharacteronthepart ofNigeria failsentirely,andit does so

quite independently of the question of the merits of particular claims or the truth of particular

incidents. Cameroon seems to think that it is easier to prove a conspiracy, as distinct from

individual wrongfulacts; but, as anycriminallawyerwill tellyou, it is actually moredifficult. To

say that someone is a habitua1 wrongdoer requires you to prove wrongdoing on a series of

occasions. Nigeria's individualclaims,by contrast,eachstand ontheir merits.

18.Now, anotherpossible interpretationof Cameroon'sposition is thatit now limitsits State

responsibilityclaim to Nigerian conduct which, in its view, rises to the level of the breach of

pnnciples, not rules. Cameroonmakesmuch of the word "principles". But, Mr. Vice-President,

Membersof the Court,underthe lawof Stateresponsibility oneviolates obligations,notprinciples,

not even rules. The centralinsight ofRobertoAgoon Stateresponsibilityreflectedin Article 2 is

that State responsibilityrises fiom the violation of obligations. Carneroonhas to showparticular

violationson particularoccasions.

54~eplyofCarneroon,para. 12.01. 19. A good example of the baffling character of Cameroon's positionis its discussionin

Chapter 12of its Reply concerningNigeria's arguments relating to LakeChad. Chapter12of the

Reply is concemed with counter-claims. Cameroon complainsthat Nigeria in relation to Lake

Chad relies on consolidation and a~~uiescence~~.But historical consolidationof title (and

acquiescence as it relates to historical consolidatof title) hasnothing whateverto dowith State

responsibility. It belongs tothe separatedepartmentof the law concemingtitle to territory. It is

almost as if Professor Brownlie committed a separate international delict by relying on

consolidation and acquiescence in relation to Lake Chad, and the Court should punish him

accordingly. Cameroon's position hereistotallyconfused.

20. Mr. Vice-President, Membersof the Court, let me move away from Cameroon's

jurisprudence ofconcepts and bring us down to earth again on the subject of State responsibility

claims and counter-claims. The positionwas stated by thisCourt in the Fisheries Jurisdiction

(Federal Republicof Germany v. Iceland)case. It will be recalledthat the Court theredeclinedto

make a declaratory awardin respect of compensationfor a seriesof incidents involving darnageto

fishing vessels- Germanfishingvessels - arising inthe courseofthe dispute. The Courtsaid:

"In order to award compensation theCourt can only act with referenceto a

concrete submissionas to the existenceandthe arnount ofeach headof darnage. Such
an awardmust be based on precisegrounds and detailedevidence concerningthose
actswhichhave beencommitted,takingintoaccountal1relevant factsof each incident
and their consequencesin the circumstancesof the case. It is only after receiving
evidence onthese matters thatthe Court can satisQ itselfthat each concrete claimis
well founded in factand in law?

ThatJudgmentwas givenin 1974. Thedisputehad arisen in 1971. The incidentsin question were

recent; theywere, inprinciple,well attested; theywere part of aseries and were saidto be based

on a deliberateand concertedpolicy ofthe respondent State. Inother wordsthey werenot merely

accidents, unconnectedwith each other. But the Court demanded "precisegrounds and detailed

evidence concemingthose acts which havebeen committed,taking into account al1relevant facts

of each incidentand their consequencesin the circumstancesofthe case". It was only on the basis

of such a demonstration that it couldsatisQ itself that each concrete claimwas "well founded in

factand in law". In the absenceof suchsatisfaction,the Courtcould not eventgrant a declaration.

55~eplyofCarneroon,paras.12.07-12.10.
56~c.J. Reports1974,p. 175atp.204,para.76. Sir Arthur Watts has shown that the Cameroon claims arenot well founded in fact and in law in

respectof State responsibility. But thistestsatisfiedinrespect ofNigeria'scounter-claims; each

concreteclaim is well foundedin fact and in law. The Court, however, willbe relieved, on the

fourteenthday of thiscase, thatam not goingto dealwiththem all. Instead,1will be selective -

but this is in no sense intendedto indicatethat Nigeria in anyway withdraws fiom any of the

counter-claimsmade.

SpecificclaimsandCameroon's responses (or silences)

A. Cameroon'sattacksontheBakassivillages

21. The first group of counter-claim1 wish to deal with involvesa series of miscellaneous

attacks on Nigerianvillages in Bakassiinrecent years. They are numbered counter-claims5to 17,

and relate essentiallyto the period fiom January 1994 to February 1999; some more recent

incidentsof the same characterare referred to inNigeria'sRejoinderand are groupedtogetheras

counter-claim No.30~'. TheCourt will findas tab U - "U" for umbrellathat is- in your folders,

a summaryof these claims withappropriate referencesto the pleadingsand documents. It willbe

seen that the attackswere largelyon civilian targets. Supponing documents - including several

witness statements- attest to Cameroonian conducw t hich resulted in at least 117Nigerians

woundedand 29Nigerianskilled,nearly al1civilians, andmuch destructionofproperty.

22. Let me take fiom this group severalincidents originating in Bakassi which Cameroon

does attempt to refüte in moredetail, despiteits general preference forthe big picture of general

principles. But longjoumeys consist of individual steps,and big pictures consist of individual

brush strokes. Cameroon'slack of attentionto detail may be restful but it is not helpfül; and it

discreditstheir case,inour submission,whenon the occasionsthey do descend to detail, theyget

the detailwrong. 1hope theCourtwill forgiveme this little excursionintothe realm of fact. 1will

try to make it short, and 1will limit myselfto Cameroon's observations in reply, since the

commentsin Cameroon's Replyhave alreadybeen comprehensively dealtwith in OurRejoinder.

23. Let me take the case of Mr.Edet Inyang Sunday, a Nigerian fisherman abductedby

Cameroonforces fiom the Bakassi Peninsulaon 3 November 1996.He died on 4 April 1998 asa

"chap. 18,App.,p. 749, pa1..3result of a bullet wound in the chest inflicted on him while in a Cameroon prison. The

post-mortem report,issued bya doctoratthe military hospitalat Yaoundé,recordsthat Mr. Sunday

died of "severebranchialpneumoniasequelupon a thoracic woundcaused by buliet". He hadbeen

in custodyfor about 18months. It doesnotseem hewas ever chargedwith anyoffence.

24. Nigeria provided supportingevidence in a series of annexess8. Insteadof providing an

explanation, Cameroon chooses to focuson the fact that someof Nigeria's documentsare English

translations of French originals,and thus, it is said, of no probative valuesg. But of the nine

corroboratingdocuments produced by Nigeria,only three are English translations, and Nigeria

provided a copyof one of the originals the deathcertificate6'.Rather than infemng that Nigeria

had fabricatedthis evidence, Cameroon might perhapshave provided some documentary evidence

of itsown,perhaps in a responseto Nigeria's diplomaticNote of 18June 1998~'.No doubt its files

contain correspondencewith Dr.Munkmanwho signedthe death certificate. That mighthelp to

explain how a Nigerian civilian seized in Bakassi apparently ended up in a military hospitalin

Yaoundé,deadfrom a bullet wound.Thatanswercametherenone.

25. Then there is the Cameroonattack of 6 April 199@', which is the subject of the

counter-claim. Cameroondoubtsthe authenticityof one of the annexed reports onthe ground that

it waspreparedbyan anonymousperson63.It is suggestedthat the same person'shandwritingis to

be found in otherannexed document^ B^ut.f coursein the areawe are talkingabout, statements

are often drawn up in manuscript by a local scribeor arnanuensis. 1 am not giving handwriting

evidencebut it does appear to me that the village head's statementwas not drawnup in the same

handasthe variousstatementsinAnnexesNR 203 andNR204.

26. Annex NR 203 consistsof a series of witnessstatements "relating to the Cameroonian

attacksof 18April 1998". Cameroon seeksto devaluethe 20 witness statementsgiving first-hand

"Rejoinder ofNigeria, Anns.NR 200 andNR 201.
590~~~,para.23.
60~ejoinderofNigeria, Vol.IX,p. 1676.

6'~bid.,Ann.NR 201.
62~hisis CC 14. See Counter-Mernorialof Nigeria,paras.25.21,25.22,25.23; Anns.NC-M364-369; Rejoinder
of Nigeria,Chap. 18,App., pp. 738-739,para. 13; Anns. NR 202

6'~~~~p , ara.24, referring to Ann. NR202.
641bi d.erringto Anns. NR203 andNR204.testimony of its attack by singling out one ofthem- that of Miss ~ffion~~ ~ and considering

that the dateon the statementmust be wrong, since it is the same date as the attack, whereasthe

text of the statementsuggestsa laterdate66.Thedate appearingat the head of each ofthesewitness

statementsrefers to the date of the attack, notto the date of the taking of the statement. Someof

the statementsare datedby their signatures,with dates otherhan 18April. Overallthe testimony

concerningthe injuriessufferedbyNigeriancitizensin Bakassiis consistent andcredible. Andit is

not affectedby thepinprick attacks inCameroon'sobservations.

27. Nigeria also annexed amedical report, which reports onthe treatment receivedby

civilian victims of these attacks at amilitary clinic in Eatab bon^ Ca^m^.roon criticizes the

report on the grounds thatno recipient is mentioned,and that it only relates to a specificperiod.

These observations do not detract from the credibility of the report, which was prepared by

CaptainGambo, a Regimental Medical Officer. The report gives the full narnes of 29 injured

Nigerian civilian victims.One of these was Mr.Edem Asuquo Osudu,whose witness statementis

thus corr~borated~~.

28. Nigeria has also annexed a numberof other witness statements relating to incidents

during this period. 1take, for example,the statement of Mr.Ibrahim 1ta6'. Cameroon arguesthat

"no detailsof a natureto shedlighton this incidenthave beengiven"70.But Mr.Ita testifies thathe

was shot and wounded by Cameroon gendarmea st Ndo on8February 1998. Ndois a villageinthe

heart of Bakassi. Thatseemsclearenough.

29. Cameroonconcludesits critique of Nigeria's evidence by commentingthat the medical

report of 18June 19987i"althoughit givesdetailsof the injuries sustained by four ... doesnot

indicateanyof the detailsabouthowthey wereinflicted,norevenby ~hom"'~. In fact, threeofthe

65~ejoinderofNigeria,Vol. IX,p. 1736.

660~~~,para. 25.
67~ejoinderof Nigeria, Ann.NR205.

68~bid, nn. NR 204.
69~bid, nn. NR 206,pp. 1757-1758.

'OOCDR,para. 28.
"~ejoinder ofNigeria, Ann.NR 206, pp. 1771-1772.
"OCDR, para. 28. four men are expressly recordedas having been shot by gendarmes. It is true, no doubt, that the

victimsdidnot stopto askthemtheirnames.

30. Mr. Vice-President,1 am not Qing to make out a criminal indictment against any

individuals; this isnot ariminalcourt. As 1have alreadysaid,theseincidents - damagingto the

victims as they were- are of a different dimension and character when compared to the

underlying disputeover theBakassi Peninsula. 1would simplymaketwo points.

31. First,1 would drawyour attention to the sum total of the evidence on both sides

conceming claims andcounter-claimsof Stateresponsibility in relationto Bakassi. We have added

up the casualty and damage figures in the documentssubmitted as part of the pleadings on both

sides in the whole of the case. We have only included those documents whichgive dates and

sufficientlyspecific information.Thus we havenot includedmere newspaperreports unsupported

by other evidence. Wehave lookedat theyears fiom 1991to the endof the written pleadings, that

is toSaythe relatively recentpast. And wehaveassumedfor thispurposethatal1of the allegations

are me, that is, of course, withoutadmittingthat they necessarilyal1are true. OnOurbestestimate

the documentaryevidencecontained in the pleadingsof both Partiesresultsin thefollowingtallyof

injuryanddamage:

(a) Attributed to Carneroonin the Nigerian documents- 117 wounded, ofwhom 106 were

civilians, and30 killed, ofwhom 27 werecivilians; eight housesand fourboats destroyed or

damaged, and unspecifiedother damageworthsomemillionsofNaira.

(b) Attributed to Nigeriain the Cameroon documents - three killed,20 wounded,al1military-

no specific evidence ofdamageto property.

That is the tally of the documents.Now, onemight discount individual items ofevidencebut the

overall pictureis clear, and itfully sustainsthe impression that 1have stated in respectof the

counter-claims. The individual counter-claimsare, in Our submission, justified. The overall

pictureofthe counter-claims, andthe claims takenas a whole,revealsno evidenceof system.

32. In other words, theevidence taken as a whole is totally inconsistentwith the picture

Cameroon seeks to paint of a massive Nigerian military invasion of an area under peaceful Cameroonoccupation - a sort of equatorial equivalentoftheinvasion of Kuwaitby ~ra~~~ .ather

it sustains the contrary view; that these were individual incidents in the context of a series of

boundarydisputes.

B. Cameroonincursionsinthe central partofthe boundary

33.Mr.Vice-President, Membersofthe Court, letmenow movebriefly tothe centralpart of

the boundary: given time constraints 1am only going to take one example. This concems the

incidentsat Tosso and ~bero~o~~.AlthoughCameroon,as part of its strategy in conductingthis

boundary dispute has repeatedly attemptedto convince the Court that Nigeria is responsible for

various incursions across the boundary,none of these allegationshas been backed up with any

worthwhileevidence, as SirArthurWattshas shown. In fact,by far the best-documentedincident

in these whole proceedings involves the responsibilityof Carneroon. This incident, whichtook

place on 26 September 1996, involved the entry of twoarmed Cameroon gendarmes into the

Nigerian town of Mberogo, in which village they violently attacked and arrested two Nigerian

officiaisa tax collector and an immigration officer. You will see the location of the incidentin

tab 44 of your folders, and there are additional documentsin Cameroon's Reply,Annex RC201,

whichconfirmNigeria's viewof the location.

34. The supporting documentation for this incidenton the Nigenan side is substantial. It

includesa witness statementof the attacked Nigerian immigration officer,Mr. Adam aud da"; a

report on the incident preparedby an inspectorat Mubi/Tossopolice post76; a detailed record of

the subsequent interrogation of the two Carneroongendarmes by Nigerian officia~s~~;and an

officialsummary of the incidents, containedin a report by the Commissionerof Police forTaraba

state7'.

73~f.Replyof Carneroon,Ann. RC 189.
7CC 23: see Counter-Mernorialof Nigeria, paras.25.58-25.63; Anns.NC-M394-398; Rejoinder of Nigeria,
Chap.18,App.,paras. 20-25; Anns.NR 207-210.

75~nn.NR 207. 35. And there are four additional documents which supporN t igeria's version of the events,

prepared by Cameroon officials and annexedto Cameroon's pleadings79.They confirmvirtually

every detail of the incident alleged by Nigeria: thattwo amed Cameroon gendarmes entered

Mberogo, and overpowered two Nigerianofficials,using violence.

36. Cameroonhas notadvancedanyseriousargumentsto contradictNigeria's claim. In fact

their principaldefence isthat of the alibi; "this wasnot Mberogo in Nigeria, Your Honours,but

Mberogo in Cameroon; we were somewhere elseW8O.And this, even though the Nigerian

documents clearly refer to Mberogo. The Court will be awareof the procedural defence,lis alibi

pendens; which is becomingperhaps more appropriatein these days of proliferation ofcourtsand

tribunals. Well, Cameroon7sdefenceisthe geographical equivalent: letus cal1it vicusalibisiîus.

Colloquially,it is known as the "twin towns defenceW- the place was somewhereelse, Your

Honours. SirArthurhas already demolished it inrelationto Mberogo.

C. Cameroon incursions in the LakeChadregion

37. Mr. Vice-President, Membersof the Court, finally, letme tum to the incidents in the

Lake Chad region in the same period of time, that is, the 1990s8'. They have exactly the same

episodic and transitorycharacter as those along the land boundary or in Bakassi. A good

illustrationfor our purposearethe attacksby Cameroon authorities on KirtaWulgo. Carneroondid

not denythe attacksin its~e~l~~s ~e,ekingagaintorelyon assertionsconcemingthe locationof the

incident. But the evidence producedby Nigeria makes it quite clear that they took place at

KirtaWulgo, a settlementwhich wouldfa11within Nigeria even on thebasis of the unratifiedIGN

demarcation, a settlementwhich Carneroonitselfdoesnot ~laim~~ a,ndwhich,more importantlyfor

present purposes,is under undisputed andpeaceful Nigerian civil administration, likethe other

Nigerian villagesin the Lake. Nor doesCameroon add anythingto this in its Observationsinreply.

The claim standseffectively uncontradictedby any evidence producedby Cameroon.

79~nns.MC 370-372andp. 338 of Ann.OC1of Cameroon's ObservatioNigeria's PreliminaryObjections.

'OE.~.,Replyof Cameroon, paras. 12.37-12.38; OCDR, para. 31.
"CC 18-20: Counter-Memorial of Nigeria, paras. 25.29-25.38; AnnM75-382; Rejoinder of Nigeria,
Chap. 18,App.,para..

'*cf. Replyof Cameroon, paras. 12.25-12.28.
8Replyof Cameroon,para. 3.87 andApp.to Chap.3.Cameroon's generalcritique of Nigeria's counter-claims

38. Mr. Vice-President, MembersoftheCourt, 1shallemergenow fromthat submersioninto

somepoints of detail,for which, again, 1apologize,but as 1have shown,Cameroon'sresponsesto

Nigeria's individualcounter-claims,where theyexist, consist largelyof quibblesor alibis. In fact,

Cameroon's main response to the individualcounter-claimsis a collective response. It involves

three general objections,concemingtheir alleged artificiality, their locacharacterand their lackof

specificity,in particular intems of the obligationswhich have been breached. Let me dealwith

thesethree pointsinturn.

"Artijiciality"

39. Cameroon asserts that the counter-claimsare "artificial", and are motivated "by sole

concem of maintainingequality". In fact this is largely name-calling. 1 have explained already

whyNigeria broughtthe counter-claims,andthe counter-claimscanbejudged by you on theirown

merits,having regardto the Court'sobservationthat counter-claimsenable it "to have anoverview

of the respective claims of the Parties and to decide them more con~istentl~"~~N . igeria submits

that itsState responsibility claims,that is to Saythe counter-claims,are valid in themselves- of

course it is for the Court to assess that and also that they enablethe Court to get a feel forthe

actual character of the incidents along the boundary from north to south, as distinct from the

highly-colouredandover-generalizedway inwhich Cameroon presentsthings.

40. Mr. Vice-President,this is why Nigeria "does not even disputew- 1 use Cameroon's

words - the questionof artificialityg5:it is a false issue- dare one Sayit, an artificial issue. If

the counter-claims are valid then they should be upheld; if not, then not. That is al1we ask. The

questionof "artificiality"doesnot arise.

The "localnatureofthe incidents"

41. Cameroon'ssecondcomplaintis that at leastsome of the counter-claimsinvolve"purely

local disputes" (Observations,para. 13). That is a remarkablestatement,given the circumstances

of many of the incidents relied on by Cameroon. It is a further revelation of Cameroon'slofly

84I.C.J.Reports1997,p. 257,para. 30.
85~bse~ations,para. 8.attitudeto the facts. Al1the counter-claimsinvolvelocaldisputes - we admit it. And of coursea

local dispute can give rise to State responsibility. Mr. Vice-President, there werv earious

suggestions for additions to the circumstances precludingwrongfulness in the articles on

responsibility ofStates for intemationally wrongfülacts. But beinglocal was notone of them! We

are al1local,gendarmesandtheir victims,tax collectorsand theirtargets; it isjust that someof us

are luckierin ourlocalitiesthan others.

42. To take a randomexample,the Savarka caseof 191 1was a local dispute. It concemed

eventsthat occurred withina single day and night on a French d~ckside~~.You will be aware of

the rules concerning theunity of actionin Greek classical drama. Well, the Savarka drispute met

al1the classicalrequirements- unity of time,placeand action. Yet it led to an arbitrationunder

the auspicesof the Permanent Courtof Arbitration, andto a decision which madeuseful law on

State responsibilityand is cited accordingly in theILC's commentariesof lastyear87. Almost by

definition, Stateresponsibility disputes arleocal,althoughsomearemore local than others.

43. And thatis the second point. Inthe spectrumof locality,these disputesarelocal, up and

downthe boundary. That isprecisely howNigeria characterizesthem, boththe State responsibiliq

claimsand the counter-claims. We do not attributeto the central authorities of Cameroon some

conspiracyto attack the boundaryas such- just as we have shown that Nigeria hasno such

intentioneither. As the Courthas alreadyheld, the counter-claimsconcem allegationsof the same

character as Cameroon's State responsibilityclaims: incidents occurring aiong the boundary.

Individual incidents maynot be very significant in themselves,except to those, like Mr. Sunday,

unfortunate enoughto be caughtup in them. Theymaynonethelessgive riseto responsibility.

44. Letmetake as anillustrationone of the counter-claimsCameroon specifically singlesout

and disputeson grounds of locality. Thisis a seriesof incidents at~adu~uva~~.The question of

the locationofthe boundaryin this sectorhas already been dealtwith in Nigeria's pleadings89,and

in further detail by Mr. AlastairMacdonald earlier this week. We look fonvard to

86~nitedNationsRIAA,Vol.XI, p. 243 (1911); Scott, HagueCourtReports,p. 275.
87~ommentaryto Art20,para.(8).

88~ameroonObservations, para. 13,note 17.
89~ejoinderof Nigeria, paras. 7.137-7.144.Mr. Macdonald'sretum to the podium once Cameroonhas dealt withOurclaims in this respect.

Nigeria did not Saythat the traditional land claims to areas of Nigeria made by the Lamido of

Burha in Cameroongaverise to Stateresponsibility; for thispurposeit doesnot matterwhetherthe

Lamido of Burha, a traditionalruler - whetherhis claims arejustified or not. What we do Sayis

that when Cameroon officiaisinstructand assistthe Lamidoandhis followersto cross the border,

to extort money, to expel local residents fiom their land and to destroy crops and property, then

there is abasisfor Stateresponsibility. Localityisneither ajustification noran excuse; it is simply

the placewherea breachof this character occurs.

Thebasisofdaim

45.Finally,Cameroonproteststhat Nigeriahas not identifiedwhichinternationalobligations

have beenbreachedinrelation to theseincidentsg0.In factthebasic underlyingobligationhas been

clearly identified, asyou have heardfiom ProfessorAbi-Saab; it will be for the Court to refine it

and to apply it appropriately to the facts as proved by each side, because in this respect, this is a

case of first impression,unlike some others. To the extent that there are aggravating factors in

particularcases,especiallyviolationsof inalienablerights suchas the rightto life orto be fiee from

cruel, inhumanor degradingtreatrnentor punishment,the relevantobligationsare clear enoughto

al1who willsee.

Conclusion: Nigeria'scounter-claims in the context of Nigeria's overall case

46. Mr.Vice-President, Members of the Court, 1 turn to some concluding remarks which

seek to relate Nigeria's counter-claimsto its general case in respect of the boundary from Lake

Chadto the sea andbeyond.

47.Letme startby recallingthe commentsmade by theCourtin theBarcelona Tractioncase

in 1964. Thepassagewas quotedby the Hon. Co-Agent, AlhajiIbrahim,the other day. The Court

was dealingwith what was then Article 69, paragraph2, of the Rules, which givesa respondent

State theright toobjectto the attempteddiscontinuanceofa caseby the claimant. The provisionis

90~bservationsinreply, paras. 53-56.now Article89, paragraph2. It provides that "If objection is made, the proceedings shall

continue." As the Court explained:

"The right of objectiongiven to arespondentStatewhich has taken a step in the

proceedingsis protective, to enable it to insist on the case continuing,with a view to
bringingabouta situationof resjudicata; or in otherwords ...to enable it to ensure
thatthe matteris finallydisposedof forgood."gl

The implicationis clear. Even thougha case has been started by unilateral application,oncethe

respondenthas taken a step in the proceedings the case ceases to be controlled by the claimant.

The claimantwill have selected the terms on which it wants to fight; having done so, the case

having beenproperly begun, theclaimantno longercontrolsit. It cannotwithout the respondent's

consent withdraw thecase; it cannot unilaterallyalter the scope of thedispute which it has placed

beforetheCourt.

48. Mr. Vice-President, Membersof the Court, Cameroon's attitude tothis case under the

optionalclauseis thatit ownsthe case and candisposeof it. It can advancein theareas it wishesto

advance, it can retreat in the areas it wishes to retreat- al1Nigeria can do is to respond. If

Cameroonno longer wants the Courtto definitively specifj the courseof the landboundary,then

there is nothing Nigeriacan do but to accept a general declaration concemingcertain instruments,

however defective their terms. And if there is any doubt about it, Cameroon will decline to

confiontthe issuesraised. If Cameroonno longerwishesto allege Stateresponsibilitywithrespect

to "internationallyunlawful acts ... describedin detail in the body of this Mernorial",but onlyto

make amuchvaguerallegationofdisregardofcertainprinciples,thenby implicationNigeria hasto

followsuit.

49.This approach fundamentally misconceives whatit is for the Court to be seised of a case

under the optional clause. Once the Court'sjurisdiction over a case has been triggered and the

respondenthas taken a step in the proceedings,it cannotbe withdrawn unilaterally. The caseas

originally formulatedexists independentlyof the continued wilI of the applicant. No doubt the

applicant may choose not to press every demand or claim asserted in its application - the

United Kingdom, for example, in the Icelandic Fisheries case chose to withdraw some of its

9'~arcelona Traction, Light and Power Company,Limited, Preliminaty Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
1964,p.20. claims- but it will take the consequence of that withdrawal. Each of the demands and claims

exists aspartof the caseandthe respondent having been hauledinto Courtis entitledto respondto

each of them in its own terms. Thatis why Nigeria is entitled to insist, for its own part and >

irrespectiveof Cameroon'sforensicposition or manoeuvres,on the definitive specification of the &

land b~undar~~~. Equally with respect to State responsibilityclaims and counter-claims. The

correct approach to these,if they are to be sustained on both sides, as Nigeria forthe time being

sustainsthem, is not to dismissthem loftilywith awave of the hand as "local". Nor is it to failto

seethat death, injury anddisplacementof civilian populationsinvolves Stateresponsibility,and not

only in the framework of diplomatic protection. It is to approach each of these claims and

counter-claimson their factsand inthe light of the evidence,having regard tothe requirements laid

down by the Court for proof of State responsibility claimsin the FisheriesJurisdiction(Federal

Republic of Germanyv. Iceland)case, which 1have alreadycited. Nigeriais convincedthat the

individual claims it has presented are justifiedwithin the framework of the State responsibility

segment of this case. You have already heldthem admissible within thatframework. It also

believes, as 1have explained,that pressing State responsibilityclaims in boundary disputes does

nothingtoupholdthe ruleof law andcan impedethe eventualresolutionofthe dispute. Thosetwo

positionsareentirely consistent.

50. And as to the facts, Nigeria submits that the incidents which form the basis of

Cameroon's "global" responsibility claim aredisparate, in many cases old and stale, and poorly

supported by first-hand or indeed second-hand evidence. It fully acceptsthat on both sides the

situation disclosed both by claims and counter-claims is that of particular,individualized- or to

use Cameroon's horrorterm"local" - disputes. But it is Cameroonthatholds to the "enterprise"

or "conspiracy" theory of this case, and as the figures that1 have shownyou of total casualties

show,Mr.Vice-President,it has failed utterly to establishbatclaim.

51. Nigeria accordingly requests the Court, whiledismissing Cameroon'sclaims of State
#
responsibility on the basis of an enterprise or a system asthey have been pleaded,to uphold

92SeeCounter-Mernorialof Nigeria, paras.23.01-23.05.Nigeria's counter-claimsin an appropriately worded declarationto the extent that each of them is

heldto bejustifiedin termsof the testlaiddownby the Courtthat1have already cited.

52. Mr. Vice-President, may 1 now ask you to cal1 on the Nigerian Agent, the

Hon.MusaAbdullahi,to concludeNigeria'sfirstround presentation.

May 1thankthe Courtfor its courteousattention.

The VICE-PRESIDENT,ActingPresident: Thankyou,ProfessorCrawford. 1now givethe

floor to the distinguished Agent of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, His Excellency,

MinisterMusaAbdullahi.

Mr. ABDULLAHI: Thank you,Mr. Vice-President.

1. Mr. Vice-President,distinguishedMembersof the Court,in response to Carneroon's oral

pleadings againstNigeriain the matterof the landand maritime boundary betweenthe twonations,

Nigeria has presentedher oral pleadings on a number of topics, ranging from Bakassi, through

Lake Chad,utipossidetis, the landboundary andthe maritime boundary,to Stateresponsibilityand

counter-claims. 1wish to use this opportunity onbehalf of mycountrytothank al1Ourcounsel,the

members of theNigerian tearn as well as al1those who haveworked so hard to enableNigeriato

presenther caseto suchgood effectandin suchdetail.

2. The Court allocated Nigeria seven days to present its oral pleadings. Nigeria has

endeavoured to use that time well. Its oral pleadings are, 1 submit, entirely consistent with

everything Nigeria has said fiom the beginning of this case, and in this regard 1 would like

respectfullyto drawthe Court'sattentionto the evident contrastbetweenthe measured consistency

that has characterizedNigeria's written and oral pleadings and the afterthoughts,hesitations and

inconsistenciesthat have characterized the conduct of Cameroonthroughout these proceedings.

Indeed, Cameroon's oralpleadings, like its writtenones, appearto evade the issues of substance

and to rely on generalities, strainedand fancifulin logic, in contradistinctionto the detailedfacts

andlaw articulatedin relationto the seven topicsofNigeria'soralpleadings.

3. It is forthis Courtto judge this case, afterhearing the second round of pleadingsandthe

interventionofEquatorial Guinea. Nigeria awaitsthatjudgmentin the confidentconviction that on

everyone ofthe seventopics 1have mentionedNigeria isrightonthe facts and onthe law. 4. 1wish to thank the President, youMr. Vice-President,and the distinguishedMembersof

this Court,for their time and patienceringOuroralpresentations. 1now havethe honourto close

thepresentationofNigeria's firstroundof oral proceedingsandpleadingsin this case. 1thank you

very much, Sir.

The VICE-PRESIDENT, Acting President: Thank you very much, Minister Abdullahi. 1

shall now give the floor to JudgeFleischhauer,who has questions for bothParties, and to Judge

Kooijmans and Judge Elaraby, who have questionsfor the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

JudgeFleischhauer,if you please.

Judge FLEISCHHAUER: Thank you, Mr.Vice-President.

1have twointerrelated questionsforbothParties. My questions arethe following:

How was the land boundary in those specified areas in which Nigeria contests the

correctnessof the delimitation,inpracticehandled bothbeforeandafter independence?

In particular,where hasthe course ofthe boundaryin thoseareasbeen treated asrunning? 1

thankyou, Mr. Vice-President.

The VICE-PRESIDENT: Thank you, Judge Fleischhauer. 1 now give the floor to

Judge Kooijmans.

Judge KOOIJMANS: Thankyou, Mr. Vice-President.

1have the followingthree interrelated questionsfor the respondentState:

1. Can the Respondent indicate howofien and on what kind of occasions the Kings and

Chiefsof Old Calabaras a separateentity had forma1contacts with the ProtectingPower after the

conclusionof the 1884Treaty on Protection?

2. Were the Kings and Chiefsof Old Calabarconsultedwhen the ProtectingPower in 1885

incorporated theirtemtory in the British Protectorateof the Niger Districts (see Counter-Memorial
I
ofNigeria, para.6.66)which in tum had becomepart of the Protectorateof SouthernNigeria when

the 1913 Anglo-German Treatywas concluded? Ifthe answeris no, why were theynot consulted?

Iftheanswer is yes,what was their reactionandistheirreactioncontainedin a forma1document? 3. Did that incorporationbringto an end the purportedintemationalpersonalityof the Kings

and Chiefsof Old Calabar as a separate entity?If not, when did itcease to exist? Thank you,

Mr. Vice-President.

The VICE-PRESIDENT,ActingPresident: Thankyou,JudgeKooijmans. 1give the floorto

JudgeElaraby.

JudgeELARABY: Thankyou, Mr.Vice-President.

1have onequestion addressedto the Respondent. Thequestionis as follows:

In the courseofthe oral pleadings,referencewasmade tothe legal régimeestablishedby the

League'sMandate andthe UnitedNations Trusteeship.

Would itbepossibleto elaborate furtherandprovidethe Courtwith additional cornments on

the relevanceofthe boundaries thatexistedduringthatperiod? Thankyou, Mr.Vice-President.

The VICE-PRESIDENT, ActingPresident: Thankyou, Judge Elaraby. The writtentext of

thesequestionswillbe sent to the Partiesas soonas possible. TheParties maydecide,if they deem

it convenient,to respondto thequestionsduringthesecondroundof oral arguments. Altematively,

they may provide written responsesto the questionsnot later than 4 April2002. In the latter case,

any commentsa Partymay wishto make, in accordance with Article72 of the Rules of Court, on

the responsesbythe other Partymust besubmittedwithin 15daysof receipt oftheresponses.

This marks the end of today's sitting.wish to thankeach of the Partiesfor the statements

submittedto us in the course of this first round of oral arguments. The Courtwill meet again as

from Monday 11March at 10o'clockin the moming. to hear the second round of oral arguments

of theRepublic of Cameroon andof the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Thank you. The sitting is

closed.

TheCourtrose at 12.45p.m.