Audience publique tenue le mercredi 6 mars 2002, à 10 heures, sous la présidence de M. Guillaume, président

Non-Corrigé

Uncorrected

Courinternationale InternationalCourt
deJustice of Justice

LAHAYE THE HAGUE

Audiencepublique

tenuele mercredi6mars200a,10heures,au PalaisdelaPaix,

souslaprésidencedeM. Guillaume,président,

en l'affairede laFrontièreterrestreetmaritimeentrele CamerounetleNigéria
(Camerounc.Nigéria;Guinéeéquatoria(intervenant))

COMPTE RENDU

YEAR2002

Public sitting

heldon Wednesday6March 2002,at 1a.m, athePeacePalace,

PresidentGuillaumepresiding,

in the caseconcerningtheLandandMaritimendas, betweenCameroonandNigeria
(Cameroonv.Nigeria: Equatorial Guineaintervenin@

VERBATIMRECORDPrésent: M. Guillaume,président
M. Shi,vice-président
MM. Ranjeva
Herczegh

Fleischhauer
Koroma
Mme Higgins
MM. Parra-Aranguren
Kooijmans
Rezek
Al-Khasawneh

Buergenthal
Elaraby,juges
MM. Mbaye
Ajibola,juges adhoc

M. Couvreur, greffierPresent: President Guillaume
Vice-President Shi
Judges Ranjeva
Herczegh
Fleischhauer
Koroma
Higgins

Parra-ranguren
Kooijmans
Rezek
Al-Khasawneh
Buergenthal
Elaray
Judgesadhoc Mbaye
Ajibola

Registrar CouvreurLe Gouvernement delaRépublique du Camerounest représentépa r

S.Exc.M.AmadouAli,ministred'Etatchargéde lajusticeg ,arde dessceaux,

commeagent;

M.Maurice Kamto, doyende la facultédes sciencesjuridiques et politiques del'universitéde
Yaoundé II, membre de laCommissiondudroit international,avocataubarreaudeParis,

M. Peter Y.Ntamark,professeuràla facultédessciencesjuridiquesetpolitiques del'universitéde
YaoundéIIB , arrister-at-Law,membrede1'InnerTemple,anciendoyen,

commecoagents, conseilsetavocats;

M.Alain Pellet,professeur àl'universitéde ParisX-Nanterre,membre et ancienprésident de la

Commissiondu droit international,

commeagent adjoint,conseiletavocat;

M.Joseph Marie Bipoun Woum, professeur à la facultédes sciences juridiques et politiques de
l'universitéde Yaoundé IIancien ministre,anciendoyen,

commeconseillerspécialetavocat;

M.Michel Aurillac, ancien ministre, conseildr'Etathonoraire,avocatenretraite,

M.Jean-PierreCot,professeur à l'universitédeParis 1(Panthéon-Sorbonne),ancien ministre,

M.Maurice Mendelson, Q. C.,professeuréméritdee l'université Londres,Barrister-ut-Law,

M. MalcolmN. Shaw, professeur à la faculté dedroit de l'universitéde Leicester, titulaire dela
chairesirRobertJennings, Barrister-ut-Law,

M.BrunoSimrna, professeur à l'universitéde Munich, membre de la Commissiondu droit
international,

M.Christian Tomuschat,professeur à l'universitéHurnboldde Berlin, ancienmembre et ancien
présidentde la Commission dudroitinternational,

M.OlivierCorten,professeur àlaFacultédedroitde l'université libdeBruxelles,

M.DanielKhan, chargé decours àl'Institudedroitinternationalde l'universitéde Munich,

M.Jean-Marc Thouvenin, professeur à l'universitéde ParisX-Nanterre, avocat au barreau de
Paris,société d'avocats Lysias,

commeconseilsetavocats;TheGovernrnentof theRepublicof Carneroonis representedby:

H.E.Mr.Amadou Ali,MinisterofStateresponsible forJustice,Keeperofthe Seals,

asAgent;

Mr. Maurice Kamto, Dean,Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of YaoundéII,
memberoftheInternationalLawCommission,Avocatatthe ParisBar, LysiasLawAssociates,

Mr. PeterY. Ntamark,Professor, Faculty ofLawand PoliticalScience,Universityof YaounII,

Barrister-at-Law, member of InnerTemple,formerDean,

as Co-Agents,CounselandAdvocates;

Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor, Univeryf ParisX-Nanterre,memberand formerChairmanof the
InternationalLawCommission,

asDepuiy Agent,CounselandAdvocate;

Mr. Joseph-Marie BipounWoum,Professor, Faculty ofLaw and PoliticalScience, Universityof
Yaoundé II, former Minister, forerean,

asSpecialAdviserandAdvocate;

Mr.Michel Aurillac,formerMinister,HonoraryConseillerd'~tat,retiredAvocat,

Mr.Jean-PieneCot,Professor,UniversityofParis 1(Panthéon-Sorbonne),formeMrinister,

Mr.Maurice Mendelson, Q.C. E,meritusProfessor University of London, Barrister-at-Law,

Mr.Malcolm N. Shaw, SirRobert Jennings Professorof International Law, Faculty of Law,

Universityof Leicester,rrister-at-Law,

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

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

Mr.OlivierCorten,Professor, Facultyof Law,Université ldeBruxelles,

Mr.Daniel Khan, Lecturer, InternatioLlawInstitute, Univerof Munich,

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

as CounselandAdvocates;SirIan Sinclair, K.C.M.G., Q.C.,Barrister-ut-Law, ancien membrede la Commission du droit
international,

M.EricDiamantis,avocataubarreaudeParis, Moquet, Bordes & Associés,

M.Jean-Pierre Mignard, avocat aubarreaude Paris, sociéd'avocatsLysias,

M.JosephTjop, consultantàla société d'avocats Lysias, chercheaurCentrede droitinternational
de Nanterre(CEDIN),Université ParisX-Nanterre,

commeconseils;

M.Pierre Semengue, généra dl'armée,contrôleur général des armées, ancien chef d'état-dejsor
armées,

M. JamesTataw,générad le division,conseiller logistique,ancien chefd'état-majorde l'arméede
terre,

S.Exc. MmeIsabelleBassong, ambassadeur du Cameroun auprèd ses pays duBenelux et de
l'Unioneuropéenne,

S. Exc.M.BiloaTang,ambassadeurduCamerounen France,

S.Exc.M.MartinBelingaEboutou,ambassadeur,représentant permanen dtu Camerounauprèsde
l'OrganisationdesNationsUnies à NewYork,

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

M. Robert Akarnba,administrateurcivilprincipal, chargé de missionau secrétariatgénérale la
présidence de la République,

M.Anicet Abanda Atangana, attachéau secrétariatgénérad l e la présidence de la République,
chargédecours àl'universitédeYaoundé II,

M.ErnestBodo Abanda,directeurducadastre,membrede lacommissionnationaledes fiontières,

M.OusmaneMey,anciengouvemeurdeprovince,

Le chef SamuelMoka Liffafa Endeley, magistrat honoraireB, arrister-ut-Law,membre duMiddle
Temple(Londres), ancienprésidendtela chambre administrativede laCoursuprême,

MeMarc Sassen,avocatetconseiljuridique, sociétéPetten,Tideman& Sassen(La Haye),

M.Francis Fai Yengo, ancien gouvemeurde province, directeur del'organisationdu territoire,
ministèredel'administrationterritoriale, ,

M.Jean Mbenoun, directeurde l'administration centrale au secrétarat nérale la présidence de

la République,Sir Ian Sinclair, K.C.M.G., Q.C., Barrister-at-Law,former member of the Intemational Law
Commission,

Mr.EricDiamantis, Avocatatthe ParisBar,Moquet,Bordes & Associés,

Mr. Jean-PierreMignard,Avocatatthe ParisBar, LysiasLaw Associates,

Mr. Joseph Tjop, Consultant to Lysias Law Associates, Researcher atthe Centre de droit
internationaldeNanterre(CEDIN),UniversityofPans X-Nanterre,

as Counsel;

GeneralPierre Semengue,Controller-Generalof the Armed Forces,former Head of Staffof the
ArmedForces,

Major-GeneralJames Tataw,LogisticsAdviser,FormerHead ofStaffof the Arrny,

H.E.MsIsabelleBassong, AmbassadorofCameroontothe BeneluxCountriesandto the European
Union,

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

H.E. Mr. Martin Belinga Eboutou, AmbassadorP ,ermanent Representativeof Cameroon tothe

UnitedNationsinNew York,

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

Mr. Robert Akamba,Principal Civil Administrato, hargé demission,General Secretariatof the
Presidencyof theRepublic,

Mr. AnicetAbandaAtangana, Attaché to the GeneraSlecretariatofthePresidencyof theRepublic,
Lecturer,UniversityofYaoundéII,

Mr. Ernest BodoAbanda, Director of the Cadastral Survey, member, National Boundary
Commission.

Mr.OusmaneMey ,former Provincial Govemor,

Chief Samuel Moka Liffafa Endeley, HonoraryMagistrate, Barrister-at-Law,member of the
Middle Temple (London), former Presidentof the AdministrativeCharnberof the Supreme
Court.

Maître MarcSassen,Advocateand LegalAdviser,Petten,Tideman & Sassen(TheHague),

Mr.Francis FaiYengo,former Provincial GovemorD, irector,Organisationdu Territoire,Ministry
ofTerritonal Administration,

Mr. Jean Mbenoun, Director, Central AdministratiG,eneral Secretariatof the Presidencyof the

Republic,M. EdouardEtoundi, directeurde l'administration centau secrétariatgénéral la présidence
de laRépublique,

M.RobertTanda,diplomate, ministèredesrelations extérieures

commeconseillers;

M. SamuelBetah Sona,ingénieur-géologue e, pertconsultantde l'OrganisationNationsUnies

pourledroit delamer,

M. Thomson Fitî Takang, chefde service d'administrationcentrale au secrétariatgénéralde la
présidencede la République,

M. Jean-JacquesKoum,directeurdel'exploration,sociéténationaeeshydrocarbures (SNH),

M. Jean-Pierre Meloupou, capitainede frégate,chef de la division Afkiqueau ministèrede la

défense,

M. PaulMoby Etia, géographe, directedre'Institutnationalde cartographie,

M. AndréLoudet,ingénieur cartographe,

M. AndréRoubertou,ingénieug rénéradle l'armement, hydrographe,

commeexperts;

MmeMarieFlorenceKollo-Efon,traducteurinterprèteprincipal,

commetraducteurinterprète;

Mlle CélineNegre, chercheurauCentre dedroitinternationalde Nanter(CEDIN ),iversitéde

Paris X-Nanterre

Mlle SandnneBarbier,chercheurau Centrededroit international de Nanterre(CEDIN), Université
de Paris X-Nanterre,

M. Richard Penda Keba, professeurcertifié d'histoire,cabinet duministre de lajustice, ancien
proviseurde lycées,

commeassistantsde recherche;

M. BoukarOumara,

M. GuyRogerEba'a,

M. AristideEsso,

M.Mende Forbinake,

M.NfanBile,Mr. EdouardEtoundi,Director, Central Administration, GeneralSecretariatof the Presidency of
the Republic,

Mr. Robert Tanda,diplomat,MinistryofForeignAffairs,

asAdvisers;

Mr. SamuelBetah Sona,GeologicalEngineer, ConsultingExpert to thU enitedNationsfortheLaw
of theSea,

Mr. ThomsonFitt Takang, DepartmentHead, Central Administration, General Secretariao tf the
Presidencyof theRepublic,

Mr. Jean-JacquesKoum, DirectorofExploration,NationalHydrocarbonsCompany(SNH),

CommanderJean-PierreMeloupouH , ead ofAfricaDivision attheMinistryofDefence,

Mr. PaulMobyEtia,Geographer,Director,Institutnationalde cartographie,

Mr. André Loudet,CartographieEngineer,

Mr. AndréRoubertou,MarineEngineer,Hydrographer,

asExperts;

MsMarie Florence Kollo-Efon, Principal Translator-Interpreter,

as Translator-Interpreter;

Ms CélineNegre, Researcher, Centre d'étudesde droit internationalde Nanterre (CEDIN),
Universityof ParisX-Nanterre,

Ms SandrineBarbier, Researcher,Centred'étudesde droit internationalde Nanterre(CEDIN),
University of ParisX-Nanterre,

Mr. Richard Penda Keba, CertifiedProfessor of History,cabinet of the Minister of State for
Justice,formerHeadof HighSchool,

asResearchAssistants;

Mr. BoukarOurnara,

Mr .GuyRoger Eba'a,

Mr. Aristide Esso,

Mr. NkendeForbinake,

Mr. Nfan Bile,M.EithelMbocka,

M.OlingaNyozo'o,

commeresponsablesde la communication;

MmeRenéeBakker,

MmeLawrencePolirsztok,

MmeMireilleJung,

M. NigelMcCollum,

MmeTeteBéairiceEpeti-Kame,

commesecrétairesde la délégation.

Le Gouvernementde la Républiquefédérald euNigériaestreprésenté par :

S. Exc.l'honorableMusaE. Abdullahi, ministred7Etat,ministrede la Justice du Gouvernement
fédéradluNigéria,

commeagent;

Le chefRichard AkinjideSAN, ancienAttorney-Generalde la Fédération, membrd eu barreau
d'Angleterreet dupaysde Galles,ancien membrede la Commissiondudroitinternational,

M.AlhajiAbdullahi IbrahimSAN, CON, commissaire pour les frontières internationales,
commissionnationaledesfrontièresdu Nigériaa ,ncienAttorney-Generalde laFédération,

commecoagents;

MmeNella Andem-Ewa,Attorney-Generalet commissaire àlajustice, Etatde CrossRiver,

M.IanBronmlie, C.B.E., Q.C., membre de la Commission du droit international, membredu
barreaud'Angleterre,membrede l'Institut de droit international,

SirArthur \!'arts,K.C.M.G.,Q.C., membre dubarreau d'Angleterre, membre de l'Institutde droit

international,

M.JamesCrawford,S.C.,professeurdedroit internationalàl'universitédeCambridge,titulairede
la chaire U'hewell,membre des barreauxd'Angleterreet d'Australie, membrede l'Institutde
droit international.

M.GeorgesAbi-Saab, professeur honoraire a l'Institut universitaire de hautes études 8
internationalesde Genève,membredel'Institutde droitinternational,

M.AlastairMacdonald, géomètre a,nciendirecteur deOrdnanceSurvey, Grande-Bretagne,

commeconseilsetavocats;

M.Timothy H.Daniel,associé, cabinet .J. Freeman,Solicitors,City deLondres,Mr.EithelMbocka

Mr.OlingaNyozo'o,

as MediaOflcers;

MsRenéBakker,

MsLawrencePolirsztok,

Ms Mireille Jung,

Mr.NigelMcCollum,

MsTeteBéatrice Epeti-Kame,

asSecretaries.

The Governmeno tftheFederalRepublicofNigeriaisrepresentedby:

H.E.theHonourableMusa E. AbdullahiM , inisterof StateforJusticeofthe Federal Governmentof

Nigeria,

asAgent;

Chief RichardAkinjideSAN, FormerAttorney-Generalof the Federation,Memberof the Bar of
Englandand Wales,formerMemberofthe InternationalLawCommission,

AlhajiAbdullahiIbrahimSAN,CON,Commissioner,InternationaB l oundaries,NationalBoundary
Commissionof Nigeria,FormerAttorney-General oftheFederation,

as Co-Agents;

Mrs.NellaAndem-Ewa,Attorney-GeneralandCommissionerforJustice,CrossRiverState,

Mr. Ian Brownlie,C.B.E., Q.C.,Member of the International Law Commission, Membeo rf the
EnglishBar, Memberof theInstituteof InternationalLaw,

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

Mr. James Crawford,S.C., WhewellProfessor of InternationalLaw, University of Cambridge,

MemberoftheEnglishandAustralianBars,MemberoftheInstituteofInternationalLaw,

Mr. GeorgesAbi-Saab,Honorary Professor,GraduateInstituteof International Studies,Geneva,
Memberofthe InstituteofInternationalLaw,

Mr.AlastairMacdonald,Land Surveyor,FormerDirector,OrdnanceSurvey,GreatBritain,

as CounselandAdvocates;

Mr. TimothyH.Daniel,Partner,D.J. Freeman,Solicitors,Cityof London,M. Alan Perry,associé,cabineD.J. Freeman,Solicitors,CitydeLondres,

M.DavidLerer,solicitor, cabinetD. J.Freeman,Solicitors,Cityde Londres,

M. ChristopherHackford,solicitor, cabinet D.J. Freeman,Solicitors,CitydeLondres,

Mme CharlotteBreide, solicitor,cabinetJ.Freeman, Solicitors,CiîydeLondres,

M.Ned Beale,stagiaire,cabineD.J. Freeman,Solicitors,CitydeLondres,

M. Geoffi-eyMarston, directeurdu départementdes études juridiquesau SidneySussexCollege,
Université de Cambridge,embredubarreaud'Angleterreetdu PaysdeGalles,

commeconseils;

S.Exc. l'honorableDubemOnyia,ministred'Etat,ministredesaffairesétrangères,

M.Maxwell Gidado, assistant spécialprincipal du présidentpour les affaires juridiques et
constitutionnelles,ancienAttorney-GeneraletcommissaireaJustice,Etat d'Adamaoua,

M.AlhajiDahiruBobbo,directeurgénérac l,ommission nationaledes frontières,

M.A. O. Cukwurah,conseiladjoint, ancienconseilleren matièrede frontières(ASOP)auprèsdu
Royaumedu Lesotho, ancien commissairepour les frontièrinter-Etats,commission nationale

des frontières,

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

M. F. A. Kassim,directeurgénéralu servicecartographiquedelaFédération,

M.Alhaji S.M. Diggi,directeurdes frontièresinternationales, commisnationaledesfrontières,

M. K. A. Adabale,directeurpour le droitinternationalet le droitcomparé,mineelajustice,

M.A. B. Maitama,colonel,ministèredeladéfense,

M. Jalal Arabi,membredel'équipejuridique duNigéria,

M.GbolaAkinola,membrede l'équipe juridique duNigéra,

M.K.M. Turnsah,assistantspécialdu directeur génédle la commissionnationaledesfrontières
et secrétaide l'équipjuridique,

M. AliyiuNasir,assistantspécialduministred'Et&,ministredelaJustice,

commeconseillers:

M.ChrisCarleton,C.B.E.,bureauhydrographiqueduRoyaume-Uni,

M.Dick Gent,bureauhydrographiqueduRoyaume-Uni,

M. Clive Schofield,unitderecherchesurles frontièresinternationales,UniverdeDurham,

M.ScottB. Edmonds,directeurdes opérationscartographiqueIs,ternational MappingAssociates,Mr.AlanPerry,Partner,D.J. Freeman, Solicitors, ity ofLondon,

Mr.DavidLerer,Solicitor,D.J. Freeman, Solicitors,CityofLondon,

Mr.ChristopherHackford, Solicitor,.J. Freeman,Solicitors,City ofLondon,

MsCharlotteBreide, Solicitor,D. J.Freeman, Solicitors,CityofLondon,

Mr.Ned Beale,Trainee, D. J. Freeman, Solicitors,Cityof London,

Dr.GeoffkeyMarston,Fellow.of Sidney SussexCollege, Universityof Cambridge; Member of the
Barof Englandand Wales,.

asCounsel;

H.E.the HonourableDubemOnyia,MinisterofStateforForeignAffairs,

Mr.Maxwell Gidado,SeniorSpecialAssistantto the President(LegalandConstitutional Matters),
FormerAttorney-GeneralandCommissionerforJustice, AdarnawaState,

AlhajiDahiruBobbo, Director-GeneralN, ationalBoundary Commission,

Mr. A. O. Cukwurah,Co-Counsel,Former UN (OPAS) Boundary Adviser to the Kingdom of
Lesotho,Former CornrnissïonerI,nter-StateBoundaries,National oundaryCommission,

Mr.1. Ayua, Member,NigerianLegalTeam,

Mr. F.A. Kassim,Surveyor-Generalofthe Federation,

AlhajiS. M.Diggi,Director(InternationalBoundaries),NationalBoundary Commission,

Mr. K. A.Adabale,Director(Internationaland ComparativeLaw)Ministry of Justice,

Colonel A.B Maitama,MinistryofDefence,

Mr.JalalArabi. Member,Nigerian LegalTearn,

Mr.GbolaAkinola,Member,Nigerian LegalTearn,

Mr. K. M. Tumsah, SpecialAssistant to Director-General, NationalBoundaryCommissionand

Secretary[Othe LegalTeam,

Mr.Aliyuh'asir,SpecialAssistantto theMinisterofStateforJustice,

asAdvisers:

Mr.Chris Carleton,C.B.E.,UnitedKingdomHydrographicOffice,

Mr.DickGent,United KingdomHydrographicOffice,

Mr.CliveSchofield, InternationalBoundarieRs esearch Unit,UniversityofDurham,

Mr.ScottB.Edrnonds,Directorof CartographieOperations,International MappingAssociates,M. RobertC. Rizzutti,cartographeprincipal,International MappingAssociates,

M. BruceDaniel,InternationalMappingAssociates,

MmeVictoriaJ. Taylor,InternationalMappingAssociates,

MmeStephanieKimClark,InternationalMappingAssociates,

M. RobinCleverly,ExplorationManager,NPAGroup,

Mme ClaireAinsworth,NPAGroup,

commeconseillersscientiJquesettechniques;

M. MohammedJibrilla, expert en informatique,commissionnationad leesfrontières,

MmeCoralieAyad,secrétaire, cabineD t . J.Freeman,Solicitors,City deLondres,

Mme ClaireGoodacre, secrétaire, cabineD. J. Freeman,Solicitors,CitydeLondres,

Mme SarahBickell,secrétaire, cabinet.J. Freeman,Solicitors,CitydeLondres,

Mme MichelleBurgoine, spécialisteen technologie de l'information, cabinetD.J.Freeman,
Solicitors, Cityde Londres,

commepersonnel administrat$

Le Gouvernementde la République deGuinéeéquatoriale,qui est autorisée à intervenir dans
l'instance,estreprésentpar :

S.Exc. M.Ricardo MangueObarnaN'Fube,ministre d'Etat, ministre du travailet de la sécurité
sociale,

commeagentet conseil;

S. Exc.M.RubénMayeNsueMangue, ministre de la justice et des cultes, vice-présidentde la
commissionnationale des frontières,

S.Exc.M.CnstobalMailanaElaNchama,ministre des mineset de l'énergie,vice-présidentde la

commissionnationale des frontières,

M. DomingoMba Esono, directeur national de la société nationale de pétrole de
Guinée équatoriale, membrede la commissionnationaledesfrontières,

M. Antonio NzambiNlonga, Attorney-General,

commeconseillers;

M. Pierre-MarieDupuy, professeur de droit international public à l'Université de Paris
(Panthéon-Assase )tàl'Institutuniversitaireeuropéde Florence,Mr.RobertC.Rizzutti,SeniorMappingSpecialist,InternationalMapping Associates,

Mr.BruceDaniel,InternationalMappingAssociates,

MsVictoria J. Taylor,InternationalMappingAssociates,

MsStephanieKim Clark,International MappingAssociates,

Dr.Robin Cleverly,ExplorationManager,NPAGroup,

MsClaireAinsworth,NPA C~roup,

asScientzjîcand TechnicalAdvisers;

Mr.MohammedJibrilla, CornputerExpert,Nationa BloundaryCommission,

Ms Coralie Ayad, Secretary, J. Freeman,Solicitors,CityofLondon,

MsClaireGoodacre,Secretary,D. J.Freeman,Solicitors,Cityof London,

Ms SarahBickell, SecretarD. J.Freeman,Solicitors,CityofLondon,

Ms MichelleBurgoine,IT Specialist,D.J. Freeman,Solicitors,City ofLondon,

asAdministrators.

TheGovernmentof theRepublicofEquatorialGuinea,whichhas beenpermitted tuinterne in
the case,irepresentedby:

H.E.Mr. RicardoMangueObamaN'Fube,Ministerof StateforLaborand SocialSecurity,

asAgentand Counsel;

H.E. Mr. Rubén MayeNsue Mangue,Minister of Justice and Religion, Vice-Presidentof the
National Boundary Commission,

H.E. Mr. Cnstobal Mailana Ela Nchama,Minister of Mines and Energy, Vice-Presidentof the
National Boundary Commission,

MI. Domingo Mba Esono, National Director of the Equatorial Guinea National Petroleum
Company,Memberofthe NationalBoundary Commission,

Mr.AntonioNzambi Nlonga,Attorney-General,

asAdvisers;

Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Professor of Public International Lawat the University of Paris
(Panthéon-Assas)and atthe EuropeanUniversity InstituteinFlorence,M.DavidA. Colson, membre du cabinet LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P.,
Washington,D.C., membre du barreau de 1'Etatde Californie et du barreau du district de
Columbia,

commeconseils etavocats;

SirDerekBowett,

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

deVirginie,

commeconseil;

MmeJannette E. Hasan, membre du cabinet LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P.,
Washington,D.C., membre du barreau du district de Columbiaet du barreau de 1'Etatde

Floride,

M.Hervé Blaûy, membreducabinetLeBoeuf,Lamb,Greene& MacRae,L.L.P.,Paris, avocat àla
Cour,membredu barreaude Paris,

commeexpertsjuridiques;

M.CoalterG.Lathrop,SovereignGeographicInc.,Chape1Hill,CarolineduNord,

M.AlexanderM.Tait,Equator Graphics,SilverSpring,Maryland,

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

as CounselandAhocates;

SirDerekBowett,

as SeniorCounsel;

Mr.DerekC. Smith,LeBoeuf,Lamb,Greene& MacRae,L.L.P.,Washington,D.C.,memberof the
DistrictofColumbiaBarand VirginiaStateBar,

as Counsel;

MsJannette E.Hasan, LeBoeuf,Lamb,Greene& MacRae,L.L.P.,Washington,D.C., memberof
theDistrictfColumbiaBar andFloridaStateBar,

Mr.Hervé Blatxy,LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene& MacRae,L.L.P.,Paris,Avocat à la Cour,mernberof

the ParisBar,

asLegalExperts;

Mr.CoalterG.Lathrop,SovereignGeographic Inc.,Chape1Hill,North Carolina,

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

as TechnicalExperts. LePRESIDENT :Veuillezvous asseoir. La séanceest ouverte etje donneimmédiatement

la parole, au nom de la République fédérale du Nigéria, à M. Ian Brownlie. Monsieur le

professeur,vous avezla parole.

Mr. BROWNLIE: Thankyou, Mi. President.

THE POSITION INLAKE CHAD

1. Mr. President, distinguished Members of the Court,it is my purpose this morning to

examinethe foundationsof theNigerian claimto title in respect ofcertainasof the LakeChad

region. The claim encompasses33villages,which arelisted attab 71 in thejudges' folder. These

cornmunitiesof fishermen and farmers have a total populationof approximately 60,000people.

The villagesareincludedintheNigerianlocal governrnentauthonties of MarteandNgala.

2. The limitsof Nigeria's claim toareasof LakeChad are shown on the graphicnow before

the Court,also at tab 71. Theselimitsreflectthe areasunderthe administrativecontrol ofNigeria.

3.The legalposition canbe surnmarizedin the followingpropositions:

First: It is the position of Nigeria that theof Lake Chad to the north and east of the

terminusof the land boundary at the mouth of the Ebedji constitutetenitory the title to which is

undetermined. Thisis subject tothe existenceof the title of Nigeria to specificareas based upon

historicalconsolidationof titleandacquiescence.

Second The work of the Lake Chad Basin Commission did not result in a delimitation

which wasfinal andbinding uponNigeria. Inthe absenceof a delimitationjointly agreed uponby

theriparianStates,there is noboundaryinplace whichisopposableto Nigeria.

Third The premise of the work of the Lake Chad Basin Commission was precisely that,

whilstthe colonialtreaties constituted relevantdata in relation to delimitation,their provisions as

suchdidnot providea definitivesolution.

Fourth: Thepractice oftheriparian Statesconfirmsthat thereis no definitive delimitationin

place.

Fzjlh: Title to the areas of LakeChad claimed by Nigeria is based upon historical

consolidationoftitle and acquiescence. Sixth: And, finally,titleto the areasvests inNigeria independentlyof the presentstatusof

the delimitationwork carriedoutunderthe auspicesof theLakeChadBasinCommission.

4. It will be helpfùl to remind the Court that "LakeChad" is the description whichis

customarilyapplied to the area which is the historical flood zoneas indicatedon standardmaps

availablein thepublic domairi. Thegraphicbeforethe Court, alsoat tab 72, was producedfiom a

digital databasepublishedby the United States Defence MappingAgency. The historicalflood

zone includesthe area of actualinundationat anyone time. This historicversion ofLakeChadis

sometimesdescribedasthe"normal"Lake Chad- it is theimageone seeson atlasmaps.

5. Numerous villages existon the dried-upbed of the Lake. Theseare to be distinguished

fiomthe settlementsonthemainlandsof Nigeria andotherriparianStates. The Lakevillagesmay

be sited eitheron islands which are surroundedby water perennially,or on locations whichare

islands in the wet season,or on locationswhich are sited on the dried-uphistoricalfloodzone of

the "normal" LakeChad, with episodesof floodingas a contingency. For present purposesit is

necessary toemploy the conceptof the "normal" LakeChad as the base of reference. It is this

customaryusagewhich is legally relevantand whichconstitutesthe regionto which theongoing

processofdelimitationanddemarcationrelates.

6. My firstpurposeis to demonstrate that therehas beenno delimitation whichis final and

bindinguponNigeria. This demonstration involvesthree elements.

First: the colonial boundary agreements ofthe period 1906to 1931 did not produce a

conclusivedelimitationinthe LakeChadregion.

Second:the uncertaintiesremainedafterthe independenceofNigeriaandCameroon.

Third: the work of the LakeChadBasin Commissiondidnot producea delimitationwhich

wasfinalandbinding onNigeria.

7. Thedocumentsrelating tothe functionofthe LCBCin determiningthe boundariesofthe

riparianStateswithin LakeChadsometimesemploythe term "demarcation"to describethe nature

of the task. As will appear as the backgroundis examined, the essence of the process is

delimitation and the demarcationelement is necessarily consequentupon legal appreciations

involvingtheinterpretation and application ofariousboundaryagreementsofthe colonialera. 8. The nature of the agenda in fiont of the technical experts of IGN emerges very clearly

from the language of the IGNReport of the Marking Out of the International Boundariesin Lake

Chad adopted at N'Djamena on 14February1990. Thisrefers, with logicaljustification, to"the

delimitationof boundaries". 1refer to the Additional Application,Annex 5. The introduction to

the reportreads as follows,inthe EnglishtranslationoftheRegistry:

"We the undersigned,

experts fiom the Member States of the CBLTLCBC (Cameroon, Niger,Nigeria and
Chad), duly designated by our States to supervise and monitor the work on the
demarcation of our boundaries in accordance with resolution No. 2 adopted by ou
Governments at their Sixth Surnmit Meeting held in N'Djamena on 28 and
29October 1987,

onthe onehand,

and IGN-France International (IGN-FI), holder of contract No. CBLT/M02/88,
approved on 26 May 1988, for the delimitation of the boundaries between the
temtories of Cameroon,Niger, Nigeriaand Chad,

onthe other,

haveproceeded, from13June 1988 to 12February 1990,to effectthe delimitationand

marking-out [delimitationand marking-out]of the said boundaries and submit to the
approval of the respective Governmentsthe followingdescription of the boundaries
thatwe markedout."

9. In this context it is necessaryto lookat the classicaldistinctionbetweendelimitationand

demarcation. The reader of the documentsproduced by the LCBC in relation to the exercisein

boundq-making on Lake Chad must inevitably recognizethat the operation was not limited to

demarcarionalone.

10.The leading authorityCharlesRousseaupointedoutthatthe two termsare often confused

in diplornaticlanguage. 1am referring to his treatise: Droit lnternafional Public, VolumeIII,

1997,atpage269. And in abookpublishedin 1979,thepresentspeakerobservedthat:

"It is common practice to distinguish delimitation and demarcation of a
boundary. The formerdenotesdescriptionof the alignrnent ina treaty orother written

source, or by means of a line marked on a map or chart. Demarcation denotes the
means by which the describedalignrnentis marked,or evidenced, on the ground, by
meansof cairns of Stones,concrete pillars,beaconsof various kinds, cleared roadsin
scrub,and so on. Theprincipleofthe distinctionis clear enough, buttheusage of the
draftsmanof the particular international agreementor political spokesmanmay not be
consistent. Infact the termsare sometimesusedto mean the same thing." (Brownlie,
AfiicanBoundaries, 1979,p. 4.) 11. 1shall now pursue my demonstration thatthere is no delimitation which is final and

bindingupon Nigeria.

12. The firstelement to be emphasizedis that the colonial boundaryagreementsof 1906to

1931 did not produce a conclusive delimitation in the Lake Chad region, and that substantial

uncertaintiesremainedto be solved.

13.The colonialboundaryagreementsand other pre-independence developmentshave been

carefullyanalysedin the Nigerian Counter-Memorialand it is not necessaryto repeat the analysis

(Chapter 15and alsoChapter 16,pp. 381-389). The conclusion ofthe Nigerian Counter-Mernorial

was asfollows:

"Thus, as at 1 ;lune 1961, the date upon which Northem Cameroons was
incorporatedinto the independent Federation of Nigeria,the process of delimitation
and demarcation of the boundary in Lake Chad was still at an embryonic stage."
(Para. 15.99.)

The arrangements for boundary delimitation and demarcation: the role of the Lake Chad
Basin Commission

(i) The position afterthe independence of Cameroon and Nigeria

14. In the years following the independence of Cameroon and Nigeria no work of

delimitation was undertaken. It is true that in the 1970s there were various bilateral contacts

relating to boundary problems. Moreover, the mandate of the Joint Boundary Commission,

establishedin 1965,includedthe determinationof difficultiesconcemingthe boundary fiom Lake

Chadto the sea: 1refer to the MinutesoftheMeetingof the Commissionon 12to 14August 1970

(PreliminaryObjections of Nigeria,Ann. NP0 13). But these diplornaticefforts did not have any

practical outcomeso far as LakeChadwasconcemed.

(ii) The origins of the renewed effort at delimitation ofthe boundaries on Lake Chad

15.In the eventthe taskof delimitationwas undertakenunder the auspicesof the LakeChad

Basin Commissionestablishedby a Conventionconcludedon 22 May 1964(Counter-Memonalof

Nigeria,Ann. NC-M60). The:member Statesare the four riparian States of Lake Chad,together

with the Centralfncan Republic. 16.The Statute of the Lake Chad Basin Commissioncontains the following elaboration of

"Principlesand Definitions":

"Article I: The Member States solemnlydeclare their desire to intensifi their
cooperationandefforts inthedevelopmentofthe ChadBasin asdefinedin Article II.

Article II: For the purpose of this Conventionthe Chad Basin shall comprise

thearea as demarcatedonthemap annexedto thepresent Convention.

Article IIk The Chad Basin is open to the use of al1Member Statesparties to
thepresent Convention,withoutprejudiceto the sovereignrights of each as stipulated
in the present Statute, revision thereof, or subsequent relations thereunderor by
specialagreement.

Article IE The developmentof the said Basin and in particular the utilization
of surface and ground waters shall be given widest connotation, and refers in

particular to domestic, industrialand agricultural development,the collection of the
products of itsfaunaand Bora."

17.The functionsof the Commissionincludethefollowingin ArticleIX:

"(a) to prepare general regulations which shall permit the full application of the
principles setforth in the present Conventionand its annexed Statute, and to
ensure theireffectiveapplication;

(3) to collect, evaluateand disseminateinformationon projectsprepared by Member
States and to recomrnend plans for comrnon projects and joint research
programmesin the ChadBasin;

(c) to keep close contact between the High Contracting Parties with a view to
ensuringthemost efficientutilizationofthewatersof the Basin;

(4 to follow theprogress ofthe execution ofsurveysand worksin the ChadBasin as
envisaged in the present Convention, and to keepthe Member States informed at
least once a year thereon, through systematicand periodic reports which each
State shallsubmitto it;

(g)to examine complaints and to promote the settlement of disputes and the

resolution of differences;

@) to supervisethe implementationof the provisions of the present Statuteand the
Conventionto which itis annexed."

18.The LCBC constitutes an international organization,as indicatedin ArticleXVII of the

Statute,andits aimsareessentiallythe achievement ofCO-operation in pursuit ofthe most efficient

utilization of the waters of the Lake Chad basin. The taking up of the agenda of delimitation

resultedfromconsiderationsof securityin theregion. 19.In 1983,disturbancesin the region of Lake Chadcausedby Chadianbandits gave rise to

the convening of an extraordinary sessionof the Lake Chad Basin Commission inLagos, from

21 to 23 July. In his statement, Dr.Alhaji BukarShaib, the Chairman of the Commission,

explainedthe position. In hiswords:

"On this occasion,our meeting has been prompted by the recent events along
the border between Nigeria and Chad in the Lake area of the basin. This matter has
been the subject of bi-lateral negotiations between the two Member States which,
happily, have succeededin restoring normalcy and a return to the situation existing
before the incidents occurred. However, in order to find a lasting solution to the
perennialproblem oftencausedby long and undefinedborders betweenneighbouring

Statesno matter how fiiendlytheirrelationship, andin this particularcase,on the very
Lake itself where the borders of our four States converge, both Nigeria and Chad
rightly agreed that the 1,akeChad Basin Commissionshould be the proper forumfor
discussing al1 the important ramifications of the problem and the modalities of
effectingthe necessary solutionsonce and foral1not only between thembut between
al1 the four Member States." (Preliminary Objections of Nigeria, Ann.NP0 88,

pp. 859-860.)
20. In the report of the extraordinary sessionthe same speech was summarized in very

similarterms (seeAnn.NP0 88,p. 862).

21. The meeting decided to establish two sub-committees,one for the delimitation of the

borders and the other for security matters. The report indicatesthe nature of the agenda in the

followingpassage:

"After the recess:,the meeting of experts began, with Mr. N. O. Popoola, the
PermanentSecretaryof the Ministryof WaterResourcesof Nigeria as Chairman. As
the two mattersto be discussedwere so closely inter-related,it was decidedthat both
sub-committees should meet together in the ConferenceHall and discuss first the
border delimitationproblems and later the security matters.On the proposa1of the
Chairmanand with the concurrenceof the Delegations present the following agenda

were adoptedforthe twoCornmittees.

Agendafor the Cornmitteeon Demarcation

1. Possibleexchangeof information and documentsonthe boundaries.

2. BoundariesCornmitteeprogramme andworkmethodology.

3. Joint DemarcationTearn.

Agendafor the CornmitteeonSecuriy

1. Measuresfor ensuringthe effectivenessofthejoint Border Patrols.

2. CompleteDemilitarizationofthe Lakebythe MemberStates.

3. Measuresto ensurethenon-violation ofAgreementsreached. 4. SecurityoftheBoundaryDemarcationTearn." (Ann.NP0 88,p. 864.)

22. The modalitiesof implementationof the decisionstaken at Lagos were discussed atthe

twenty-eighth,twenty-ninthand thirtieth sessions of the LCBC in 1984and 1985. Progresshad

been slow, inpart,becauseofproblems relatingto funding.

23.Inthe report dated 17November1984of the LCBCSub-Commissiononthe delimitation

of the frontierswithin Lake Chad, the following passageappears under the heading "documents

juridiques de base":

"5.Aprésdiscussions etéchangede vues,la sous-commissiona retenucomme
documentsde travail,les textessuivantstraitantde la delimitationdesPontièresdans

leLac Tchad; . ." (Memorialof Cameroon,Ann.MC271,pp. 2238-2240).

Fourtreatiesofthe colonialperiodarethen listed.

24. The content of thisreport makesit clear that theenterpriseenvisaged would necessarily

involvethe determination ofthe alignmentandnot onlyaprocessof demarcation.

25. In 1985the Fifih Conferenceofthe Heads of Stateof the LCBC washeld. The Minutes

of theFifth Conference (Counter-MemorialofNigeria, Ann.NC-M275) include,as AnnexB, the

report ofthe then Chairman,Dr.AlhajiBukarShaib.

26. Underthe rubric"BorderDemarcationand Securityon Lake Chad",this reportprovides

the followinghelpful assessment:

"32. Following the border incidentsbetween Nigeria and Chad on the Lake

Chadin Apnl 1983 andthe ProtocolAgreementbetweenthe two countriesin July the
sarne year, the Commissionwas called in as the forum through which to effect a
permanent settlement of the border problems in the area. Consequently, an
extraordinary session of the Commission, which was held in Lagos from
21st-23rdJuly, 1983set up two Sub-Commissions: one on border demarcationand
theotheron securityonLake Chad.

33. From 12-16 November,1984, the experts on border demarcation and
securityon Lake Chad from the fourMember Statesmet in Lagos and agreed on the
basic legal documentsfor futurework."

27.Thisreportby the Chairmandescribesthe LCBCas "the forum through which to effect a

permanent settlement of the border problemsin the area", and forms part of the Minuteswhich

were formally adopted by the Sixth Conference of Heads of State on 28 October 1987

(Counter-Mernorial of Nigeria, Ann.NC-M276 and Preliminary Objections of Nigeria,

Ann NP0 67).

28. The final Communiqué of theFifthConference(Ann.C to Ann. NC-M275)recordsthat: "The Heads of Statenoted with satisfactionthe measures being taken by the
Commission to find permanent solutionsto the issues of border demarcationand
security on Lake Chad,and to this effect instructedthe Commission tointensiQ its
efforts."

29. The decisionstaken in 1987 by the Sixth Conferenceof Heads of State includedthe

decisionon "BorderDemarcation",asfollows:

'-that member Stateshave agreedto finance the cost of the demarcationexercise
whichamountsto 312,884,000F.CFA;

- thatthearnountwouldbe sharedequallyamongthe fourmember States;

- that aspecialbankaccountbe openedforthispurpose;

- thatworkshouldstartin March 1988." (Ann.NC-M276, p.19.)
30. Thus the LCBC founditself mandated bythe four memberStates,al1ripariansof Lake

Chad,to proceedwith the technical programmeof delimitationanddemarcation.

(iii) Thespecificationspreparedforthetechnicaloperation

31. In March 1988 a meeting of experts of the member States of the LCBC met "to

determinethe termsof referericefor the demarcationand survey of the boundariesin LakeChad"

(Counter-Mernorialof Nigeria, Ann.NC-M277). The General Conditions for Invitation of

InternationalTender(Ann.NC-M278) wereapprovedby the LCBCatthe samemeeting.

32. A separate instrument adopted at this stage was the Technical Specificationsfor

Boundary Demarcation and Survey in the Lake Chad (Ann.NC-M279). The contentsof this

document deserve close attentionbecause they revealthe essentialnature of the task envisaged,

which involvedelementsof evaluationwhichwent farbeyond the normal task ofdemarcation.

33. Chapter 1of the Technical Specifications speaksfor itself in thisrespect. Itprovidesas

follows:

"1.1 Al1activitieson surveying,and border demarcationbetween Cameroon,

Niger, Nigeriaand Chadin the LakeChadand its surroundingsshall complywiththe
terms laiddownin thesespecifications.

1.2Scopeoftheworkto bedone

Thearea involvedcovers approximately 61,000km2and is located betweenthe
followinggeographicalCO-ordinates[:which1omit].

TheContractorshallcarry outthefollowing assignments: (i) Reconnaissance and physical marking out of 21 GPS Control Points and
7 majorborder points;

(ii) Placementof 62 intermediatebeaconsbetween the border points at intervals
of not morethan 5kilometres;

(iii) Determination of the geographical coordinates of both border and the

intermediatepoints.

1.3 Documents to be given to the Contractor by the Lake Chad Basin
Commission

The Lake Chad Basin Commission shall supply the Contractor with the
followingdocumentsto enablehim to cany outhis assignment:

(i) A tableofexistingsurveyandcontrolpoints;

(ii) Aerialphotographs, mosaicsandmaps where available;

(iii) Textsanddocumentsdealingwithborder demarcationin the LakeChad:

(a) Convention between Great Britain and France respecting the
delimitationofthe FrontierbetweenBritish and French Possessions east
oftheNiger (signedin Londonon 29May 1906);

(b) Convention confirmingthe boundary between Cameroon and French
Congo(signedin Berlinon 18April 1908);

(c) Agreementbetweenthe UnitedKingdomand Franceon the delimitation
of the border between the British and French possessions east of the
Niger(signedin London 19February 1910);

(4 Exchange of notes between HisMajesty's Govemment in the United
Kingdom and the French Govemment concerning the boundary
between British and French Cameroons (done in London on
9 January1931);

(e) Minutes of the meeting of 2 March 1988 between Chad and Niger to
determinetheirbi-pointsonthe LakeShore."

34.As the Courtwill readily appreciate,such reference to treaty instrumentsindicates that

the exercisewas in reality inthe nature of a delimitation. Moreover,given the choicesto be made

in relationto the collection ofreaiy instruments, eventhe delimitation processwould involve

decisionson matters ofsubstance.

35. In the event IGN France Internationalwas awarded the contract (Minutes of the

Examination of Tenders, Counter-Memorial of Nigeria, Ann. NC-M280). The contract (ibid,

Ann.NC-M281) providedin part as follows: "Article7: Documentationhandedto the Contractorby theLake ChadBasin
Commission

The Lake Chad Basin Commission shall supply the Contractor with the
following documents:

(i) Anindex list ofexistinggeodeticandheightpoints;

(ii) Al1the existingphotographiemosaics andmapsintheir presentstate;

(iii) Textsand documentsdealingwithboundarydemarcationin Lake Chad;

[There followsthe sametreatiesasthoselistedinthe TechnicalSvecifications]

Article8: Documentation firnished by the Contractorto theLakeChadBasin
Commission

The Contractor shallfumish:

(1) Al1the documents mentionedinArticles3 and 7; ..."

36.The contractbetweenthe LCBCandIGNwasapprovedby the LCBCon 26May 1988.

37. In August 1988, a special session of the LCBC, prompted by a disagreement on the

location of theCameroonlNigeriabipoint, decided that the national experts should resolve the

problem and prepare "concrete recommendations". The report of the national experts who met in

September1988 noted the different claims of Cameroon and Nigeria which appeared to be the

result of the River Ebedji (El-Beid) opening intowo channels as it approaches the Lake, and

recommendedthat apoint obtainedby scalingfromthe mapattachedto the 1931Treaty be adopted

as the mouth of the River Ebedji as at 1931. This recommendation was endorsed by the

Commissioners attheir thirty-sixthsessionin December 1988. It is not my purpose to pursuethat

issue here.

(iv) Thedelimitationexercise,1988to 1990

38. The technical operationof delimitationand demarcationwas carried out by IGN in the

period 1988to 1990and the results were reportedto the Seventh Conference ofthe Headsof State

in 1990. The relevant part of the Minutesof the Conference recordsthedecision of the Headsof

Stateas follows:

"DecisionNo. 1: ReportontheBoundarydemarcationExercise Considering that as at 12th February, 1990, the Contractor IGN France
Internationalhadmonumented7 majorpoints and68 intermediarybeacons;

Considering that after examining al1 the documents and the field work, the
expertshave acceptedthework executed;

The Headsof Statedecided:

- to take note of the satisfactory achievement of the International Boundary
demarcation Exercise for Cameroon,Niger, Nigeria and Chad in the Lake and
direct the Cornmissionersto get the appropriate documentsready within three
months and sign them on behalf of their respective countries."
(Counter-Memorial ofNigeria,Ann.NC-M 282.)

39. The Heads of State had received the Report of the Marking-Out of the International

Boundariesin Lake Chad adopted at N'Djamenaon 14February 1990(Ann.5 to the Additional

Application). The most relevant parts of the report are as follows (in the English translation

provided bythe Registry):

"We the undersigned,

have proceeded, from13June 1988to 12February 1990,to effectthe delimitationand

marking-out of the said boundaries and submit to the approval of the respective
Govemmentsthefollowingdescriptions ofthe boundariesthatwemarkedout.

ChapterI. GeneralConsiderations

1.1Natureofthework

The workconsistedof a faithfulreconstitution,on the ground,of the indications
defining the courseof the inter-State boundaries,as given in the agreements,treaties,

exchangesof notes,conventionsandmapscurrentlyin force.

1.2 Courseof theboundaty

The boundaryline is drawn as a straight line from one beacon to another, and
marked out on the ground by major beacons linked to each other by intermediate
beacons, erectedevery 5 kilometresor so. Sevenmajor beaconshave been set up at

thepoints definedin the texts andmapsin force.

Sixty-eight intermediate beacons have been strung out along the traverse for
traverses 1-11,1-VII,II-V and III-VI, andfollow thecurve of the geographical parallel
fortraverses 1-IVand II-III.

Chapter VI.Cameroon-Nigeria Boundatyin LakeChad

This sectionof the boundary linehas been reconstitutedin accordancewith the
indicationsgiven in: (1) the Exchange of Notes between His Majesty's Government in the United
Kingdom and the French Government, respecting the boundary between the
French andBritish zonesof theMandatedTemtory of the Cameroons,effectedin
Londonon9 January 1931.

(2) the report of the meeting of experts relating to the determination of the
CO-ordinatesof the mouth of the El-Beid (Ebedji), which was held on 15 and
16September1988in N'Djamena,Chad."

40.It is significantthat the first of thepassages quotedabove refersto "the delimitationand

marking-outof the saidboundaries". It is clearthat "markingout" involvesa separateoperational

category. Of particularsignificanceis the definition of the "nature ofthe work". The work thus

consisted of "a faithful reconstitution, on the ground, of the indications defining [defining]the

course of the inter-State boundaries,as given in the agreements, treaties, exchangesof notes,

conventions and mapscurrentlyin force". Theseformulationsconfirmthat the work involvedboth

delimitationanddemarcation. They also indicatethat the worknecessarilyinvolveddecisionsof a

legal character conceming the interpretation and application of the various international

agreements.

(v) Thesequelto the delimitationexercise

41. In November 1990, at their thirty-ninthmeeting,the Commissioners resolvedthat the

national experts should go back to the field to complete some specific tasks relating to two

intennediate beacons (Preliminq Objectionsof Nigeria, Ann.NP0 74, p. 701). In the course of

the discussionsof the relevani:sub-commission,the positionof the Nigerian delegationas recorded

in the minuteswas as follows (Ann.NP0 74,p. 708,):

"For its part, the fourth delegation, i.e. that of NIGERIA, considered that the
project was not fully completed (the failure to nurnberbeacon 11-111.1s,ubstandard
qualityof nurnberingby LCBC,non-demolitionofbeacon II-V.l which was wrongly
erected, non stabilization of GPC and Azimuth station on lines I-II and II-V and

disappearanceoftwo GPSstationsonthe line I-II)."

In consequence, Nigeriarefused to sign the reportof the expertson the beaconing. At aJune 1991

meeting of experts, Nigeria rejected the resolution adopted at the thirty-ninth meeting

(Counter-MernorialofNigeria, Ann.NC-M 283).

42.InAugust 1991at Yaoundé,atthe first meetingof Cameroonianand Nigerian expertson

boundaries (this was not an LCBC meeting), the Nigerian experts explained that the delay in

signing the "final documents" on the demarcation of Lake Chad had been due to the need forcertain technicalclarifications(PreliminaryObjectionsof Nigeria, Ann.NP0 52). TheCarneroon

delegation atthis meetingreferredto the IGN exercisein termsof "delimitation anddemarcation".

At the second such meetingof expertsin December 1991,it wasrecommended that theLCBCbe

contactedbyboth delegationsto arrangeearly completion of certain outstandingworksbutthatthis

"shouldnot delaythe signingof the demarcationreportby theNigerianexperts"(Ann.NP0 54).

43. At a meetingof LCBC expertsin January 1992,Nigeria indicatedthat it was now ready

to implementthe resolution of the thirty-ninth meetingand to sign the "report on demarcation"

subjectto the approvalof the Headsof State (Ann.NP0 75). The Commissionnoted the intention

ofthe expertsto implementthe resolutionby June 1992(Ann.NP0 75, p. 715,). At the forty-first

sessionof the Commissionin April 1993(see extractsof minutes at Counter-Memorialof Nigeria,

Ann.NC-M284),it wasreportedthatthe expertshadgonebackto the field, finalized the technical

aspectsof thejob and signedthe technicaldocuments. However,because of a dispute regarding

the locationof beacon VI on the ChadlCarneroonboundary, theChad Commissioner statedthat he

wasunable to endorsethat aspect ofthe work, andas a resultof there being a lackof consensus, it

wasresolved that "the documents regardingthe demarcationexercise"be signedby the Executive

Secretaryand made availableto the Comrnissionersfor presentationto their Governmentsso that

the issuecould befinalizedatthe next Summit- that is, the summitof Headsof State.

44. The Minutesof the forty-firstsession of the Commissioncontainthe decisionto present

the documents "relating tothe borderdemarcation exercise"to the Heads of StateandGovernment

ofthememberStates"fora final decision"(Ann.NC-M284,p. 13,para. 90).

45. The Minutes of the Eighth Summit (Ann.NC-M285) of the Heads of State and

Govenunent (in 1994) record at page 13 Decision No. 5 conceming "Border demarcation and

securityin the Lake Chadbasin area": the documentis at tab 83. The text of the Decisionis as

follows:

"Faithful tothe principlesand objectivesof the OAU and the United Nations
Charter;

Consciousofthetraditionalbondsunitingthe riparianpeopleofthe LakeChad;

Firmly determined to strengthen and guarantee peace and security in the
sub-region; Considering that the physical work on border demarcation has been fully
completed and the technical document signed by the national experts and the
ExecutiveSecretariat;

Considering the concem of the LCBC to ensure the social and economic
developmentof thepopulationlivinginthe conventionalbasin;

Considering the growing insecurity situation in the Lake Chad conventional
basinarea;

Consideringthe strongwill of memberStatesto resolvethis persistent problem
of insecurityin the sub-region;

TheHeads of Statedecided:

A. Boundarydemarcution

to approve the technical document on the demarcation of the international
boundaries of member States in the Lake Chad, as endorsed by the national
expertsand the Executive Secretariatofthe LCBC.

that each country shouldadoptthedocumentin accordancewith itsnational laws.

that the document shouldbe signedlatestby thenext summitof the Commission.

to instnict state/local administrations of each country to mount social
mobilisation campaignsto educatethe local populationson the demarcationand
theirrights and privilegeson the Lake.

congratulatedthe (~ommissioners,the national experts,the Executive Secretariat
and the Contractor IGN-Franceforajob welldone."

1shallnotread outthe Section B on securityissues.

46.This decision of theHeads of Stateinvolvesthe approvalof "the technical document on

the demarcationofthe internationalboundariesofMember States",subjectto the adoptionby each

member State"in accordancewith its national laws"and subject, further, to signature by the next

Summitofthe Commission.

47. During the Ninth Summit (the Minutes are at Ann.NC-M286) on 30 to

31October1996,the Headsof'Stateand Govement adoptedasDecisionNo. 2 (p. 1 l)intab 83:

"Cou.ntryReportson theAdoprionandSigningof
DocumentonBoundaryDemarcation

Consideringthe itemon adoptionof the documentonboundary demarcation;

Notingthe sensitivityof the issue in viewofrecent developments;

Consideringthe necessity forpeaceandtranquillityinthe sub-region;

Noting the absenceof the Headsof Stateof Cameroonand Nigeria. The Heads ofStatedecided:

- to defer discussionsonthe issue.

- to mandate the President of the Summitto intervene eitherthrough consultations
or meetings with thetwo Heads of State of Cameroon and Nigeria,to find an
amicablesolutionto the problemin thespiritof Afiicanbrotherhood."

TheHeadsof State attendingwerethoseof Chad,Niger andthe CentralAfiicanRepublic.

48. The Minutes of the forty-fourthsession of the Lake Chad Basin Commission held at

N'Djamenaon 26-28 October 1996, whichincludethe resolutionsadopted,make no reference to

the questionof delimitationwithinLakeChad(RejoinderofNigeria,Ann.NR 103).

49. In the same way no reference to the questionof delimitation appearsin the resolutions

adopted by the Commission at its forty-fifth session in 1998(Ann.NR 104) or its forty-sixth

sessionin 1999(Ann.NR 105).

50. At the Tenth Surnmit of the Heads of State and Government held in N'Djamena on

28 July 2000once againno referencewasmadeto the questionof boundarieswithinLake Chad: 1

refer toAnnex NR 106 andthe documents in tab83. Thusthe positionhas not changed sincethe

Ninth Surnmitin 1996.

(vi) Nigeria hada discretionin the matterof acceptanceof the decisionof the Heads of
State in1994

51.The Nigerian Government has notseenfit to give approvalto the technical outcome of

the delimitation and demarcation exercise provisionallyadopted in 1994. The Nigenan

Government considers that the legal position is that each member State of the LCBC had a

discretionin thematter of acceptanceof the provisionaldecisionof the Heads of State. Thiswas

clearly the view of the Heads of State at the Ninth Summitin 1996. In any event,the voting

principleoperating in the LCBC is that of unanimity,as ArticXeof the Statuteprovides. In the

firstround,ProfessorCotsuggestedthat Nigeria was automaticallyboundby the determinationsof

the experts,but producedno evidenceto supportthat proposition. It is clearomthe practiceof

the LCBCthat dispositivedecisionswerethe prerogativeofthe Headsof State, andonly theHeads

of State.

52.The Nigerianpositionis compatiblewithsoundlegaland politicalpolicy. The boundary

settlementinvolved mattersof substance,which hadnot beenresolved eitherin 1919 or in 1931,and remained unresolved at the time of independence. Nigeria has significantinterests in the

region and a substantial population of Nigerians lives in the towns and villageswhich are under

Nigerian sovereignty.

53.Inthe light ofthe evidencethe onlyreasonableconclusionis that the work of the LCBC

did not produce a result whïch was final and legally binding uponNigeria. This position was

accepted by Professor Cot in the first round argument (CR200212,para. 66).
ProfessorCot then

followed this admission by asserting that Nigeria had nonetheless accepted the alleged

delimitationsof 1919 and 1931by her conduct. This Nigeriadenies. In any event, the assertion

involves apetitio principii. Therewere no definitive delimitationseither in 1919or in 1931to be

accepted.

54. Professor Cot repeated the familiar contentionthat there has been a well-established

boundary on Lake Chad since 1919andlor 1931 (CR200212,pp. 30-32, paras. 1-13). In insisting

on the existenceof a treaty-basedtitle Cameroonrelies uponthe Thomson-Marchand Declaration,

in theformof the Anglo-FrenchExchangeofNotes of 9January 1931. However,the transactions

of 1931 did not involve a final determinationof the Anglo-Frenchboundary but provided for

delimitation by a boundary c;ommission. In this respect the British Note, forming part of the

exchange.givesthe picture:

"2. His Majesty's Govemment agree that this Declaration [this refers to the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration]is, asyou point out, not the product of a boundary
commissionconstituted.forthe purpose of carrying outthe provisions of Article 1 of
the Mandate, but only the result of a preliminary survey conducted in order to

determinemore exactly than was done in the Milner-SimonDeclaration of 1919 the
line ulrimatelyto be followed by theboundary commission; that none the less, the
Declarationdoesin substancedefinethe frontier; andthat it is therefore desirablethat
the agreementembodiedtherein shallbe confirmedby the two Governmentsin order
that rhe acrualdelimitationof theboundary may then be entrustedto a boundary
commission,appointedfor the purpose in accordancewith the provisions of Article 1

oftheMandate.

3. His Majesty's Govemment note that the French Governent by their note
under reference confirm,for their part, the agreementembodied in the Declaration;
and 1have the honour in reply to informyour Excellencyhereby that His Majesty's
Governmentsimilarlyconfirmthis agreement.

4. His Majesty's Govemmentin the United Kingdomaccordingly concur with

the French Government that the actual delimitation can now be entrusted to the
boundary commission envisaged for this purpose by Article 1 of the Mandate."
(Counter-Memorialof Nigeria,Ann.NC-M 54; emphasisadded.) 55. It is clear fiom the language of the Exchange of Notes that the arrangements were

essentiallyprogrammatic. There wasno delimitation effected withinthe Lake as a consequenceof

the Exchange of Notes, and it is not surprising that, when the LCBC took up the task of

delimitation in 1984, the Exchange of Notes was not regarded as definitive. Unfortunately,

ProfessorCotdidnot providethe Courtwith asufficientlypreciseaccount ofthese transactions.

Thepracticeofthe riparianStates

56. Mr.President,it is to be emphasizedthatNigeria's isnot the only State withthe opinion

to the effect that there is no definitive delimitationin place.at was the opinion of the LCBC

itself when it embarkedon a procedure intended,subject to the lexspecialis of the LCBC as an

organization,to result in a final delimitation. Thisis also the opinionof themajorityoftheparian

States expressed in their conduct outside the framework of the LCBC. Thus in recent months

Nigeria has engagedin bilateral talksconcemingthe boundaryin Lake Chad with Chad and Niger

respectively. Further talks are envisaged. Nothing could indicate the realities of the existing

positionwithgreater clarity.

Thepresentlegal position

57. Thepresentlegalposition canbe summarizedas follows:

First: Thetaskspursuedby the LCBCinvolvedboth delimitationanddemarcation.

Second: The treaty instrumentsof the colonial period hadnot created a final delimitation

within LakeChad.

Third: The work of the LCBC did not produce an outcome whichwas legally binding on

Nigeria.

Fourth: In any event,the operationintendedto lead to an overall delimitation ofboundaries

on Lake Chad is legally without prejudice tothe title to particularareas of the LakeChad region

inheringin Nigeriaas a consequenceof the historical consolidationof title and the acquiescenceof

Cameroon.

And thebases of thisNigeriantitle is mynext subject.Introduction:thebasesoftheNigerian title

58. The three bases of'the Nigerian claim to title over Darak and the other villages are as

follows:

(1) long occupationby Nigeria andby Nigerian nationalsconstitutingan historical consolidation

of title;

(2) effectiveadministrationbyNigeria,actingas sovereign,and anabsenceof protest; and

(3) manifestations of sovereignty by Nigeria together with the acquiescence by Cameroon in

NigeriansovereignîyoverDarakand the other LakeChadvillages.

59. These three bases of claim apply both individuallyand jointly. In the view of the

Nigerian Governmenteach ofthese bases of titlewould be suficient onits own.

60. Thevillages in LakeChadwhich are in disputebetween Nigeriaand Cameroonare,as 1

have alreadyindicated,listed :inthejudges' folderat tab 71.

61. And the distribution of the villages and adjacent areas can be seen on the graphic

(tab 71).

62. Whilst some of the villages lie to the Westor south of the provisional demarcationof

Lake Chad boundaries carried out by the IGN, most of the villages lie to the east. It is a basic

premise ofNigeria'slegalpositionthattitle to the namedvillages vestsin Nigeria independentlyof

thepresent statusof the de1im:itatioas such.

63. In this general contextit is to be recalled that when the operation of the principle of

utipossidetis provides no decisive outcorne, the conduct of the parties is "of particular

importance", asthe Chamber of the Court pointed out in the Land,Islandand Maritime Dispute

case. As theNigerian Governmenthas had occasionto point out already,the Chamberin several

significant passages places emphasis on the qualiSling role of acquiescence and recognition in

relation to the principle of t(tipossidetis. The citations will appear in a later section of this

presentation.

64. The villages in the group are located on islands, or former islands, on the bed of

Lake Chad. The dates of foundationof the majority of the villages are listed at page 415 of the

Counter-Memorial. 65. The longest existing village, KattiKime, was founded 40 years ago and the newest

settlement, Murdas,was established 13years ago. The majorityof these villages have been in

existenceforbetween20and40 years.

66. The activitiesof the fishermenandfarmerswho foundedthese communitieswere open

andpeaceful,and theprocessof administrationby the NgalaLocalGovernmentAuthonty (LGA),

whichfollowedtheprocessof settlement,was equally open andpeaceful. Atno stagepnor to the

present proceedingsbeforethe Courtdid the Governmentof Carneroonmake any reservationor

protest.

67. The elementsofthe legalconceptof historical consolidationof titlehave beenelaborated

uponalreadyin my firstspeech inthisround, and 1shallnowdealwiththe specificcomponentsof

historical consolidationinrelationtotheclaim ofNigeria relatito LakeChad.

Thespecific componentsofthe historicconsolidationof Nigeriantitle

(i) The attitudeand affiliations of thepopulation ofDarak and the other LakeChad
villages

68. The first componentconsistsof the attitude and affiliationsof the populationof the

villages. The legal relevanceof the attitudeand affiliationsof the population in the temtory in

question hasbeen canvassed alreadyinrelation to Bakassi. As in the caseof Bakassi, inhabitants

of the villages regard themselvesas Nigerians. The contemporaneousnotes which recorded

interviewswiththe bulamas,or headmen,ofthe villagesinMay 1998showthe significantsenseof

allegiance to Nigeria by the people of the area. These notes are included as an Appendix to

Chapter 17ofthe Counter-Memorial.

69. Eventhoseresidents whoarenot Nigeriansby originacceptNigerianauthontyand pay

cornmunitytaxto Nigeriawithoutcomplaint,as canbe seenin the interviewswith thebulamasof

Doron Liman,KattiKime,Darak,Kafuram,SagirandKirtaWulgo,as shownon thegraphicwhich

is at tab 73. Reflecting the allegiance ofthe population, theulamas of the villagesrecognize

Nigerian authority.

70. The majorityofthe residentscomefiomNigeriantribes,of whichthe Kanuriand Hausa

formthe majorcomponents,and forthemost part speakonlytheKanuriandHausalanguages. (ii) Histoncal associations

71. The second componenttakes the fom of the historical associationsof the region. The

history of this area has been described in detail in Chapter12 of the Counter-Memorial. The

Emirate of Borno traces its history back to 1386, when a Kanuri branch of the Kanem Empire

broke awayand moved tothe area tothe southand Westof Lake Chad. This administrationhadan

organizedpolitical andsocial structure,which enabled it tobecomeboth powerful andsuccessfùl.

72.By 1800,thepreviouslygreat Empireof Kanemhad dwindledin statureandhad become

a province ofthe Emirateof Bomo, the confinesof which stretched al1aroundLake Chad. During

the first halfof the nineteenth.century,despitethe strugglesand warswiththe neighbouringFulani

Empire to the West of Bomo the Emirate of Bomo remained as an independent entity, and

preserved its traditional system of organization,with the Shehu as political leader. The strong

allegiance ofthe peopleofthis areahasalwaysbeen, and stillremains, tothe Shehu.

73. This system of traditional rule was preserved during the brief administration of the

French, and then underthe British, who introduced a systemof indirectrule, wherebythe Shehu

retained most of his powersand authority,albeitunder the protection ofthe British Empire. Even

the Germans,who setup a rival Emirate, Dikwa,in 1902,preservedthe system of traditional rulers

and appointed a Shehuof Dikwa. ThisEmiratebecame a sub-division ofBomo after 1916,when

the Britishtook overtheadministrationof Dikwa.

74. The area, includiig the Lake Chad region, has been under the rule of the Emirate of

Bomo foraperiod of over500 years.

(iii) Theexerciseofauthonty bytraditional rulers

75. The third componentof title by historical consolidationis the exercise of authority by

traditionalrulers. The traditional rulersstill retain an importantposition inNigerian society and

within the social structureof the BomoLake Chad region. The allegiance of the people in the

regionis stillprimarilyto the ShehuofBomo.

76.The Shehu isthe officialhead of a sophisticated systemof administration,and chairman

of the Emirate Council. This is an hereditary position, although the selection fiom the eligible

group is made by the Emirate Council and the Shehu is approved and crowned by the State

govemment. 77. The membershipof the EmirateCouncil,the traditional executive council, is in most

caseshereditary,andthe membersareappointedand crownedbythe Shehu.

78. The Shehuis assistedby the Ajia (or districthead) and the Lawan (sub-district head),

whichare both alsohereditarypositions,butappointedand crownedby the Shehu.

79.The headof each ofthe villagesisthe Bulama,who isresponsibleforthemaintenanceof

peace,order, discipline,andthe collection oftaxeswithinthe villageunit. TheBulamais selected

by the Lawan in consultationwith the communityelders under the delegated authority of the

Shehu.

(iv) The settlementof nationalsof theclaimantState

80.1 now cometo the fourthcomponent. As Nigeriahas statedin the Counter-Memorial,in

the formulationof title by a process of historical consolidationtherean be no doubt that the

existence of the long-established settlementsof the nationals of the claimant State plays a

significantrole. The settlementof nationalshas beentreated as relevant in thejurisprudenceof

international tribunals.The relevantmaterialis set forthin the Counter-Memorial,at pages 234to

237 (paras.10.50-10.55). The jurisprudence includesthe Judgmentof the Chamberin the Land,

Islandand FrontierDispute case(I.C.J. Reports 1992,p. 147,para. 180; andp. 516,para.265).

81.The villages claimedbyNigeria areinhabitedbyNigerians,who areinthemajorityin al1

of the villages except one (in which the majority are Malians, wholive happilyunder Nigerian

administration).Innone ofthem,in noneofthem,isthere asignificantCameroonianpopulation.

(v) Acts ofadministrationbytheFederal Governmeno tf NigeriaandbyBorno State

(a) Introduction

82. As Nigeriahas pointedout in her Counter-Memorial,amajor componentin theprocess

of historicalconsolidationisthe evidenceof peaceful possessionand administration, consisting of

acts involving "a manifestation of sovereignty"in respect ofthe LakeChad villages or "acts of

such a character that they can be consideredas involving amanifestationof State authority" in

respectof the villages.amhererecalling thecriteriaemployedbythis Courtinthe Minquiersand

Ecrehoscase (I.C.J.Reports 1953,pp. 58 and71). 83. Theevidence of administrationand peaceful state activity by Nigeria in the disputed

villageswillnowbe reviewed.

(b) Themaintenanceofpublicorder

84. First,1 shall review the evidence concemingthe maintenance of publicorder. The

relevantgraphicis in tab74. The contemporaneousnotes onvillagesin the area,in the Appendix

to Chapter17of the Counter-Memorial,showthat the policestation in Darakwas establishedby

the Federal Govemment. This was in 1981 : 1 referto AnnexNR 107which alsoincludesdetails

ofNigerianpoliceoutpostsat Wulgo,Chika'a,KirtaWulgoandDoronMallam.

85. Thereis also amobilepoliceunit stationedat Darak. Theunit canbe seenin its general

roleof maintainingpublicorder,forexamplein 1987to 1988(RejoinderofNigeria,Ann.NR 108).

There is alsoa police stationat KirtaWulgo. Thepolice presencereflectsthe significanceof the

region. Darak,the local administrative centre,has a populationof 20,000. Kirta Wulgo has a

populationof6,000.

86. Therehave, in the past, been a number of occasions when armedbands fiom other

countries,in particularfiom Chad,have harassedthe Nigerianfishermenand villagers, extorting

money and, in one or two cases, committingmore seriouscrimes. It is usuallythe case that the

smallpolicestationonDarakis under-equippedto deal withsucha serioussituation. In suchcases

the Chairmanof Ngala LGA is contactedand he requests assistancefiom the Govemor ofBomo

state. TheGovemormobilizesunitsfiom the21stArmoured Brigade oftheNigerian Army,which

is based at Maiduguri. Theseare sentto the areato act as peacekeepers,and protectthe villagers

and fishermen from further attack or harassment. There is an army unit presently stationedon

Darak tocopewiththegeneralthreatpresentedbybanditsemanatingfiomChad.

87. The DivisionalPolice Headquartersis at Gamboruin Ngala Local GovernmentArea..

There is ample documentation ofthe police administrationbased upon the Gamboru-Ngala

Division. This includes lists of police stationsand thedetails of postings to Nigerian villages

includingKirtaWulgo, Darak,D , oronMallam, Chika'aandKattiKime,in theperiod 1987to 2000

(RejoinderofNigeria, Ann.NR 109). In additionthere arecrimediariesfiomNgalapolicestation

for the period 1987to 1988whichrefer to the followingvillages: Jribnllaram,KasuramMareya,Doron Mallam, Darak, Katti Kime and Kirta Wulgo (Ann.NI2110). The locations of these

villagesare shownon thegraphicat tab74.

88. Police reports are availablefor the period 1987to 1991(Ann.NR 111). These reports

derivefiom NgalaDivisional Headquarters,fiom Doron Mallamand fromDarak policestation. In

a report, for instance, fiom Darak police station, datedruary 1989,reference is made to a

crimereportedby aresidentof the villageof RaminDorinna.

89. The police are also involvedin the monitoring of the "durnba" fishing method, which

involves barriers, in association with the Federal Department of Fisheries (Bomo state)

(Ann. NR 112).

Mr. President,withyour permission,thatmightbe a convenientplaceto stop?

The PRESIDENT: Well, ProfessorBrownlie, if it is a convenient place for you, it is a

convenientplaceforthe Court. Nous allonsdoncsuspendrepour unedizainede minutes.

L'audience est suspendudee II h20à 1Ih30.

Le PRESIDENT :Veuillez vous asseoir. La séance estreprise et je donne la parole au

professeurlan Brownlie.

Mr. BROWNLIE: Thank you,Mr. President. 1shall continuemy survey of manifestations

of state sovereigntyon the part of Nigeriain the Lakeegion.

(c)Taxation

90. Taxation forms an important part of such a picture. The Lake Chad villages al1pay

community m, Haraji t,Ngala LGA in Bomo state. An extract from the cash book recording

receipts for 199 is at AnnexNC-M288 of the Counter-Memorialof Nigeria. Examples of

comrnunity tax receipts for 1991 are at AnnexNC-M 289. These records relate to the following

15villages,whichappearontab 75 andwill beindicatedonthe screen: Chika7a,Darak, Dororoya,

Fagge, Garin Wanzam, Gorea Gutun, Kafuram, Katti Kime, Kirta Wulgo, Mukdala, Murdas,

Naga'a,Njia Buniba,RarninDorinna,andSagir. 91. Haraji cash booksin respect of WulgoVillage Unit, recordingreceipts for 1989 and

1990,areat AnnexesNR 113andNR 114of theRejoinderofNigeria. Theserecords relate tothe

same 15villagesand threeothers,namelyGoreaChangi,Kamma andSokotoram.

92. Cattle tax, Jangali;is also paid by the residentsof the villages to the Bomo state

authorities:referto theextractfiomtheJangalicashbookfor 1990(Ann.NR 1 15),whichrelates

to Naga'a,Katti Kime and Darak. Referenceto the payrnentof cattle tax is also made inthe

contemporaneousnotesappendedto Chapter17inthe Counter-Memorial.

93.Extracts fiom the Wulgo Village Unit Education cash booksfor 1988 and 1989are at

Annexes NR 116 and NR 117. These relate to the following villages: Chika'a, Darak, Darak

Gana, Dororoya, Fagge, Gari.nWanzarn,Gorea Gutun,Kafuram, Kamunna,Katti Kime, Kirta

Wulgo, Mukdala,Murdas,Naga'a,Naira,NjiaBuniba, RaminDorinna,Sagirand Sokotoram.

94. The residentsalso payan educationlevy. Extractsfrom the EducationCashBook and

Receipts for1991are at Annex NC-M290. Theyrelate to the followingseven villages: Chika'a,

Darak, Kafuram,KasuramMareya,KattiKime,KirtaWulgo,Naira.

95. The residentsof these villages originallypaid al1these varioustaxes to DikwaNative

Authority in the 1960s and 1970s: since the 1980s they have paid them to Ngala Local

GovernrnentArea. Furtherexamplesof individualtax receiptsfor communitytaxes,Haraji,and

the educationlevyare atAnnexNR 118.

96. The Wulgo Village UnitHaraji tax assessmentregister for the tax year 1973to 1974

includes Chika'aand Naga'a (Ann. NR 199). The communitytax assessmentregister for 1980

to 1981includesKatti KimeandNaga'a(Ann.NR 120). Communitytax assessment registers are

also availablefor the years 1982 to1983 and 1984to 1985. Extracts of these are at Annexes

NR 121 andNR 122 andtheseincludethe villagesof Chika'a,Darak,DoronMallarn, Dororoya,

Fagge, GarinWanzam,GoreaChangi,GoreaGutun,Kafuram,Katti Kime,Kirta wulgo, Mukdala,

Murdas,Naga'a,Njia Buniba, Ramin Dorinna andSagir.

97. In1975the District:Headof Ngala wroteto the Village Headof Wulgoin the following

terms:

"Greetings.1writeto informyou thatnomadicFulanis arebeginningto troop
intoyourterritory. Theyare currentlyin the region of Lake Chadaroundthe areaof
KattiKimeandKirtaWiilgo. In view of the above therefore1 herewithsend two of my body guards who
should join your people in approaching their people to collect poll tax."
(Ann.NR 123.)

98. Thereis an additionaleatureofthe situationwhich isofconsiderableimportance. Atno

time have the residents of these villagespaid taxes of any kind to the authoritiesin Carneroon.

Indeed, it is a matter of record that the residents refusedto pay taxes when Cameroonofficials

appeared in their villages. 1 refer now to the contemporaneousnotes on the villages in the

Appendix to Chapter 17 ofthe Counter-Memorial.

(d) Voluntary associations

99. TheNigeriancharacter of thevillages isonfirrnedbytherole of voluntary associations.

Thefishermenofthe villagesin the Lake Chadareaformthemselvesinto voluntary associationsin

orderto improvethe livelihoodof their members. Theseassociationshave applied for loansand

other assistance,on behalfof the fishermen,to NgalaLocal GovernmentAuthority. Receiptsare

givenforpayrnentsin respectof theseloans(Anri.NR 124).

(e) Census taking

100.Censustaking isa classical expressionofsovereigntyandthe NigerianNationalCensus

held a census in 1973 and the National Population Commissionin 1991. Darak and the other

villagesin the areawere enumeratedaspartof WulgoEnumerationArea.

101. Documents available relate toclaims fortravel expensesin December 1973fiom the

Village Headat Wulgo for transporting the enumeratoarnd supervisorsfromGamboruto villages

in the Lake Chad area, including Chika'a, on enumerationdays (Ann. NR 125). The claimis

addressed to the Divisional Census Officer, through the Assistant DivisionalCensus Officer,

Gamboru-Ngala.The results ofthe 1991censusareatAnnexNC-M292.

@ The administration ofjustice

102. 1movenext to the administrationof justice. The villages fonn a part of the Nigerian

system of the administrationof justice. Cases arising inthe Nigerian villages are heard in the

Wulgo Area Court, with the possibilityof appeal to the Ngala Upper Area Court. Records

availablerelateto the period 1981to 1982 (Anns.NR 126andNR 129). Theparties involvedin

therecordedcaseswere residentsof Darak,Kirta WulgoandNa'aga. The relevanttab istab76. (@ Public education
103. Inthe sphere of public education,the Ngala LGA has establishedprimary schools in

Chika'a,Naga'a, Darak,andKirta Wulgo: 1referto the tab 77and the graphicnow on the screen.

Theresidentsof Kafuramattendthe schoolinKirtaWulgo.

104. InAugust 1976the Education Secretaryof Ngalareceived the following letter fi-omthe

DistrictHead ofNgala:

"Greetings. 1take libertyin drawingyour attentionon the needfor a conclusion
of newclasses withinthe lakearea.

There is needto çonstnictthreeclassesinareassuchas KirtaWulgo,Chika .. .

1believe anytime you are ready the ward head of Wulgo (Lawan) will be
pleasedto show youa location.

1hope youunderstand." (Ann. NR 130.)

(h) Provisionofpublichealth

105.In relation to public health,the Ngala LGA and Bomo state have created a system of

health care in the Lake Chad villages involving on-site provision of care and various forms of

preventive medicine. Naga'a and Kirta Wulgo have their own clinics; and the relevant tab is

tab 78.

106. Mobile clinics areprovided for the villages of Chika'a and Darak. Theresidents of

Kafuramanend the clinicatKirta Wulgo. The Ministryof Health mobile clinic reportsmonthly to

the Director-General,Ministryof Health, Maiduguri. Thusin a letter dated 13July 1988it is stated

that the mobile clinic ''lei?Maiduguri on 4June 1988 to Ngala Local Govemment Area to the

followingvillages: Doro Kirta,Kirta Wulgo .. .Darak". Thenurnbersofpeople withmeasles and

whoopingcough in Darak arelisted (Counter-MemorialofNigeria, Ann.NC-M 295).

107. The Primary Health Care Department of Ngala LGA provides a system of disease

controland preventive medicinein the villages. The health post at Darak was the site of one of

severaldispensariesprovidedby the Ngala LGA(Anns.NC-M296 andNC-M297).

108.Reports of outbreaksof measles and whoopingcough at Darak were responded to by

appropriateaction on the part of the authorities in Maiduguri (Anns.NC-M298 to NC-M 302).

Requisitionswere duly madefor the provisionof drugsandhealth assistance. InNovember 1994asituationreport referred to an outbreak of cholera in the villages of Darak, Chika'a, Naga'a and

Sagir(Ann.NC-M303).

109. Cases of vomiting and diarrhoea in the villages were treated by the Disease Control

Unit of Ngala (Ann. NC-M304). A detailed report, dated 22November 1994, relates to the

situationin Chika'a,Doron Liman,Naga'aand Darak(Ann.NC-M305). Laterreports concem the

situationin Chika'a,Dororoya,Naga'a andDarak (Anns.NC-M306andNC-M307).

110. The Public Health Departmentof Ngala LGA also operates a programme for the

prevention of epidemic disease, in conjunction with the Ministry of Health ofomo state

(Anns.NC-M308 to NC-M 310). The programme includes an ongoing vaccination exercise

(Ann.NC-M 311)and a programme ofsurveillanceofinfectiousdiseases.

111. There is aletter dated 24 November1992 fiom Kirta Wulgo health clinic to the

CO-ordinatorf theHealth Care Departmentof Ngala Local Govemmentconcemingflooddisasters

(Ann.NC-M313).

112.A letter dated 27 November1992 fiom the Ngala Local Govemment Primary Health

Department is headed "Situation Report on Flood Disaster in Darrak". In fact, 15people were

injuredwhen runningfiom fast-flowingwater (Ann.NC-M314).

113.Thereis a letter dated 3August 1993fiomKatti KimePrimaryHealth Care Department

of Ngala LGA to theCO-ordinatofor health care reportingon the outbreakof measles. It lists the

namesand agesof childrenwithmeaslesin Katti Kime(Ann.NC-M315).

114. A letter fiom the health office in Gamboru to the Environmental Health Officer in

Maiduguridated 31May 1996reports onan outbreakof gastro-enteritisin Darakand commentson

the actionsaken by the Local Council(Rejoinder of Nigeria, Ann.NR 132). A Disease CO~~XO~

Unit was set up in Darak to cope with the outbreak (Counter-Memorial of Nigeria,

Ann.NC-M 312).

115.There is a letter dated25 August 1996frDarra killage unitto the District Head of

Ngala LGA conceming the outbreak of cholera in Chika'a and Naga'a and requesting help

(Ann.NC-M 316). 116. TheMedical and Health Departmentof theNgala LGA has since 1977, at least, been

concernedwith environrnenta:lsanitationin the villages(Ann.NC-M317). Inparticular,measures

have been takento introducewater sanitationand treatmentin Darak(Ann.NC-M 318).

(i) Generalpowersof administration

117. 1shall tum now to the generalpowers of administrationin the Lake Chad region. A

letter dated 1July 1996 fiom the Department of State Services of Ngala Local Govemment

Authorityto the Chairmanstates:

"Although the police and thisservice havejointly intensifiedeffortsto fnistrate
andlor prevent Mer use of the 'dumba' [that is the fish banier] on the shores of
Lake Chad which fa11within Nigeriantemtorial waters, the situationis still pregnant
with confusion. ..

The Police had on 18thJune 1996 invited and charged the duo of the Hausa
community leader in Darrak, one Mohammed DAN LANSU and the Secretary
General of the so called faceless Darrak multi-purpose CO-operativesociety,
AliMOHAMMED,in its continuedeffortsto stopcompletelythe use of dumba onthe
shores of LakeChad." (Ann.NC-M319).

118. There is writteri correspondence within Ngala Local Council conceming the

demolishingof the dumba fish traps by the Nigerian army. This was done in the Darak area and

the armystayedin Darakduringthe operation(Ann.NC-M322).

119.A letterdated 18September1996fiom NgalaLocal GovernmentCouncil to the district

head of Ngala states: "1 am directed to write... and inform you of the earlier decision of the

Security Cornmittee Members to remove Bulama Dan Lantso, as the Bulama of Darrak"

(Ann. NC-M 323).

120. The appointment of the village headmen - bulama - was traditionally within the

powerof the Shehuof Bomo. More recently, althoughit remainspart of the function ofthe Shehu,

or Lawan,the Govemor of Bomo statehasto give finalapproval,and he can appoint anddismissa

bularna as appropriate(Ann. NC-M 294). Salaries of headmen are paid by the relevant Local

GovernmentAuthority.

121. Tab 79is now relevant. It wasthe responsibility ofthe districthead of Ngalato appoint

wardheads in the Lake Chadregion. Thusin a letterdated29 April 1969the district headofNgala

instructsthe villagehead ofWulgo as follows: "This is to inform you that you should go down to Kirta Wulgo and install
BulamaMalumFannamiasthe WardHeadof KirtaWulgo.

You should also infonn the people of the area that Bulama's domain will
include Ndigiri, Yerwa Kura, Kusurna, Sigal and also al1the towns in the lake."
(RejoinderofNigeria, Ann.NR 233.)

122.In a letterdated 15May 1969,the districthead of Ngala instructsthe samevillagehead

"to traveltoChikatownand installBulamaKachallaas theward headof Chika"(Ann.NR 134).

123. In correspondencefiom February to March 1991, there is a letter fiom the Dikwa

Emirate Council to the district head of Ngala requesting nominationsfor village heads of new

village units, includingrak.The reply liststhe curricula vitao ef the suitablecandidates and a

letter of appointmentand an invitationto the appointee toattend the turbaning ceremonywas sent

(Ann.NR 135).

0) Registration of electors

124. The next subject is the registration of electors. A substantial proportion of the

population in the Lake Chad villages is registered as electors for the purposes of Nigerian

legislation. There isno evidencethat the inhabitantsvotein Carneroonianelections.

125. In the Nigerian local govemment elections in both 1988and 1989,Darak and Wulgo

constitutedan electoralward. Bukar Torobewas electedas councillorto representthe ward in the

Ngala LocalGovemment Council. His Certificateof Electionis at AnnexNC-M328.

126.In the 1993local governmentelection, MohammedLawanwas electedas councillorfor

the ward. In the 1996and 1997local governent elections,Jidda KhursoMohammedwas elected

as councillor. His CertificateofElection is alsoat AnnexNC-M 328.

(k) Licensing and regulation offishing

127. My next subject is the regulation of fishing. And tab 80 is now relevant. The

contemporaneousnotes reveal that Ngala LGA licenses fishing in the area. Both the Borno state

government and Ngala LGA provide fishing nets and equipment. In this context Ngala LGA

supervisesand reguiatesthe fisheries.

128.The FederalDepartmentof Fisheries, Borno state,has canied out a number of activities

in respect of the fishing onthe Lake, which include the provision of development assistance toDarakfishermen. Ithas setup an outposton Darakand in 1982 provided10tons of capacity to

supply ice blocks to the fishermen at Darak. A surnrnary report of these activities is at

Annex NR 136(RejoinderofNigeria).

129. In December 1992, the Nigerian Institutefor Freshwater Fisheries Research, a

departmentof the Federal Ministry of Science and Technology, approvedthe establishment of

semi-fishingponds for the production offiesh fish by the Darrak Multi-Purpose Co-operative

Society (Ann.NI2137). The:project involved the bulamas of Darak, Darak Gana, Dororoya,

RarninDorinna,Garin Wanzarn,Chika, Naga'a, Doron Mallam,Kafuramand other Lake Chad

villages. In October 1993,thesame Institutealso approvedthe use of cross-water fishingtraps in

Lake ChadbythesarneSociety(Ann.NR 138).

130. In CO-operationwith the police, measuresare taken by Ngala LGA to deter and

terminate the use of inappropriate fishing methodsand, inparticular, the illegal use of fishing

baniers (durnba). As part ofthispolicyNgala LGA hascreated(in 1995)theDurnbaDemolishing

Committee (Counter-Mernorialof Nigeria, Ann.NC-M324). These measures provoked legal

action,or at leastthethreatoflegal proceedings,bytheDarrak Co-operative Multi-Purpose Society

(Ann. NC-M325). It is to be noted that the proceedings envisaged would have been in the

Nigerianlegalsystem.

131.InJanuary 1996thesamelegalrepresentativespetitioned thethenMilitaq Govemor of

Bomo state onthe same subject(Ann.NC-M326). In June 1996,the Governor'sOfficewroteto

theChairmanofNgala Local(3ovemmentCouncil requestingthat actionbetaken to restrainthose

individualsstillusingthe "dumba"methodoffishing(RejoinderofNigeria,Ann.NR 139).

(Z) Theregulationoftrading

132. TheNgala localauthorityhas the powerto regulatetrading when it deemsthis to be

necessary. Thus in a letter dated 14May 1992 regardingDarak Patent Vendors, Ngala Local

Government Councilstated"thatthe Local Governmenthave anotice ofpatentvendorsservingin

Darak. They aretotalingto aboutTwelve, and wehad directedthem earlythis year togo and get

theirStateLicenceandtheywereon theprocess"(Ann.NC-M327). (m) Distributionofdisasterrelief

133.The next subject is the distribution ofdisasterrelief, and the relevanttab is at 81. In

1982and 1983disastrousfires afflictedthe village ofChika'a. In 1982the Village Headturned to

Ngala LGArequesting help (Rejoinderof Nigeria, Ann.NR 140),and in 1983the Bulamaturned

to theLawan(Traditional Ruler) ofWulgofor assistance (Ann. NR 141).

134.The villageheads of Katti Kimeand Naga'asimilarly wrote to Ngala LGA requesting

help afterire disastersin July 1983andMarch 1984respectively(Anns.NR 142andNR 143).

(n) Immigration

135. The Nigerian ImmigrationService has been routinely patrolling Darak and the Lake

Chad villages since the late 1960s. In 1973, an Immigration Control Post was established at

Gamboru,and fiomhere the Darak areawasmonitored(Ann.NR 144).

136. A full control postwas establishedat Darak inOctober 1994,with an initial strengthof

ten officers. Documentsrelatingto the administrationof Darak outpost in 1994,both when it was

still apatrolpost andaftert had beenestablishedas a controlpost,are at AnnexNR 145.

(O) Developmentassistance

137. The Ngala LGA of Bomo state has either provided assistance to the villages or has

informedthe village communities that development assistanceis available, for example, for the

constructionof wells: 1refer nowtotab 82.

138.Developmentassistancehasbeenprovidedtothe followingvillages:

Naga'a a school,a clinic,acementwell,andprovisionof fertilizerandpesticides.

Gorea Changi constructionof awell.

Darak mobile services,includinga clinic,provisionof drugs, provision of fertilizer

and pesticides, construction of a well, provisionof nets, maintenanceof the

navigability of the waterway to Katti Kimeand assistancein times of flood

damage.

Nimeri provisionof fishingnets and fishingequipment.

Kirta Wulgo a clinicanda school. 139. In 1997 the Ngala Local Governmentmade a gant for the improvementof the road

leadingto the KattiKimeDarak area (Counter-Memorialof Nigeria,Ann.NC-M293).

(viii) TheevidencepresentedintheCameroonpleadings

140.In its MemorialCameroondid notpresent anyevidencerelatingto the exerciseofstate

activitiesin thehadregion(pp. 405-413). Inthe Replysuch evidenceis presented atpages 137to

139 (paras.3.71-3.83)and 147,-153,andalsoin AnnexRC225.

141.The evidence presentedin the Replyon behalf of Cameroon hasserious flaws. In the

first place the evidence is confined to the years 1982 to 1988, with certain exceptions. The

evidenceof Nigerian activitiescovers a substantiallylongerperiod.here is also a contradictionin

the fact that evidence is presented by Cameroon in respect of villages which, in theview of

Cameroon,are underthe controlof Nigeria,that is to say,"occupied" by Nigeriansecurityforces.

142. The Cameroon Reply avoids any examinationof the evidence of peaceful possession

introducedby Nigeria in the Counter-Memorial(Reply of Cameroon, pp. 137-139,147-153,and

536-547). In the firstroundcuunsel forCameroon arguedthat the Nigerianefectivitéswerecontra

legem (CR200212,pp. 37-39,paras. 71-77). But this line of arguments, in the context of Lake

Chadandits history,is completelyquestionbegging andcircular. Italso failsto explainthe failure

of Cameroonto protest.

143.In the firstroundProfessorCotalsoarguedthatthe Nigerian presencein the LakeChad

region could notbe à titrede souveraininview of the LCBC exercise relatingto delimitationand

demarcation (CR200212,pp.36-37, paras.68-70). This opinion, of course, depends upon the

Carneroonianpremise thatthereport of theexpertswasbindinguponNigeria automatically.

144.In any event, Mr.President, the process of historical consolidationwould not be ruled

out asa matter of principle. To this considerationmust beadded severalotherconsiderations: the

peacefulcharacter of the Nigerian activitiesin the Lake region; the open and public characterof

those activities; andthe absenceof protestonthe part ofCameroon.

145. The Cameroon Government has produced no evidence relating to 15 of the villages

claimedby Nigeria: 1referto the Rejoinder,page 265,paragraph5.97. 146. In respect of the following six villages only two documents have been produced by

Carneroon(Reply of Cameroon,pp. 147-153): Aisa Kura, BashakkaD , arakGana,Karakaya,Naira

and Nimeri.

147. The documents involved are the sarne in each case; that is, Annexes RC 109 and

RC 119,which documents relate to asingle administrativetour of the district of Hile-Alifa. It is

not establishedthat thetour was actuallyundertaken. Thus, in relationto these 21 villages thereis

no respectable evidenceof theactualexerciseofsovereigntyby Cameroon.

148. It is also necessary to observe that many of the documents produced on behalf of

Cameroon are entirely programmatic in content, involving the planning of census tours and so

forth,inthe absenceof evidencethatthe eventsactually occurred.

149.The evidence concerningState activitiesmustalso be relatedto the fact that Cameroon

madeno protests in face of the Nigerian administrationofthe villagesuntil 1994. This silenceon

the part of Cameroonis of particularsignificancein light of the factthat Nigeria's State activities

wereentirely openandvisible to all.

150.It is timeto move to the final element inthe process of historicalconsolidationof title,

that is,the acquiescenceof Cameroonin thepeacefulexerciseof sovereigntybyNigeria.

TheacquiescenceofCamerooninface of thepeacefulexerciseofsovereigntybyNigeria

(i) Thelegalrelevanceofacquiescence

151. Acquiescence constitutes a major elementin the process of historical consolidationof

title and 1shall first of al1recall its overall legalrelevance. In consequence, thefirst, but by no

means the only, role of acquiescence, is played alongside the other elements of historical

consolidation,which1have reviewedalready.

152.The second, and independent,role of acquiescenceis that of confinning a title on the

basis of the peaceful possession of the tenitory in dispute, that is to Say, the effective

administration of theLake Chadvillages by Nigeria,acting as sovereign,togetherwith an absence

of proteston the part ofCameroon.

153. In the third place, acquiescencemay be characterizedas the main component of title,

that is, providing the essence and very foundation of title ratherthan a confirmation of a titlelogicallyanteriorto andindependentofthe processof acquiescence. There canbeno doubtthat in

appropriate conditions a tribunal can properly recognize a title basedupon tacit consent or

acquiescence.

154. The independentrole of acquiescence as a source of title is acknowledged in many

passages in the Judgmentof the Chamber in the case conceming the Land,Island and Maritime

FrontierDispute. The pertinent passages includethe following: paragraphs67, 80, 81, 169, 176,

280, 284, 341, 345, 364 and 368. The following passage fiom the Judgmentexpressesthe role of

tacit consentwithclarity:

"The Chamber considers that this protest of Honduras, coming after a long
history of acts of sovereignty by El Salvador in Meanguera, was made too late to

affect the presumption of acquiescence on the part of Honduras. The conduct of
Honduras, vis-à-viseailier effectivitreveals an admission, recognition,acquiescence
or other formof tacit consent to the situation. Furthermore,Honduras haslaid before
the Chamber a bulky and impressive list of material relied on to show Hondura.
eflectivitésrelating to the whole of the area in litigation, but fails in that material to
advanceanyproof of its presence on the island of Meanguera." (I.C.J.Reports 1992,

p. 577,para. 364.)

(ii) TheevidenceofacquiescencebyCameroon

155. I shall now move on to the evidence of acquiescence by Cameroon. The villages

claimedby Nigeria containsignificantandwell-establishedcommunities. Thepopulation sizesare

substantial.

156.The activities of the fishermenandfarmerswho foundedthese comrnunitieswere open

and peaceful, andthe process of administrationby Ngala LGA, which followedthe process of

settlement, was equally openand peaceful. Atno stage prior to the presentproceedingsbefore the

Court didthe Governmentof Cameroonmakeanyreservationorprotest.

157.Thus, in the Applicationdated29 March 1994the "subject of the dispute" involvedno

referenceto issues relating to theLake Chadregion. This silenceprovidesa necessary perspective

in which to evaluate the Cameroonian assertions that in 1987 there was an "invasion" of

Cameroon7stemtov by Nigenan forces; 1 refer here to the Reply, pages536 to 547 and

pages 567to 569.

158.Consequently,there is no referenceto any issuesrelatingto the LakeChad region. The

first reference to the Lake Chad region occurs in the Cameroonian Note to Nigeria dated11April 1994 (Counter-Memorial of Nigeria, Ann.NC-M 287 and Memorial of Cameroon,

Ann.MC 355)whichreads, inmaterialpart, asfollows:

"The Ministry of Extemal Relationsof the Republic of Cameroonpresents its
complimentsto the Embassyof the FederalRepublic of Nigeria in Yaoundé,and has
the honourto drawthe attentionof the Embassyto the following.

Nigerian nationals have occupiedthe Cameroonianlocality known as Kontcha
(Faro and Deo Division) in the Adamawoua Province of Cameroon. The
Cameroonianauthoritieshave observedthat in the past, Nigerianrnilitaryoccupation

of Cameroonian temtory generally followed the illegal occupation of parts of her
tenitory by Nigerian citizens. The NigerianrnilitaryoccupationofDarakandparts of
the BakassiPeninsulaare cases inpoint." (Emphasisadded.)

159. This issue was then taken up in the Additional Application introduced by the

Govemment of Cameroon on 6 June 1994 - on 6 June 1994 -, which refers in paragraph 11to

"this new dispute". In this instrumenttheGovemmentof Carneroondescribesthe "subject of the

dispute" as follows:

"1. This aspect of the dispute relates essentiallyto the question of sovereignty
over a part of the temtory of Cameroonin the area of LakeChad - locatedbetween
the Cameroon-Nigeria fiontier and the Cameroon-Chad frontier and extending to
around the middle of the remaining waters- the Republic of Cameroon's title to
which is contestedby the FederalRepublicofNigeria; ..."

160.The Cameroonianclaim,as it appearsin the Additional Application,takesthe formofa

response to a NigerianNote dated 14April 1994 (Memorial of Cameroon, Ann. MC 356). In

reality, this NigerianNote was a response tothe CameroonianNote, dated 11April 1994, already

referred to. TheNigerian Note constitutesthefirstNigerian referenceto the issueconcerningLake

Chadand readsas follows(in materialpart):

"It is both unfortunate and unacceptablethat Darak whichhas alwaysbeen part
and parce1of Wulgo District of Ngala Local Government area of Bomo State of
Nigeria and whichhas sincetime immemorialbeen administeredas such,isnow being
claimedaspart of Cameroonterritory."

161.The evidence availableshowsthat theNigerian villages have,in greaterpart, existed for

periods of between 20and 40 years. The terrainis flat and openand the activitiesin the Nigerian

villageshave beenpublic and unconcealed. Theconclusionwhichnecessarilypresentsitself isthat

the Government of Cameroonhas for decadesmaintained a silencein face of the long established

andpublicNigerianpresence. 162. Inits pleadingsthe Governrnentof Cameroonconfirmsthe absence of anyprotest prior

to 1994. The Memorial, under the heading "Lesprotestations camerounaises", refers only to a

singleNotedated 21April 1994(pp.589-590,Ann. MC357).

163. The Reply at pages 142 to 143 denies acquiescence by Carneroon and yet cites as

evidence of this denial the same Cameroon Note dated 21 Apnl 1994, which preceded the

AdditionalApplicationdated 6 June 1994by only a fewweeks.

(iii) The militaryinitiativesby Cameroonin 1987

164. Inits Memorial Camerooncontendsthat in February 1987certain villagesappertaining

to Cameroonwere invaded by Nigerian civilians armedwith machetes,and that this episode was

followed by a military occupation by Nigeria, which began on 2 May 1987 (pp.587-589,

paras. 6.81-6.86). Similar assertions appearin the Reply @p.536-547,paras. 11.165-11.214 and

pp. 567-569,paras. 12.25-12.28).

165. Itis the position ofNigeriathat the incidentsin May 1987complainedofby Cameroon

involved violent initiatives by Cameroonian security forces. These initiatives by Cameroon

disturbeda Nigerian administrativestatusquo. The Cameroonianattackof 1987wasprefiguredby

a visitby Cameroonian officiaisto Kirta Wulgo in 1985, inresponseto which Nigeriapresented a

Note Verbale to Cameroon: 1refer to the telegram of the Nigerian Ministry of Extemal Affairs

dated 26 March 1985 (Counter-Memonal of Nigeria, Ann. NC-M376). The contents of this

telegramindicatethatthere was astatusquoconsistingofaNigerianadministrationinplace.

166. Andso,the events ofMay 1987again involvedinitiativesby Cameroon: 1refer hereto

the Nigerian intemalmilitary andpolice reports (Counter-MemorialofNigeria, Anns.NC-M379,

NC-M 380and NC-M381). In responseNigeriasent a protest, dated8 May 1987,whichreads (in

materialpart):

"The Ministryof ExtemalAffairsof the FederalRepublicofNigeria presentsits
compliments to the Embassy of the Republic of Cameroun and has the honour to

inform the Embassy that reports have reached the Ministryconceming intrusionby
Camerounian soldiers and agents into some border villages in Ngala Local
Govenunent Area of Bomo State in the FederalRepublic of Nigeria. The reportsalso
indicate that this has not been therst time such incidents have occurred. Reports
furtherstatethatnot onlyweretheNigerian nationalsmolested,but their villageswere
also occupied by the Camerounian soldiers and agents, the Nigerian flags in the villages were pulled down and burnt, and the Cameroun flag was hoisted in their
place,even onNigeriantemtov.

The Ministry hereby calls the attentionof the Embassy to this unfiiendly and
flagrant act of trespass committed in spite of the cordial relations existing between
Nigeria and Cameroun, and herebyregistersthe concem and dismay of the Federal
Military Government of Nigeria at this unsavoury and unprovoked recurring

incursionsof whichthe FederalMilitaryGovemrnenttakes a seriousview.

The Ministry further demands an explanation for this unfiiendly act, and
assurance that there will not be a recurrence of such incidents in the future."
(Ann.NC-M 382).

167. In the event both the Nigerian village heads and the security forces resisted

Cameroonian encroachments. InNovember andDecember 1987,a Mer attemptat Cameroonian

encroachment occurred and this was again met with a pre-existing Nigerian administrative

presence. It shouldbe recalled thatnorotest emanatedfiom Cameroonuntil 1994.

(iv) Conclusion: theacquiescenceof Cameroon

168.Thelegalpositionof Nigeriacan nowbe surnmarizedas follows:

(1) For varyingperiods between20 and40 yearsin duration,Nigeria hashad peacefulpossession

of the Lake Chad villages, whichwere at al1times administeredas part of the Bomo state of

Nigeria.

(2) At no stage prior to the Note dated 11 April 1994 did Cameroon make any protest or claim

relatingto the LakeChadvillagespresentlyinissue.

(3) At no stagehas Cameroonhad a system of administrationinplace intheregion.

(4) The episode of Cameroonian interferencein 1987 was short-lived and did not lead to any

claim to the region on the part of Cameroon. At no stagehas Cameroon exercisedpeaceful

possession.

(v) Conclusion: theelementsof historicalconsolidation

169. The various elements constituting the process of historical consolidation oftitle in

respect of theLake Chadvillagescannow be surnmarized:

First: The attitudeand affiliationsof the populationof the Lake Chad villages indicatean

exclusiveassociationwiththe Bomo stateofNigeria. Second: The historical associations of the region constitute strong evidence of the

gravitational pull,in geopoliticaland economicterms, of the Borno Emirate(and its successors)in

relationtothe shores ofLakeChad and,moreespecially,the southern sector.

Third: The historicalassociationsof the area in question are reinforcedand complemented

by the contemporarypoliticalpower and constitutionalstatus of the Nigerian traditionalrulersand,

in theregionconcerned,of HisRoyal Highness,the Shehuof Bomo.

Fourth: The villagesareinhabitedbyNigerian nationals.

Fifth: The LakeChadvillages have beenadrninisteredas part of Nigeria for a considerable

period oftime.

Sixth: The acquiescenceof Carneroonin face of the peaceful exercise of sovereigntyby

Nigeria.

170.In the contextof the process ofhistorical consolidation oftitle in respect of the villages

claimedby Nigeria, itis to be understoodthat the processhas not had the effect of displacingthe

definitivetitle of Cameroonor of any otherriparian State. In the absence of a final delimitation

within the Lake Chadregion, the areas withinthe lakenecessarily have the status of temtory the

title towhichis undetemined.

171.The existenceof such a categoryis recognizedin the literature: 1refer to Oppenheim's

InternationalLaw, 9thedition,Volume 1,1992,at pages566 to 567. The concept of a title which

is "indeterminate" was recognized by the Arbitration Tribunal in the First Award in the

EritreaA'emencase(seeILR,'Vol.114,pp. 46-58, paras.145-188).

172.The marginor shoreline of the "normal" LakeChad constitutesthe significant line of

division betweenthe mainlands of Nigeria andthe other nparian States on the one hand and the

areasthetitle to whichremains indeterminate,on the otherhand.

173. It must follow that the process of historical consolidationof title has occurred in a

context in which a title was created, and not displaced. It is alsorticularlyappropriatethat the

processofconsolidationoftitle should leadto a certaintywhich wasotherwiselacking.

Finally, 1would like to thank Christopher Hackfordand DavidLerer for their assistancein

the preparation ofthispresentation. Thatconcludesmypresentation this moming. Mr.President 1

wouldaskyou to givethe floorto ProfessorCrawford. Le PRESIDENT :Je vous remercie, Monsieurle professeur. Je donne maintenantla parole

auprofesseurJames Crawford.

Mr. CRAWFORD:

Mr. President, Membersof the Court, it is again an honour to appear before you in this

important and highly-charged case.

Introductionand overview

1. In this part of its oral pleading, Nigeria will respondto the Cameroon presentations

concemingthe maritimeboundary. The Nigenan presentationswill be structureas follows:

(a) Today 1 will make a nurnberof preliminary remarksas to the Cameroon claim, outliningthe

development of the issue both in the relationsbetweenthe Parties and, on the other hand, in

the pleadings before the Court, and focusing on the separation of the land and maritime

boundary questions. 1 will concludeby reviewing the geography of the region, dealing in

particularwiththecrucialcoastalrelationships.

(3) Secondly- andthis willbe tomorrowmoming - 1willcompletethis introductoryreview by

tracing the development over40years of the oil practiceof the Parties as well asthe current

state of treaties and proposed treaties between Nigeria and other States in the region.

Cameroon characterizesthe oil practice as unilateral (on the part of Nigeria), recent, secret,

inconsistentandunlawful. Itspresentation ofthe practiceis nothing short of absuas,1will

show. 1will also outline the background tothe maritime delimitationtreaties concludedby

Nigeriawith itstwoislandneighboursin the Gulf.

(c) Thirdly,my colleague Professor GeorgesAbi-Saabwillthen present a comprehensivecritique

of Cameroon's claimline- the ligne équitable.As he will point out, Cameroon's claimline

is not a maritime delimitation lineat all. Cameroon claims no area of maritime temtory,

whether continentalshelf or exclusiveeconomiczone (EEZ), but callson the Courtto exclude

Nigeria from any delimitationwith the other coastal States in the Gulf. In effect,Cameroon

asks the Court to stand withit onthe line andto Sayto Nigeria: you can comethis far but no

further.The Court,however, cannotdecide that it will be Cameroon for whose benefitit is standingon the line; that itwill beCameroonwhich isentitledto the areasonthe othersideof

the line. Giventhe distance ofthose areasfrom Cameroonand the fact thatthey are al1closer

to third States than to Cameroon,the probability is that it will not be Cameroon for whose

benefit the Court does this. Perhaps the Court may be standing on the line- of course 1

speakmetaphorically: 1donotpropose adescentesurles lieux- but Cameroonmay wellnot

be theState for whosebenefit it is doing so. In short,the line Cameroonwantsyou to draw-

the so-called"equitable line"- is at the same timeunilateralandmultilateral. It is unilateral

in thatits sole legaleffect is to excludeNigeria. It ismultilateralin that its effectis to exclude

Nigeriavis-à-vis al1the otherStatesinthe Gulf (andto do so irrespectiveoftheir wishes). But

maritime delimitation iri the absence of concemed third parties is neither unilateral nor

multilateral: itis bilateral,terpartes. Cameroon'sconstructedprojection crucially ignores

this aspect. Cameroon's claim line must thusbe rejectedoutright,even on itsown premises.

(d) But ofcourseNigeriaacceptsalmostnoneof the premises. Afterthe coffee breaktomorrow,1

will tum from the refhtation of Cameroon'sline to the presentation of Nigeria's position. In

the courseof doingso 1will outlinethe applicablelaw,define the scope ofthe Court's taskin

geographicalterms and review boththe starting point in terms of principle for a delimitation

andthe various relevantcircurnstanceswhich might affectthe placementofa line.

2. Of course the Co.urt has set aside several sessions to hear Equatorial Guinea's

intervention,which focuses exclusivelyon the maritime boundary. Listening to ProfessorPellet

last week you may have thought that he was anticipatingthe intervention proceedings,getting in

early, sayingthings to the Court in the absence of EquatorialGuinea - and of course they were

and they are absent. For its part Nigeria will notanticipatethe pointsto be made inrelation tothat

intervention. But it isnecessaryto emphasize atthe outsetthat the position ofEquatorialGuinea,

and for that matter Sao Tome and Principe, is not something to be compartmentalized and

quarantined at the end of the case. It is not, as it were, an optional extra to a case under the

optional clause. Indeed it is preciselybecause of the position of third States, and in particularof

EquatorialGuinea, that the Courtjoined one of Nigeria'spreliminaryobjectionsto the merits. So

before enteringintothe factsof this dispute, anumberofpreliminarypointsneedto be made.The Court's Judgmeno tn theseventhandeighthpreliminaryobjections

3. The firstof these does concemthe Court's 1998 Judgmenton the preliminary objections

relatingto the maritimeboundary. As the Courtwill no doubtrecall, there were two preliminary

objectionsonthe maritime boundary,numbered7and 8.

4. The seventhpreliminary objectionraisedtwo distinct questions. The first concernedthe

questionof a possibleseparatephasefor the maritime boundary. Giventhe largenumberof issues

in this case and the prior character of the land boundary issue- a priority the Court itself

acknowledgedatparagraph 106 of the Judgment- Nigeria continuesto believethat it would have

beenappropriateto separatethe landfromthe maritimeboundaryand to dealwith the former first.

The issues are, as1will show in more detail in a moment, distinctones and have beentreated as

such by the Parties. However, this was a matter for the Courtto arrange and of courseNigeria

acceptsthe wayinwhichit has doneso.

5. The second aspect of the seventh preliminaryobjection related only to the maritime

boundary beyond point G. Nigeria pointedout that there had been no negotiationsbetweenthe

Partiesas to this sectorofthe maritimeboundary,and that thefirstnotice it hadhad of Cameroon's

maritime claim- the ligné equitable- was when it received Cameroon's Memorial.Cameroon

did not, and does not deny that fact, which has been corroboratednow by EquatorialGuinea.

Neitherof Cameroon'sneighboursinthis areahadthe slightestideaof its claim,or that Cameroon

was suddenly departing from a maritimestatusquo which hadexisted sinceindependence. Faced

with this undeniable fact, Cameroon ignored theabsence of any negotiations and arguedinstead

that Articles 76 and83 of the Law of the Sea Convention did not require an attemptto reach

agreement, atleast ifit wasclearthat no agreementwould be forthcoming. The Courtfor its part

notedthat it hadjurisdictionunderthe optionalclause,Article36,paragraph2. Thusit wasforthe

Courtto determinethe meaning and effect of Articles76 and 83 at the stage of the merits'. The

Court also noted that,despite the imprecisionof the Cameroonclaim, "there is a dispute-onthis

subject betweenthe Partieswhich, ultimatelyandbearing inmindthe circumstancesof the case,is

preciseenoughfor it to be broughtbeforethe courtw2.

Judgment,Z.C.J.Reports1998,pp. 321-322,para. 109.Nigeria (Cameroonv. Nigeria),PreliminaryObjections,

'zbid.p322,para.110. 6. Mr.President,Members ofthe Court,Nigeria didnot suggestthat, followingthe deposit

of Carneroon's Memorial, there was no dispute on the maritime boundary beyond pointG.

Whatever may have been the position at the time of the Application,by the time the preliminary

objections hearing was held .in 1998,there was clearly a dispute, a difference of legal position

between the Parties as to Cameroon'sclaim andasto their respectivemaritime entitlements. That

dispute has gone on changing as Cameroon's line has choppedand changed. But it would be

hitless to denythe existenceof a disputenow, and Nigeriadoes not doso. Moreoverevenif the

dispute as to the maritime boundary beyondthe tripoint did not crystallize until the date of

Cameroon'sMemorial,the Court has pointed outthat there is no point in requiring a State togo

away and startproceedingsagainbecauseofsometemporalgap whichcanbe easilyremedied3.

7.Al1that is true. But it does not exhaustthe point of the fundamentalnom in Articles76

and 83 of the Law of the Sea Convention. As the Court clearly implied in its Judgment on

preliminary objections,that lays down a substantiverule, not a procedural prerequisite. Thereare

many otherreasons for rejecting Cameroon's claimon the merits, as we will show. But it is also a

ground for doing so that there hasbeen no attemptby Camerooneventopresent that claim atthe

diplomatic level, eitherto Nigeria, or as we now see to Equatorial Guinea. The Court is not a

fonun for negotiations,or for the making of, what we in Australia call, ambit claims- that is

claims of an extremecharacter- whollyunrelatedto reality. Yet that is what Cameroon isdoing,

and we invitethe Court to contrast itsconduct withthe clear languageof Articles76and 83: in the

first instance, maritime boundaries are to be determined "by agreement", that is to Say, by

notificationto the other side of one's claimsand entitlementsand by discussionand compromise.

There are good reasons for that requirement in the goveming treaty, the 1982 Convention.

Maritime delimitationis not a mechanicalprocess, as the Court knows only too well. The parties

in the region concemed are in1a better positionto deal with the issues, andthe more complexthe

problem, thedenserthe pattern of vested rightsandexpectations,themorethis is tme. Negotiation

is not merely in fact the normal process for maritime delimitation; itis prescribed as the normal

process, as the proper and primary way of achieving an equitable result. That prescription

3~pplicationof the Conventionon the Preventionand Punishmentof the Crime of Genocide,Preliminas,
Objections,Judgment,1C.J.Reports 1996,p.5atp.612 (para.24).Cameroon hascompletelyignored,beyond point G,vis-à-visboth Nigeria and EquatorialGuinea,

and, 1might Say,as far as the recordshows, Sao Tome andPrincipe as well. Cameroon asks the

Courtto take on its three neighboursin the Gulf of Guineaon its behalf. Cameroonshouldhave

attempted a negotiated settlementitself. It made no attemptwhatever to do so- 1 mean no

attemptinthe senseof their currentclaim line,or anythingremotelylikeit.

8. Letme turn now to the eighthpreliminary objection, whichthe Courtjoinedto the merits.

The questionhereis the effect ofanyrulingoftheCourt on a thirdState,Equatorial Guinea,which

isnot a party tothe proceedings. Asto this,the Court said:

"the Courtcannot rule out the possibility thatthe impactof the judgment requiredby

Cameroonon the rights and interests ofthe third Statescould be such that the Court
would be prevented from rendering it in the absence of these States, and that
consequentlyNigeria's eighth preliminaryobjectionwouldhave to be upheld at least
in part. Whethersuchthird Stateswouldchooseto exercisetheirrightsto intervenein
theseproceedingspursuanttothe Statuteremainsto be~een."~

9. 1want only to make two points aboutthis passage at this stage. The first concems the

inshore maritime area, that is, the area out tothe approximatetripoint with areas claimed by

Equatorial Guinea. The second concemsthe area beyond, extendingfurther out into the Gulf of

Guinea, every pointof which is closerto Nigeriaand EquatorialGuinea, or to EquatorialGuinea

and SaoTomeand Principe,or to Nigeria andSaoTome andPrincipeandEquatorial Guinea,than

it isto Cameroon.

10.Asto the first point, concemingthe inshoremaritimearea, the Court in 1998upheld its

jurisdictiontodetemine the maritimeboundarybetweenthePartiesin the waterssouthof Bakassi,

that is,in maritimeareaswhich arecloserto CameroonandNigeriathan they are to anythird State,

in particularEquatorialGuinea. Of courseNigeriaacceptsthisentirely, and we will showin these

presentationshow Cameroon'sclaimsin thesewatersmust berejected on the merits. Theyshould

be rejected first and foremost because the Bakassi Peninsula is Nigerian, and the underlying

maritime boundaryshould reflect that. But evenon the assumption - which, of course,Nigeria

rejects- of Cameroon'sposition as to the Bakassi Peninsula,its maritime claim beyondpointG

mustbe rejected. Wewill explainwhyinthe courseof thesepresentations.

4~udgmenof 11June1998,I.C.J Reports1998,p.324,para16. 11.The secondpointto makeaboutthe Court'sjoining of the eighthpreliminw objectionto

the ments is the following. Nothingthat has happened since 1998 has altered the force of that

objection,which Nigeriacontinuesto maintain. It is true that Equatorial Guineahas intervenedin

theseproceedings, but only as a thirdparty, not as a party to the case. It is true that Nigeria and

EquatorialGuinea have concluded atreaty on maritime delimitation. Neither these developments,

norany other developmentsof the situation,affectthe point that in orderto decide on Cameroon's

extendedexclusionlinehundredsofmilesout intothe Gulf,the Court willbe decidingon the rights

and interests of third States. The Courthas nojurisdiction to do this, and the fact that the Court

willbe hearing in more detail aboutthis on the last days of this very longcase doesnot affect the

positionat all.

12. In fact there is a relation between the first and the second points 1 have just made,

concerningthe area outto the approximatetripoint - where the Court has jurisdiction- and the

areabeyond - where we Saythat it hasnot. TheCourt, havingjudiciously postponedthe issue of

jurisdictionbeyond thetripoint, doesnot need to dealwith it at all. Andthe reasonis quite simple.

Havingregardto its ownconductaswellas to itsgeographicalsituation,Cameroonhasno claimto

maritimetemtory beyondthe approximate tripoint. Its attemptto get the Court to connect it to a

large area of alleged maritime riches hundreds of miles from its coast, to the north and west of

Bioko, must fail, must be rejected, because the Court never gets beyond the tripoint. The two

Partiesto this case, and ail relevantthird parties, have alwaystreated Cameroon'smaritime zones

inthe sector to the northand .WestofBioko, as havingtheir limits there, in the watersimmediately

eastand south of Bakassi. For reasonswe shallgive, this practice is definitiveas to the maritime

boundaries. The Court should not attribute to Cameroonmaritime areas it has never, in the real

worldas distinct fromthe paper worldof its pleadings,treateditself ashavingor claiming. Thus in

Nigeria'ssubmission,thejurisdictionthe Courtheldthat ithad in 1998overthe maritimeboundary

isquite sufficientforthepurposesofthis case.

The relation between the maritime and land boundary questions: the practice ofthe Parties

13.Mr. President, Membersofthe Court, letme turnaway from suchrather aridquestionsof

competenceandjurisdiction, and dealwith an important pointconcemingthe relationshipbetweenthe land and maritime sectorsof this case, a question whichgoesto the merits. Evidentlydisputes

aboutthe continentalshelfandexclusiveeconomiczoneconcem the relation betweenlandand sea,

and the Court in this case has above al1to determinethe locationof the land boundary: in that

sensemaritimeissues are subordinate. Indeedit is the fact thatthe Parties to the present casehave
i
treated questionsof maritime delimitation- to the extent they considered them at all- as not

merely subordinate,but as separateanddistinct fromthe dispute overthe Bakassi Peninsula. 1say

"to the extentthey consideredthem at all" because there was relatively little discussionor debate

aboutthe offshore,beyond point Gy of anysort. The general position offshore, establishedin the

1960s, was maintained and extended by each Party, to the knowledge of the other, and by

Equatorial Guinea, rather later, with little debate or disagreement. The connection between

activitieson seaand on land - a purely abstractandforma1connectionin termsof the livesof the

Nigerian residents of the Bakassi Peninsula- was not drawn. Thus the negotiations over the

inshoreboundaryin the 1970shad as a principal concem questionsof maritimeaccess. It did not

involveany discussionoverthe BakassiPeninsula.

14. Conversely, as Mr.Brownlie has shown, the dispute over sovereignty over the Bakassi

Peninsula has developed, and has been pursued by both Parties, in substantial disregardof the

question of the exploitation of the hydrocarbon resources in the waters to the south of the

peninsula. Nigeria did not protest at the substantial Cameroon activity to the south of the

peninsula. No more did Cameroon protestor objectto any Nigerianactivityin the watersslightly

furtherWestand south-west, apart fiom minor issuesabout precise localities. This long-standing

activity and acquiescence by both Parties must have legal consequenceson vested rights and

legitimateexpectationsin themaritime domain,howeverthe issueof sovereigntyover the Bakassi

Peninsulamay beresolved.

15. 1say,however that issue rnaybe resolved. And that is the essentialpoint. The Parties

havehad a disputeabout theBakassi Peninsula for anumber of years. Thepeninsulawasoccupied

and administeredby Nigeria as its own, as my colleagueshave shown. At the same time both 4

States were interested in exploiting the offshore areas south of the peninsula and both did so

without any protest fiom the other exceptfor marginalareas or isolated incidents. The conductof

the Partiesis incomprehensibleexcept onthe basis thatthe two issueswere consideredas separate.Perhapstheinternationallawyerlivingin a worldof abstractionsmight find it hardto see whythey

were separated. Afier all,in principlesovereigntyover the coastis thebasis for maritimetitle. The

land dominatesthe sea, as it is repeatedly said. But here it did not, because in the perception of

those actuallyinvolvedon both sidesthe two issues were distinct. Oil exploitationfocusedonthe

offshorearea and had as its vitalpurpose national development. The Bakassi disputeinvolvesthe

fate of a large number of Nigerian people, realpeople livingin real places, with problemswholly

distinctfromthose of oillicensees. Both Stateswere anxiousto proceedwith the developmentand

not to allow disagreements on the land boundary to get in the way. And, without any forma1

standstillagreement,thatis what they did.

16.You can seethe disjunction of issuesin the diplomatic record. 1take, for example,the

joint meeting of 1993, which is an importantdocument in that it reflects attitudes of the Parties

long afierthe oil practicehad arisen. Cameroonrelies ontheminutes of this meeting itself,though

the interpretationitplaceson them is untenable,as 1will showtomorrow. But thereis no doubtthe

meeting occurred. At the meetingthere was discussionofboundary issuesboth landand maritime.

No one suggestedthat the offshore exploitationof oil and gas was in any way dispositiveof the

acknowledgeddisputeover Bakassi. Rather thetwo headsofthe delegations

"obsened that the grounds of disagreement betweenNigeria and Cameroon overthe
Marouadeclaration of 1975are more political than technical. In order not to hinder
the furthering of the existing excellent relations between the two nations, they
resolvedto referthe matterto theirrespectiveheadsof statefor determinati~n."~

17. And they went on to discuss maritime CO-operationand exploitation of maritime

resources in the borderarea. The landboundaryissue wasnot settled,there was an acknowledged

disputeoverBakassi,but even soit wasagreedthat the Partieswould continueto developmaritime

resources on their own account. The continued political difficulties over Bakassi and Maroua

would notbe allowed to stand in th.eway ofcontinuedprogresson technical issuesconcerningthe

maritime area. That was a sensible and practicalway to proceed. It shows how the two strands,

land andmaritime,becamedisjoinedin thepractice and inthe perceptionsof the Parties.

18.It shouldbenotedthat internationaltribunals arebecoming moresensitiveto the problem

of determiningthe fateof peoples, of inhabitedtemtories, byreferenceto considerationsof abstract

'~ejoinderof Nigeria,Ann. NR 173.title. The disposition by both Parties of oil-bearing offshore areas should not be allowed to

determinethe fateof the peopleonshore. Nor wasthere any intentionon either side at the time to

allowthat to happen. But Nigeria's flexibilityoffshoreborenorelationshipto its position onshore,

where it insisted- and insists- on the right of the Nigerian people to live under their own i

administrationasthey have alwaysdone.

19. If precedentfor thisdisjunctionbe sought,it can be found in the recent unwillingnessof

the Court of Arbitration in the YemedEritreacase to allow issues of offshore oil concessions to

determine sovereignty over the islands. It was the Court of Arbitration itself which raised that

issue and even conducted a separate hearing. Moreover the concessionactivity there was not

trivial,although it paled into insignificancecomparedwith the long-established practice here. Yet

theCourtheld thatthe offshore petroleurncontractsenteredintoby both Parties"fail to establishor

significantly strengthenthe claims of eitherPartyto sovereignty overthe disputedi~lands"~.These

were, it is tme, not inhabited islands; but the positions afortiori for densely inhabited localities

suchas Bakassi. And the indicationsarethat thisishowthe Partiessaw it.

Anoutline ofthe coastal geography

20. Mr.President, Membersof the Court, 1now turn to my third major point this morning,

which consists of a preliminary analysis ofthe coastal geography. In doing so 1should like to

express my thanks to the members of the Nigerian technicalteam who have assisted with the

graphies,in particularClaireAinsworth,ChrisCarleton,Robin Cleverly andDick Gent.

21. This caseinvolves a substantial areaof the Coastofwest and centralAfnca. You seeon

tab 84 of your folders a depiction of the overall coastline. The Parties agree that the present

question arises within the Gulf of Guinea, fromwhich, however, Carneroon, at the back of the

Gulf,seeks to escape. Indeed it is not too muchto Saythat its projected construction systemwas

specifically designedto projectCameroon's entirecoastal frontagefromthe back of the Gulfto the

fiontof the Gulf,ignoring the entitlementsof insularStates onthe way. But this is notthe Gulfof

Fonseca; there is no condominiumover these waters,and to projectcoastshuge distancesforward

inthisway is quiteillegitimate,as we will see.

6~ward of 9 Oct. 1998,114ILR 1p. 114para.437. 22.Now a closingline of the Gulfof Guineacouldbe drawn fromCapLopezin Gabon,to a

pointjust Westof Akasso: one can draw a line across burnps in the coast. Even so, it is quite a

line. The case is full ofines with ambitions. This "closingline" is aroun335 nautical milesin

length. It is a completely abstractline,it has no legalpertinenceof its own. The closingline of the

Gulfof Fonseca, 1would remindthe Court, islessthan 20 nauticalmiles7.

23.We cannow movea littlecloserin-seems appropriate - intothe Gulf of Guineaitself.

This istab 85. As you willsee there are a largenumber of distinct coastlinesin the area. In fact

thereare five Stateswithclairnsto maritimezones: Nigeria, EquatorialGuinea,Carneroon,Gabon

and Sao Tome and Principe. And Equatorial Guineahas two distinct substantialterritories, each

withitsown coastalfiontage.

24. As a first step it is thus necessary to determinethe coastal fiontagesof these five States.

To do so we will drawstraightlinesacrossthe variousindentationsfollowingthe generaldirection

of the coastlines, with the coastal States representedin terms of their maritime fiontages by the

lengthsof these lines. To avo:idprejudicing questionsof land delimitation,we willgiveBakassiits

own coastal frontage. It is also necessary in this exercise to measure the outward facing coastal

fiontages of Bioko, leavingthe north-east facing frontage into the straight.aside, as well as the

inwardfacing coastalfiontagesofthe islandof Principe.

25. Onthat basiswe have thefollowingapproximatecoastal frontages:

(a) Nigeria- 140 nauticalniiles.

(b) Bakassi- 14 nautical miles.

(c) Cameroon-the total distanc155 nautical miles.

(4 The outwardfacingcoastsofBioko - 94 nauticalmiles.

(e) RioMuni (the secondpart of EquatorialGuinea)- 75 nauticalmiles.

fl Gabon,north of CapeLopez- 114 nautical miles.

(a, AndPrincipe,as far as relevant- 19 nauticalmiles.

26. The Court of coursewill be aware that Sao Tome and Principe is an archipelagic State

withinthe definitionscontainedin Articles46 and 47 of the1982 Convention. In accordancewith

'~eeLand, Island and Maritime Frontier Die lSalvador/Honduras: Nicaraguaintervening),Judgment,
I.C.J.Reports199p.588,para.383.Article48 it claims to measureits EEZand continental shelf fromthose baselines. We have only

taken its actualcoastal fiontageinto account,but thatis a furthercomplication.

27. Overallthen, this isan extremely complex situation. It is created by a combination of

physical andpolitical geographyin the region as a very largewhole. But facedwith this situation, b

it is obviousthatthe Court cannotdealwithit as a whole; certainthat it cannotdo so between two

States only,Nigeriaand Cameroon. Cameroon's methodis to take the situationas a whole and to

divide up the maritime areas while ignoring the two island States which are at the heart of the

problem. Professor Mendelsonthe otherday very candidly adrnitted this. He said, yes of course

we shouldtakeBioko into account,butthat wouldbe unfairto Nigeria. Mr. President, Cameroon's

projected constructionis completely inadmissiblefor anynumberof reasons. But key among these

is an attemptto deal with theregion asa whole while ignoringthe crucial elementsinthe equation.

28. Rather than following Cameroon down this line- or 1 should Saydown its elaborate

system of lines- the Court will have to focus on particular situations within the region. The

complex overallsituation hasto be brokenup into its constituentelements for it to be manageable.

And the key element in this process'is to recognizethe following fundamentalaxiom of maritime

delimitation. Courtsdecidemaritimedelimitationdisputes as betweentheStates partiesto the

disputeand in relationto thecoastsofthoseStates which face orlook ontotheareaofthedispute.

Even then itmay not be possible to resolve the dispute fully because other coastal States, not

parties tothe proceeding, may look on to the area as well; and their claims,which the Court can

neither decidr nor ignore, may prevent a complete delimitation. But at least it is a necessary

beginning.to lookat the specificcoastal relationshipsof the partiesin relation tothe areain dispute

between them.the area in fiontof their coasts.

29. Sothe very beginningof an analysis ofthe problem isto separateits differentelements.

And here the first step is to recognize that some coastal frontageswithin the Gulf of Guinea are
.
totally irrelevantto this disputeand cannotbe taken into accountin any analysisof it. Letme take

as a firstxarnplethe east-facing coastalfiontage of Bioko, whichis shown in tab 86. Clearly that +

fiontage is completely irrelevantto this dispute. Noone wouldargue that that coastlinefaces on to

the disputed area, or that it should be taken into account in any way. Then we have the coastal

fiontage of RioMuni, the mainland tenitory of Equatorial Guinea. Again this is completelyirrelevantto this dispute. It is tme thatthe distancebetweenRio Muni andNigeria,throughthegap

between the two island States, is less than 400nautical miles. If the islands were not there, a

delimitation issuecouldarise: but the islands arethere and they cannotbe ignored. Nigeria hasno

claimto maritime areas vis-à-vis RioMuni, and the question ofRio Muni's coasts never arose -

was never mentioned- in the ten years of negotiation of the Nigeria-Equatorial Guinea

agreement.

30. Mr. President,Members of the Court, it is a curious feature that Cameroon'sprojected

constructiontakes into accountRio Muni,which is irrelevant, butnot Bioko, which is, theyadmit,

notmerely arelevant circurnstancebut a special circurnstance. Cameroon's projected construction

ignores special circumstances and buildsupon irrelevant coastlines, itinhabits a world of pure

theoryand bearsno relationto reality.

31. But if the coastal frontage of Rio Muni is irrelevant, so too is the adjacent

westward-facingcoastalfrontage of Cameroon. The distancebetween Campo - the black dot on

the screen and attab 86- and Bioko is 92nautical miles The "tripoint"- it is not technically a

tripoint, but wherethe lineurns on the screen- is 45nautical milesfiom the Coastof Cameroon:

that isa very long way from the Bioko-Principeagreedequidistance line, whichyou can also see

onthe screen. 1 amnot suggesting,of course,thatthe boundarybetweenCampoandthe Equatorial

Guineawaters is actually agreed - but that is the equidistance line. The maritime area between

thecoasts north of Campoand Nigeria hasno pertinencetothepresent dispute.

32. Mr.President, there is a further point, which concems the effect of islands on

delimitationin an area of overlapping potential entitlements. Al1coasts may be equal but 1 am

afraidthat some coasts are more equalthan others. And this is particularlythe case for offshore

islands,which tend to generate much more extensivemaritime entitlementsthan coastal Statesper

unit of coastalfrontage. One:reason ofcourse is that they faceinal1directions. Biokohas a total

coastalfrontage on al1four sides in excess of 100nautical miles. MoreoverBioko is not the only

relevant feature in the Gulf. The line you see on the screen actually describes a longer line of

islands running straight through from Mount Cameroon through Bioko, throughPrincipe, Sao

Tometo Anubon - which is also part of EquatorialGuinea- in a south-southwesterlydirection.

Theline is uncannily straight: andthat is becauseit ia tectonic line, aline of volcanoe- thosevolcanoescreatedthe Cameroon mountainsand the offshoreislands. You canseethis very clearly

fromthe topographicalmap, whichis tab 87. And it reflects anobvious geographicalreality. The
t
Gulf of Guinea has two sectors,very nearly two halves. Cameroon likes the word "unilateral7',

which it used manytimes in the first round,but 1have not beenable to countthem all. Well,we
i
have to Saythat, in geographical and legalterms, the Gulf of Guinea is bilateral. On the eastern

side there are a series of delimitation problems which are presented by the facing coasts of

Cameroon and Bioko, by the adjacent coastsof Cameroon and Rio Muni, by the facing coastal

fi-ontagesof Rio Muni and the archipelagic State of Sao Tome and Principe and so on dom.

Withinthe Gulf, there are at leastsix maritime delimitations alongthe eastem side of the tectonic

line. Some of these have been resolved interpartes, some have not. They are: (1) the opposite

coasts of Cameroon and Equatorial Guineato the north andeast of the island of Bioko; (2)the

adjacentcoasts of CarneroonandRio Muni; (3)the opposite coastsof Bioko (EquatorialGuinea)

and Principe (SaoTome and Principe); (4)the opposite coastsof Rio Muni and Sao Tome and

Principe; (5) the adjacent coasts of Rio Muni and Gabon; (6)the opposite coasts of Gabon and

Sao Tome and Principe. Nigeriais not a party to a single oneof those relationships. It has no

interest in the resolution of any of them. The coasts in question do not face Nigeria's coasts.

Nigeria makes no claims to thesewaters in the eastem sector of the Gulf. Nigeria'slong coastal

frontageis irrelevantto each andevery one of them.

33.Now let us look at the westernsector of the Gulf, which is tab 88. Here Nigeria's long

coastal fiontage, south-facing,is dominant. Bioko'swest-facingfiontage lookson to the area. So

does Sao Tome and Principe. Cameroonhas a relatively shortfiontage in this western part, to

which 1will retm tomorrow. So in the western segmentof the Gulf, to the west of the tectonic

line, thereare a iùrther five delimitationissues,(1)the adjacentcoasts of Nigeriaand Cameroonin

the north; (2) the short oppositecoasts of Cameroon and Bioko(Equatorial Guinea), alsoin the

*
north throughthe strait; (3) the opposite coastsof Nigeria andBioko (Equatorial~uinea); (4) the
*
westerly sector of the boundary between Equatorial Guineaand Sao Tome andPrincipe, which is

an agreed boundary- you can see it on the screen; and (5)the opposite coasts of Nigeria and

SaoTomeand Principe. Nigeria isapartyto three ofthesefiverelationships. 34. Mr.President,Members oftheCourt, thecontrastcouldnot be clearer. The lessonis that

theCourtmust lookat therelevant coasts,and the areasthey face,if it is evento beginto be ableto

finish a solutionto this dispute, which isonly one of the dozenor so delimitation questionsthat

concernthe variousStatesfionting the Gulfof Guinea.

35. Mr.President, that completes this part of my introduction to the maritime boundary

issues. 1hope 1may be permitted to retum tomorrow to talk about the actual situation on the

ground,or more accuratelyor1the water. That situationhas beenessentiallystable formanyyears,

in sharp contradistinctionto Cameroon7sever-changing and mutable claim line. Thank you,

Mr.President.

Le PRESIDENT :Je vous remercie, Monsieurle professeur. Ceci metun terme a la séance

decematin. Laprochaineséanceauralieudemainmatin à 10heures. La séance estlevee.

L'audienceest leveeà 13 h05.