NO;- corrigé
Uncorrectecl
Courinternationale International Court
deJustice ofJustice
LAHAYE THE HAGUE
Audiencepublique
tenuelelundi 4 mars200à,10heures,auPalaisdelaPaix,
sous laprésidencedeM. Guillaume,président,
en l'affairedelaFrontière terrestreet maritime entrlee Camerounet leNigéria
(Camerounc.Nigéria;Guinéeéquatorialintervenant))
COMPTE RENDU
YEAR2002
PublicSitting
heldonMonday4March 2002,ut 10am, atthe PeacePalace,
PresidentGuillaumepresiding,
in thecaseconcerningthe LandandMaritime BoundarybetweenCameroonandNigeria
(Cameroonv.Nigeria: EquatorialGuineaintervening)
VERBATIMRECORDPrésent: M. Guillaume, résident
M. Shi,vice-président
MM. Ranjeva
Herczegh
Fleischhauer
Koroma
Mme Higgins
MM. Parra-Aranguren
Kooijmans
Rezek
Al-Khasawneh
Buergenthal
Elaraby,juges
MM. Mbaye
Ajibola,jugesad hoc
M. Couvreurg,reffierPresent: President Guillaume
Vice-President Shi
Judges Ranjeva
Herczegh
Fleischhauer
Koroma
Higgins
Pana-Aranguren
Kooijmans
Rezek
Al-Khasawneh
Buergenthal
Elaraby
Judgesad hoc Mbaye
Ajibola
Registrar CouvreurLe GouvernementdelaRépublique du Camerounestreprésentp éar :
S.Exc.M.AmadouAli,ministred'Etatchargédelajustice,garde dessceaux,
.
commeagent;
4
M.MauriceKamto, doyen de la facultédes sciencesjuridiques et politiques de l'universitéde
Yaoundé II, membre de la Commissiondudroitinternational, avocataubarreaudeParis,
M.Peter Y. Ntamark,professeur à lafaculté dessciencesjuridiquesetpolitiquesde l'universitéde
YaoundéII,Barrister-ut-Law,membrede 1'InnerTemple,anciendoyen,
commecoagents, conseilsetavocats;
M.Alain Pellet, professeurà l'université deParisX-Nanterre,membreet ancien présidentde la
Commissiondu droitinternational,
commeagent adjoint,conseiletavocat;
M. Joseph Marie Bipoun Woum, professeur à la facultédes sciencesjuridiques et politiquesde
l'universitéde YaoundéII, ancienministre,anciendoyen,
commeconseillerspécialetavocat;
M.MichelAurillac,ancienministre,conseillerd'Etathonoraire, avocat enretraite,
M. Jean-PierreCot,professeurà l'universitéde Paris 1(Panthéon-Sorbonne), ancien ministre,
M. Maurice Mendelson,Q. C.,professeur émérited euniversitédeLondres, Barrister-ut-Law,
M.Malcolm N.Shaw, professeur à la facultéde droit de l'universitéde Leicester,titulaire de la
chairesirRobert Jennings,Barrister-ut-Law,
M.BrunoSimma, professeur à l'université de Munich, membre de la Commission du droit
international,
M.Christian Tomuschat, professeurà l'universitéHurnboldde Berlin, ancien membre et ancien
présidentde la Commissiondudroit international,
M. OlivierCorten,professeurà la Facultéde droitdel'universitélibredeBruxelles,
M.Daniel Khan, chargé de coursà l'Institutde droitinternationalde l'universitéde Munich,
M.Jean-Marc Thouvenin, professeur a l'universitéde Paris X-Nanterre,avocat au barreau de 4
Paris, sociétéd'avocaLsysias,
commeconseilsetavocats;The Governmentof theRepublicof Cameroonis representedby:
H.E. Mr. AmadouAli, Minister ofStateresponsibleforJustice, Keeper ofthe Seals,
asAgent;
Mr. Maurice Kamto, Dean, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Universityof Yaoundé II,
memberofthe InternationalLawCommission, Avocatatthe ParisBar,LysiasLawAssociates,
Mr. PeterY.Ntamark, Professor, Facultyof Law and Political Science, Universof YaoundéII,
Barrister-at-Law,memberofthe InnerTemple,formerDean,
as Co-Agents, Counseal ndAdvocates;
Mr. AlainPellet, Professor, University of Paris X-Nanterre, member and forerairmanof the
InternationalLaw Commission,
asDepuv Agent,CounselandAdvocate;
Mr. Joseph-MarieBipoun Woum,Professor, Facultyof Lawand Political Science, Universityof
Yaoundé II, formerMinister, formerDean,
asSpecialAdviserandAdvocate;
Mr.MichelAurillac, formerMinisterH, onoraryConseillerd'État,retiredAvocat,
Mr. Jean-PierreCot,Professor,University of Paris1(Panthéon-Sorbonne),formerMinister,
Mr.MauriceMendelson, Q.Ci.,EmeritusProfessor Universityof London,Bariister-at-Law,
Mr. Malcolm N. Shaw,Sir Robert Jennings Professorof International Law, Faculty of Law,
Universityof Leicester, Barrister-at-Law,
Mr. Bruno Simrna, Professor, University of Munich, member of the International Law
Commission,
Mr. Christian Tomuschat, Professor, Humboldt University of Berlin f,ormer member and
Chainnan,InternationalLawCommission,
Mr. OlivierCorten,Professor, Facultyof Law,Universitélibre deBruxelles,
Mr.DanielKhan, Lecturer, International awInstitute,UniversityofMunich,
Mr. Jean-MarcThouvenin, Professor, Universityof Paris X-Nanterre,Avocat at the Paris Bar,
LysiasLawAssociates,
as CounselandAdvocates;SirIan Sinclair, K.C.M.G., Q.C.,Barrister-ut-Law, ancien membre dela Commissiondu droit
international,
M.Eric Diamantis,avocatau barreaudeParis,Moquet,Bordes & Associés,
M.Jean-PierreMignard, avocataubarreaude Paris,sociétéd'avocatLsysias,
M.JosephTjop,consultant à la sociétéd'avocatsysias,chercheurau Centrede droit international
deNanterre(CEDIN), Université Paris X-Nanterre,
commeconseils;
M.Pierre Semengue, général d'armée, contrôlgeunéradlesarmées, ancien chef'état-majodes
armées,
M. James Tataw,générad le division, conseillerlogistique,ancienchef d'état-major de l'armée de
terre,
S.Exc. Mme Isabelle Bassong, ambassadeud ru Cameroun auprès despays du Benelux et de
l'Unioneuropéenne,
S.Exc. M.BiloaTang,ambassadeurduCamerounen France,
S.Exc. M.MartinBelinga Eboutou, ambassadeur,représentant permaned nt Cameroun auprèsde
l'organisation desNations UniàsNewYork,
M.Etieme Ateba, ministre-conseiller, chargé d'affaires a.ià l'ambassade du Cameroun,
àLa Haye,
M. Robert Akarnba,administrateurcivil principal,chargéde mission au secrétariatgénle la
présidencede laRépublique,
M.Anicet Abanda Atangana, attachéau secrétariatgénéral dela présidencede la République,
chargéde coursà l'Université e aoundéII,
M.ErnestBodoAbanda,directeurducadastre,membrede lacommissionnationale des frontières,
M.OusmaneMe?.ancien gouverneurdeprovince,
Le chef Samuel MokaLiffafa Endeley, magistrahonoraire,Barrister-ut-Law,membredu Middle
Temple (Londres),ancienprésident dlachambreadministrativede laCoursuprême,
Me Marc Sassen,avocatet conseiljuridique, sociéetten,Tideman& Sassen(LaHaye),
M.Francis Fai Yengo, ancien gouverneurde province, directeur de l'organisationdu territoire,
ministèredel'administrationterritoriale,
M.Jean Mbenoun,directeur del'administrationcentrale au secrétariat générlaeprésidence de
laRépublique,Sir Ian Sinclair, K.C.M.G., Q.C., Banister-at-Law, former member of the International Law
Commission,
Mr. EricDiamantis,AvocatattheParis Bar,Moquet, Bordes & Associés,
Mr. Jean-PierreMignard,Avocat attheParisBar,LysiasLawAssociates,
Mr. Joseph Tjop, Consultant to LysiasLaw Associates, Researcher at the Centre de droit
internationalde Nanterre(CEDIN), Universitof Paris X-Nanterre,
as Counsel;
General Pierre Semengue, Controller-Generalf the ArmedForces, former Head of Staff ofthe
Armed Forces,
Major-GeneralJamesTataw,LogisticsAdviser,FormerHeadof Staffofthe Army,
H.E. MsIsabelleBassong, ArnbassadorofCameroonto theBenelux Counûiesandto theEuropean
Union,
H.E. Mr.BiloaTang,Arnbassadorof CameroontoFrance,
H.E. Mr. Martin BelingaEboutou, Arnbassador,Permanent Representative of Cameroonto the
UnitedNations inNewYork,
Mr. Etienne Ateba, Minister-Counsellor,Chargéd'affaires a.i. at the Embassy of Cameroon,
TheHague,
Mr. RobertAkamba, PrincipalCivil Administrator, Chargdée mission,GeneralSecretariatof the
Presidencyof the Republic,
Mr. AnicetAbandaAtangana, Attaché to theGeneral Secretariatof the PresidencyoftheRepublic,
Lecturer,Universityof YaoundéII,
Mr. Emest Bodo Abanda, Director of the Cadastral Survey, member, National Boundary
Commission,
Mr. OusmaneMey, formerProvincialGovemor,
Chief Samuel Moka Liffafa Endeley,Honorary Magistrate, Barrister-at-Law,member of the
Middle Temple (London), former Presidentof the AdministrativeChamber of the Supreme
Court,
MaîtreMarc Sassen,AdvocateandLegalAdviser,Petten,Tideman& Sassen(TheHague),
Mr. FrancisFai Yengo,formerProvincialGovernor,Director,Organisationdu Territoire,Ministry
of Territorial Administration,
Mr. Jean Mbenoun,Director,CentralAdministration,GeneralSecretariatofthe Presidency ofthe
Republic,M.Edouard Etoundi,directeur de l'administrationcentrale au secrétariat généale la présidence
dela République,
M.RobertTanda,diplomate,ministèredes relationsextérieures
comme conseillers;
M. SamuelBetah Sona, ingénieur-géologue, expert consultant dleorganisation desNationsUnies 4
pourle droit dela mer,
M.Thomson Fitt Takang chef de service d'administration centraleau secrétariatgénéralde la
présidencedelaRépublique,
M.Jean-JacquesKoum,directeurde l'exploration,société nationaledes hydrocarbures(SNH),
M.Jean-Pierre Meloupou, capitaine de frégate,chef de la division Afiique au ministère dela
défense,
M.PaulMoby Etia,géographe, directeurde l'Institutnational de cartographie,
M. AndréLoudet,ingénieurcartographe,
M.AndréRoubertou,ingénieurgénérad le l'armement,hydrographe,
comme experts;
MmeMarie FlorenceKollo-Efon, traducteur interprèteprincipal,
commetraducteurinterprète;
MlleCélineNegre,chercheur au Centre dedroit internationaldeNanterre (CEDIN), Université de
ParisX-Nanterre
Mlle Sandrine Barbier,chercheurau Centrede droitinternational de Nanterre(CEDIN),Université
deParis X-Nanterre,
M. Richard Penda Keba, professeur certifiéd'histoire, cabinetdu ministre de la justice, ancien
proviseurde lycées,
comme assistantsde recherche;
M.BoukarOumara,
M.GuyRoger Eba'a,
M.AristideEsso,
M.Nkende Forbinake,
M.NfanBile,Mr. EdouardEtoundi, Director, Central Administration, eneral Secretariatof the Presidencyof
theRepublic,
Mr.Robert Tanda,diplomat,MinistryofForeignAffairs,
Mr.SamuelBetahSona,Geological Engineer, ConsultinE gxpertto the UnitedNations for theLaw
ofthe Sea,
Mr. Thomson Fitt Takang,DepartmentHead, CentralAdministration,General Secretariatof the
Presidencyof the Republic,
Mr.Jean-JacquesKoum,DirectorofExploration,National Hydrocarbons Company(SNH),
CommanderJean-PierreMeloupou,Headof Africa Divisionatthe MinistryofDefence,
Mr. PaulMobyEtia, Geographer, Director,Institutnationalde cartographie,
Mr. André Loudet,CartographieEngineer,
Mr.André Roubertou,Marine Engineer, Hydrographer,
asExperts;
MsMarieFlorenceKollo-Efon, Principal Translator-Interpreter,
as Translator-Interpreter;
Ms CélineNegre, Researcher, Centre d'étudesde droit internationalde Nanterre (CEDIN),
Universityof ParisX-Nanterre,
Ms SandrineBarbier, Researcher,Centred'études dedroit internationalde Nanterre (CEDIN),
Universityof ParisX-Nanterre,
Mr. Richard PendaKeba, Certified Professor of History, cabinet of the Minister of State for
Justice,formerHeadofHighSchool,
as ResearchAssistants;
Mr.BoukarOumara.
Mr.GuyRoger Eba'a,
Mr.AristideEsso,
Mr.NkendeForbinake,
Mr.NfanBile,M.EithelMbocka,
M.Olinga Nyozo'o,
commeresponsablesdela communication;
MmeRenéeBakker,
MmeLawrencePolirsztok,
MmeMireilleJung,
M. NigelMcCollum,
MmeTeteBéatriceEpeti-Karne,
commesecrétairesdela délégation.
Le Gouvernemend t e laRépubliqueédéraleduNigériaestreprésentp éar:
S.Exc.l'honorableMusa E.Abdullahi,ministre d'Etat, ministre de la Justice du Gouvernement
fédéradluNigéria,
commeagent;
Le chef RichardAkinjideSAN, ancien Attorney-Generalde la Fédérationm , embre du barreau
d'Angleterreetdu paysde Galles,ancien membrede la Commissiondudroit international,
M. AlhajiAbdullahi Ibrahim SAN, CON, commissaire pour les fiontières internationales,
commissionnationaledes frontièresduNigéria,ancienAttorney-General delaFédération,
commecoagents;
MmeNella Andem-Ewa,Attorney-Generalet commissaire àlajustice,EtatdeCrossRiver,
M.IanBrownlie, C.B.E., Q.C., membre de la Commissiondu droit international, membredu
barreau d'Angleterre,membrede l'Institutde droitinternational,
SirArthurWatts,K.C.M.G.,Q.C.,membredu barreaud'Angleterre, membrede l'Institutde droit
international,
M.JamesCrawford,S.C.,professeurdedroit internationalàl'universitéde Cambridge,titulairede
la chaire Whewell,membredes barreauxd'Angleterreet d'Australie, membrede l'Institutde
droit international,
M.GeorgesAbi-Saab, professeur honoraire à l'Institut universitaire de hautes études
internationalesde Genève, membredel'Institutdedroitinternational,
M.Alastair Macdonald, géomètra e,ciendirecteurdeI'OrdnanceSurvey,Grande-Bretagne,
commeconseilset avocats;
M.TimothyH.Daniel,associé,cabinet D. J. Freeman,Solicitors,Cityde Londres,Mr.EithelMbocka
Mr.Olinga Nyozo'o,
as MediaOficers;
MsRenéBakker,
MsLawrencePolirsztok,
MsMireilleJung,
Mr. Nigel McCollum,
MsTeteBéatrice Epeti-Kame,
as Secretaries.
TheGovernmentof the FederalRepublicofNigeriais representedby:
H.E.the HonourableMusaE. Abdullahi, Minister ofStateforJustice oftheFederalGovernrnentof
Nigeria,
asAgent;
Chief RichardAkinjideSAN,FormerAttorney-General of the Federation, Member otf he Bar of
EnglandandWales,former Memberof theInternationalLawCommission,
AlhajiAbdullahi Ibrahim SAN,CON,Commissioner,International Boundaries, Nationa Bloundary
CommissionofNigeria,FormerAttorney-GeneraloftheFederation,
as Co-Agents;
Mrs.NellaAndem-Ewa,Attorney-Generaland Cornmissionefror Justice,CrossRiverState,
Mr. Ian Brownlie,C.B.E., Q.C.,Memberof the InternationalLaw Commission, Memberof the
EnglishBar,Memberofthe Instituteof InternationalLaw,
Sir ArthurWatts, K.C.M.G., Q.C.,Member of the English Bar, Member of the Institute of
International Law,
Mr. James Crawford,S.C., Whewell Professor of International Law, University of Cambridge,
MemberoftheEnglishandAustralianBars,Member oftheInstituteofInternationalLaw,
Mr. GeorgesAbi-Saab,Honorary Professor,GraduateInstituteof InternationalStudies,Geneva,
MemberoftheInstituteof InternationalLaw,
Mr.AlastairMacdonald,LandSurveyor,FormerDirector,OrdnanceSurvey,GreatBritain,
as CounselandAdvocates;
Mr.TimothyH.Daniel,Partner,D.J.Freeman, Solicitors,Ciîyof London,M.AlanPerry,associé, cabine t.J. Freeman,Solicitors,CitydeLondres,
M. David Lerer,solicitor, cabineJ.Freeman,Solicitors,CitydeLondres,
M. ChristopherHackford,solicitor,cabinet D.J. Freeman,Solicitors,City deLondres,
MmeCharlotteBreide,solicitor,cabinetD.J. Freeman,Solicitors,Ciiyde Londres,
M. NedBeale,stagiaire, cabinetD. J.Freeman,Solicitors,CitydeLondres,
M.GeoBey Marston, directeurdu département desétudesjuridiques au SidneySussexCollege,
Universitéde Cambridge,membredubarreaud'AngleterreetduPays deGalles,
comme conseils;
S.Exc.l'honorable Dubem Onyiam , inistred'Etat,ministredesaffairesétrangères,
M.MaxwellGidado, assistant spécial principaldu président pour les affairesjuridiques et
constitutionnelles, ancienAttorney-Genelt commissairea laJustice,Etatd'Adamaoua,
M.AlhajiDahiruBobbo, directeurgénérac l,ommissionnationaledesfrontières,
M.A. O. Cukwurah, conseil associé,ancien conseiller de l'organisation des Nations Unies en
matière de frontières(ASOP) auprèsdu Royaumedu Lesotho,ancien commissairepour les
frontièresinter-Etats, commission natidesfrontières,
M. 1.Ayua,membrede l'équipe juridiqudeuNigéria,
M.F. A. Kassim,directeurgénéradluservicecartographiquedelaFédération,
M.Alhaji S.M. Diggi, directeurdesfrontièresinternationales,commissionnationaledes frontières,
M. K.A. Adabale,directeurpourle droitinternationalet le droit com, inistèrede lajustice,
M. A. B.Maitama,colonel,ministèredeladéfense,
M.Jalal Arabi,membrede l'équipejuridiqueduNigéria,
M.GbolaAkinola,membre del'équipe juridiqueduNigéra,
M.K.M. Tumsah,assistant spécialdu directeur génédle la commissionnationaledes frontières
etsecrétairedel'équipe juridique,
M.AliyiuNasir,assistantspécialdu ministred'Etat,ministredelaJustice,
commeconseillers:
M.ChrisCarleton,C.B.E.,bureau hydrographique duRoyaume-Uni,
M.Dick Gent,bureau hydrographiqueduRoyaume-Uni,
M.CliveSchofield,unitéderecherchesurles frontières internationales, UniveéeDurham,
M.ScottB. Edmonds,directeurdes opérationscartographiqueIs,ternationalMappingAssociates,Mr. AlanPeny, Partner,D. J.Freeman, Solicitors,Cityof London,
Mr.DavidLerer,Solicitor,D.J. Freeman, Solicitors,Cityof London,
Mr.ChristopherHackford, Solicitor, . J.Freeman,Solicitors, Cityof London,
MsCharlotte Breide, Solicito, . J. Freeman,Solicitors,City of London,
Mr.NedBeale,Trainee,D. J.Freeman, Solicitors,Cityof London,
Dr.GeoEey Marston,Fellowof Sidney SussexCollege,UniversityofCambridge; Memberof the
Barof EnglandandWales,
as Counsel;
H.E.theHonourableDubemOnyia,Ministerof StateforForeignAffairs,
Mr.Maxwell Gidado, SeniorSpecialAssistantto the President(Legaland ConstitutionalMatters),
FormerAttorney-Generaland Commissionerfor JusticeA , damawaState,
AlhajiDahiruBobbo, Director-General,NationaBl oundaryCommission,
Mr. A. O. Cukwurah, Co-Counsel,Former UN (OPAS)Boundary Adviser to the Kingdom of
Lesotho, FormerCommissioner, Inter-StateBoundaries,National Boundary Commission,
Mr. 1.Ayua,Member, NigerianLegalTeam,
Mr. F.A.Kassim,Surveyor-Generalof the Federation,
AlhajiS.M. Diggi,Director(InternationalBoundaries), ationalBoundary Commission,
Mr. K.A.Adabale,Director(InternationalandComparativeLaw)Ministryof Justice,
Colonel A.B. Maitama,Ministryof Defence,
Mr.JalalArabi,Member,Nigerian LegalTeam,
Mr.GbolaAkinola,Member,'Nigerian LegalTearn,
Mr. K. M. Tumsah, SpecialAssistant to Director-General,National Boundary Commission and
Secretaryto theLegalTearn,
Mr.AliyuNasir, Special Assistantto the MinisterofStateforJustice,
asAdvisers;
Mr.ChrisCarleton,C.B.E.,UnitedKingdomHydrographic Office,
Mr. DickGent,United KingdomHydrographicOffice,
Mr.Clive Schofield, InternationalBoundariesesearchUnit, University of Durham,
Mr.ScottB. Edrnonds,Directorof CartographieOperations,International Mapping Associates,M. RobertC.Rizzutti,cartographeprincipal,InternationalMappingAssociates,
M. BruceDaniel,InternationalMappingAssociates,
MmeVictoriaJ. Taylor,InternationalMappingAssociates,
Mme StephanieKimClark,International MappingAssociates,
M. RobinCleverly,ExplorationManager,NPAGroup,
MmeClaireAinsworth,NPAGroup,
commeconseillers scientiJiquesettechniques;
M. MohammedJibrilla, experteninformatique,commissionnationaledes frontières,
Mme CoralieAyad,secrétaire,cabinetD. J.Freeman,Solicitors,Cityde Londres,
Mme ClaireGoodacre, secrétaire, cabineD. J. Freeman,Solicitors,Ciiy de Londres,
Mme SarahBickell,secrétaire,cabinetD. J.Freeman,Solicitors,Cityde Londres,
Mme MichelleBurgoine, spécialisteen technologie de l'information, cabinet D.J.Freeman,
Solicitors,Cityde Londres,
commepersonnel administratg
Le Gouvernementde la République de Guinée équatorialq e, i est autoriséà intervenir dans
l'instance,estreprésentpar :
S. Exc. M. RicardoMangueObarnaN'Fube,ministre d7Etat,ministre du travail et de la sécurité
sociale,
commeagentet conseil;
S. Exc.M.RubénMayeNsueMangue, ministre de lajustice et des cultes, vice-présidentde la
commissionnationale desfrontières,
S. Exc. M.CristobalMaiianaElaNchama,ministre desmines etde l'énergie,vice-présidentde la
commissionnationale desfrontières,
M. DomingoMbaEsono, directeur national de la société nationale de pétrole de
Guinéeéquatoriale, membre de la commissionnationd asfrontières,
M. Antonio NzambiNlonga,Attorney-General,
commeconseillers;
M. Pierre-MarieDupuy, professeur de droit international public à l'université de Paris
(Panthéon-Assase )tàl'Institutuniversitaire europne Florence,Mr.RobertC.Rizzutti,SeniorMappingSpecialist, International appingAssociates,
Mr. BruceDaniel, International appingAssociates,
MsVictoriaJ. Taylor, InternationalMappingAssociates,
Ms StephanieKimClark,International Mapping Associates,
Dr.RobinCleverly, Exploration ManagerN, PA Group,
MsClaireAinsworth, NPA Group,
asScientiJicand TechnicalAdvisers;
Mr.MohammedJibrilla,ComputerExpert,National BoundaryCommission,
MsCoralieAyad,Secretary,D.J. Freeman,Solicitors,Cityof London,
MsClaireGoodacre, Secretary,D. J. Freeman,Solicitors,Cityof London,
MsSarahBickell, Secretary,D. J. Freeman,Solicitors,Cityof London,
Ms MichelleBurgoine,IT Specialist,D.J. Freeman, Solicitors,Cityof London,
asAdministrators.
TheGovernmentof the RepublicofEquatorial Guinea, which has beenpermittedto intervenein
thecase, is representedby:
H.E.Mr.Ricardo MangueObamaNYFubeM , inisterofStateforLaborandSocialSecurity,
asAgentand Counsel;
H.E. Mr. RubénMaye Nsue Mangue, Minister of Justice andReligion, Vice-Presidentof the
NationalBoundary Commission,
H.E. Mr. CristobalMaiïanaEla Nchama,Minister of Mines and Energy, Vice-Presidentof the
NationalBoundary Commission,
Mr. Domingo Mba Esono, National Director of the Equatorial GuineaNational Petroleurn
Company,MemberoftheNationalBoundaryCommission,
Mr. AntonioNzambiNlonga,Attorney-General,
asAdvisers;
Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Professor of Public International Law at the University of Paris
(Panthéon-Assasa)ndattheEuropean University InstitutinFlorence,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,
commeconseilsefavocats;
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;
MmeJannetteE. 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. HervéBlatry, membredu cabinetLeBaeuf,Lamb, Greene& MacRae,L.L.P.,Paris, avocatàla
Cour,membredubarreaudeParis,
commeexpertsjuridiques;
M. CoalterG. Lathrop,SovereignGeographicInc.,Chape1Hill, CarolineduNord,
M. AlexanderM.Tait,Equator Graphics,SilverSpring,Maryland,
commeexpertstechniques.Mr. DavidA. Colson,LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene& MacRae,L.L.P.,Washington,D.C., member of
theCalifornia StateBar andDistrictofColumbiaBar,
as Counsel andAdvocates;
SirDerekBowett,
as Senior Counsel;
Mr. Derek C.Smith, LeBoeuf,Lamb, Greene& MacRae,L.L.P.,Washington,D.C.,memberof the
Districtof ColumbiaBar andVirginiaStateBar,
as Counsel;
Ms JannetteE. Hasan,LeBoeuf,Lamb, Greene & MacRae,L.L.P.,Washington,D.C., member of
theDistrictof ColumbiaBarandFloridaStateBar,
Mr. HervéBlatry,LeBoeuf, Lamb,Greene & MacRae,L.L.P.,Paris,Avocat àla Cour,memberof
theParisBar,
asLegal Experts;
Mr. Coalter G.Lathrop,SovereignGeographic Inc.,Chape1Hill,NorthCarolina,
Mr. AlexanderM. Tait,EquatorGraphics,Silver Spring,Maryland,
as TechnicalExperts. Le PRESIDENT :Veuillezvous asseoir. La séanceest ouverteetje donnela parole aunom
de laRépubliquefédérale duNigériaau professeur GeorgesAbi-Saab.
LE PRINCIPEDEL'UTZPOSSZDETZS JURIS
Monsieurleprésident,Madame etMessieursde la Cour.
1.C'est un grand privilèget plaisir pourmoi de me retrouver devantvous aujourd'huipour
représenterlaRépubliquefédérald euNigéria.
2. Mes propos porteront ce matin sur le rôle, les effets et les limites du principe de
l'utipossidetisjuris dansson applicatiànlaprésente affaire.
Origineset fonctions
3. L'avènement dece principe remonte aupremier tiers du XIXesiècle. Il fut appelépar la
première vaguede décolonisationmassive denotre époque,dansune situation quiétaitcaractérisée
par le vague, si ce n'est la vacuité, des principes dedroit international faceà ce nouveau
phénomène.
4. En effet, comme l'a bien rappeléla Chambre de la Cour dans l'affaire du Différend
Frontalier (BurkinaFaso/Républiquedu Mali),ceprincipe a
«étéinvoquépour la premièrefois en Amérique hispanique,étantdonnéque c'est sur
ce continentqu'on a assistépour la premièrefois au phénomèned'une décolonisation
entraînant la formation d'une pluralitéd'Etats souverains sur le territoire ayant
antérieurement appartenuà une seule métropole)) (C.I.J.Recueill986, p. 565,
par. 20).
5. Ainsi,àl'origine, l'élaboratidu principe de l'utipossidetis servaitun double objectif:
un objectif défensifvis-à-vis du reste du monde, et en particulier vis-à-vis de l'Europe de la
Sainte-Alliance, au cas où elle songeraità rétablir ouà remplacer l'imperium défaillantde
l'Espagne et du Portugal. Le principe servait cet objectif par une négationradicale de toute
vacance de souveraineté,c'est-à-direde terra nullius, dans les territoires décolonisés.En d'autres
termes, c'était une affirmation de souveraineté territorialement étanche des républiques
émergeantes,sur tousles territoires abandonnés par l'ancienne puissance coloniale,omprisleszonesde l'intérieurqui n'étaientpas touta fait explorées oucontrôléesparelle, ouqui n'étaientpas
encoretotalementcontrôléespar les nouvellesrépubliques.
6. Le second objectif étaitde nature conservatoire pour éviterou du moins minimiser les
conflits entreles successeurs,et cela par le gel du découpagemtorial en l'état danslequel il se
présentait au momentde l'indépendance.
7. C'est cesecond objectifque soulignela Chambrede la Cour quandelle déclareque «sous
son aspect essentiel, ce principe vise, avant tout,ssurer le respect des limites territoriales au
momentde l'accession à l'indépendance)()ibid.,p. 566,par. 23).
8.Ces limitesterritorialespeuvent êtrde deuxsortes. Ellespeuvent êtreen premierlieu des
limitesadministrativesà l'intérieurd'unmêmeempire,comme cela étaitle caspou la trèsgrande
majorité des républiques issues de l'Empire hispanique. C'est là que résidait le nouveau
phénomène auquelse référait la Chambre dlea Courdans l'extraitqueje viensde citer. Mais elles
pouvaient êtreégalementdesfrontièresproprement internationalesentre deuxcolonies appartenant
à desempires différents,par exemple entrele Brésilet les territoireshispaniques. Ellespouvaient
séparer égalemenu tne ancienne colonie d'un Etat indépendant comme cellesentre le Mexique et
les Etats-Unis.
9. C'est dans le premier cas de figue, celui de l'accessioà l'indépendancede plusieurs
nouveaux Etats issus d'un mêmeempire, que le principe de l'uti possidetis juris trouve un rôle
propre et autonome,en servantde titrejuridique international un découpageterritorial interne et
en transformant deslignes divisoiresadministrativesen frontièresinternationales. Et c'estdans ce
rôle que la Chambrede la Courl'a décritcomme «unprincipe d'ordre généran lécessairementliéà
ladécolonisationoùqu'elleseproduise))(ibid., p.566, par.23).
10. Alors que dans le deuxièmecas de figure il existait déjàavant l'indépendance deux
souverainetésen présence, donc une frontière internationale entre elles, qu'elle soit ou non
délimitéee,t quine pouvait êtraffectéepar le changementde souveraineté d'uncôtéou del'autre,
changementquine constitue en réalité qu'unesorte de subrogation personnelle à la mêmeassiette
territoriale. 11.Dans ce cas, le principe de l'uti possidetisne fait que répliquer, etpar conséquent ilse
confond totalement, avec les règlesde la succession dYEtats,comme l'a constaté à nouveau la
Chambre dela Couren 1986 :
«L'obligation de respecter lesfrontièresinternationalespréexistantesen cas de
succession d'Etats découle sans aucun doute d'une règle générale de droit
international, qu'elle trouve ou non son expression dans la formule uti possidetis.))
(Ibid.,p. 566, par.24.)
12.Et si, à l'origine, la doctrine de l'uti possidetis visaitindistinctement les deuxcas de
figure,celas'explique parles conditionshistoriquesqui régnaientl'époque,etnotammentpar les
incertitudes qui entouraient la notion de succession d'Etats au début du XIXe siècle (voir
MarceloKohen,Possession contestéeet souverainetéterritoriale,Paris,PUF, 1997,p. 434).
13.En somme,«les limitesterritoriales))dont le principe twis..à assurerle respect...au
moment de l'accession à l'indépendance)) sont, dans le deuxièmecas de figure, une frontière
internationaledéjà existante,qu'ellesoit délimitou non, et quel que soit le titrejuridique qui la
fonde. Alors que dans le premier cas de figure,il s'agit d'unelimite qui subit une mutation dans
son statut juridique, la transformant d'une ligne administrativeen une frontière internationale.
Mais - et c'est un grand «mais» - cette limite, pas plus que la frontièreinternationale déjà
existantedans l'autrecas de figure,ne subitaucun changementdansson contenucommerésultatde
cette transformation. Car elle conserve tous les éventuelsvices, lacunes et ambiguïtés qu'elle
auraitpu comporteravant l'accession àl'indépendance;cequi m'amène à mon prochain point,qui
est celuide l'effetjuridique duprincipe del'utipossidetis.
L'effetjuridiqueduprincipedeI'utipossidetis(en général)
14. De quelle manière le principe de l'uti possidetis assure-t-il le respect des limites
temtoriales au momentde l'accession àl'indépendance ?
Ici aussi, la Chambre de la Cour, dans l'affaire du DzHérendFrontalier, nous fournit la
réponse :
«Par le fait de son accession à l'indépendance,le nouvel Etat accède à la
souveraineté avecl'assiette et les limites temtoriales qui lui sont laissées par1'Etat
colonisateur. Il s'agit là du fonctionnementnormal desmécanismesde la succession
d7Etats. Le droit international-et par conséquentle principe de l'uti possidet-s
est applicable au nouvel Etat (en tant qu'Etat) non pas avec effet rétroactif mais
immédiatementet dès ce moment-là. Il lui est applicable en l'état c'est-à-dire à l'«instantané»du statut temtorial existant à ce moment-là.» (C.Z.J.Recueil1986,
p. 568,par. 30.)
15.Il faut se rappelerque ce dictumesténoncé dansun paragraphequi traite du rôle dudroit
colonial dans l'identificationde ce statuttemtorial au momentde l'accession l'indépendance.La
Chambre s'efforce d'expliquer que la prise en considérationdu droit colonial par le droit
internationalà travers le principe de l'uti possidetisne constituepas dans ce contexteun «renvoi»
dans le sens technique du terme, en ajoutant, entre parenthèses -c'est le jugement qui
l'ajoute- :«(comme s'ily avait un continuumjuris, un relais juridique entre ce droit et le droit
international))).La Chambreprécise quelerôle du droit colonialse limitedans ce contexte à celui
d'«un élémend te fait,parmi d'autres, ou [d'un]moyen de preuve et de démonstrationde ce qu'on
a appeléle «legs colonial)),c'est-à-direde l'«instantané territoàiladate critique))(ibid.,p. 568,
par. 30).
16.Pour prendrecet instantané-là,la Chambre de laCour nous dit que «le principe de l'uti
possidetis gèlele titretemtorial; il arrêtela montre sanslui faire remonterleps))(ibid, p. 568,
par. 30). En d'autres termes, pour établir l'«étatdes lieux)) territorial du «legs colonial)) au
momentde l'accession à l'indépendance, leprincipe del'utipossidetis, agissant commeun appareil
photographique, fixe ou gèle un statut temtorial dynamique, car pouvant évoluer pendant la
période colonialeet jusqu'à ce moment-là;il le fixe pour les besoins de la prise de la photo, dans
son étatàl'instant oùelleest prise, ce quinousdonnel'instantané territorial.
17.La date critique,c'est-à-dire le moment pertinent,pour établirl'étatdes lieux du «legs
colonial))temtorial, c'est le moment de l'accessionde l'indépendance;et le gel ou la fixation de
cet étatdes lieux est nécessaireà ce moment-là,pour savoirce qui revient à chacun des ((ayants
droit));mais seulement àce moment-là. Car,une fois le «legs» établiet acquis, il est assujettiaux
mêmes lois (et aléas)gouvernant l'évolution dteout acquis;un point sur lequelje me permettrai de
revenir, ainsique surlanotion de ladatecritique.
18.Cet effetjuridique généradlu principede l'utipossidetis d'«assurerle respect des limites
territorialesau momentde l'accession à l'indépendance)a)ppelledeuxsériesde précisions.L'effet de I'utipossidetisquant au contenu du «legscolonial))
19. La première précision concernele contenu de l'«instantanéterritorial)), de cette
photographie, car il s'agitlà d'une photo non retouchée,qui reproduit toutes les défectuosités de
l'original. Le principe de l'utipossidetis garantit le passage au nouvel Etat du ((legscolonial))en
forme de limites temtoriales, telles qu'elles étaient aumoment de l'indépendance,sans les
améliorer, enles complétantpar exemple là où elles n'existaient pas ouen purifiant les titres
juridiques quiles sous-tendentde leursvices et ambiguïtés éventuels.
20. Cela ressort trèsclairement,mêmedans le cas le plus caractérisé etle plus protégé de
succession à des limites territoriales,celui d'une frontièreinternationale établiepar traitéavant
l'indépendance.Dans cettehypothèse, ilsuffit de rappeler l'article 11de la conventionde Vienne
sur la succession des Etats en matièrede traités,article qui stipule :«Une succession d'Etats ne
portepas atteinteen tant quetelle : a)à une frontièreétabliepar traité...))
21. Car, mêmedans ce cas, et comme le font remarquer les Etats-Unis dans leurs
observationssur le projet d'articles de la Commission du droit international qui a servi de base à
cetarticle 11 :
«Un Etat successeurnepeut acquérir comme domaine territorialque letemtoire
et les droits territoriaux du prédécesseur.Si le territoire que possède1'Etata des
frontièressolidement déterminéee st établiespar trait&.., 1'Etatsuccesseur héritede
tout cet ensemble... En revanche,si le temtoire que détenait17Etatprédécesseua rvait
des frontièresmal définies à la suite d'un traité malrédigé1,'Etatsuccesseur acquiert
ce qu'avait le prédécesseur, c'est-à-dire un temtoire aux frontièresmal définies.))
(Annuaire de la Commission dudroit international, 1974, vol.II, première partie,
p. 82.)
22. De même,la Commission du droit international, dans soncommentaire sur le projet
d'articleen question,préciseque :
«Une telle disposition porterait exclusivement surles effets de la succession
d'Etats à l'égarddu règlementdes frontières. Elle n'influerait en rien sur un autre
motif qui pourrait être invoquépour réclamer larevisionou le rejet d'un règlement de
frontière, qu'il s'agisse de l'autodétermination ou de lanullitéou l'extinction du
traité.))(Ibid.,p. 207,par. 17.)
23. Cela est confirmé davantagepar l'article 14 de la même convention qus itipule: «Rien
dans la présente convention n'est considér céommepréjugeanten quoi que ce soit toute question
relativeà lavaliditéd'un traité.)) 24. Ces dispositions et longues citationsne font qu'exprimer de manières différenteu sne
évidencejuridique qui est le principe générad le droit :Nemo dat guod non habet, ((personnene
peut donnerce qu'il n'a pas» (ou«plusqu'iln'ena» selonune autre version).
25. D'où la conclusion que mêmedans le cas le plus clair de l'existence, déjàavant
l'accession àl'indépendance,d'unefrontièreinternationaleétabliepar untraité,pour qu'onpuisse
faire valoir «la règlegénéralede droit international)) à laquelle se réfèrele jugement de 1986
(C.I.J.Recueil1986, p. 566, par.24) et qui est codifiéedans l'article 11 de la convention de
Vienne, qu'on confère également à cette règlele nom d'uti possidetis ou non, trois conditions
doivent êtrerempliespréalablement :
i) qu'un accordau sensdudroit international,définitifet obligatoire,existeréellement;
ii) que cet accord ne soit pas entaché de nullité ou d'extinction; et finalement en
troisièmelieu,
iii) que son contenuporte réellementsur l'établissementou la délimitationde la frontièreen
question.
26.Ainsi, danslaprésenteaffaire,et pour ce qui est de la région dulac Tchad, le Cameroun
prétenddans son mémoireet dans sa répliqueet les plaidoiries orales, que la délimitationde la
frontière s'est effectuée pendant la période coloniale déjà, par l'échange des lettres
franco-britanniques du 9 janvier 1931 (réplique duCameroun, p. 103, par. 3.11)' et que «la
frontière est transmise lors des indépendancesau Cameroun et au Nigériapar application du
principeuti possidetis))(ibid.,par.3.09).
27. Or, le Nigériaconteste la prétention selonlaquelle cet échange de lettresde 1931
comporte un accord suffisammentconcret et définitifdansson contenupour constituerun traitéde
délimitationdans cetterégion. Et s'il n'y apas de délimitation, ilne peut y avoirde démarcation
subséquentepour la traduire sur le terrain (ou sur l'eau en l'espèce,si l'on parle du lac Tchad)
(dupliquedu Nigéria,p. 232-233,par. 4.33-4.34).
28.Il est clair dans ce cas, que l'on ne saurait si le principe de l'uti possidetispeut ou non
entrer enjeu pour ((assurerlerespect))de la lignedéfenduepar le Camerounqu'unefois tranchéau
préalablele différendsur l'exïstence duprétenduaccordde délimitationqui sous-tendcette ligne. 29. Il en est de mêmedans la régionde Bakassi, où le Cameroun affirme que l'accord
germano-britannique de 1913a établi la frontièref;rontièretransmiselors des indépendancespar
applicationduprincipe utipossidetis.
30. Là également,le Nigéria s'estefforcéde démontreren détaildans son contre-mémoire
(chap. 8 ) et dans sa duplique (chap.1), et ici même,par la voix de mon éminent collègue
sirArthur Watts, que cet accord germano-britannique, dansla mesure où il touchait le statut
temtonal de Bakassi, comportaitun dépassement de pouvoir, ou, en d'autres termes é,taitun acte
ultravires de lapart de lapuissanceprotectricebritannique,quin'étaitpashabilitée,aux termesdu
protectorat,àdisposerdutemtoire nigérian;et que,par conséquent,cet accord,danslamesure oùil
portaitsur Bakassi,étaitinapplicable,et en tout état de cause, inopposàla Partienigériane.
31. Ici aussi, c'est mettre la charrue avant les boeufs que d'invoquer le principe d'uti
possidetis pour soutenir une ligne dont l'existence dépendde l'applicabilité dutraité qui la
sous-tend, alorsque cetteapplicabilitéconstituel'objetmêmedu différend.
32. Les traitésétablissantdes frontièrespeuvent comporter des défectuositéd se moindre
importance, ainsi que des lacunes, des inexactitudeset des ambiguïtés que leprincipe de l'uti
possidetis, en endossant un ((instantanéemtorial)) fidèlàla réalité,ne saurait purifier, combler
comger ou lever.
33. Cela s'applique tout particulièrement,dans la présente affaire,aux différents accords
conclus entre les puissances colonialesdes deux côtés avant l'indépendancee,t qui portent surla
délimitationdela frontièreau-delàde larégiondulacTchadetjusqu'à Bakassi;un pointsur lequel
je mepermettraide revenirdansquelquesinstants.
34. Cesprécisionsconcernantla portée etles limites duchamp d'applicationdu principe de
l'utipossidetis là où un titre juridique, aussi solide qu'un traitéétablissant unefrontière, existait
avantl'accession de l'indépendance, s'appliquentafortiori, et mêmedavantage,là où un tel titre
n'existaitpas.
35. Dans tous ces cas, qu'il s'agisse de traités défectueux ou ambigusd ,'une frontière
internationale non encore délimitéepar traité,ou de limites administratives mal définies,on ne
saurait faire abstraction des développements subséquentsà l'accession à l'indépendance, cequi
m'amène àmonprochainpoint, qui portesur l'effet del'utipossidetis dansle temps.L'effetde I'utipossi dantslstemps
36. C'est un sujetquej'ai effleurapidementen essayant d'expliquer pour quelle raisonet
de quelle manière,le principede l'utipossidetisle»le titre territorialau momentde l'accession
à l'indépendance.
37. Ce moment-làconstitue la «date critique))pour l'établissementde l'«étatdes lieux))du
«legs colonial)).Le «gel»intervientàce moment,fixantou figeantla situation«enl'état)), lesr
besoins de la prise de la photo qui représentecet étatdes lieux et en porte témoignage. C'est ce
quela Chambre a appelé((l'instantané territorial)).
38. Le (<gel»ne dure en fait quel'instantde laprise de l'«instantanéterritorial))(le moment
où le photographe ditquepersonne ne bouge))et presse sur le bouton). Mais il a un autre effet,
plusdurable. Car l'«instantanétemtorial)),endosséet authentifiépar leprincipede l'uti possidetis,
devienttitrejuridique, letitre territorial(etpar conséquentletitre des frontières)dunouvelEtat.
39. Mais il ne faut pas oublier que ce titre, comme instantanénon retouché de l'original,
porte en lui toutes les défectuosités queintachaient cetoriginal au momentde l'indépendance.Et
surtout,ce «gel», pourlesbesoins de laprise de l'instantané, n'impeas que la frontière,ainsi
queletitrejuridique quila sous-tend,resteront geléjsusqu'à la findestemps.
40. En effet, le langage imagéutilisépar la Chambre de la Cour porte en lui-mêmela
négation d'unetelle proposition. Caun instantanéou une photo sur une carte d'identité ne fige
pas la personne dans sa forme photographiéepour l'éternit,t ne peut empêcher son évolution
normale au-delà du moment de la prise de l'instantané. Un «legs» également; unefois fixéet
spécifiéau moment dela succession,ne reste pas bloquépour autant,mais intègrelepatrimoinede
l'ayantdroitet suit l'évolution de sa fortune.
41. De la mêmemanière, une frontière,une fois établieselon l'instantané territorialdu
nouvel Etatau moment de l'indépendance - instantanéauthentifiéen même temps parle principe
de l'uti possidetis comme titre juridique; une foiscette frontièreainsi établie,elle peut évoluer
selon les processus normaux du droit international, c'est-à-direvers les actes et les faits qui
produisent deseffetsjuridiques seloncedroit.
42. C'est une conclusion évidente, quiest largement partagée parla doctrine. Ainsi par
exemple,le professeurDaniel Bardonnet,dans son cours magistral donnéici même à l'Académiede droit international en 1976, intitulé«Les frontièresterrestres et la relativitéde leur tracé))
(RCADZt,. 153,(V-1976)'p. 69) a ceci à dire,à propos de la ((résolutiondu Caire))adoptéepar
l'assemblée des chefs d'Etats et de gouvernementsde l'OUA en 1964,et qui entérinaitleprincipe
de l'utipossidetis pour lecontinent africai:
((Affirmer, comme on l'a fait fréquemment,que la charte de l'OUA et la
résolutiondu Caire consacrentle principe de l'intangibilitédes frontières estun abus
de langage. Les rédacteursde ces textesn'ont jamaisdit que les frontièresdes Etats
africains, telles qu'elles existaient au moment de leur accession à l'indépendance,
étaientfixéesune fois pour toutes et ne pouvaient jamais être modifiées par des
procédés pacifiques; ils ontseulement dit qu'elles devaient être «respectées»,
c'est-à-dire qu'elles ne pouvaient, en aucun cas, conformémentau principe de
l'intégritterritoriale,être remisen causepar la force.))
43. Le Cameroun semble approuver ce raisonnement logique dans sa réplique. En effet,
aprèsavoir citéle paragraphe 30 de l'arrêtde 1986 où la Cour déclareque «le principe de l'uti
possidetis gèleletitre territorial)),laréplique ajoute
«Il est importantde ne pas déformer laposition de laChambre. L'uti possidetis
ne résout pas tous les problèmes frontalierspour l'éternité, mais il fournit un
mécanisme internationalement accepté afinde déterminer lesfrontièresdu nouvel Etat
au moment de l'indépendance.Par la suite, la questiondefiontière relève d'autres
normesjuridiques. » (Répliquedu Cameroun,p. 80, par.2.109, les italiques sont de
nous; cf.p. 79, par.2.107.)
44. Cependant, quand il s'agit d'identifier «ces autres normes juridiques)) dont relèvela
questionde la frontièresuite àl'indépendancel,e Camerounlesconfine, semble-t-il,étrangement ,
l'accord formeldes Parties (par. 2.110). Il ignore ainsi toute la gamme de processus de droit
international, reflétant largement par ailleurles principes généraux de droit, qui permettent de
déceler un consentement tacite, du moins en forme d'acquiescement, dans des situations
longuementtoléréee st non contestées.
45. Cependant, il n'y a aucune raisonjuridique valable pour écarter l'opération dc ees
processus normauxde droit internationaldanscecasparticulier.
46. Par ailleurs, ici aussiune autre Chambrede la Cour,cette fois-ci c'est cellequi a décidé
l'affaire duDzférendfiontalier terrestre, insulaire et maritime (El Salvador/Honduras) en 1992,
vientéclairernotre lanterne, quand elle déclare:
«Si la situation résultantde l'uti possidetis juris peut êtremodifiéepar une
décision d'unjuge et par un traité, laquestionse pose alors de savoirsi elle peut être
modifiéed'autresmanières,par exempleparun acquiescementouune reconnaissance.
Il n'y a semble-t-ilaucune raison, en principe,pour que ces facteursn'entrent pas en jeu, lorsqu'il y a assez de preuves pour établirque lesparties ont en fait clairement
acceptéune variante, outout au moinsune interprétation, dela situation résultantde
l'utipossidetisjuris.)) (C.I.J. Recueil1992,p. 401,par.67.)
47. Et quelques paragaphes plus loin, la Chambre revient au mêmethème, déclarant
qu'elle:
((n'estimepas que l'application du principe de I'utipossidetisjuris dans l'Amérique
espagnole avait pour effet de figer pour toujours les limites des provinces qui, avec
l'indépendance,ont constitué les frontières entre les nouveaux Etats. Il était
évidemment loisible à ces Etats de modifierpar un accord les frontières les séparant;
et certaines formes d'activitéou d'inactivitépourraient valoir acquiescementà une
limitedifférente decelle de 1821.» (Ibid, p. 408, par.80.)
48. Lapossibilitépou le droit internationalde prendreen considération les développements
postérieursà l'accessionà l'indépendance, possibilité affirmaveec vigueur par la Chambre de la
Cour en 1992dans les deux extraitsque je viens de citer,soulèvedeux sériesd'interrogations:la
premièreconcerne la notion de la «date critique))et la seconde les situations dans lesquelles ces
développementspostérieurs peuven t treprisenconsidération.
La «date critique))
49. Ence qui concerne la première interrogationl,apossibilitépour le droit international de
prendre en considérationles développements postérieurs à l'accession à l'indépendancemet
radicalement en question une certaine conception monolithique dela «date critique)),défendue
ardemmentpar le Cameroundans la présenteaffaire, et quiprétendqu'il n'ya qu'une seule «date
critique)) pour établir le(titre temtorial)) du nouvel Etat, qui est celle de I'accession à
l'indépendance.
50. Cela impliqueque tous les développements postérieur àscettedate ne peuvent entreren
ligne de compte. En d'autrestermes,on en revientpar un détour à la notion du«gel»perpétuelde
la frontièredèsla date de l'indépendance,ce qui va totalementàl'encontrede toute l'analyse qui
précèdee ,ttout particulièrementde l'analysedela Chambreen 1992.
51. En effet, le premier extrait de la décisionde la Chambre que j'ai cité,vient du
paragraphe 67, qui traiteprécisémendte la «datecritique)),etje me permetsde citerencoreledébut
de ce paragraphe, caril est crucial,ou critiquesivous voulez,sur cepoint
«Le principe de 'I'utipossidetisjuris est quelquefois affirméen termes presque
absolus,commesi la situation à la datede l'indépendance étatitujours déterminante;
comme si, en bref, il ne pouvait y avoird'autre date critique. O...il ne saurait en êtreainsi. Manifestement,unedate critiqueultérieurepeut apparaîtrep,ar exemplepar
suite d'une décision d'un juge oud'un traité frontalier.))(C.I.J.Recueil1992,p. 401,
par. 67.)
52. Il faut dire que la notion de la «date critique)) est une notion polysémique. Car le
qualificatif«critique» ne se comprendque par rapport àun référant qui lui est extérieur. La date
est «critique», c'est-à-dire juridiquementdéterminante,par rapport a un certain objet ou but
spécifique,etnon pas demanièregénérale.
53. Cettenotion de«date critique))est apparuedansle langagedu droitinternational dansles
années cinquante,dans un effort de tracer les originesdes différendsdans le temps, envue de les
situerpar rapportaux limitestemporellesà la compétence de cette Cour.
54. La notion a étéégalementutiliséedans le contexte judiciaire, pour exclure, dans la
considérationpar la Cour d'une espèce,les actes entrepris par l'une ou l'autre partie aprèsla
cristallisation du différend, quipourraient être soupçonnés dveiser à améliorersa position au
prétoire.
55. Ainsi,pour chaqueacte ou faitjuridique, c'est-à-direproductif d'effets de droit,il peuty
avoir une «date critique))différente. Pour ce qui est de l'application de la notion de la «date
critique)) au principe del'uti possidetis, il est clair que cette date est celle de l'accession à
l'indépendance.Mais cettedate est ((critique)),c'est-à-dire pertinenteet mêmedéterminantepour
lesbesoins d'unbut ou d'unobjet spécifique,qui estl'établissement du titretemtorial avec lequel
lenouvel Etat commencesa vie dYEtatindépendant. Ellen'est pas «critique» pour lesactes et les
faits juridiquesqui peuvent influer sur ce titre ou acquis temtorial après l'indépendance,
conformément au droit international.
56. Ainsi,comme l'adit la Chambrede la Cour,si les parties concluentun traité délimitant,
ou même changeantla ligne de l'uti possidetis pour un segment de la frontière après
l'indépendancec ,'est la datede ce traité quidevientla «datecritique))pour cette délimitation.De
même, en casde recours à un organejuridictionnel, c'estla datede sa décisionqui devient la«date
critique»pource segmentdefrontière,que la décisionsuivela ligne de l'utipossidetis ounon (voir
C.I.J. Recueil1992,p. 401,par. 67).
57. Naturellement, pour les autres processus informels de droit international, qui
n'aboutissentpas en un actejuridique ponctuel dans le temps, tel un traité ou un jugement,maisopèrentde manière progressive et cumulative, il est beaucoup plus difficile de leur trouver un
ancragedansle temps en forme de date critique.
58.Dansces cas, leseul repèrepossible dansle tempspour lesjauger, c'est lemoment dela
cristallisationdu différendauquel ilspeuvent donner lieu. Ce qui m'amène à mon dernierpoint,
quitraite deces processusdans leur applicatioàlaprésenteaffaire.
Lesdéveloppementspostérieur àsl'indépendance et la ligne del'utipossidetis
59. De quelle manièreles développements postérieursà l'indépendancepeuvent-ils influer
sur la ligne deI'uti possidetisju?is
60. J'ai déjàmentionnéles traitéset les décisions juridictionnellesqui ne sont pas suàets
controverse. Mais dans le contentieuxtemtorial, ce sont surtout les processus informels qui le
sont. Le rôle de ces processus, et parconséquentleurs effets, dépenddu Spe de situation dans
laquelleilsopèrent.
61. J'aidit, au début,que le titreterritorialpasse au nouvelEtat avectoutes les défectuosités
qu'il comportait avant l'indépendance. Ce qui me permet de distinguer trois situations,
représentanttrois modes d'interaction entre le titre temtorial issu de I'uti possidetis et les
développementspostérieurs à l'indépendance.
62. Premièrement : là où il n'y a pas eu, pendant la périodecoloniale, une frontière
délimitée,ou la délimitatiori était partielou parcellaire, il n'y a pas de «legs colonial))à
transmettre là où il n'y avait rien. De même,si des traitésde délimitationont été conclu, ais
étaiententachésd'inapplicabilitéou de nullité. Ce premier cas de figure correspond, dans la
présenteaffaire,àla situationdanslarégiondu lacTchad et à Bakassi.
63. Dans ce cas, où il n'y apas de titre en forme d'actejuridique, ce sont les processus
informels du droit international, en forme de contrôle paisibleet d'accommodementmutuel, qui
établissent progressivement la frontière sur le terrain, qu'on les appelle accord tacite,
acquiescement ou consolidationhistorique. Cettedernièreclassificationconvient particulièrement
à ce cas devide initial detitre formel. Ces processus opèrent dès la période coloniaeltecontinuent
après l'indépendancede manière cumulative, que le professeur Bardonnet a qualifiée de
((densificationdes frontières». 64. Deuxièmement :là oùune délimitation aété effectuéedéjàpendant lapériode coloniale,
mais où les traitésde délimitation comportentdes inexactitudeset des ambiguïtés. C'estle cas,
dans la présente affaire,du parcours de la frontière au-delà dela régiondu lac Tchad jusqu'à
Bakassi.
65. Dans ce cas, et dans lamesure où il n'y a pas eu de démarcation surle terrain acceptée
par les deux parties, les processus informels d'accommodement mutuel, notamment par les
administrateurs locaux ou les populations locales, peuvent rectifier les erreurs, clarifier les
ambiguïtéset même ajuster quelquepeu la ligne décritedans letraité pourmieuxcorrespondreà la
topographieou répondre auxbesoinslocaux. Et celaavantcommeaprèsl'indépendance.
66. Cela peutêtreconsidéré commeune interprétationpar les parties dutraité(ou de la ligne
de l'uti possidetis) selon le principe de la ((pratique subséquente)) (voirC.I.J.Recueil1992,
par. 333, 345, 368). Et en cas de recours à un organe juridictionnel (de même quepour une
commissionde démarcation),cetorganedisposed'une certaine margede discrétionpour pallierces
défectuositéest ambiguïtés,mêmeau dépens d'une interprétatio par trop littéraledes instruments
(voirC.I.J.Recueil1992,par. 46).
67. Troisièmement :qu'il y ait eu une ligne d'uti possidetis ou non au moment de
l'indépendance,un acquiescement à une autre ligne a eu lieu ((durant les annéesqui ont suivi
l'indépendance)).
68. En effet, la Chambre de la Cour en 1992 met beaucoup l'accent sur la notion
d'acquiescement, souvent en alternance avec le principe d'interprétation de la (cpratique
subséquente))queje viens de mentionner. Ainsi, par exemple, au paragraphe345 de l'arrêt,elle
déclare:
«Lorsque la limite administrative en cause étaitmal définieou lorsque son
emplacement était contesté, le comportement des deux Etats nouvellement
indépendantsdans les annéesqui ont suivi l'indépendance pouvait très bien,de l'avis
de la Chambre,fournir une indication quant àl'emplacementde la frontière,soit dans
l'idéecommune que s'en faisaient les deux Parties, soitdans l'idéeque s'en faisait
l'une d'entreelles et en fonction de laquelle elle avait agi, l'autre ayant acquiescé.))
(Voir par. 64'80 et 205ci-dessus.)
69. La Chambre se réfere à l'acquiescement dans de nombreux paragraphes
(C.I.J.Recueil 1992, inter alia par. 64, 80, 169, 176,205, 280, 341, 364, 368). Elle l'analysecomme faisant partie d'un faisceau de phénomènes juridiques reflétandtifférentesformes de
consentement tacite reconnues en droit international. Ainsi, par exemple,au paragraphe364,
quand elle déclare que :«Le comportement du Honduras vis-à-vis des effectivitésantérieures
révèleune admission,une reconnaissance,un acquiescementou une autre forme de consentement
tacite l'égard dela situation.»
70. Quantà la pertinencepour laprésente affairede ces différentsmodesd'interaction entre
les développementspostérieurs àl'indépendanceet la ligne de l'utipossidetis, dans la mesure et
dansl'étatoùune telle ligneexistait aumomentde l'indépendancem, on éminentcollègueet amile
professeurIanBrownlie l'a déjàdémontré en détailpour Bakassiet le feraplus tard pour la région
dulac Tchad,etje me permetsde vous yréférer.
71.J'enviens, Monsieurle présidentà ma conclusion,etelleest brève.
72. Le principe de l'uti possidetisjuris joue un rôle stabilisateur utileen droit international,
en marquant unepause pour prise d'inventaireau moment de l'indépendance,pour que le nouvel
Etat commence sa vie internationale avec un bilan territorial claMais il n'ajoute rienà cet
inventaire nià ce bilan. Et surtout, il n'arrêtepas une fois pour toute le fonctionnement des
processus normaux du droit international déclenchépsar les transactions et les interactions des
sujets de droit avant comme après l'indépendance;processus qui, en permettant le changement
pacifiqueconformémentaudroit, remplissentégalement unrôle stabilisateur.
Je vous remercie, Monsieur le président, Madameet Messieurs de laCour. Etje vous prie
d'appelerà labarre le HajiAbdullahi Ibrahim,coagentde la RépubliquefédéralduNigéria.
Le PRESIDENT :Je vous remercieMonsieur le professeur. 1now give the floorto Alhaji
AbdullahiIbrahim CON,SAN, Co-Agentof Nigeria. Vous avez laparole.
Mr. IBRAHIM:
INTRODUCTIONTOTHE LAND BOUNDARY
1. Mr.President, Members of the Court, it is an honour for me, once again, to have this
opportunityto addressthismost distinguishedCourt.
2. It falls to me to open Nigeria's presentationof its case concerning the land boundary
between Nigeria and Cameroon- and by "land boundary" 1 mean the boundary betweenLakeChad and Bakassi: the boundary actually in those two areas is dealt with elsewhere in the
presentation ofNigeria'scase.
3. Cameroonhas chosenthese proceedingsas the vehicle forclaiming thatthe land boundary
is in dispute. But there was no "live" dispute at the time, nor was there any previous attemptby
Cameroonto holdcomprehensiveintergovernrnentalnegotiationswithNigeria about anyboundary
dispute. Indeed,Cameroonthoughtso little aboutthe matterthat it onlybrought it beforethe Court
asanafterthought,in its AdditionalApplicationfiledon 6 June 1994.
4. The Court, in its Judgment on Nigeria's Preliminary Objections,held that there was a
dispute in relation to Tipsan. Apart fiom that one disputed area- a matter to which 1 shall
return- the situationwe nowhave is one in which the differences betweenthe Parties reallyboil
down to this: are the applicable boundary instruments,about the identity of which the Parties
agree,sufficientlyclearand comprehensible?
5. Cameroon says "Yes". Nigeria's answeris more prudent; Nigeria's answer is: "Yes,
except only in relation to some 22 specified locations,where the delimitation as such is either
defective or where the meaning of the delimitation has been put in question by Cameroon's
conduct." Nigeria accordingly submits that the Court should address these problems of
delimitation,inorderthat bothParties can be in no continuingdoubtas to the delimitationof their
cornmonboundary. Only in that way canthe Court complywith Cameroon'sinitialrequestto the
Court to "specify definitively"the land boundary- a request to which Nigeria holds Cameroon,
andwhich Cameroonis not unilaterallyentitledto withdraw.
6. Before embarkinguponthe substantiveissueswhich thesedifferencesbetweenthe Parties
raise, it may assistthe Court if 1first Saya few wordsabout the geography and topography ofthe
land boundary area, about the cartographic realities, and about the state of relations between
Nigeriaand Cameroonalongthelength of Ourcommonland boundary.
7. First, then, let me Say something about the geography and topography of the land
boundaryarea.
8. The land boundary is long - some 1,200miles,or 1,800km. It is topographicallyand
climatically extremelyvaried. In the north it passesthrough the hodry plains around Lake Chad
some 300 m. abovesea level. It then passes throughthe cultivatedhigh ground of the MandaraMountains at 1,000 m.before following a series of rivers down to the Benue and Faro Rivers.
From here, it climbs once again to around 1,000m. to follow the crest of the remote Alantika
mountains. Aftera short stretch in lowercountry, it then rises up into the high grasslandsof the
Marnbilla Plateau, passing the summit of Nigeria's highestmountain, Chappal Warri at over
2,400m. on the way. From Mambilla, it graduallydescends to the savannah woodland zone,
sometimesfollowing rivers, sometimescrossingthe grainof the land in longstraightlines. Finally
it entersthe rainforestsof the coastalbelt asfar asthe
9. Temperatures can range from 45°C in the north to freezing on the Mambilla Plateau.
Annual rainfall can be as low as 200mm on Lake Chad, and as high as 5m. on the Coast.
Moreover, the impact of seasonal changes of weather can be very substantial. There can be
extensiveflooding,withroads oftenbecomingimpassable; andin the dryseasonriverscan dry up.
10.It is apparent that,for substantialparts of its length, theboundary passesghremote
and inhospitableareas which are only sparsely inhabited.Yet in some areas the climate and the
landare benign,andthere are sectionsof the boundarywhich, onboth sides,are heavily populated
and fmed.
11. For the most partthe boundary is delimitedwith accurate clarity, but for most of its
lengthit has not been demarcated on the ground. Even so, local fmers and villagers will often
havea good understanding ofwhere the boundaryus. Populationslivingon the two sides of the
borderwill often befrom the same families,and will oftenbe closelyrelated. They will naturally
comefrom similarbackgroundsand willsharemany localinterests. Onbothsidesofthe boundary,
what characterizestheir lives is pnmarily the businessof making a livelihood, oftenin physically
difficultconditions.
12. Mr. President, let me now turnto the cartographicrealities. Some 1,200miles, or
1,800 km, of land boundary has been delimited by four principal instruments- or five, if the
Milner-Simon Declaration of 1919 is counted as a separate instrument from the
Thomson-MarchandDeclaration of 1929-1931 which superseded it. The other three instruments
are the British Order in Council of 1946, and the two Anglo-German Treaties of March and
April 1913. Nigeria has drawn attention to a number of boundary areas where there are
delimitation problems. Al1 involved only the Thomson-Marchand Declarationor the Order inCouncil of 1946. 1will draw the Court's attentiononlyto certain aspectsof the mapping whichis
particularlyrelevanttothose twoinstruments.
13.Usually maps are introducedinto the record of a case as evidence of title to disputed
temtory, showing, so it is alleged,that that territory has been depictedas belongingto oneide or
the other. But that is not theurpose forwhich maps areprimarilyrelevant in relation tothe land
boundaryin this present case.
14. Although in a sense any boundary determination affects the extent of the territorial
sovereignty of one side or the other, in the present proceedings that is only an incidental
consequenceof the case. Subjectonly to certain specificdeficienciesto which Nigeriahas drawn
attention,Nigeria acceptsthat the landboundaryis delimitedby the instrumentswhichbothParties
agree to be relevant. The real issue,as Cameroonhas requested andas Nigeria accepts,concerns
the needto "speciQ definitively"the landboundaryas delimited bythose instruments.
15. For that purpose, maps are relevant, first, to the topographical accuracy of the
delimitationin the respectiveinstruments. They are alsorelevant, second,becausecertain maps of
officia1Cameroonianprovenanceare evidence of Cameroon'sassertion of a boundary whichdoes
not conformwith the boundaryasdelimitedin the instrumentson which Cameroonitselfrelies.
16. Now let me mention the matter of scale, which is directly relevant to a map's
topographical accuracyand completeness. Nowadays boundarydelimitations,and the delineation
of the resultant boundaryon a map, would not normallybe undertaken on the basis of mapsof a
scale smallerthan 1 in 50,000. At 1 in 50,000,natural features relevantto the delimitationof the
boundary can be identified, and such a map would also be technically appropriate for any
demarcation which might takeplace inthe future.
17.Theutilityofmaps atthat scalemaybe comparedwiththe maps officiallyaccompanying
the imrnediatelyrelevant instruments.First,the Order in Councilcan be ignoredin this respect: it
was not accompanied by any map forming an integral part of the instrument. Second, the
Thomson-Marchand Declarationdid determine a boundaryline which was describedin the Annex
to the Declarationandwas "tracedon themapannexedhereto". Thatannexedmapwas preparedat
a scale of 1in 1million, a scalemanifestly too small for effective andaccuratedelimitation. The
Milner-Simon Declaration which precededthe Thomson-Marchand Declaration,in addition tomaking use of Moisel's map, used an even smaller scale to illustrate its description of the
fiontier- 1in2 million. Foraccuratedelimitationpurposesitis quiteuseless.
18. 1 should remind the Court of another feature of the rnap annexed to the
Thomson-Marchand ~eclaration'. The rnap published with the printed version of the
1931 Exchangeof NotesembodyingtheThomson-MarchandDeclaration was not thernapannexed
by Thomsonand Marchandto their Declaration; indeed,thepublishedrnaponly becameavailable
some monthsaJterthe Exchange of Notes wassigned; and it was in any event not an agreed
Anglo-Frenchmap.
19. Let me mentionanother important map,which features largely inthese proceedings.
This is the rnap preparedby the GermancartographerMoisel. His map, publishedin various
editions between 1908 and1913, wasused as the base rnap for several of the delimitation
agreements. But its scalewas only 1in300,000: atthat scalethe abilityofMoisel'srnapto record
relevant features accuratelyenough to serve as a sufficientlydetailedboundaryrnapwas limited.
Moreover,hisunderstandingof the topography wasalso limited.
20. It is forhesereasons,Mr.President and Membersof the Court,that Nigeriahas, in its
Counter-Memorial andRejoinder,madefiequentreferenceto two modem series of maps, as the
most technically appropriatemaps availablefor the purpose. These are both at a scale of 1 in
50,000. Oneseries wasproducedbetween1965and 1969 forthe Government ofNigeriaby the
(British) Directorate of Overseas Survey; the other was produced by the French Institut
GéographiqueNational in the 1960s. Of course, at the time when the boundarywas being
delimited in the various relevant instrumentsmaps at such a scale did not exist, so no blame
attachesto thefact thatthey were notused. Butneverthelessthat cannotlead the Courtto ignore
the evidentinadequaciesofthe earlier smallerscalemaps.
21. Leaving asidethe questionof rnap scales,let me addressthe matter of the reliabil-ty
or rather, the relative unreliability- of many of the older mapswhich are relevant tothe land
boundary. If, for exarnple,we take Moisel'smap,not onlydidits scaleseriouslylimit itsabilityto
record relevant featuresaccurately enough, but its manner of preparation compounded that
'~ejoinderofNigeria,Vol. II,pp.307-308,pa(4)..37limitation. Moisel'smap was dependentfor its contentupon reportsfiom Germantravellersin the
region. Ifno travellershad penetrated a particulararea,that area wouldeitherbe lefi blankon the
map orbe represented in a very generalizedand ofienincorrect way. This is vividly illustratedby
Article25 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration. This concerns a stretch of the boundary about
which Mr. Macdonald will Say more in due course. For the moment just let me recall that
Article25 requires that the boundary shouldadhere to "the incorrectline of the watershed shown
by Moiselon his map". 1repeat,"the incorrect line ofthe watershed": the partiesin 1929knewof
this clear,and important, errorinMoisel'smap.
22. It is undeniable, of course, that modem mapping, basedon aerial photography, satellite
imageryand GPStechnology, is, topographically,vastlymore accuratethan the older mapsrelied
on in preparing the earlier delimitation texts. The very high degree of accuracy attainable in
modemmapping has two particular consequences. Firstit is in partpreciselybecause of that level
of accuracythat the delimitationin those earlier texts can in someplaces be seen to be defective.
Second,features described in the older delimitationsare not alwayseasy toidentiQ with features
shownon the more accurate andlarger scalemodem maps.
23. This particular difficulty is made more complicated by the fact that none of the
principally relevant instruments delimits the boundary by reference to any geographical
CO-ordinates,apartfiom a solemention in the Anglo-GermanTreatyof March 1913,which isnot
relevanthere. They al1delimit the boundaryby referenceto geographical features. Nor, indeed,
does Cameroon in its Additional Applicationor Memorial or Reply propose any geographical
CO-ordinatesfor the various relevant points along the boundary, with the sole exception of its
proposedlocation for the mouthof the EbejiRiver - amatter to which SirArthurWatts willrefer
in a moment. This studied lack of geographical CO-ordinatesmakes the task of interpreting
accuratelythe delimitationagreed byreferenceto naturalfeatures al1the more dificult, and makes
deficienciesof scaleand accuracyin the availableolder maps al1the more significant. In orderto
"specifj definitively" the boundary, which is what Cameroon as the Applicant has asked for,
geographicalCO-ordinatesare an unavoidable elementin any delimitation. The older instruments
do not provide them; Cameroon does not provide them. Nigeria, however, has providedco-ordinatesfor al1appropriate locations along the land boundary, as set out in the Appendix to
Chapter8 of its Rejoinder.
24. So far as concems Nigeria-Cameroonrelations along theland boundary, Cameroonhas
soughtin its original Additional Applicationand in itssubsequentwritten pleadings,and againjust
a few days ago in these hearings, to characterizethe land boundaryas an area of major discord
betweenthe Parties, with thewhole boundarybeing disputed and major incidentsoccurringalong
the lengthof the landboundary. Mr. President,any such characterizationof relations betweenthe
Partiesinrelation tothe landboundarybearsabsolutelynorelation tothe truth.
25. We have heard a lot fiom Cameroonduringthese hearings to the effect that Nigeria is
destabilizing the whole boundary. This is quite untrue. 1 wouldjust make two points. First,
drawingattentionto a dozen specificand limited locationsin whichthe delimitationsare defective
does absolutelynothing to destabilizethe whole boundary. Let us get the perspective right: the
defective areas account for some 210km of the boundary, whilethe whole boundary is some
1,800 kmlong.
26. My secondpoint is this. Far fiom destabilizingthe boundary, Nigeria wishes onlyto
avoidproblems in the future. Clarifying thedozen areasof delimitationdificulty is preciselyone
way of avoiding future problems; so too is correcting Cameroon's conduct in those other nine
locationswhere Cameroon is itself not observing the clear terms of the boundary instruments.
Certainîy,and thus stability, Mr. President,are exactlywhat Nigeria seeks fiom the Court in the
present proceedings. That is why Nigeriais insistent that Cameroon cannot back away fiom its
requestto the Courtto speciQ the landboundaryin detail.
27. Of course, with a boundary of somewhat over 1,000miles,passing in parts through
difficultcountry, and largely .undemarcated,there are bound to be occasional local difficultiesin
ensuringa proper level of whatmay be termed "boundarymanagement". It is inevitablethat fiom
time to time there will be local incidents, as is only to be expected inagricultural border areas
wherefamily and tribal affinities havefor generationspaid more regard to the struggle to make a
livelihoodthan to the niceties of border arrangements. Such incidents will involve people fiom
both sides of the boundary. But the essenceof such incidents lies in the word "local": they are
local incidents, involvinglocal populationsand localproblems,such as local farming rights, localcornrnunities,and local law and order. Most importantly, they are problems which are typically
settled locally. What they are not,by any stretchof the imagination,is some manifestationof an
extensiveboundary disputebetweenthe two States.
28. In fact, inter-Staterelationsalong the boundaryas a whole are,in al1the circumstances,
remarkably pacific and undisputatious. ForCarneroonto pretend that there is between ourtwo
States a majorinternationaldisputeabout the boundaryisabsurd.
29. It is absurd on the facts. Cameron never allegedin diplomaticor other correspondence
or dialogue with Nigeria that there was a dispute over the whole boundary, which the Parties
should seekto resolve. On the facts, there is no evidence of any over-arching boundary dispute
between the two States. The Courthas acknowledgedthe correctnessof Nigeria's positionin this
respect. Inits Judgmenton the Preliminary Objectionsthe Court said:
"The occurrenceof boundary incidentscertainlyhas to be taken into accountin
this context. However, not every boundary incident implies a challengeto the
boundary. Also, certain of the incidents referredto by Cameroontook place in areas
which are difficult to reach and where the boundary demarcation may have been
absent or imprecise. And not every incursion or incident alleged by Cameroon is
necessarily attributableto persons for whose behaviourNigeria'sresponsibilitymight
be engaged. Eventaken togetherwith the existing boundary disputes [herethe Court
was referring to those which it found to exist in Lake Chad, Bakassi and Tipsan]the
incidents and incursions reported by Cameroon do not establish by themselves the
existence of a dispute conceming al1 of the boundary between Cameroon and
Nigeria." (P.315,para. 90.)
30. Cameroon's suggestion that there exists a major boundary dispute is also absurd in
substance: for there is nothing of that nature for the Parties to have a dispute about. Al1that
Cameroon did persuade the Courtof, Mr.President,was that - as the passage 1havejust quoted
shows- there was a boundary dispute at Tipsan. It involved, so Cameroon said and Nigeria
denied, a Nigerian occupation of Carneroonian territory by building and operating a Nigexian
immigration postat Tipsan. SirArthurWatts will deal laterwith this matter in somedetail, and 1
willjust makeone comment. Cameroonhasnow admittedthatthe post is "indisputablysituatedin
Nigerian territoryf12.So, Mr. President,the onlyland boundarydisputewhich the Court identified
and which wasthe basis for the Court's rejectionof Nigeria's preliminary objectionabout the land
boundary,now turns outto havebeenbased entirelyon Cameroon'snow admittederror.
2~eplyofCameroonp, ar4.99. 31.Cameroonnow seeksfiom the Court an affirmationof the land boundary in termsset out
in the fourdirectlyrelevant instruments. Mr.President,ifthat was al1that Cameroonwanted,there
was no need for Cameroonto trouble this Court. Nigeria has made it clear that it has no wish to
overturnthose instruments,orto denytheirlegal validity inrelationto the landboundary.
32. As 1said at the outset,what dividesthe Parties in these proceedings, so far as concerns
the landboundary,is the adequacyof a simpleaffirmationof the relevant instruments. Cameroon,
as the Applicant, originally requested the Court to "specifj definitively" the course of the
boundary, but then went on to proposethatthe Court coulddo so simplyby endorsingthe terms of
those instruments. Cameroonthen, in its Reply andinthese proceedings, soughtto resile fromthis
position and seems no longer to be seeking fiom the Court a "definitive specification" of the
boundary,having first tried- wrongly - to attributetoNigeriathe introductionof thatphrase.
33.Nigeria regrets that Cameroonis seeking to back away fromits originalrequestthat the
Court should specifi the line of the landboundary with adequateprecision to enable an effective
demarcationto take place. Indeed Cameroonhaving, as the Applicant, initially madethis request
of the Court,Nigeria does not, as explainedin its ~ejoinde?, acceptthis attemptby Cameroonto
withdraw this issue from the Court. Nor is Cameroon permitted to do so. This Court, in the
Barcelona Traction case, considered the extent of an applicant State's right to discontinue
proceedings, andthenght oftheRespondentto objectto discontinuance. The Courtsaid:
"The right of objectiongivento a respondentStatewhichhas taken a step in the
proceedingsis protective,to enableit to insist onthe case continuing,with a viewto
bringing about a situationof resjudicata; or in other words (perhaps more pertinent
for the present case), to enable it to ensure that the matter is fully disposed of for
g~~d.'d
34.Mr. Presidentand Membersof the Court, Nigeria welcomes a definitive specification of
the landboundary. But it willnotbe achieved by merelyreaffirmingthe relevantinstruments.
35,Nor is it enough as a practicalmatter - that is, as a means of givingthe Partiesand.the
populations in border areas clear guidanceas to preciselywhere their cornrnonboundary lies, so
that they can better avoid the kind of minor fiontier altercationswhich are otherwise unavoidable
along sucha 1,800km landboundary.
3~ejoinderofNigeria, Vol.II,p11-313paras.6.41-6.44.
4 ~ .Reports1964,p.20. 36.Nigeria believes that a detailed specificationof the land boundary is necessaryif border
problemsare to be avoided andthe matter "fully disposed offor good". A detailed specificationis
also needed if any eventual demarcationis to be able to take place on a sound basis, since as
Nigeria has shown in its written pleadings and will show in the next few days, the terms of the
instruments on which Cameroon is now content to rely are in places manifestly defective.
Althoughthis will be argued morefully by SirArthur Watts, let me here just say that the defects
are not mere mattersof demarcation,to be swept under the carpet until someuncertain future date.
It is the delimitationsin themselves the delimitationsassuch - which causetheproblems.
37. It is thosedelimitationdeficiencies- and 1mustemphasize,those deficienciesalone -
which have caused Nigeria to qualifi its acceptanceof the relevant boundary instrumentsby the
words "in principle", a usage in which Cameroon professesto see some sinister evasion on
Nigeria'spart. Mr.President, as 1am surethe Court will appreciate,it is nothing of the sort. As
Nigeria has fiom the outset noted,the relevantinstrumentscontain a number of deficiencies; we
will make this abundantly clear in the coming sessions. If Nigeria had stated as a general
propositionthat it accepted a boundarydelimitationknownand sincerelybelievedto be defective,
Nigeria would have misled the Court, and it would not have contributed to securing a clear
settlement of the boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon. Those deficiencies have al1been
explainedin full in Nigeria's wriîtenpleadings: nothing has been passed over in silence. Subject
onlyto those ident8ed deficiencies,Nigeria - let me repeat- acceptsthe delimitation ofthe land
boundary on the basis of the relevant boundaryinstrumentson which Cameroon relies,and which
Nigeriaalso accepts.
38.Mr. President,1have triedto givethe Court a generalperspective in which to consider
the land boundary issues which Cameroon has brought before the Court. Those issues affect
specificareas of theland boundary. They coverrelatively limited stretchesofthe landboundary -
only some 140miles,or 210km,out of thetotallength ofabout 1,200miles,or 1,800 km.
39. Nigeria has explainedin its Counter-Memorial,and even more fully in its Rejoinder,the
particular issues ofdifficulty5. Nigeria has nowish to burdenthe Court by repeatingnow al1that
pp.317-397,paras7.1-7.204. Nigeria, Vol.II, p509-535, paras19.1-19.55; Rejoinderof Nigeria, Vol.II,has been said in those pleadings. Nigeria believes, however,that it will assist the Court if
somethingis now saidto explainfurther,withthe help of graphics, someof the more complicated
of thesespecificland boundary issues.This,Mr.President,will be thetask of SirArthurWattsand
Mr. AlastairMacdonald.
40.Accordingly,Mr. President,may 1now inviteyou to cal1on SirArthur Wattsto continue
the presentationof this partof Nigeria's caseut perhapsafter a coffeebreakifthe Courtwould
prefer.Thank you, Mr.President.
LePRESIDENT : Je vous remercie. J'ai l'impressionque la préférede sirArthurWatts
est égalementpour une pause maintenant. Donc la séance estsuspendue pour une dizaine de
minutes. Merci.
L'audienceestsuspenduede II h20 à II h30.
Le PRESIDENT : Veuillez vous asseoir. La séanceest reprise et je donne maintenantla
parole, aunom de laRépubliquefédérale duNigéria,à sirArthur Watts.
SirArthurWATTS: Thankyou, Mr.President.
LAND BOUNDARY
1.Mr.President and Membersof the Court,in consideringthe landboundary betweenLake
Chad andBakassi,the Parties,1am happy to Say,agreeon one thing. Both Partiesagree uponthe
instrumentswhich arerelevant,andwhich theyrefer to collectivelyasthe boundary instrumentsor,
simply, therelevant instruments. Andthose instrumentsare,listing themin the orderin whichthey
delimittheboundary fromnorthto south:
- the Thomson-Marchand Declaration of 1929-1931, which amplified and superseded the
Milner-SimonDeclarationof 1919;
- theBritishOrderinCouncilof 1946;
- theAnglo-GermanTreatyofApnl1913;
- and,subjectto the particularproblem ofthe so-called"Bakassi provisions",the Anglo-German
Treaty ofMarch 1913. 2. Beyond that, however,the Parties differ. Cameroon'sposition is, simply: "confirm the
treaties". In effect, confirmthem as they stand,as they werewhen agreed in, as the case maybe,
1913, 1929-193 1 or 1946; confirm them in disregard of any improvements in cartographic
techniqueortopographicalknowledge overthepastthree quartersof a centq or so; confirmthem
in disregard ofanything whichmay have happenedsincethen - except, of course,in relationto
the mouth of the Ebedji, where Cameroon itselffinds it convenient to rely on more recent
developments.
3. Nigeria submits that Cameroon'sapproachis the wrong approach. Merelyto confirmthe
boundary instruments in their out-of-date ternis will do nothing to resolve such boundary
differencesas exist betweenthe Parties, or prevent others in the future. So,Nigeria's approachis
differentfiom Cameroon's,butjust as simple,andit hasbeenconsistentlyexpressed: in short,it is
in effect- "confirm theboundaryinstruments,butbe surethatthey are intelligiblefirst".
4. In a number of respects those instruments are,as delimitations, defective, or they have
beenappliedby Carneroonin a way whichis manifestlyat variance with their terms. Consequently
forthe Courtsimply to confirmthat thoseinstrumentsdelimitthe boundarywill onlyperpetuatethe
deficiencies, not curethem. Only when they are cured will the Court have complied with the
request presentlybefore it,narnelyto "specifj definitively"the land boundary. Andonly thenwill
the delimitation be sufficiently effective to enable the Parties to tm to the task of boundary
demarcation.
5. Cameroon,however,professes to believethat, not only will Nigeria'sattempt to openup
questions of interpretation of the boundary instruments have the effect of undermining those
instruments,but that that isindeedNigeria'sveryaim. Nothingcould be furtherfromthe truth,on
bothcounts,asthe distinguished Co-AgentforNigeria hasjustexplained.
6. There is no way in which the interpretation of a few provisions of the boundary
instrumentscould underminethe wholeedificeof Nigeria-Cameroonboundary arrangements.
7. Nigeria has been both specific, and limited,about the particular locations which it has
raised in its pleadings. Leaving aside Bakassi, which is outside the scope of the present "land
boundary" issues, Nigeria has identifiedjust 22 specific locations as calling for some kind of
consideration. 8. Moreover, talking of even 22locations, Mr.President and Membersof the Court,
overstatesthe extentofthe problemsperceivedby Nigeria. As the headingsin Nigeria'sRejoinder
make abundantly clear,those 22locationsfa11into two categories. First are thosewhich involve
"Areas of Defective Delimitation": andthere are 13 such areas. The second categov is,
"Cameroon'sFailureCorrectlyto ApplyTheAgreedDelimitation": andthere arenine suchareas.
So it is apparent thatit is only in 13placesthat Nigeria,of its own initiative, drawsthe Court's
attentiontothe boundary'sdefectivedelimitation.And1wouldaddthat of those 13,Cameroonhas
alreadyagreedwithNigeriathattwo ofthemare indeed defective: thedelimitationofthemouthof
the Ebedji, where Cameroonputs forward its own alternative delimitation6- andboundary
pillar64, where Cameroon in these hearings has in terms accepted Nigeria's proposed
interpretation7.
9. None of this amountsto Nigeria disputing the whole boundary8. Nor does it, by any
stretch of the imagination,"undermine"the boundary. Such exaggeration simply demonstrates
Cameroon'sdesperation. Asto whattherealityis, Mr.President, let mequote: "forthe verygreat
partofitstotal lengththe boundarydoesnotpose any difficultiesat all", althoughthere areindeed
difficulties"in a small number of spotsw9. Those are not Nigeria'swords, but admissionsby
counselforCameroon.
10.But letmego back tothe specificproblem locations, and look alittlemoreclosely atthe
nine whereNigeria raised delimitation problemsbecauseit was driven to do so by Cameroon's
manifestfailureto complywiththe termsof the delimitation instruments.Thosenine accountfor
nearlyhalfofthe outstandingproblem areas.
11.Nigeria submitsthatthere is absolutelyno roomfor doubtthat in theseareasCameroon
has failed,and is failing today,to complywith the termsof the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
and the 1946 Order in Council: they referto a watershed,but Cameroon adopts a boundary
6~~ 200212,p.40, para.82(Cot).
'CR200212,p. 70,para.27 (Shaw).
*CR200211,p.27, para.1 1(Ali).
'CR 202012,p.55,para.20 (Khan).nowherenear a watershed; they refer to a river, but Carneroonplacesthe boundary somewhere
else,ortheyrefer tooneriver andCameroon choosesanother; and soon.
12.Nigeriahas only raisedthese nine casesbecauseCameroonhad itself departedfiomthe
line so clearly laiddownby the boundary instrument:becauseCameroondid so, Nigeria had to
inferthattheremustbe divergentviewsasto theinstruments' interpretation. BuitnNigeria'sview
the instruments are abundantly clear, and Nigeria would welcome Cameroonabiding by their
terms.
13.Mr.Presidentand Membersof the Court,there are,as 1have said, 22 specificlocations
in relationto whichthe delimitationexts needto be clarified. Nigeriadoes not wishto speakto
each and everyone ofthese locationsduringthisproceeding. They are set out in fiil1in Nigeria's
~ejoinder". Withoutin any waydetractingfromwhat has been said there, Mr.Macdonaldand 1
will dealwith onlysomeof hem, in order to demonstratethesortsof problems whichhave arisen
and whichin Nigeria's submissionneedto be resolvedbeforethe delimitation oftheboundarycan
be regardedas settled.
14. Contrary tothe view expressedby the Agent for ~ameroon", Nigeria is not askingthe
Court to involveitselfin mattersof minute detail. Nigeriaacceptsthat, as counselfor Cameroon
correctly said, "purelytechnical" mattersshouldbe left for demarcation12.But, as will become
apparent,Nigeriais raising issues whichare farfrom beingpurely technical: rather,they involve
sometimes substantialpieces of territory and sometimes substantialnurnbers of people, and
sometimesboth.
15. The soundnessof Nigeria's distinction between'purely technical" demarcation matters
and substantivedelimitation issueswillhope,Mr.President, become clearas Mr.Macdonald and
1set aboutour task. In fact, the first"defectivedelimitation" which1shouldliketo explainto the
Court illustratesthepointvery clearly. Itinvolvesa locationwhich has alrebeenmentioned.
'kejoinderoNigeri Chap.7.
"CR 200211,p.30para21.
"CR 200212,p.55para.19.Themouthof theEbedji
16.Travelling down from north to south, the land boundary starts on the shores of Lake
Chad. Thelocator map,at tab 33 inthejudges' foldersandnow on the screen,showswhere onthe
boundary the area is: at that same tab is also the relevant text fiom the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration. This arrangement,Mr.President - a locator map, plus the text fiom the relevant
instrument,at the firsttab for eachboundary area beingdiscussed- will be followedthroughout
this pleading.
17. The very first point on the land boundary is set out in Article2 of the
Thomson-MarchandDeclaration.Theland boundary beginsat "the mouthof the Ebeji"and thence
"from thismouth" followsthe courseof the Ebedji,and so on. Article2, it will be noted, doesnot
definethismouth byreferenceto a setof CO-ordinates.
18.The crucial term, therefore, Mr. President, is the "mouth of the Ebeji". It sounds
straightforward. Butit is not, fortworeasons. Anaerial photographis now on the screen: acopy
is at tab 34 in the judges' folders. First-and as a generalpoint- in a situationlikethat onthe
shores of Lake Chad, where the edges of the lake are variable, the location of the "mouth" of a
river callsfor accuratedefinition.
19.Second,andmore specifically,the assumptionin the text of Article2 thatthe Ebedji has
a singlemouth is incorrect: as the photograph shows,it has two main channelswiththeir separate
mouths, as well as a nurnber of lesser channels. Cameroon acceptsthat the Ebedji has two
mouthsI3. While it is perhaps conceivable thatthe precise location of the single mouth of a river
could be left to a demarcationteam, the choice between two differentmouths is a matter which
cannotbe leftto them.
20.This is apparentnotjust fiomthe natureof the choice whichhas to be made,but fiomthe
history of the Parties' attempts toreach agreement about it. It is clearly avery difficulter. It
was considered by national technicalexperts appointed within the hework of the LakeChad
Basin Commission. In 1988, thoseexperts proposed ageographicpoint,identifiedby CO-ordinates,
which was to be treatedas the mouthof the Ebedji. In circumstancesfully explainedin Nigeria's
I3~eplofCameroonp, 107,para.3.20.~ejoinder'~,this proposa1was referred tothe 1996Surnrnitof the Lake ChadBasin Commission
forsignature. But that Summitmerelydecided "to deferdiscussionof the issue",and it authorized
the President of the Surnrnitto contact the Heads of State of Nigeria and Cameroon to find an
amicable solution to the problem. So at the end of a difficult process lasting several years, the
questionwas expressZydeferredby the Sumrnititself,and acknowledged stilltobe outstanding,and
no finaldecisionwas takenonthe experts'proposals.
21. Thathistory aloneis enoughto show that thiswas not somethingwhichcouldbe left to a
demarcation team. It also shows that the CO-ordinates selected by the technical expertswere not
agreed by the two States, and that the underlying problem still existed and called for future
settlement. Thereis thereforenojustification for Cameroonto seekto rely onthose CO-ordinatea s s
fixing a position for the mouth of the Ebedji which has been agreed between Cameroon and
Nigeria. It has notbeen agreed.
22. Neverîheless, in puttingforwardits own interpretationCameroonclearly admitsthat the
baretems ofArticle2 oftheThomson-MarchandDeclarationwereacknowledgedby Cameroonas
well as Nigeria as not sufficient asa delimitation of the boundary. Cameroonthus admits that
wherethose terms are inadequate,they need to be supplementedor clarifiedin some way in order
to produce an effective boundary delimitation. That, of course, is precisely Nigeria's position,
whichotherwiseCameroon rejects.
23. Moreover,Mr.PresidentandMembersoftheCourt, notonly wasthepoint chosenby the
technical expertsas the mouthof the Ebedji not agreed,but it is also inappropriate. Themapping
reliedupon by the experts was, as Nigeriahas shownin its ~ejoinder'~,seriously defective. And
the result of their work was to select as the mouth of a river a point which has no well-defined
channelleadingto it: werethat result tobe adopted,we would have createdaunique geographical
feature- a river mouth without any river leading to it! And Cameroon admitsthat the point it
proposesas themouth of theEbedji is at a locationwherethere is in fact no rivermouth16.Yet the
I4~ejoindofNigeria,pp.324-325,paras.7.12-7.13.
"~ejoinderofNigeria,pp.327-328,para.7.19.
1 6 200212,p.41, para.83.one thingabout whichthis part of the Thomson-MarchandDeclarationis clear is thatthe boundq
hasto be atthe "mouth"of a river.
24.Mr. President,Nigeria recognizesthat this wholeproblem is difficult. The only agreed
languagewehave isthephrase "themouthoftheEbeji". Andthat is a geographicalreference. Yet
the geographyof the irnmediatearea is complex. There is a wide variationin the water levelsof
Lake chad", which has continuedover manyyears. As a matter of geography,it is difficultto fix
the mouth of a river which flows out into a lake whose area varies continuously overthe years,
especiallywhen large parts of the lake dry up, leaving the area of water miles away fiom the
channelsof rivers flowinginto it.
25. Nigeria submitsthat there is assistanceto be gained fiom modern aerial photography.
Again on the screen, and at tab 34 in the judges' folders, is the aerial photograph whichyou saw
earlier. It shows clearlywherethe river flowsin fiom thebottomof thepicture andthen bifurcates
into the two main channels: one goes in a north-easterlydirection, the other in a northerly or
north-westerly direction.
26. A choice has to be made. The basis for making the choice is, in a sense, clear: it
requireschoosingthemoreimportantchannel,orthe majorchannelasit is sometimesput. But itis
not atal1clearwhat criteriaapply in determiningthe mainchannel of a riverin circumstancessuch
as those of the Ebedji. Cameroon produced what it said was relevant evidence about the
waterco~rse'~ but as thiswas new evidencewhichwas on its face datedJanuary 2002and had not
previouslybeen submitted,Nigeria hasnot beenable to studyit, and submitsthat the Court should
ignoreit.
27. Cameroon has also invokedI9 a passage fiom the Court's Judgment in the
Kasikili/SeduduIslandcase2'. There the Court said that "the determination ofthe main channel
must be made accordingto the lowwater baselineand not the flood1ine"'l. Both before andafter
that passage,however, the Court consideredthe depth of the competingchannels (at para. 32),the
"~eeReplyof CameroonM, ap R3.
"~ocurnents19Februar2002,Docs1914,2014,2114.
1CR200212,p.43,paras.90 etseq.(Cot).
"1.c.J. Reports 1999.
''~tpara.37.volume ofwater they cany (para.33), the profile of their beds (para. 39), and their navigability
(para.40).
28. In consideringthis issue, Mr.President andMembersof the Court,Nigeria submitsthat
above al1 else there is one basic rule- namely, each river is subject to its own particular
circumstances. The Court, inthe Kasikili/Sedudu Islandcase,was not, in Nigeria's submission,
laying dom generalcriteriafor the determinationof any majorchannel, applicabletoal1riversand
al1situationsinwhich a choicehas to bemadebetweentwo ormoreriver channels.
29. So far as concernsthe River Chobe - which was the only riverwith which the Court
was concernedin the Kasikili/Sedudu Islandcase- the Court'sfmding thatthe determinationof
the main channelhad to be made at low water wasclearlyrelatedto the particular situation of the
Chobe River, forthe Court found that it couldnot use a high-water criterion,it could not use the
floodline,because:
"when the river is in flood, the Island is submergedby flood water and the entire
regiontakes on the appearanceof an enormouslake. Sincethe two channels arethen
no longerdistinguishable,it is not possible to determinethe main channel inrelation
to the other~hannel."~~
30. That is a descriptionspecificto the RiverChobe. The situation is quite different atthe
mouthof theEbedji.
31.Wherea river bifurcates intotwo separatechannels - which isthesituationatthe mouth
ofthe Ebedji - it is Nigeria's submissionthatthe test appliedby the CourtofArbitrationin theLa
Palenaarbitrati~n~o ~ffersappropriateguidance. ThatCourt,alsodealingwitha riverdividinginto
two tributaries, said that "In the Court's opinion the three principal criteriato be applied in a
problem of this kind are length, size of drainage area, and discharge." The Court's use of the
phrase "in a problem of thiskind" shows that the Court was not speaking only in relation tothe
particularriverbefore it.
32. Thesecond of these criteriadoesnot help inthe presentcase, sinceboth channels ofthe
Ebedji drawtheirwater fkomthe sameupstream drainagearea. But the othertwo considerations,in
Nigeria's submission, demonstrate that the north-easterlychannel is the moreimportant. Itis the
"~t para.37.
23~, Vol. 38,atpp.93-95: the fullquotationisgivenatRejoinderofNigeria,p.328,para.7.20.longerof the twochannels,it has a well-definedcourse,and it leadsto a more substantial outfallin
the area now marked"Pond". An enlargedsection ofthis photographis now on the screen, andis
attab 35 in thejudges' folders.
33. In Nigeria'ssubmission"the mouth of the Ebeji" intendedby the reference in Article 2
of the Thomson-MarchandDeclaration is located wherethat north-easternchannel flows into the
feature marked "Pond". From that point the terms of the Declarationcan be applied so that the
boundary runs upstream fiom that mouthof the Ebedji, followingthe middle of the north-eastern
channel until itmeetsthepoint wheretheEbedjibifurcatesinto itstwomain channels.
34. Theprecise terms in which such an intentioncould be expressed are given in Nigeria's
Rejoinder,atparagraphs7.21-7.25.
Jimbare
35. Mr.President, let me now turn to the situation at Jimbare. This is located just over
halfwaydownthe sketch of boundary coveredby theThomson-MarchandDeclaration: it is shown
onthe locatormapwhichis at tab 36inthejudges' folders, togetherwiththe relevanttexts.
36. The problems in this area arise out of the terms Articles 36 and 37 of the
Thomson-MarchandDeclaration.
37. Let mestartwithArticle 36. Article 36providesthat, startingfromthe southpeak of the
AlantikaMountains,the boundary goes"by the River Sassiri ... as far as the confluencewith the
firstStreamcomingfromthe BalakossaRange". The map at tab 37 inthejudges' foldersand now
onthe screenillustratesthe defect in thatlanguage. The southpeakof the Alantika Mountainsis at
the top right-hand corner. But the River Sassiri does not flow from these mountains: the river
flowingwestwardsfiom the south peakof the AlantikaMountainsis named the Leinde,or Lugga;
instead, theSassirican be seen flowingnorthwards from Nanaoua and fiom the direction of the
BalakossaRange,markedalong the bottomof themap: but eventhen the Sassiri doesnot meetthe
requirement of being "the firstStreamcoming fromthe BalakossaRange", since it has its source
not in the Balakossa Rangebut a shortdistancenorthof Nanaoua. The terms of Article 36,as they
stand,do not makesense. 38. Even though the problem mayarise from a simplemistaken referenceto the names and
descriptionsof rivers, the meaningof the text still needs clarifiing, since the discrepancy between
the language and realiv is too great to be left to a demarcationteam. Nigeria submits that the
intention of the negotiating parties was that, from the south peak of the Alantika Mountainsthe
8
boundaryfollowsthe River Leinde, or Lugga,until its confluence withthe River Sassiri,which is
the firstStreamcoming from the general direction ofthe Balakossa Mountains; theboundw
would then follow the Sassiri upstream. Specific language which would give effect to that
intentionis set outinNigeria'sRejoinder,atparagraph7.76.
39. Now letme turn toArticle 37. It givesrise to three separateproblems.
40. On the screen now is the area slightly to the south of the previous area. If the
explanation just offered by Nigeria about the boundary prescribed by the previous Article is
accepted,that Articlehad takenthe boundaryup the River Sassiri. That river is being pointedout,
at the top of the map, which is now on the screen. It stopsjust north of Nanaoua. Article37
followsthat apparent referenceto the RiverSassiriby sayingthat"Thence theboundaryrejoinsthe
old boundaryabout Lapeo in French temtory." Lapeo is at the right-hand edgeof the map: it is
beingpointed outnow, and isindeed clearlyin French,that is Carneroonian,temtory.
41. It is immediately apparent that there are two major problems. First, there is a large
unfilled gap between the source of the Sassiri at Nanaoua- or just north of Nanaoua- and
Lapeo; no indicationis givenas to how the boundary should traversethat gap. Second,andbeing
more specific, the gap is between the Sassiri and "the old boundary about Lapeo": butthere is
nothing to show where that "old bounday" was or what was meant by it. This stretch of the
boundary, perhapssome 3 or4 km long - one cannotbe precisewithout knowing wherethe "old
boundary"ismeantto be - isclearly defectivelydelimited.
42. The next problemto which Article37 givesrise derivesfrom its provision that, after the
referenceto the "old boundaryabout Lapeo" - whatever thatmay mean - the boundary follows
"the line of the watershedofthe Balakossarange as far as a point situatedto theWestof the source
oftheLabidjeor KadarnRiver". This part ofthe delimitationis defectivein atleast fourrespects.
(a) First, it is clearthat the boundary shouldsomehowget up on to the watershed ofthe Balkosa
Mountains. The approximateline of that watershedis being indicated on the screen now. So is Lapeo. There is a considerablegap between them. Not only is the "old boundary about
Lapeo" wholly obscure, but the means of linking that obscure point of reference to the
watershedisworse than obscure- it is absent.
(b) Second, the delimitation treats"Labidje" and "Kadam" as two differentnames for the same
river: but they arenot-- as the map on the screen shows,they are two quite separaterivers,
withtheir sourcesinvery differentplaces.
(c) Third,the assumptionin the textthat a watershedcan be followed withoutinterruptionarnong
the Balkosa Mountainsto a pointnear the sourceof eitherof those rivers is unfounded. If the
intentionwas to followthe watershedto the sourceof the Kadarn,theresult wouldbe to make
the boundary double back on itself- and then have nowhere to go. Obviously, nonsense.
But ifthe intentionwasto followthe watershedto the source of the Labidje River,then,asthe
map on the screen shows, this involves moving down from the watershed of the Baikosa
Mountains and crossing the Kadam River: those Mountains (near the bottom of the map,
marked "Hosere Ba1kosa"'- "Hosere" simplymeans bcmountains") descend in the east into a
lower and flatterarea, through which the River Kadarn flows on its way Mer south. The
sourceof theLabidje ison thefarside of the Kadam,so, inorder to getto that sourcefiom the
watershed along the Balkosa Mountains, the River Kadam has to be crossed somewhere.
Article37 makesnoprovisionforsuch a crossing.
(4 Fourth,Article37 takesthe boundarynot to thesourceofthe Labidje(orpossiblythe Kadam)
River, but "to the West of the source" of the river. One hundred metres to the west?
Onekilometre to the west? Fivekilometresto the west? Nobody knows: Article37 doesnot
help.
43. The final defect in Article37 - yes, there is onemore, Mr. President- arises fiom its
final words. The text of the Article is on the screen (and attab 36 in thejudges' folders). The
problem withthe final words is simple- theydo not make sense. The text stipulates that the
boundary runs to the point described "tothe Westof the source of the Labidje or Kadarn River,
which flows into the River Deo, and from the River Sarnpeeflowing into the River Baleo to the
north-west". It is the final words of this passage which cause difficulty: there is nothing in the
sentencetowhich thewords"and fiomthe RiverSampee"canrelate. 44. It is abundantly clear, Mr.President and Members of the Court, that in this Jimbare
sectorof the boundq, Articles36 and37 are riddledwith a seriesof defects which together create
quitea substantialproblemof delimitation.
45. As Nigeria has noted in its ~ejoinde?~, a fuller description of the boundary in this
sectionwas givenin a procès-verbal signedby Britishand Frenchofficials, Loganand LeBrun, in
1930~'. Nigeria is prepared to accept that Articles36 and 37 of the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration are to be understood in the light of the Logan-LeBrun procès-verbal. On that basis
Nigeria suggested in its Rejoinder how the text of those Articles should be understood in order
properly to giveeffect to theapparentintentionsofthe negotiatingparties26.
Sapeo
46. The next defective delimitation which 1 should like to draw to the Court's attention
concerns the area around Sapeo. It is, in fact, the area imrnediatelyto the south and west of the
Jimbarearea 1 havejust beendealingwith. The upper part ofthe map which is now onthe screen,
and at tab38 inthejudges' folders,isa lowerpartofthe map the Court sawa fewmomentsago -
the Court can see again, thistime at thetop of the map,the Bakosa Mountains,andjustto the left
of that there is the downstreamportion ofthe KadamRiver, while a little further downand to the
leftis the downstreamportionof the LabidjeRiver.
47. Therelevantprovisionof the Thomson-MarchandDeclarationisArticle38: the text is at
tab 36 in thejudges' folders. It startswith the words"From this point", which is a referenceback
to the last point determinedby the previous Article, Article37. As 1havejust explained,the last
part of Article37 is, to Saythe least, confused,andit is impossibleto giveclear meaningto it. So
Article 38beginswith a distinct lackofclarity.
48. But from that startingpoint- whatever it is- the Article stipulatesthat theboundary
continues "along the line of the watershed between the River Baleo and the River Noumberou
along the crest ofthe Tschapeu Range, to apoint 2kilometresto the north of Narnberu, .. .which
is in Nigeria",and so on.
24~ejoindrfNigeria,pp.347-349,paras.7.72-7.76.
2RejoinderofNigeria,Ann.154.
26~ejoindrfNigeria,p.349,para.7.76. 49. Thevariousnamedfeaturesareal1indicatedon themap. The RiverBaleo isindicated,at
the top of the map, as being some 10km further off to the north-west; the River Namberu is
markedin thelowercentralpart of themap; theTschapeu - thatis, Sapeo- Rangeismarked,as
"HosereSapeo",in the uppercentralpartof the map; and thevillageof Namberuis marked,near
the middle ofthe map. The township of Sapeois also marked, near the centre of the map.
Assumingthat the previoussector of the boundarybrings theboundarydownas far asthe area of
the Kadam River, then the watershed line of the Sapeo Range would fairly clearly run in the
directionnow being indicated,as farsNamberu.
50. However, Mr. President,thereis a seriousproblemwiththis stretchof the boundary. It
is evidentlynot consistentwith what wasintended whenthe Thomson-Marchand Declaration was
drawnup; moreover, itdoesnot accordwiththe extensivepracticeon the groundforthepastthree
quartersof a century.
51. The Thomson-MarchandDeclarationdid not, of course,stand alone as the indicatorof
the boundary. Itbuilt on the Milner-Simon Declarationof 1919 - which in the presentcontext
offers no assistance- and the delimitationproposed ina report by two British and French
officiais, Mair and Pition, in 1920". Their report was more informative. And in addition to
makingvariousproposals,they gavea detaileddescriptionof the boundaryarea. Theirproposa1
hadtheeffectofplacingNamberuandSapeoontheBritish,orNigerian,sideof the boundary,and
a separateareabetween theMaio Laroand Kontchaon the French,or Cameroonian,side2'. The
attribution of Sapeo to the British side of the boundary was confirmed in 1930, aftr the
Thomson-Marchand Declarationwas adopted but before its forma1approval in 1931, in the
Logan-LeBrunprocès-verbal29 t, which1 have already referred. Logan and Le Brun also referred
to a seriesof cairnsforminga line runningsouth-eastof Sapeo,and indicatingthe correctline of
theboundary: remainsofthree of thosecairnsstillexist- andphotographsoftwo ofthem are at
tab39of thejudges' foldersa,nd arenowonthe screen.
27~ounter-~emoriaolfNigeria,pp.523-524,paras.19.34-19.36.
2s~ounter-~emorilfNigeria,Ann.331.
29~ounter-~emoriaolfNigeria,AM. 332. 52. The text of the Thomson-MarchandDeclaration,however,while giving effect to the
attribution of Namberu to Britain and of the Maio Laro-Kontchaarea to France, inexplicably
omitted togive effectto the attributionof Sapeoto Britain. 1Saythat"itstext" inexplicablydidso,
becausealthoughthe textdescribes aboundaryline ninningnorth-westof Sapeo,the map attached
1
to theThomson-Marchand Declaration - attab40 in thejudges7folders,andnowon the screen -
showed a boundaryline ming to the southof Sapeo andthus placingit, as had originallybeen
intended,on theBritishsideoftheboundary.
53. There was clearly a mistake in the Declaration, Mr.President. The text and its
accompanyingmapdiffer,andthe evidenceisclearthatit is themapwhichis correct. Sofarasthe
local people are concemed,the boundary proposalswere "very carefully explained"to them in
1920by Mair and Pition, andwere "announcedto them asimmediately bindingand operative till
the confirmationbythe BritishandFrenchGovermnentsisformallyreceivep30. In 1930Logan,in
a coveringletter accompanyinghis submissionof the Logan-LeBrunprocès-verbal, justified their
choiceof boundaryline by referringto "the existence ofthe fiontier,as shownon the map,forthe
last tenyears"31- which is, of course,just theperiod which had elapsed sinceMair and Pition
wereinthe area.
54.PracticeeversincehasconsistentlytreatedSapeoas partoftheNorthern Cameroons,and
then of Nigeria. In the context ofthe land boundary, counselfor Cameroon hasstated thatwhen
Nigeria invokes practice in support of its views it never provides any details. Mr. President,
counselreally shouldread Nigeria's pleadings.Nigeriahas set out this practiceat paragraphs7.80
and 7.81of its Rejoinder, andnoneof the actsthere mentioned hasbeenthe subjectof anyprotest
by Cameroon. Just by way of exarnple,let memention that Sapeowas includedaspart of the
Northem Cameroons for the purposes of the plebiscite in 1959,and also that the villagers
participatedin theNorthem Cameroonsplebisciteof 1961.
55.Two particular concernswhich Cameroonhas shownrelateto the period of su&vision
by the MandatesCommissionand the Trusteeship Council,and in particular theirconcemnot to
30~ounter-~ernoriolf Nigeria,p.523, para.19.35.
3'~ejoindeofNigeria,p. 352,para.7.80.allowunapproved alterationsof territorialboundaries ofmandatedor trust temtones. This concern
doesnot affectthe situationwhich1just describedinthe Sapeoarea.
56. First, as1 have shown,the map attachedto the Thomson-MarchandDeclaration clearly
depicted Sapeo as falling on the British side of the line: its inclusion as part of the Northern
Carneroons wouldthereforehavebeen nosurprise.
57. Second, thereis evidenceinthe record of this case32thatthe adjustmentof the boundary
inthisareawas broughtto the attentionofthe LeagueofNations. Inthe Britishreport submittedin
1934thereis a referenceto "ihe demarcationof some 15miles ofthe boundaryin the northempart
of Adarnawa and a consequent slight adjustmentof temtory". While this does not in terms
mention Sapeo, it is highly probable that that is the adjustmentwhich is being referred to: the
timing fits with the other evidence, the locationand distances are right, and there is no other
candidateto which this report might be referring. It is also, incidentally, noteworthyin general
that, as this exampleshows,reports to the Leaguewerenot necessarily detailedin their references
to temtorial adjustments.
58. It is therefore,Mr. President,clear not only that therewas a mistake in the text of the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration,but also that the well-established practiceon the ground since
1920 has assurnedthe existence of a boundary such as would have been in place had no textual
mistakebeen made.
59. Nigeria suggestedin its Rejoinderhow theterms of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
might be intqreted so as correctly to fit with its annexed map and give effect to the Parties'
evident intentions33. In brief, Nigeria suggests that the correct interpretationof the Declaration
placesthe boundary, as is now being shownon the screenand attab 41, sothat it runs to the south
of Sapeo, byfollowingthe course of the Kadam Riverin the north and the Narnberu River in the
south,andthe line ofthethreecaims forthe stretch betweenthoserivers.
3 2 ~NC-M 265.
33~353,para.7.83.The Sama River
60. The next area 1 should like to address is one which is covered, not by the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration,but by the British Order in Councilof 1946. That Order, as the
Court will recall, dealswith the central east-weststretch of the boundary, ineffectjoining the long
stretch delimited by the Thomson-MarchandDeclaration with the stretch covered by the two 3
Anglo-GermanTreatiesof 1913.
61. The relevant part of the Order in Council is set out at tab 42 in thejudges' folders. It
reads as follows: "the line followsthe RiverGamana upstream to the point where it isjoined by
the River Sama; thenceup theRiver Sarnatothepoint where it dividesinto two; thence a straight
lineto the highestpoint of TossoMountain ..."
62. The map at tab 43 in the judges' folders, and which is now on the screen, showsthe
relevant features very clearly. The River Garnanaflows across the top right-hand corner of the
map; the River Samajoins it, flowing up from the south; and Mount Tosso is in the bottom
right-hand corner.
63. The defect in the Order in Councilis simple. It requires the boundary to followthe
Gamana and then go up the Sama"to the pointwhere it divides". But where is that point? There
are two possible confluences, where tributariesflow into the river Sama, both flowing from the
West: there is one tothe north, andone mer south. Whichis the point of divisionbeing referred
to in theOrder in Council? Thatis the onlyquestion, foronce that pointof divisionis ascertained,
the drawingof a straightlineto Mount Tossoposesno problem.
64.Nigeria submitsthat thesoutherntributary establishesthe confluenceto which the Order
in Council is refemng; Carneroonprefers thenorthern tributary. These two alternativesare now
being illustrated onthe map onthe screen,withCameroon'slinein blue and Nigeria's inred. The
differencebetween themplacesa triangularpieceof land indispute,extendingoversome 8sq.km.
65. Nigeria submits that the confluencewith the southem tributary meets the criterion of
"divides in two" more clearlythan does the confluencewith the northern tributary. The southern
tributary is three times as long, and drains a much larger catchmentarea, similar in size to the
catchment of the continuationof the river comingin fiom the south. Moreoverit is apparent that
the Sama River flows for a short distance almost due east below this confluence, and that thesouthemtributary flows in fromthe north andthe upper reaches of the Sama Bowdown fromthe
south: the geometryof this confluence,formingin effecta T-junction,lends itselfmore readilyto
a river "dividing in two" than does the northem tributary's confluence, which is more a
straightforwardfiowof a side waterinto a main Stream. The southemtributary alsoruns througha
much more clearly defined and largervalley on its way to meet the SarnaRiver. In contrast,the
junction with the northem tributary is geographically nondescript - had it been the junction
intendedby the cirafiersof the Orderin Council it wouldfor that reason have had to be described
with greaterparticularity.
66.Nigeria hassuggestedin its Rejoinder howtheThomson-Marchand Declarationmightbe
interpretedso asmoreaccuratelyto reflectthe drafters'intentionsasto the pointat which theSama
divides,placing thepoint of divisionat the confluenceofthe Samaandthe southemtribut#.
Mberogo
67.In the samegeneral area,Mr. President,anotherproblem arises, but thistime becauseof
Cameroon'sconduct inrelation to the boundary. It concemsthe villages of Mberogo and Tosso.
The mapnow onthe screen, andattab 44 in thejudges' folders,is very similarto the map you last
saw, but this time a number of place names have been added. Mberogo, and Tosso North and
Tosso Southarebeingpointed out: and al1three are alongthe banksof the GamanaRiver.
68.The issueis the following. Cameroon hasmade incursionsinto the Nigerian villagesof
Mberogoand Tosso. Questionsof responsibilityfor these incursionsare pursued separately: here
Nigeria'sonly concem is with the boundary implications. The boundary hereabouts is delimited,
as the Courtwill recall,by the SamaRiver,and a straightline fromthe place whereit "dividesinto
two" to Mount Tosso. The map shows the Sarna River, the point of division as submitted by
Nigeria as well as that contended for by Cameroon, and the straight lines joining those two
locationswith MountTosso. Thered lineisthe boundarywhichNigeriabelievesto be correct; the
blue line is the boundary accordingto Cameroon. From MountTosso eastwards the boundary
again followsa straightline, with,again, a dispute asto the terminalpoints of these l-neswhich
34~ejoindofNigeria,p. 366,para.7.116.Mr.Macdonaldwill dealwithlater - sothatthe mapagainshowstwo lines,onered andone blue,
disappearingeastwards.
69. Thefirst thingto note, Mr.President,isthat Mberogoand TossoNorth andTosso South
are not onlywell withinNigeria on the basisof Nigeria'sview of the locationof the border, but
5
they are also well withinNigeria evenon the basis of Cameroon's apparently claimed border.So
on the face of it any Cameroon incursions intothese two places would seem clearly toinvolve
transgressionsacrossthe boundary.
70. But in respondingto Nigeria's complaina tbouttheseincursions,Cameroonin its Reply
introducedthethoughtthatthere aretwo villageswith eachofthese names,one of eachpair being
in Nigeria and one of each in Cameroon. On the map you can now see where the map which
Cameroon preparedfor its ~ e ~ lnd~icatesthat these duplicatevillages ar- the doppelganger
effect,if youlike.
71. Nigeria is very sceptical about this recent assertionby Cameroon. No other maps
availableto Nigeria or submittedby Cameroonrecord villagesof those names in this area. The
local inhabitants on theNigerian side of the boundary haveno knowledgeof any Cameroonian
villages of those names in the vicinity. Even Cameroon,on the map which it submittedin the
judges' folderson 19~ebrufl, depicted only oneTosso - plainlyinNigeria.
72. On purely geographic grounds, Mr.President, the alleged location of Cameroon's
additionalTossois highly dubious. Cameroonseemsto locateit high onMount Tosso, atjust over
1,000m. Andit is perchedon the sideof asharpconicalsummitof the mountainwhosepeak is at
1,140m. There is no evidenceof any local watersupply,or any nearby land on whichto grow
crops. Itis,altogether,ahighlyimprobablelocationfor a settlement.
73.Asto Mberogo, Cameroon hasitselfgiven anaccountof a visitby Cameroonianofficials
to what theycalledthe Cameroonianvillageof h4berogo3'.A fuller extractis set out in Nigeria's
~ejoinder~',but forpresentpurposeslet mejust drawattentionto three passages.
35~eplyofCameroon, apR27,p.581.
36~o~. 6/5.
37~eplofCameroonA, nn.224.
38~ejoindrfNigeria,pp.395-396,para.7.201. 74.The accountrecords a questionaskedby one"Panso Kimalaki, a Nigerianwhoidentified
himselfas a teacherin Toso,a Nigerian villagelocatedat aboutonekilometrefromMbelogoat the
extremeboundary ofCameroonandNigeria ".
75. It is clear, Mr.President,that thisis refemng to theNigeria villages of Mberogoand
Tosso. A glance at the map shows thatthose are the only villageswhich can satisfj the distance
mentionedin the report- "about one kilometrefromMberogo". Moreover,as 1have shown,the
Cameroonian version of Tosso, near the topof a barrenmountain,is a mostunpromisingsite fora
school.
76. The report goes onto recordthat Mr. Kimalakisaid that "there is nomap that indicates
the boundaryto be on the rivery'.In the context thiscanonly be taken as a referenceto the River
Gamma,whichnuis northofMberogoandTosso Southand wouldthus leavethem in Carneroon,
stronglysuggestingthatthe Cameroonianofficialshadbeenassertingthat riverto be the boundary.
77. Finally, the Carneroonian Sub-Prefectis recordedas telling Mr.Kimalaki"in concrete
terms that Mvelogo is in Cameroon temtory and he as a foreigner must respect the laws of
Cameroonandnotto teachthepopulationrebellionagainsttheirown fatherland".
78.This isthe clearestassertionthat Cameroonianofficialsregard Mberogoas in Cameroon,
and since the Mberogo being referred to can only be the one in Nigeria, it followsas a clear
implicationin the context that Carnerooniaofficialsbelieve the boundaryto be constitutedby the
RiverGamma, andtry to enforceit assuch.
79. This isa manifestly incorrectviewof themeaningofthe Orderin Councilwhichdelimits
the boundaryin this area. Nigeria accordingly asks theCourt to make the declarationsset out in
paragraph7.202 of Nigeria'sRejoinder,which,in brief,is to declarethat the boundary assertedby
Cameroonis not in accordancewith the Order in Council,and that the boundary delineatedby
Nigeria onitsmapis in conformitywiththeOrderin Council.
Tipsan
80. 1 come now, Mr.President and Membersof the Court, to Tipsan. This is a location
which has been the subject of previous exchanges before the Court, during the preliminaryObjectionsphase of the proceedings. 1 hope1will not bemisunderstoodif 1venture the comment
thatthoseearlierexchangeswerenot entirelyfmitful.
81. Put shortly, we are, again, not here faced with a problem of defective delimitation.
Instead, the problem is simply this. The Thomson-Marchand Declarationis clear; the local
I
topographyin the Tipsan areais clear; and Cameroonhas repeatedlyaffimed its wish to uphold
and maintainthe Thomson-MarchandDeclaration. Yet in this instance Carneroonseems unableor
unwillingto acceptthe Declaration,and has persistently claimedinthese proceedingsthat Nigeria,
in building an immigration post at a particular location on the Nigerian side of the
Thomson-Marchandline, has somehowbeenviolatingtheterms ofthat Declaration.
82.The relevant provisionsof the DeclarationareArticles40,41 and 42. Those Articlesare
with the locator map at tab 45 of the judges' folders. Onthe screen now and at tab 46 in the
judges' folders,is amap of the area. As 1readthe Articles,the relevant featureswill be identified.
83. The Articles provide for a boundary which, from the point reached asa result of the
previousArticle, proceedsas follows:
"40. Thencealong aline parallelto the Bare-FortLamyTrack and2 kilometres
to the Westofthis track, which remainsin Frenchtemtory.
41. Thencea lineparallel to anddistant 2kilometresto the Westfrom this road
(which is approximatelythat marked Faulbom, Januaro 1908,on Moisel's map) to a
point on the Maio Tipsal (Tiba, Tipsator Tussa on Moisel'smap) 2 kilometresto the
south-west ofthepoint atwhich the roadcrossessaidMaioTipsal.
42. Thence the course of the Maio Tipsal upstream to its confluence with the
MaioMafu, flowingfromthe west, to a point some 12kilometresto the south-westof
Kwanchatown."
84. From those features the course of the boundary can fairly easily be consû-ucted. The
various stages are now being pointed out,as 1go through them. One starts with the Bare-Fort
Lamy track. One then notionally moves it 2km to the west so as to create an exactly equivalent
lineparallelto thetrack. One thentakes thatparallel linedownto theTipsan River,to a point2km
south-westof the point at whichthe Bare-FortLamytrack crossesthat river; andthen one follows
the TipsanRiver upstreamto the next sector ofthe boundary. This boundaryis now show onthe
map onthe screenbythe red dottedline whichhasnow beenadded. 85. To complete the picture, Article 41 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration refersto
Moisel'smap. A copyof the relevantpart ofthat map isattab 47 inthejudges' folders,andisnow
on the screen. As canbe seen towardsthe right-handsideof the map,the Faulbomtrack is clearly
marked,as is theRiverTipsan - or,as Moiselhas it, Tibsator Tiba. They are clearlyin theplaces
indicatedby the Thomson-MarchandDeclaration,and confirmedby modem mapping. Let menow
go backto the previousmap oftheTipsan area.
86.Andletme note one potentialdifficultywith theconstructionof the boundarylinein the
way 1 have described. It is a purely technical one- as a matter of geometry it is not a
straightfonvardmatterto construct alineparallelto an irregularly shapedline. Nigeriasubmitsthat
thiscan most readilybe done in this instanceby a notional transfer of the track line 2 km in the
requiredwestwarddirection.
87. Apart fromthat one technicalmatter,which doesnot affectthe substanceof the problem
now beingdiscussed,the locationoftheboundary seemsabundantlyclear, on thebasisof theterms
of theThomson-MarchandDeclaration.
88.Yet, Mr.President,Cameroonhasthought othenvise. Nigeriahas an ImmigrationPostin
this area. It is marked on the map, and is being pointed out now; the Post has attracted some
habitations aroundit, so the Post is sometimesreferredto as the village of Tipsan. Cameroonhas
contendedthat this ImmigrationPostwas situated in Cameroon; this means, of course,eitherthat
Cameroonbelievesthat the borderruns Mer to the west than it really does, so as to bring that
Post into Cameroon'sside of'the boundary,or that Cameroondoes not accept that the location of
Nigeria's ImmigrationPost is as shown on the map but is further to the east, genuinely inside
Cameroon.
89. Mr. President, let me Say straight away that this second hypothesis is completely
untenable. The locationof Nigeria's Immigration Posthas been fixedby satellite readings,and is
whereitis shownonthe map.
90. So onlythe first altemativeis left. But even themaps submittedby Cameroonitself do
not support such aposition. The boundarylinemarked onmap 14of Cameroon'sReply map atlas
shows the boundary, as it passes the vicinity of the ImmigrationPost, following the Tipsan
River - Le.,theboundary runsonthe Camerooniansideofthe ImmigrationPost. 91. Wheredoes al1this leavethe Court? Perhaps as confusedas it leaves Nigeria,at leastas
regards whatCameroonthought it wasdoing. Andwhat wasCameroondoing? Cameroon wasnot
just making a harmless mistake. No, Mr.President. On this hopelessly misunderstood
geographicalbasis, Cameroonwas, in its Memorial,raising a claim of State responsibilityagainst a
Nigeria, arisingout ofNigeria'suse ofthe NigerianImmigrationPost - which Cameroon claimed
involved anoccupationof Cameroonian temtory3'.
92. And Cameroon did not just do this in its Memorial.
Faced with Nigeria's patient
explanation of the true position, in the sense in which 1 have again just set it out, Cameroon
reaffirmed its allegationsorallyduringthe preliminary objections phaseof this case4'. And given
Cameroon's response to Nigeria's explanations,the Court, in rejecting Nigeria's fifthpreliminary
objection, concluded that there was a dispute at Tipsan- the only location along the entire
1,800-km landboundary at which the Court foundthere to have been adispute as to the courseof
the boundary.
93. Mr.President, the Court was not to blame: at that stage the Court only had limited
evidence and argument before it. But the "dispute" whichthe Court held existed was, it is now
clear, a disputewholly fabricated by Cameroon, and had not existed until Cameroonmisled the
Courtby advancingitspreposterousboundaryclaim.
94. Insupport of its impossibleposition,Cameroonhasadducedvarious arguments. At kt,
it seemed to base itselfon a belief that Germanofficialshadmarked the border withstonesseveral
kilometres to the Westof Kontcha- and we evenheard echoesof this in these presenthearings4'.
But the Thomson-Marchand Declarationmakes no mention of stones in connection with the
boundary in this area; and anyway, Cameroonnowhere explains how German officiais,who had
lef3the countryduringthe First WorldWar, couldhave playedanyrole in demarcatingaboundary
negotiated betweenBritishand French officialsoverthe period 1919-1930.
95. Cameroon's next response, duringthepreliminaryobjectionsphase,was to claim that the
>
Nigerian road fiom Toungoto Tipsan(which continuesto Kontcha)wasthe Bare-FortLamy track
39~emorialf Cameroonp,. 590,paras.6.90et seq.
4 0 9814,p. 14; CR9816,pp.37-38.
4 ' 200217,p.64,para.14(Tomuschat).mentioned in the Thomson-Marchand~eclaration~~. This argument was patently absurd.
Camerooncited no evidenceto support it,andthere is none. The map at tab48 and onthe screen
showsthe locations of Toungo and Kontcha, and of Bare and Fort Lamy (nowN'Djamena,the
capitalofChad). Manifestly,roadsjoiningthesepairsofplaceswouldbe runningat rightanglesto
each other. In any event,the Toungo-Tipsan roadbearsno relationto Moisel'sccFaulborn 1908"
tracksopreciselyidentifiedinthe Thomson-MarchandDeclaration.
96.Carneroon,havingraisedthis issuebothas a boundaryissueand as a State responsibility
issue, tried toexplain its position mer in two places in its Reply (paras4 . .95etseq. and
11.218et seq.). Mr. President,Carneroonmustbe givenfull marksfor trying: alas, it canget no
marksforachievement - whichisnot surprising,sinceits geographical confusioni,s complete.
97.However,at least someprogressis made. Inparagraph4.99of its Reply, Carneroonhas
now expressly accepted - despiteal1thathasgonebefore - that theNigerianImmigrationPostis
"indisputablysituatedinNigeriantemt~ry'*~.We cannowbe clear. Cameroonadrnitsthatit was
wrongal1alongaboutthe ImmigrationPost. So,therewasno Nigerian occupationofCameroonian
territorywhich could found a claim of State responsibility; and there was no disputeabout the
boundaryeither.
98.But Cameroonis not finishedyet. Thereis, wewere toldin Cameroon'sReply,another
settlement called Tipsan, situatedon Cameroon's side of the line and apparently 3km from
Kontcha. Cameroonseemsrather fond of"doppelgiinger"villages. Butanyway,where dowefind
the evidencefor this"other"Tipsan? Thereisnone. Nomaps submittedby Cameroonshowit, not
even those submittedwith its Reply. Al1previous argumentsby Cameroon, especiallyin the
preliminary objectionsphase, have proceeded on the basis that there was just the one Tipsan,
locatedwiththe Nigerian Immigration Post.
99. That Cameroon'scartographie confusion is complete is made even more evident by
Cameroon'syet Mer argumentsasto the locationof the boundary. Thus, in its Reply, it is
suggestedthat theboundaryis4 km from Kontcha,on a streamknownas the Maio~ji~awa~~B . ut
4 2 ~98/6p.38.
43~.193,para4.99.
"para. 11.225.in the very nextparagraphit is suggestedthat the boundaryis 9km fiom Kontcha,not 445; and
anyway, how did the MaioDjigawal becomerelevant? It is certainly not mentioned in the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration by whichCarneroonsetssuchstore. As 1Say,Mr. President,full
marks fortrying,but nonewhatever for achievement.
3
100. But Cameroon keeps on trying- with equallyunimpressiveresults. During these
hearingsweheard yet anotherstory. First,counsel emphasized how "famous"the Bare-FortLamy
track fromwhich one might assumethat Cameroon would knowwhere it was. However,
another memberof the Cameroon team reportedthat froma recent helicopter visitto the area he
was "unable to find and identifj with certaintythe road Bare-Fort~arn~'~~.There really is no
problem - atleaston the ground,whichis wherethe trackis ratherthanin a helicopter. Moisel's
map, referredto in the Thomson-Marchand Declarationv , ery clearly identifies itin preciselythe
mannerdescribedin theDeclaration; modern maps markit inthe sameplace.
101. Andthen counsel showedus a map, on which he purportedto identifi, with a laser
light, the location of Tipsan. First, it is to be noted that the map in question, which was
map 2814(b) in thejudges' folderforthe secondday of thehearings,showsno location identified
as "Tipsan". Second,the map equally showsno locationforthe NigerianImmigrationPost orthe
Nigerianvillageof Tipsan.
102. The attempt was made to make good these last omissionsby showing a photograph
which the Cameroon legal team, including counsel- actingnow as a witness of fact, it may be
noted, but letthat pas-, had takenfiom thehelicopter. Thephotographwas document 2914(b)
in thejudges' folder forthat day, and is now againon the screen, andat ta49 of today's judges'
folder. Counselsaid that this photographshowedonly theImmigrationPost - a square concrete
structure whichhe identified at the top centreof the photograph,and said that it was "a rather
isolatedbuilding"and that he "couldnot detectfiom the air. ..any substantivehumansettlement
in the vicinityof this immigrationpost"48.Mr.PresidentandMembersof the Court,theconcrete
45~ara.1.226.
4 6 ~2002/1,p. 71,para.8 (Simma).
4 7 ~200212, p.57,para.26(Khan).
48~bid.structure in question is a clinic, not the ImmigrationPost; the Immigration Post, as one would
expect,is nextto the road,in a groupof trees; andseveralhutments- quiteenoughto constitutea
village in the localsense- are clearly visible amongstthe trees: shade, Mr. President, being
somewhatusefulin thisarea.
103. There can be no doubt whatsoever that Cameroon's position regarding Tipsanis
invention fiom beginning to end- a gross mistake, seriously misleading the Court, which
Cameroon does not have the graceto admit, evenwhen it has acknowledged in its Reply that the
Nigerian ImmigrationPost was"indisputablysituated in Nigeriantemtory".
104.The short point is, Mr.President and Members of the Court, that the boundq in this
area is both correctly and clearly delimited in Articles40 to 42 of the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration. That boundary is delineated in red on the map on the screen, which is also in
Nigeria's Rejoinder. Cameroon has done nothing to show that that boundary is in any way
incorrect. Nigeria has accordingly submittedthat the Court shouldonfirmthe correctnessof that
delimitationand delineation.
Mr.President and Members of the Court, that brings me to the end of this part of my
pleadingonthe land boundary. 1amgrateful foryour attention. Mr. President,might1now invite
youto cal1upon Mr. AlastairMacdonaldto continuethe presentation ofNigeria's case on the land
boundary- althoughgiventhe hour,you maypreferto waituntil tomorrow morningbefore doing
so. Thank you, Mr. President.
Le PRESIDENT :Je vous remerciebeaucoup. Nous arrivonsau terme de cette séanceet la
Courtreprendrasestravauxdemainmatin à 10heures.
L'audience est levé e 13heures.
Audience publique tenue le lundi 4 mars 2002, à 10 heures, sous la présidence de M. Guillaume, président