Northern Cameroons - Judgment (Preliminary Objections)

Communiaue No. 63/14

(unof f icial)

The following information from the Registry of the International
Court of Justice is comunicated to the Press:

The International Court of Justice today (2 December 1963)
delivered its Judgment in the case concerning the Northern Cameroons
(~re1i;ùina.r~ objections) between the Federal Republic of Carneroon and

the-United Kingdon of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Proceedings were instituted by an Application of 30 May 1961
in which.the Government of the Republic of Cameroon asked the Court
to declare th&, in the application of the Trusteeship Agreement for
the Territory of the Cameroons under British Administration the United
Kingdom failed, r~ith re&ard to the Northern Cameroons, to-respect
certain obligations flovring from that Agreement. The Government of
the United Kingdom raised preliminary objections .

By 10 votes to 5 the Court found that it could not adjudicate
upon the rnerits of the claim of .the Republic of Caaeroon.

Judges Spiropoulos and.Koretsky appended to the Judgment
Dechrations of their dissent. Judge Jessup, nhile entirely agreeing
with the reasoning in the Judgnent of the Court, also appended a
Declaration.

Judges Wellington Koo, Sir Percy Spender, Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice
and Morelli appended Separate Opinions.

Judges Badawi and Bustante y Rivero and Judge ad hoc Beb a Don
appended Dissentine Opinions.

In its Judgment, the Court recalled that the Cameroons had formed
part .of the possessions to which Germany renounced her rights under
the Treaty of Versailles md mhich had been placed under the hfandates
System of the ~e'ague of Nations. It had been d ivided into two Mandates,
the one administered by France and the other by the United Kingdon. The
latter divided its territory into the Northern Cameroons, vihich w~ts
administered as 'part of Nigeria, and the Southern Caneroons, v~hich was
adminis tered as'a separate province of Nigeria. After the creation of
the. United Nations, the nandated territories of the Carneroons were
placed unaer the international trus teeship sys ten by trus teeship
cagreements approved by the General Asseriibly on 13 December 1946.

The territory under French administration attained independence
as the Republic .of Cameroon on 1 January 1960 md becane a Member of
the United Nations on 20 Septenber 1960. In the case of the territory
under United Kingdom administration, the United Hations General
Assenibly recommended that the Adminis tering Authori ty organise
leb bis ci tesin .order to ascertain the wishes of the inhabitants .
f'ursuant to thehe plebiscites the Southern Camemons joined the
Republic of ~akeroon on 1 October 1961 and the Northern Cameroonson 1 ~&e '1961 .joined the Federation of Nigeria, which had itself
become independent on 1 October 1960. On 21 April 1961 the General

bsse,mbly endorsed the res.ults of the ..plebiscites and decided that
'thë .TfiSte'eship ~~ke&&nt c.?ncerni& .th& ;can?e+oiiis kder United
Kingdon adninistration shou.ld be terninated upon the two pnrts of the
terri tory j oining the Republic .f.Ca~zer..n, and Nigeria..esp~c tively
(resolution i608(~~)).
.:;y.....
The Repuhiic of Cameroon vbted iigninst the adcption of this '
resolution, after expressing its dissatisfaction with the manner in
which the United Kingdom had administered the Northern Cameroons and

liad organf sed the pïebis'cites, maintaining thnt the political -develop-
ment of the territo'ry and the nokl course of the. oonsultation. v~ith
the people'had been altered tliereby. These criticisms, together with
others, kere developed in a White Book nhich was rebut'ted by the '.
représentatives of 'the United Kingdom cvld of Nigeria.. Following the
adoption of the resoltition the Republic of 'Ca~eroon, on l'uay 1961,.
addressed a comr,iunication to the Unitad'Kingdom in which it referred

to a dispute concerning the applicntion of the Trusteeship Agreement
and proposed the conclusion of a special agresment for the purpose
of bringing the disputeWonê.tke Court. The United Kingdom gave a
negative reply on 26 May 1961. Four days later the Republic of
Caïderoon sub~tte..' an Ap~lication to the Court.
....
The Vnited Kingdom then raised a nmiber of preliminary objections.
The first vas tk?t there was no disrute between itself and the Republic
of Cameroon, and that if any dispute had at the date. of the Application

existed, it Fias between the Republic of Carneroon and the United Nations.
The Court found in this connection'thst the opposing viens of the
parties as to the iuiterpretation and applicntioii of the Trusteeship
Agreement revealcd the existence of a dispute, at the date of the
Application, in the sense recognised by the jurisprudence of the Court.

Another of the United Kiiigdoni s prelimiriary objections was based
on Article 32(2) of the Rules of Court, which provides that when a case

is brought before the Court the Application nust not only indicate the
subject.of the dispute but must also as fa as possible state the
precise nature of the, claim an3 the grounds on iihich it is based.
Adopting the view expressed by the Permanent Court of International
Justice, the Court considered that, its jurisdiction bciing international,
it.was not bound to attach to môt.ters of fûrm the same degree of
inportance which they might possess in municipal law. It found that
the Applicmt had sufficiently complied with Article 32(2) of the Rules
and that .this prelininary objection .was accordingly v~ithout substance

. . .*

The'Court'then said that a factual analysis undertaken in the
IFght of certain guiding principles might. suffico to oonduoe' to,
the ,resolution of the issues to' vrhich the C.ourt 'clirected its
a.ttention. - .,. . . , .
. .
As a Menber of the United N~tions', the, Republic of Caneroon had
a right to apply to the Court and $y the fcling' of the ilpplication the
Court had been seised . sut ,the 'selsin& of the Court was one thing , the
administration of justice was another. Even if the Court, when seised,

founà tbt it had jurisdiction, it mas not conpelled in every case to
exercise that jurisdiction. It exercised a judicial function which
vias circwnscribed by inherent limitations. Like the Permanent Court,
it'could not &part from the essential rules guiding its activity
as a Court.

Resolution ....