--------------------- --------
,_-----·- -- -- -
._··~ ;··t- -~··~- ••-· ••- • "•r~ • •• •"
• ~~~-~~·•-~___....._•···,.•.&~~-· , ·.·--• ··.·-·------•=--
..----.------ , ~ .. --....
.• ,.. -
--~--~----~ ·-=--~------ --·-._.,;,._
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Peace Palace, 2517 KJ TheHague.Tel(070-302 23 23).Cables:Intercourt,The Hague.
Telefax(070-36499 28). Telex 32323.
Communiqué
UD.official
for immediate re1ea••
No. 96/13-
"f5 MarCh 1996
Case concerning the Land -aDd-Maritime Boupdary
between Cameroon and Nigeria
(Ca meroon \'. Nigeria)
Order of the Court on proyisional measures
As indicated in Press Communiqué No. 9615.Cameroon, on 12 February 1996, made a request for
the indication of provisional measures in the above case. referring ta "grave incidents which· have taken
p1ace berween the . . . forces [of the two Parties] in the Bakassi Peninsula since . . . 3 February 1996".
Today, 15 Match 1996, the International Court of Justice issued an Order indicating the following
provisional measures:
"{1) Unanimously,
Bath Parties should ensure that no action of any 1\ind. and particularly no action by their
armed forces. is taken which might prejudice the nghts of the other in respect of whatever judgment
the Court may render in the case. or which might aggra\·ate or extend the dispute before it:
(2) By 16 votes to 1,
Both Parties should observe the agreement reached between the Ministers for Foreign Affairs
in Kara, Togo, on 17 February 1996. for the cessation of ali hosti!ities in the Bakassi Peninsula;
IN FAVOUR: President Bedjaoui: Vice-Presidem Schv..e .bel: Judges Oda. Guillaume.
Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry. Ranjeva. Herczegh. Shi. Fleischhauer, Koroma,
Vereshchetin, Ferrari Bravo. Higgins, Parra-Ar~ngu Jrdgen ; d hoc Mbaye;
. ·--. .-~ .
AGAINST: Judge ad hoc A'jibofa.
(3) By 12 votes ta 5,
Bath Parties should ensure that the presence of any armed forces in the Bakassi Peninsula
does not extend beyond the positions in which they were situated prier to 3 February 1996;
IN FAVOUR: President Bedjaoui; Vice-President Schwebel; Judges Oda, Guillaume,
Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Ferrari Bravo, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren;
Judge ad hoc Mbaye;
AGAINST: Judges Shahabuddeen, V·/eeramantry. Shi, Vereshchetin:
Judge ad hoc Ajibola. - ·:·-:-:.~:.:-
'-----------~- -·-------
___-:...:..~---·~--·-~·A·--·~:.~0..,.
(4) By 16 votes to l,
Bath Parties should take ali necessary steps to conserve evidence relevant to the present case
within the disputed area; _ 1 -
IN FAVOUR: President Bedjaoui; Vice-Presidenf Schwebel; Judges Oda, Guillaume,
Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer, Koroma.
Vereshchetin, Ferrari Bravo, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren; Judge ad hoc Mbaye;
AGAINST: Judge ad hoc Ajibola.-
(5) By 16 votes to 1,
Bath Parties should !end every assistance to the fact-finding mtsston which the
Secretary-General of the United Nations has proposed to send to the Bakassi Peninsula;
IN FAVOUR: President Bedjaoui; Vice-Presidenr Schwebel; Judges Oda, Guillaume.
Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer, Koroma, •
Vereshchetin, Ferrari Bravo, Higgins, Parra-Adnguren; Judge ad hoc Mbaye;
AGAINST: Judge ad hoc Ajibola."
Judges Oda, Shahabuddeen. Ranjeva and Koroma appended declarations to the Order of the Court:
Judges Weeramantry, Shi and Vereshchetin appended a joint dtclaration to the Order of the Court.
Judge ad hoc Mbaye appended a declaration ta the Order of the Court.
Judge ad hoc Ajibola appended a separate opinion to the Order of the Court.
Summaries ofthe declarations and of the separate opinion may be found in the Annex ta this Press
Communiqué.
*
The Court was composed as follows:
•
President Bedjaoui; Vice-President Schwebel; Judges Oda. Gluillaume. Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry,
Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer. Koroma, Vereshchetin, Ferrari Bravo, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren;
Judges ad hoc Mbaye, Ajibola; Regîstrar Valencia-Ospina.
*
A summary of the Order is given below. It has been·-·preparedby the Registry and in no way
involves the responsibility of the Court. lt cannat be quoted agaihst the text of the Order.,..ofwhich itdoes
not constitute an interpretation. 1" .. ...- - .. ··
The printed text of the Order will become available in dur course (orders and enquiries should be
addressed to the Distribution and Saies Section, 0 ffice of the United Nations, 1211 Geneva 10; the Sales
Section, United Nations, New York, N.Y. 10017; or any apprépriate special ist bookshop).
*
* * ~ ' -.- ·'
_._,),~-~~---- -.··
-·. .
-., ..
·/ .
~ 3 -
In its Order the Court recalls that on 29 March 1994, Cameroon instituted proceedings against
Nigeria in respect of a dispute described as "relat[ing] essentially to the question of sovereignty over the
Bakassi Peninsula".
In the Application Cameroon, basing the jurisdiction of the Court on the declarations made by the
two States pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, states that "Cameroon's title [to the Bakassi
Peninsula] is contested" by Nigeria; that "since the end of 1993, this contestation has taken the forrn of
an aggression by ... Nigeria, whose troops are occupying several Cameroonian localities in the Bakassi
Peninsula"; and that this "has resulted in great prejudice to ... Cameroon, for which the Court is
respectfully.requested ta arder reparation". Cameroon further states that the -"delimitation [of the maritime
boundary. between the two States] basIcmained.a.partial one and [that],.despite many attempts to cornpJete
it, the two Parties have been unable to do so"; and it accordingly requests the Court, "in arder to avoid
further incidents between the two countries, ... ta determine the course of the maritime boundary between
the two States beyond the 1ine fixed in 1975".
At the close of its Application Cameroon presents the following submissions:
"On the basis of the foregoing statement of facts and legal grounds, the Republic of Cameroon,
while reserving for itselfthe right ta complement, amend or modify the present Application in the
course of the proceedings and to submit to the Court a request for the indication of provisional
measures should they prove to be necessary, asks the Court to adjudge and declare:
(a) that sovereignty over the Peninsula of Bakassi is Cameroonian, by virtue of international law.
and that that Peninsula is an integral part of the territory of Cameroon;
(b) that the Federal Republic of Nigeria has violated and is violating the fondamental principle of
respect for frontiers inherited from colonization (uti posside!is juris);
(c) that by using force against the Republic of Cameroon. the Federal Repub\ic of Nigeria has
violated and is violating its obligations under international treaty law and customary law:
(d) that the Federal Republic of Nigeria, b_ymilitarily occupying the Cameroonian Peninsula of
Bakassi, has violated and is violating the obiigations incombent upon it by virtue of treaty law
and customary law; ·
{e) that in view of these breaches of legal obligation. mentioned above, the Federal Republic of
Nigeria has the express duty ofputting an end ta its milita[)' presence in Cameroonian territory,
and effecting an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of its troops from the Cameroonian
Peninsu\a of Bakassi;
(e') that the internationally unlawful acts referred ta under (a). {b), {c),(d) and (e) above involve the
responsibility of the Federal Republic of Nigeria;
(e'') that, consequently, and on account of the rnaterial and non-materia\ damage inflicted upon the
Republic of Cameroon, reparation in an amount ta..be determined by the Court .isdue from the
Federal Republic ofN igeria ta the,Repu b1ic ofCam eroon. which reserves the introduction..before
the Court of [proceedings for] a precise assessment of the damage caused by the -federal
Republic of Nigeria;
(jj In arder ta prevent any dispute arising berween the two States concerning their maritime
boundary, the Republic of Cameroon requests the Court ta proceed to pralong the course of its
maritime boundary with the Federal Repub1ic of Nigeria up ta the 1imit of the maritime zones
which international law places under their respective jurisdictions".
On 6 June 1994 Cameroon filed an Additional Application "for the purpose of extending the
subject of the dispute" to a further dispute, described in that Additional Application as "relat{ing]
essentially ta the question ofsovereignty over a part of the territory ofCameroon in the area of Lake Chad".-,__.-.*"' • ·,-·· ~- ,\
v
In that Additional Application it is indicated that "Cameroon's title to [that pan of the territory]
is contested by Nigeria"and that 1
"that contestation initially took the fonn of a massive in,troduction of Nigerian nationals
into the disputeda, followed by an introduction of Nigerian security forces, effected
prier to the official statementlaim by the Govem'ment of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria quite recently, for the first time".
ln its Additional Application Cameroon also requested thepecify definitively" the
frontier between the two States from Lake Chad to.theit tojointhe-two,Applicaandns
"to examine the whole in a single case".-~ ------~-- ·--··---"·· ·
At the close of its Additional Application Cameroon·presented the following submissions:
- 1. ----.
"On the basis of the foregoing statement of facts and legal grounds, and subject to the
reservations expressed in paragrapht-sApplicatibn of 29 March 1994, the Republic of
Cameroon asks the Court to adjudge and decl1re:
(a) that sovereignty over the disputed parce! in the area of Lake Chad is Cameroonian. by virtue of
international law, and that that parce! is an integral pirt of the territory of Cameroon;
(b) that the Federal Republic of Nigeria has violated and js violating the fundamental principle of
respect for frontiers inherited from colonization (uti possidetis juris), and its recent legal
commitments conceming the demarcation of frontiers in Lake Chad;
(c) that the Federal Republic of Nigeria, by occupying, with the support of its security forces.
parcelsf Cameroonian territory in the area of Lake Chad, has violated and is violating its
obligations under treaty law and customary law;
(d) that in view ofthese legal obligations. mentioned above. the Federal Republic ofNigeria has the
express dutyf effecting an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of its troops from
Camert oe~~niinahn reaof Lake Chad: 1
(e) that the mtematmnally unlawful acts referr(a)(bJ, (and (d)above involve the
responsibility of the Federal Republic of Nigeria:
(eï that consequently, and on accountmaterial and non-material damage inflicted •pon the
Republicf Cameroon, reparation in an amount to be i:letermined by the Court is due from the
Federal Republic ofNigeria to the Republic, which reserves the introduction before
the Courtf [proceedings for] a precise assessment of the damage caused by the Federal
Republicf Nigeria.
(j) Thatin view of the repeated incursions of Nigerian groups and anned forces into Cameroonian
territory, ali along the frontthe twocoun·eenhercnseqent grave and repeated
incidents, and the vacillating andctory artitude of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in
regard to the legal instruments defining~etw fr.e..Jn.countr.ies.and ·the:exact
course of that frontier, the Republic of Cameroon lrespectful1y asks the -Court to specify
definitivelythe frontierbetweenn and the Federal Republic ofNigeria from Lake Chad
to the sea". 1
The Court recalls that at a meeting which the President of the Court held with the representatives
of the Parties on 14 June 1994. the Agent of NÎ2:eriastated thJt he had no objection to the Additional
Application being treated,r diatnh;ee~ewxipsrhbysCameron, as an amendment to the
initial Application, so that the Court could deal with the whold in a single case; and that by an Order
dated 16 June 1994 the Court indicated that it had no objectiorl itself to such a procedure.W·:--:--- -------·------" --
1-·· ...-··-
- 5 -
It further refers to the fact that Cameroon filed its Memorial on the merits and that Nigeria filed
.certain preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibilîty of the daims of
Cameroon.
The Order then recounts that on 12 February 1996, the Agent of Cameroon, referring to the "grave
incidents which have taken place between the ... forces [of the two Parties] in the Bakassi Peninsula
since ... 3 February 1996", communicated to the Court a request for the indication of provisional
measures based on Article 41 of the Statute and on Article 73 ofthe Rules of Court, at the close ofwhich
Cameroon asked the Court to indicate the following measures:
"1. . the armed forces ofthe.Parties shaH withdraw to.the position they were.occupying before the
Nigerian armed attack of 3 February 1996;
2. the Parties shall abstain from-ail mi\itary activity alonth ~ ntire boundary until the judgment
of the Court takes place;
3. the Parties shall abstain from any act or action which might hamper the gathering of evidence
in the present case".
The Court then refers ta a communication of 16 February 1996 by the Agent of Nigeria entitled
"Cameroonian Government forces Nigerians to register and vote in rnunicipal elections", which cane luded
in the fo\lowing terms:
"The Nigerian Govemmem hereby invites the International Court of Justice to note this
protest and cali the Govemment of Cameroon ta arder .
. . . [T]he Govemment of Cameroon should be wamed ta desist from further harassment
of Nigerian citizens in the Bakassi Peninsula until the final determination of the case pending at
the International Court of Justice."
The Court finally recalls that hearings were held on 5, 6 and 8 March 1996.
*
The Court begins by considering that the two Parties have each made a declaration recognizing
the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with Article 36. paragraph 2, ofthe Statute neither
of which includes any reservation and that those declarations constitute a prima facie basis upon which
the Court's jurisdiction in the present case might be founded. The Court further considers that the
consolidated Application of Cameroon does not appear prima facie to be inadmissible in the light of the
preliminary objections raised by Nigeria.
The Court goes on to observe that the power conferred upon ît by Articles 41 of the Statute of the
Court and 73 of the Rules of Court ta indicate provîsional measures has as its abject to preserve the
respective rights of the Parties, pending a decision of the Court, and presupposes that irreparable prejudice
shali not be caused to rights which are the subject of dispute in1udicia 1 proceed ings; that it follows that
the Court must be concemed ta preserve by such measures.1:he-rightswhich-may subsequentJy be adjudged
by the Court to belong either to the Applicant or ta the Respondent; and that such measures are only
justified if there is urgency.
The Court finds that the mediation conducted by the President of the Republic of Togo and the
ensuing communiqué announcing the cessation of ali hostilities published on 17 February 1996 do not
deprive the Court of the rights and duties pertaining ta it in the case brought before it. lt isdear from
the submissions of bath Parties to the Court that there were military incidents and that they caused
suffering, occasioned fatalities - of bath military and civilian personnel - while causing others to be
wounded or unaccounted for, as weil as causing major material damage. The rights at issue in these
proceedings are sovereign rights which the Parties claim over territory, and these rights also concem ..-·-
--·---.r.~~~•;~~----·--~--0...:-·--.--~~~~~--------•·•-• •
- 6 -
persans; and armed actions have regrettably occurred on territory which is the subject of proceedings
before the Court. 1
Independently of the requests for the indication of provisional meàsures subm itted by the Parties
to preserve specifie rights, the Court possesses by virtue of Article: 41 of the Statute the power to indicate
provisional measures with a viewreventing the aggravation or extension of the dispute whenever it
considers that circumstances so require. 1
The Court finds that the events that have given rise to the request, and more especially the killing
of persans, have caused irreparable-damage to the rithtParties may .have ·Overthe Peninsula:
that persans in the disputed area and, as a consequence, ..the..rights.of.the that area are
exposed to serious risk of further irreparable dand.th1armed actions within the territory in
dispute could jeopardize the existence of evidence relevant to the present case. From the elements of
information available to it, the Court takes the view ·risk that events likely to aggravate or
extend the dispute may occur again, thus rendering any settlemeht of that dispute more difficult.
The Court here observes that, in the context of the probeedings concemind the Of icati~n
provisional measures, it cannat make definitive findings of fact dr of imputability, and that the right of
each Party to dispute the facts alleged against it, to challenge the attribution toit of responsibility for those
·facts, and to submit arguments, if appropriate, in respect of the hterits, must remain unaffected by the
Court's decision. 1
The Court then draws attention to the fact that the decision given in the present proceedings in no
way prejudges the question the jurisdiction of the Court to déal with the merits of the case, or any
questions relating to the admissibilityApplicationrela ttthe ~eits them selves and leaves ·
unaffected the right of the Govemments ofCameroon and Nigeria to submit arguments in respect ofthose
questions.
After mentioing letters of the President of the Secur1,dated 29 February 1996, which
cali upon the two Parties:
"to respect tcease~f teyeagreed to on 17 February in Kara. Togo; to refrain from further
violence; and to take necessary steps to retum theiree positionthe oc~u-ied before
the dispute was referred to the International Court [of Juttice]":
and also the proposai of the Secretary-General of the 1nittadespatch a fact~f missionding •
into the Bakassi Peninsula, the Court indicates the provisional measures cited above. ·.~: ·,;'
-~.·-.·
Annex to Press CommuniQué No. 96/13
Declaration of Judge Oda
In his declaration Judge Oda points out, first, that in his view the date given in the passage reading
"the presence of any armed forces in the Bakassi Peninsula does not extend beyond the position in which
they were situated prior ta 3 February 1996" should have been 29 March 1994, that is, the date on wh ich
Cameroon filed the Application instituting proceedings in this case and the date which seems to be
indicated in the mediation proposed by the President of Togo (see para. 45).
Secondly, he signais his concern about the use of the term "irreparable damage" in paragraph 42
of the Order in view of the fact that the damage the Court finds to have been caused may not concem the
real subject oî the case, while.-in.addilion,,the Court has. wot been able to .form any..clear and precise idea
of events.
Declaration of Judge Shaha.buddeen
In his declaration, Judge Shahabuddeen affinned that the Court's Order should help to maintain
friendly relations between two fraternal and neighbouring countries. He had voted for four of the five
elements of the dispositif, but did not think that there was a satisfactory juridical basis for the remaining
element. It was essential that a provisional measure limiting the movement of troops should incorporate
a clear physical benchmark with reference to which it could be determined whether the limitation was
observed. In this case, the evidence did not permit the Court to specify such a benchmark. This being
so, the particular provisional measure cou id lead to new dispute, instead of serving the intended purpose
of avoiding conflict.
Declaration of Judge Ranjeva
Judge R. Ranjeva, in his declaration appended to the Order. points to the development of a new
"given" in international judicial relations. i.e., the appearance of a step in the procedure consisting of a
request for the indication of provisional measures on account of the occurrence of an armed conflict
grafted on to a legal dispute. ln that hypothesis, and when the circumstances of the case sa require
(exposure of the rights of the Parties ta a risk of irreparable damage, urgency ... ), the Court may indicate
measures of a military character, according ta a jurisprudence already defined in the case concerning the
Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso!Republic of Mali). When ordering those provisional measures, the Coun
is not acting as an authority invested with any general police power but as the principal judiciat organ
participating in the objectives of the maintenance of international peace and security which come with in
the remit of the United Nations.
Declaration- of Judge·-Koroma
In his Declaration, Judge Koroma pointed out that he had voted in favour of the Order on the clear
understanding that it does not prejudge the issues before the Court, but rather aims to preserve the
respective rights of either Party. --
He was of the view that, on the basis of the material before the Court; the possibility of 1i.further
military engagement between the armed forces of bath countries, resulting in irreparable damage including
further Joss of human life, of itself provides the Court with sufficient reason to grant the Order.
Itis hoped that the Order will discourage either Party from taking any measures which might cause
irreparable damage to the millions of each of the Parties' nationals residing in the other's territory, will
help reduce tension between the t\VO States and restore the fratemal relations which have always existed
between the two countries, pending the decision of the Court. .
1---------------------~-~------~-- ....___- _ _---· '
~.•;·~---~-""'-- ~~.•.~
- 2 -
Joint Declaration of Judges Weeramantcy. Shi and Veresbchetin
Judges Weeramantry, Shi and Vereshchetin voted with thelmajority of the Court in regard to items
1, 2, 4 and 5 in the dispositif, but were unable to support the majority of the Court in relation to item 3.
1
· The reason for their inability to support this clause was that the Parties had given the Court two
entirely different versions in regard to the incidentsryll996These different versions involve
entirely different positions in regard to the location of their resRective armed forces on that date.
The Court Order, requiring the Parties to ensurthbtpresence -of any armed forces in the
Bak:assi _Peninsula should , not extend bcyond _the po_fu:wbich they were . situated prior .to
3 February 1996, in effect leaves it to each.Party.towl~tthatposition-was and to act upon that
determinationThese positions may weil be contradictory, thus ibaving open the possibility of confusion
upon the ground. The Order may thus be interpreted as·contafriing -an internai contradiction.
For these reasons, these Judges were unablepport itbm 3 of the dispositif.
Declaration of Judge Mbaye
Having stressed the "striking similarities" bethe case concerning the Frontier Dispute
(Burkina Faso/Republic ofMali), Provisional Measures. and the present proceedings relating to the request
for the indication of provisional measures (case concerIand and Maritime Boundary between
Cameroon and Nigeria),udge Mbaye, while accepting tcas arer~rely identical, welcomed the fact
that the Court had consolidated the jurisprudencCham thein herformer of the above-mentioned
cases, by indicating that "bathes should ensure thaprese o~any areed forces in the Bakassi
Peninsula does not extend beyond the positians in which thsituated prior to 3 February 1996".
He considers that this provision, taken together with the indicationer that the Parties "should
ensure that no action of any kiis taken ..which might aggravate or extend the dispute" or impede
the collection of evidence, constitute a set of indications indispeilsable in the case of events of the same
kind as those forming the basishe present request for the intlication of provisional measures.
Separate Opinion of Judge Ajibola
I voted along with the other Members of the Court with regard to the first of the provis•onal
measures indicated in this Order because I believe that such a rrleasure. which accords with the Statute
and Rules of Court (Article 41 of the Stature of the Court and !Article 75 (2) of the Rules), is also in
consonance with the jurisprudence of the Court. The Court\arrnaters 1ikewise invo1ving armed
incidents has not in the recent past hesitated ta indicate such provisional measures, as can be seen in such
cases as United States of America v. Nicaragua. FDisper (uukiea Faso!Republic of Mali) and
the Bosnia case relating to the Genocide Convention. The Order is in line with many of the Court's recent
indications that bath parties should avoid any acts th aai~ht aggravate or extend the dispute.
The Court has the power and duty to so indicat_:.. --;.· ·· __
However, 1regret to say tham-t~na tbvoee wtth the rest of the Members of the Court on the
remaining provisional measures which the-.Court has indicated tiecause they are unnec-essary; non-legal
and "counter-productivelt is my belief that it is not the duty lof the Court ta indicate such measures
when it has referred to the circumstances in the recital which. in my view, is enough.
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria) - Order of the Court on provisional measures