INTERNATIONAL COURTOFJUSTICE
Peace Palace, 2517 KJ The Hague. Tel.(31-70-302 23 23). Cables: Intercourt, The Hague.
Telefax (31-70-364 99 28). Telex 32323. Internet address: http: Il www.icj-cij.org
Communiqué
unofficial
forimmediate release
No. 98/23
11 June 1998
Case concerning Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroun and Nigeria
(Cameroun v. Nigeria)
Preliminary Objections
The Court will proceed to consider the merits of the case
THE HAGUE, 11 June 1998. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial
organ of the United Nations, found today that it bas jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the case
brought before itbyCameroon against Nigeria conceming the land and maritime boundary between
the two States.ltalso found that Carneroon's claims are admissible.
In an Application dated 29 March 1994,arnended on 6 June 1994, Cameroon asked the Court
to determine the question sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula and over islands in Lake Chad,
and to specifyhe course of the land and maritime boundary between itselfand Nigeria. As a basis
of the Court'sjurisdiction, Carneroon referred to the declarations made by bath States accepting its
jurisdiction as compulsory (Article 36, paragraph 2,the Statute of the Court).
On 13December 1995Nigeria raised eight preliminary objections challenging thejurisdiction
of the Court and the admissibility of Carneroon's daims.
Reasoning of the Court
The Court rejected Nigeria's argument that Cameroon bad no righto invoke its declaration
as a basis of jurisdiction because it bad omitted·to inform Nigeria that it bad made such a
declaration and that it was preparing to seise the weeks later. According to the Court, only
the deposit of the declaration with the Secretary-General of the United Nations is relevant as it
establishes the mutual consent to the Court'sjurisdiction. Moreover, nothing obliged Cameroon
• infonn Nigeria of its intention to seise the Court. It cannat therefore be reproached with having
vîo\ated the principle good faith.
The Court held that the fact that bath States bad attempted to solve their dispute bilaterally
did not imply that either one bad excluded the possibilityinging it before the Court. Neither
in the Charter nor otherwise in international law is any rule to be found to the effect that the
exhaustionof diplomatie negotiations constitutes a precondition for a matter to be referred to the
Court. The fact that negotiations are ongoingthe Lake Chad Basin Commission cannat prevent
the Court from exercising its funetions. The Commission is not a judicial body and its authority
is not exclusive.
Conceming the possible consequences of Carneroon's Application on the tripoint in Lake
Chad (i.e., the point where the frontiers ofCameroon, Chad and Nigeria meet), the Court found that
the legal interestsChad did not constitute the very subject-matter of the judgment to be rendered
on the merits and that the absence of Chad accordingly did not prevent the Court from ruling on
the dispute. - 2 -
The Court indicated that, contrary to what Nigeria asserts, a dispute exists between Cameroon
and Nigeria, at least as regards the legal bases of the boundary as a whole. The exact scope of that
dispute cannat be determined at present.
The Court did not uphold Nigeria's contention that Cameroon's Application is so sparse and
imprecise that it could not be answered.
The Court held that it lay within its discretion to arrange the arder in which it would address
the issues relating to the title of the Bakassi Peninsula and to the delimitation of the maritime
boundary between the Parties.
As to the question whether the determination of the maritime boundary beyond point G
(situated, according to the Parties, sorne 17 nautical miles from the coast} would affect the rights
and interests of third States, the Court found that it did not possess an exclusively preliminary
character and would have to be settled during the proceedings on the merits.
Composition of the Court
The Court was composed as follows in the case: President Schwebel; Vice-President
Weeramantry; ~ Oda, Bedjaoui, Guillaume, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer, Koroma,
Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek; ~ ad hoc Mbaye, Ajibola;
Registrar Valencia-Ospina.
~ Oda, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren and Kooijmans appended separate
opinions to the Judgment. Vice-President Weeramantry, Judge Koroma and~ ad hoc Ajibola
appended dissenting opinions.
Further proceedings
Having established itsjurisdiction and concluded that Cameroon's Application is admissible,
the Court will now, after consultation with the Parties, fix time-limits for the further proceedings.
The proceedings consist of two parts: written and oral. During the written phase, written
pleadings are exchanged. The Applicant (Carneroon in this case} has already filed a Memorial on
the merits. Consequently, the Court will fix the time-limit for the filing of a Counter-Memorial by
the Respondent (Nigeria). Upon the closure of the written proceedings, public hearings will be
organized. The Court will band dawn a Judgment on the merits after the oral proceedings. •
A summary of the Judgment is given in Press Communiqué No 98/23bis to which a brief
summary of the opinions is annexed. The full text of the Judgment, the opinions and the Press
Communiqués are moreover available on the Court's Website (http://www.icj--cij.org}.
The printed text of the Judgment and of the opinions will become available in due course
(orders should be addressed to the Distribution andSales Section, Office of the United Nations,
1211 Geneva 10; to the Sales Section, United Nations, New York, N.Y. 10017; or any appropriate
specialized bookshop).
Information Office:
Mr. Arthur Witteveen, Secretary of the Court (tel: 31-70-302 2336}
Mrs. Laurence Blairon, Information Officer (tel:1-70-302 2337)
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria) - Preliminary Objections - The Court will proceed to consider the merits of the case