INTERNATIONAL COURTOFJUSTICE
Peace Palace, 2517 KJ The Hague. Tel.(31-70 2~233)2Cables: Intercourt, The Hague.
Telefax (31-70-364 99 28). Telex 32323. Internet address: http: Il www.icj-cij.org
Communiqué
unofficial
for immediate release
No. 99/14
25 March 1999
Reqnest for Interpretation of the Judgment of 11 June 1998 in the Case concerning ~
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Mgeri )
Preliminary Objections (Nigeria v. Cameroon)
Court declares inadmissible Nigeria's request for interpretation
THE HAGUE, 25 March 1999. The International Court ofJustice (ICJ), the principaljudicial
organ of the United Nations, today declared inadmissible Nigeria's request for interpretation of
the Judgment delivered by the Court on Il June 1998in the case conceming the Land and Maritime
Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria). Preliminary Objections.
The decision was taken by thirteen votes against three.nce the Court included on the
Bench no judge of the nationality of Nigeria or Cameroon, these two States had each appointed a
judge ad hoc.
This was the first time that the Court had been called upon to rule on a request for
interpretationf a judgment on preliminary objections.
InitsJudgment, the Court further rejected unanimously Cameroon's request that Nigeria bear
the additional costs caused to Cameroon by the request for interpretation.
Backeround information
In its request filed on 28 October 1998,Nigeria bad stated that "one aspect of the case before
the Court [was] the international responsibility borne by Nigeria for certain incidents said to have
occurred at various places Bakassi and Lake Chad and along the length of the frontier between
thoe two regions".
According to Nigeria, the Judgmento11 June 1998 "[did] not specify which ofthese alleged
incidents [were] to considered aspartof the merits of the case" and accordingly, "the meaning
and the scope of the Judgment requir[ed] interpretation" as provided by Article 98 of the Rules of
Court.
Cameroon bad submitted written observations to the Court, which, considering that it had
sufficient information on the positions the Parties, did not deem it necessary to invite them
"to fumish further written or oral explanations", as Article 98, paragraph 4, of the Rulit allows
to do.
Reasoning of the Court
In its Judgment, the Court first finds that, by virtue of Article 60 of its Statute, it has
jurisdiction to entertain requests for interpretation of anyjudgment rendered by ifollowshat
therefore that a judgment on preliminary objections, as with a judgment on the merits of the
dispute, canbe the subject of a request for interpretation. - 2-
lt states that any request for interpretation must relate to the operative part of the judgment
(the final paragraph which contains the Court'sactual decision) and cannat concem the reasons for
the judgment, except in so far as these are inseparable from the operative part. ln the present case,
Nigeria's request meets these conditions and the Court bas jurisdiction to entertain it.
The Court then goes on to consider the admissibility of the request for interpretation,
observing that this question "needs particular attention because of the need to avoid impairing the
finality, and delaying the implementation, of ... judgments". Thus, it notes, the abject of a request
for interpretation "must be solely to obtain clarification of the meaning and the scope ofwhat the
Court bas decided with binding force, and not to obtain an answer to questions not so decided".
The Court points out that, in relation to Cameroon's submissions with regard to incidents
involving the international responsibility ofNigeria, Nigeria bad raised a preliminary objection (the
sixth) in which it considered that Cameroon had to "confine itself essentialJy to the facts ..
presented in its Application" and that ''additions"presented subsequently must be disregarded.
The Court recalls that it rejected that preliminary objectionn its Judgment of IlJune 1998
on the grounds, inter alia, that under to Article8 of its Rules the statement of facts and grounds
on which the Application is based may be addedto after it bas been filed. lt reiterates that the limit
on the freedom to present additional facts and legal considerations is that there must be no
transformation of the dispute brought before it into another dispute which is different in character;
and that in the present case "Cameroon has not so transformed the dispute".
The Court concludes from the foregoing that itwould beunable to entertain Nigeria's request
without calling into question the effect of the Judgment concemed as final and without appeal, or
to examine submissions seeking to remove from its consideration elements of law and fact which,
in its Judgment of 11 June 1998, it bas already authorized Cameroon to present. It follows that
Nigeria's request for interpretation is inadmissible.
Composition of the Court
The Court was composed as follows in the case: President Schwebel; Vice-President
Weeramantry; Judges Oda, Bedjaoui, Guillaume, Rarijeva, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer, Koroma,
Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans; ~ad hoc Mbaye, Ajibola; Registrar .•
Valencia-Ospina.
Vice-President Weeramantry, ~ Koroma, and~ ad hoc Ajibola appended dissenting
opinions to the Judgment of the Court. ·
A summary of the Judgment is given in Press CommuniquéNo. 99114bis to which a brief
summary of the opinions is annexed. The full text of the Judgment, the opinions and the Press
Communiquésare moreover available on the Court'swebsite (http://www.icj-cij.org).
Information Office:
Mr. Arthur Witteveen, Secretary of the Court (tel: 3r-70-302 2336)
Mrs. Laurence Blairon, lnfonnation Officer (tel: 31-70-302 2337)
E-mail address: [email protected]
Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 11 June 1998 in the Case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections (Nigeria v. Cameroon) - Court declares inadmissible Nigeria's request for interpretation