COlJR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,
AVIS CC)NSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES
AFFAIRE DE LA FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE
ET MARITIME ENTRE LE CAMEROUN
ET LE NIGÉRIA
(CAMEROUN c. NIGÉRIA; GUINÉE ÉQUATORIALE (intervenant))
A.RRÊT DU 10 OCTOBRE 2002
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVlSORY OPINIONS AND OKDERS
CASE CONCERNING
THE LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY
BETWEEFJ CAMEROON AND NIGERIA
(CAMEROON vNIGERIA: EQUATORIAL GUINEA intervening)
JUIIGMENT OF 10 OCTOBER 2002 Mode officiel de citation:
Frontiére terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria
(Cameroun c. Nigéria; Guinée équatoriale(intervenant)),
arrêtC.1.J. Recueil 2p. 303
Officia1cita:ion
Land and Maritime Boundury hetween Cameroon and Nigeria
(Cameroonv.Nigeria: Equatorial Guineu intervening),
Judgment, 1.C.J. Reports p. 303
NOàevente: 852 1
ISSN 0074-4441 Sales number
ISBN 92-1-070957-8 10 OCTOBRE 2002
ARRÊT
FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME
ENTRE LE CAMEROUN ET LE NIGÉRIA
(CAMEROUN c. NIGÉRIA; GUINÉE ÉQUATORIALE (intervenant))
LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY
BETWEEN CAMEROON AND NIGERIA
(CAMEROON v.NIGERIA: EQUATORIAL GUINEA intervening)
10OCTOBER 2002
JUDGMENT INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
YEAR 2002 2002
10October
General List
10 October2002 No. 94
CASE CONCERNING
THE LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY
BETWEEIVCAMEROON AND NIGERIA
(CAMEROON V. 'NIGERIA: EQUATORIAL GUINEA intervening)
Geographical contc7xt - Historical background - Territories' changing
status - Principal rejevant instrumentsfor determination of the land and mari-
time boundary.
Lake Cliad area.
Bounda- delimitation - Relevant instruments (Milner-Sinion Decluration,
1919; Thotnson-Marchand Declaration, 1929-19 30; Henderson-Fleuriau
Escliange of Notes, 1931) - Bozindary cielimited and approved by Great
Britain and Frunce -- Confirmation provided by d~nzarcation ivork of Lake
Chad Basin Commission, 1983 to 1Y91 - Co-ordinates qf Carnerion-Nigeria-
Chad tripoint and Ebeji mouth.
Nigerian claims ha.sedon itspresence in certain Lake Cliadareas - Nigerian
argutneiit hased on liistorical consolidation of' title - Controversial theory
~vl~ichrannot replace modes qf ucquisitiori ($ title recognized hjf international
lait.- Nigerian argument that peuceJUlpossession, coupled ivith arts of adniin-
istration, represents nran~fefrstationf sovereignty - Canzeroon the kolder qf a
pre-existing title over the lake areas in question - Test ivhetlier or not Cam-
eroon rnmz~fe.stlji c~luiescedil7 tran.fer($ its title to Nigeria- No acquies-
cenre hy Carneroon to rc~linquishnientof its title oivertlze areu in favour of
Nigeria - Sovereigntjl over settletnents situateci to the ecistof' the boundary
continue.^to lie itith cCanieroon.
Land boundaryfrom Lake Chad to the Bakassi Prninsula. third States and reqziirement of prior negotiation not satisJled - Nigeria's
eighth preliminary objection - Protection afforded bj Article 59 of the Statute
may not al~,ays be suf$cient, inparticular in respect of maritime delimitations
involving several States - Court unable to rule on Cumeroon's clairnsin sofur
as they may flffect rights of Equatorial Guinea and Sno Tome and Principe -
Mere presence of those tivo States in Gulfof Guinea does not in itselfpreclude
the Court's jurisdiction over maritime delimitation between the Parties -
Court'sjinding in its Jrudgmentof Il June 1998 that ntlgotiations between Cum-
eroon and Nigeria concerning the entire maritime dc,limitation had been con-
ducted in the 1970s - Articles 74and 83 of 1982 Convention on the Law of the
Sea do not require thatjudicial proceedings be suspended while newnegotiations
ur~conducted if a party alters its claim in the course of proceedings - Those
Articles do not preclude the Courtfrom drawing the mcîritimeboundary between
Canzeroon and Nigeria without prior simultaneous nogotiations between those
t~o States and Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe.
Maritime boundarj up to point G - Boundary located to West of Bakussi
Peninsula and not to east - Relevant instruments (Anglo-German Agreement
of II March 1913, Yaoundé II Declarution, 1971; Maroua Declaration,
1975) - Nigeria's argument that Maroua Declaration not valid in international
luw becuuse not rut~jit>d - Maroua Declaration entered into,force immediately
on signature - Nigeria's argument that its constitutional rules on treaty rati-
jïcution had not been complied with - Heads of State regarded as empolvered
to represent their States ,for purpose qf performing al1acts relating to conclu-
sion of u treaty - Letter of 23 August 1974from Head of State of Nigeria to
Head of State of Cuineroon cunnot be regarded as .pxiJic wurning to Cam-
eroon tlzat hrigerianGovernment lvouldnot be bound bjl any commitment entered
into by its Head of State - YaoundéII and Maroua Beclarations must be con-
sidered as binding and imposing a legal obligation on Nigeria - Maritime
delimitation must be considcred as having been estal~lishedon a conventional
basis up to and incIut2'NZpgoint G by Anglo-Germun Agreement of 11 March
1913 and YaoundéII and Maroua Declurutions.
Maritime boundary beyond point G - Parugraph 1 of Articles 74 and 83 of
1982 Law of the Sea (3onventionconcerning delimitation of the continental shelf
und enclusii~eeconomic zone - Parties' agreement rhat delimitation between
their muritirne areas to be effected by a single line - So-called equitable prin-
cipleslrelevant circumstances method, ini~olvingjïrst dralving an equidistance
line then considering i-vhetherthere arefactors calling,for adjustment or shifting
of that line in order zo achieve an "equitable result" - Definition of Parties'
relevant coastlines - Equidistance line cannot be extc~ndedbeyond point where
it might affect rights qf Equatorial Guinea - Absente of circurnstances which
nzi'qhtrequire adjustment ofequidi.stance line: conjiguration and length of rele-
vant coastliries;preseizce of Bioko Island - Parties' oilpractice not afactor tu
be taken into account ,for purposes for maritime deiimitation in this case -
Equidistance line represents an equitable result for dzlimitation of the area in
~vhichthe Court hasjurisdiction to rule. Course of boundur;i~of nzaritirne areas.
Cameroon's submissions on Nigeria's State responsihility and Nigeria's
counter-claims regarding Can?eroon'.sState responsihility.
Nigeria under an obligation expeditiously and without condition to ~vithdruw
its administration und nzilitary and police forces from areasof'Lukr Chadfall-
ing under Ciimerooniun sovereignty and,from tlze Bokassi Peninsula - Canl-
eroon under un obligation expeditiously und ioithout i,ondition to ,cithdruiv ar~y
adniinistration or militery or police,forces which tnuy bepresent in areas along
the land boundary Jrom Lake Cl~adto the Bakassi Peninsula wxhichpursuant to
the Judgment fa11 within the sovereignty of Nigeria - Nigeria under the same
obligations as regards any administration or military orpolice,fi)rce.swhich rnay
be present in arras dong the land boundurj~from Lake Chad to the Bakassi
Peninsula which pursivant to the Judgment fa11 ivithirt the sovereignty of'Cam-
eroon - Co-operation beticeen the Parties in impleinenting the Judgment -
C~~rneroon's undertuking ut the hearings in regard t8iprotection of Nigerians
living in the Brikassi Peninsulu or the Lake Chud arou - Court takes note of
that undertciking - (7arneroon'ssubmissions seeking guarantees ofnon-repeti-
tion cannot hr upheld - injury .sujj(>redhy Canleroorrbjj reason of the occupa-
tion of its territory sufficiently adhessed hy the very factoftlzeJudgnient and
uf'the evacuation of'clamerooniun territory occilpied by Nigeria - Canzeroon
hus not shown that Nigeria acted in breach of theprovisional measures inciicated
in the Order of'Il Afarch 1996 - Boundary incidents - Neither Party hrrs
.suj,,ciently proved th(!jacts which it alleges or their imputability to the other
Party - Rcjection of'Cameroon's suhmis.sionson Nigeria's State responsihility
unri of'Nigeria's counter-claitns.
JUDGMENT
Present: Presidrnt (~UILLAUME V;ice-President SHI ; Judges ODA. RANJEVA,
HERCZEGHF,LEISCHHAUEK RO, ROMAH , IG(;INS.PARRA-ARANGUREN,
KOOIJMANR SE, ZEKA. L-KHASAWN BEHE,RGENTHAE LL, ARARY J;dges
ad hoc MRI~YE A,JIBOLAR;egistrur COUVREIJR.
In the case concerning the land and maritime bouridary between Cameroon
and Nigeria,
the Republic of Camt:roon,
represented by
H.E. Mr. Amadou Ali. Minister of State responsible for Justice, Keeper of
the Seals,
as Agent; LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT)
307
Mr. Maurice Kamto, Dean, Faculty of Law and Political Science,University
of Yaoundé II, rnember of the International Law Commission, avocat at
the Paris Bar, sociétéd'avocats Lysias,
Mr. Peter Ntamark, Professor, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Uni-
versity of Yaoundé II, Barrister-at-Law,embei-of the Inner Temple,
as Co-Agents, Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor, University of Paris X-Nanterre, member and
former Chairmari of the International Law Commission,
as Deputy Agent, Counsel and Advocate;
Mr. Joseph-Marie Bipoun Woum, Professor, Faculty of Law and Political
Science, University of Yaoundé II, former Dean, former Minister,
as Special Adviser and Advocate;
Mr. Michel Aurillac, former Minister, Honorary conseiller d'Etat, retired
avocat,
Mr. Jean-Pierre Cot, Emeritus Professor. University of Paris 1 (Panthéon-
Sorbonne), former Minister,
Mr. Maurice Mentielson, Q.C., Emeritus Professor of International Law,
University of Lo:ndon, Barrister-at-Law,
Mr. Malcolm N. Shaw, Sir Robert Jennings Professor of International Law,
Faculty of Law, University of Leicester, Barrister-at-Law,
Mr. Bruno Simma, Professor, University of Munich, member of the Inter-
national Law Commission,
Sir Ian Sinclair, K.C.M.G., Q.C., Barrister-at-Law, former member of the
International Lala Commission,
Mr. Christian Tomluschat,Professor, Humboldt University of Berlin, former
member and Cha.irman, International Law Commission,
Mr. Olivier Corten, Professor of International Law. Faculty of Law, Univer-
sité librede Bruxelles,
Mr. Daniel Khan, Lecturer, International Law Institute, University of
Munich,
Mr. Jean-Marc Thouvenin, Professor, University of Paris X-Nanterre,
avocat at the Paris Bar, sociétéd'avocats Lysias.
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. Eric Diamantis. avocat at the Paris Bar, Moqiiet, Bordes & Associés,
Mr. Jean-Pierre Mignard, avocat at the Paris Bar, sociétéd'avocats Lysias,
Mr. Joseph Tjop, Consultant to sociétéd'avocats Lysias, Researcher at the
Centre de droitinternational de Nanterre (CEDIN), University of Paris X-
Nanterre,
as Counsel;
General Pierre Semengue, Controller-General of the Armed Forces, former
Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces,
Major-General James Tataw, Logistics Adviser, Former Chief of Staff of the
Army,
H.E. Ms Isabelle B:~ssong,Ambassador of Cameroon to the Benelux Coun-
tries and to the European Union,H.E. Mr. Pascal BilloaTang, Ambassador of Cameroon to France,
H.E. Mr. Martin Belinga Eboutou, Ambassador, Permanent Representative
of Cameroon to i.heUnited Nations in New York,
Mr. Etienne Ateba, Minister-Counsellor, Chargé d'affaires ai. at the
Embassy of Cameroon, The Hague.
Mr. Robert Akamba, Principal Civil Administrator, Chargé de mission,
General Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic,
Mr. Anicet Abanda Atangana, Attaché to the General Secretariat of the
Presidency of the Republic, Lecturer, University of Yaoundé II,
Mr. Ernest Bodo Abanda, Director of the Cadastral Survey, member,
National Boundary Commission,
Mr. Ousmane Mey, former Provincial Governor,
Chief Samuel M0k.a Liffafa Endeley, Honorary Magistrate, Barrister-at-
Law, member of the Middle Temple, former President of the Administra-
tive Chamber of the Supreme Court,
Maître Marc Sasseri, Advocate and Legal Adviser, Petten, Tideman & Sas-
sen. The Hague,
Mr. Francis Fai Yeingo,former Provincial Governor, Director, Organisation
du Territoire, Ministry of Territorial Administration,
Mr. Jean Mbenoun, Director, Central Administration. General Secretariat
of the Presidency of the Republic,
Mr. Edouard Etoundi, Director, Central Administration, General Secre-
tariat of the Presiidencyof the Republic,
Mr. Robert Tanda, diplomat, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
as Advisers;
Mr. Samuel Betha Sona, Geological Engineer, Consulting Expert to the
United Nations 5or the Law of the Sea,
Mr. Thomson Fitt l'akang, Department Head. Central Administration, Gen-
eral Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic:,
Mr. Jean-Jacques Koum, Director of Exploration, National Hydrocarbons
Company (SNH),
Commander Jean-Pierre Meloupou, Head of Africa Division at the Ministry
of Defence,
Mr. Paul Moby Etia, Geographer, Director, Institut national de carto-
graphie,
Mr. André Loudet, Cartographic Engineer,
Mr. André Roubertou, ingénieur généralde l'armement C.R. (hydro-
grapher).
as Experts;
Ms Marie Florence Kollo-Efon, Principal Translater-Interpreter,
as Translator-Interpreter;
Ms CélineNegre, Researcher,Centre d'études de droit international de Nan-
terre (CEDIN), llniversity of Paris X-Nanterre,
Ms Sandrine Barbier, Researcher, Centre d'étudesde droit international de
Nanterre (CEDIN), University of Paris X-Nanterre,
Mr. Richard Penda Keba, Certified Professor of History, cabinet of the
Minister of State for Justice, former proviseurdc:lycées,
as Research Assistants;
Mr. Boukar Oumara,
Mr. Guy Roger Eba'a, Mr. Aristide Esso,
Mr. Nkende Forbibake,
Mr. Nfan Bile,
Mr. Eithel Mbocka,
Mr. Olinga Nyozo'o,
as Media Officers;
Ms Renée Bakker,
Ms Laurence Polirsztok,
Ms Mireille Jung,
Mr. Nigel McCollum,
Ms Tete BéatriceEpeti-Kame,
as Secretaries,
and
the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
represented by
H.E. the Honourable Musa E. Abdullahi, Minister of State for Justice of the
Federal Governnlent of Nigeria,
as Agent ;
Chief Richard Akinjide SAN, Former Attorney-General of the Federation,
member of the English Bar, former member of the International Law
Commission.
.4lhaji Abdullahi Ibrahim CON, SAN, Commissioner, International Boun-
daries, National Boundary Commission of Ni%eria, Former Attorney-
General of the Federation,
as Co-Agents:
Mrs. Nella Andem-Ewa, Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice,
Cross River State,
Mr. Ian Brownlie, C.B.E., Q.C., member of the International Law Commis-
sion. member of the English Bar, member of the Institute of International
Law,
Sir Arthur Watts, IC.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, Univer-
sity of Cambridgi:, member of the English and Aiistralian Bars, member of
the Institute of International Law,
Mr. Georges Abi-Saab, Honorary Professor, Graduate Institute of Interna-
tional Studies, Geneva, member of the Institute of International Law,
Mr. Alastair Macdonald, Land Surveyor, Former Director, Ordnance Sur-
vey, Great Britain,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. Timothy H. Daniel, Partner, D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City of London,
Mr. Alan Perry, Pa.rtner, D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City of London,
Mr. David Lerer, Solicitor, D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City of London,Mr. Christopher Hackford, Solicitor, D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City of Lon-
don,
Ms Charlotte Breide, Solicitor, D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City of London,
Mr. Ned Beale, Trainee, D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City of London,
Mr. Geoffrey Marston, Fellow of Sidney Sussex College, University ofCam-
bridge, member of the Bar of England and Wales,
Mr. Maxwell Gidatio, Senior Special Assistant to the President (Legal and
Constitutional Matters), former Attorney-Gener,il and Commissioner for
Justice, Adamawa State,
Mr. A. O. Cukwurah, Co-Counsel, Former UN (OPAS) Boundary Adviser
to the Kingdom of Lesotho, Former Commissioner, Inter-State Bound-
aries, National Boundary Commission,
Mr. 1.Ayua, member, Nigerian Legal Team,
Mr. K. A. Adabale, Director (International and Comparative Law), Minis-
try of Justice,
Mr. Jalal Arabi, member, Nigerian Legal Team,
Mr. Gbola Akinola, member, Nigerian Legal Teani,
Mr. K. M. Tumsah, Special Assistant to Director-General, National Bound-
ary Commission, and Secretary to the Legal Team,
as Counsel ;
H.E. the Honourable Dubem Onyia, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs,
Alhaji Dahiru Bobbo, Director-General, National Boundary Commission,
Mr. F. A. Kassim, Surveyor-General of the Federation,
Alhaji S. M. Diggi, Director (International Boundaries), National Boundary
commission,
Colonel A. B. Maitama, Ministry of Defence,
Mr. Aliyu Nasir, Special Assistant to the Minister of State for Justice,
as Advisers;
Mr. Chris Carleton, C.B.E., United Kingdom Hydrographic Office,
Mr. Dick Gent, Uriited Kingdom Hydrographic Orfice,
Mr. Clive Schofield, International Boundaries Rescarch Unit, University of
Durham,
Mr. Scott B. Edmonds. Director of Cartographic Operations, International
Mapping Associates,
Mr. Robert C. Rizzutti, Senior Mapping Specialist, International Mapping
Associates,
Mr. Bruce Daniel, International Mapping Associates,
Ms Victoria J. Taylor, International Mapping Associates,
Ms Stephanie Kim Clark, International Mapping ~lssociates,
Mr. Robin Cleverly, Exploration Manager, NPA Group,
Ms Claire Ainsworth, NPA Group,
as Scientific andTechnical Advisers;
Mr. Mohammed Jibrilla, Computer Expert, National Boundary Commis-
sion. LAND 4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUL)GMENT) 311
Ms Coralie Ayad, Secretary, D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City of London.
Ms Claire Goodacre, Secretary, D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City of London,
Ms Sarah Bickell, Secretary, D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City of London,
Ms Michelle Burgoine, ITSpecialist, D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City of Lon-
don,
as Administrators;
Mr. Geoffrey Anika.,
Mr. Mau Onowu,
Mr. Austeen Elewodalu,
Mr. Usman Magawata,
as Media Officers,
witlz, as State permitted to intervene in the case,
the Republic of Equatorial Guinea.
represented by
H.E. Mr. Ricardo 'MangueObama N'Fube, Minister of State for Labour
and Social Security,
as Agent and Counijel;
H.E. Mr. Rubén MayeNsue Mangue, Minister of Justice and Religion, Vice-
President of the National Boundary Commission,
H.E. Mr. Cristobal Mafiana Ela Nchama, Minister of Mines and Energy,
Vice-President of the National Boundary Commission,
H.E. Mr. Antonio Nzambi Nlonga, Attorney-General of the State,
Mr. Domingo Mba Esono, National Director of the Equatorial Guinea
National Petroleum Company, member of the hational Boundary Com-
mission,
H.E. Juan 016 Mbal Nzang, former Minister of Mines and Energy,
as Advisers;
Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Professor of Public International Law at the
University of ParisII (Panthéon-Assas) and at the European University
Institute, Florence,
Mr. David A. Colston, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P., Wash-
ington, D.C., meinber of the California State Bar and District of Colum-
bia Bar.
as Counsel and Advocates;
Sir Derek Bowett, C.B.E., Q.C.,
as Senior Counsel;
Mr. Derek C. Smith, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P., Washing-
ton, D.C., member of the District of Columbia Bar and Virginia State Bar,
as Counsel;
Ms Jannette E. Hasan, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P., Wash-
ington, D.C.,meimberof the District of Columbia Bar and Florida State
Bar, LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUI)GMENT) 312
Mr. Hervé Blatry, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P., Paris, avocat
à la Cour, member of the Paris Bar,
as Legal Experts;
Mr. Coalter G. Lathrop, Sovereign Geographic Inc., Chapel Hill, North
Carolina,
Mr. Alexander M. Tait, Equator Graphics Inc., Silver Spring, Maryland,
as Technical Experts,
composed as above,
after deliberation,
delivers thefollowing Judgment .
1. On 29 March 1994 the Government of the Republic of Cameroon (here-
inafter referred to as "Cameroon") filed in the Registry of the Court an Appli-
cation instit~iting proclredings against the Government of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria (hereinafter referred to as "Nigeria") concerning a dispute described
as "relat[ing] essentially to the question of sovereignty over the Bakassi Penin-
sula". Cameroon further stated in its Application that the "delimitation [of the
maritime boundary between the two States] has remained a partial one and
[that],despite many attempts to complete it, the two parties have been unable
to do so". Consequently, it requested the Court, "[ilil order to avoid further
incidents between the two countries, . . . to determini: the course of the mari-
time boundary between the two States beyond the linz fixed in 1975".
In order to found thiejurisdiction of the Court, the .$pplication relied on the
declarations made by the two Parties accepting the jurisdiction of the Court
under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court.
2. Pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the Application was
immediately communicated to the Government of Nigeria by the Registrar.
3. On 6 June 1994Cameroon filed in the Registry an Additional Application
"for the purpose of extending the subject of the dispilte" to a further dispute
described in that Additional Application as "relat[ing] essentially to the ques-
tion of sovereignty over a part of the territory of Camt:roon in the area of Lake
Chad". Cameroon alsc, requested the Court, in its Additional Application, "to
specify definitively" the frontier between the two States from Lake Chad to the
sea, and asked it to join the two Applications and "to examine the whole in a
single case". In order to found the jurisdiction of the Court, the Additional
Application referred to the "basis of. . .jurisdiction. . already . . . indicated"
in the Application insitituting proceedings of 29 March 1994.
4. On 7 June 1994 the Registrar communicated th<:Additional Application
to the Government of Nigeria.
5. At a meeting helti by the President of the Court aith the representatives of
the Parties on 14 Juni: 1994 the Agent of Cameroon explained that his Gov-
ernment had not intended to submit a separate Application and that the Addi-
tional Application haci instead been designed as an amendment to the initial
Application: the Agerit of Nigeria, for his part, declared that his Government
did not object to the Additional Application being treiited as an amendment to
the initial Application, so that the Court might examine the whole in a single
case. 6. By an Order of 16June 1994the Court indicated that it had no objection
to such a procedure and fixed 16 March 1995and 18 December 1995respec-
tively as the time-limits for the filing of the Memoriiil of Cameroon and the
Counter-Mernorial of Nigeria.
7. Pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 3, of the Statute, al1States entitled to
appear before the Court were notified of the Application.
8. Cameroon duly filed its Memorial within the time-limit prescribed for that
purpose.
9. Within the time-limit fixed for the filing of its Counter-Memorial, Nigeria
filed preliminary obje1:tionsto the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissi-
bility of the Application. Accordingly, by an Order dated 10January 1996the
President of the Court, noting that under Article 79, paragraph 3, of the Rules
of Court the proceediiigs on the merits were suspended. fixed 15May 1996as
the time-limit within v~hichCameroon might present ;iwritten statement of its
observations and subrnissions on the preliminary objections.
Cameroon duly filed such a statement within the time-limit so prescribed,
and the case became rlradyfor hearing in respect of the preliminary objections.
IO. Since the Court included upon the Bench no judge of the nationality of
the Parties, each Party exercised its rightunder Articlc 31, paragraph 3, of the
Statute to choose a ju'dgead hoc to sit in the case. Cameroon chose Mr. Kéba
Mbaye and Nigeria chose Mr. Bola Ajibola.
11. By a letter of 10 February 1996,receivedin the Registry on 12 February
1996, Cameroon made a request for the indication of provisional measures
under Article 41 of the Statute. By an Order dated 15 March 1996the Court,
after hearing the Parties, indicated certain provisional measures.
12. The Court held hearings on the preliminary objections raised by Nigeria
from 2 to II March 1998.In its Judgment of 11June 1998the Court found that
it had jurisdiction to adjudicateupon the merits of the dispute and that Cam-
eroon's requests were admissible. The Court rejected seven of the preliminary
objections raised by Nigeria and declared that the eighth did not have an exclu-
sively preliminary character. and that it would rule on it in the Judgment to be
rendered on the merits.
13. By an Order of 30 June 1998the Court fixed 3 L March 1999as the new
time-limit for the filing of Nigeria's Counter-Memoriiil.
14. On 28 October 1998Nigeria submitted a request for interpretation of the
Judgment delivered by the Court on 11 June 1998 on the preliminary objec-
tions; that request became a new case, separate from the present proceedings.
ByJudgment dated 25 March 1999the Court decided that Nigeria's request for
interpretation was inadmissible.
15. On 16 November 1998 the Government of th. Republic of Equatorial
Guinea (hereinafter "Equatorial Guinea") requested a copy of the Memorial
filed by Cameroon and of the maps produced to the Court by the Parties at the
oral proceedings on t'hepreliminary objections. The Parties were consulted in
accordance with Article 53, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court and informed
the Court that they did not object to the communication to the Government of
Equatorial Guinea of the documents requested by it. The documents in ques-
tion were transmitted to Equatorial Guinea on 8 December 1998.
16. By an Order ol'3 March 1999 the Court extended to 31 May 1999the
time-limit for the filing of the Counter-Memorial.above-mentioned Order of 30 June 1999, informed the Court that his Govern-
ment wished to preseni. its views in writing a second tirne on Nigeria's counter-
claims and suggested tl~at4 July 2001 be fixed as the time-limit for the filing of
that additional pleadirig. The Agent of Nigeria indicated in a letter of 6 Feb-
ruary 2001 that his Governmenthad no objection to that request. By an Order
of 20 February 2001 the Court authorized the presentation by Cameroon of an
additional pleading relating exclusively to the counier-claims submitted by
Nigeria and fixed 4 July 2001 as the time-limit for the filing of that pleading.
Cameroon duly fileclthe additional pleading within the time-limit so fixed,
and the case became rt:ady for hearing.
20. At a meeting held by the President of the Court with the Agents of the
Parties and of Equat'orial Guinea on 12 Septembei 2001 the three States
expressed their agreement that the oral proceedings on the merits should open
early in 2002; they also presented their views on the organization of those pro-
ceedings. The Court fi:<ed18 February 2002 as the date for the opening of the
oral proceedings and adopted the schedule for them. By letters dated 24 Sep-
tember 2001 the Regisi.rar informed the Parties and Equatorial Guinea of that
decision.
21. By a letter of ElJanuary 2002 Cameroon informed the Court that it
wislîed to be given the opportunity to reply orally, even if only briefly, to any
observations Nigeria niight make during its last round of oral arguments relat-
ing to the counter-claiins it had submitted. Nigeria was duly informed of that
request, which the Court decided to grant, the Agents of the Parties being so
informed by letters from the Registrar dated 7 February 2002.
22. By a letter of 11January 2002 Cameroon expressed the desire to produce
further documents in accordance with Article 56 of the Rules of Court. As pro-
vided in paragraph 1 of that Article, those documents were communicated to
Nigeria. By a letter of 29 January 2002 the Co-Agent of Nigeria informed the
Court that his Government objected to the production of those new docu-
ments. on the grounds, inter ulia,that Cameroon hacl not explained why the
documents, although described as being "of great importance", "[had] not
[been] submitted to the Court at theappropriate time, and in any event prior to
the closure of the written procedure". That letter was communicated to the
Agent of Cameroon. niho, by a letter of 1February 2002, explained inter ulia
that in the light of the argument developed in Nigeria's Rejoinder his Govern-
ment had "found that a number of documents whosi: production it had not
judged indispensable at the time of its Reply turned out to be more important
thail previously thouglit". The Court decided not to authorize the production
of the documents, with the exception of those relating to events subsequent to
Cameroon's Reply. The Court also decided to authorize Nigeria, if it so
desired, to file documi:nts in reply to the new documents produced by Cam-
eroon and to present ;any observations on them duriiig the oral proceedings.
The Agents of the Parties were so informed by letters from the Registrar dated
7 February 2002.
23. Pursuant to Artiicle53, paragraph 2, of its Rule';, the Court, after ascer-
taining the views of tht: Parties, decided that copies of the pleadings and docu-
ments annexed would be made available to the public at the opening of the oral
proceedings. After consulting the Parties and Equatorial Guinea, the Court
decided that the same should apply to the written statcment of the interveningState and the written observations of the two Parties on that statement.
24. Public hearings were held from 18February to 21 March 2002, at which
the Court heard the oral arguments and replies of:
For Cameroon: H.E. Mr. Amadou Ali,
Mr. Maurice Kamto.
Mr. Alain Pellet,
Mr. Peter Y. Ntamark,
Mr. Malcolm N. Shaw,
Mr. Bruno Simma,
Mr. Jean-Pierre Cot,
Mr. Daniel Khan,
Mr. Joseph-Marie Bipoun U'oum,
Mr. Michel Aurillac,
Mr. Christian Tomuschat,
Mr. Maurice Mendelson,
Mr. Jean-Marc Thouvenin,
Mr. Olivier Corten,
Sir Ian Sinclair.
For Nigeria: H.E. the Honourable Musa E. Abdullahi,
Mrs. Nella Andem-Ewa,
Sir Arthur Watts,
Mr. Ian Brownlie,
Mr. Georges Abi-Saab,
Alhaji Abdullahi Ibrahim,
Mr. Alastair Macdonald,
Mr. James Crawford,
Mr. Richard Akinjide.
Foi-Equatoriul Guinea: H.E. Mr. Ricardo Mangue Obama N'Fube,
Mr. David A. Colson,
Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy.
At the hearings questions were put by Members of the Court, to which
replies were given orally and in writing. Each Party submitted its written
comments, in accordance with Article 72 of the Rules of Court, on the other's
written replies.
*
25. In its Application, Cameroon made the following requests:
"On the basis cifthe foregoing statement of facts and legal grounds, the
Republic of Carneroon, while reserving for itself the right to 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, asksthe Court to adjudge and
declare:
(a) that sovereignty over the Peninsula of Bakassi is Cameroonian, by
virtue of international law, and that that Peiiinsula is an integral part
of the territory of Cameroon;
that the FecleralRepublic of Nigeria has violated and is violating the
(b) fundamental principle of respect for frontiers inherited from coloni-
zation (ut; possidetis juris) ;
(c) that by usirig force against the Republic ol'Cameroon, the Federal
Republic of Nigeria has violated and is violating its obligations
under international treaty law and customary law;
(d) that theFederalRepublic of Nigeria, by militarily occupying the Cam-
eroonian Peninsula of Bakassi, has violated and is violating the obli-
gations incumbent upon it by virtue of treaty law and customary
law ;
that in view of these breaches of legal obligation, mentioned above,
(ej the Federal Republic of Nigeria has the express duty of putting an
end to its niilitary presence in Cameroonian territory, and effecting
an immediate and unconditional withdraw.11of its troops from the
Cameroonian Peninsula of Bakassi;
(e') that the inte:rnationally unlawful acts referred to under (a), (b), (c),
(d) and (ej above involve the responsibility of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria;
(eu) that, consequently, and on account of the niaterial and non-material
damage inflicted upon the Republic of Carneroon, reparation in an
amount to be determined by the Court is due from the Federal
Republic ol' Nigeria to the Republic of Ciimeroon, which reserves
the introduction before the Court of [proceedings for] a precise
assessment of the damage caused by the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
In order to prevent any dispute arising between the two States con-
(fj cerning their maritime boundary, the Republicof Cameroon requests
the Court to proceed to prolong the course of its maritime boundary
with the Federal Republic of Nigeria up to the limit of the maritime
zones which international law places under their respective jurisdic-
tions."
In its Additional Application, Cameroon made the following requests:
"On the basis of the foregoing statement of facts and legal grounds, and
subject to the reservations expressed in paragrapli 20 of its Application of
29 March 1994,the Republic of Cameroon asks the Court to adjudge and
declare:
(a) that sovereignty over the disputed parcel in the area of Lake Chad is
Cameroonian, by virtue of international lalv, and that that parcel is
an integral ]partof the territory of Cameroon;
(h) that the Fedleral Republic of Nigeria has violated and is violating the
fundamental principle of respect for frontiers inherited from coloni-
zation (ut; possidetis juris). and its recent legal commitments con-
cerning the demarcation of frontiers in Lake Chad;
(c) that the Fecleral Republic of Nigeria, by occ:upying,with the support
of its security forces, parcels of Camerooni;in territory in the area of
Lake Chad, has violated and is violating its obligations under treaty
law and customary law;
(d) that in view of these legal obligations, mentioned above, the Federal
Republic of Nigeria has the express duty of effecting an immediate
and unconditional withdrawal of its troops from Cameroonian terri-
tory in the iirea of Lake Chad;
(e) that the internationally unlawful acts referrcd to under (a), (b), (c) LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUI)GMENT) 318
and (d) above involve the responsibility of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria ;
(e') that consequently, and on account of the material and non-material
damage inflicted upon the Republic of Cameroon, reparation in an
amount to be determined by the Court isduefromtheFederal Repub-
lic of Nigeria to the Republic of Cameroon, which reserves the
introductiori before the Court of [proceedings for] a precise assess-
ment of the damage caused by the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(f) That in view of the repeated incursions of Nigerian groups and
armed fora-s into Cameroonian territory, al1 along the frontier
between the two countries, the consequent grave and repeated inci-
dents, and the vacillating and contradictory attitude of the Federal
Republic of'Nigeria in regard to the legal instruments defining the
frontier between the two countries and the exact course of that fron-
tier, the Republic of Cameroon respectfully asks the Court to specify
definitively the frontier between Cameroon .ind the Federal Republic
of Nigeria from Lake Chad to the sea."
26. In the course of the written proceedings the following submissions were
presented by the Partiies:
On behaif of the Govttrnment of Cameroon,
in the Memorial:
"The Republic of Cameroon has the honour to request that the Court
be pleased to adjudge and declare:
(a) That the lake and land boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria
takes the folllowingcourse :
- from the point at longitude 14"04'5Y9999 E of Greenwich and
latitude13"05'00"0001 N, it then runs through the point located
at longitude 14"12'1l"7 E and latitude 12"32'17"4N;
thence il follows the course fixed by the Franco-British Declara-
tion of 10 July 1919, as specified in paragraphs 3 to 60 of the
ThomsonIMarchand Declaration, confiimed by the Exchange of
Letters of 9 January 1931, as far as the 'very prominent peak'
described in the latter provision and called by the usual name of
'Mount Kombon';
from Mount Kombon the boundary then runs to 'Pillar 64'men-
tioned irparagraph 12of the Anglo-German Agreement of Obo-
kum of 12 April 1913 and follows, iri that sector, the course
describetdin Section 6 (1) of the British Nigeria (Protectorate and
Cameroiîns) Order in Council of 2 August 1946;
from Pilllar 64 it follows the course described in paragraphs 13
to 21 of the Obokum Agreement of 12 April 1913 as far as
Pillar 114on the Cross River;
thence, as far as the intersection of the straight line joining
Bakassi Point to King Point and the centre of the navigable chan-
ne1of the Akwayafe, the boundary is determined by paragraphs
16to 21 of the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913.
(b) That in corisequence, inter alia, sovereignty over the Peninsula of
Bakassi and over the disputed parce1 occupied by Nigeria in the area of Lake Chad, in particular over Darak and its region, is Cam-
eroonian.
/c) That the boundary of the maritime zones appertaining respectively to
the Republic of Cameroon and to the Federal Republic of Nigeria
follows the following course :
- from the intersection of the straight lin€joining Bakassi Point to
King Point and the centre of the navigable channel of the
Akwayafe to 'point 12',that boundary is determined by the 'com-
promise line' entered on British Admiralty Chart No. 3343 by the
Heads of State of the two countries or14 April 1971 (Yaoundé
Declaralion) and, from that 'point 12' 10 'point G', by the Dec-
laration signed at Maroua on 1June 1975;
- from point G that boundary then swings south-westward in the
direction which is indicated by points G, H, 1, J and K repre-
sented on the sketch-map on page 556 of this Memorial and
meets thierequirement for an equitable solution, up to the outer
limit of the maritime zones which international law places under
the respective jurisdictions of the two Parties.
(d) That by coritesting the courses of the boundary defined above under
(CI) and (c), the Federal Republic of Nigeria has violated and is vio-
lating the fundamental principle of respect for frontiers inherited
from colonization (uti possi~letisjz~ris) and its legal commitments
concerning the demarcation of frontiers in Lake Chad and land and
maritime delimitation.
(e) That by using force against the Republic of Cameroon and, in par-
ticular, by ~nilitarily occupying parcels of Cameroonian territory in
the area of Lake Chad and the Cameroon~an Peninsula of Bakassi,
and by making repeated incursions. both civilian and military, al1
along the boundary between the two countries, the Federal Republic
of Nigeria hiasviolated and is violating its c~bligationsunder interna-
tional treaty law and customary law.
f') That the Federal Republic of Nigeria has the express duty of putting
an end to its civilian and military presence in Cameroonian territory
and, in particular, of effecting an immediatt: and unconditional with-
drawal of its troops from the occupied area of Lake Chad and from
the Cameroonian Peninsula of Bakassi ancl of refraining from such
acts in the future;
(g) That the internationally wrongful acts referrzd to above and described
in detail in the body of this Memorial invol\e the responsibility of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(12) That, conseiquently, and on account of the rnaterial and non-material
damage inflicted upon the Republic of Cameroon. reparation in a
form to be determined by the Court is due from the Federal Republic
of Nigeria to the Republic of Cameroon.
The Republic of Cameroon furtherhas the hoilour to request the Court
to permit it to piesent an assessment of the amount of compensation due
to it as reparatic~nfor the damage it has suffered as a result of the inter-
nationally wrongful acts attributable to the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
at a subsequent !stageof the proceedings.
These submissions are lodged subject to any points of fact and law and
any evidence that may subsequently be lodged; the Republic of Cameroon reserves the right to complete or amend them, as necessary, in accordance
with the Statute and the Rules of Court."
in the Reply :
"The Republic of Cameroon has the honour to request that the Court
be pleased to ad.judge and declare:
(a) That the land boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria takes the
following course :
- from the point at longitude 14"04'59"9999 east of Greenwich
and latitude 13"05'00"0001 north, it then runs through the
point located at longitude 14"12'1l"7005 east and latitude
12"32'17"4013 north, in accordance with the Franco-British Dec-
laration of 10July 1919and the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
of 29 tlecember 1929 and 31 Januaq 1930, confirmed by the
Exchange of Letters of 9 January 1931
- thence it follows the course fixed by these instruments as far as
the 'ver!{prominent peak' described in paragraph 60 of the Thom-
son-Marchand Declaration and called by the usual name of
'Mount Kombon';
- from 'h4ount Kombon' the boundary then runs to 'Pillar 64'
mentionied in paragraph 12 of the Anglo-German Agreement of
Obokunn of 12 April 1913 and follows, in that sector, the course
describe,din Section 6 (1) of the British .Yigeria (Protectoratr and
Cameroons) Order in Cotmçil of 2 Aupust 1946;
-- from Pillar 64 it follows the course described in paragraphs 13 to
21 of the Obokum Agreement of 12April 1913as far as Pillar 114
on the Cross River;
- thence, as far as the intersection of the straight line joining
Bakassi Point to King Point and the centre of the navigable chan-
ne1of the Akwayafe, the boundary is determined by paragraphs 16
to 21 of'the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913.
(b) That, in consequence, inter alia, sovereignty over the Peninsula
of Bakassi and over the disputed parcel occupied by Nigeria in the
area of Lake Chad, in particular over Darak and its region, is Cam-
eroonian.
(c) That the boundary of the maritime zones appertaining respectively to
the Republic of Cameroon and to the Fecleral Republic of Nigeria
follows the following course:
-- from th'eintersection of the straight line joining Bakassi Point to
King Point and the centre of the navigable channel of the
Akwayafe to 'point 12',that boundary is determined by the 'com-
promise line' entered on British Admiralty Chart No. 3433 by the
Heads of State of the two countries oii 4 April 1971 (Yaoundé
Declaration) and, from that 'point 12' to 'point G'. by the Dec-
laration signed at Maroua on 1 June 1975;
- from point G that boundary then swings south-westward in the
direction which is indicated by Points G, H with co-ordinates
8"21' 16"east and 4" 17'00" north, 1 (7"55'40" east and 3"46'00"
north), J (7" 12'08" east and 3" 12'35" north) and K (6"45'22"
east ancl 3"01'05" north), represented on the sketch-map R 21 on page 411 of this Reply and which meets the requirement for an
equitable solution, up to the outer limit of the maritime zones
which international law places under the respective jurisdictions
of the t~o Parties.
(d) That in attempting to modify unilaterally and by force the courses of
the boundary defined above under (a) and 'c), the Federal Republic
of Nigeria has violated and is violating the fundamental principle of
respect for frontiers inherited from colonization (uti possidetis juris)
and its legal commitments concerning land and maritime delimitation.
(e) That by usiingforce against the Republic of Cameroon and, in par-
ticular, by rnilitarily occupying parcels of Cameroonian territory in
the area of Lake Chad and the Cameroonian Peninsula of Bakassi,
and by making repeated incursions, both civilian and military, al1
along the boundary between the two countries, the Federal Republic
of Nigeria has violated and is violating its cbligations under interna-
tional treaty law and customary law.
(f) That the Feiieral Republic of Nigeria has the express duty of putting
an end to it:;civilian and military presence In Cameroonian territory
and, in particular, of effecting an immediate and unconditional with-
drawal of itc;troops from the occupied area of Lake Chad and from
the Cameroonian Peninsula of Bakassi and of refraining from such
acts in the future.
(g) That the internationally wrongful acts referred to above and described
in detail in the Memorial of the Republic ofCameroon and in the present
Reply engage the responsibility ofthe Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(h) Tdamage infl.icted upon the Republic of Cameroon, reparation in aial
form to be determined by the Court is due from the Federal Republic
of Nigeria to the Republic of Cameroon.
The Republic of Cameroon further has the horiour to request the Court
to permit it to present an assessment of the amount of compensation due
to it as reparation for the damage it has sufferetl as a result of the inter-
nationally wrongful acts attributable to the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
at a subsequent stage of the proceedings.
The Republic of Cameroon also asks the Court to declare that the
counter-claims of the Federal Republic of Nigeria are unfounded both in
fact and in law, and to reject them.
These submissions are lodged subject to any points of fact and 1awand
any evidence that may subsequently be lodged; the Republic of Cameroon
reserves the right to supplement or amend them. as necessary. in accord-
ance with the Statute and the Rules of Court."
in the additional pleliding entitled "Observations of Cameroon by Way of
Re.joinder" :
"The Republic of Cameroon has the honou~ to request that it may
please the International Court of Justice to adjudge and declare that the
counter-claims of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which appear to be
inadmissible in light of the arguments put forwartl in the Rejoinder, in any
event have no basis in fact or in law, and to reject them."On behalf cf the Government of Nigeria,
in the Counter-Memorial :
"For the reasons given herein, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, reserv-
ing the right to amend and modify these submissions in the light of the
further pleadings in this case, respectfully requests that the Court should:
(1) as u prelimNqurymatter decide to deal with the issues relating to the
land boundc~ry ;
(2) as to Lake Chad, adjudge and declare:
that sovereignty over the areas in Lake Chad defined in Chap-
ter 14 of this Couilter-Memorial (including the Nigerian settle-
ments identified in paragraph 14.5 hereof) is vested in the Federal
Republic of Nigeria;
that the proposed 'demarcation' under the auspices of the Lake
Chad BalsinCommission, not having been ratified by Nigeria, is
not binding upon it;
that outstanding issues of the delimitation and demarcation within
thearea 'ofLake Chad areto be resolved by the Parties to theLake
Chad Basin Commission within the framework of the constitution
and procedures of the Commission;
(3) as to the central sectors of the land boundary:
- acknowledging that the Parties recognize that the boundary
between the mouth of the Ebeji River and the point on the thalweg
of the Akpa Yafe which is opposite the mid-point of the mouth of
Archibong Creek is delimited by the following instruments:
(a) paragraphs 3-60ofthe ThomsonIMarchand Declaration, con-
firmed by the Exchange of Letters of 9 January 1931,
(hl the Nigeria (Protectorate and Cameroons) Order in Council of
2 August 1946,section 6 (1) and the Second Schedule thereto,
jc) paragraphs 13-21 of the Anglo-Gerrnan Demarcation Agree-
menit of 12 April 1913,
(4 Articles XV-XVII of the Anglo-German Treaty of 11 March
1913; and
- acknowledging further that uncertainties as to the interpretation
and application of these instruments, and established local agree-
ments in certain areas, mean that the actual course of the bound-
ary cannot be definitively specified merely by reference to those
instruments ;
affirm that theinstrumentsmentioned above are binding on the Parties
(unless lawfully varied by them) asto the courseof the land boundary ;
(4) as to the BulcassiPeninsulu, adjudge and declare:
- that sovereignty over the Peninsula (as defined in Chapter 11
hereof) is;vested in the Federal Republic of Nigeria;
(5) as to the mai?itimeboundary, adjudge and dcclare:
(a) that the Court lacksjurisdiction to deal with Cameroon's claim-
line, to i.heextent that it impinges on areas claimed by Equatorial Guinea andlor Sko Tomée Principe (which areas are provision-
ally identified in Figure 20.3 herein), or alternatively that Cam-
eroon's claim is inadmissible to that extent; and
(b) that the Parties are under an obligatiori, pursuant to Articles 76
and 83 of the United Nations Law of'the Sea Convention, to
negotiaie in good faith with a view to agreeing on an equitable
delimitation of their respective maritime zones, such delimitation
to take into account, in particular, the need to respect existing
rights to explore and exploit the mineral resources of the conti-
nental shelf, granted by either Party prior to 29 March 1994with-
out wrii-ten protest from the other, and the need to respect the
reasonable maritime claims of third States;
(6) as to Canîeroon's claims of'State responsihility, adjudge and declare
that those claims are unfounded in fact and law; and
(7) as to Nigeria's counter-clairns as specified in Part VI of this Cotmter-
Men~orial,adjudge and declare that Cameroon bears responsibility to
Nigeria in respect of those claims, the amount of reparation due there-
for. if not agreed between the Parties within six months of the date of
judgment, to be determined by the Court in a further judgment."
in the Rejoinder :
"For the reasons given herein, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, reserv-
ing the right to amend and modify these submissions in the light of any
further pleadings in this case, respectfully requests that the Court should:
(1) as to the Bak-assiPeninsula, adjudge and declare
(a) that sovereignty overthe Peninsula isvested in the Federal Repub-
lic of Nigeria;
(b) that Nigeria's sovereignty over Bakassi extends up to the bound-
ary with Cameroon described in Chapte1 11of Nigeria's Counter-
Mernorial ;
(2) as ro Luke Chad, adjudge and declare:
(a) that the proposed 'demarcation' under the auspices of the Lake
Chad Basin Commission, 11othaving been ratified by Nigeria, is
not bincling upon it ;
(b) that sovereignty over the areas in Lake Chad defined in para-
graph 5.9 of this Rejoinder and depicted in Figs. 5.2 and 5.3
facing page 242 (and including the Nigerian settlements identi-
fied in paragraph 4.1 of this Rejoinder) is vested in the Federal
Republic of Nigeria;
(c) that outstanding issues of the delimitation and demarcation within
the area of Lake Chad are to be resol1,ed by the parties to the
Lake Ckiad Basin Commission within the framework of the con-
stitution and procedures of the Commission;
(4 that in any event, the operation intended to lead to an overall
delimitaition of boundaries on Lake Chad is legally without preju- LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 324
dice to the title to particular areas of the Lake Chad region inher-
ing in Nigeria as a consequence of the historical consolidation of
title and the acquiescence of Cameroon;
(3) as to the cenrral sectors of the land boundary, adjudge and declare:
(a) that the Court's jurisdiction extends to the definitive specification
of the land boundary between Lake Chad and the sea;
(h) that the mouth of the Ebeji, marking the beginning of the land
boundary, is located at the point where the north-east channel of
the Ebeji flows into the featuremarked 'Pond' on the Map shown
as Fig. 7.1 of this Rejoinder, which location is at latitude
12"31'45"N, longitude 14"13'00"E (Adindan Datum) ;
(c) that subject to the clarifications, interpretations and variations
explained in Chapter 7 of this Rejoinder, the land boundary
between the mouth of the Ebeji and the point on the thalweg of
the Akpa Yafe which is opposite the mid-point of the mouth of
Archibong Creek is delimited by the terms of:
(i) paragraphs 2-61 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration,
confirmed by the Exchange of Lettzrs of 9 January 1931 ;
(ii) the Nigeria (Protectorate and Camt:roons) Order in Council
of :2August 1946, section 6 (1) and the Second Schedule
thereto;
(iii) par.agraphs 13-21of the Anglo-Gerrnan Demarcation Agree-
ment of 12April 1913 ; and
(iv) Articles XV to XVII of the Aiiglo-German Treaty of
11 IMarch 1913;
(d) that the effect of the first two of those instruments, as clarified,
interpreted or varied in the manner identified by Nigeria, is as set
out in the Appendix to Chapter 8 and delineated in the maps in
the At1a:isubmitted with this Rejoinder,
(4) as to the maritime boundary, adjudge and declare:
(a) tfrom the point at which its claim line enters waters claimed by or
recognizi-d by Nigeria as belonging to Equatorial Guinea, or
alternati~ely that Cameroon's claim is inadmissible to that extent;
(b) that Cameroon's claim to a maritime boundary based on the glo-
bal division of maritime zones in the Gulf of Guinea is inadmis-
sible, and that the Parties are under an obligation, pursuant to
Articles'74and 83 of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conven-
tion, to negotiate in good faith with a view to agreeing on an
equitable delimitation of their respectile maritime zones, such
delimitation to take into account, in particular, the need to
respect existing rights to explore and exploit the mineral resources
of the continental shelf. granted by either Party prior to 29 March
1994 without written protest from the other, and the need to
respect the reasonable maritime claims of third States; (c) in the alternative, that Cameroon's claini to a maritime boundary
based on the global division of maritime zones in the Gulf of
Guinea is unfounded in law and is rejected;
(d) that, to the extent that Cameroon's claini to a maritime boundary
may be held admissible in the present proceedings, Cameroon's
claim to a maritime boundary to the wi:st and south of the area
of over1,appinglicences, as shown on Fig. 10.2 of this Rejoinder,
is rejected;
(e) that the respective territorial waters of the two States are divided
by a median line boundary within the Kio del Rey;
(f) that, beyond the Rio del Rey, the respective maritime zones of the
Parties are to be delimited in accordance with the principle of
equidistance, to the point where the line so drawn meets the
median line boundary with Equatorial Guinea at approximately
4"6'N, 8'30'E;
(5) us to Cameroon's claims qf'State responsibility, adjudge and declare :
that, to the extent to which any such claims are still maintained by
Cameroon, and are admissible, those claims are unfounded in fact and
law; and
(6) as to Nigeria's counter-claims, as specified in Part VI of the Counter-
Memorial and in Chapter 18 of this Rejoinder, adjudge and declare:
that Cameroon bears responsibility to Nigeria in respect of each of
those claims. the amount of reparation due therefor, if not agreed
between the Parties within six months of the date of judgment, to be
determined by the Court in a further judgment."
27. At the oral proceedings, the following submissicins were presented by the
Parties:
On behalf qf the Govc,rnmentof Cameroon,
"Pursuant to tlheprovisions of Article 60, paragraph 2, of the Rules of
Court the Republic of Cameroon has the honour to request that the Inter-
national Court of Justice be pleased to adjudge and declare:
(a) That the land boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria takes the
following course :
- from the point designated by the CO-ordinates 13"05' north and
14"05' east, the boundary follows a straight line as far as the
mouth of the Ebeji, situated at the poirit located at the co-ordi-
nates 12"32'17" north and 14"12'12" eut, as defined within the
framewclrk of the LCBC and constitutiiig an authoritative inter-
pretation of the Milner-Simon Declaraiion of 10 July 1919 and
the Thoinson-Marchand Declarations of 29 December 1929 and
31 January 1930, as confirmed by the Exchange of Letters of
9 January 1931 ;in the alternative, the niouth of the Ebeji is situ-
ated at the point located at the CO-ordinates 12"31'12"north and
14"11'48" east;
- from tha~tpoint it follows the course fixed by those instruments as LAND 4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JULIGMENT) 327
tional evacuation of its troops from the occupied area of Lake Chad
and from the Cameroonian peninsula of Bakassi and of refraining
from such acts in the future.
(g) That in failirig to comply with the Order for the indication of provi-
sional measures rendered by the Court on 15 March 1996the Federal
Republic of Nigeria has been in breach of its international obliga-
tions.
(h) That the internationally wrongful acts referred to above and described
in detail in the written pleadings and oral argument of the Republic
of Cameroon engage the responsibility of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria.
(i) That, consequently, on account of the material and moral injury suf-
fered by the Republic of Cameroon reparation in a form to be deter-
mined by the Court is due from the Federal Republic of Nigeria to
the Republic of Cameroon.
The Republic of Cameroon further has the honour to request the Court
to permit it, at a subsequent stage of theroceedings, to present an assess-
ment of the amount of compensation due to it as reparation for the injury
suffered by it as a result of the internationally wrongful acts attributable to
the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The Republic of Cameroon also asks the Court to declare that the
counter-claims of the Federal Republic of NigerLi are unfounded both in
fact and in law. and to reject them."
On belîulf oJthe Government of Nigeria,
"The Federal Republic of Nigeria respectfully requests that the Court
should
1. as to the Bakassi Peninsula, adjudge and declare:
(a) that sovereignty over the Peninsula is vestzd in the Federal Repub-
lic of Nigeri;
(b) that Nigeria's sovereignty over Bakassi extends up to the bound-
ary with Cameroon described in Chapter 11of Nigeria's Counter-
Memorial ;
2. as to Lake Clîad, adjudge and declare:
(a) that the lnroposed delimitation and demarcation under the aus-
pices of the Lake Chad Basin Commission, not having been
accepted by Nigeria, is not binding upon it;
(b) tgraph 5.9 of Nigeria's Rejoinder and depicted in Figs. 5.2 and 5.3
facing page 242 (and including the Nigerian Settlementsidentified
in paragraph 4.1 of Nigeria's Rejoinder) is vested in the Federal
Republic of Nigeria;
(c) that in ainy event the process which has taken place within the
framework of the Lake Chad Basin Conimission, and which was
intended to lead to an overall delimitation and demarcation of
boundariizs on Lake Chad, is legally without prejudice to the title
to partic~ilar areas of the Lake Chad region inhering in Nigeria as
a consequence of the historical consolidation of title and the
acquiescence of Cameroon; LAND AND MARITIMEBOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 328
3. as to the central sectors of the land boundary, adjudge and declare
(a) that the Court's jurisdiction extends to the definitive specification
of the lan'dboundary between Lake Chad and the sea;
(6) that the nnouth of the Ebeji, marking the beginning of the land
boundary., is located at the point where the north-east channel of
the Ebeji iflowsinto the feature marked 'Pond' on the map shown
as Fig. 7.1 of Nigeria's Rejoinder. whicli location is at latitude
12"31' 45" N, longitude 14" 13'00"E (Adiridan Datum) ;
(c) that subject to the interpretations proposed in Chapter 7 of Nige-
ria's Rejoinder, the land boundary between the mouth of the Ebeji
and the point on the thalweg of the Akpa Yafe which is opposite
the midpoint of the mouth of Archibong Creek is delimited by the
terms of the relevant boundary instruments, namely :
(i) paragraphs 2-61 oftheThomson-Marchand Declaration, con-
firmed by the Exchange of Letters of'9 January 1931 ;
(ii) the Nigeria (Protectorate and Camei.oons) Order in Council
of 2 August 1946 (Section 6 (1) and the Second Schedule
thereto);
(iii) paragraphs 13-21 of the Anglo-German Demarcation Agree-
ment of 12 April 1913; and
(iv) Articles XV to XVII of the Anglo-German Treaty of
11 March 1913; and
jd) that the interpretations proposed in Chapter 7 of Nigeria's Rejoin-
der, and the associated action there identified in respect of each
of the locations where the delimitation iii the relevant boundary
instruments is defective or uncertain, are confirmed;
4. as to the maritime boundary, adjudge and declare:
(a) that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Canieroon's maritime claim
from the point at which its claim line enters waters claimed against
Cameroori by Equatorial Guinea, or alternatively that Cameroon's
claim is iriadmissible to that extent;
(b) that Cameroon's claim to a maritime boundary based on the glo-
bal division of maritime zones in the Gulf of Guinea is inadmis-
sible, and that the Parties are under an obligation, pursuant to
Articles 74 and 83 of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conven-
tion, to negotiate in good faith with a view to agreeing on an
equitable delimitation of their respective maritime zones, such
delimitation to take into account, in particular, the need to
respect existing rights to explore and exploit the mineral resources
of the continental shelf, granted by either Party prior to 29 March
1994 withiout written protest from the other, and the need to
respect the reasonable maritime claims of third States;
(c) in the alternative, that Cameroon's claim to a maritime boundary LAND .\ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 329
based on the global division of maritime zones in the Gulf of
Guinea is unfounded in law and is rejected;
(ci) that, to the extent that Cameroon's claim to a maritime boundary
may be held admissible in the present proceedings, Cameroon's
claim to a maritime boundary to the Westand south of the area of
overlappiing licences, as shown in Fig. 10.2of Nigeria's Rejoinder,
is rejected;
(e) that the respective territorial waters of the two States are divided
by a mediian line boundary within the Rio del Rey;
(f) that, beyclnd the Rio del Rey, the respective maritime zones of the
Parties arc to be delimited by a line drawil in accordance with the
principle of equidistance, until the approximate point where that
line meets the median line boundary with Equatorial Guinea, i.e.
at approximately 4" 6' N, 8' 30' E;
5. as to Carneroon'sclairns of State responsibiliiy, adjudge and declare:
that, to the extent to which any such claims are still maintained by
Cameroon, and are admissible, those claims are unfounded in fact and
law; and,
6. as to Nigeria's counter-c1airn.sas specified in Part VI of Nigeria's
Counter-Memorial and in Chapter 18 of Nigeria's Rejoinder, adjudge
and declare:
that Cameroon bears responsibility to Nigeria in respect of each of
those claims, the amount of reparation due therefor, if not agreed
between the Parties within six months of the date of judgment, to be
determined by the Court in a further judgment."
28. At the end of the written statement submitted I)y it in accordance with
Article 85, paragraph L,of the Rules of Court, Equatorial Guinea stated inter
alia:
"Equatorial Guinea's request is simple and straightforward, founded in
the jurisprudence of the Court, makes good sense in the practice of the
international community and is consistent with the practice of the three
States in the region concerned: its request is that the Court refrain from
delimiting a marii:ime boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon in any
area that is more proximate to Equatorial Guinea than to the Parties to
the case before the Court. Equatorial Guinea believes it has presented a
number of good reasons for the Court to adopt this position."
29. At the end of the oral observations submitted 1)yit with respect to the
subject-matter of the ii~tervention in accordance with 4rticle 85, paragraph 3,
of the Rules of Court, Equatorial Guinea stated inter alia:
"[Wle ask the Court not to delimit a maritime t~oundary between Cam-
eroon and Nigeria in areas lying closer to Equatorial Guinea than to the
coasts of the two Parties or to express any opinion which could prejudice
our interests in thie context of our maritime boundary negotiations with LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT)
330
our neighbours . . . Safeguardingthe interests of the third State in these
proceedingsmeans that the delimitation between Nigeriaand Cameroon
decided by the Court must necessarilyremain to the north of the median
line between EquaitorialGuinea's Bioko Island and the mainland."
30. Cameroon and Nigeria are States situated on the West Coast of
Africa. Their land boilndary extends from Lake Chad in the north to the
Bakassi Peninsula in the south. Their coastlines are adjacent and are
washed by the waters of the Gulf of Guinea.
Four States border Lake Chad: Cameroon, Chad, Niger and Nigeria.
The waters of the lake have varied greatly over tinie.
In its northern part. the land boundary between C'ameroon and Nigeria
passes through hot dry plains around Lake Chad, at an altitude of about
300 m. It then passes through mountains, cultivateci high ground or pas-
tures, watered by vari'ousrivers and streams. It theri descends in stages to
areas of savannah and forest until it reaches the sea.
The coastal region where the southern part of the land boundary ends
is the area of the Bakassi Peninsula. This peninsu1.1,situated in the hol-
low of the Gulf of Guinea, is bounded by the River Akwayafe to the West
and by the Rio del F!ey to the east. It is an amphibious environment,
characterized by an abundance of water, fish stocks and mangrove
vegetation. The Gulf of Guinea, which is concave iri character at the level
of the Cameroonian and Nigerian coastlines, is bounded by other States,
in particular by Equatorial Guinea, whose Bioko Island lies opposite
the Parties' coastlines.
31. The dispute between the Parties as regards their land boundary
falls within an historical framework marked initially, in the nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries, by the actions of the European Powers
with a view to the partitioning of Africa, followed by changes in the
status of the relevant territories under the League of Nations mandate
system, then the United Nations trusteeships, and finally by the territo-
ries' accession to independence. This history is reflected in a number of
conventions and treaties, diplomatic exchanges, certain administrative
instruments, maps of itheperiod and various documents, which have been
provided to the Court by the Parties.
The delimitation of the Parties' maritime boundary is an issue of more
recent origin, the history of which likewise involves various international
instruments.
32. The Court will now give some particulars of the principal instru-
ments which are relevant for purposes of determining the course of theland and maritime bo~undarybetween the Parties. It will later describe in
detail and analyse certain of those instruments.
33. At the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth
centuries, various agreements were concluded by Germany, France and
Great Britain to delirnit the boundaries of their respective colonialrri-
tories. Thus the boundary between France and Great Britain was defined
by the Convention between those two States Respecting the Delimitation
of the Frontier between the British and French Possessions to the East of
the Niger, signed at Idondon on 29 May 1906 (hereinafter the "Franco-
British Convention of 1906"), as supplemented by 21Protocol of the same
name dated 19 February 1910 (hereinafter the "Franco-British Protocol
of 1910"). The Franco-German boundary was defined by the Convention
between the French Republic and Germany for the Delimitation of the
Colonies of French Congo and of Cameroon and French and German
Spheres of Influence in the Region of Lake Chad, signed at Berlin on
15 March 1894, and by the Franco-German Convention Confirming the
Protocol of 9 April 1908 Defining the Boundarie:; between the French
Congo and Cameroori, signed at Berlin on 18 Apri! 1908(hereinafter the
"Franco-German Coilvention of 1908"). The boundary between Great
Britain and Germany was first defined by the Agreement between Great
Britain and Germany respecting Boundaries in AfTica, signed at Berlin
on 15 November 1893, and supplemented by a Jùrther Agreement of
19 March 1906 respe.cting the Boundary between British and German
Territories from Yol;~ to Lake Chad (hereinafter the "Anglo-German
Agreement of 1906"). The southern part of the boundary was subse-
quently redefined by two Agreements concluded between Great Britain
and Germany in 1913. The first of these Agreeme~its, signed in London
on 11 March 1913 (hereinafter, the "Anglo-German Agreement of
11 March 1913"), concerned "(1) The Settlement of the Frontier between
Nigeria and the Cameroons, from Yola to the Sea and (2) The Regula-
tion of Navigation or1the Cross River" and covered some 1,100 km of
boundary; the second, signed at Obokum on 12 April 1913 by Hans
Detzner and W. V. Nugent representing Germariy and Great Britain
respectively (hereinafter the "Anglo-German Agreement of 12 April
1913"), concerned the Demarcation of the Anglo-German Boundary
between Nigeria and the Cameroons from Yola tc the Cross River and
included eight accompanying maps.
34. At the end of the First World War, al1the ttrritories belonging to
Germany in the reginn, extending from Lake Cliad to the sea, were
apportioned between France and Great Britain by the Treaty of Ver-
sailles and then placed under British or French mandate by agreement
with the League of Nations. As a result it was ni:cessary to define the
limits separating the cnandated territories. The first instrument drawn up
for this purpose was the Franco-British Declaratim signed on 10 July
1919 by Viscount Milner, the British Secretary of State for the Colonies,
and Henry Simon, the French Minister for the Colonies (hereinafter the
"Milner-Simon Declai-ation"). With a view to claric~ingthis initial instru- LAND ,4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUI~GMENT) 332
ment, on 29 December 1929 and 31 January 1930 Sir Graeme Thomson,
Governor of the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria, and Paul March-
and, commissaire de la République française au Cameroun, signed a
further very detailecl agreement (hereinafter the "Thomson-Marchand
Declaration"). This Declaration was approved and incorporated in an
Exchange of Notes tiated 9 January 1931 between A. de Fleuriau, the
French Ambassador in London, and Arthur Henderson, the British For-
eign Minister (hereinafter the "Henderson-Fleuriail Exchange of Notes").
35. Following the Second World War, the British and French man-
dates over the Cameroons were replaced by United Nations trusteeship
agreements. The trusteeship agreements for the British Cameroons and
for the Cameroons under French administration were both approved by
the General Assembly on 13 December 1946. These agreements referred
to the line laid down by the Milner-Simon Declaration to describe the
respective territories placed under the trusteeship of the two European
Powers.
Pursuant to a decision taken by Great Britain on 2 August 1946
regarding the territoriesthen under British mandate, namely the 1946
Order in Council Providing for the Administration of the Nigeria Pro-
tectorate and Cameroons (hereinafter the "1946 Order in Council"), the
regions placed under its trusteeship were divided into two for adminis-
trative purposes, thus giving birth to the Northern Cameroons and the
Southern Cameroons. The 1946 Order in Council contained a series of
provisions describing the line separating these two regions and provided
that they would be administered from Nigeria.
On 1January 1960the French Cameroons acceded to independence on
the basis of the boundaries inherited from the pri:vious period. Nigeria
did likewise on 1 Oclober 1960.
In accordance withiUnited Nations directives, the British Government
organized separate plebiscites in the Northern and Southern Cameroons,
"in order to ascertairi the wishes of the inhabitants . . . concerning their
future" (General Assembly resolution 1350 (XIII) of 13 March 1959). In
those plebiscites, helclon 11 and 12February 1961,the population of the
Northern Cameroons "decided to achieve independence by joining the
independent Federation of Nigeria", whereas the pc~pulationof the South-
ern Cameroons "decided to achieve independence by joining the inde-
pendent Republic of (2ameroon" (General Assembl yresolution 1608 (XV)
of 21 April 1961).
36. As regards the frontier in Lake Chad, on 22 May 1964 the four
States bordering the lake signed a Convention establishing the Lake
Chad Basin Commission (hereinafter the "LCBC") As the Court recalled
in its Judgment of 11 June 1998 (Land and Murit~me Boundury between
Carneroon und Nigeriu (Cumeroon v. Nigeria), Pveliminary Objections,
Judgment, 1.C.J. Reports 1998, pp. 304-305, paras. 64-65), the functions
of the LCBC are laid down in Article IX of its Staiute. as annexed to the1964 Convention. Urider the terms of this provision, the LCBC inter alia
prepares "general regulations which will permit the full application of the
principles set forth in the present Convention and its annexed Statute,
and [to] ensure their effective application". It exercises various powers
with a view to co-ortiinating action by the member States regarding the
use of the waters of the basin. According to Article IX, paragraph (g),
one of its functions is "to examine complaints and to promote the settle-
ment of disputes". Over the years the member States of the LCBC have
conferred certain additional powers on it. Thus, following incidents in
1983 among ripariari States in the Lake Chad area, an extraordinary
meeting of the LCB,C was called from 21 to 2.! July 1983 in Lagos
(Nigeria). on the initiative of the Heads of State concerned. in order to
givgit thétask of dealing with certain boundary and securit; issues. The
LCBC has met regularly since to discuss these issiies.
37. The question of the boundary in Bakassi and of sovereignty over
the peninsula also involves specific instruments.
On 10 September 1884 Great Britain and the Kings and Chiefs of Old
Calabar concluded a Treaty of Protection (hereinafter the "1884Treaty").
Under this Treaty, Great Britain undertook to extend its protection to
these Kings and Chilefs, who in turn agreed and promised inter ulia to
refrain from entering into any agreements or treatics with foreign nations
or Powers without the prior approval of the Briti5.hGovernment.
Shortly before the: First World War, the British Government con-
cluded two agreements with Germany, dated resp~:ctively11 March and
12 April 1913 (see paragraph 33 above), whose objects included "the
Settlement of the Frontier between Nigeria and the Cameroons, from
Yola to the Sea" and which placed the Bakassi Peiiinsula in German ter-
ritory.
38. The maritime boundary between Cameroori and Nigeria was not
the subject of negotiations until relatively recently Thus, apart from the
Anglo-German Agreements of 11 March and 12 ilpril 1913 in so far as
they refer to the endpoint of the land boundary on the Coast, al1the legal
instruments concerning the maritime boundary bt:tween Cameroon and
Nigeria post-date the independence of those two States.
In this regard, the two countries agreed to establish a "joint boundary
con~mission", which on 14 August 1970, at the conclusion of a meeting
held in Yaoundé (Cameroon), adopted a declaration (hereinafter the
"Yaoundé 1 Declarafion") whereby Cameroon and Nigeria decided that
"the delimitation of the boundaries between tlie tuo countries [would] be
carried out in three stages", the first of these being "the delimitation of
the maritime boundary".
The work of that commission led to a second declaration, done at
Yaoundé on 4 April 197 1 (hereinafter the "Yaoiindé IIDeclaration"),whereby the Heads olfState of the two countries agreed to regard as their
maritime boundary, "as far as the 3-nautical-mile limit", a line running
from a point 1 to a point 12,which they had drawii and signed on British
Admiralty Chart No. 3433 annexed to that declaration.
Four years later, on 1June 1975,the Heads of State of Cameroon and
Nigeria signed an agreement at Maroua (Camcroon) for the partial
delimitation of the maritime boundary between the two States (herein-
after the "Maroua Declaration"). Bythis declaration they agreed to extend
the line of their mari1:imeboundary, and accordingly adopted a boundary
line defined by a series of points running from point 12 as referred to
above to a point designated as G. British Admiralty Chart No. 3433,
marked up accordingly, was likewise annexed to that Declaration.
39. Having described the geographical and historical background to
the present dispute, the Court will now address the delimitation of the
differentsectors of the boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria. Todo
so, the Court will begin by defining the boundary line in the Lake Chad
area. It will then determine the line from Lake Chad to the Bakassi
Peninsula, before examining the question of the boundary in Bakassi and
of sovereignty over the peninsula. The Court will then address the ques-
tion of the delimita.tion between the two States' respective maritime
areas. The last part of the Judgment will be devotcd to the issues of State
responsibility raised by the Parties.
40. The Court will first address the issue of the delimitation of the
boundary in the Lake Chad area. In its final submissions Cameroon
requests the Court to adjudge and declare that in this area the boundary
between the two Parties takes the following course:
"from the point designated by the CO-ordinates 13"05'N and
14"05'E, the boundary follows a straight liste as far as the mouth
of the Ebeji, situated at the point located at the CO-ordinates
12"32' 17"N and 14"12'12"E, as defined within the framework of
the LCBC and constituting an authoritativc: interpretation of the
Milner-Simon Declaration of 10July 1919and the Thomson-March-
and Declarations of 29 December 1929and 3' January 1930,as con-
firmed by the Exchange of Letters of 9 January 1931 ;in the alter-
native, themouth of the Ebeji is situated at the point located at the
CO-ordinates12"31' 12"N and 14"11'48"E".
In its final submissions, Nigeria, for its part, requests the Court to
adjudge and declare :relevant sheet of which was published in 1912,and the map appended to
the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, which, it argues, constitutes the
officia1map annexed to the Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes of
1931 and has thus acquired the value of a "territorial title". Cameroon
points out that these maps have "never been the subject of the slightest
representation or objection from the United Kirigdom or the Federal
Republic of Nigeria" and that "[tlhere exists no map, not even a Nigerian
one, showing a boundary line as claimed by Nigeria in Lake Chad".
Cameroon contencls that the line of the bounda1.ywas expressly incor-
porated in the Trusleeship Agreement for the Territory of Cameroon
under French adminiistration approved by the General Assembly of the
United Nations on 13December 1946and was subsequently "transferred
to Cameroon and Nigeria on independence by application of the prin-
ciple ofuti possidetis".
43. Cameroon further contends that changes in the physical character-
istics of Lake Chad and of the Ebeji River cannot affect the course of the
boundary line, for, "[bly opting in this sector of the boundary to apply
the technique of geographical CO-ordinatesjoined by a straight line, the
contracting parties protected the boundary line ag'iinst natural variation
in the configuration of the lake and its tributary river"; and that this
desire to achieve a stable, definitive boundary despite hydrological varia-
tions is, moreover, borne out by prior agreement:, relative to the status
of the islands in Lake Chad (Franco-British Coqvention of 1906 and
Franco-German Coiivention of 1908). In any event, according to
Cameroon, under Article 62, paragraph 2, of the Vienna Convention of
23 May 1969 on the Law of Treaties, a fundamerital change of circum-
stances is not applicable to a treaty establishing a boundary.
44. Nor, in Cameroon's view, can the conventional delimitation in
Lake Chad be called into question because there has been no effective
demarcation of the boundary on the ground. Ca~neroon argues in that
respect that Nigeria
"has, in principle, recognized the international boundaries in Lake
Chad that were established prior to its indeperidence, and the matter
of the determinaltion of those lake frontiers haclnever been addressed
prior to the border incidents that occurred in the Lake between
Nigeria and Cha.d from April to June 1983".
Cameroon recalls tha.t, following those incidents,
"the Heads of State of the Member countries of the LCBC approved
a proposal aimed at the convening, at the earliest possible time, of a
meeting of the Commission at ministerial level,with a viewto setting
up a joint technical committee to be entrusted with the delimitation
of the international boundaries between the four States which
between them share Lake Chad",
and that the LCBC accordingly held an Extraordinary Session from 21 to
23 July 1983 in Lagos at which two technical sub-committees were LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUEIGMENT) 337
formed: "a sub-comrnittee responsible for border clelimitation and a sub-
committee responsible for security". Cameroon further states that "[tlhe
terminology employed by the parties [was] imprecise in places, as hap-
pens in such circum:;tances", but that "an examination of the mandate
given to the Commissioners and experts chargcd with the operation
leaves no room for tioubt": it was "confined to the demarcation of the
boundary, to the exclusion of any delimitation operation".
As evidence of this Cameroon cites the fact tliat the sub-committee
responsible for border delimitation retained as working documents vari-
ous bilateral conveni.ions and agreements concluded between Germany,
France and the United Kingdom between 1906 and 1931, including the
Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes of 1931. Cameroon points out
that the delimitation instruments thus relied on "were never disputed by
the representatives alf Nigeria throughout the proceedings, even at the
highest level, in particular during the summits of Heads of State and
Government". that "'ltLh3demarcation of boundaries in Lake Chad has
been the subject of significant work over a good ten years" and that "[iln
this regard the ripai-ian States of Lake Chad have co-operated at al1
levels:experts, Comrnissioners, Ministers, Heads of States - without the
slightest reservation being raised as to the quality of work accomplished
over a very substantial period". Cameroon emphasizes that, interalia,
the LCBC defined m~oreprecisely the CO-ordinatesof the tripoint in Lake
Chad (which were fixed at 13°05'00"0001 latitude North and
14'04'59"9999 longitude East) and also defined those of the mouth of
the Ebeji, as described in the Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes
(fixingthem at 12'32'17"4 North and 14"12'1l"7 East). It further states
that those CO-ordinateswere approved by the national Commissioners of
Cameroon, Chad, Niger and Nigeria on 2 December 1988.
According to Cameroon, the overall validity of 1he demarcation works
carried out under the auspices of the LCBC is to be addressed in the fol-
lowing terms :
"The demarcation operation proper was at certain points criticized
by the Nigerian representatives. However, thclserepresentatives ulti-
mately declared themselvessatisfiedwith the accuracy of these opera-
tions. All the works were approved unanimoiisly by the experts, the
Commissioners and the Heads of State themselves. At no time did
the Nigerian representatives cal1 into question the conventional
delimitation or i.heinstruments which decided it. It was only at the
ratification stage that Nigeria made its opposition known."
Cameroon contends that Nigeria's refusal to ratify the result of the
boundary demarcation work in Lake Chad in no \vay impugns the valid-
ity of the previous delimitation instruments; it siniply demonstrates how
far Nigeria has drawn back from the demarcatior operation carried out
by the LCBC.
45. For its part, Nigeria contends that the Lake Chad area has never
been the subject of any form of delimitation. It argues that the Thomson- LAND .4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 338
Marchand Declaration of 1929-1930did not involve a final determina-
tion of the Anglo-French boundary in regard to Lake Chad but provided
for delimitation by a boundary commission. Nigeria further points out
that, according to the Note signed by the British Secretary of State,
Henderson, the Thomson-Marchand Declaration "[was] only the result
of a preliminary survey" and that "the actual deliniitation [could]now be
entrusted to the boimdary commission envisagecl for this purpose by
Article 1 of the Mandate". In Nigeria's opinion, it was thus clearly
apparent from the 1931 Henderson-Fleuriau Excliange of Notes that in
relation to Lake Chad, by contrast with other parts of the land boundary
between the two Parties, these arrangements were 'essentiallyprocedural
and programmatic" and it was only after the delin~itationwork had been
carried out - which was not the case for Lake Chad - that there would
be agreement.
According to Nigeria, the use in Article 1 of tlie "Description of the
Franco-British frontier, marked on the [Moisel]niap of the Cameroons,
scale 1/300,000", anriexed to the 1919Milner-Simon Declaration, of the
word "approximately", in relation to 14O05'E,togzther with the fact that
the mouth of the Eblrjihas shifted through time, ineant that the frontier
in this area was still not fully delimited. Subsequeiit instruments did not,
according to Nigeria., rectify these shortcomings; and the absence of a
fully delimited frontier was one of several reasons why there was no
demarcation of the frontier agreed to until this very day.
46. Nigeria furtheircontends that the work of the LCBC involved both
delimitation and dernarcation of the boundary within Lake Chad and
that it did notproduce a result which was final anclbinding on Nigeria in
the absence of a rati:ficationof the documents relating to that work.
47. In sum, Cameroon contends that the boundary in the Lake Chad
area runs from the point designated by the CO-ordinates 13O05'N and
14'05'E in a straight line to the mouth of the Ebeji. It regards the gov-
erning instruments as the Milner-Simon Declaration of 1919, and the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration of 1929-1930, as incorporated in the
1931 Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes. Nigeria, on the other
hand, argues that there is not a fully delimited ~oundary in the Lake
Chad area and that, through historical consolidation of title and the
acquiescence of Cameroon, Nigeria has title ovcr the areas, including
33 named settlementis,depicted in Figures 5.2 and 5.3 facing page 242 of
its Rejoinder.
48. The Court rec:allsthat in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries the colonia~lboundaries in the Lake Ckiad area had been the
subject of a series of bilateral agreements entered into between Germany,France and Great Britain (see paragraph 33 above,. After the First World
War a strip of territory to the east of the western frontier of the former
German Cameroon became the British Mandate over the Cameroons.
It was thus necessary to re-establish a boundary, commencing in the
lake itself, between the newly created British and French mandates.
This was achieved through the Milner-Simon Declaration of 1919,
which has the status of an international agreement. By this Declaration,
France and Great Britain agreed:
"to deterinine the frontier, separating the tzrritories of the Cam-
eroons placed respectively under the authority of their Govern-
ments, as it is traced on the map Moisel 1 :300,000, annexed to the
present declaration and defined in the description in three articles
also annexed hereto".
No definite tripoirit in Lake Chad could be detzrmined from previous
instruments, on the basis of which it might be loci~tedeither at 13'00' or
at 13"05'latitude north, whilst the meridian of longitude was described
simply as situated "35'east of the centre of Kukawa". These aspects were
clarified and rendered more precise by the Milner-Simon Declaration,
which provided :
"The frontier will start from the meeting-point of the three old
British, French and German frontiers situated in Lake Chad in
latitude 13"05'N and in approximately longitude 14"05'E of
Greenwich.
Thence the frontier will be determined as follows:
1. A straight line to the mouth of the Ebeji;
.................. ......... >)
The Moisel 1 : 300,000 map was stated to be thz map "to which refer-
ence is made in the description of the frontier" and was annexed to the
Declaration; a further map of the Cameroons, ';cale 1 :2,000,000, was
attached "to illustrai:e the description of the . . frontier".
49. Article 1of the Mandate conferred on Great Britain by the League
of Nations confirmed the line specified in the Milrier-Simon Declaration.
It provided :
"The territory for which a Mandate is conferred upon His Britan-
nic Majesty con~prisesthat part of the Cameroons which lies to the
west of the line llaiddown in the Declaration signed on the 10thJuly,
1919, of which ;acopy is annexed hereto.
This line may, however, be slightly modified by mutual agreement
between His Britannic Majesty's Government and the Government
of the French Republic where an examinatiori of the localities shows
that it is undesirable, either in the interests of the inhabitants or by
reason of any inaccuracies in the map, Moisel 1 300,000,annexed to
the Declaration, to adhere strictly to the line laid down therein. The delimitation on the spot of this line shall be carried out in
accordance withithe provisions of the said Declaration.
The final report of the Mixed Commission shall give the exact
description of the boundary line as traced on the spot; maps signed
by the Commissiionersshall be annexed to the report . . ."
The Court observes that the entitlement, by mutual agreement, to
make modest alterations to the line, either by reason of any shown
inaccuracies of the Moisel map or of the interests of the inhabitants,
was already provideclfor in the Milner-Simon Declaration. This, together
with the line itself, was approved by the Couiicil of the League of
Nations. These probisions in no way suggest a frontier line that is not
fully delimited. The Court further considers that "delimitation on the
spot of this line...in accordance with the provisions of the said Declara-
tion" isa clear reference to demarcation notwithstanding the terminology
chosen. Also carried forward from the Milner-Simon Declaration was the
idea of a boundary commission. The anticipated detailed demarcation by
this Commission eclually presupposes a frontier already regarded as
essentially delimited.
50. Although the two Mandatory Powers did not in fact "delimit on
the spot" in Lake Chad or the vicinity, they did continue in various sec-
tors of the frontier to make the agreement as detailed as possible. Thus
the Thomson-Marchand Declaration of 1929-1930described the frontier
separating the two niandated territories in considrrably more detail than
hitherto. The Declaration stated that "[tlhe under:;igned . . [had] agreed
to determine the froritier, separating [thesaid] territories, .s. traced on
the map annexed to [that] declaration and defined in the description also
annexed [tlhereto". Some 138clauses were specified. So far as the Lake
Chad area was concerned the Declaration affirmed that the frontier
began at the tripoint of the old British-French-Gr:rman frontiers, 13"05'
latitude north and approximately 14"05'longitude east. Then the frontier
went in a straight line to themouth of the Ebeji; and it then followed the
course of that river,bearing on its upper part the names Lewejil, Labejed,
Ngalarem, Lebeit and Ngada, as far as the confluence of the Rivers Kalia
and Lebaiit.
This Declaration was approved and incorporated in the Henderson-
Fleuriau Exchange of Notes of 1931(see paragraph 34 above). As Fleu-
riau put it, the Declaration "is intended to describe the line to be fol-
lowed by the Delimiitation Commission, more ex.ictly than was done in
the Milner-Simon Declaration of 1919". The Court observes that this
would facilitate the envisaged demarcation task given to the Commission.
Fleuriau conceded that the Thomson-Marchand Ileclaration was "a pre-
liminary survey only", thus implying that even more detail might onedaybe agreed between t:he parties. That the frontier was nonetheless in fact
now specified in suf'ficientdetail was affirmed by Henderson's Note in
reply to Fleuriau, stirting that the line described in the 1929-1930 Decla-
ration "[did] in substance define the frontier in q~iestion".
That this Declaration and Exchange of Notes were preliminary to the
future task of demarcation by a boundary commission does not mean, as
Nigeria claims, that the 1931 Agreement was merely "programmatic" in
nature.
The Thomson-Marchand Declaration, as approved and incorporated
in the Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes, has the status of an inter-
national agreement. The Court acknowledges that the Declaration does
have some technical imperfections and that certain details remained to be
specified. However, it finds that the Declaration provided for a delimita-
tion that was sufficient in general for demarcatioii.
51. Nigeria has argued that the boundary in this area had nonetheless
remained undetermined for two important reason5: in the first place, the
reference to the longitude as "approximately 14"05' east" of Greenwich
had not been made more precise; second, the meaning to be given to the
words "the mouth of the Ebeji" was unclear in the light of the changes to
the course of the river and the shrinking dimensions of the lake.
The Court observes that specific reference to the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration of 1929-1930 and to the 1931 Henderion-Fleuriau Exchange
of Notes was made in the Trusteeship Agreements for the territory of the
Cameroons under British Administration, and fol-the territory of Cam-
eroon under French Administration, each approved on 13 December
1946. Although the language of each is not entirely identical, they each
take the boundary ;as being defined by the Millier-Simon Declaration
"and determined more exactly" in the Thomson-Marchand Declaration,
as incorporated in the Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes.
The Court notes that, whereas the Mandate hiid reserved to the two
Mandatory Powers the right of joint minor modification, in the interests
of the inhabitants or because of inaccuracies in the Moisel map attached
to the Milner-Simon Declaration, under the Trustt:eship Agreements that
right was preserved only on the former ground. 'Theimplication is that
any problems associated with inaccuracies of the Moisel 1:300,000 map
were by 1946 regarded as having been resolved.
52. Despite the uncertainties in regard to the longitudinal reading of
the tripoint in Lake Chad and the location of the mouth of the Ebeji, and
while no demarcation had taken place in Lake Chad before the indepen-
dence of Nigeria and of ~ameroon, the Court is of the view that the gov-
erning instruments show that, certainly by 1931, the frontier in the Lake
Chad area was indeed delimited and agreed by Great Britain and France.
Moreover, the Coiurt cannot fail to observe that Nigeria was consulted
during the negotiations for its independence, .ind again during theplebiscites that were to determine the future of the populations of the
Northern and Soutl-iern Cameroons (see paragraph 35 above). At no
time did it suggest, either so far as the Lakead ;ireswas concerned, or
elsewhere, that the frontiers there remained to be delimited.
53. The Court is further of the view that the work of the LCBC, from
1983to 1991,affirmr;such an interpretation.
It recalls that, as a consequence of incidents occurring in the Lake
Chad area in 1983, the Heads of State of the memher States of the LCBC
had convened an extraordinary session of the Commission. The report of
that session in 1983 indicates that there were tao topics listed on the
agenda: "border delimitation problems" and "security matters". This did
not, however, signify an understanding by the members that the Com-
mission's work wasto make proposals on a non-clelimited frontier, as is
shown by the repori. itself. Al1 substantive aspects contained within it
refer tothese agenda items as "demarcation" and "security". Indeed, the
generalized agenda for the first of the two Sub-Cornmittees which was
established was entitled "Agenda for the Commiitee on Demarcation".
There was envisaged an exchange of information and relevant documents
on the boundary (item 1)and the establishment of a Joint Demarcation
Team (item 3). Equally, the agenda for the C3mmittee on Security
included an item on the security of the demarcation team.
The Court observlcsthat the following year, iri November 1984, the
"Siib-Commission Responsible for the Demarcation of Borders" agreed
to adopt, as working documents, the various bilateral agreements and
instruments which had been concluded in the year:; 1906to 1931between
Germany, France and the United Kingdom. Thest: were identified as the
Franco-British Convention of 1906; the Franco-German Convention of
1908 ; the Franco-British Protocol of 1910 and the Henderson-Fleuriau
Exchange of Notes of 1931.The Sub-Commission also addressed the fol-
lowing matters: "the actual demarcation of the borders", "aerial photo-
graphy of the area", "ground survey and mappini:".
The report submitted in 1985by the current Chairman of the Council
of Ministers of the LCBC to the Fifth Confereiice of Heads of State
clearly indicated that the "border problems" arose from the absence of
"demarcation", and referred expressly to the "tzchnical specifications
for the border demarcation" drawn up by the Sub-Commission. The
Sixth Conference of Heads of State, in 1987,took a decision on "Border
Demarcation", whereby the member States agrecd to "finance the cost
of the demarcation exercise". That decision further provided that the
work would start "in March 1988". At a meeting held in March 1988
the experts of the LCBC member States accordingly adopted three
documents concerning respectively : 1. "Technical Specifications for
boundary demarcation, Aerial Photogrammetri and Topographical
Mapping in the Lake Chad at a scale of 1150,000";2. "General Condi- LAND 4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUI)GMENT) 343
tions of the International Invitation for Tenders"; 3. "Applications for
Tenders".
54. The Court is ina ableto accept Nigeria's contention that the LCBC
was from 1983 to 1991 engaged in both delimitation and demarcation.
The records show that, although the term "delimitation" was used from
time to time, inintro~ducingclauses or in agenda hcadings, it was the term
"demarcation" that was most frequently used. Moreover, the nature of
the work was that 01"demarcation.
The Court notes further that the LCBC entrusied to the Institut géo-
graphique national-France International (IGN-FI) the following tasks,
specified in Article 5 of tContract concluded with IGN-FI, as approved
on 26 May 1988:
"(i) Reconnaissance and marking out of the 21 points approached
and the 7 boundary limit points.
(ii) Placing of 62 intermediate markers: ai a maximum of 5 km
between them.
(iii) Demarcation of the coordinates of the boundary markers and
intermediate markers."
For the performance of this task there was passed to IGN-FI the "texts
and documents concerning the delimitation of tlie boundaries in Lake
Chad" (Contract, Art. 7)- namely, the legal ins~ruments already listed
in the 1984 Report of the Sub-Committee, with the addition of the
Minutes signed on 2 March 1988concerning the position of the northern
limit of the border between Chad and Niger. [GN-FI completed its
demarcation work iri 1990, having set up two principal beacons at each
end of the border between Cameroon and Nigeria in Lake Chad (that is,
at the tripoint and at the mouth of the Ebeji), as well as 13 intermediate
beacons. The Report of the Marking Out of the Boundary completed by
IGN-FI was then signed by the experts of each member State of the
LCBC. During their Seventh Summit in February 1990, the Heads of
State and Governments of the LCBC "took note of the satisfactory
achievement" and "directed that the Commissioner s should get the appro-
priate documents rea~dywithin three months and Ivere authorized to sign
on behalf of their (:ountries". However, Nigeria declined to sign the
Report, expressing dissatisfaction over inter uliu,heacon-numbering, the
non-demolition of a beacon, and the non-stabi1iz;ition of GPS and Azi-
muth stations. These items were clearly matters of demarcation. Shortly
thereafter, the national experts ordered additional beaconing work to
complete the work of IGN-FI. After several attempts, the work of the
LCBC was finally completed and, at their Eighth Summit on 23 March
1994, the Heads of State of the LCBC decided to approve the final
demarcation report as signed by the national experts and the executive
secretariat of the LCBC and referred to in the Miilutes of the Summit as
"the technical docunient on the demarcation of the international bound-aries of Member St,ates in Lake Chad". Those Minutes specified that
"each country should adopt the document in accordance with its national
laws", and that "the document should be signed latest by the next summit
of the Commission". Nigeria has not done so. Cameroon accordingly
acknowledges that it is not an instrument which binds Nigeria.
55. The Court observes that the LCBC had engaged for seven years in
a technical exercisealfdemarcation, on the basis of instruments that were
agreed to be the instruments delimiting the frontier in Lake Chad. The
issues of the location of themouth of the Ebeji, and the designation of
the tripoint longitude in terms other than "approuimate", were assigned
to the LCBC. There is no indication that Nigeria regarded these issues
as so grave that the frontier was to be viewed as "not delimited" by
the designated instrilments. The Court notes that, as regards the land
boundary southwardls from the mouth of the Ebeji, Nigeria accepts that
the designated instruments defined the boundary, but that certain
uncertainties and defects should be confirmed and cured. In the view
of the Court, Nigeria followed this same approach in participating in
the demarcation work of the LCBC from 1984to 1990.
The Court agrees with the Parties that Nigeri.1 is not bound by the
Marking Out Report. Nonetheless, this finding of law implies neither
that the governing legal instruments on delimitation were put in question,
nor that Nigeria dici not continue to be bound by them. In sum, the
Court finds that the Milner-Simon Declaration of 1919, as well as the
1929-1930 Thomson-Marchand Declaration as incorporated in the
Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes of 1931. delimit the boundary
between Cameroon and Nigeria in the Lake Chad area. The map attached
by the parties to the Exchange of Notes is to be regarded as an agreed
clarification of the Moisel map. The Lake Chad border area is thus
delimited, notwithstanding that there are two questions that remain to be
examined by the Court, namely the precise location of the longitudinal
co-ordinate of the C'ameroon-Nigeria-Chad tripoint in Lake Chad and
the question of the rnouth of the Ebeji.
56. Cameroon, while accepting that the Report of the Marking Out of
the International Boiundariesin the Lake Chad is riot binding on Nigeria,
nonetheless asks the Court to find that the proposals of the LCBC as
regards the tripoint and the mouth of the Ebeji "constitut[e] an authori-
tative interpretation of the Milner-Simon Declararion and the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration, as confirmed by the Evchange of Letters of
9 January 1931".
The Court cannot accept this request. At no time was the LCBC asked
to act by the successors tothose instruments as thtir agent in reaching an LAND .4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUIGMENT) 345
authoritative interpretation of them. Moreover, the very fact that the
outcome of the technical demarcation work was agreed in March 1994to
require adoption under national laws indicates that it was in no position
to engage in "authoritative interpretation" sua sponte.
57. This does not, however, preclude the Court, when called upon to
specifythe frontier,from finding work that has been done by others to be
useful. According to the governing instruments, the co-ordinates of the
tripoint in Lake Chad are latitude 13O05'north and "approximately"
longitude 14"05' easit.The Court has examined the Moisel map annexed
to the Milner-Simon Declaration of 1919 and thr map attached to the
Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes of 1931. Following that exami-
nation, it reaches the same conclusions as the LCBC and considers that
the longitudinal CO-ordinateof the tripoint is situ-lted at 14"04'59"9999
longitude east, rather than at "approximately" 14'05'. The minimal dif-
ference between theije two specifications confirms, moreover, that this
never presented an issue so significant as to leaveIhe frontier in this area
"undetermined".
58. As for the spei:ification of the frontier as it passes in a straight line
from the tripoint to the mouth of the Ebeji, various solutions have been
proposed by the Parties. This ending point of the straight line running
from the tripoint was never described in the dellmiting instruments by
reference to CO-ordinates.The map to illustrate th* Anglo-French Decla-
ration defining the Cameroons Boundary, annexed to the Exchange of
Notes of 1931 probably shortly after their conclusion, shows a single
stream of the Ebeji having its mouth on the lake jiist beyond Wulgo. The
1931map states :"N~ote :The extent of the water iriLake Chad isvariable
and indeterminate."
Certainly since 1931 the pattern has generally been one of marked
recession of the waters. The lake today appears to l)esignificantlyreduced
from its size at the time of the Henderson-Fleuriiiu Exchange of Notes.
The River Ebeji tod,ay has no single mouth through which it discharges
its waters into the lake. Rather, it divides in10 two channels as it
approaches the lake. On the basis of the information the Parties have
made available to the Court, it appears that the eastern channel termi-
nates in water that i:;short of the present Lake Cliad. The western chan-
ne1seems to terminate in a muddy area close to the present water line.
Cameroon's position is that the mouth of the Ebeji should be specified
by the Court as lying on the co-ordinates determiried for that purpose by
the LCBC, that being an "authentic interpretation" of the Declaration
and 1931Exchanges. The Court has already indic.ited why the Report of
the Marking Out of Boundaries by the LCBC is not to be so regarded.
Cameroon asks the Court to find that "in the alternative, the mouth of
the Ebeji is situated at the point located at the co-ordinates 12O31'12"N
and 14"11'48"E". Thus Cameroon prefers, in its alternative argument,
the "mouth" of the western channel, and bases itself on tests adduced bythis Court in the case concerning KasikililSedudu Island (Botswana1
Namibia) (I.C. J.Reports 1999, pp. 1064-1072,paras. 30-40)for identifying
"the main channel". In particular, it refers to greater flow and depth of
this channel. Nigeria, on the other hand, requests the Court to prefer the
mouth of the longer, eastern channel as "the mouth" of the River Ebeji,
finding support for thiatproposition in thePalena arbitration of 9 Decem-
ber 1966,which spoke of the importance of length, size of drainage area,
and discharge (38 Infernational Law Reports (ILR), pp. 93-95).
59. The Court notes that the text of the Thomson-Marchand Declara-
tion of 1929-1930, incorporated in 1931 in the Henderson-Fleuriau
Exchange of Notes, refers to "the mouth of the Ebeji". Thus the task of
the Court is not, as linthe KasikililSedudu Island case, to determine the
"main channel" of the river but to identify its"mouth". In order to inter-
pret this expression, the Court must seek to ascertain the intention of
the parties at the tirrie. The text of the above instruments as well as the
Moisel map annexeti to the Milner-Simon Declaration and the map
attached to the Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes show that the
parties only envisaged one mouth.
The Court notes that the co-ordinates, as calculated on the two maps,
for the mouth of the Ebeji in the area just north of the site indicated as
that of Wulgo are strikingly similar. Moreover these co-ordinates are
identical with those used by the LCBC when, in reliance on those same
maps, it sought to locate the mouth of the Ebeji ar it was understood by
the parties in 1931. The point there identified is north both of the
"mouth" suggested by Cameroon for the western channel in its alterna-
tive argument and of the "mouth" proposed by Nigeria for the eastern
channel.
60. On the basis of the above factors, the Court concludes that the
mouth of the River Ebeji, as referred to in the instruments confirmed in
the Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes of 1931, lies at 14"12'12"
longitude east and 12"32' 17"latitude north.
61. From this point the frontier must run in a straight line to the point
where the River Ebeji bifurcates into two branches, the Parties being in
agreement that that ]pointlies on the boundary. The geographical co-or-
dinates of that point are 14"12'03"longitude east .ind 12"30'14"latitude
north (see below, p. 348, sketch-map No. 1).
62. The Court turns now to Nigeria's claim based on its presence in
certain areas of Lake Chad. Nigeria has asked the Court to adjudge and
declare that LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 347
LECiENDOF
SKETCH-MAPS
Nos. -2 and4-12
Decisionof theCourt
- -- Boundary lineclaimedby Cameroon
- -- - BoundarylineclaimedbyNigeria
- River
Village,town
Relief SKETCH-MA P O.1
TheMouthof the
Ebeji
NB'Thsketcpasbetnpnpand
foriilusuiiodypurpoaca
1NIGERIA 1 LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 349
"the process which has taken place within the framework of the
Lake Chad BasiriCommission, and which was intended to lead to an
overall delimitation and demarcation of boundaries on Lake Chad,
is legally withoul.prejudice to the title to particular areas of the Lake
Chad region inhering in Nigeria as a consequence of the historical
consolidation of title and the acquiescence of Cameroon".
Thus Nigeria claims sovereigntyover areas in Lake Chad which include
certain named villages. These villages, according to the nomenclature
used by Nigeria, arc: the following: Aisa Kura, Ba shakka, Chika'a,
Darak, Darak Gana, Doron Liman, Doron Mallam (Doro Kirta), Doro-
roya, Fagge, Garin PJanzam, Gorea Changi, Gorea Gutun, Jribrillaram,
Kafuram, Kamunna, Kanumburi, Karakaya, Kasuram Mareya, Katti
Kime, Kirta Wulgo, I<oloram, Logon Labi, Loko Naira, Mukdala, Mur-
das,Naga'a, Naira, hlimeri, Njia Buniba, Ramin Dorinna, Sabon Tumbu,
Sagir and Sokotoram. Nigeria explains that these villages have been
established either on what is now the dried up lake bed, or on islands
which are surrounded by water perennially or on locations which are
islands in the wet season only.
Nigeria contends that its claim rests on three bases, which each apply
both individually ancljointly and one of which would be sufficient on its
own :
"(1) long occupation by Nigeria and by Nigerian nationals consti-
tuting an historical consolidation of tit;e
(2) effective administration by Nigeria, acting as sovereign and an
absence of protest; and
(3) manifestati'ons of sovereignty by Nigeria together with the
acquiescence by Cameroon in Nigerian sovereignty over Darak
and the associated Lake Chad villages".
Among the componeilts of the historical consolidation of its title over the
disputed areas, Nigeria cites: (1)the attitude and affiliations of the popu-
lation of Darak and the other Lake Chad villages, the Nigerian nation-
ality of the inhabitants of those villages; (2) the existence of historical
links with Nigeria in the area, and in particular tlie maintenance of the
system of traditional chiefs and the role of the Shehu of Borno; (3) the
exercise of authority by the traditional chiefs, which is claimed to betill
an important element within the State structure of modern Nigeria;
(4) the long settlement of Nigerian nationals in the area; and (5) the
peaceful administration of the disputed villages by the Federal Govern-
ment of Nigeria and the State of Borno.
Nigeria further coritends that Cameroon's evidence of its State activi-
ties in the Lake Chad area has serious flaws; in particular, it contends
that the greater part of that evidence relates onljr to the years 1982 to
1988, whereas the evidence regarding Nigerian activities covers a sub-
stantially longer period. Moreover, Cameroon supplied no evidence in LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUI)GMENT) 350
regard to a s~bstanti~alnumber of the villagesclainied by Nigeria. Nigeria
further notes that "'many of the documents produced on behalf of
Cameroon are entirely programmatic in content, involving the planning
of census tours and so forth, in the absence of evidence that the events
actually occurred". Nigeria further points out that any consideration
of Cameroon's evidence regarding its State acti~ities is bound to take
account of the fact that it was only in 1994that Cameroon first protested
against the Nigerian administration of the villages, and that this silence
on the part of Cameroon is of particular significance in light of the fact
that Nigeria's State activities were entirely open and visible to all.
Finally, Nigeria contends that Cameroon acqiiiesced in the peaceful
exercise of Nigerian sovereignty over the disputed areas and that that
acquiescence constitiltes a major element in the process of historical con-
solidation of title.Iitclaims that Cameroon's acquiescence in Nigeria's
sovereign activitieshiada triple role. The first was the role that it played
alongside the other elements of historical consolidation. Its second, and
independent, role was that of confirming a title on the basis of the peace-
ful possession of the territory in dispute, that is to say, the effective
administration of the Lake Chad villages by Nigeria, acting as sovereign,
together with an absence of protest on the part of Cameroon. Thirdly,
Nigeria contends that acquiescence may be chai-acterized as the main
component of title, that is, providing the essence and very foundation of
title rather than a confirmation of a title necessarily anterior to and inde-
pendent of the process of acquiescence. There can be no doubt, according
to Nigeria, that in alppropriate conditions a tribunal can properly recog-
nize a title based on tacit consent or acquiescence.
As evidence of C,ameroon's acquiescence in the exercise of Nigerian
sovereignty over the:disputed areas, Nigeria relies in particular on the
fact that the settlenient of these villages by Nigerian nationals openly
carrying on peacefullactivities, and Nigeria's peaceful administration of
those villages, aroused no protest of any kind from Cameroon before
April 1994, and that Cameroon's armed incursions in 1987, which dis-
turbed the Nigerian administrative status quo and were repulsed by the
Nigerian villagers and security forces, did not result in any claim to the
area by Cameroon.
63. For its part, Cameroon contends that, as the holder of a conven-
tional territorialtitlt: to the disputed areas, it does not have to demon-
strate the effective exercise of its sovereignty over those areas, since a
valid conventional title prevails over any effectivitésto the contrary.
Hence, no form of historical consolidation can prevail over a conven-
tional territorial title in the absence of clearconsent on the part of the
holder of that title to the cession of part of its territory. Cameroon isaccordingly only asezrting effeectivitéas a subsidiary ground of claim,
"an auxiliary means of supportfor [its]conventional titles". Thus, it con-
tends that it has exercised its sovereignty in accordance with international
law by peacefully administering the areas claimecl by Nigeria and cites
many examples of the alleged exercise of that sovr:reignty.
The establishment of Nigerian villages on the Cameroonian side of the
boundary by private individuals followed by Nigerian public services
must therefore, in Cameroon's view, be treated as ;retsof conquest which
cannot found a valid territorial title under international law. Cameroon
states thatit has never acquiesced in the modification of its conventional
boundary with Nigeria; it argues that acquiescence in a boundary change
must, in order to birid a State, be the act of competent authorities and
that in this regard the attitude of the central authorities must prevail
over that of the locial ones. Hence, according to Cameroon, once the
Cameroonian central authorities became aware of the Nigerian claims,
they proceeded to react so as to preserve the rights of Cameroon; they
did so first in the context of the LCBC, then through a Note from the
Cameroonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated 21 April 1994.
Finally, Cameroon claims that an estoppel has arisen which today pre-
vents Nigeria from ishallenging the existing comentional delimitation.
Thus it argues that, for very many years, including while the LCBC
demarcation work was proceeding, Nigeria accepted the conventional
delimitation of Lake Chad without any form of protest, thus adopting an
attitude which clearly and consistently demonstr.ited its acceptance of
that boundary. Since Cameroon had relied in gooclfaith on that attitude
in order to collaborate in the demarcation operation, it would be prejudi-
cial to it if Nigeria vliereentitled to invoke conduct on the ground that
conflicted with itspri:vious attitude.
64. The Court firsitobserves that the work of the LCBC was intended
to lead to an overall demarcation of a frontier already delimited. Although
the result of thedemarcation process is not binding on Nigeria, that fact
has no legal implication for the pre-existing frontier delimitation. It
necessarily follows thiat Nigeria's claim based on the theory of historical
consolidation of title and on the acquiescence of Cameroon must be
assessed by reference to this initial determination of the Court. During
the oral pleadings Cameroon's assertion that Nigerian effectivitéswere
contra legem was dismissed by Nigeria as "completely question-begging
and circular". The Court notes, however, that riow that it has made
its findings that the frontier in LakeChad was delimited long before the
work of the LCBC began, it necessarily follo\vs that any Nigerian
effectivitésare indeeclto be evaluated for their legal consequences as acts
contra iegem. 65. The Court will now examine Nigeria's argument based on histori-
cal consolidation of ititle.
The Court observes in this respect that in the Fisheries (United King-
dom v. Nor~vay)case (1.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 130)it had referred to cer-
tain maritime delimitation decrees promulgated by Norway almost a cen-
tury earlier which hatj been adopted and applied for decades without any
opposition. These decrees were said by the Couri to represent "a well-
defined and uniform system . . which would reap the benefit of general
toleration, the basis of an historical consolidation which would make it
enforceable as against al1States" (ibzd p.,137). l'he Court notes, how-
ever, that the notion of historical consolidation has never been used as a
basis of title in other territorial disputes, whether in its own or in other
case law.
Nigeria contends that the notion of historical consolidation has been
developed by acadeniic writers, and relies on that theory, associating it
with the maxim quieltanon movere.
The Court notes that the theory of historical consolidation is highly
controversial and carinot replace the established rriodes of acquisition of
titleunder international law, which take into accoiint many other impor-
tant variables of fact and law. It further observes that nothing in the
Fisheries Judgment suggests that the "historical consolidation" referred
to, in connection with the external boundaries of the territorial sea,
allows land occupation to prevail over an established treaty title. More-
over, the facts and circumstances put forward by Nigeria with respect to
the Lake Chad villagesconcern a period of some 20 years, which is in any
event far too short, even according to the theory relied on by it. Nigeria's
arguments on this point cannot therefore be upheld.
66. Nigeria further states that the peaceful possession on which it
relies, coupled with acts of administration, represents a manifestation of
sovereignty and is thus a specificelement of its other two claimed heads
of title, namely: on the one hand, effective administration by Nigeria,
acting as sovereign, and the absence of protests; arid, on the other, mani-
festations of sovereignty by Nigeria over Darak and the neighbouring
villages, together witlhacquiescence by Cameroon in such sovereignty.
67. In this regard, it may be observed that the gradua1 settling of
Nigerians in the villageswas followed in turn by support provided by the
Ngala Local Government in Nigeria, along with a degree of adminis-
tration and supervision.
Setting aside evidence relating to the years including and after 1994,
when the Court was seised of the case, the Court notes that from the
early 1980s until 1993 reports were made to Ngala Local Government,
which provided support for health clinics in villages and mobile health
units, along with advice on disease control. Evidence of this nature has LAND .4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 353
been submitted as regards Kirta Wulgo, Darak and Katti Kime. There is
evidence of the provision of education funding by the Ngala Local Gov-
ernment in 1988 for the Nigerian village of Wulgo and its dependent
settlements, and for Katti Kime, Darak, Chika7;i and Naga'a and for
Darak in 1991. In 1989 there was an education levy in Wulgo and its
dependencies and iri 1992 some funding provitled for classrooms in
Naga'a. The Court has been shown evidence relating to the assessment
and collection of taxes in Wulgo and its dependencies in 1980-1981;
and to payments made to Ngala Local Governmcnt by the Fisherman's
Cooperative operating in the villages in question in 1982-1984.Among
the documents submitted to the Court is a copy of a decision in 1981by
the Wulgo Area Court in a case involving litigants residing in Darak.
Some of these activities- the organization of piiblic health and educa-
tion facilities, policing, the administration ofjustic- could normally be
considered to be ac1.sà titre de souverain. The Court notes, however,
that, as there was a pre-existing title held by Cameroon in this area of the
lake, the pertinent legal test is whether there wasthus evidenced acquies-
cence by Cameroon in the passing of title from itself to Nigeria.
68. In this context the Court also observes that Cameroon's own
activities in the Lake Chad area have only a 1imiti:dbearing on the issue
of title.
The Court has already ruled on a number of occasions on the legal
relationship betweeni "eflectivités" and titles. In the Frontier Dispute
(Burkina FasolRepucSlicof'Mali) case, it pointed out that in this regard
"a distinction must be drawn among several eventualities", stating inter
alia that:
"Where the act does not correspond to the law, where the territory
which is the subject of the dispute is effectively administered by a
State other than the one possessing the legal title, preference should
be given to the holder of the title. In the event that the effectivité
does not CO-existwith any legal title, it must iiivariably be taken into
consideration." (I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 587, para. 63; see also
Territorial Dispute (Libyun Arab JanzahiriyalChad), Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 1994, p. 38, paras. 75-76.)
It is this first evei~tuality here envisaged by the Court, and not the
second, which corresponds to the situation obtain~ngin the present case.
Thus Cameroon held the legal title to territory lying to the east of the
boundary as fixed bythe applicable instruments (seeparagraph 53 above).
Hence the conduct of Cameroon in that territory lias pertinence only for
the question of whetlherit acquiesced in the establishment of a change in
treaty title, which c,annot be wholly precluded as a possibility in law
(Land, Island and A4aritime Frontier Dispute (LI SalvadorlHonduras: LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUZ~GMENT) 354
Nicaragua intervening), Judgment, 1. C.J. Reports 1992, pp. 408-409,
para. 80). The evidericepresented to the Court suggests that before 1987
there was some admiinistrative activity by Cameroon in the island and
lake-bed villagesthat were beginning to be established. There were yearly
administrative visits from 1982to 1985; the villages of Chika'a, Naga'a,
Katti Kime and Darak participated in elections for the presidency of the
Republic of Cameroon; administrative action was undertaken for the
maintenance of law a~ndorder in Naga'a, Gorea Changi and Katti Kime.
The 1984 census included 18villages, among them Darak. Appointments
of village chiefs were referred for approval to the Cameroon prefect. As
for the collection of taxes by Cameroon, thereis modest evidence relating
to Katti Kime, Naga.'a and Chika'a for the years 1983to 1985.
69. It appears from the case file that the control of certain localm-
eroonian officialsover the area was limited. As Nigerian settlements, and
the organization within them of village life, became supplemented from
1987 onwards by Nigerian administration and the presence of Nigerian
troops, Cameroon restricted its protests to a few "incidents" (notably the
taking over of the fislheriestraining station at Katti Kime), rather than to
the evolving situatiori asuch. There is some evideiicehowever that Cam-
eroon continued sporadically to seek to exercise some administrative
control in these areas, albeit with little success in this later period.
Cameroon has put to the Court that it did not regard the activities of
Nigeria in Lake Chad in the years 1984to 1994 as a titre de souverain,
because Nigeria was in those years fully participating in the work
entrusted to the LCBC and its contractors, and agreed that they should
work on the basis of the various treaty instruments which governed title.
The Court cannot accept Nigeria's argument that the explanation given
by Cameroon depends upon the supposition that the Report of Experts
was binding upon Nigeria automatically. It depends rather upon the
agreed basis upon wlhichthe demarcation work was to be carried out.
On 14 April 1994, Nigeria in a diplomatie Note, for the first time
claimed sovereignty over Darak. Cameroon firmly protested in a Note
Verbale of 21 April 1994,expressing "its profound shock at the presump-
tion that Darak is part of Nigerian territory", and reiterating its own
sovereignty. Shortly after, it also enlarged the scope of its Application
to the Court.
70. The Court finds that the above events, taken together, show that
there was no acquiescence by Cameroon in the abandonment of its title
in the area in favour of Nigeria. Accordingly, the Court concludes that
the situation was essentially one where theffectivitéadduced by Nigeria
did not correspond to the law, and that accordingly "preference shouldbe given to the holder of the title" (Frontier Dispute (Burkina FusolRepuh-
licqf Muli), Judgmtlnt, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 557, para. 63).
The Court therefore concludes that, as regards ihe Settlements situated
to the east of the frontier confirmed in the Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange
of Notes of 1931, sovereignty has continued to lie with Cameroon (see
below, p. 356, sketch-map No. 2).
71. Having examined the question of the delirnitation in the area of
Lake Chad, the Court will now consider the course of the land boundary
from Lake Chad to the Bakassi Peninsula.
72. In its Additional Application filed on 6 June 1994, Cameroon
requested the Court "to specify definitively" the frontier between Cam-
eroon and Nigeria from Lake Chad to the sea. According to Cameroon,
the land boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria consists of three
sectors, each of which is clearly delimited by a separate instrument.
73. The first suc11 sector of the land boundary as referred to by
Cameroon extends from the conventional mourh of the Ebeji as far
as the "prominent peak" named by Cameroon as "Mount Kombon" (see
below, p. 361, sketch-map No. 3, on which this secror is shown in orange).
Cameroon asks the Court to hold that the Thomson-Marchand Dec-
laration, incorporated in the Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes
of 1931, delilnits this sector and constitutes the legal basis upon which
its futuredemarcatioln can be based.
74. The second sector runs from "Mount Konibon" to "pillar 64" as
referred to in Article 12 of the Anglo-German Agreement of 12 April
1913(see below, p. 361, sketch-map No. 3, on which this sector is shown
in mauve). The sector of the boundary in question is claimed by Cam-
eroon to have its leg,albasis in the British Order in Council of 2 August
1946, which described in detail the line dividing tlie northern and south-
ern parts of what was then the mandated territory of the British Cam-
eroons. According to Cameroon, the Order in Coiincil reaffirmed the line
decided upon earlier by the mandatory Power for reasons of administra-
tive convenience, arid confirmed subsequently by the relevant interna-
tional organs, namely, the Permanent Mandates Commission and the
Trusteeship Council Cameroon claims that the interna1 line between the
Northern and Southern Cameroons described in the Order in Council
was ipsojuc.to converted into the international boundary between Nigeria
and Cameroon wheri the trusteeship régimewas terminated following the
plebiscites of 11 and 12 February 1961.
75. The third sector, running from pillar 64 to the sea (see below,
p. 361, sketch-map No. 3, on which this sector is shown in brown), is said
by Cameroon to have been delimited by the Anglo-German Agreements Boundary inthe
LakeChadArea
N.B.Thinskucli-mphasbccnprcparcd
Darak
KattiKime
Chika'a
" Naga'a
Bof 11 March and l;! April 1913, both agreements containing maps on
which the boundary line is depicted (namely, the two sheets of map
TSGS 2240 annexed to the 11 March Agreement, and sheets Nos. 5 to 8
of map GSGS 2700 annexed to the 12 April Agreement). Cameroon
insists that its claim in relation to the entire course of this sector of the
boundary, including the Bakassi Peninsula, can be resolved by the appli-
cation "pure and simple" of the Anglo-German Agreements of 1913and
the annexed cartographie material.
76. With the exception of what it calls the "Bakassi provisions" of the
Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913, Nigeria, for its part, does
not dispute the relevance and applicability of the fourinstruments invoked
by Cameroon with ri:spect to the course of these tliree sectors of the land
boundary .
77. The question iipon which the Parties differ is the nature of the task
which the Court shoilld undertake. The respective positions of the Parties
on this point changed somewhat in the course of the proceedings. Thus,
in its Additional Application, Cameroon requested the Court "to specify
definitively the frontier between [it] and the Federal Republic of Nigeria
from Lake Chad to the sea". Then, in its writteii pleadings and at the
hearings, it requested the Court to confirm the course of the frontier as
indicated in the delimitation instruments, emphasizing that, in requesting
the Court "to specify definitively" the frontier bi:tween Cameroon and
Nigeria, it had not requested the Court itself to uridertake a delimitation
of that frontier. It maintains those requests in its final submissions.
78. In the preliminary objections phase of the case, Nigeria, for its
part, first argued that there was no territorialispute between the Parties
from Lake Chad to the Bakassi Peninsula. That preliminary objection
having been rejecteci by the Court in its Judgnient of 11 June 1998,
Nigeria subsequently indicated a number of specificlocations on the land
boundary which, in its view, called for some form ~sfconsideration by the
Court, either because the delimitation instruments themselveswere "defec-
tive", or because the!/ had been applied by Cameroon in a way which was
"manifestly at variance" with their terms. While Nigeria accepts the
application of the instruments concerned "in principle", it considers that,
if the Court were merely to confirm these delimitation instruments, that
would not resolve the differences between the Parties in regard to the
course of the boundary, and there would be no guarantee that others
would not arise in the future. Nigeria therefore askj the Court to "clarify"
the delimitation in the areas in which the delimitation instruments are
defective and to correct the boundary line claimed by Cameroon in the
areas where Nigeria inaintains Cameroon is not observing the clear terms
of these instruments.
79. Cameroon alscsacknowledges that there are some ambiguities and LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 358
uncertainties in the delimitation instruments in question. It admits
further that there triay be certain difficulties in demarcating the line
delimited by these iristruments, for instance because of changes in the
location of watercourses, swamps, tracks, villages or pillars referred to
in those instruments, or because the location of a watershed requires
detailed hydrological investigation. However, Cameroon insists that
the Court cannot, on the pretext of interpreting them, modify the appli-
cable texts, and it claims that thiss precisely what Nigeria is requesting
the Court to do.
80. Cameroon contends that a distinction must be maintained between,
on the one hand, the concept of delimitation (being the process by which
the course of a boundary is described in words or maps in a legal instru-
ment) and, on the other, the concept of demarcation (being the process
by which the course of the boundary so described is marked out on the
ground). It points oiit that in the present case wliat the Court is being
asked to do is to confirm the delimitation of the boundary and not to
effect itsdemarcation. It considers that the correction of a number of
"minor defects" in the instruments, the eliminatiori of various uncertain-
ties and the solution of any existing geographical difficulties are matters
of demarcation. Cameroon considers these to be cjuestions to be settled
by the Parties in the light of the Court'sdecision on the delimitation of
the boundary as a whiole.At the start of the first round of oral argument,
Cameroon accordingly declared itself willing to engage in a demarcation
effort with Nigeria wherever this should prove to be necessary to render
the course of the boundary more precise. In the second round of oral
argument, Camerooi~ proposed to Nigeria that a demarcation body
should be set up under the auspices of the Court or of the United Nations
in order to undertakir the demarcation of those boundary sectors as yet
undemarcated, or in respect of which the Court's Judgment left some
uncertainties, but made it clear that, if the Coiirt considered that it
should itself settle certain of the problems raised by Nigeria, it would
have no objection to this.
81. Although it does not accept Cameroon's proposal for the estab-
lishment of a demarcation body, Nigeria agrees that purely technical
matters should be settled at the demarcation stage. It claims, however,
that the points of difficulty it has identified represent substantivelimi-
tation issues. It believesthat a detailed specificatioriof the land boundary
is necessary if future border problems are to beavciidedand any eventual
demarcation is to take place on a sound basis.
82. The Court notes that Cameroon and Nigeria agree that the land
boundary between their respective territories froni Lake Chad onwards
has already been delimited, partly by the Thomson-Marchand Declara-tion incorporated in the Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes of 1931,
partly by the British(Orderin Council of 2 August 1946and partly by the
Anglo-German Agreements of 11 March and 12 April 1913. The Court
likewise notes that, with the exception of the provisions concerning
Bakassi contained in Articles XVIII et seq. of the Anglo-German Agree-
ment of 11 March 1913, Cameroon and Nigeria both accept the validity
of the four above-mentioned legal instruments which effected this delimi-
tation. The Court will therefore not be required 10 address these issues
further in relation to the sector of the boundary from Lake Chad to the
point defined infine linArticle XVII of the Anglo-German Agreement of
March 1913. The Court will, however, have to return to them in regard
to the sectoi-of the land boundary situated beyond that point, in the part
of its Judgment dealing with the Bakassi Peninsu1.i (see paragraphs 193-
225 below).
83. Independently of the issues which have just been mentioned, a
problem has continued to divide the Parties in regard to the land bound-
ary. It concerns the nature and extent of the role which the Court is
called upon to play in relation to the sectors of the land boundary in
respect of which there has been disagreement between the Parties at vari-
ous stages of the proceedings, either on the ground that the relevant
instruments of delimitation were claimed to be dcfective or because the
interpretation of those instruments was disputed. The Court notes that,
while the positions of the Parties on this issue have undergone a signifi-
cant change and have clearly become closer in the course of the proceed-
ings, they still appear unable to agree on what the Court's precise task
should be in this reg,ard.
84. The Parties have devoted lengthy arguments to the difference
between delimitation and demarcation and to the Court's power to carry
out one or other of these operations. As the Court had occasion to state
in the case concerning the Territorial Dispute (Lilyun Arab Jumahiriyul
Chad) (1C..J. Reporls 1994, p. 28, para. 56), the dr-limitation of a bound-
ary consists in its "definition", whereas the demarcation of a boundary,
which presupposes its prior delimitation, consists of operations marking
it out on the ground. In the present case, the Parties have acknowledged
the existence and validity of the instruments whosr: purpose was to effect
the delimitation between their respective territmies; moreover, both
Parties have insisted time and again that they are riot asking the Court to
carry out demarcation operations, for which they themselves will be
responsible at a latei: stage. The Court's task is thus neither to effecta
delimitation de novo of the boundary nor to demarcate it.
85. The task which Cameroon referred to the Court in its Application
is "to specijy definitlvely" (emphasis added by the Court) the course of
the land boundary as fixed by the relevant instruments of delimitation.
Since the land bouridary has already been deliniited by various legal
instruments, it is indeed necessary, in order to specify its course defini-
tively, to confirm that those instruments are binding on the Parties and LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 360
are applicable. However, contrary to what Camzroon appeared to be
arguing at certain stages in the proceedings, the Court cannot fulfil the
task entrusted to it in this case by limiting itself to such confirmation.
Thus, when the actual content of these instrumenis is the subject of dis-
pute between the Parties, the Court, in order to specify the course of the
boundary in question definitively,is bound to examine them more closely.
The dispute between Cameroon and Nigeria ove1 certain points on the
land boundary between Lake Chad and Bakassi is in reality simply a dis-
pute over the interpretation or application of particular provisions of the
instruments delimitirig that boundary. It is this dispute which the Court
will now endeavour itosettle.
86. For this purpose, the Court will consider in succession each of the
points in dispute along the land boundary from Lake Chad to the
Bakassi Peninsula, designating them as follows: (1) Limani; (2) the Ker-
aua (Kirewa or Kirawa) River; (3) the Kohom Rlver; (4) the watershed
from Ngosi to Humsiki (Roumsiki)lKamale/Turu (the Mandara Moun-
tains); (5) from Mount Kuli to BourhaIMaduguva (incorrect watershed
line on Moisel's map); (6) Kotcha (Koja); (7) source of the Tsikakiri
River; (8)from Beacon 6 to Wamni Budungo; (9) Maio Senche; (10)Jim-
bare and Sapeo; (11) Noumberou-Banglang; (12) Tipsan; (13) crossing
the Maio Yin; (14) the Hambere Range area; (15) from the Hambere
Range to the Mburi River (Lip and Yang); (16) Bissaula-Tosso; (17) the
Sama River. For the sake of clarity, these poiiits will be dealt with
according to theirortler of appearance along a north-south line following
the course of the land boundary from Lake Chad towards the sea as indi-
cated on the attachetl general sketch-map (see below, p. 361, sketch-map
No. 3). Likewise, for the sake of convenience, the relevant paragraphs of
the Thomson-Marchand Declaration and the 1046 Order in Council
will be set out in full before the discussion of each point. In addition,
wherever possible, the Court will accompany its tlecisions on the points
in dispute with illusitrative sketches or maps.Lastly it will address the
question of pillar 64 and additional points on the land border that have
been discussed by the Parties.
87. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
determine the boundary as follows :
"13. Thence ,going on and meeting the bed of a better defined
stream crossing the marsh of Kulujia and Kodo as far as a marsh
named Agzabame. LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 361
INDEX 1
1 Limani
2 KcrauaRivcr
3 KohomRiver
4 NgositoHumsiki
- BritishOrderinof2Augusr1946the 12O-
5 Mt.Kuli to Bourha Scctofthc landbodclimibythc
6 Kotcha ---- AngloGcrmAgrccmcntsoMarcand 12
April1913
7 SourceoftheTsikakui 2, i
FromBeaconNo. 6 il0-
toWarnnB i udungo 3,
I 40
9 1MaioSenche
101JimbareandSa~eo 1 5.
131CrossinnofMaio Yin 1
141TheHambereRangem:a 1
FromtheHambereRange
totheMburiRiver
171SamaRiver 1
SKETCH-MAPNO.3
Pointsin Disputebeîween
LakeCliadandBakassi
Yeninsula
N.B.Thissketcbeeprrpiusd
Toillushpurpowsonly 14. Thence crossing this marsh where it reaches a river passing
quite close to the village of Limanti (Limaiii) to a confluence at
about 2 kilometres to the north-west of this \.illage."
88. Nigeria observes that between the Agzat~ame Marsh and the
modern town of Banki, which lies 3 km north-west of Limani, the river
referred to in paragraph 14 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration in
fact has four channels. Nigeria advocates folloming the southernmost
channel. It claims that this channel, which does not appear on sheet
"Ybiri N.W." of the 1 :50,000 map of Nigeria prcpared by the Directo-
rate of Overseas Surveys (DOS), is shown on the acrial photograph of the
area submitted by it. It contends that the southern channel of the river
corresponds to the boundary line shown on a sketch-map signed in 1921
by French and Britiish officials which fixed the provisional boundary
some 300 m north of Limani and south of Narki. It points out that this
channel does indeed flow to a confluence 2 km north-west of Limani, as
stated in paragraph 14of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration.
89. Cameroon acknowledges that "[tlhe problem lies in determining
the stream which flows out of the Agzabame marsh, passes quite close to
Limani and flows to a confluence at 2 km to the north-west of this vil-
lage". It argues that the boundary should follow the second channel from
the north. According to Cameroon, Nigeria is ~nventing non-existent
river channels, since the channel it proposes does not appear on its own
maps; as for the 192 1sketch-map, it has no legal status and in any event
confirms Cameroon's view. Finally, Cameroon points out that "[oln the
ground, the Lamido of Limani in Cameroon governs the inhabitants of
Narki".
90. The Court notes that in the Limani area the interpretation of the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration raises difficulties. The Declaration
simply refers to "a river" in this area, whereas there are in fact several
river channels between the Agzabame marsh and the "confluence at about
2 kilometres to the north-west [of the village of Limanti (Limani)]"
(para. 14 of the Declaration).
A careful study of the wording of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
and of the map andi other evidence provided by the Parties leads the
Court to the followirigconclusions. In the first place, the Court observes
that the second charinel from the north, proposed by Cameroon as the
course of the bounda.ry, is unacceptable. That channel does not meet the
requirements of paragraph 14 of the Declaration, on the one hand
because its distance from the village of Limani precludes it from being
regarded, in the context of paragraph 14of the Declaration, as "passing
quite close" to Limani and, on the other, becausc its confluence is situ-
ated to the north-north-east of the village and not to the "north-west".
The southern charinel proposed by Nigeria poses other problems. Its
immediate proximity to the villageof Limani and its apparent correspon-
dence with the sketch-map signed by French and British administratorsin 1921 are not in doubt. However, this channel does not appear on any
map. Moreover, a stereoscopic examination of the aerial photographs of
the area shows that, while there is indeed a small watercourse running
from the Ngassaoua River to the point indicated by Nigeria, it is very
short and quickly peters out, well before the Agzabame marsh, which
is incompatible with the wording of paragraph 13 of the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration. This small watercourse also runs much closer to
Narki than Nigeria suggests. The Court cannot therefore accept this
channel either.
The Court notes, however, that the river has aiiother channel, called
Nargo on DOS sheet "Ybiri N.W.", reproduced at page 23 of the atlas
annexed to Nigeria's Rejoinder, which meets th(: conditions specified
in the Thomson-Marchand Declaration. This chaiinel does indeed start
from the Agzabame marsh, passes to the north of Narki and to the south
of Tarmoa, runs not far from Limani and reaches a confluence which is
about 2 km north-west of Limani. The Court therefore considers that this
is the channel to which the drafters of the Thomson-Marchand Declara-
tion were referring.
91. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the "river" mentioned in
paragraph 14 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration is the channel
running between Narki and Tarmoa, and that from the Agzabame marsh
the boundary must follow that channel to its confluence with the
Ngassaoua River (see below, p. 364, sketch-map No. 4).
The Keraua (Kirewu or Kirawu) River
92. Paragraph 18 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration determines
the boundary as follows :
"18. Thence following the Keraua as far as its confluence in the
mountains with a river coming from the West and known by the
'Kirdis' inhabiting the mountains under the name of Kohom (shown
on Moisel's map under the name of Gatagule), cutting into two parts
the village of Keraua and separating the two villages of Ishigashiya."
93. Nigeria maintains that paragraph 18 of the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration "is defeciive in that there are in this area two courses of the
Keraua (now Kirawa) River, and the Thomson-hlarchand Declaration
provides no guidance as to which channel forms the boundary". In its
opinion, the boundary should follow the eastern channel, which is con-
tinuous and well-defiried,in contrast to the western channel, as shown by
the 1 50,000 map included by it in its Rejoinder and by the 1963 aerial
photographs. Nigeria denies that this is an artificial channel and adds
that Moisel's map places on Nigerian territory two villagescalled Schriwe
and Ndeba, correspclnding to the present-day villages of Chérivéand
Ndabakora, situated between the two channels.
94. Cameroon for its part asserts that "[tlhe problem arises from the SKETCH-MA PO.4
Limani
N.Bforillustmtivïpurpm ailyard LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 365
fact that Nigeria has dug an artificial channel in the vicinity of the village
of Gange, changing the Kerawa's course and diverting its waters in order
to move the riverbed and, as a consequence, the course of the boundary".
Cameroon therefore maintains that the boundary should be the western
channel, which is the normal course of the river, even though it has tem-
porarily dried up as a result of the diversion of tlie waters. It adds that
the village of Chérivéno longer exists on thegrouiid and that Cameroon
peacefully administers thisarea.
95. The Court notes that, in the area of the Keraua (Kirewa or
Kirawa) River, the interpretation of paragraph 18 of the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration raises difficulties, since the wording of this provi-
sion merely makes tlhe boundary follow "the Keraua", whereas at this
point that river splits into two channels: aestern channel and an east-
ern channel. The Court's task is thus to identify the channel which the
boundary is to follov~pursuant to the Thomson-Marchand Declaration.
The Court has firsf examined Cameroon's argument that the course of
the Keraua River ha:; been diverted by Nigeria as a result of an artificial
channel constructed by it in the vicinity of the village of Gange. The
Court considers that Cameroon has provided no evidence of its asser-
tions on this point. Nor has thecartographic and photographic material
in the Court's possession enabled it to confirm the existence of works to
divert the course of the river near Gange.
Neither can the Court accept Nigeria's argumentthat preference should
be given to the eastern channel because it is broader and better defined
than the western chai~nel,since the aerial photographs of the area which
the Court has studied show that the two channels are comparable in size.
The Court notes, however, that according to the Moisel map the
boundary runs, as Nigeria maintains, just to tht: east of two villages
called Schriwe and Ndeba, which are on the site now occupied by
the villages of Chérivéand Ndabakora, and which the map places on
Nigerian territory. Only the eastern channel meets this condition.
96. The Court accordingly concludes that paragraph 18 of the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration must be interpreted as providing
for the boundary to l'ollowthe eastern channel of the Keraua River.
The Kohom River
97. Paragraph 19 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration determines
the boundary as follows :
"19. Thence it runs from this confluence as far as the top of
Mount Ngosi in a south-westerly direction given by the course of the
Kohom (Gatag~ile) which is taken as the natural boundary from
its confluence as far as its source in Mount Ngosi; the villages of Matagum and 1-Iijiebeing left to France, and the sections of Uledde
and of Laherre situated to the north of the Kohom to England; those
of Tchidoui (Hiiduwe)situated to the south of Kohom to France."
98. Nigeria contends that paragraph 19 of the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration "is defective in that it assumes that the River Kohom has its
source in Mount Ngossi", which it alleges is not the case. It explains that
the drafters of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration were mistaken in
believing the Kohoni to be the Keraua (Kirawa) River tributary flowing
north-easterly from Mount Ngosi, a mountain which, in Nigeria's view,
is readily identifiable. It contends that this mistakc derives from a sketch-
map prepared in March 1926by British and French colonial officialsand
used in the preparation of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration. Accord-
ing to Nigeria, "the river which rises on Mount Ngossi is the Bogaza
River". Nigeria acki~owledgesthat the Kohom is indeed a tributary of
the Keraua, but one which rises well to the north. It therefore proposes
that the boundary should follow the Kohom, as Nigeria has identified it,
to its source "neareat to the point at which the Bogaza River makes its
abrupt turn to the south-east", and then follow the course of the Bogaza
to Mount Ngosi.
99. For its part, (Cameroon maintains that the Ngosi is a mountain
chain, not a single peak, and that both the Kohom and Bogaza Rivers
have their sources there. Cameroon believes that "[tlhe terms of the
[Thomson-Marchand] Declaration are sufficiently clear to identify the
river which the Kirdis (Matakams) cal1the Kohom in the area". It con-
siders that this river lies to the north of the watt:rcourse which Nigeria
has identified as the Kohom.
100. The Court notes that the initial problem posed by paragraph 19
of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration consists in the identification of
the course of the River Kohom, along which the boundary is to pass.
After a detailed study of the map evidence available to it, the Court has
reached the conclusion that, as Nigeria contends, it is indeed the River
Bogaza which has it:;source in Mount Ngosi, and not the River Kohom.
The question whether the text of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
must be taken as referring to a single Mount Ngosi or to the Ngosi
Mountains in the plural is irrelevant here,since, irrespective of the course
of the Kohom indicated by the Parties, that river cloesnot have its source
in the vicinity of Mount Ngosi. The Court's task is accordingly to deter-
mine where the drafters of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration intended
the boundary to run in this area when they descr~bedit as following the
course of a river callled"Kohom".
101. In order to locate the course of the Kohom, the Court has first
examined the text of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration. which has not
provided a decisive answer. Thus the Court has been unable to find, on
any of the inaps provided by the Parties, a single one of the villages and
localities mentioned in paragraph 19 of the Declaration. Likewise, theprovision in paragralph 18of the Declaration that the boundary is to fol-
low the course of the River Kohom from its confluence "in the moun-
tains" with the Keraua has not enabled the Court to identify the course
of the Kohom, given in particular that neither the course proposed by
Cameroon,nor that :submittedby Nigeria, corresponds to such a descrip-
tion.
The Court has therefore had to have recourse to other means of inter-
pretation. Thus it has carefully examined the sketch-map prepared in
March 1926by the French and British officials which served as the basis
for the drafting of paragraphs 18and 19of the Thomson-Marchand Dec-
laration. As Nigeria pointed out in its Rejoinder this sketch-map does
indeed show what the intention of the Parties was at the time, when they
referred to the River Kohom. The sketch-map 1s particularly helpful,
since it includes very clear indications in regard to the relief of the area
and the direction of .theriver, which the Court has been able to compare
with the maps provided by the Parties. The Court is able to determine, on
the basis of this corriparison, that the Kohom whose course the Thom-
son-Marchand Declaration provides for the bouridary to follow is that
indicated by Cameroon.In this regard, the Court riotes first that the 1926
sketch-map indicates very clearly,just before the boundary turns sharply
to thesouth, a tributiary descending from Mount Kolika and flowing into
the Kohom. Such a tributary is to be found on the river identified by
Cameroon as the Kohom but not on that proposed by Nigeria. The
Court would further observe that the 1926sketch-map quite clearly indi-
cates that the boundiiry passes well to the north of the Matakam Moun-
tains, as does the line claimed by Cameroon, whr:reas that favoured by
Nigeria passes well tlothe south of those mountains.
The Court notes, however, that the boundary line claimed by Cam-
eroon in this area runs on past the source of the river which the Court
has identified as the Kohom. Nor can the Coi~rt disregard the fact
that the Thomson-Marchand Declaration expressly provides that the
boundary must follow a river which has its source in Mount Ngosi.
In order to comply with the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, it is
therefore necessary t'ojoin the source of the River Kohom, as identified
by the Court, to the River Bogaza, which rises on Mount Ngosi.
102. The Court ac'cordinglyconcludes that paragraph 19of the Thom-
son-Marchand Declaration should be interpreted as providing for the
boundary to follow the course of the River Kohom, as identified by the
Court, as far as its source at 13"44'24" longitudeeast and10" 59'09" lati-
tude north, and then to follow a straight line in a southerly direction until
it reaches the peak shown as having an elevation of 861 m on the
1 :50,000 map in Figure 7.8 at page 334 of Nigeria's Rejoinder and
located at 13O45'45"longitude east and 10"59'45'''latitude north, before
following the River Bogaza in a south-westerly direction as far as the
summit of Mount Ngosi (see below, p. 368, sketch-map No. 5). LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 369
The watershed from Ngosi to Humsiki (Roumsiki)lKamalelTuru
(the Mandara Mountains)
103. Paragraphs :!Oto 24 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
determine the boundary as follows:
"20. Thence on a line in a south-westerly direction following the
tops of the mountain range of Ngosi, leaving to France the parts of
Ngosi situated on the eastern slopes, and to lhgland the parts situ-
ated on the western slopes, to a point situated between the source of
the River Zimunkara and the source of the River Devurua; the
watershed so defined also leaves the village of Bugelta to England
and the village of Turu to France.
21. Thence in a south-south-westerly direction, leaving the village
of Dile on the Bi-itishside, the villageof Liban1on the French side to
the hi11of Matakam.
22. Thence running due Westto a point to the south of the village
of Wisik where it turns to the south on a line running along the
watershed and passing by Mabas on the French side, after which
it leavesWula on the English side running south and bounded by
cultivated land to the east of the line of the watershed.
23. Thence passing Humunsi on the French side the boundary lies
between the mountains of Jel and Kamale hlogode on the French
side and runninj: along the watershed.
24. Thence passing Humsiki, including the farmlands of the valley
to the west of the village on the French side. the boundary crosses
Mount Kuli."
104. Nigeria contends that paragraphs 20 to 24 of the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration clearly delimit the boundai-y in the area by refer-
ence to a watershed line and that this line should therefore be followed,
rather than the line proposed by Cameroon. It enlphasizes the fact that
the Cameroonian village of Turu, which the Thorrison-Marchand Decla-
ration places in Caineroonian territory, has expanded ont0 Nigerian
territory. It also points out that Cameroon's road makes incursions
into Nigerian territory and that map No. 6 produced by Cameroon in
Volume II of its Reply moves the boundary between 500 and 800 m
westwards into Nigerian territory throughout the sector.
105. For its part, Cameroon argues that the disagreement "is the result
of a divergence in the marking of the watershed on the maps". Cameroon
notes that the concept of a watershed is a complex one and that it is par-
ticularly difficult to determine such a line along steep escarpments, as is
the case here. Itontends that the boundary line it has drawn does indeed
follow the watershed at least until the vicinity of Humsiki (or Roumsiki).
From that point, the boundary must necessarily deviate from the
watershed because, according to the Thomson-Marchand Declaration,
itmust cross Mount Kuli and leave the farmlands Westof the village to LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 370
Cameroon. Cameroon adds that the village of Tiiru is situated entirely
on Cameroonian territory.
106. The Court notes that the problem in the ar-eabetween Ngosi and
Humsiki derives fronithe fact that Cameroon and Nigeria apply the pro-
visions of paragraphs 20 to 24 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration in
different ways. In this sector of the boundary the Court's task is thus to
determine the course of the boundary by reference to the terms of the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration, that is to say by reference essentially
to the crest line, to thieline of the watershed and to the villages which are
to lie to eitheride of the boundary. The Court will address this question
section by section.
107. From Ngosi 1.0Turu, the boundary follows the line of the water-
shed as provided by paragraph 20 of the Thomson-Marchand Declara-
tion. On this point the Court notes that the watershed line proposed by
Cameroon crosses a riumber of watercourses and thus cannot be accepted.
The watershed line presented by Nigeria, which over the greater part of
its length follows thle road running southwards Jkom Devura, appears
more credible. The Court must. however. oint outthat that road remains
throughout its length within Cameroonian territory. As regards the vil-
lage of Turu, the Court recalls moreover that, while it may interpret the
provisions of delimitation instruments where their language requires this,
it may not modify tlhecourse of the boundary as established by those
instruments. In the present case, the Parties do not dispute that the
boundary follows the: line ofthe watershed. That boundary line may not
therefore be modifieti by the Court. Hence, if it should prove that the
village ofTuru has spread into Nigerian territory beyond the watershed
line, it would beup to the Parties to find a solution to any resultant prob-
lems, with a view to ensuring that the rights and interests of the local
population are respected.
108. From Turu t~oMabas, the Parties disagree on the course of the
boundary as described in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Thomson-March-
and Declaration only at two points: one to the south of Wisik, where the
Court sees no reason not to adopt the line indicated by Cameroon, and
the other near Mabas. There, the line indicated by Cameroon crosses cer-
tain watercourses an13therefore cannot be the watershed line. Nor does
the line favoured by Nigeria appear suitable, since it passes through
Mabas, whereas the Declaration provides that that village should remain
entirely on the French side ("pass[es] by Mabas on the French sideml
"jirnnclzitMabus, sur lecoté français"). Hence at tliis point the boundary
must follow the watershed line, whilst leaving al1of the village of Mabas
on the Cameroonian side. Here too the Court corisiders that, where the
road running south from Turu follows the bountlary, it remains at al1
times on Cameroonian territory.
109. From Mabas to Ouro Mavoum, the line of the watershed has not
been in issue betweeri the Parties. LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUIIGMENT) 371
110. From Ouro Mavoum to the mountains of Jel, passing through
Humunsi (Roumzou), the boundary follows the liiie proposed by Nigeria
whilst leaving al1of the road on Cameroonian territory. Thus the Court
finds that the line prlnposed by Cameroon cannot be accepted: while that
line does indeed correspond to the watershed line, paragraph 22 of the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration places the bouridary at this point not
on that line, but alcing a line bounded by cultivated land lying "to the
east of the line of the watershed".
111. From the mountains of Je1 to Mogode, tlie boundary again fol-
lows the watershed line. The line indicated bv Caineroon crosses numer-
ous watercourses and must therefore be rejected. The line favoured by
Nigeria appears to be more correct.
112. From Mogode to Humsiki (Roumsiki), the boundary continues
to follow the watershed line, whilst leaving al1 of the road on Cam-
eroonian territory. Here again the line proposed by Cameroon must
be rejected, since it crosses numerous watercourses. The Nigerian line
appears more suitable, provided that the road remains throughout on the
Cameroonian side of the boundary and that the lirieleaves al1of Humsiki
to Cameroon.
113. Beyond Hurnsiki, the boundary continues to follow the line
proposed by Nigeria~.That line appears, moreover, more favourable to
Cameroon than the one shown on its own maps, and in any event
Cameroon has never challenged Nigeria's claims at this point on the
boundary.
114. The Court concludes from the foregoing tliat in the area between
Ngosi and Humsiki the boundary follows the course described by para-
graphs 20 to 24 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration as clarified by
the Court.
From Mount Kuli r'oBourha/Maduguva (incorrect watershed line on
Moisel's map)
115. Paragraph 25 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration determines
the boundary as follows:
"25. Thence running due south between Mukta (British) and
Muti (French) the incorrect line of the watershed shown by Moisel
on his map being adhered to, leaving Boiirha and Dihi on the
French side, Madogoba Gamdira on the British, Bugela or Bukula,
Madoudji, Kadanahanga on the French, Ouda, Tua and Tsam-
bourga on the British side, and Buka on the French side."
116. Nigeria contends that paragraph 25 of the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration, which lprovides for the boundary to follow "the incorrect
line of the watershecl"
"is defective in that the requirement to follow a watershed line which
is expressly adniitted to be incorrect, shown on a 90 year old map which displays ,verylittle detail, can be interpreted in a number of
ways".
Nigeria thus proposes simplifying the line up to the point where Moisel's
line cuts the true watershed north of Bourha. That simplification is
claimed to bejustified by a procès-verbal of 1920,which provides for the
boundary to follow the centre of a track runnirig from Muti towards
Bourha. South of B'ourha, Nigeria proposes following the true water-
shed, leaving Bourha on Nigerian territory.
117. Cameroon, for its part, argues that the Thomson-Marchand Dec-
laration "deliberatel!i places the boundary along 'the incorrect line of the
watershed' shown by Moisel on his rnap", and accordingly proposes
adhering strictly to the transposition ofMoisel's line ont0 a modern map
and on the ground. It adds that the 1920procès-verbal cited by Nigeria
was mistranslated into English and that the French original provides no
support whatsoever for Nigeria's position.
118. The Court n~otesthat the text of paragraph 25 of the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration provides quite expressly that the boundary is to
follow "the incorrect line of the watershed shown by Moisel on his map".
Since the authors oifthe Declaration prescribed a clear course for the
boundary, the Court cannot deviate from that course.
The Court has carefully studied the Moisel map and has compared the
data provided by it vdiththose available on the best modern maps, and in
particular sheet "Ubla N.E." of the 1969 DOS 1 :50,000 rnap of Nigeria
and sheet NC-33-XI'V-2c"Mokolo 2c" of the 1965Institut géographique
national (IGN) 1 :50,000rnap of Central Africa, both of which were pro-
vided to the Court by Nigeria. The Court observe:,that, while the Moisel
map contains some errors in this area, it nonetheless provides certain
objective criteria thqatpermit the course of the "incorrect line of the
watershed" to be readily transposed ont0 modern maps. The Court notes
first that on the Mloisel map the "incorrect linr of the watershed" is
clearly shown as rerniainingat al1times to the east of the meridian 13"30'
longitude east. The Court further notes that a certain number of localities
are indicated as lying either to the east orto the Westof the incorrect line
and must accordingly remain on the same side of the boundary after that
line has been transposed ont0 modern maps.
The Court cannoit accept the line presented by Cameroon as corre-
sponding to a transposition of the "incorrect line of the watershed". That
line lies throughout its length to the Westof the meridian 13'30' longi-
tude east. Nigeria's transposition of the "incorrect line of the watershed"
poses other problems. While it places this line at al1times to the east of
the meridian 13"30'longitude east, it cannot, however, be accepted, since
it consists of a series of angled lines, whereas the line on the Moisel map
follows a winding course. 119. The Court accordingly concludes that paragraph 25 of the Thom-
son-Marchand Declaration should be interpreted as providing for the
boundary to run frorn Mount Kuli to the point marking the beginning of
the "incorrect line of the watershed", located at 13031f47" longitude east
and 10"27'48" latitude north, having reached that point by following the
correct line of the watershed. Then, from that point, the boundary fol-
lows the "incorrect liineof the watershed" to the point marking the end of
that line, located at 13"30' 55"longitude east and 10"15'46" latitude
north. Between these two points the boundary fcdlows the course indi-
cated on the map ainnexed to this Judgment', which was prepared by
the Court by transposing the "incorrect line of the watershed" from the
Moisel map to the first edition of sheet "Uba N.E." of the DOS 1:50,000
map of Nigeria. From this latter point, the boundary will again follow
the correct line of the watershed in a southerly direction.
120. Paragraphs 216and 27 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
determine the boundary as follows:
"26. Thence the boundary runs through Mount Mulikia (named
also Lourougoua).
27. Thence from the top of Mount Mulikia to the source of
the Tsikakiri, leaving Kotcha to Britain and Dumo to France and
following a line marked by four provisional landmarks erected in
September 1920 by Messrs. Vereker and Piticin."
121. According to Nigeria, paragraphs 26 ancl 27 of the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration pose a problem in that only one of the four land-
marks erected in 1920 referred to in those paragraphs is possibly identi-
fiable today. It therefore proposes that, before arriving at that cairn, the
boundary should folllowthe watershed, except in ihe vicinity of Kotcha,
where the farmland lying on the Cameroonian side of the watershed line
which is worked by farmers from Kotcha would be left to Nigeria, in
order to take account of the fact that the Nigerian village of Kotcha has
expanded to either side of that line.
122. Cameroon considers that the boundary line sought by Nigeria in
the vicinity of Kotcha is contrary to the Thomson-Marchand Declara-
tion and that the text of the Declaration shoiild be respected. The
remainder of the line proposed by Nigeria in this ares,following the line
of the watershed, is i~otcontested by Cameroon.
123. The Court finds that, in the Kotcha area, the difficulty derives
solely from the fact, as Nigeria recognizes, that the Nigerian village of
Kotcha has spread over ont0 the Cameroonian sicleof the boundary. As
the Court has already had occasion to point out in regard to the village
' A copy of this map viill be found in a pocket at the end of this fascicle or inside the
back cover of the volume 1.CIJ.Reports 2002. [Nothythe Registry.]
74of Turu, it has no power to modify a delimited boundary line, even in a
case where a village previously situated on one side of the boundary has
spread beyond it. It is instead up to the Parties to find a solution to any
resultant problems, arith a view to respecting the rights and interests of
the local population.
124. The Court acc:ordinglyconcludes that the boundary in the Kotcha
area, as described in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration, follows the line of the watershed, including where it passes
close to the village of Kotcha, the cultivated land lying on the Cam-
eroonian side of the lwatershedremaining on Cameroonian territory.
Source of the Tsikak,iri River
125. Paragraph 27 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration detennines
the boundary as follows :
"27. Thence from the top of Mount Mulikia to the source of
the Tsikakiri, leaving Kotcha to Britain and Dumo to France and
following a line marked by four provisional landmarks erected in
September 1920by Messrs. Vereker and Pition."
126. Nigeria observes that the Tsikakiri Rive1 referred to in para-
graph 27 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration has three possible
sources. It asserts that, contrary to Cameroon'scontention, the boundary
should be one of the southern tributaries, not tlie northern tributary,
since only the southern tributaries originate at ththcrest line, as implied
by the Declaration.
127. For its part,Cameroon asserts that the northern tributary is the
true source of the Tsikakiri and the one to be taken into account. It con-
tends that the spot iridicated by an arrow on Figure 7.14 at page 344 of
Nigeria's Rejoinder as the source of the southern tributary is nothing of
the kind.
128. The Court notes that the interpretation of paragraph 27 of the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration poses problems because the Tsikakiri
River has more than one source, whereas the Declaration simply states
that the boundary passes through "the source" of the Tsikakiri without
providing aiiy indication as to which source is to be chosen. The Court
would first observe tliat, in terms of geographical theory, there exists no
definition enabling the principal source of a river to be identified with full
certainty where that river has several sources. However, the task of the
Court is not to identify the "geographical" source of the Tsikakiri, but to
identify the source through which the drafters of the Thomson-March-
and Declaration intended that the boundary should pass. Considering
that the Thomson-Marchand Declaration delimitetl the boundary in gen-
eral by means of a physical description of the terrain, it may reasonably
be assumed that the drafters of the Declaration, in referring to the source LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 375
of the Tsikakiri, inte:nded to designate a point which could be readily
identified, both on m~apsand on the ground. Thus the Court notes that
one of the sources of the Tsikakiri stands out frorn the others. This is a
source situated at 13"16'55" longitude east and 10'02'02" latitude north
and having the highest elevation which is not proposed by either of the
Parties.
129. The Court accordingly concludes that, in the area referred to in
paragraph 27 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, the boundary
starts from a point having CO-ordinates 13"17' 50" longitude east and
10"03'32" latitude north, which is located in the vicinity of Dumo. From
there, the boundary irunsin a straight line to the point which the Court
has identified as the "source of the Tsikakiri" as referred to in theDec-
laration, and then folllowsthat river (seebelow, p. 376,sketch-map No. 6).
From Beacon 6 to Wamni Budungo
130. Paragraphs 33 and 34 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
determine the boundary as follows:
"33. Thence a line starting from Beacon 6, passing Beacon 7,
finishing at theold Beacon 8.
34. Thence from this mark 8 placed on the left bank of the Mao
Youwai, a smalllstream flowing from the West and emptying itself
into the Mayo Faro, in a straight line running towards the south-west
and reaching the summit of Wamni Range, a \ ery prominent peak to
the north of a chain of mountains extending towards the Alantika
Mountains, and situated to the east of the old frontier mark No. 10."
131. In respect oî the course of the boundary from Beacon 6 to
Wamni Budungo, Nigeria states that Beacons 6 and 8, through which the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration provides for the boundary to pass,
have not been found. Some traces of Beacon 7 are said to remain at its
location. Citing paragraph 32 of the Thomson-hlarchand Declaration,
which refers to the "old British-German Frontier", it argues that an
attempt should therefore be made to locate those beacons by reference to
the 1906Anglo-Gerrnan Agreement, which served as the basis for fixing
the course of the boundary in this area. Thus Anncx 1 to that Agreement,
which was drafted in 1903, contains a description of themethod employed
to determine the locations of the beacons. Paragraph 3 of the Annex pro-
vides :
"[tlhe line then f'ollowsthe median line of the Faro up-stream, as far
as the junction of the Mao Hesso with the main stream; and after-
wards the median line of the Mao Hesso, as far as a post, No. 6, on
the left bank of the Mao Hesso, about 3 km north-west of Beka. It
then runs from the median line of the river at right angles to its
course, to No. 6 post." LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 377
Paragraph 4 then goes on to explain:
"From No. 6 post the line runs straight to a conspicuous rock, on
a slight eminence on the road from Gurin to Karin. This rock has a
boundary mark (No. 7) "D B" (Deutsch-British)cut into it. From
this rock it runs straight to a post, No., fixed on the road at the
entrance to the pass through the Karin Hills, north of the village of
Karin."
Nigeria claims that, pursuant to that method, Beacon 6 is situated on
the left bank of the ]MaoHesso about 3 km north-west of Beka, while
Beacon 8 is situatedi at the intersection of the extension of the line
joining Beacons 6 and 7 and the stream mentioned in paragraph 34 of the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration.
132. For its part, Cameroon States that the problem in this area con-
sists in identifying al1 of the beacons referred to in paragraphs 33 and
34 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, including Beacon 7, which
Cameroon denies to be the one described by Nigeria, and identifying
the summit of Wamni Range. Cameroon nevertheless stresses that this
is a problem of dema.rcation, not delimitation.
133. The Court notes that the interpretation of paragraphs 33 and 34
of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration raises a problem in that those
provisions describe the line of the boundary as passing through three
beacons of which at least two have now disappeared.
The Court has studied most attentively the text of Annex 1 to the
Anglo-German Agreement of 1906,as well as the cartographic material
provided to it by the Parties, in order to discovei. the location of these
beacons. The Court thus notes that the point indicated by Nigeria as cor-
responding to Beacon 6 and situated at 12"53' 15"longitude east and
9"04'19"latitude north does indeed reflect the ternis of the description of
it given in the Agreernent,ince it lies on the left bank of the Mao Hesso
3 km to the north-wlest of the village of Beka. The Court likewise con-
siders that the point indicated by Nigeria as corresponding to Beacon 7
and situated at 12"2ilf55" longitude east and 9O01'03" latitude north
must be accepted. Although Nigeria has produced no evidence of Bea-
con 7 having been found at that point, its location does indeed corre-
spond to the description in the 1906Anglo-German Agreement, particu-
larly in view of the fact that it is the only high ground in that area. As
regards the location of Beacon 8, which is described as situated at the
entrance to the pass through the Karin Hills on the road crossing the
pass, and on the left bank of the Mao Youwai, it is the point proposed by
Cameroon, located at 12O49'22" longitude east and 8"58'18" latitude
north, which must be taken to be the correct one, since it satisfies both
the conditions laid down by the 1906 Agreement and those in para-
graph 34 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration.
134. The Court accordingly concludes that paragraphs 33 and 34 of
the Thomson-Marchand Declaration must be inierpreted as providingfor the boundary to pass through the points having the above-mentioned
CO-ordinates,which iit has identified as corresponding to Beacons 6, 7
and 8 as referred to iinthose paragraphs (see below, p. 379, sketch-map
No. 7).
Maio Senche
135. Paragraph 35 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration determines
the boundary as follows :
"35. Thence the frontier follows the watershed from the Mao
Wari to the west and from the Mao Faroto the east, where it rejoins
the Alantika Range, it follows the line of the watershed of the Benue
to the north-west and of the Faro to the south-east as far as the
south peak of thleAlantika Mountains to a point 2 kilometres to the
north of the source of the River Mali."
136. Nigeria contends that the boundary in this sector must follow the
watershed. It points (outthat the line claimed by Cameroon in this area
displaces the boundairy from the watershed which the boundary is to fol-
low pursuant to paragraph 35 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration,
"thereby attributing to Cameroon the small vill.ige of Batou (Batodi
Dampti) and some 1.,200hectares of land territor)".
137. For its part, Cameroon maintains that "the representation of the
watershed as it crosse:sthe Alantika Range and the location of the village
of Batou" is solely a problem of demarcation.
138. The Court notes that, in the Maio Senche area, covered by para-
graph 35 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, the difficulty lies in
identifying the lineoc the watershed, of which the two Parties have pro-
posed differing cartographic representations.
139. The Court ccinfirmsthat the boundary in the Maio Senche area
follows the line of the watershed between the Benile and the Faro. Para-
graph 35 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration is quite clear on this
point, which is inder:d not disputed by the Parties. After studying the
cartographic material provided to it by the Parties, the Court observes
that it cannot accept the watershed line proposed by Cameroon, in par-
ticularbecause it follows the course of a river ove1the greater part of its
length, which is incompatible with the concept of the line of a water-
shed. The watershed line passes, as Nigeria conte~ids,between the basin
of the Maio Senche and that of the two rivers to the south (see below,
p. 380, sketch-map No. 8).LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDI~MENT) 380 LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 381
Jimhare and Sczpeo
140. Paragraphs 35 to 38 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
determine the boundiiry as follows:
"35. Thence the frontier follows the watershed from the Mao
Wari to the Westand from the Mao Faroto the east, where it rejoins
the Alantika Range, it follows the line of the watershed of the Benue
to the north-west and of the Faro to the south-east as far as the
south peak of the Alantika Mountains to a point 2 kilometres to the
north of the source of the River Mali.
36. Thence from this peak by the River Sassiri, leaving Kobi to
France and Kobi Leinde to Great Britain, Tebou and Tscho to
France, as far aii the confluence with the first stream coming from
the Balakossa Range (this confluence touches the Kobodji Mapeo
Track), from this stream towards the south. leaving Uro Belo to
Great Britain and Nanaoua to France.
37. Thence the boundary rejoins the old boundary about Lapao
in French territo'ry, following the line of the watershed of the Bala-
kossa range as far as a point situated to the west of the source of the
Labidje or Kadam River, which flows into the River Deo, and from
the River Sampce flowing into the River Baleo to the north-west.
38. Thence from this point along the line of the watershed between
the River Baleo and the River Noumberou .dong the crest of the
Tschapeu Range, to a point 2 kilometres to the north of Namberu,
turning by this village, which is in Nigeria, going up a valley north-
east and then south-east, which crosses the Banglang range about a
kilometre to the south of the source of the Kordo River."
141. In regard to the course of that part of the laiid boundary described
in paragraphs 35 to .38of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, Nigeria
first notes that the wording of the Declaration is defective in many
respects and propose!; to clarify it. It contends that the Court should find
that the south peak of the Alantika mountains is Hosere Bila, situated
2 km north of the source of the Mali River. It further points out that the
Sassiri River referred to in paragraph 36 of the Thomson-Marchand Dec-
laration does not flow from Hosere Bila but from the Balakossa Range
lying further to thesouth, and that the river referred to in paragraph 36
is in fact the Leinde or Lugga. It adds that, soiith of Nananoua, the
description of the boundary should be clarified and modified by the
Court, since the text of paragraphs 37 and 38 of the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration and the accompanying map are mutually contradictory. It
explains that the intention of the British and French Governments had
since 1920 been to attribute Jimbare to France anci Sapeo to Great Brit-
ain. In this connection it points out that on 12 November 1920 a joint
proposal to this effect had been signed by W. D. K. Mair, a British Dis-trict Officer, and Captain Louis Pition, representing the French adminis-
tration (hereinafter the "Mair-Pition Joint Proposal"), following a delimi-
tation mission on the ground, that proposa1 being subsequently incorpo-
rated into a document signed on 16 October 1930 by R. Logan, British
District Officer, and Lieutenant J. Le Brun, representing the French
administration (hereinafter the "Logan-Le Brun procès-verbal"). Nigeria
claims that this document, drawn up after the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration was prepared but before it was signed, was intended to set
out a solution on the ground to the difficulties created by the text of the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration and that it has been respected since
then by both Parties.
Nigeria contends that, while part of the proposals in the Logan-
Le Brun procès-verbill wereincorporated into the text of the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration, the drafters forgot to amend also the part of the
Declaration concerning Jimbare and Sapeo; as far as Sapeo was con-
cerned, the proposals in the Logan-Le Brun procès-verbal were none-
theless shown on the 1931map annexed to the Declaration. In Nigeria's
view, itis the map which should therefore be followed and not the text of
the Declaration, since this "does not accord with the extensive practice
on the ground for the past three quarters of a ceiitury". Thus it asserts
that Sapeo was treated as Nigerian during the 1959and 1961plebiscites
and that Nigeria is rirsponsible for its administrat~on. In Nigeria's view,
the solution is therefore to construethe Thomson-Marchand Declaration
in the light of the hdair-Pition Joint Proposal, of the Logan-Le Brun
procès-verbal and of the well-established local practice. The new descrip-
tion based on the Logan-Le Brun procès-verbal would result in leaving
al1of the Balakossa Range to Cameroon and giving Nigeria the Sapeo
plain on the southern side of Hosere Sapeo. It contends that the modified
boundary line was rnoreover accepted by Camer.oon in a letter dated
17 March 1979 to t'he "Prefect of Benue Department" from the Sub-
Prefect of Poli Subdivision.
142. Cameroon agrees with Nigeria that the peak referred to in para-
graph 35 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration is Hosere Bila and that
the rivers whose courses are to be followed in this area are indeed first the
Leinde and then the Sassiri. Cameroon maintains, however, that south of
Nananoua only the Thomson-Marchand Declaration should be used in
order to establish the course of the boundary; it argues that, although the
Mair-Pition Joint Proposa1was submitted to France and Great Britain, it
was not accepted by them and not incorporated in the Thomson-March-
and Declaration; the same applied to the Logan-Ide Brun procès-verbal.
As regards the 1979 letter, Cameroon observes that "[a mere sub-prefect]
had not properly uriderstood the true legal position". In Cameroon's
view, the text of the Thomson-Marchand Dec1ar;ition should therefore
be adhered to.
143. The Court notes that the interpretation of paragraphs 35 to 38 of
the Thomson-Marchand Declaration poses problt:ms, since the descrip-
tion of the boundary therein appears both to cont.lin a series of materialerrors and, in certain places, to contradict the representation of that
boundary on the 1931 map appended to the Dec1;iration.
The Court notes, however, that, as regards th<:area to the north of
Nananoua as referred to in paragraph 36 of the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration, the Parties agree that the rivers whose courses form the
boundary are the Leinde and the Sassiri. Similarly, the cartographic
representations of this section of the boundary proposed by the Parties
correspond in every respect.
To the south of Nananoua, on the other hand, there is no agreement
between Cameroon and Nigeria.
144. The Court will first address the Sapeo area After carefully study-
ing the maps provided by the Parties and the Logan-Le Brun proces-
verbal, the Court finidsthat, as Nigeria claims, it is indeed the boundary
described in that prcicès-verbal and not that described in the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration which was transposed ont0 the 1931 map
appended to the Declaration. The Court further ilotes that, in practice,
Sapeo has always been regarded as lying in Nigerian territory. Thus
Sapeo was regarded as Nigerian in the 1959 and 1961plebiscites. While
Cameroon has statedl in its written pleadings thatit regarded as "insuffi-
cierit" the various items of evidence presented by Nigeria as proof of its
administration of the village of Sapeo, it has however not seriously chal-
lenged them. Cameroon has also never claimed to exercise any form of
administration over the village. The letter of 17 March 1979 from the
Sub-Prefect of Poli Subdivision to the "Prefect of Benue Department"
indicates that Cameroon was aware of Nigeria's administration of Sapeo.
The Court accordingly considers that in this area the Thomson-March-
and Declaration should be interpreted in accordance with the intention
of its authors, as manifested on the map appended thereto and on the
ground, namely so as to make the boundary follow the course described
in the Logan-Le Brun procès-verbal.
145. Turning next to the situation in the Jimbare area, the Court notes
that, contrary to wh,at occurred in regard to Sapco, the modification of
the boundary provided for in the Logan-Le Brun procès-verbal was not
transposed ont0 the 193 1 map appended to the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration in respect of the Jimbare area. The course of the boundary
on the map is as described in the Declaration. The Court nonetheless
takes the view that lit is the course as described in the Logan-Le Brun
procès-verbal which must also prevail here. As the Court has just found,
the Logan-Le Brun {coursein effect corresponds TO the intention of the
authors of the Declaration throughout this region. In its Rejoinder
Nigeria has moreover accepted this interpretation of the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration, which is favourable to Cameroon, whilst the
latter has notopposi:d it.
146. TheCourt accordingly concludes, first, that paragraphs 35 and 36
of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration must be iriterpreted as providing LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 384
for the boundary to pass over Hosere Bila, which it has identified as the
"south peak of the Alantika Mountains" referred to in paragraph 35, and
then from that point along the River Leinde and the River Sassiri "as far
asthe confluence with the first stream coming from the Balakossa Range".
The Court further concludes that paragraphs 3'7and 38 of the Thom-
son-Marchand Declaration must be interpreted as providing for the
boundary to follow the course described in paragraph 1 of the Logan-
Le Brun procès-verbal, as shown by Nigeria in Figures 7.15 and 7.16 at
pages 346 and 350 of its Rejoinder.
147. Paragraph 38 of the Thomson-Marchand Ileclaration determines
the boundary as follows :
"38. Thence from this point along the line of the watershed
between the River Baleo and the River Noumberou along the crest
of the Tschapeu Range, to a point 2 kilometres to the north of Nam-
beru, turning by this village, which is in Nigeria, going up a valley
north-east and ithen south-east, which crosses the Banglang range
about a kilometre to the south of the source of the Kordo River."
148. Nigeria considers that paragraph 38 of the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration is also defective in that it describes the boundary as "going
up a valley north-ea:st and then south-east", whereas the only valley in
the area runs north-vvestand then south-west. According to Nigeria, this
error was noted in the 1930Logan-Le Brun procès-.verbaland rectified by
a provision for the boundary to follow "the main course of the Mayo
Namberu upstream to its source in a well-defined saddle approx. % mile
to the east of the main summit of Hossere Banglang".
149. For its part, Cameroon stands by the defiiiition of the boundary
set out in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration.
150. The Court notes that the final part of paragraph 38 of the Thom-
son-Marchand Declaration poses problems of interpretation in that it
contains fundamental1errors of a material nature. After examining the
cartographic material provided by the Parties, the Court has thus reached
the conclusion, as Nigeria contends, that there is no valley in the area
running "north-east, then south-east", contrary to what is stated in the
text of this paragraph. The Court will therefore endeavour to identify the
course which the authors of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
intended the boundary to follow in this area.
The Court notes that in this regard only the part of the boundary situ-
ated to the south of the source of the Noumberoii poses any problem. To the north of i:hat point, Cameroon and Nigeria agree that the
boundary should follow the course of the Noumberou. The course of the
boundary shown on the Cameroonian and Nigerian maps confirms that
agreement.
However, to the south of the source of the Noumberou, the carto-
graphie representations of the boundary presented by the Parties diverge.
151. The Court observes that. while the text of the Thomson-March-
and Declaration contains scant information enabling it to determine the
precise course of the boundary in this sector, the description of it in the
Logan-Le Brun procès-verbal is, however, far more detailed and enables
such a determinatiori to be made. The Court reciills that it has alreadv
had occasion to use the text of that procès-verbal inrder to interpret the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration, where it was clear that its terms corre-
sponded to the intention of the authors of the Declaration (see para-
graph 143 above). The Court has no doubt that this is again the case
here. It notes in particular that the Logan-Le Brun procès-verbal and
paragraph 38 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration appear to make
the boundary in this sector terminate at the same point. Thus the Logan-
Le Brun procès-verbal provides that the boundary runs to Mount Tapare,
situated "about a mile to the south of the source of the Mayo Kordo",
whilst the English text of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration provides
for the boundary to pass through a point "about a kilometre to the south
of the source of the Kordo River". The French text of paragraph 38
omits the phrase "to the south of'. The Court is bound moreover to note
in this regard that the part of the boundary situated to the north of the
source of the Noumberou, on which the Parties are in agreement, follows
the boundary established by the Logan-Le Brun procès-verbal.
The Court considers that it is the boundary line proposed by Nigeria
which is to be preferred. That is the line which runs most directly to
Hosere Tapere, located at 12'14'30"longitude east and 8"22'00" latitude
north, the point indicated by the Logan-Le Brun procès-verbal as the
terminal for this section of the boundary. That line is moreover more
favourable to Cameroon than the line shown on its own maps, and
Cameroon has not opposed it.
152. The Court accordingly concludes that the final part of para-
graph 38 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration must be interpreted as
providing for the boundary to follow the course of'the River Noumberou
as far as its source, and then from that point to run in a straight line as
far as Hosere Tapere as identified by the Court (set:below, p. 386, sketch-
map No. 9).
153. Paragraphs 40 and 41 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
determine the bounclary as follows:-8"27' 8' 27'
Namberu 826'
go1
8"24'-
823-
SKETCH-MAPO.9
Noumberou-Banglang 8"22'-
N..hisrkpkepmpred
O -- 2 3km 8"21'-
112"21' "40. Thence along a line parallel to the Bare Fort Lamy Track
and 2 kilometres to the Westof this track, which remains in French
territory.
41. Thence a line parallel to and distant 2 kilometres to the West
from this road (which is approximately that marked Faulborn,
January 1908, on Moisel'smap) to a point on the Maio Tipsal (Tiba,
Tibsat or Tussa on Moisel's map) 2 kilometres to the south-west of
the point at which the road crosses said Maio Tipsal."
154. Both Nigeria and Cameroon agreed at the hearings that the
description of the boundary set out in paragraphs 40 and 41 of the Dec-
laration is clear.
Cameroon maintaiins, however, that there is a demarcation problem in
this area, namely in identifying on the ground the features mentioned in
those provisions. Specifically, it contends that there is a locality called
Tipsan on Camerooriian territory some 3 km from the town of Kontcha.
Nigeria denies the existence of a village called Tipsan on the Cam-
eroonian side of the boundary, claiming that the only place called
Tipsan is an immigration post situated on Nigerian territory.
155. The Court observes that at the hearings the Parties agreed that
the boundary must follow a line running parallel IO the Fort Lamy-Baré
road some 2 km to the west thereof, as paragraph 41 of the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration provides. The Court takzs note of that agree-
ment. However, the (Courtconsiders that, in order to remove any doubt,
it should identify thi: terminal point of this section of the boundary -
namely the point situiatedon the Mayo Tipsal "2 kilometres to the south-
west of the point at which the road crosses said Mayo Tipsal" -- as cor-
responding to the CO-ordinates 12"12'45" longitude east and 7"58'49"
latitude north.
Crossing the Maio l'in
156. Paragraphs 48 and 49 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
determine the boundlary as follows:
"48. Thence to Hosere Lowul, which is well over 2 kilometres
from the Kwancha-Banyo main road. This peak (Hosere Lowul) lies
on a magnetic blearingof 296 from the apex of the Genderu Pass on
the above-mentioned main road. From this apex, which is distant
3% miles from Genderu Rest-house, and which lies between a peak
of Hosere M'Blailaji (to the west) and a smaller hill, known as
Hosere Burutol, to the east, Hosere M'Bailaji has a magnetic bear-
ing of 45 and H[osereBurutol one of 185.
49. Thence a line, crossing the Maio Yin ;it a point some 4 kilo-
metres to the west of the figure 1,200(denotirig height in metres of a low conical hill) on Moisel's map E 2, to a prominent conical peak,
Hosere Gulungel, at the foot of which (in French Territory) is a
spring impregnated with potash, which is well-known to al1cattle-
owners in the vicinity. This Hosere Gulungel lias a magnetic bearing
of 228 from the point (5 miles from Genderii Rest-house, which is
known locally as 'Kampani Massa' on the main Kwancha-Banyo
road where it (Hosere Gulungel) first comes into view. From this
same point the magnetic bearing to Hosere Lowul is 11.The Salt lick
of Banare lies in British Territory."
157. Nigeria considers that paragraphs 48 and 49 of the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration are too vague, in particulai in respect of the loca-
tion of the precise point where the boundary crosses the Maio Yin; the
Court should therefclre identify that point.
158. In Cameroon's view, the two paragraphs of'the Thomson-March-
and Declaration in question do not require any clarification by the
Court; the two peak:; and the straight line to be drawn between them, as
well as the point at which the river is crossed, are identified in precise
enough terms to malte this simply a question of demarcation.
159. The Court observes that, while Nigeria did in its Counter-
Memorial raise the question of the course of the boundary where it
crosses the Maio Yiin as described in paragraph 49 of the Thomson-
Marchand Declaratilon, it did not return to this point in its Rejoinder,
or at the hearings. Nor did Nigeria challenge Cameroon's argument that
the problem in this area is merely one ofemarcat~on.The Court accord-
ingly considers that it is not necessary to specify the CO-ordinatesof the
points through which, pursuant to the Declaration, the boundary is to
pass in thisarea.
160. The Court accordingly confirms that the boundary in the area
where it crosses the Maio Yin follows the course described in para-
graphs 48 and 49 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration.
The Hurnbere Range areu
161. Paragraphs 60 and 61 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
determine the bound.ary as follows:
"60. Thence the Frontier follows the watershed amongst these
Hosere Hambere (or Gesumi) to the north of the sources of the
Maio Kombe, IvIaio Gur and Maio Malam to a fairly prominent,
pointed peak which lieson a magnetic bearing of 17"from a cairn of
Stones, 8 feet hiigh, erected on the 15th September, 1920, on the
south side of the above Banyo-Kumbo-Banienda road at a point
1 mile from N"Yorong Rest-camp and 8% niiles from Songkorong
village.
61. From thil;peak in the Hosere Hambert: (or Gesumi), which is situated just to the east of the visible source of the Maio M'Fi (or
Baban), the Frontier follows the watershed, visible al1the way from
the Cairn, between the Maio Malam to east (French) and the
Maio M'Fi (or Baban) to west (British), till it cuts the Banyo-
Kumbo-Bamendia road at the Cairn. This Cairn is immediately
under the highest peak of the Hosere Nangban, which is shown
on Moisel's map F 2 as Hosere Jadji, but Jadji is really the name of
the Pagan head of N'Yorong village."
162. In respect of the sector of the boundary delimited by para-
graphs 60 and 61 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, Nigeria asserts
that the peak described therein as being "fairly prominent", which in the
English version of the text is further described as "pointed", is "Itang
Hill". It claims to have identified this peak as lying on anetic bearing
of 17' from a point whose co-ordinates are 11' 1 1'55" longitude east and
6'24'05" latitude north, where it claims to have located "with a fair
degree of probability" the site of the cairn referred to in paragraph 60 of
the Thomson-Marchand Declaration. As that ~eak is not however on the
watershed, contrary itowhat is provided in paragraphs 60 and 61 of the
Declaration, the boundary should, according to Nigeria, be drawn by
connecting the crest line to Itang Hill north-east of this summit, andhen
by following the escarpment to the south-west of the Nigerian village of
Sanya, where it would join the watershed line.
163. For its part, Cameroon argues that identifying the "fairly promi-
nent" peak referred to in paragraph 60 of the Thomson-Marchand Dec-
laration and in the 1046 Order in Council is purely a problem of demar-
cation. It further coritends that the solution proposed by Nigeria could
be intended to justify encsoachments in the Tamnyar area by arbitrarily
moving the watershetl line and that no map shows a village called Sanya.
164. The Court notes that paragraphs 60 and 61 of the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration raise problems of interpretation, since they pro-
vide for the boundarji to pass over "a fairly prominent peak" without any
further clarification (although in the English text of paragraph 60, that
peak is further descsibed as "pointed"), and the Parties have differing
views as to the location of that peak.
165. The Court observes that paragraphs 60 and 61 contain a number
of indications which ;ire helpful in locating the "fairly prominent, pointed
peak" referred to therein. First, those paragraphs state that the peak
must be located on tlhewatershed passing through the Hosere Hambere.
Thus paragraph 60 provides that the peak is to be reached, coming from
the east, by following;"the watershed amongst these Hosere Hambere (or
Gesumi)". The French text of paragraph 61 further provides that from
the peak "la frontière continue de suivre la ligne de partage des eaux" (the
boundary continues to follow the line of the watershed) (emphasis added
by the Court). Morirover, the fact that the peak referred to in para- LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 390
graph 60 must lie on the watershed passing through the Hosere Hambere
has been accepted by Nigeria as a basic requiremerit for the course of the
boundary in this sector. Secondly, paragraphs 60 and 61 make it clear
that this peak lies on a "bearing" - described in the English text as
"magnetic" - of 17" from a "cairn of stones" erected in 1920 and situ-
ated "on the south side of the . . . Banyo-Kumbo-Bamenda road",
"immediately under i.he highest peak of the Hoseie Nangban". Thirdly,
paragraph 61 states that the line of the watershed from the peak sepa-
rates the Mayo Malam and the Mayo M'Fi basinj, and that it is visible
from the cairn used to calculate the magnetic bearing of 17". Fourthly,
the English text of paragraph 61 further states that this peak is "situated
just to the east of the visible source of the Maio M'Fi", while the French
text omits the adverti "just".
166. The Court hais studied with the greatest care the maps provided
by the Parties, and in particular the course of the watershed running
through the Hosere Hambere. On the basis of this study, it has concluded
that the fairly promirient pointed peak referred to in paragraph 60 of the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration is not Itang Hill as Nigeria contends.
Thus the Court observes that, while Itang Hill does indeed lie on a
magnetic bearing of 17"(a true bearing of 8" after conversion) calculated
from the point which Nigeria describes as corresponding to the site of the
stone cairn referred to in paragraph 60 and located on a meridian lying to
the east of that of the sources of the River M'Fi, it does not, however,
satisfy any of the other criteria prescribed by paragraphs 60 and 61. Thus
Itang Hill does not lie on the watershed running through the Hosere
Hambere, which is located 2 km to the north. Moreover, at no time does
the watershed between the Mayo Malam and the R4ayo M'Fi come at al1
close to Itang Hill.
167. The Court notes, on the other hand, that fc~llowingthe line of the
watershed through the Hosere Hambere from the east, in accordance
with paragraph 60, bi-ingsone to a very prominent peak, Tamnyar, which
satisfies the conditions laid down in the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
and whose elevation is greater than that of Itang Hill. This peak is shown
on Figure 7.37 reprotiuced at page 388 of Nigeria's Rejoinder as bearing
the name Tamnyar and having an elevation of 5,968 feet, or approxi-
mately 1,820 m. In addition to the essential fact that the watershed
through the Hosere IHambere passes over the foothills of this peak, the
Court notes that Tamnyar is also located on a meridian lying to the east
of that of the sources of the M'Fi and that the watershed on which it lies
does indeed, after turning to the south, become the watershed between
the Mayo Malam and the Mayo M'Fi. The Court further notes that
Tamnyar Peak lies on a bearing almost identical to that of Itang Hill.
168. The Court concludes from the foregoing that paragraph 60 of theThomson-Marchand Declaration must be interpreted as providing for
the boundary to follow the line of the watershed through the Hosere
Hambere or Gesumi, as shown on sheet NB-32-XVIII-3a-3b of the 1955
IGN 1 :50,000map of Cameroon, produced in the proceedings by Nigeria,
as far as the foot of Tamnyar Peak, which the Court has identified as the
"fairly prominent, pointed peak" referred to in the Declaration (see
below, p. 396, sketch-map No. 10).
From the Hambere R'angeto the Mburi River (Lip and Yang)
169. The 1946Order in Council determines the boundary from west to
east as follows:
"thence the Rivei-Mburi southwards to itsjunction with an unnamed
stream about one mile north of the point wliere the new Kumbo-
Banyo road crosses the River Mburi at Nyan (aliasNton), the said
point being aboiut four miles south-east by cast of Muwe; thence
along this unnanied stream on a general true bearing of 120"for one
and a half miles to its source at a point on the new Kumbo-Banyo
road, near the source of the River Mfi; thence on a true bearing of
100"for three anidfive-sixths miles along the c:restof the mountains
to thepromineni. peak which marks the Franco-British frontier."
170. According to Nigeria, the second part of the land boundary, as
fixed by the 1946 Orlder in Council, must begin east of "Tonn Hill". It
takes the view, contrary to what Cameroon claims, that the "fairly
prominent, pointed peak" as referred to in the English text of para-
graph 60 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration and the "prominent
peak" referred to inthe Order in Council, which fixesthe point where the
boundary departs from this area in a westerly direction, are not identical.
It points out that the peak specified in the Order in Council is not
described as "pointed"; in its view, this peak is 'Tonn Hill". The two
sections of the boundary should accordingly be joined by drawing a line
along the crest line from Itang Hill to Tonn Hill. Nigeria maintains that
from that point the text of theOrder in Council is ambiguous and defec-
tive in that it does riot correspond to the local lopography. Thus the
Kumbo-Banyo road does not cross the river at Nyan (Yang)but 1% miles
to the north and neither of the two streams in this area exactly matches
the description given in the text and, in particular, neither has its source
on the road near the source of the M'Fi. Nigeria States that a British
colonial official, Dr. Jeffreys, carried out a survey on the ground in 1941
following tribal disputes;the boundary between British-mandated North-
ern and Southern Carneroons was then fixed to the west of a cairn placed
on the Bang-Yang triick near Yang along a line different from that laid
down in the 1946 Orclerin Council. The descriptioi-iof that line was sub- LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 392
sequently confirmed in 1953 at a meeting in Yarig between provincial
officiaisand representatives of the local communities regarding the geo-
graphical boundaries applicable for purposes of tax collection in the area.
Nigeria contends that it is this line which should be followed. To the east
of the cairn placed on the Bang-Yang track, Nigeria proposes following
the watershed up to Tonn Hill.
171. Cameroon malintains that the problem raised by Nigeria is merely
one of demarcating the line described in the 1946 Order in Council. It
contends that the "prominent" peak referred to in the Order in Council
can only be the "faiirly prominent, pointed peak" referred to in para-
graph 60 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaratiori. At the hearings, it
challenged the existence and validity of the "Jeffreys Boundary" relied
upon by Nigeria. While stressing that the line of the boundary in this
area is determined by the relevant provisions of the 1946Order in Coun-
cil, Cameroon statecl that in its view the boundary "runs along the
Maven River, then the Makwe River, then through the pillar set up by
Jeffreys and then along a crest line to the fairly prominent, pointed peak
known as Mount Kombon".
172. TheCourt noi.esthat the interpretation of the Order in Council of
1946 raises two f~nd~amentaldifficulties in the area between the "fairly
prominent pointed peak" referred to in the Thomson-Marchand Declara-
tion and the River Mburi. The first lies in joining iip the lines prescribed
by the two texts and. in particular, in identifying the peak described in
the Order in Council as "~rominent". without further clarification. The
second consists in determihg the course of the boundary beyond that
point.
173. The Court hris first sought to identify the "prominent peak",
starting point for the sector of the boundary delirnited by the Order in
Council. The Court has placed particular emphasis on the issue of
whether the "prominent peak" referred to in the Order in Council corre-
sponds to the "fairly prominent, pointed peak" mentioned in para-
graph 60 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, which the Court has
already identified, or whether it is some other peak. Here too, the Court
notes that the text of the Order in Council contains a certain amount of
information regarding identification of the peak in question. Thus it
states that the peak "marks the Franco-British frontier" and that it lies
some 3.83 miles from a specificpoint close to the sources of the M'Fi on
a true bearing of 100".The Court finds, however, ihat, when transposed
ont0 the maps in its possession, these data do not enable it to identify the
location of the"prominent peak" referred to in the Order in Council. The
Court observes in particular that the only peak identifiable by calculating
a distance of 3.83 miles on a geographical bearing of 100" from the
sources of the River R4'Fiis Mount Kombon, indicated on Figure 7.37 in
Nigeria's Rejoinder as having an elevation of 1,658 m. However, that
peak is located far to the east of the former Franco-British frontier andcan in no circumstances be regarded as marking that frontier. Nor does
Mount Kombon lie on a crest line as prescribed by the Order in Council.
Similarly, the criteria laid down by the Order in Council do not enable
either Tonn Hill, or Itang Hill, or Tamnyar Peak. or any other specific
peak, to be identified as the "prominent peak" over which it provides for
the boundary to pass.
174. While unable to designate a specific peak, the Court has nonethe-
less been able to ideni.ifythe crest line of which that peak must form part.
Thus the 1946Order in Council provides that the "prominent peak" over
which the boundary is to pass lies along the crest of the mountains which
mark the former Franco-British frontier. That crest lineis readily identi-
fiable. It begins at the point where the watershed through the Hosere
Hambere turns suddenly to the south at the locality named Galadima
Wanderi on Figure 7.37 in Nigeria's Rejoinder, then runs due south until
it approaches the point named Tonn Hill on that same Figure. The inten-
tion of the drafters of the Order in Council was to have the boundary
follow this crest line. As a result, what the Court has to do is to trace a
line joining the peak ireferredto in paragraph 60 of the Thomson-March-
and Declaration, naniely Tamnyar Peak, to that crest line. The watershed
through the Hosere Hambere, on which Tamnyar Peak lies, extends
naturally as far as the crest line marking the former Franco-British fron-
tier, starting point of the sector of the boundary delimited by the 1946
Order in Council. It is thus possible to link the boundary sectors delim-
ited by the two texts by following, from Tamnyar Peak, that watershed as
represented on sheet NB-32-XVIII-3a-3b of the 1955 IGN 1:50,000 map
of Cameroon, produced in the proceedings by Nigeria.
175. The Court tlien addressed the question of the course of the
boundary from that crest line. The Court would begin by noting that it
cannot interpret the Order in Council on the basis of a decision alleged to
have been taken unilaterally by a British officia1 in 1941,five years before
the adoption of the Order, whose terms were not incorporated in the
Order and which Nigeria itself recognizes that it lias been impossible to
locate. It is the Order in Council of 1946, and it alone, which secured
international recognition by being transformed into an instrument of
international delimitation when the Southern Carneroons under British
mandate were incorporated into the newly independent Cameroon.
176. The Court observes that the 1946 Order in Council contains a
great deal of information on the course of the l-~oundaryin this area.
Thus it provides for the boundary to follow the River Mburi to its junc-
tion with a stream "about one mile north of the point where the new
Kumbo-Banyo road crosses the River Mburi", a point which, according
to the Order, is located "at Nyan". The Order atids that the boundarythen follows this stream on a "general true bearing of 120"" as far as its
source 1.5 miles away "near the source of the River Mfi". Finally, from
there the boundary iij required to follow a crest on "a true bearing of
100"" to the "prominent peak which marks the Franco-British frontier".
177. The Court has carefully studied the maps provided to it by the
Parties. It notes that, while the topography of the area does not exactly
correspond to the description of it in theOrder in Council, the Court has
nevertheless been able to locate on these maps a sufficient number of
elements of that description to enable it to determine the course of
the boundary. That course corresponds neither to the line claimed by
Cameroon nor to that claimed by Nigeria.
178. The Court notes first that the names of the villages and rivers in
the area Vary greatly from one map to another. As Nigeria has pointed
out, this is particularly true of the River Mburi, which is sometimes
called the Manton or Mantu, sometimes the Ntem, and sometimes the
Maven, and that its course changes according to the name given to it.
The Court next notes that the village of Yang does indeed correspond,
as Nigeria contends, to that of Nyan referred to in the Order in Council,
and that, as Nigeria stressed, the "new Kumbo-Banyo road" does not
cross the River Mburi at Nyan, but to the north of Nyan. The Court
notes, however, that there is, between the sources of'the M'Fi and a point
situated 1 mile north of Nyan, a river whose course corresponds to the
description in the Order of the boundary to the east of Nyan: this is the
river called Namkwer on the first edition of the shcet, "Mambilla S.W.",
of the 1965 DOS 1: 50,000 map of Nigeria, provided to the Court by
Nigeria. This river, whose source is indeed in the immediate vicinity of
the western sources OFthe River M'Fi, flows from its source on a general
true bearing of 120°, over a distance slightly greater than 1.5miles, to a
point situated 1 mile north of Nyan, where it joins the River Mburi, as
shown on sheet 11 oifthe third edition of the 1953 Survey Department
1 :500,000 map of Nigeria, provided to the Court l~yCameroon, and on
the sketch-maps projected by Nigeria at the oral pioceedings. Moreover,
the source of the Riber Namkwer lies precisely on the crest line which,
further east, marks the former Franco-British frontier and on which the
"prominent peak" decjcribedin the Order in Countil must be situated. It
accordingly follows that the boundary to the east of Nyan follows the
course of the River PIJamkwerand this crest line.
Ir1respect of the section of the boundary lying west of Nyan, the Court
would first note that the Parties agree on the point at which the bound-
ary, following the River Mburi from the north as described in the Order
in Council, should turn eastward. The Parties also agree that the bound-
ary must follow the River Mburi, also here called the Maven or Ntem,
for a distance of slightly more than 2 km to the point where it dividesinto two. The Court ~wouldnext note that the Order in Council provides
for the boundary to f'ollowthe course of the River Mburi to its junction
with a watercourse which the Court has identified as the River Namkwer.
However, only the northern branch of the River MburilMaven/Ntem
joins the River Namlcwer. Thus the boundary must follow this branch.
179. From al1of the foregoing, the Court concludes that, from east to
West, the boundary first follows the watershed line through the Hosere
Hambere from Tamriyar Peak to the point where that line reaches the
crest line marking the former Franco-British frontit:~. In accordance with
the 1946 Order in C'ouncil, the boundary then follows this crest line
southward, then wesit-south-west to the source of'the River Namkwer
and then follows the (courseof that river to its confluence with the River
Mburi, 1 mile north cifNyan. From that point, the boundary follows the
course of the River Mburi. It first runs northwards for a distance of
approximately 2 km, and then takes a south-westerly course for some
3 km and then west-north-west along a stretch v.here the river is also
called the Maven or the Ntem. Then, some 2 km Further on, it turns to
run due north where the River Mburi is also called the Manton or Ntem
(see below, p. 396, sketch-map No. 10).
Bissuulu-Tosso
180. The 1946 British Order in Council determines the boundary as
follows :
"thence a straight line to the highest point of Tosso Mountain;
thence in a straight line eastwards to a point on the main Kentu-
Bamenda road v~hereit is crossed by an unniimed tributary of the
River Akbang (Heboro on Sheet E of Moisel's map on Scale
11300,000) - the said point being marked by a cairn; thence down
the stream to its junction with the River Akbang; thence the River
Akbang to its jlunction with the River Donga; thence the River
Donga to its junction with the River Mburi".
181. Nigeria asserts that the 1946Order in Council requires interpreta-
tion because the Akbang River has several tributaries. According to
Nigeria, the southern tributary is the correct one, because it alone crosses
the Kentu-Bamenda road, as required by the Order in Council. Nigeria
further states that it has found the cairn described in the delimitation text
at the spot which it proposes.
182. Cameroon maintains that Nigeria's interpretation of the Order in
Council and of the maps is incorrect and that the Akbang lies further toTheHambere RangeArea
Fromthe HambereRange
totheMburiRiver
N.B.This&wh-habaaiprepTorthe east than Nigeria claims. Further, it rejects Nigeria's claim that the
cairn has been identified. According to Cameroon, the problem remains
simply one of demarcation.
183. The Court notes that the problem in the Bissaula-Tosso area
consists in determining which tributary of the River Akbang crosses
the Kentu-Bamenda road and is thus the tributary which the Order in
Council provides for the boundary to follow.
A study of the text of the 1946Order in Council and of the maps avail-
able to the Court has led the Court to the conclusion that the River
Akbang is indeed the river indicated by Nigeria and that it has two main
tributaries, one to th12north, the other to the south, as Nigeria claims.
The question is then which of these tributaries is the one where the Order
in Council provides fi3rthe boundary to run.
The Court observes that the northern tributary of the River Akbang
cannot be the correct one. While it does flow close beside the Kentu-
Bamenda road, it never crosses it, however, and could not do so, since in
this area the road ruris along the line of the watershed.
The Court finds, on the other hand, that the southern tributary of the
Akbang does indeed cross the Kentu-Bamenda road as Nigeria claims. It
is accordingly the course of the boundary propoïed by Nigeria which
must be prefèrred.
184. The Court therefore concludes that the 1046 Order in Council
should be interpreted as providing for the boundary to run through the
point where the southern tributary of the River Akbang, as identified by
the Court, crosses th~eKentu-Bamenda road, and then from that point
along the southern tributary until its junction with the River Akbang.
The Sama River
185. The 1946 Ordler in Council determines the boundary as follows:
"From bound;ir-y post 64 on the old Anglo-German frontier the
line follows the River Gamana upstream to the point where it is
joined by the River Sama; thence up the Ri\w Sama to the point
where it divides .into two; thence a straight line to the highest point
of Tosso Mount;iin."
186. Nigeria observes that the relevant provisions of the 1946Order in
Council are defective inasmuch as they place the boundary along the
Sama River; it claims that they fail to provide a clear indication of which
tributary should be used in identifying the point where the river "divides
into two". According to Nigeria, this tributary should be the southern
tributary of the Sama River, since it is three times the length of the north-
ern tributary, has a fllowequal to that of the river itself upstream of the
confluence, and empties into a T-junction in a larger valley. 187. According to Cameroon, on the other hand, "[tlhe Parties have
always looked to the northern tributary of the Sania as the course of the
boundary".
188. The Court notes that the interpretation of the Order in Council
poses problems in regard to the River Sama, since the river has two tribu-
taries, and hence two places where it "divides intc two" as the Order in
Council prescribes, but the Order does not specify which of those two
places is to be used iinorder to determine the couise of the boundary.
The Court has begim by addressing Nigeria's argument that the south-
ern tributary should be preferred because it is longer and has a greater
flow and the point of division occurs in a larger valley. The Court
observes that, while Nigeria's observations in regard to the length of the
tributaries and the topography of the area are confirmed by the maps
which ithas presented, this is not, however, the case in respect of other
maps. Thus the Court notes in particular that, or1the Moisel map, the
two tributaries are of thesame length and size. Moreover, the Court has
no information enabling the flow to be determined. The Court accord-
ingly cannot accept Nigeria's argument.
Nor can the Court accept Cameroon's argurnent that the Parties
have always in practice taken the northern tributary as determining the
boundary. Cameroori has provided no evidence of'this practice.
The Court considers, however, that a reading of i.hetext of the Order in
Council permits it to det termine hich tributary should be used in order to
fix the boundary. The Court observes in this connection that, just as with
the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, the Order in Council describes the
course of the boundary by reference to the area's physical characteristics.
Here again, the text of this description must have been drafted in such a
way as to render the course of the boundary as readily identifiable as pos-
sible. The description of the boundary in theOrder in Council starts from
the north, and provides for it to run "up the River Sama to the point
where it divides into two". Thus the inference is that the drafters of the
Order in Council intended that the boundary should pass through the first
confluence reached coming from the north. It is accordingly that conflu-
ence which must be chosen, as Cameroon contends.
189. The Court concludes from the foregoing that the Order in Coun-
cil of 1946must be interpreted as providing for the boundary to run up
the River Sama to the confluence of its first tributary, that being the
point, with co-ordinates 10"10'23" longitude east and 6"56'29" latitude
north, which the Court has identified as the one specifiedin the Order in
Council where the River Sama "divides into two"; and then, from that
point, along a straight line to the highest point of Mount Tosso.
Pillur 64
190. Having initially expressed differing positions, Cameroon andNigeria agreed at the hearings that pillar 64 lies north of the Gamana
River and that the boundary described in the 1946Order in Council must
terminate at the intersection of the straight linejoining pillars 64 and 65
with the median line of the Gamana River. The Court takes note of this
agreement and therefore need no longer address tliis point.
Other points
191. At the hearin,gs and in the written responses to the questions put
by Members of the Court, a number of additional points concerning the
boundary were discussed by Cameroon and Nigeria. Brief mentions were
thus made of the village of Djarandoua, the confluence of the Benue and
the Maio Tiel, Dorofi, the Obodu Cattle Ranch and pillar 103. No sub-
missions were, however, presented by the Parties on these points. The
Court is accordingly not required to adjudicate upon them.
192. The Court accordingly concludes that, in the disputed areas, the
land boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria from Lake Chad to the
Bakassi Peninsula is fixed by the relevant instruments of delimitation
specified in paragraphs 73 to 75 above as interpreted by the Court in
paragraphs 87 to 191 of this Judgment.
193. The Court will next address the issue of the boundary in Bakassi
and the question of sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula. In its final
submissions Cameroon asks the Court to adjudge and declare
"(a) [tlhat the land boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria takes
the following course :
...........................
- thence [from Pillar 114 on the Cross River], as far as the
intersection of the straight line from Bakassi Point to King
Point with the centre of the navigable channel of the
Akwayafe, the boundary is determined by paragraphs XVI
to XXI of the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March
1913.
(h) That, in consequence, inter alia,sovereignty over the penin-
sula of Bakassi . . is Cameroonian."
Nigeria takes the contrary position. In its final submissions it requests
that the Court shoultj "(1) as to the Bizkassi Peninsula, adjudge and declare:
(a) that sovereignty over the Peninsula is vested in the
Federal Republic of Nigeria;
(b) that Nigeria's sovereignty over Bakassi extends up to
the boundary with Cameroon described in Chapter 11 of
Nigerka'sCounter-Memorial".
194. Cameroon contends that the Anglo-German Agreement of
11 March 1913 fixed the course of the boundary 1)etweenthe Parties in
the area of the Bakassi Peninsula, placing the latter on the German side
of the boundary. Hence, when Cameroon and Nigeria acceded to inde-
pendence, this boundary became that between the two countries, succes-
sor States to the colonial powers and bound by the principle of uti pos-
sidetis. For its part, Nigeria argues generally that title lay in 1913 with
the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar, and was retained by them until the
territory passed to Niigeriaupon independence. Great Britain was there-
fore unable to pass title to Bakassi because it had no title to pass (nemo
dut quod non habet): as a result, the relevant provisions of the Anglo-
German Agreement of II March 1913must be regarded as ineffective.
Nigeria further claims that that Agreement is delèctiveon the grounds
that it is contrary to the Preamble to the General Act of the Conference
of Berlin of 26 February 1885,that it was not approved by the German
Parliament and that it was abrogated as a result of Article 289 of the
Treaty of Versailles a~f28 June 1919.
195. Before addressing the question of whether Great Britain was
entitled to pass title to Bakassi through the Anglo-German Agreement
of 11 March 1913. i:he Court will examine these three argumen"s of
Nigeria concerning the defectiveness of that Agreement.
As regards the argument based on the General Act of the Conference
of Berlin, the Court notes that, having been raised very briefly by Nigeria
in its Counter-Memorial, it was not pursued either in the Rejoinder or at
the hearings. It is thereforeunnecessary for the Court to consider it.
196. Nigeria further contends that, under cnntemporary German
domestic legislation, al1 treaties providing for cession or acquisition of
colonial territory by Germany had to be appro~red by Parliament. It
points out that the Anglo-German Agreement of 1I March 1913was not
so approved. It argues that the Agreement involved the acquisition of
colonial territory,nainely the Bakassi Peninsula, and accordingly ought
to have been "approved by the German Parliament, at least so far as its
Bakassi provisions wi:re concerned".
Cameroon's position was that "the German Government took the view
that in the case-of Bakassi the issue was one of simple boundary rectifica- LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 401
tion, because Bakassi had already been treated pre\.iously as belonging de
,factoto Germany"; and thus parliamentary approval was not required.
197. The Court notes that Germanv itself considered that the Dro-
cedures prescribed by its domestic law had been complied with; no;did
Great Britain ever raise any question in relation thereto. The Agreement
had, moreover, been officiallypublished in both countries. It is therefore
irrelevant that the Ariglo-German Agreement of 1 IMarch 1913was not
approved by the German Parliament. Nigeria's argument on this point
accordingly cannot be upheld.
198. In relation to the Treaty of Versailles, Nigeria points out that
Article 289 thereof pi-ovidedfor "the revival of pre-war bilateral treaties
concluded by Germainy on notification to Germany by the other party".
It contends that, sinci:Great Britain had taken no steps under Article 289
to revive the Agreement of 11March 1913,it was accordingly abrogated;
thus Cameroon "could not have succeeded to the [Agreement] itself'.
Cameroon argues that Article 289 of the Treaty of Versailles did not
have any legal effect on the Agreement of 11 March 1913, because "the
scope of this Article lwaslimited to treaties of an economic nature in the
broad sense of the term" - which in Cameroon's viewwas confirmed by
the context of the Article, its position within thecliemeof the Treaty, its
drafting history and its object and purpose in lipht of the Treaty as a
whole.
199. The Court notes that since 1916 Germany had no longer exer-
cised any territorial authority in Cameroon. Under Articles 118 and 119
of the Versailles Treaty, Germany relinquished ils title to its overseas
possessions. As a result, Great Britain had no reason to include the
Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913 among the "bilateral
treaties orconventioi?~"which it wished to revive with Germany. Thus
it follows that this argument of Nigeria must in aiiy event be rejected.
200. The Court now turns to the question of whether Great Britain
was entitled to pass title to Bakassi through the Anglo-German Agree-
ment of 11 March 19113.
In this regard, Cameroon contends that the Agreement of 11 March
1913fixed the course of the boundary between the Parties in the area of
the Bakassi Peninsula and placed the latter on the Cameroonian side of
the boundary. Ttrelies for thispurpose on Articles XVIII to XXI of the
said Agreement, which provide inter aliathat the boundary "follows the
thalweg of theAkwayafe as far as a straight linejoining Bakasi Point and
King Point" (Art. XVIII) and that "[s]hould the lower course of the
Akwayafe so change its mouth as to transfer it to the Rio del Rey, it is
agreed that the area riow known as the Bakasi Peninsula shall still remain LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 402
German territory" (Art. XX). Cameroon further states that, since the
entry into force of the Agreement of March 1913,Bakassi has belonged
to its predecessors, ,and that sovereignty over tlie peninsula is today
vested in Cameroon.
201. Nigeria does not contest that the meaning of these provisions is
to allocate the Bakassi Peninsula to Germany. It does, however, insist
that these terms weri: never ut into effect. and iiideed were invalid on
various grounds, thoiigh the ither Articles of the Agreement of 11March
19 13 remained valid.
Nigeria contends that the title to sovereignty over Bakassi on which it
relies was originally vested in the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar. It
argues that in the pre-colonial era the City States of the Calabar region
constituted an "acephalous federation" consisting of "independent enti-
ties with internati~n~allegal personality". It considers that, under the
Treaty of Protection isignedon 10September 1884 between Great Britain
and the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar, the latter retained their sepa-
rate international status and rights, including thelr power to enter into
relationships with "other international persons" although under the
Treaty that power c:ould only be exercised witli the knowledge and
approval of the British Government. According to Nigeria, the Treaty
only conferred certain limited rights on Great Britain; in no way did it
transfer sovereignty to Britain over the territories of the Kings and Chiefs
of Old Calabar.
Nigeria argues thait, since Great Britain did not have sovereignty over
those territories in 1913, it could not cede them to a third party. It fol-
lowed that the relevant part of the Anglo-German Agreement of
11 March 1913was "outwith the treaty-making power of Great Britain,
and that part was no'tbinding on the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar".
Nigeria adds that the limitations on Great Britain's powers under the
1884Treaty of Proteirtion,
"and in particular its lack of sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula
and thus its lack of legal authority in international law to dispose of
title to it, must have been known to Germany at the time the 1913
Treaty was concluded, or ought to have been cmthe assumption that
Germany was conducting itself in a reasonably prudent way".
In Nigeria's view,the invalidity of the Agreement of 11March 1913on
grounds of inconsistency with the principle nemo dut quod non habet
applied only, howew:r, "to those parts of the Trr:aty which purport to
prescribe a boundary which, if effective,would have involved a cession of
territory to Germany", that is to Say,essentially Articles XVIII to XXII.
The remaining provisions of the Treaty were untairited by that defect and
accordingly remained in force and fully effective; they wereself-standing
provisions, and their application was not dependent upon the Bakassiprovisions, which, being in law defective, were to be severed from the rest
of the Agreement.
202. In reply, Canieroon contends that Nigeria's argument that Great
Britain had no legal power to cede the Bakassi Peninsula by treaty is
manifestly unfoundetl.
In Cameroon's view, the treaty signed on 10 September 1884between
Great Britain and the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar established a
"colonial protectorate" and, "in the practice of the period, there was little
fundamental difference at international level,in terms of territorial acqui-
sition, between coloriies and colonial protectorates". Substantive differ-
ences between the status of colony and that of a colonial protectorate
were matters of the national law of the colonial Powers rather than of
international law. The key element of the colonial protectorate was the
"assumption of external sovereignty by the protecting State", which
manifested itself principally through
"the acquisition and exercise of the capacity and power to cede part
of the protected territory by international treirty, without any inter-
vention by the population or entity in question".
Cameroon further argues that, even on the hypnthesis that Great Brit-
ain did not have legal capacity to transfer sovereignty over the Bakassi
Peninsula under the Agreement of 11 March 1913, Nigeria could not
invoke that circumstance as rendering the Agreement invalid. It points
out that neither Gr~rat Britain nor Nigeria. the successor State, ever
sought to claim that the Agreement was invalid on this ground; in this
regard Cameroon states that,
"[oln the contrary, until the start of the 1990s Nigeria had un-
ambiguously confirmed and accepted the 1913 boundary line in
its diplomatic and consular practice, its official geographical and
cartographie publications and indeed in its statements and conduct
in the political field",
and that "[tlhe same was true as regards the appurtenance of the Bakassi
Peninsula to Camerolon". Cameroon further states that there is no other
circumstance which might be relied on to rentier the Agreement of
11 March 1913invalid.
Cameroon also contends that, in any event, the Agreement of
11 March 1913 formisan indivisible whole and that it is not possible to
sever from it the prclvisions concerning the Bakassi Peninsula. It main-
tains that "there is a strong presumption that treaties accepted as valid
must be interpreted as a whole and al1 their provisions respected and
applied"; and that "parties cannot choose the provisions of a treaty
which are to be applied and those which are no1 - they cannot 'pickand choose' --, unless there is a provision enabling them to act in that
way".
203. The Court first observes that during the era of the Berlin Confer-
ence the European P'owersentered into many treaties with local rulers.
Great Britain concluded some 350 treaties with the local chiefs of the
Niger delta. Among these were treaties in July 1884with the Kings and
Chiefs of Opobo ancl, in September 1884,with the Kings and Chiefs of
Old Calabar. That these were regarded as notable personages is clear
from the fact that thlesetreaties were concluded by the consul, expressly
as the representative of Queen Victoria, and the British undertakings of
"gracious favour ancl protection" were those of Her Majesty the Queen
of Great Britain and Ireland.
In turn, under Article II of the Treaty of 10 September 1884,
"The King and Chiefs of Old Calabar agree[d] and promise[d] to
refrain from entering into any correspondence, Agreement, or Treaty
with any foreigri nation or Power, except with the knowledge and
sanction of Her Britannic Majesty's Governnient."
The Treaty with the Kings and Chiefs of Old C'alabar did not specify
the territory to which the British Crown was to extend "gracious favour
and protection", nor did it indicate the territories over which each of the
Kings and Chiefs signatory to the Treaty exercised his powers. However,
the consul who negotiated and signed the Treaty, said of Old Calabar
"this country with its dependencies extends from Tom Shots .. .to the
River Rumby (on the west of the Cameroon Mountains), both inclusive".
Some six years later, in 1890,another British consul, Johnston, reported
to the Foreign Officethat "the rule of the Old Calabar Chiefs extends far
beyond the Akpayafe River to the very base of the Cameroon Moun-
tains". The Court observes that, while this territory extends considerably
eastwards of Bakassi, Johnston did report that tlie Old Calabar Chiefs
had withdrawn from the lands east of the Ndian. Bakassi and the Rio del
Rey lay to the west of the Ndian, an area referi-ed to by Johnston as
"their real, undoubted territory".
In the viewof the Court Great Britain had a clear understanding of the
area ruled at different times by the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar, and
of their standing.
204. Nigeria has contended that the very title of the 1884Treaty and
the reference in Article 1to the undertaking of "protection", shows that
Britain had no entitlement to do more than proteci, and in particular had
no entitlement to ceclethe territory concerned to third States: "nemo dut
quod non hczbet".
205. The Court calls attention to the fact that the international legal
status of a "Treaty of Protection" entered into under the law obtaining at
the time cannot be deduced from its title alone. Some treaties of protec-tion were entered ini:o with entities which retained thereunder a previ-
ously existing sovereignty under international law. This was the case
whether the protected party was henceforth termed 'protectorat" (as in
the case of Morocco, Tunisia and Madagascar (1885; 1895) in their
treaty relations with France) or "a protected State" (as in the case of
Bahrain and Qatar in their treaty relations with Great Britain). In sub-
Saharan Africa, however, treaties termed "treaties of protection" were
entered into not with States, but rather with important indigenous rulers
exercising local rule over identifiable areas of territory.
In relation to a treaty of this kind in another part of the world,
Max Huber, sitting as sole arbitrator in the Island qf Palmas case,
explained that such a.treaty
"is not an agreement between equals; it is rather a form of interna1
organisation of a colonial territory, on the basis of autonomy of the
natives . . And thus suzerainty over the native States becomes the
basis of territorial sovereignty as towards other members of the com-
munity of natioris." (United Nations, Reports of International Arhi-
tral A,r;ards(RIAA), Vol. II, pp. 858-859.)
The Court points out that these concepts also found expression in the
Western Salzara Advisory Opinion. There the Court stated that in terri-
tories that were not lerra nullius,but were inhabited by tribes or people
having a social and political organization, "agreements concluded with
local rulers . . . we:re regarded as derivative roots of title" (Western
Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 39, para. 80). Even if
this mode of acquisition does not reflect current international law, the
principle of intertemporal law requires that the legal consequences of the
treaties concluded at that time in the Niger delta be given effect today, in
the present dispute.
206. The choice of a protectorate treaty by Great Britain was a ques-
tion of the preferred manner of rule. Elsewhere, and specifically in the
Lagos region, treaties for cession of land were being entered into with
local rulers. It was precisely a reflection ofthose differences that within
Nigeria there was the Colony of Lagos and the Niger Coast Protectorate,
later to become the E'rotectorate of Southern Nigeria.
207. In the view of the Court many factors point to the 1884 Treaty
signed with the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar as not establishing an
international protectorate. It was one of a multitude in a region where
the local Rulers were not regarded as States. Indeed, apart from the
parallel declarations of various lesser Chiefs agreeing to be bound by
the 1884Treaty, there is not even convincing evidence of a central federal
power. There appeairs in Old Calabar rather to have been individual
townships, headed by Chiefs, who regarded themselves as owing a gen-
eral allegiance to more important Kings and Chiefs. Further, from theoutset Britain regarded itself as administering the territories comprised in
the 1884Treaty, and not just protecting them. Consul Johnston reported
in 1888that "the country between the boundary of Lagos and the Ger-
man boundary of Carneroons" was "administered by Her Majesty's Con-
sular Officers, under various Orders in Council". The fact that a delega-
tion was sent to Londlonby the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar in 1913
to discuss matters of land tenure cannot be considcred as implying inter-
national personality. It simply confirms the Brit~sh administration by
indirect rule.
Nigeria itself has b'eenunable to point to any role, in matters relevant
to the present case, played by the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar after
the conclusion of the 1884Treaty. In responding to a question of a Mem-
ber of the Court Nigeria stated "It is not possible to say with clarity and
certainty what happened to the international legal personality of the
Kings and Chiefs of (31dCalabar after 1885."
TheCourt notes th.ata characteristic of an international protectorate is
that of ongoing meetings and discussions between the protecting Power
and the Rulers of the Protectorate. In the case concerning Maritime
Delimitation and Territorial Questions hetiveen Qatar and Bahrain
(Qatar v. Buhrain) the Court was presented with substantial documenta-
tion of this character., in large part being old British State papers. In the
present case the Court was informed that "Nigeria can neither say that
no such meetings ever took place, or that they did take place . .. the
records which would enable the question to be answered probably no
longer exist .. .".
208. As to when the Kings and Chiefs ceased to exist as a separate
entity, Nigeria told the Court it "is not a question susceptible of a clear-
cut answer".
The Court notes iri this regard that in 1885 Great Britain had estab-
lished by proclamati~ona "British Protectorate of the Niger Districts"
(which subsequently changed names a number of times), incorporating in
a singleentity the various territories covered by the treaties of protection
entered into in the re:gionsince July 1884.The Court further notes that
there is no reference itoOld Calabar in any of the various British Orders
in Council, of whatever date, which list proteciorates and protected
States. The same is tirueof the British Protected Persons Order of 1934,
the Schedule to which refers to "Nigerian Protectorate and Cameroons
under British Mandate". Nor is there any reference to Old Calabar in the
Second Schedule to the British Protectorates, Protected States and Pro-
tected Persons Order in Council, 1949,though in the First Schedule there
is a reference to the "Nigerian Protectorate".
Moreover, the Court has been presented with no evidence of any pro- LAND A.ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 407
test in 1913by theKiiigs and Chiefs of Old Calabar ;nor of any action by
them to pass territory to Nigeria asit emerged to independence in 1960.
209. The Court thiss concludes that, under the law at the time, Great
Britain was in a position in 1913 to determine its boundaries with Ger-
many in respect of Nigeria, including in the southt:rn section.
210. The Court will now examine the treatment. in the period 1913to
1960, of the southerri sector of the boundary as defined by the Anglo-
German Agreement of 11 March 1913.
Cameroon contends that the mandate and trusteeship period, and the
subsequent independence process, show recognition on the part of the
internationalcommunity of Cameroon's attachment to the Bakassi Penin-
sula.
Following the First World War, it was decicled that the German
colony of Cameroori should be administered in partitioned form by
Britain and France under the framework of League of Nations mandate
arrangements. Bakassi is said to have formed part of the area of the Brit-
ish Cameroons termed Southern Cameroons. This territorial definition is
said to have been repeated in the trusteeship agreements which succeeded
the mandates system after the Second World War. According to Cam-
eroon, there was never any doubt in the minds of the British authorities
that Bakassi formed part of the mandated and trusteeship territory of the
Cameroons since Balkassihad formed part of German Cameroon pur-
suant to the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913. Moreover,
although the British Cameroons Order in Council of 1923 established
that the Northern and Southern Cameroons would be administered "as if
they formed part of' Nigeria. Cameroon emphasized that this was merely
an administrative arrangement which did not lead to the incorporation of
these territories into Nigeria. Cameroon produces clocumentary evidence,
British Orders in Council and maps which, it claims, evidence that
Bakassi is consistently placed within the British Cameroons throughout
this period.
Cameroon further recalls that the United Nations plebiscites, held on
11 and 12 February 1961, resulted in a clear majority in the Northern
Cameroons voting toljoin Nigeria, and a clear majority in the Southern
Cameroons voting to join Cameroon. It maintains that the process of
holding the plebiscitc meant that the areas that fell within the Northern
and Southern Cameroons had to be ascertained. Cameroon points out
that the map attached to the Report of the United Nations Plebiscite
Commissioner shows that the Bakassi Peninsula formed part of the Vic-
toria South West plebiscite district in theuth-east corner of Cameroon.
This would show that the peninsula was recognized by the United Nations LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 408
as being a part of thr: Southern Cameroons. Cameroon also emphasizes
the absence of protest by Nigeria to the proposed boundary during the
independence process, and the fact that Nigeria voted in favour of
General Assembly resolution 1608(XV) by which the British trusteeship
was formally terminated.
Cameroon further refers to the maritime negotiations between Nigeria
and Cameroon since independence, which resulted in instruments under
which Nigeria is said to have recognized the validity of the Anglo-
German Agreement of 11March 1913,the boundary deriving fromit,and
Cameroon's sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula. These instruments
included the Nigeriari Note No. 570 of 27 March 1962,the Yaoundé II
Agreement of 4 April 1971, the Kano Agreement of 1 September 1974
and the Maroua Agrleementof 1June 1975.
Cameroon finally refers to its granting of permits for hydrocarbon
exploration and exploitation over the Bakassi Peninsula itself and off-
shore. commencing.un the earlv 1960sas well as to a number of consular
and ambassadorial visits to the Bakassi region by Nigerian consuls and
ambassadors, whose conduct in requesting permission and CO-operation
from the Cameroonian local officials and expressirig thanks for it is said
to corroborate Cameroon's claim to sovereignty over Bakassi.
211. Nigeria for its part argues that, at al1times while the 1884Treaty
remained in force, Great Britain continued to lack power to give Bakassi
away. As such, it claims that no amount of British activity in relation to
Bakassi in the mandate or trusteeship periods could have severed Bakassi
from the Nigeria protectorate. It draws additional support from the fact
that, in practice throughout the period from 1913to 1960, Bakassi was
administered from and as part of Nigeria, and was never administered
from or as part of Cameroon. Nigeria also asserts that there is no docu-
mentary evidence that the population of the Bakassi Peninsula partici-
pated in the United Nations plebiscite; the description of the Victoria
South West plebiscite district in the Commissioner's Report does not
refer to any areas sitiuated in the Bakassi Peninsula.
Nigeria further denies the binding nature of the delimitation agree-
ments referred to by Cameroon, in particular the Maroua Declaration,
whose adoption, it claims, was never approved by the Supreme Military
Council in contravention of Nigeria's constitutional requirements. It also
denies the evidentiary value of the visits to tlie Bakassi region by
Nigerian dignitaries referred to by Cameroon, on the basis that consular
officials are not mandated to deal with issues of title to territory, nor to
make assessments of questions of sovereignty. and, as such, their actions
cannot be taken to irnpact upon these questions. IGnally,on the issue of
the granting of oil exploration permits and production agreements, LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 409
Nigeria argues interolia that "the area in dispute M'asthe subject of com-
peting exploration activities" and that "the incidence of oil-related activi-
ties was not .. .regarded [by the Parties] as conlslusiveof the issue of
sovereignty ".
212. The Court riotes that after the First World War Germany
renounced its colonia~lpossessions. Under the Versailles Treaty the Ger-
man possessions of Cameroon were divided between Great Britain and
France. In 1922 Great Britain accepted the mandate of the League of
Nations for "that part [of the former German colony] of the Cameroons
which lay to the Westof the line laid down in the [Milner-Simon] Declara-
tion signed on the 10th July, 1919". Bakassi was necessarily comprised
within the mandate. Great Britain had no powers iinilaterally to alter the
boundary nor did it inake any request to the Leapue of Nations for any
such alteration. The League Council was notified, and did not object to,
the British suggestion that it administer Southern Cameroon together
with the eastern region of the Protectorate of Nigeria. Thus the British
Order in Council of 26 June 1923providing for the Administration of the
Mandated Territory of the British Cameroons stipulated that British
Cameroons lying southwards of the line described in the Schedule would
be administered "as if it formed part of' the souchern provinces of the
Protectorate of Nigeria. The Court observes that the terminology used in
the Order in Council preserved the distinctive status of the mandated
territory, while allowing the convenience of a coinmon administration.
The Nigerian thesis rnust therefore be rejected.
When, after the Second World War and the establishment of the
United Nations, the mandate was converted to a trusteeship, the territo-
rial situation remained exactly the same. The "as if" provision continued
in place, and again the Administering Authority had no authority uni-
laterally to alter the boundaries of the trusteeship territory. Thus for
the entire period frorn 1922until 1961(when the 'Trusteeshipwas termi-
nated), Bakassi was ~comprisedwithin British Canieroon. The boundary
between Bakassi and Nigeria, notwithstanding the administrative arrange-
ments, remained an international boundary.
The Court is unable to accept Nigeria's contention that until its inde-
pendence in 1961,and notwithstanding the Anglo-German Agreement of
11 March 1913, the Bakassi Peninsula had remained under the sover-
eignty of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar. Neither the League of
Nations nor the United Nations considered that to be the position.
213. Equally, the Court has seen no evidence that Nigeria thought that
upon independence it was acquiring Bakassi from the Kings and Chiefs
of Old Calabar. Nigeria itself raised no query as to the extent of its ter-
ritory in this region lupon attaining independence. LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 410
The Court notes in particular that there wasnothing which might have
led Nigeria to believethat the plebiscite which took place in the Southern
Cameroons in 1961 under United Nations supervision did not include
Bakassi.
It is true that the Southern Cameroons Plebiscite Order in Council,
1960 makes no mention of any polling station bearing the name of a
Bakassi village. Nor. however, does the Order in Council specifically
exclude Bakassi from its scope. The Order simply refers to the Southern
Cameroons as a whole. But at that time it was already clearly established
that Bakassi formed part of the Southern Cameroons under British trust-
eeship. The boundarii:~ of that territory had been precisely defined inthe
"Northern Region, VlresternRegion and Eastern Region (Definition of
Boundaries) Proclamation, 1954", issued pursuant to the Nigeria (Con-
stitution)Order in Council, 1951.That Proclamation, repeating the pro-
visions of theAnglo-{GermanAgreement of 11March 1913,provided in
particular: "From the sea the boundary follows the navigable channel of
the River Akpa-Yafe; then follows the thalweg of the aforesaid River
Akpa-Yafe upstream to its confluence with the Ri~ers Akpa-Korum and
Ebe." That the 1960 Order in Council applied to the Southern
Cameroons as a whole is further confirmed by tht: fact, as noted in the
Report of the United Nations Plebiscite Commissioner for the Cam-
eroons under United Kingdom Administration, that the 26 "plebiscite
districts" established by the 1960 Order in Council corresponded to
the "electoral constituencies for the Southern Cameroons House of
Assembly".
The United Natioris map indicating the voting districts for the plebi-
scite also reflected thie provisions of the Agreement of 11 March 1913
reiterated in theabove-mentioned 1954Proclamation.
The Court further observes that this frontier line was acknowledged in
turn by Nigeria when it voted in favour of General Assembly resolution
1608 (XV), which both terminated the Trusteeship and approved the
results of the plebiscite.
214. Shortly after, inNote Verbale No. 570of27 March 1962addressed
to Cameroon, Nigeri,a referred to certain oil licensing blocks. A sketch-
map was appended to the Note, from which it is clr:arthat the block "N"
referred to lay directlysouth of the Bakassi Peninsula. The block was
described as offshore Cameroon. The Note Verbale further stated "the
boundary follows the lower courses of the Akpa-Yafe River, where there
appears to be no uncertainty, and then out into the Cross River estuary".
Nigeria clearly regarded the Bakassi Peninsula as part of Cameroon.
The Court further notes that this perception was reflected in al1Nigerian
officia1maps up until 1972.
This common understanding of where title lay in Bakassi continuedthrough until the late: 1970s, when the Parties were engaging in discus-
sions on their maritime frontier. In this respect. Article XXI of the
Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913provided :
"From the centre of the navigable channel on a line joining
Bakassi Point and King Point, the boundary shall follow the centre
of the navigable channel of the Akwayafe River as far as the 3-mile
limit of territorial jurisdiction. For the purpose of defining this
boundary, the n.avigable channel of the Akwayafe River shall be
considered to lie wholly to the east of the na\,igable channel of the
Cross and Calab,ar Rivers."
Article XXII provided that: "The 3-mile limit shall, as regards the mouth
of the estuary, be taken as a line 3 nautical miles seaward of a linejoining
Sandy Point and Tom Shot Point."
In 1970Cameroon and Nigeria decided to carr] out a total delimita-
tion and demarcation of their boundaries, starting from the sea. Under
the terms of Article 2 of the Yaoundé 1 Declaration of 14 August 1970
and the agreement reached in the Yaoundé II Declaration of 4 April 1971
with its signed appended chart, it was agreed to fix the boundary in the
Akwayafe estuary from point 1 to point 12 (see paragraph 38 above).
Then, by declaration rsignedat Maroua on 1June 1975,the two Heads of
State "agreed to extend the delineation of themaritime boundary between
the countries from Point 12to Point G on the Admiralty Chart No. 3433
annexed to this Declaration" and precisely defined the boundary by
reference to maritime CO-ordinates (see paragraph 38 above). The Court
finds that its clear from each one of these elements that the Parties took
it as a given that Baltassi belonged to Cameroon. Nigeria, drawing on
the full weight of its experts aswell as its most senior political figures,
understood Bakassi to be under Cameroon sovereignty.
This remains the case quite regardless of the need to recalculate the
co-ordinates of point B through an Exchange of Letters of 12June and
17July 1975between the Heads of State concerned; and quite regardless
whether the Maroua Declaration constituted an international agreement
by which Nigeria was bound. The Court addresses these aspects at para-
graphs 262 to 268 below.
Accordingly, the Court finds that at that time Nigeria accepted that it
was bound by Articles XVIII to XXII of the Anglo-German Agreement
of 11 March 1913,and that it recognized Cameroonian sovereignty over
the Bakassi Peninsula.
215. In the view of the Court, this common understanding of the
Parties is also reflected by the geographic pattern of the oil concessions
granted by the two Parties up to 1991.While no precise offshore delimi-
tation lines were adhered to in the grants made, their underlying assump-
tion was that Cameroon had the right to the resources in those waters
that depended on the. land boundary in Bakassi as fixed in the Anglo-
German Agreement of 11 March 1913. It is true, as Nigeria insists, that LAND P,ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 412
oil licensing "is certa~inlynot a cession of territory". The Court finds,
however, that the geographic pattern of the licensing is consistent with
the understanding of the Parties, evidenced elsewhere, as to pre-existing
Cameroon title in Bakassi. Nor can this striking consistency (save for a
very few exceptions) be explained by the contention that the Parties
simply chose to dead with matters of oil exploitation in a manner
wholly unrelated to territorial title.
216. In assessing sihether Nigeria, as an independent State, acknow-
ledged the applicabiliity of the provisions of the Anglo-German Agree-
ment of 11 March 1913 relating to Bakassi, the Court has also taken
account of certain forma1 requests up until the 1980s submitted by the
Nigerian Embassy in Yaoundé, or by the Nigerian consular authorities,
before going to visit their nationals residing in Bakassi. This Nigerian
acknowledgment of Cameroon sovereignty is in no way dependent upon
proof that any particular officia1visit did in fact take place.
217. For al1of these reasons the Court finds that the Anglo-German
Agreement of 11 Ma.rch 1913 was valid and applicable in its entirety.
Accordingly, the Court has no need to address the arguments advanced
by Cameroon and Nigeria as to the severability of treaty provisions,
whether generally or as regards boundary treaties.
Equally, the Court has not found it necessary to pronounce upon the
arguments of utipossfdetis advanced by the Parties in relation to Bakassi.
218. The Court nclw turns to further claims to Bakassi relied on by
Nigeria. Nigeria advances "three distinct but interrelated bases of title
over the Bakassi Peninsula" :
"(i) Long occupation by Nigeria and by Nigerian nationals consti-
tuting an historical consolidation of title and confirming the
original title of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar, which title
vested in Nigeria at the time of independence in 1960;
(ii) peaceful possession by Nigeria, acting as sovereign, and an
absence of protest by Cameroon; and
(iii)manifestaticlns of sovereignty by Nigeria together with acquies-
cence by Cameroon in Nigerian sovereignty over the Bakassi
Peninsula."
Nigeria particularly emphasizes that the title on the basis of historical
consolidation, together with acquiescence, in the period since the inde-pendence of Nigeria, "constitutes an independent .ind self-sufficient title
to Bakassi". Nigeria perceived the situation as comparable to that in the
Minquiers und Ecrehos case, in which both parties contended that they
retained an ancient title (1 ..J. Reports 1953, p. 53) but the Court con-
sidered that "[wlhat is of decisive importance . .. is . . . the evidence
which relates directly to the possession of the Ecrehos and Minquiers
groups" (ibid.,p. 57). Nigeria also presents evidznce of various State
activities, together with other components of historic consolidation of
title. It contends intrr ulin that Nigerian authorities had collected tax
as part of a consistent pattern of activity, that Nigeria had established
health centres for the benefit of the communities ;it Bakassi, often with
the assistance of local communities, and that its health centre at Ikang on
the other side of the Akwayafe treated patients from Bakassi. Nigeria
also refers to a number of other miscellaneous State activities during
the post-independence era, including the use of Nigerian currency for
both public and comrnercial purposes or the use of Nigerian passports by
residents of Bakassi.
219. Cameroon for its part argues that a legal treaty title cannot be
displaced by what in its view amounts to no more than a number of
alleged ejfectivités. Itcontends that after the conferral of the Mandate,
Great Britain's administration of the region was carried out, not on
behalf of the Kings aind Chiefs of Old Calabar, no]. on behalf of Nigeria,
but as the mandatory Power under Article 22, paragraph 1,of the League
Covenant acting on behalf of the international community and the inhab-
itants of the Southern Cameroons. Cameroon further denies the existence
of historical consolidation as a separate basis of legal title. What Nigeria
brings under this concept is, in Cameroon's view, nothing more than "the
establishment of title by adverse possession, which has traditionally been
labelled as 'acquisitive prescription"'. Cameroon also contends that, in
order to establish prescription, the acts of the Statz which does not hold
title must be carried tout in a sovereign capacity, under a claim of right,
openly, peacefully, without protest or competing activity by the existing
sovereign, and for a :sufficientlylong time. In Canieroon's view, if these
criteria are applied to the evidence adduced by Nigeria, this would elimi-
nate the whole of Nigeria's list of <ffectivités.Referring to the Judgment
of the Chamber in the Frontier Dispute (Burkinu F~zsolRepuhlicof Mali),
Cameroon finally maintains that, in a case of prescription, if there is a
conflict of efjrectivité:,preference should be given to the holder of the
title".
220. The Court first recalls its finding above regarding the claim to an
ancient title to Bakassi derived from the Kings and Chiefs of Old Cala-
bar. It follows therefirom that at the time of Nigeria's accession to inde-
pendence there existed no Nigerian title capable of'being confirmed sub-
sequently by "long occupation" (see paragraph 212 above). On the LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 414
contrary, on the date of its independence Cameroon succeeded to title
over Bakassi as established by the Anglo-German Agreement of 11March
1913 (see paragraphs 213-214 above).
Historical consolidation was also invoked in connection with the first
of Nigeria's further claimed bases of title, namely peaceful possession in
the absence of protest. The Court notes that it has already addressed
these aspects of the theory of historical consolidation in paragraphs 62 to
70 above. The Court thus finds that invocation of historical consolida-
tion cannot in anv event vest title to Bakassi in Nig.>ia.,where its "occu-
pation" of the peninsula is adverse to Cameroon':; prior treaty title and
where, moreover, the possession has been for a limited period.
The Court cannot therefore accept this first bas~sof title over Bakassi
relied on by Nigeria.
221. The Court will now deal with other aspects of the second and
third bases of title advanced by Nigeria, and finds it convenient to deal
with these interrelated matters together. Localities in Bakassi will be
given either their Nigerian or their Cameroonian names as appropriate.
The Court finds tliat the evidence before it indicates that the small
population of Bakasiji already present in the early 1960s grew with the
influx from Nigeria in 1968 as a result of the civil war in that country.
Gradually sizeable centres of population were established. The Parties
are in disagreement as to the total number of Nigerian nationals living in
the peninsula today, but it is clear that it has grown considerably from
the modest numbers reported in the 1953 and 1963population censuses.
Nor is there any reason to doubt the Efik and Effiat toponomy of the
settlements, or their relationships with Nigeria. Biit these facts of them-
selves do not establish Nigerian title over Bakassi territory; nor can they
serve as an element in a claim for historical consolidation of title, for
reasons already giveri by the Court (see paragraphs 64-70).
222. Nigeria has relied before the Court, in corisiderable detail, often
with supporting evidtmce, on many activities in Bakassi that it regards as
proof both of settled Nigerian administration and of acts in exercise of
sovereign aiithority. Among these acts are the establishment of schools,
the provision of health facilities for many of the settlements and some tax
collection.
It is true that the provision of education in tlie Bakassi settlements
appears to be largely Nigerian. Religious schools were established in 1960
at Archibong, in 19613at Atabong and in Abana iri 1969. These were not
supported by public funds, but were under the authority of the Nigerian LAND .4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUI)GMENT) 415
examination and education authorities. Commutiity schools were also
established at Ataboilg East in 1968,Mbenonong in 1975and Nwanyo in
1981. The schools established in Abana in 1992, and in Archibong and
Atabong in 1993, were Nigerian government schools or State secondary
schools.
There is evidence ithat since 1959 health centres have been established
with the assistance of local communities receiving supplies, guidance and
training for personnel in Nigeria. The ten centres include centres estab-
lished at Archibong in 1959,Mbenonong in 1960, 4tabong West in 1968,
Abana in 1991 and Atabong East in 1992.
There was also solme collection of tax, certainly from Akwa, Archi-
bong, Moen Mong, Naranyo, Atabong and Abana.
Nigeria notes that Cameroon failed actively to protest these adminis-
trative activities of Nigeria before 1994 (save, notably, the building by
Nigeria of a primary school in Abana in 1969). It also contends that the
case law of this Court, and of certain arbitral awards, makes clear that
such acts are indeed acts ù titre de souverain, and as such relevant to the
question of territorial title (Minquiers and Ecrthos, Judgment, I. C.J.
Reports 1953; Western Sahura, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975;
Rann of Kutch, Arbitral Award, 50 International Laci;Reports (ILR) 1 ;
Beagle Channel Aubitration, 52 ILR 93).
223. The Court ot)serves, however, that in none of these cases were the
acts referred to acts cvntra legem; those precedents are therefore not rele-
vant. The legal question of whether ejfectivités suggest that title lies with
one country rather than another is not the same legal question as whether
such eflectivités can serve to displace an establislied treaty title. As the
Chamber of the Court made clear in the Frontirr Dispute (Burkina Fu.sol
Republic of Mali) case, where there is a conflict hetween title and effec-
tivités,preference will be given to the former (I.C.J. Reports 1986, Judg-
ment, pp. 586-587, para. 63).
In the view of the Court the more relevant legal question in this case is
whether the conduct of Cameroon, as the title holder, can be viewed as
an acquiescence in the loss of the treaty title that it inherited upon inde-
pendence. There is some evidence that Cameroon attempted, inter aliu, to
collect tax from Nigerian residents, in the year 1381-1982, in Idaboto 1
and II, Jabare 1 ancl II, Kombo Abedimo, Naumsi Wan and Forisane
(West and East Atabong, Abana and Ine Ikoi). But it engaged in only
occasional direct acts of administration in Bakassi, having limited
material resources to devote to this distant area. However, its title was already established. Moreover, as the Court has
shown above (see pairagraph 213),in 1961 -1962Nigeria clearly and pub-
liclyrecognized Cameroon title to Bakassi. That continued to be the posi-
tion until at least 1975,when Nigeria signed the Maroua Declaration. No
Nigerian efectivités in Bakassi before that time can be said to have legal
significance for demonstrating a Nigerian title; this may in part explain
the absence of Cameroon protests regarding health, education and tax
activity in Nigeria. 'TheCourt also notes that Ciimeroon had since its
independence engaged in activities which made clear that it in no way
was abandoning its title to Bakassi. Cameroon and Nigeria participated
from 1971to 1975in the negotiations leading to the Yaoundé, Kano and
Maroua Declarations, with the maritime line clearly being predicated
upon Cameroon's title to Bakassi. Cameroon also granted hydrocarbon
licences over the peniinsula and its waters, again evidencing that it had
not abandoned title in the face of the significant Nigerian presence in
Bakassi or any Nigerian qfjÎectivitkscontra legernAnd protest was imme-
diately made regardiingNigerian military action iri 1994.
224. The Court considers that the foregoing shows that Nigeria could
not have been acting u titre de .souverainbefore tlie late 1970s,as it did
not consider itself to have title over Bakassi; and in the ensuing period
the evidence does not indicate an acquiescence by Cameroon in the aban-
donment of its title in favour of Nigeria.
For al1of these reilsons the Court is also unable to accept the second
and third bases of title to Bakassi advanced by Nigeria.
225. The Court accordingly concludes that the boundary between
Cameroon and Nigeria in Bakassi is delimited by Articles XVIII to XX
of the Anglo-Germari Agreement of 11March 191 3,and that sovereignty
over the peninsula lies with Cameroon.
226. The Court will now turn to the maritime boundary between
Cameroon and Nigeria.
In its Application filed on 29 March 1994 under Article 36, para-
graph 2, of the Statute Cameroon requested the Court, "[iln order to
avoid further incidenitsbetween the two countries, . . .to determine the
course of the maritinle boundary between the two States beyond the linefixed in 1975". In its final submissions presented to the Court at the end
of the oral proceedings on 21 March 2002, Canieroon maintained its
request for the drawing of the maritime boundary, but it did so in a dif-
ferent form. Cameroon now requests that the Court confirm that "[tlhe
boundary of the maritime areas appertaining respectively to the Republic
of Cameroon and the Federal Republic of Nigeria takes the following
course", which Cameroon describes in detail in the two subparagraphs of
paragraph (c) of its submissions.
Nigeria claims thal the Court should refuse to ciirry out in whole or in
part the delimitation requested by Cameroon, first, because the delimita-
tion affects areas claimed by third States, and, secondly, because the
requirement of prior negotiations has not been satisfied.
The Court must first deal with these arguments of Nigeria.
227. Nigeria maintains that the Court cannot carrv out the delimita-
u
tion requested by Cameroon, since the prolongation of the maritime
boundary between the Parties seawards beyond point G will rapidly run
into maritime zones where the rights and interests of Cameroon and
Nigeria will overlap fhose of third States. In this regard it recalls that its
eighth preliminary objection was "that the questiori of maritime delimita-
tion necessarilv involves the rights and interests of'third States and is to
u
that extent inadmissible". It observes that the Court, in considering that
preliminary objection in its Judgment of 11 June 1998, held that the
objection did "not possess, in the circumstances of the case, an exclu-
sively preliminary ch,aracter7'(1.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 325, para. 117).
228. Citing inter alia the case concerning the Cowtinental Shelj (Libyan
Aruh Jamuhiri~valMulta) (1.C.J. Reports 1985, pp. 24-28, paras. 20-23),
the Judgment of the Chamber of this Court in the Frontier Dispute
(Burkina FasolRepublic of'Mali) (1.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 578, para. 47)
and the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal in the EritveulYemen Awurd
(Second Phase), Nigeria contends that the Court has no jurisdiction over
the Cameroon claim to the extent that it toucht:~ on or affects areas
claimed by third States, and that the Court's lack. of jurisdiction is not
affected by whether or not the third State in question has intervened,
unless it has intervened with a view to becoming a party to the proceed-
ings and its intervention has been accepted on that basis.
229. Nigeria maintains in particular that the maritime delimitation
line claimed by Carrieroon encroaches on areas claimed by Equatorial
Guinea. Accordingly.,Nigeria states, if the Court were to uphold the line
claimed by Cameroon vis-à-vis Nigeria, it would 1)yclear and necessary
implication be rejectii~gthe claims of Equatorial Guinea concerning these
areas. Nigeria argues that the Court must exclude from the scope of its LAND .4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUI)GMENT) 418
Judgment in this case al1those areas of the delimitation zone which over-
lap with Equatorial Guinea's claims, provided that those claims satisfy
the test of being credible in law. It considers thatl1claims of Equatorial
Guinea which are within a strict equidistance line satisfy this test ofegal
credibility, and that the Court therefore cannot in its Judgment draw
a delimitation line beyond the tripoint equidistant from the coasts of
Cameroon, Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea.
230. Nigeria further contends that, since Equatorial Guinea has not
intervened as a party, the Court has no additional substantive jurisdic-
tion over that State by reason of the intervention under Article 62 of the
Statute. It adds that it is not enough to say, as Cameroon does, that a
decision of the Courit would not be binding on Equatorial Guinea or on
Sao Tome and Principe, since such ajudgment woilld nonetheless "create
an impression of finality which would operate in practice as a kind of
presumption". According to Nigeria, the role of a lion-party intervener in
a case before the Court is to inform the Court of its position, so that the
Court may refrain fr~omencroaching in its decision on credible claims of
that third party, thus enabling it to safeguard those claims without adju-
dicating upon them.
231. Nigeria accordingly concludes that the Court lacksjurisdiction to
deal with the maritilme delimitation line claimed by Cameroon, to the
extent that it impinges on areas claimed by Equatorial Guinea or by Sao
Tome and Principe, or alternatively, that the maritime delimitation line
claimed by Cameroon is inadmissible to that exteiit.
232. Cameroon for its part claims that no delimitation in this case can
affect Equatorial Guiineaor Sao Tome and Principe, as the Court's Judg-
ment will be res inter ulios nctu for al1 States other than itself and
Nigeria. Referring to the Judgment of the Court in the case concerning
the Continental ShelJ'(TunisiulLihyun Aruh Jumal~iriya) (1.C.J. Reports
1982, p. 91, para. 130), Cameroon contends that most of the maritime
boundary agreements that are already in force would never have come
into being if it had not been possible for the States concerned to reach a
bilateral agreement on a maritime boundary without there being any pre-
requisite as to the participation of al1such States as might potentially be
involved in the area in question. It insists that in the present case there is
no reason why the Court should not determine the respective rights of
Cameroon and Nigeria without prejudging the rights, of whatever nature,
of Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe.
233. Cameroon st,ates that it is not asking the Court to rule on the
course of its maritirrie boundary with Equatorial Guinea or Sao Tome
and Principe, or even to indicate the location of ;iny tripoint where the
borders of the Parties and the border of one or the other of these States
meet. Indeed Cameroon agrees that the Court has no power to do so.
Cameroon asks the Court to specify the course of the maritime boundary
between the two Parties in these proceedings "up to the outer limit of themaritime zones which international law places under the respectivejuris-
dictions of the two Parties". Cameroon argues that this will not amount
to a decision by the Court that this outer limit is a tripoint which affects
Equatorial Guinea 0.rSao Tome and Principe. Moreover, in accordance
with Article 59 of the Statute, the Judgment will in any event not be
opposable to those States as regards the course of their own boundaries.
In support of its argument, Cameroon relies inter uliu on the Judgment
of the Chamber in thlcFrontier Dispute (Burkina fusolRepuhlic of Mali)
(I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 554) and on that of the Court in the Territorial
Dispute (Libyan Artzb JumuhiriyulClzud) (I.C.J. Reports 1994, p. 6).
Cameroon argues that the reasoning applied in those Judgments, which
related to land bounclaries, should be no different when maritime bound-
aries are involved. Cameroon contends that the effect of the Court's
Judgment would be the same as a bilateral maritirne delimitation treaty,
which will not be opposable as such to third States,but by which the two
parties to the treaty may agree to fix their maritime boundary up to a
tripoint decided bilai.erally, without the participation of the third State
concerned.
234. Cameroon contends that it is not seeking to implicate third
States; nor is it askiilg the Court to solve its problems with Equatorial
Guinea or with Sao Tome and Principe at Nigeria's expense. Rather, it is
asking it to take into account the entire geographic situation in the
region, and in particular the disadvantage suffered by Cameroon as a
result of its position in the centre of a highly concave coastline, which
results in the claims of the adjoining States having a "pincer" effect upon
its own claims. It is simply asking the Court "to move, as it were, the
Nigerian part of the pincers in a way which reflecisthe geography".
235. Cameroon argues that non-party intervention cannot prevent the
Court from fully settling the dispute before it :
"[Wlhere the parties do not oppose the intervention and the latter
is authorized, as in the present case,. . the Court may (and must, in
accordance with the mission incumbent upon it definitively to settle
the disputes referred to it) proceed to a complete delimitation,
whether or not the latter is legally binding on the intervening
party . ..";
otherwise "the intervention régime would cease to have any point".
Cameroon argues that the purpose of Equatorial Guinea's inter-
vention is essentially to inform the Court with regard to the whole range
of interests at stake in the area concerned and to enable it with full
knowledge of the facts to undertake a complete and final delimitation.Nonetheless, in so doing, the Court will need to ensure that it does not
prejudice the interests of the intervening State, the relevance of which
it is for the Court to assess. Further, Cameroon contends that an inter-
vening State cannot, by making fanciful claims, preclude the Court from
ruling in itsjudgment on the area to which such claims relate.
236. Cameroon adds that there are several ways in which the rights of
Equatorial Guinea could be protected, should the Court find this neces-
sary, including by moving the delimitation line to take full account of
those rights, by refraining from ruling on the delimitation in the area
where there seems to be a problem, by making the line a discontinuous
one, or by indicating the direction of the boundary without ruling on a
terminal point. It emphasizes that the task of the Court should be to pro-
vide as complete a solution as possible to the dispute between the Parties.
237. The Court would first observe that its finding in its Judgment of
11 June 1998 on the eighth preliminary objectiori of Nigeria that that
preliminary objectiori did "not have, in the circumstances of the case,
an exclusively prelirninary character" (1.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 326,
para. 118 (2)) requires it to deal now with the preliminary objection
before proceeding further on the merits. That this is so follows from the
provisions on preliminary objections adopted by the Court in its Rules in
1972 and retained iri 1978, which provide that the Court is to give a
decision
"by which it shall either uphold the objection, reject it, or declare
that the objection does not possess in the circumstances of the case,
an exclusively preliminary character. If the Court rejects the objec-
tion or declares that it does not possess an exclusively preliminary
character, it shall fix time-limits for the further proceedings." (Rules
of Court, Art. 79, para. 7.)
(See Questions of In,terpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal
Convention arising from the Aerial Incident ut Lockerbie (Libyan Arab
Jun~ahiriya v. United Kingdom), Preliminury Objections, Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 1998, pp. 27-28. paras. 49-50; Questions of Interpretation and
Application of the 1971 Montreul Convention arising from the Aerial
Incident ut Lockerbie (Libyan Arah Jamahiriyu v. United States of
America), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 1.C.J. Reports 1998,
pp. 132-134, paras. 48-49 ; Military und Paramilitary Activities in and
uguinst Nicaraguu (Nicaragua v. United States of Americu), Merits,
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 30, para. 40.) Since Nigeria maintains
its objection, the Court must now rule on it. 238. The jurisdiction of the Court is founded on the consent of the
parties. The Court cannot therefore decide upori legal rights of third
States not parties to the proceedings. In the preserit case there are States
other than the parties to these proceedings whose rights might be affected,
namely Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe. Those rights can-
not be determined by decision of the Court unless Equatorial Guinea and
Sao Tome and Principe have become parties to the proceedings. Equato-
rial Guinea has indeed requested -- and has been granted - permission
to intervene, but as a.nonlparty intervener only. ~ao Tome and Principe
has chosen not to intervene on any basis.
The Court considers that, in particular in the case of maritime delimi-
tations where the maritime areas of several States are involved, the pro-
tection afforded by A,rticle59 of the Statute may not always be sufficient.
In the present case, Article 59 may not sufficiently protect Equatorial
Guinea or Sao Tome and Principe from the effecis - even if only indi-
rect - of a judgment affecting their legal rights. The jurisprudence cited
by Cameroon does riot prove otherwise. In its decision in the case con-
cerning the Contineiztal Sl~elf (TunisialLih~an ilrub Jumahiriya), the
Court did not deal with rights of third States; what was principally at
issue there was the question of proportionality of coastline lengths in
relation to the process of delimitation between the parties (I.C.J. Reports
1982, p. 91, para. 130). It follows that, in fixing the maritime boundary
between Cameroon and Nigeria, the Court must (mure that it does not
adopt any position which might affect the rights of Equatorial Guinea
and Sao Tome and Principe. Nor does the Court accept Cameroon's con-
tention that the reasoning in the Frontier Dispute (Burkina FasolRepub-
lic of Mali) (1. C J. Reports 1986, p. 554) and the Territorial Dispute
(Llhyan Arab JamahiriyalChad) (1. C.J. Reports 1994, p. 6)in regard to
land boundaries is necessarily transposable to those concerning maritime
boundaries. These aire two distinct areas of the Iaw, to which different
factors and considerations apply. Moreover, in ielation to the specific
issue of the tripoint. i.heCourt notes that both Parties agree that it should
not fix one. It is indeed not entitled to do so. In determining any line, the
Court must take acc~ountof this.
In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that it cannot rule on
Cameroon's claims in so far as they might affect rights of Equatorial
Guinea and Sao Torne and Principe. Nonetheless, the mere presence of
those two States, whose rights might be affected by the decision of the
Court, does not in itself preclude the Court from having jurisdiction over
a maritime delimitation between the Parties to the case before it, namely
Cameroon and Nigeria, although it must remain mindful, as always in
sitiiations of this kind, of the limitations on its jurisdiction that such
presence imposes. 239. The issue of prior negotiation between the Parties in relation to
the maritime delimitation likewise was previously considered by the
Court in its Judgmerit of 11 June 1998 on the preliminary objections of
Nigeria, i.e.. under the seventh preliminary objection of Nigeria. In rela-
tion to that objection, Nigeria had argued, inter alia, that the Court can-
not properly be seised by the unilateral application of one State in rela-
tion to the delimitation of an exclusive economic zone or continental
shelf boundary if thiit State had made no attempt to reach agreement
with the respondent State over that boundary, contrary to the provisions
of Articles 74 and 83 of the United Nations Con\iention on the Law of
the Sea of 10 December 1982. The Court rejected this argument, noting
that,
"in this case, it,a[d]not been seised on the basis of Article 36, para-
graph 1,of the Statute, and, in pursuance of it, in accordance with
Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
relating to the settlement of disputes arising between the parties to
the Convention with respect to its interpretation or application".
The Court had, on the contrary, "been seised on the basis of declarations
made under Article :36,paragraph 2", and those declarations "[did] not
contain any condition relating to prior negotiations to be conducted
within a reasonable time period" (1.C. J. Reports 1'298,p. 322, para. 109).
240. Nigeria states that it accepts this decision, but argues that the
Court's jurisdiction is a separate question from the substantive law appli-
cable to the dispute. The Court's Judgment of 11 June 1998 was con-
cerned only with the former question. As to the question of the substan-
tive law applicable to the dispute, Nigeria argues that Article 74,
paragraph 1,and Article 83, paragraph 1,of the United Nations Conven-
tion on the Law of thieSea require that the parties to a dispute over mari-
time delimitation should first attempt to resolve their dispute by negotia-
tion. According to Nigeria, these provisions lay down a substantive rule,
not a procedural prerequisite. Negotiation is prescribed as the proper and
primary way of achieving an equitable maritime delimitation, and the
Court is not a forum for negotiations.
241. Nigeria accepts that, to the extent that the dispute over the mari-
time boundary pertains to areas around point G and to the areas of over-
lapping licences, this requirement has been satisfied. However, it main-
tains that waters to the south of 4" and 3" latitude north and even 2",
have never been the subject of any attempt at negotiation with Nigeria
or, as far as Nigeriaisaware, with any other affecied State. According to
Nigeria, the first time that it had notice that Cameroon was departing
from the status quo, and was claiming an "equitable line" beyond point G,
was when it received Cameroon's Memorial. It contends that Cameroon
made no prior attempt even to present its claim at diplomatic level. WhileNigeria accepts the Court's finding in its 1998Judgment that "Cameroon
and Nigeria entered into negotiations with a view to determining the
whole of the maritime boundary" (1. C.J. Reports 1998, p. 322, para. 1IO),
it insists that those negotiations were not even reniotely concerned with
the line now claimed by Cameroon in any of its versions. Rather, these
negotiations are said 1.0have been directed to establishing the location of
the tripoint between Cameroon, Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea, on the
basis of an acceptance that there was a de facto maritime border in
the area. Nigeria concludes that Cameroon's clairn beyond the area of
the overlapping licences, or to the extent that it coricerns the areas to the
Westand south-west of Bioko, is inadmissible.
242. For its part, Cameroon contends that Nigeria is "resurrecting"
the second branch of its seventh preliminary objection, which the Court
rejected in its Judgment of 11 June 1998, and that Nigeria is attempting,
in thinly disguised terms, to persuade the Court tc~reconsider that deci-
sion. It maintains that negotiation is only a first attempt towards achiev-
ing maritime delimitation,the next being, should that attempt fail, delimi-
tation by a judicial or arbitral body. This is expressly recognized by
paragraph 2 of Articles 74 and 83 of the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea, which stipulate that if "no agreement can be reached
within a reasonable period of time, the States concerned shall resort to
the procedures provided for in part XV".
243. Cameroon ar,gues that, while point G may be the last point on
which there was agreement between the Parties in the delimitation of
their maritime bounclary, it was not the last poini on which there were
negotiations. It insists that, even if they proved to be unfruitful, there
were in fact intense neeouiations between the two States which. from
the outset, focused on the entire maritime boundary, a fact which was
acknowledged in the Court's Judgment of 11 June 1998,in which it found
that "Cameroon and Nigeria entered into negoti~tions tvith a view to
determining the ivhole of tfzemaritime boundary" (1.C.J. Reports 1998,
p. 322, para. 110; emphasis added by Cameroon). Cameroon says that a
negotiated agreement concerning the entire boundary had proved impos-
sible, and that Carneroon has acted in consequeiice by submitting the
matter to the Court. It adds that, if the two Parties were not able to go
further in the negotiations, it was because the bad faith displayed by
Nigeria either ruined any hope of reaching a new ,igreement or removed
in advance the value of any agreement which might have been arrived at.
Cameroon insists that, since it was the conduct of Uigeria that led to this
impasse, Nigeria cannot now take advantage of its own wrongful behav-
iour to prevent Cameroon from achieving full and final settlement of the
disputebetween the two States by bringing the matter before this Court.
Cameroon concludes that, as the Parties have been unable to reach agree-
ment, it is for the Court to substitute itself for them and to delimit thejoint maritime boundary upon which they have been unable to agree
beyond point G. It ai-guesthat for the Court to rcfrain from delimiting
beyond point G would leave a major source of coiiflict between the two
Parties. Such an abstention on the Court's part would also implicitly
uphold the maritime division agreed upon by Nigeria and Equatorial
Guinea in the Treaty of 23 September 2000, whicli Cameroon contends
was concluded in utter disregard of its own rights. It adds that no provi-
sion of the Convention precludes the limits of the exclusive economic
zone and the continental shelf of a coastal State from being determined
by an international tribunal, at the express request of that State within
the context of settlement of a dispute brought before it.
244. The Court noted in its Judgment of 11June 1998 (1C.J. Reports
1998, p. 321, para. 1017a,nd p. 322, para. 110)that negotiations between
the Governments of Cameroon and Nigeria concerning the entire mari-
time delimitation - i~pto point G and beyond - were conducted as far
back as the 1970s. These negotiations did not 1t:ad to an agreement.
However. Articles 74 and 83 of the United Nations Law of the Sea Con-
vention do not require that delimitation negotiatic~nsshould be success-
ful; like al1similar obligations to negotiate in interriational law, the nego-
tiations have to be conducted in good faith. The Court reaffirms its
finding in regard to the preliminary objections that negotiations have
indeed taken place. Moreover, if, following unsuccessful negotiations,
judicial proceedings are instituted and one of the parties then alters its
claim, Articles 74 and 83 of the Law of the Sea <:onvention would not
require that the proceedings be suspended while riew negotiations were
conducted. It is of course true that the Court is not a negotiating forum.
In such a situation, however, the new claim would have to be dealt with
exclusively by judicial means. Any other solution would lead to delays
and complications in the process of delimitation of continental shelves
and exclusive economic zones. The Law of the Sea Convention does not
require such a susperision of the proceedings.
245. As to negotiations with Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and
Principe, the Court does not find that it follows from Articles 74 and 83
of the Law of the Sea Convention that the drawing of the maritime
boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria presupposes that simultaneous
negotiations between al1four States involved have taken place.
The Court is therefore in a position to proceed to the delimitation of
the maritime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria in so far as the
rights of Equatorial Guinea and SaoTome and Principe are not affected.
246. In order to do this, the Court will deal with Cameroon's claim onmaritime delimitation, as well as with the submissions of Nigeria on the
issue.
247. The Court turns now to Cameroon's request for the tracing of a
precise line of maritime delimitation. It will first address the sector of the
maritime boundary up to point G.
248. According tc) Cameroon, the maritime boundary between
Cameroon and Nigeria is divided into two sectors. The first, from the
mouth of the Akwayafe River to point G fixed by the Maroua Dec-
laration of 1 June 1975, is said to have been delimited by valid inter-
national agreements between the Parties. In relation to this sector,
Cameroon asks the Court merely to confirm that delimitation, which it
says that Nigeria is now seeking to reopen. The sector beyond point G
remains to be delimited, and Cameroon requests the Court to fix the
limits of the Parties' respective areas in this sectoi, so as to put a com-
plete and final end to the dispute between them.
249. The delimitation of the first sector, froin the mouth of the
Akwayafe River to point G, is said by Cameroon to be based mainly on
three international legal instruments, namely the Anglo-German Agree-
ment of 11 March 1'913,the Cameroon-Nigeria Agreement of 4 April
1971, comprising the Yaoundé II Declaration and the appended
Chart 3433, and the ]Maroua Declaration of 1 June 1975.
250. Cameroon argues that the Anglo-German Agreement of 11March
1913 fixes the point alt which the maritime boundary is anchored to the
land at the mouth of the Akwayafe, at the intersection of the thalweg of
that river and a "straight line joining Bakassi Point and King Point".
From the mouth of the Akwayafe, Cameroon invokes Article XXI of the
Agreement, which provides that "the boundary shall follow the centre of
the navigable channel of the Akwayafe River as fai-as the 3-mile limit of
territorial jurisdiction", as well as Article XXII thereof, which States that
the said limit shall be "taken as a lin3 nautical niiles seaward of a line
joining Sandy Point and Tom Shot Point".
251. Cameroon points out that in 1970 a Joint Commission was
established, its first task being to delimit the maritime boundary
between Cameroon and Nigeria. Its initial objective was to determine
the course of the boundary as far as the 3-mile limit. Its work
resulted in the Yaoundé II Declaration of 4 Api-il 1971, under which
the Heads of State of the two parties adopted a "compromise line"
which they jointly direw and signed on British Admiralty Chart 3433.
Starting from the straight line joining Bakaisi Point and King
Point, the line consisted of 12 numbered points, whose precise co-
ordinates were determined by the Commissiori, meeting in Lagos
pursuant to the Declaration, the following June Cameroon contends
that that Declaratioln represented an international agreement bind-
ing on bot11 Parties and that this fact was later confirmed by the
terms of the Maroua Declaration of 1June 1975, which was likewise abinding international agreement (see paragraphs 252 and 253 below).
252. Thereafter, according to Cameroon, between 1971 and 1975 a
number of unsuccessfi~lattempts to reach agreement on the delimitation
of further parts of the maritime boundary were made. It was only at the
summit meeting held in Maroua from 30 May to 1 June 1975 that an
agreement could be i-eached on the definitive course of the maritime
boundary from point 12to point G. The Joint Communiqué issued at the
end of that meeting was signed by the Heads of St'ite. Cameroon draws
particular attentionto the statement in the Communiqué that the signa-
tories "have reached jûll ugreement on the exczctcourse of the maritime
boundary" (emphasis added by Cameroon).
253. Cameroon acc.ordingly maintains that the Yaoundé II Declara-
tion and the Maroua Declaration thus provide a binding definition of the
boundary delimiting the respective maritime spaces of Cameroon and
Nigeria.
Cameroon argues that the signing of the Maroua Agreement by the
Heads of State of Nigeria and Cameroon on 1 Julie 1975 expresses the
consent of the two States to be bound by that treaty; that the two Heads
of State manifested their intention to be bound bg the instrument they
signed; that no reservation or condition was expressed in the text, and
that the instrument was not expressed to be subject to ratification; that
the publication of the Joint Communiqué signed by the Heads of State is
also proof of that consent; that the validity of the Maroua Agreement
was confirmed by the subsequent exchange of letters between the Heads
of State of the two countries correcting a technicai error in the calcula-
tion of one of the points on the newly agreed line; and that the reference
to Yaoundé II in the Maroua Agreement confirms that the legal status of
the former is no diffei-ent from that of the latter.
Cameroon further argues that these conclusions are confirmed by the
publicity given to the partial maritime boundary established by the
Maroua Agreement, which was notified to the Secretariat of the United
Nations and published in a whole range of publications which have wide-
spread coverage and are well known in the field of maritime boundary
delimitation. It conterids that they are, moreover, confirmed by the con-
temporary practice of States, by the Vienna Convtmtion on the Law of
Treaties and by the fact that international law comes down unequivocally
in favour of the stability and permanence of boundary agreements,
whether land or mari1ime.
254. Nigeria for its part draws no distinction between the area up to
point G and the area beyond. It denies the existence of a maritime delimi-
tation up to that point, and maintains that the whole maritime delimita-
tion must be underta~ken de novo. Nonetheless, Nigeria does advance
specific arguments regarding the area up to point G, which it is appro-
priate to address in this part of the Judgment.
255. In the first place, on the basis of its claim to sovereignty over theBakassi Peninsula, Nigeria contends that the line of the maritime bound-
ary between itself and Cameroon will commence in the waters of the Rio
del Rey and run down the median line towards the open sea. Since the
Court has already found that sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula lies
with Cameroon and not with Nigeria (see paragraph 225 above), it is
unnecessary to deal any further with this argumenl of Nigeria.
256. Nigeria further contends that, even if Cameroon's claim to Bakassi
were valid, Cameroon's claim to a maritime boundiiry should have taken
into account the wells and other installations on each side of the line
established by the oil practice and should not change the status quo in
this respect. Thus, C,ameroon would have been justified in claiming at
most a maritime boundary proceeding southwards, then south-westwards
to the equidistance line between East Point (Nigzria) and West Point
(Bakassi), and then along the equidistance line until it reached the mari-
time boundary with Bioko (Equatorial Guinea), at the approximate posi-
tion longitude 8" 19'east and latitude 4'4' north, nrhile leaving a zone of
500 m around the Parties' fixed installations.
257. In relation to the Yaoundé II Declaration, Nigeria contends that
it was not a binding agreement, but simply represented the record of
a meeting which "foi-med part of an ongoing programme of meetings
relating to the maritime boundary", and that the matter "was subject
to further discussion at subsequent meetings".
258. Nigeria likewise regards the Maroua Declai-ation as lacking legal
validity, since it "was not ratified by the Supreme hlilitary Council" after
being signed by the Nigerian Head of State. It states that under the
Nigerian constitutioni in force at the relevant time - June 1975 -
executive acts were in general to be carried out by the Supreme Military
Council or subject tcs its approval. It notes thal States are normally
expected to follow legislative and constitutional df:velopments in neigh-
bouring States which have an impact upon the iriter-State relations of
those States, and that few limits can be more important than those
affecting the treaty-making power. It adds that on 23 August 1974, nine
months before the Maroua Declaration, the then Head of State of
Nigeria had written to the then Head of State of ('ameroon, explaining,
with reference to a meeting with the latter in August 1972 at Garoua,
that "the proposals of the experts based on the documents they prepared
on the 4th April 1971 were not acceptable to the Nigerian Government",
and that the views and recommendations of the joint commission
"must be subject to the agreement of the two Governments". Nigeria
contends that this shows that any arrangements that might be agreed
between the two Heads of State were subject tcl the subsequent and
separate approval of the Nigerian Government. Nigeria says that Cameroon, according to an objective test based upon
the provisions of the Vienna Convention, either knew or, conducting
itself in a normally prudent manner, should have kiiown that the Head of
State of Nigeria did niot have the authority to makz legally binding com-
mitinents without referring back to the Nigerian Government - at
that time the Supreme Military Council - and that it should therefore
have been "objectively evident" to Cameroon, uithin the meaning of
Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
that the Head of State of Nigeria did not have ~inrestricted authority.
Nigeria adds that Article 7, paragraph 2, of the L'ienna Convention on
the Law of Treaties, which provides that Heads clf State and Heads of
Government "[iln virtue of their functions and without having to produce
full powers . . . are considered as representing their State", is solely con-
cerned with the way in which a person's function as a state's representa-
tive is established, but does not deal with the extent of that person's
powers when exercising that representative function.
259. Nigeria further States that since 1977,in bilateral summits between
Heads of State and between boundary experts, it has confirmed that the
Maroua Declaration was not ratified and was therefore not binding on
Nigeria. It argues that it is clear also from minuti:s of meetings held in
Yaoundé in 1991 and 1993 that Nigeria had never accepted that it was
bound by the Maroua Declaration.
260. Cameroon rejects the argument of Nigeria that the Maroua Dec-
laration can be regarded as a nullity by Nigeria on the ground that it was
not ratified by Nigeria's Supreme Military Council. Cameroon denies
that any communicai.ion was made during a 1977 meeting between the
two Heads of State to the effect that the Declaration was not binding on
Nigeria, and claims that it was not until 1978, some three-and-a-half
years after the Declaration, that Nigeria announcecl its intention to chal-
lenge it. Cameroon argues that Nigeria has not shown that the constitu-
tion of Nigeria did in fact require the agreement to be ratified by the
Supreme Military Council. In any event, invoking Article 7, paragraph 2,
of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Cameroon argues that
as a matter of international law a Head of State ii always considered as
representing his or her State for the purpose of expressing the consent of
the State to be boundl by a treaty. Cameroon also inaintains that, even if
there was a violation of the internal law of Nigeria, the alleged violation
was not "manifest", and did not concern a rule oi'internal law "of fun-
damental importance", within the meaning of Article 46, paragraph 1, of
the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
261. The Court has already found that the Anglo-German Agreement
of 11 March 1913 is valid and applicable in its entirety and that, in con-
sequence, territorial title to the Bakassi Peninsula lies with Cameroon
(see paragraph 225 above). It follows from these findings that the mari-time boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria lies to the west of the
Bakassi Peninsula ancl not to the east, in the Rio del Rey. It also follows
from these findings that the maritime boundary l~etweenthe Parties is
"anchored" to the mainland at the intersection of the straight line from
Bakassi Point to King Point with the centre of the navigable channel of
the Akwayafe River in accordance with Articles XVIII and XXI of the
said Anglo-German Agreement.
262. It is apparent from the documents provided to the Court by the
Parties that, irrespective of what may have been the intentions of its
original signatories,tlheYaoundé II Declaration wirscalled into question
on a number of occasions by Nigeria subsequently to its signature and to
the Joint Boundary Commission meeting of June 1971, in particular at a
Commission meeting of May 1972, and again at a meeting of the two
Heads of State at Garoua in August 1972, where the Head of State of
Nigeria, described it as "unacceptable". Moreover, the Head of State of
Nigeria subsequently confirmed his position in the Ietter of 23 August
1974 to his Cameroonian counterpart (see paragraph 258 above).
However, it is unnecessary to determine the staius of the Declaration
in isolation,since the line described therein is confirmed by the terms of
the Maroua Declaration, which refers in its third paragraph to "Point 12
. ..situated at the enidof the line of the maritime boundary adopted by
the two Heads of Staie on April4, 1971". If the Maroua Declaration rep-
resents an international agreement binding on botli parties, it necessarily
follows that the line contained in the Yaoundé II Declaration, including
the CO-ordinatesas agreed at the June 1971 meeting of the Joint Bound-
ary Commission, is also binding on them.
263. The Court considers that the Maroua Declaration constitutes an
international aeueemicnt concluded between States in written form and
tracing a boundary; it is thus governed by international law and consti-
tutes a treaty in the sense of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Trea-
ties (see Art. 2, para. l), to which Nigeria has been a party since 1969and
Cameroon since 199 1, and which in any case reflects customary interna-
tional law in this respect.
264. The Court cannot accept the argument thal the Maroua Declara-
tion was invalid uncler international law because it was signed by the
Nigerian Head of State of the time but never ratified. Thus while in inter-
national practice a tvvo-step procedure consisting of signature and ratifi-
cation is frequently provided for in provisions regarding entry into force
of a treaty, there are also cases where a treaty eiiters into force imme-
diately upon signature. Both customary internatiorial law and the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties leave it completely up to States which
procedure they want to follow. Under the Maroua Declaration, "the two
Heads of State of C;rmeroon and Nigeria agreed to extend the delinea-
tion of the maritime boundary between the two countries from Point 12
to Point G on the Admiralty Chart No. 3433 annexed to this Declara-tion". In the Court'is view, that Declaration entcred into force imme-
diately upon its signature.
265. The Court will now address Nigeria's argument that its constitu-
tional rules regarding the conclusion of treaties were not complied with.
In this regard the Court recalls that Article 46. paragraph 1, of the
Vienna Convention provides that "[a] State may not invoke the fact that
its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a
provision of its interrial law regarding competence to conclude treaties as
invalidating its consent". It is true that the paragraph goes on to say
"unless that violation was manifest and concerneci a rule of its interna1
law of fundamental importance", while paragraph 2 of Article 46 pro-
vides that "[a] violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to
any State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal prac-
tice and in good faith". The rules concerning the authority to sign treaties
for a State are constirutionalrules of fundamental importance. However,
a limitation of a Head of State's capacity in this respect is notanifest in
the sense of Article 46, paragraph 2, unless at least properly publicized.
This is particularly sobecause Heads of State belong to the group of per-
sons who, in accordamcewith Article 7, paragrapli 2, of the Convention
"[iln virtue of their f~inctionsand without having to produce full powers"
are considered as representing their State.
The Court cannot accept Nigeria's argument that Article 7, para-
graph 2, of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is solely con-
cerned with the way in which a person's function as a state's representa-
tive is established, but does not deal with the extent of that person's
powers when exercising that representative funclion. The Court notes
that the commentary of the International Law Commission on Article 7,
paragraph 2, expressly States that "Heads of State . .. are considered as
representing their State for the purpose of perforniing al1acts relating to
the conclusion of a treaty" (ILC Commentary, Ait. 6 (of what was then
the draft Conventioni), para. 4, Yearbook of the Irtternationul Law Com-
mission, 1966,Vol. II, p. 193).
266. Nigeria furthier argues that Cameroon kriew, or ought to have
known, that the Heald of State of Nigeria had no power legally to bind
Nigeria withoiit consulting the Nigerian Governrrient. In this regard the
Court notes that there is no general legal obligation for States to keep
themselves informed of legislative and constitutonal developments in
other States which are or may become important for the international
relations of these States.
In this case the Head of State of Nigeria had in August 1974stated in
his letter to the Head of State of Cameroon that the views of the Joint
Commission "must be subject to the agreemeni of the two Govern-
ments". However, in the following paragraph of that same letter, hefurther indicated: "It has always been my beliefthat we can, both, together
re-examine the situation and reach an appropriate and acceptable deci-
sion on the matter." Contrary to Nigeria's contention, the Court con-
siders that these two statements, read together, cannot be regarded as
a specificwarning to Cameroon that the Nigerian Government would riot
be bound by any cornmitment entered into by the Head of State. And in
particular they could not be understood as relatiiig to any commitment
to be made at Maroua nine months later. The letter in question in fact
concerned a meeting to be held at Kano, Nigeria, from 30 August to
1September 1974.This letter seems to have been part of a pattern which
marked the Parties' boundary negotiations between 1970 and 1975, in
which the two Heads of State took the initiative of resolving difficulties in
those negotiations through person-to-person agreements, including those
at Yaoundé II and Maroua.
267. The Court further observes that in July 1975 the two Parties
inserted a correction in the Maroua Declaration, that in so acting they
treated the Declarati'onas valid and applicable, and that Nigeria does not
claim to have contested its validity or applicability prior to 1977.
268. In these circumstances the Maroua Decl;iration, as well as the
Yaoundé II Declarai:ion, have to be considered as binding and as estab-
lishing a legal obligation on Nigeria. It follows that it is unnecessary for
the Court to address Nigeria's argument regarding the oil practice in the
sector up to point G (see paragraph 256 above). Thus the maritime
boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria up to and including point G
must be considered 1.0have been established on a conventional basis by
the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913, the Yaoundé II Dec-
laration of 4 April 1971and the Maroua Declaration of 1June 1975,and
takes the following course: starting from the straight linejoining Bakassi
Point and King Point, the line follows the "coinpromise line" jointly
drawn at Yaoundé cm4 April 1971 by the Heads of State of Cameroon
and Nigeria on British Admiralty Chart 3433 appeilded to the YaoundéII
Declaration of 4 April 1971, and passing througli 12 numbered points,
whose precise co-ordinates were determined by tlie two countries' Joint
Commission meeting in Lagos in June 1971 ;from point 12on that com-
promise line the course of the boundary follows the line to pointG speci-
fied in the Maroua Declaration of 1 June 197!i, as corrected by the
exchange of letters between the Heads of State of Cameroon and Nigeria
of 12 June and 17 July 1975.
269. The Court will now address the maritime boundary beyond
point G, where no maritime boundary delimitation has been agreed.
Cameroon states that this is a classic case of maritime delimitation
between States with adjacent coasts which have been unable to reach LAND .4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 432
agreement on the lin<:to be drawn between their respective exclusiveeco-
nomic zones and continental shelves, although in this case the special cir-
cumstances of the geographical situation are pai,ticularly marked, and
the Court is also required to take account of the iiiterests of third States.
270. As regards the exerciseof delimitation, Caineroon argues that the
law on the delimitation of maritime boundaries is dominated by the
fundamental principle that any delimitation must lead to an equitable
solution. In support lofthis contention, it cites paragraph 1of Articles 74
and 83 of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and a number of decisions
of this Court or of arbitral tribunals. In particular, it cites the North Sea
Continental Slzelf cases (I.C.J. Reports 1969, p 4), which, it claims,
adopted equity as the applicable legal concept. It also quotes, inter alia,
the Court's dictum in the case concerning Maritime Delimitation in the
Area betiveen Greenr'andand Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway) (I.C.J.
Reports 1993, p. 62, para. 54), where it is stated ihat "[tlhe aim in each
and every situation must be to achieve 'an equitable result'", as well as a
dictum of the Court of Arbitration to similar effect in the case concerning
Delimitatiorz of tlze Continental Shelf (United KingdomlFrance) (RIAA,
Vol. XVIII, p. 57, para. 97). Cameroon also refers to the Court's most
recentjurisprudence in the matter in the case conceining Maritime Delimi-
tation and Territorial Questions between Qatar und Bahrain (Qatar v.
Bahrain), and in particular the Court's statemer~tthat it should "first
provisionally draw an equidistance line and then consider whether there
are circumstances which must lead to an adjustnient of that line". But
Cameroon adds that it does not believe that the Court intended thereby
to cal1into question its own previous jurisprudence establishing that "the
fundamental principle . . the essential purpose, the sole purpose, is to
arrive at an equitabli: solution".
271. Cameroon accordingly concludes that there is no single method
of maritime delimitation; the choice of method depends on the circum-
stances specific to each case. In support of this contention, it cites inter
alia the dictum of the Chamber in the caseconcerning Delimitation of the
Maritime Boundary in the Gulfof Maine Area that
"the most appropriate criteria, and the method or combination of
methods most likely to yield a result consonant with what the law
indicates, can orily be determined in relation to each particular case
and its specificcharacteristics"1.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 290,para. 81).
Cameroon insists on the fact that the equidistance principle is not a prin-
ciple of customary law that is automatically applicable in every maritime
boundary delimitation between States whose coasts are adjacent, observ- LAND ,\ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUT~GMENT) 433
ing that, if a strict equidistance line were drawn, it would be entitled to
practically no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, despite the
fact that it has a longer relevant coastlinethan Nigeria.
272. Citing the Court's case law and the approach adopted by the
Arbitral Tribunal in the case concerning the Delilnitution of the Guinea
und Guinea-Bissau Maritime Boundary (International Legal Materials
JILM), Vol. 25 (1986), p. 252), Cameroon contends that, because of the
particular geography of the Gulf of Guinea, it is necessary to determine
the relevant area witliin which the delimitation itself is to be undertaken,
and that such an area may include the coastlines of third States. Accord-
ing to Cameroon, the relevant area in the present case consists of that part
of the Gulf of Guineir bounded by a straight line rilnning from Akasso in
Nigeria to Cap Lapez in Gabon. Within that area, Cameroon has pre-
sented to Nigeria and to the Court what it calls m equitable line, sub-
tended by "projection lines" connecting points on the "relevant coasts", a
number of which are in fact situated in third States It claims that this line
represents an equidistance line adjusted to take account of the relevant
circumstances so as to produce an equitable solution, and insists that this
is not an attempt to "refashion geography". It add:; that a single delimita-
tion line of the maritime boundary is appropriatt: in this case and that
Nigeria has acceptecl that this is so. The relevarit circumstances to be
taken into account according to Cameroon are the following: the overall
situation in the Gulf of Guinea, where the contiriental shelves of Cam-
eroon, Nigeria and Elquatorial Guinea overlap, so that none of the three
countries can lay clairn, within the natural extension of the land territory
of the other, to exclusive rights over the continerital shelf; Cameroon's
legal right to a continental shelf representing the frontal projection of its
coasts; the general cclnfiguration of Cameroon's and Nigeria's coasts, and
in particular the concavity of Cameroon's coastline, which creates a vir-
tua1 "enclavement" of Cameroon, and the change in direction of Nigeria's
coast from Akasso; the relative lengths of the coastlines involved; the
presence of Bioko Island opposite the coast of Cameroon. In relation
to each of these circ:umstances, Cameroon cites -urisprudence which is
claimed to support the delimitation line which it proposes.
273. As regards the first four of the above circumstances, Cameroon
relies in particular csn the North Seu Continenlul Slîelf cases (1.C.J.
Reports 1969, p. 4),the case concerning Delimitation of the Maritime
Boundary in the Gulf'of Maine Area (I.C.J. Rept~rts1984, p. 246). the
case concerning the Continental Shelf(Tunisia1Lil-tyan Arah Jumuhiriyu)
(I.C.J. Reports 1982, p. 18), the case concerning Maritime Delimitation
in the Areu hetween Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norwuy)
(I.C.J. Reports 1993. p. 38) and the Arbitral Award in the case concern-
ing the Delimitation of the Guinea and Guinea-Bi~sauMaritime Bound-
ary (ILM, Vol. 25 (1!)86),p. 252). It contends that in al1of these cases the
circumstances in question led the court or tribunal in question to makean adjustment of thleequidistance line in order to achieve an equitable
result - in some cases a very substantial one, amounting, as for example
in the Jan Mayen case, to an actual "shifting" of the line (1. C.J. Reports
1993, p. 79, para. 90), and, in the North Sea Continental Shelfcases, to
an increase of some 37.5 per cent in the area of continental shelf which
equidistance alone accorded to Germany. Cameroon also cites the solu-
tion found by the Arbitral Tribunal in the case ccncerning the Delimita-
tion of Maritime Areas between Canada and the French Republic
(St. Pierre et Miquelon) (ILM, Vol. 31 (1992),p. 1149)in order to over-
come St. Pierre's enclavement and give it uninteriupted equitable access
to the continental shelf.
274. In relation to the fifth circumstance, the presence opposite its
coast of Bioko Island, which is part of Equatorial Guinea, but is closer to
the coast of Cameroon than to that of Equatorial Guinea, Cameroon
draws an analogy with the case concerning the Delimitation of the Con-
tinental Shelf (United KingdomiFrance) (RIAA, Vol. XVIII, p. 3), in
which the Court of Arbitration refused to attiibute to the Channel
Islands the full effect claimed by Great Britain and decided that they
were an enclave lying totally within the French continental shelf.
Cameroon further contends, arguing a contrario from the Court's rea-
soning in the case concerning the Continental Sheif (Libyan Arab Jama-
hiriyulMalta) (1.C.J. Reports 1985, p. 42, para. 53),that "[tlhe delimita-
tion régimeis not identical for an island State and for a dependent,
isolated island falling under the sovereignty of a State". Arguing that
Bioko should not necessarily be given its full effcct, it insists that what
must be avoided at al1costs isa "radical and absolute cut-off of the pro-
jection of [Cameroon's] coastal front". In this regard it cites a dictum
from the Award in the case concerning Delimitation of Maritime Areas
betbveen Canada and the French Republic (St. Pierre et Miquelon), in
which the Arbitral Tribunal stated that "the delimitation must leave to a
Statethe areas that constitutethe natural prolongation or seaward exten-
sion of itscoasts, so that the delimitation must avc~idany cut-off effect of
those prolorigations or seaward extensions" (ILM, Vol. 31(1992),p. 1167,
para. 58).
275. On the basis of these arguments, Cameroon, in its final submis-
sions, asks the Couri. to delimit as follows the maritime areas appertain-
ing respectively to Cameroon and Nigeria beyond point G:
"- from point G the equitable line follows the direction indicated
by points (3, H (CO-ordinates8'21' 16" east and 4" 17" north),
1 (7"55'40"east and 3"46'north), J (7" 12'08"east and 3"12'35"
north), K (6"45'22" east and 3"01'05" north), and continues
from K up to the outer limit of the maritime zones which inter-
national law places under the respective jurisdiction of the two
Parties". LAND 4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUI~GMENT) 435
276. Nigeria agrees that it is appropriate in the present case to deter-
mine a single maritime boundary, but it rejects Cameroon's line. It
describes it as fanciful and constructed in defiance of the basic concepts
and rules of international law. It criticizes both the line's construction
and the "equitableness" of the result in light of'the jurisprudence. It
directs its criticism of the construction essentially to five points: the
actual nature of the Iline;the relevant coasts used in its construction; the
treatment of the islands in this construction; the definition of the area
relevant to the delimitation; the method followed in the construction of
the line.
277. In relation to the nature of the line proposed by Cameroon,
Nigeria contends tha.t this is not a "delimitation line" but an "exclusion
line". The Camerooriian line is claimed to
"pre-empt any delimitation between Nigeri.3 and the two States
whose coasts fa~reits own with no intervening obstacle, i.e., Equa-
torial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe, in areas that at each
point are nearer to and more closely connected with the coasts of
these three States than with the Camerooniari coastline".
In that sense it is claiimedto be an exclusion line and hence incom~atible
with international law.
278. As regards relevant coasts, Nigeria, citing Articles 15, 74 and 83
of the 1982Convention on the Law of the Sea, points out that the coasts
to be taken into account in the construction of a maritime delimitation
line must be "adjacent" or "opposite". Moreover, they must be coasts of
the parties, and not i.hoseof a third State. In this regard Nigeria consid-
ers that the relevant coast of Nigeria is that running Westfrom its bound-
ary with Cameroon as far as Akasso (where it changes direction north-
westwards, turning its back on the Gulf of Guinea). and that of Cameroon
is the coast running east from the boundary between the two States and
then south, as far as Debundsha Point, which marks the beginning of the
blocking effect of Bioko Island. Moreover, according to Nigeria, Cam-
eroon's line fails to lake due account of the critei.ion of proportionality
which, Nigeria claims, is in its own favour by a factor of between 1 :1.3
and 1:3.2, depending on the precise points used.
279. As to the treatment of the islands, Nigeria begins by recalling
the dictum of the Court in 1969that "[tlhere can never be any question
of completely refashiioning nature" (North Sea Continental Shelj; 1.C. J.
Reports 1969, p. 49, para. 91).
Nigeria contends that the Cameroonian line seeks radically to re-
fashion the physical geography of the Gulf of Guinea by eliminating the
important string of islands which cuts it into two almost centrally from
top to bottom. Moreover, the existence of Bioko, an island substantial in
area and population and the seat of the capital of the Republic of Equa-
torial Guinea, is toi.ally ignored. In any event, according to Nigeria,
Bioko cannot simply be treated as a relevant circumstance; it is a major LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JULIGMENT) 436
part of an independent State, possessing its oun maritime areas, on
which the Court is inot entitled to encroach. And the same is true, in
Nigeria's view, further south, in regard to the archipelago of Sao Tome
and Principe.
Nigeria contends that Cameroon's "equitable line" allows none of
these islands any effect at all, taking account only of the mainland coasts,
while, moreover, ignoring the impact upon the latter of the presence of
Bioko (see paragraph 278 above). Citing the 1982 Convention on the
Law of the Sea and the relevant jurisprudence, in p2rrticularparagraph 185
of the recent Judgment of the Court in the case concerning Maritime
Delitnitatiotz and Territorial Questions betweer, Qatar and Buhrain
(Qatar v. Bahrain), Nigeria insists that Cameroori's approach cannot be
correct in law. Nigeria accepts that the islands m.iy sometimes be given
only partial effect, als occurred in the case conctxning the Continental
Shelf (TunisitrlLiby,an Arab Jamalziriya) regarding the Kerkennah
Islands (1.C J. Reports 1982, pp. 88-89, paras. 128-129).It also notes that
a solution of enclavement may on occasion be adopted, as occurred in
the Arbitral Award in the Delimitation of'the Cotitinental Shelf'(United
KingdomlFrance) (R'IAA, Vol. XVIII, p. 3), in regard to the Channel
Islands. However, Nigeria points out that in both these cases the islands
belonged to one of the parties to the delimitation, whereas here they
belong to third States and hence their effects cannot be moderated, in the
absence of some other relevant or special circumstance justifying this.
280. In relation to the third and fourth points. definition of the rele-
vant areaand methocl of construction of the line, Nigeria queries the very
notion of what Cameroon calls "total relevant area", insisting that the
only relevant area i:;that enclosed by the "relevant coasts" (see para-
graph 278 above). Ii.contends that, in reality, Clmeroon is seeking to
transform a gulf with five riparian States into one with only two: itself
and Nigeria. Effectikely, according to Nigeria, Cameroon seeks to com-
pensate for the injustice of nature close to the coastline by appropriating
extensive areas further out to sea. Nigeria observes that States' maritime
areas are simply adjuncts to the land, representing the seaward projection
and prolongation of the coastline generating them and must accordingly
be adjacent to, and "closely connected with", that coastline. Nigeria con-
tends that it would be contrary to these principles 1.0construct a line pro-
ducing an area which dwindles away close to the tcoastline generating it,
but then expands the further it goes from its coastline, displacing itself
from its axis so as tci take on a course lying closei-to, and more directly
linked with, other coastlines. It argues that the rt:strictions on a State's
maritime areas close to the coast cannot be relievcd by allocating spaces
to it far out to sea.
Nigeria contends that it cannot be responsible for compensating Cam-
eroon in the north-western sector for disadvantages it may possibly suffer LAND 4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUL)GMENT) 437
as a result of its natural situation in the sectors to the east and to the
south of Bioko, in particular as a result of the direction of Cameroon's
Coast at that point a~ndof the existence of Bioko itself. Nigeria further
states that Cameroon's rejection of any reliance 011the criteria of appur-
tenance, equidistance and natural prolongation are inconsistent with
modern methods of delimitation. It points out that international tribu-
nals generally start from an equidistance line, which is then adjusted to
take into account other relevant circumstances. According to Nigeria,
such circumstances CIOnot normally include geographical disadvantage:
international law does not refashion the geographical situation of States.
Nigeria adds that, while the Court has in the past been sensitive to some
geographical featureij which might have a significant distorting effect on
the delimitation of maritime areas, these have always been minor geo-
graphical peculiarities specific to the underlying geographical situation of
the States concerned. That underlying geographical situation has, on the
other hand, always been taken as given and the Court has never consid-
ered that a State's maritime front in its entirety coiild be ignored or could
be given anything other than its full effect.
281. As regards the equitable character of Cameroon's line, Nigeria
argues that it is not the function of the Court to delimit the continental
shelf by reference to general considerations of eqility. It maintains that,
according to the Court's jurisprudence, delimiting the continental shelf
involves establishing the boundaries of an area already appertaining to a
State, not determining de novo such an area. Deliniitation in an equitable
manner is not the same thing as awarding a just and equitable share of
a previously undeliniited area. After undertaking a detailed analysis of
various cases relied on by Cameroon, in particular the North Sea Conti-
nental Shelf cases (1'. .J. Reports 1969, p. l), the case concerning the
Continental Shelf (Tuni.siulLibyan Arub Jamahiriya) (1.C.J. Reports
1982, p. 18) and the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal in the case con-
cerning the Delimitlrtion of Maritime Areas between Canada und the
French Republic (St. Pierre et Miquelon) (ILM, \ 01.31 (1992), p. 1149),
Nigeria concludes that nothing done in those cases can justify Cam-
eroon's radical departure from the methods, rules and legal principles
of maritime delimitation, in favour of a line which is not so much
"equitable" as fanciiful. According to Nigeria, these cases demonstrate
the limitations of eqility: it can be used to mitigate the effects of "minor
features that might produce disproportionate results if the principle and
method of equidistance were applied mechanically", but not in order
completely to refashiion nature.
282. Nigeria further argues that the Parties' conduct in respect of the
granting and exploitation of oil concessions, leadiiig to the establishment
ofdejacto lines,play:,a very important role inestablishing maritime bound-
aries. It contends that, within the area to be dehited, the Court cannot
redistribute the oil (:oncessions established by the practice of Nigeria, LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 438
Equatorial Guinea aindCameroon, and that it must respect the configu-
ration of the concessions in its determination of the course of the mari-
time boundary. In Nigeria's view,international jurisprudence has never
disregarded such practice in order to redistribute or1concessions, and this
restrained approach is al1the more understandable because the change in
long-standing rights and oil concessions resulting from such a redistribu-
tion would create major difficulties and would not be in keeping with the
equitableconsiderations which must be taken into account in delimitation.
According to Nigeria, Cameroon's line of delimitation completely dis-
regards the substantial, long-standing practice, followed by Nigeria as
well as by Cameroon, in respect of oil exploration and exploitation activ-
ity on the continental shelf, and would result in allotting to Cameroon a
large number of concessions belonging to Nigeria or Equatorial Guinea,
in which billions of dollars in infrastructure have been invested. Nigeria
states that itsil coniression practice is long established, contending that,
contrary to what Cameroon claims (see paragraph 283 below), it dates
back to well before 1970, when, according to Ciimeroon, its maritime
delimitation dispute with Nigeria arose. The existence of any areas of
overlapping licences is moreover considered by Yigeria to be without
effect on the evidentiary weight of oil practice. Nigeria states that its
operations within the maritime areas now claimed by Cameroon have
always been particularly significant and completely open; Cameroon
never disputed them and lodged no protest until the date on which these
proceedings were instituted. Nigeria concludes that its oil practice in the
area was public, open and of long duration, and s therefore a basis for
acquiescence and the establishment of vested rights. It denies that it failed
in an obligation to iriform Cameroon of this practice, and states that the
information was in any event publicly available.
283. In reply to Nigeria's argument on the oil practice, Cameroon, for
its part, maintains that the existence and limits of oil concessions have
been given only limitirdsignificance in matters of maritime delimitation in
international case law. This limited significance is said to accord with the
essential nature of th(;concept of the continental skielf,over which coastal
States have an inherent right which "does not depend on its being exer-
I.C.J. Reports 1969,
cised" (North Sea (Zontinental Shelj, Judgment,
p. 22, para. 19). Canieroon argues that the grantiiig of oil concessions is
a unilateral fait accompli, and not a legal fact that is opposable to
another State.
In the area immediately south of point G, Cameroon claims that there
are in fact areas of overlap of the concessions granted by Cameroon,
Equatorial Guinea and Nigeria, and that, because of this, it cannot be
said that there is anJi consensual line of oil practices forming a de facto
line which could serve as a basis for delimitation. In the area furthersouth of point G, Cameroon argues that there can be no question of a
de Jucto line, since Cameroon refrained from granting any concessions
there, due to the negotiations between the Parties and the present pro-
ceedings. According to Cameroon, Nigeria, by granting concessions in
this area, has sought to present the Court with a fait accompli.
Moreover, Cameroon claims that Nigeria's description of the State
practice in terms of oil concessions and the conclusions it draws there-
from are erroneous. Cameroon insists that, contrary to Nigeria's claim,
the concessions cited by Nigeria are al1(with the exception of concession
OML 67) subsequenit to 1990, well after the maritime delimitation dis-
pute arose at the end of the 1970s, while three of them were even granted
after the Application instituting proceedings was jiled and therefore are
of no relevance for purposes of settling the present dispute.
Further, Cameroon States that nothing can be iriferred from its silence
with regard to Nigerian concessions, since the Nigerian authorities never
informed Cameroon, as they had promised to do, of new concessions and
Nigeria itself has rernained silent with respect to Cameroonian conces-
sions, even when these encroached on zones whii:h Nigeria appears to
consider as its own.
284. Having dealt earlier with the nature, piirpose and effects of
Equatorial Guinea's intervention (see paragraph:~ 227-238 above), the
Court will now briefly summarize Equatorial Guinea's arguments in
regard to the course of the maritime boundary between Cameroon and
Nigeria. Essentially, Equatorial Guinea requests the Court to "refrain
froin delimiting a maritime boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon in
any area that is more proximate to Equatorial Guinea than to the
Parties to the case before the Court", or from "express[ing] any opinion
which could prejudice [Equatorial Guinea's] interests in the context of
[its] maritime bounditry negotiations with [its] neighbours". Ttasks that
the boundary to be Icixedby the Court should nowhere encroach upon
the median line bet~ueen its own coasts and those of Cameroon and
Nigeria, which it regards as "a reasonable expression of its legal rights
and interests that rriust not be transgressed in proceedings to which
Equatorial Guinea is not a party". Equatorial Guinea stresses that, if the
Court's decision in the present case were to involve such an encroach-
ment, this would cause it "irreparable harm" and would "lead to a
great deal of confusion", notwithstanding the protection afforded by
Article 59 of the Court's Statute.
Equatorial Guinea has a number of specific critii:isms of the "equitable
line" proposed by Cameroon, of which, moreover, it claims it only
became aware in December 1998. It contends that in prior negotiations
Cameroon had always acknowledged that the median line represented
the boundary betwee:n their respective maritime areas and that this had
been confirmed by the two States' oil practice. IIowever, according toEquatorial Guinea, C:ameroon'sequitable line not only encroaches upon
the two countries' miedian line but also upon that between Equatorial
Guinea and Nigeria and, moreover, fails to take account of the three
States' very substantiial oil practice. According to Equatorial Guinea, if
the Court were to accept Cameroon's proposed line, there would no
longer even be a maritime boundary between Equatorial Guinea and
Nigeria, and hence nio tripoint between the three countries, despite the
fact that Cameroon, in prior negotiations with Equatorial Guinea, and in
its own legislation, had always acknowledged that such a tripoint existed.
Equatorial Guinea further contends that to givt effect to Cameroon's
line would result in the complete enclavement of Bioko Island. Finally,
Equatorial Guinea refers to the Treaty of 23 Septzmber 2000 delimiting
its maritime boundary with Nigeria. While Equatorial Guinea recognizes
that that Treaty cannot be binding on Cameroon (res inter ulios acta),it
contends that, equally, Cameroon cannot seek to benefit from it. Hence,
the fact that, under the Treaty, the maritime are.1 allocated to Nigeria
extends into waters lying on Equatorial Guinea's :.ideof the median line
is not a circumstance on which Cameroon is entitlcd to rely for purposes
of its claim against Nigeria.
285. The Court observes that the maritime areas on whose delimita-
tion it is to rule in thiispart of the Judgment lie beyond the outer limit of
the respective territorial seas of the two States. The Court further recalls
that the Parties agrelcthat it is to rule on the maritime delimitation in
accordance with inti:rnational law. Both Cameroon and Nigeria are
parties to the United Nations Law of the Sea Corlvention of 10 Decem-
ber 1982,which they ratified on 19 November 1985and 14 August 1986
respectively. Accordingly the relevant provisions of that Convention are
applicable, and in particular Articles 74 and 83 thereof, which concern
delimitation of the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone
between States with opposite or adjacent coasts. Paragraph 1 of those
Articles provides thai such delimitation must be effèctedin such a way as
to "achieve an equitetble solution".
286. The Court also notes that the Parties a:;reed in their written
pleadings that the delimitation between their maritime areas should be
effected by a single line. As the Court had occasion to recall in its Judg-
ment of 16March 2013 1in the case concerning Maritime Delimitation and
Territoriul Questions between Qutar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain),
"the concept of a.singlemaritime boundary dom not stem from multi-
lateral treaty law but from State practice, and .. .finds its explanation
in the wish of States to establish one uninterrupted boundary line
delimiting the viirious - partially coincident - zones of maritime
jurisdiction appertaining to them" (1.C.J. Reports 2001, para. 173). ment or shifting of that line" (I.CJ. Reports 1993, Judgment, p. 61,
para. 51).
In seeking to ascertain whether there were in that case factors which
should cause it to adj~ustor shift the median line in order to achieve an
"equitable result", tht: Court stated:
"[ilt is thus apparent that special circumstances are those circum-
stances which might modify the result produced by an unqualified
application of th,?equidistance principle. General international law,
as it has developed through the case-law of the Court and arbitral
jurisprudence, arid through the work of the 'rhird United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea, has employed the concept of
'relevant circum:;tances7.This concept can bz described as a fact
necessary to be taken into account in the (lelimitation process."
(Ibid.,p. 62, para. 55.)
In the case concerining Maritime Delimitation (znd Territorial Ques-
tions hetween Qatar czndBahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain) the Court further
stated that
"[flor the delimitation of the maritime zone:; beyond the 12-mile
zone it [would]fil-stprovisionally draw an equidistance line and then
consider whether there [were]circumstances ulhich must lead to an
adjustment of that line" (I.CJ. Reports 2001, para. 230).
290. The Court will apply the same method in the present case.
Before itcan draw an equidistance line and consider whether there are
relevant circumstances that might make it necessary to adjust that line,
the Court must, however, define the relevant coastlines of the Parties by
reference to which the location of the base points IO be used in the con-
struction of the equidistance line will be determined.
As the Court made clear in its Judgment in the case concerning Mari-
time Delimitation and Territorial Questions betwet~nQatar and Bahrain
(Qatar v. Bahruin),
"[tlhe equidistance line is the line every point of which is equidistant
from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of
the territorialseas of each of the two States is measured" (I.C.J.
Reports 2001, para. 177).
291. In the present case the Court cannot accept Cameroon's conten-
tion, on the one hancl, that account should be taken of the coastline of
the Gulf of Guinea from Akasso (Nigeria) to Cap Lopez (Gabon) in
order to delimit Cameroon's maritime boundary with Nigeria, and, on
the other, that no account should be taken of the greater part of the
coastline of Bioko Islland. First, the maritime boiindary between Cam-
eroon and Nigeria Cainonly be determined by refeience to points on the
coastlines of these two States and not of third States. Secondly, the pres-
ence of Bioko makes itself felt from Debundsha, at the point where the
Cameroon coast turns south-south-east. Bioko is not an island belongingto either of the two Parties. It is a constituent part of a third State, Equa-
torial Guinea. North and east of Bioko the maritinle rights of Cameroon
and Equatorial Guinea have not yet been determined. The part of the
Cameroon coastline beyond Debundsha Point faces Bioko. It cannot
therefore be treated a,jfacing Nigeria so as to be relevant to the maritime
delimitation between Cameroon and Nigeria (see below, p. 444, sketch-
map No. 11).
292. Once the base points have been established in accordance with
the above-mentioned principles laid down by the Court in the case con-
cerning Maritime Delimitation und Territorial Quc.stions between Qatar
and Bahrain (Qatar v. Buhrain), it will be possible to determine the equi-
distance line between the relevant coastlines of tlie two States. As the
Court has already had occasion to explain, this equidistance line cannot
be extended beyond a point where it might affecl rights of Equatorial
Guinea. This limitation on the length of the equidistance line is unavoid-
able, whatever the base points used. In the preseiit case the Court has
determined that the Land-based anchorage points to be used in the con-
struction of the equidistance line are West Point and East Point, as deter-
mined on the 1994 edition of British Admiralty Chart 3433. These two
points, situated respectively at 8" 16'38" longitude fast and 4" 31'59" lati-
tude north and 8" 30'14" longitudeeast and 4"30'06" latitude north, cor-
respond to the most southerly points on the low-water line for Nigeria
and Cameroon to either side of the bay formed by the estuaries of the
Akwayafe and Cross Rivers. Given the configuration of the coastlines
and the limited area vvithinwhich the Court has jurisdiction to effect the
delimitation, no other base point was necessary for the Court in order to
undertake this operation.
293. The Court will now consider whether there ;ire circumstances that
might make it necessary to adjust this equidistance line in order to
achieve an equitable result.
As the Court stated in the Continental Shelf (Libyun Arub Jamahiriyul
Malta) case:
"the equidistance method is not the only method applicable to the
present dispute, and it does not even have the benefit of a presump-
tion in its favour. Thus. under existiug law. it inust be demonstrated
that the equidistance method leads to an equitable result in the case
in question." (I.(2J. Reports 1985, p. 47, pars. 63.)
294. The Court is bound to stress in this conn1:ction that delimiting
with a concern to aclîieving an equitable result, as required by current
international law, is not the same as delimiting iii equity. The Court's
jurisprudence shows i;hat, in disputes relating to maritime delimitation,
equity is not a method of delimitation, but solely an aiin that should be
borne in mind in effeistingthe delimitation.
295. The geographical configuration of the maritime areas that the
Court is called upon to delimit is a given. It is nct an element open tomodification by the Court but a fact on the basls of which the Court
must effect the delin-iitation. As the Court had occasion to state in the
North Sea Continental Sheif cases, "[elquity does not necessarily imply
equality", and in a delimitation exercise "[tlhere can never be any ques-
tion of completely refashioning nature" (I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 49,
para. 91). Although (certaingeographical peculiarities of maritime areas
to be delimited may be taken into account by the Court, this is solely as
relevant circumstances, for the purpose, if necessary, of adjusting or
shifting the provisional delimitation line. Heregaiii, asthe Court decided
in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, the Court is not required to
take al1such geographical peculiarities into account in order to adjust or
shift the provisional (delimitationline:
"[ilt is therefore not a question of totally refashioning geography
whatever the facts of the situation but, given a geographical situa-
tion of quasi-eqiiality as between a number of'States, of abating the
effects of an incidental special feature from which an unjustifiable
difference of treatment could result" (I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 50,
para. 9 1).
296. Cameroon contends that the concavity of the Gulf of Guinea in
general, and of Carneroon's coastline in particular, creates a virtual
enclavement of Came:roon, which constitutes a special circumstance to be
taken into account iri the delimitation process.
Nigeria argues that it is not for the Court to compensate Cameroon for
any disadvantages suffered by it as a direct conseqiience of the geography
of the area. It stresses that it is not the purpose of international law to
refashion geography.
297. The Court does not deny that the concavity of the coastline may
be a circumstance relevant to delimitation, as it was held to be by the
Court in the North Sea Continental Shelfcases arid as was also so held
by the Arbitral Tribunal in the case concerning the Delimitation of the
Maritime Boundary between Guinea and Guineu-Bissau, decisions on
which Cameroon relies. Nevertheless the Court stresses that this can only
be the case when such concavity lies within the area to be delimited.
Thus, in the GuineaiGuinea-Bissau case, the Arbitral Tribunal did not
address the disadvantage resulting from the concavity of the Coast from
a general viewpoint, but solely in connection with the precise course of
the delimitation line between Guinea and Guinea.Bissau (ILM, Vol. 25
(1986),p. 295, para. 104).In the present case the Court has already deter-
mined that the coastlines relevant to delimitation between Cameroon and
Nigeria do not include al1of the coastlines of the two States within the
Gulf of Guinea. The Court notes that the sectors of coastline relevant to
the present delimitation exhibit no particular concavity. Thus the con-
cavity of Cameroon':; coastline is apparent primarily in the sector where
it faces Bioko.
Consequently the Court does not consider that t?e configuration of the LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUI~GMENT) 446
coastlines relevant to the delimitation represents a circumstance that
would justify shifting the equidistance line as Canleroon requests.
298. Cameroon filrther contends that the pre,jence of Bioko Island
constitutes a relevant circumstance which should be taken into account
by the Court for purlposesof the delimitation. It aigues that Bioko Island
substantially reduces the seaward projection of C;rmeroon's coastline.
Here again Nigeria takes the view that it is not for the Court to com-
pensate Caineroon fiorany disadvantages sufferecl by it as a direct con-
sequence of the geography of the area.
299. The Court accepts that islands have somt:times been taken into
account as a relevant circumstance in delimitation when such islands lay
within the zone to be delimited and fell under the sovereignty of one of
the parties. This occilrred in particular in the case concerning the Delimi-
tation of the Continental Shelf between the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Irelandand tlzeFrench Republic (RIAA, Vol. XVIII,
p. 3), on which Cameroon relies. However, in that case, contrary to what
Cameroon contends. the Court of Arbitration sought to draw a delimi-
tation line and not to provide equitable compr:nsation for a natural
inequality.
In the present case Bioko Island is subject to the sovereignty of Equa-
torial Guinea, a State which is not a party to the proceedings. Con-
sequently the effect of Bioko Island on the seaward projection of the
Cameroonian coastal front is an issue between Caineroon and Equatorial
Guinea and not between Cameroon and Nigeria, and is not relevant to
the issue of delimitaition before the Court.
The Court does not therefore regard the presence of Bioko Island as a
circumstance that would justify the shifting of tlie equidistance line as
Cameroon claims.
300. Lastly, Cameroon invokes the disparity between the length of its
coastline and that of Nigeria in the Gulf of Guinea as a relevant circum-
stance that justifies shifting the delimitation line towards the north-west.
For its part, Nigeria considers that Cameroon fails to respect the
criteria of proportioriality of coastline length, which would operate rather
in Nigeria's favour.
301. The Court acknowledges, as it noted in the cases concerning
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area
(CanadalUnited States of America) (I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 336,
paras. 221-222) and Maritime Delimitation in th,. Area between Green-
land and Jan Mayen (Denmurk v. Norway) (I.C.J. Reports 1993,
p. 34, para. 68), that a substantial difference in the lengths of the
parties' respective coastlines may be a factor to be taken into consid-
eration in order to aldjust or shift the provisional delimitation line. The
Court notes that in the present case, whichever coastline of Nigeria is
regarded as relevani., the relevant coastline of Clmeroon, as described
in paragraph 291, is not longer than that of Nigc:ria. There is thereforeno reason to shift the equidistance line in favoui. of Cameroon on this
ground.
302. Before ruling on the delimitation line between Cameroon and
Nigeria, the Court must still address the question raised by Nigeria
whether the oil practice of the Parties provides helpful indications for
purposes of the delirnitation of their respective maritime areas.
303. Thus Nigeria contends that State practice with regard to oil con-
cessions isa decisive factor in the establishment of maritime boundaries.
In particular it take:; the view that the Court cannot, through maritime
delimitation, redistributesuch oil concessions between the States party to
the delimitation.
Cameroon, for its part, maintains that the existence of oil concessions
has never been accalrded particular significance in matters of maritime
delimitation in international law.
304. Both the Court and arbitral tribunals have had occasion to deal
with the role of oil practice in maritime delimitation disputes. In the case
concerning the Cofiltinental Shelf (TunisialLibjan Arab Jamahiriya)
(1.C.J. Reports 1982, p. 18), the Court examinecl for the first time the
question of the significance of oil concessions for maritime delimitation.
On that occasion the Court did not take into consideration "the direct
northward line asserted as boundary of the Libyan petroleum zones"
(1.C.J. Reports 1982,p. 83, para. 117),because that line had "been found
. . to be wanting in those respects [that would h,ive made it opposable]
to the other Party" (ibid.);however, the Court lound that close to the
coasts the concessions of the parties showed and confirmed the existence
of a modus vivendi (ibid., p. 84, para. 119).In the case concerning Delimi-
tation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Areu (Canada1
United States oj Ainerica) the Chamber of the Court underlined the
importance of those findings when it stressed that in that case there did
not exist any nzodus vivendi (1C.J. Reports 1984, pp. 310-311,paras. 149-
152). In that case the Chamber considered that, notwithstanding the
alleged coincidence 'ofthe American and Canadian oil concessions, the
situation was totally different from the Tunisial1,ibya case. In the case
coiicerning the Continental Sheif (Libyan Arub JumahiriyalMalta (1.C.J.
Reports 1985, p. 13)ithe Court considered that tlie indications given by
the parties could not be viewed as evidence of acquiescence (ibid., pp. 28-
29, paras. 24-25). As to arbitration, the Arbitral 'Tribunalin the Guineal
Guinea Bissau case declined to take into consideration an oil concession
granted by Portugal (ILM, Vol. 25 (1986),p. 281, para. 63). The Arbitral
Tribunal in the case concerning Delimitation of Maritime Areas between
Canada und the French Republic (St. Pierre et P4iquelon) accorded no
importance to the oil concessions granted by the parties (ILM, Vol. 31
(1992), pp. 1174-1175,paras. 89-91). Overall, it follows from the juris-
prudence that, although the existence of an express or tacit agreement
between the parties on the siting of their respective oil concessions may
indicate a consensus on the maritime areas to which they are entitled, oil
concessions and oil wells are not in themselves to be considered as LAND .4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUI)GMENT) 448
relevant circumstances justifying the adjustment or shifting of the pro-
visional delimitation line. Only if they are based on express or tacit
agreement between the parties may they be taken into account. In the
present case there is no agreement between the Parties regarding oil con-
cessions.
The Court is thereifore of the opinion that the oil practice of the Parties
is not a factor to be taken into account in the maritime delimitation in
the Dresent case.
305. The Court also sought to ascertain whether there were other
reasons that might have made an adjustment of' the equidistance line
necessary in order to achieve an equitable resuli. It came to the con-
clusion that there were no such reasons in the present case.
306. The Court aiscordingly decides that the equidistance line repre-
sents an equitable result for the delimitation of the area in respect of
which it has jurisdiction to give a ruling.
307. The Court notes, however, that point G, which was determined
by the two Parties in the Maroua Declaration of 1June 1975,does not lie
on the equidistance line between Cameroon and Nigeria, but to the east
of that line. Cameroon is therefore entitled toeqilest that from point G
the boundary of the Parties' respective maritime areas should return to
the equidistance lini:. This Cameroon seeks to achieve by drawing a
delimitation line at an azimuth of 270" from point G to a point situated
at 8"21'16" longitu~de east and 4"17'00" latitude north. The Court,
having carefully studied a variety of charts, observ1:sthat the point on the
equidistance line which is obtained by following a loxodrome having an
azimuth of 270" froni point G is located at co-ordinates slightly different
from those put forward by Cameroon. The Court accordingly considers
that from point G i;he delimitation line should directly join the equi-
distance line at a point with co-ordinates 8'2lf~!0" longitude east and
4" 17'00" latitude north, which will be called. The boundary between
the respective maritime areas of Cameroon and Nigeria will therefore
continue beyond poiint G in a westward direction imtil it reaches poiXt
at the above-mentioried co-ordinates. The boundarv will turn at woint X
and continue southwards along the equidistance line. However, the equi-
distance line adopted by the Court cannot be extended very far. The
Court has already slated that it can take no decision that might affect
rights of Equatorial Guinea, which is not a party to the proceedings. In
these circumstances the Court considers that it can do no more than indi-
cate the general direction, from point X, of the boundary between the
Parties' maritime areas. The boundary will follow~iloxodrome having an
azimuth of 187'52'27'' (see below, p. 449, sketch-map No. 12).
* * *
308. The Court will now address Cameroon's submissions concerning
149LAND .AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUI)GMENT) 449 LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUIIGMENT) 450
Nigeria's State responsibility and Nigeria's couilter-claims concerning
Cameroon's State responsibility.
309. In this connection, Cameroon puts forward two separate series of
submissions concerning, on the one hand, the Lake Chad area and the
Bakassi Peninsula and, on the other, the remaining sectors of the land
and maritime boundary.
310. In respect of the Lake Chad area, Cameroon states that Nigerian
fishermen have over recent decades gradually settled on Cameroonian
territory as the lake has receded. According to Cameroon, from the
middle of the 1980s the Nigerian army made repeated incursions into
the Cameroonian territory on which those fishernien had settled. Those
incidents are allegeti to have been followed b> a full-scale invasion
beginning in 1987, so that by 1994 a total of 18 villages and 6 islands
were occupied by Nigeria and continue to be so occupied.
In respect of Bakalssi, Cameroon states that before 1993 the Nigerian
army had on several occasions temporarily infiltrated into the peninsula
and had even attempted in 1990 to establish a "bridgehead" at Jabane,
but did not maintaiin any military presence in Bakassi at that time;
Cameroon, on the contrary, had established a sub-prefecture at Idabato,
together with al1the administrative, military and security services apper-
taining thereto. Theri, in December 1993, the Nigerian armed forces are
said to have launched an attack on the peninsula as part of a carefully
and deliberately planned invasion; Nigeria subsequently maintained and
advanced its occupation, establishing a second bric-lgeheadat Diamond in
July 1994.In February 1996, following an attack l-)yNigerian troops, the
Cameroonian post at Idabato is alleged to havt: fallen into Nigeria's
hands. The same fate is said to have subsequently befallen the Cam-
eroonian posts at Uzama and Kombo a Janea. These Cameroonian
territories are allegeclly still occupied.
Cameroon contends that, in thus invading and occupying its territory,
Nigeria has violated, and continues to violate, its obligations under con-
ventional and customary international law. In particular, Cameroon
claims that Nigeria's actions are contrary to the principle of non-use of
force set out in Articl2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and
to the principle of non-intervention repeatedly upheld by the Court, as
well as being incompatible with Cameroon's territorial sovereignty.
Cameroon contencls that these actions imputable to Nigeria are wrong-
ful, and that Nigeria is accordingly under an obligation to "put an end to
its administrative and military presence in Cameroonian territory and, in
particular, to effect an immediate and unconditional evacuation of its
troops from the occupied area of Lake Chad and from the Cameroonian
peninsula of Bakassi". Cameroon states that Nigeria must "[refrain] from
such acts in the future", that Nigeria's international responsibility is
engaged and that nane of the grounds of defenci: provided by interna-tional law can be upheld. Consequently, Cameroon claims that repara-
tion is due to it "on account of the material and moral injury suffered".
311. For its part, Nigeria states that it was notnly in peaceful posses-
sion of the Lake Chad area and the Bakassi region at the time of the
alleged invasions but had been since independerice. Its deployment of
force is alleged to have been for the purpose of rzsolving interna1 prob-
lems and responding to Cameroon's campaign of systematic encroach-
ment on Nigerian territory. Nigeria claims to have acted in self-defence.
It furthercontends tliat, even if the Court should find that Cameroon has
sovereignty over these areas, the Nigerian presencr there was the result of
a "reasonable mistalte" or "honest belief'. Accordingly, Nigeria cannot
be held internationally responsible for conduct which, at the time it took
place, Nigeria had every reason to believe was la~vful.
312. The Court will recall that in paragraphs 57, 60, 61 and 225 of the
present Judgment it fixed the boundary between the two States in the
Lake Chad area ancl the Bakassi Peninsula. Nigeria does not deny that
Nigerian armed forces and a Nigerian administration are currently in
place in these areas which the Court has determined are Cameroonian
territory, adding in respect of the establishment of the municipality of
Bakassi that, if the Court were to recognize Cameroon's sovereignty over
such areas, there is nothing irreversible in the relevant arrangements
made by Nigeria. The same reasoning clearly applies to other spheres of
civil administration, as well as to military orpolice forces.
313. The Court ha~salready had occasion to deal with situations of this
kind. In the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, it held that the
temple was situated on territory falling under the sovereignty of Cam-
bodia. From this it concluded that "Thailand [was] under an obligation
to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers,
stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory"
(Merits, Judgment, Ir.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 37).
More recently, in the Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arah Jamahiriyal
Chad), the Court fixed the boundary between those two States along a
course which allocated to Chad territories in which Libya had set up a
civil administration and stationed military forces Following that Judg-
ment of 3 February 1994,the two States on 4 April 1994signed an agree-
ment with a view to implementing the Judgment; that agreement pro-
vided for Libya'sevacuation of the territories in quastion, to be monitored
by a group of observers to be established by the Security Council. The
evacuation was completed on 31 May 1994.
314. TheCourt notes that Nigeria is under an obligation in the present
case expeditiously and without condition to withclraw its administration
and its military and police forces from that area of LakeChad which falls
within Cameroon's sovereignty and from the Bakassi Peninsula.
315. TheCourt further observes that Camerooc is under an obligation LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUIIGMENT) 452
expeditiously and without condition to withdraw any administration or
military or police forces which may be present iii areas along the land
boundary from Lake Chad to the Bakassi Peninsula which pursuant to
the present Judgment faIl within the sovereignty of Nigeria. Nigeria has
the same obligation in regard to any administration or military or police
forces which may be present in areas along the land boundary from Lake
Chad to the Bakassi Peninsula which pursuant to the present Judgment
fall within the sovereignty of Cameroon.
316. The Court further notes that the imp1emt:ntation of the present
Judgment will afford the Parties a beneficial opportunity to CO-operatein
the interests of the population concerned, in order notably to enable it to
continue to have accessto educational and health services com~arable to
those it currently erijoys. Such CO-operation will be especially helpful,
with a view to the maintenance of securitv. durinrr the withdrawal of the
,, LJ
Nigerian administration and military and police forces.
317. Moreover. on 21 March 2002 the Aeent of uameroon stated
before the Court that "over three million Nigerians live on Cameroonian
territory, where,witkioutany restriction, they engage in various activities,
and are well integrated into Cameroonian society". He went on to declare
that, "faithful to its traditional policy of hospitality and tolerance,
Cameroon will continue to afford protection to Nigerians living in the
iBakassi1Peninsula and in the Lake Chad area". The Court takes note
with satisfaction of the commitment thus undertaken in respect of
these areas where milny Nigerian nationals reside
318. Cameroon, hiowever,is not only asking the Court for an end to
Nigeria's administrative and military presence in Cameroonian territory
but also for guarantees of non-repetition in the future. Such submissions
are undoubtedly admissible (LaGrand (Germanv v. United States of
Americu), Judgmenr', I.C.J. Reports 2001, pp. 508 et seq., paras. 117
et seq.). However, the Judgment delivered today specifies in definitive
and mandatory terms the land and maritime boundary between the two
States. With al1 uncertainty dispelled in this regard, the Court cannot
envisage a situation where either Party, after withdrawing its military and
police Forcesand adininistration from the other's territory, would fail to
respect the territorial sovereignty of that Party. Hence Cameroon's sub-
missions on this point cannot be upheld.
319. In the circunnstances of the case, the Court considers moreover
that, by the very fact of the present Judgment and of the evacuation
of the Cameroonian territory occupied by Nigeria, the injury suffered
by Cameroon by reason of the occupation of its territory will in al1
events have been sufficiently addressed. The Court will not therefore
seek to ascertain whether and to what extent Nigeria's responsibility to
Cameroon has been engaged as a result of that oc:cupation.
320. Cameroon further contends that Nigeria has failed to comply
with the Order indicating provisional measures handed down by theCourt on 15March 1996and has thereby breacheclits international obli-
gations. Nigeria maintains that these claims are "without substance".
321. In its Judgment of 27June 2001 inthe LaGrand case (Germany v.
United States of Ainerica), the Court reached "the conclusion that
orders on provisional measures under Article 41 [of the Statute] have
binding effect" (1.C..J.Reports 2001, p. 506, para. 109). However, it is
"the litigant seeking to establish a fact who bears the burden of proving
it; and in cases where evidence may not be forthcoming, a submission
may in thejudgment be rejected as unproved" (Miiitary and Paramilitary
Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaraguu v. United States of
America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I. C.J. Reports 1984,
p. 437, para. 101). Thus in the present case it is for Cameroon to show
that Nigeria acted iniviolation of the provisional measures indicated in
the Order of 15 March 1996.
322. In this case, the Court had already noted in the above Order that
it was unable to forn-iany "clear and precise" picture of the events taking
place in Bakassi in F'ebruary 1996 (I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 22 para. 38).
The same is true in respect of events in the peninsula after the Order
of 15 March 1996 was handed down. Cameroon has not established
the facts which it bears the burden of proving, and its submissions on
this point must accoirdingly berejected.
323. Finally, Canieroon complains of various boundary incidents
occurring not only in Bakassi and the Lake Chad area but also at sea and
al1along the land boundary between the two States between 1970 and
2001. Cameroon made clear in its Reply and at the oral proceedings that
it was not seeking a ruling on Nigeria's responsibility in respect of each of
these incidents taken in isolation. In its final submissions, Cameroon
requests the Court to adjudge that "by making repeated incursions
throughout the leng1.hof the boundary between the two countries, the
Federal Republic of Nigeria has violated and is violating its obligations
under international . . .law" and that its responsibility is therefore
engaged, notably because of the casualties inflictecl.
Nigeria contends that these submissions cannot be ruled upon as a
whole and that they must be addressed by consiclering the alleged inci-
dentsone by one. It asks the Court to reject the said submissions and, for
its part, presents counter-claims concerning numerous incidents alongthe
boundary which, according to Nigeria, engage Caineroon's State respon-
sibility. Cameroon aisksthe Court to reject those jubmissions.
324. TheCourt firidsthat, here again, neither of'the Parties sufficiently
proves the facts whic:hit alleges, or their imputability to the other Party.
The Court is therefore unable to uphold either Ciimeroon's submissions
or Nigeria's counter-claims based on the incident:; cited. 325. For these reasons,
1. (A) By fourteen votes to two,
Decides that the boundary between the Republic of Cameroon and the
Federal Republic of Nigeria in the Lake Chad area is delimited by the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration of 1929-1930, as incorporated in the
Henderson-Fleuriau IExchange of Notes of 1931 ;
IN FAVOUR Pr:esideniLGuillaume; Vice-President Shi; Judges Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Higgins,Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek,
Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby; Judge ad hoc Mbaye;
ACAINSJ Tu:dge Koroma; Judge ad hoc Ajibola;
(B) By fourteen votes to two,
Decides that the line of the boundary betueen the Republic of
Cameroon and the Federal Republic of Nigeria iii the Lake Chad area
is as follows:
From a tripoint in Lake Chad lying at 14O04'59"9999 longitude east
and 13"05' latitude north, in a straight line to the mouth of the River
Ebeji, lying at 14"12:'12" longitude east and 12" 32'17" latitude north;
and from there in a straight line to the point where the River Ebeji
bifurcates, located ai: 14"12'03" longitude east and 12O30'14" latitude
north;
IN FAVOUR P:esidenl Guillaume; Vice-President Shi; Judges Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek,
Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby; Judge ad floc Mbaye;
AGAINSJ Tu:dge Koroma; Judge ad hoc Ajibola;
II.(A) By fifteen votes to one,
Decides that the I,and boundary between the Republic of Cameroon
and the Federal Repilblic of Nigeria is delimited, from Lake Chad to the
Bakassi Peninsula, by the following instruments:
(i) from the point where the River Ebeji bifurcates as far as Tamnyar
Peak, by paragraphs 2 to 60 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
of 1929-1930, as incorporated in the Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange
of Notes of 193 1;
(ii) from Tamnyar Peak to pillar 64 referred to in Article XII of the
Anglo-German .4greement of 12April 1913, I,y the British Order in
Council of 2 Auigust 1946;
(iii) from pillar 64 to the Bakassi Peninsula, by the Anglo-German
Agreements of 11 March and 12 April 1913;
IN FAVOUR: President Guillaume; Vice-President Shi; Judges Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Higgins, Parra-Aranguien, Kooijmans, Rezek,
Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal. Elaraby; Judgcs ad hoc Mbaye, Ajibola;
AGAINST :Judge Koroma; (B) Unanimously,
Drcides that the aforesaid instruments are to be interpreted in the
manner set out in paragraphs 91, 96, 102, 114, 119, 124, 129, 134, 139,
146, 152, 155. 160, 168, 179, 184 and 189 of the present Judgment;
III. (A) By thirteen votes to three,
Decides that the boundary between the Republic of Cameroon and the
Federal Republic of Nigeria in Bakassi is delimiteti by Articles XVIII to
XX of the Anglo-Gel-man Agreement of 11 Marc11 191 3;
IN FAV~UR :Presickni'Guillaume ; Vice-President Shi ;Judges Oda. Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Higgins, Parsa-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Al-
Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby; Judge ad hoc Mbaye;
AGAINST: Judges Koroma, Rezek; Judge ad hoc Ajit~ola;
(B) By thirteen votes to three,
Decides that sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula lies with the
Republic of Cameroon;
IN FAVOUR :Presidenr'Guillaume ; Vice-President Shi ;Judges Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Al-
Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby; Judge ad hoc Mbaye;
AGAINSJ Tu:dges Koroma, Rezek; Judge ad hoc Ajibola;
(C) By thirteen votes to three,
Decides that the boundary between the Republic. of Cameroon and the
Federal Republic of Nigeria in Bakassi follows the thalweg of the Akpa-
korum (Akwayafe) Fkiver, dividing the Mangrove Islands near Ikang in
the way shown on nlap TSGS 2240, as far as the straight line joining
Bakassi Point and King Point;
rN FAVOUR P:resident Guillaume; Vice-President Shi ;Judges Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleisclihauer, Higgins, Parra-Aranpuren, Kooijmans, Al-
Khasawneh, Buer,genthal,Elaraby; Judge ad hoc Mbaye;
AGAINST: Judges Koiroma,Rezek; Judge ad hoc Ajibola;
IV. (A) By thirteen votes to three,
Finds, having addressed Nigeria's eighth preliminary objection, which
it declared in its Judlgment of 11 June 1998 not to have an exclusively
preliminary character in the circumstances of the case, tliat it has jurisdic-
tion over the claims submitted to it by the Republic of Cameroon regard-
ing the delimitation of the maritime areas appertaiiiing respectively to the
Republic of Cameroon and to the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and that
those claims are admissible;
rN FAVOUR : Presidt~nt Guillaume ; Vice-President Shi ; Judges Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek,
Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby; Judge ad hoc Mbaye;
ACAINST :Judges Od,a,Koroma ;Judge ad hoc Ajibola ; (B) By thirteen votes to three,
Decides that, up ito point G below, the boundary of the maritime
areas appertaining respectively to the Republic of Cameroon and to the
Federal Republic of 'Nigeria takes the following course:
- starting from the point of intersection of the centre of the navigable
channel of the Akwayafe River with the straight line joining Bakassi
Point and King P'ointas referred to in pointIII(C) above, the bound-
ary follows the '"compromise line" drawn jointly at Yaoundé on
4 April 1971 by the Heads of State of Cami:roon and Nigeria on
British Admiralty Chart 3433 (Yaoundé II Declaration) and passing
through 12 numblered points, whose CO-ordinates are as follows:
Longitude Lutitude
point 1: 8"30'44"E, 4"40 28"N
point 2 : 8"30'00"E, 4"40,OO"N
point 3 : 8"28' 50"E, 4"39'00"N
point 4: 8"27'52"E, 4"38'00"N
point 5 : 8"27'09"E, 4"37'00"N
point 6: 8"26'36"E, 4'36'00"N
point 7: 8"26'03"E, 4"35'00"N
point 8 : 8"25'42"E, 4"34'18"N
point 9: 8"25'35"E, 4"34'00"N
point 10: 8"25'08"E, 4"33'00"N
point 11 : 8"24'47"E, 4"32'00"N
point 12: 8"24'38"E, 4"31'26"N;
- from point 12,the boundary follows the line adopted in the Declara-
tion signed by the Heads of State of Cameroon and Nigeria at
Maroua on 1Juine 1975 (Maroua Declaratiori), as corrected by the
exchange of letters between the said Heads of'State of 12 June and
17 July 1975 ; that line passes through pointA to G, whose co-ordi-
nates are as follows :
Longitude Lutitude
poiintA : 8"24'24"E, 4"31'30"N
point Al : 8"24'24"E, 4"31'20"N
point B: 8"24' 10"E, 4"26'32"N
pount C : 8"23'42"E, 4"23'28"N
point D : 8"22'41"E, 4"20'00"N
point E : 8"22'17"E, 4" 19'32"N
pointF: 8"22'19"E, 4"1S146"N
pointG: 8"22'19"E, 4O17'00"N;
IN FAVOUR P:esident Guillaume; Vice-Presidrnt Shi; Judges Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Al-
Khasawneh, Buergenthal.Elaraby; Judge ad hoc Mbaye;
AGAINST :Judges Koroma, Rezek ;Judge ad hoc Ajibola; (C) Unanimously,
Decides that. from oint G. the boundarv line between the maritime
areas appertaining reçbectivel; to the ~e~ublic of Cameroon and to the
Federal Republic of Nigeria follows a loxodrome having an azimuth of
270" as far as the equidistance line passing through the midpoint of the
line joining West Poiint and East Point; the bouridary meets this equi-
distance line at a point X, with CO-ordinates 8"21'20" longitude east
and 4" 17'00" latitude north;
(D) Unanimously,
Decides that, from point X, the boundary between the maritime areas
appertaining respectively to the Republic of Cameroon and to the
Federal Republic of Nigeria follows a loxodrome having an azimuth
of 187" 52'27";
V. (A) By fourteeil votes to two,
Decides that the Federal Republic of Nigeria is under an obligation
expeditiously and without condition to withdraw its administration and
its military and police forces from the territories which fall within the
sovereignty of the Republic of Cameroon pursuant to points 1 and III of
this operative paragraph;
IN FAVOUR: Presideni'Guillaume; Vice-President Shi;Judges Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek,
Al-Khasawneh,Buergenthal,Elaraby; Judge ad hoc Mbaye;
AGAINST: Judge Koroma; Judge ad hoc Ajibola;
(B) Unanimously,
Decides that the R~rpublicof Cameroon is undet an obligation expedi-
tiously and without condition to withdraw any adniinistration or military
or police forces whicl~may be present in the territtx-ieswhich fa11within
the sovereignty ofthe Federal Republic of Nigeria pursuant to point II of
this operative paragraph. The Federal Republic of'Nigeria has the same
obligation in respect of the territories which f'allwithin the sovereignty of
the Republic of Carrieroon pursuant to point II of this operative para-
graph ;
(C) By fifteen votes to one,
Takes note of the commitment undertaken by the Republic of Cam-
eroon at the hearings that, "faithful to its traditional policy of hospitality
and tolerance", it "will continue to afford protection to Nigerians living
in the [Bakassi] Penirisula and in the Lake Chad area";
IN FAVOUR : PresidentGuillaume; Vice-PresidentShi ;Judges Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Higgins, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al-
Khasawneh,Buergenthal,Elaraby; Judges ad hoc:Mbaye,Ajibola;
AGAINST :Judge Parra-Aranguren ; (D) Unanimously,
Rejects al1other submissions of the Republic of'Cameroon regarding
the State responsibility of the Federal Republic of Nigeria;
(E) Unanimously,
Rejects the counter-claims of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Done in French an~din English, the French text heing authoritative, at
the Peace Palace,The Hague, this tenth day of October, two thousand
and two, in fourcopii:~,one of which will be placed in the archives of the
Court and the others transmitted to theovernmc:nt of the Republic of
Cameroon, the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and the
Government of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, respectively.
(Signed) Gilbert GUILLAUME,
President.
(Signed) I'hilippe COUVREUR,
Registrar
Judge ODA appentis a declaration to the Judgment of the Court;
Judge RANJEVA appends a separate opinion to the Judgment of the
Court; Judge HERCZIZGaH ppends a declaration to the Judgment of the
Court; Judge KOROMA appends a dissenting opinion to the Judgment of
the Court; Judge PAF.RA-ARANGUR apNends a separate opinion to the
Judgment of the Cowrt; Judge REZEKappends a declaration to the Judg-
ment of the Court; Judge AL-KHASAWNa End .ludge ad hoc MBAYE
append separate opiriions to the Judgment of the Court; Judgead hoc
AJIBOLA appends a dissenting opinion to the Judgrnent of the Court.
(Initialled)G.G.
(Initialled)Ph.C.
COlJR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,
AVIS CC)NSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES
AFFAIRE DE LA FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE
ET MARITIME ENTRE LE CAMEROUN
ET LE NIGÉRIA
(CAMEROUN c. NIGÉRIA; GUINÉE ÉQUATORIALE (intervenant))
A.RRÊT DU 10 OCTOBRE 2002
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVlSORY OPINIONS AND OKDERS
CASE CONCERNING
THE LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY
BETWEEFJ CAMEROON AND NIGERIA
(CAMEROON vNIGERIA: EQUATORIAL GUINEA intervening)
JUIIGMENT OF 10 OCTOBER 2002 Mode officiel de citation:
Frontiére terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria
(Cameroun c. Nigéria; Guinée équatoriale(intervenant)),
arrêtC.1.J. Recueil 2p. 303
Officia1cita:ion
Land and Maritime Boundury hetween Cameroon and Nigeria
(Cameroonv.Nigeria: Equatorial Guineu intervening),
Judgment, 1.C.J. Reports p. 303
NOàevente: 852 1
ISSN 0074-4441 Sales number
ISBN 92-1-070957-8 10 OCTOBRE 2002
ARRÊT
FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME
ENTRE LE CAMEROUN ET LE NIGÉRIA
(CAMEROUN c. NIGÉRIA; GUINÉE ÉQUATORIALE (intervenant))
LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY
BETWEEN CAMEROON AND NIGERIA
(CAMEROON v.NIGERIA: EQUATORIAL GUINEA intervening)
10OCTOBER 2002
JUDGMENT COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
2002 ANNEE 2002
10octobre
Rôle général
no94 10 octobre 2002
AFFAIRE DE LA FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE
ET MARITIME ENTRE LE CAMEROUN
ET LE NIGÉRIA
(CAMEROUN c. NIGÉRIA; GUINÉE ÉQUATORIALE (intervenant))
Cadre géographique - Contexte historique - Evolution du Jtatut des terri-
toires en cause- Principaux instrunients pertinents aux ,fins de déterminer le
tracé dela frontière terrestre et maritime.
Régiondu lac Tchad.
Délimitation de la frontière - Instruments pertinents jdéclamtion Milner-
Simon de 1919; déclaration Thoinson-Marchand de 1929-1930; &changede
notes Henderson-Fleuriau de 1931) - Frontière uyant &t&dklimitéeet approu-
véepar la Grande-Bretagne et lu France - Confirmation tir& des travaux de
ci&n~arcationnzenks par la commission du bci.ssindu luc Tchad entre 1953 et
1991 - Coordonnéesdu tripoint Cai~leroun-Nigéria-Tclladet de I'en~houchure
de I'Eberlji.
Revenciicutionsdu Nigériafondées sur supr&serzcedr1rz.s certaine.zones du lac
Tclzad- Arguntenrution du Nigéria tiréede la consolidation historique du titre
- Théoriecontrovcrs&ene pouvant se sub.~titueraux modes d'acquisition de
titres reconnus par le droit internatior~a- Argumentation du Nigéria selon
laquelleIr1possession paisible, accompagn4e d'actes d'administration, reprk-
sente une manifestation de souverainetk - Cameroun dktenant un titre /~rée.vis-
tant sur la rkgion du lac conceunie- Critèrejuridique applicable ($tantI'esis-
tence ou non d'un accluiescement inanifefestedu Cunteroun au transfert de son
titre au Nigéria- Canzerounn'ayant pas ucquie.sck à I'abanrlor(Ieson titre sur
la régionenfaveur rluNigériu - Localitéssituéesa l'est de IaJicintière deterneu-
rant sous souverainerécamerounaise.
Frontii.re terrestre du lac Tclzacila presqu'île de Bakassi. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
YEAR 2002 2002
10October
General List
10 October2002 No. 94
CASE CONCERNING
THE LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY
BETWEEIVCAMEROON AND NIGERIA
(CAMEROON V. 'NIGERIA: EQUATORIAL GUINEA intervening)
Geographical contc7xt - Historical background - Territories' changing
status - Principal rejevant instrumentsfor determination of the land and mari-
time boundary.
Lake Cliad area.
Bounda- delimitation - Relevant instruments (Milner-Sinion Decluration,
1919; Thotnson-Marchand Declaration, 1929-19 30; Henderson-Fleuriau
Escliange of Notes, 1931) - Bozindary cielimited and approved by Great
Britain and Frunce -- Confirmation provided by d~nzarcation ivork of Lake
Chad Basin Commission, 1983 to 1Y91 - Co-ordinates qf Carnerion-Nigeria-
Chad tripoint and Ebeji mouth.
Nigerian claims ha.sedon itspresence in certain Lake Cliadareas - Nigerian
argutneiit hased on liistorical consolidation of' title - Controversial theory
~vl~ichrannot replace modes qf ucquisitiori ($ title recognized hjf international
lait.- Nigerian argument that peuceJUlpossession, coupled ivith arts of adniin-
istration, represents nran~fefrstationf sovereignty - Canzeroon the kolder qf a
pre-existing title over the lake areas in question - Test ivhetlier or not Cam-
eroon rnmz~fe.stlji c~luiescedil7 tran.fer($ its title to Nigeria- No acquies-
cenre hy Carneroon to rc~linquishnientof its title oivertlze areu in favour of
Nigeria - Sovereigntjl over settletnents situateci to the ecistof' the boundary
continue.^to lie itith cCanieroon.
Land boundaryfrom Lake Chad to the Bakassi Prninsula. 304 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRET)
Instruinents de délimitation pertinents jdéclurution Tlzonîson-Marchand;
échangecle notes Henderson-Fleuriau; Ordre en conseil britannique de 1946;
accords anglo-allemands des II mars et 12 avril 1913) - Tûche de la Cour
n'étant ni(leprocéder à une délimitation de novo de lafrontière, ni de rlb~nar-
quer celle-ci, nzais dc ((préciserdefinitivement)) le truck de lafrontière tel que
jïxé dans les instruments pertinents - D~xférendportantsur l'interprétationou
l'application de certains passages desdits instruments - E-xamench chacun des
secteurs en litige.
Presqu'île de Bakussi.
Accord anglo-allemand du II mars 1913 - Argumentation du Nigéria selon
laquelle cet accord serait d<fectueux: préambule de l'Acte général de lu Confé-
rence de Berlin de 1885; absence d'approbation par le Parlement ullemund;
article 289 du traitéde Versailles de 1919 - Rejet de cette argumerztation.
Question de savoir si la Grande-Bretagne était /~clbilitc; e transmettre le titre
sur Balcassipur l'accord anglo-allemand du 11 murs 1913 - Trait6 de protec-
torat de 1884 entre la Grande-Bretagne et les rois et chefs du Vieux-Calabar -
Statut juridique de tels trait6.s de protection - Grande-Bretagne pouilclnt en
1913 déterminersafrontière au Nigéria avec I'Allenîugne.y compris pour cequi
est de sa purtie méridionale.
Territoire sous mandat c/uCameroun britannique - Bukassi se trouvant cou-
verte par les termes du munclut - Statut distinct (lu territoire sous rnundutpré-
servépar l'Ordre en conseil britannique de 1923 - Situution territoriale étant
restée lamêmesous le régirnede tutelle - Frontirre entre Bakassi et le Nigéria
étantclerneuréeunefrontirre internutionule.
Nkgociutions en matière maritinle - Nigéria oyant à l'époqueadniis qu'il
était liépar les articles XVIII à-XXII dc l'accord anglo-alle~nurzddu II tnars
1913, et reconnu que la souverainetk .surlu presqu'île de Bakassi était camerou-
naise - Comnzunautécf(> vues entre les Parties se trouvarzt lgalenîent rrflGtée
par la répartitiongéographiquedc,sconcrssions pétrolièresaccorr/ée.p sar l'une
et l'autre jusqu'en 1991 - Accorcl anglo-alle~nandétant valide et applicable
duns son intégralité.
Autres bases sur lesquelles le Nigkriu Jonde sa revendication sur Bakassi -
Rappel de la conclusion à laquelle la Cour est dkjà parvenue sur la théoriede la
consoliriution historique du titre - Invocution cIela consolidation historique ne
pouvant en tout état decause conf>rerau Nigériaun titre sur Baka.ssi, l'«occu-
pation)) de la presqu'île étant contraire à un titrc. conventionnel préexistant
détenupar le Cameroun - Nigérian'ayant pu agir à titrede souverain avant la
,fin des annéessoixante-dix, car ne se considérantalors pus lui-mêmecomme
détenteurd'un titre sur Bakassi - E1ément.sdepreuve nepermettant pas, après
lajn des unn6e.ssoi.xante-dix, de conclure u un ucquiescenzent du Cameroun u
l'abandon de son titre en,fuveur du Nigkria - Frontière étantdélinzitée pur les
articles XVIII à XX de I'accorclanglo-allemand cfu11 tnars 1913 - Souverui-
netésur Bakassi étant camerounaise.
Frontière maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigkric~.
Argumentation du Nigkria selon laquelle h Cour devrait s'abstenir de procé-
der, mcme partiellement, ù lu délimitation demandéepar le Cameroun, aux third States and reqziirement of prior negotiation not satisJled - Nigeria's
eighth preliminary objection - Protection afforded bj Article 59 of the Statute
may not al~,ays be suf$cient, inparticular in respect of maritime delimitations
involving several States - Court unable to rule on Cumeroon's clairnsin sofur
as they may flffect rights of Equatorial Guinea and Sno Tome and Principe -
Mere presence of those tivo States in Gulfof Guinea does not in itselfpreclude
the Court's jurisdiction over maritime delimitation between the Parties -
Court'sjinding in its Jrudgmentof Il June 1998 that ntlgotiations between Cum-
eroon and Nigeria concerning the entire maritime dc,limitation had been con-
ducted in the 1970s - Articles 74and 83 of 1982 Convention on the Law of the
Sea do not require thatjudicial proceedings be suspended while newnegotiations
ur~conducted if a party alters its claim in the course of proceedings - Those
Articles do not preclude the Courtfrom drawing the mcîritimeboundary between
Canzeroon and Nigeria without prior simultaneous nogotiations between those
t~o States and Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe.
Maritime boundarj up to point G - Boundary located to West of Bakussi
Peninsula and not to east - Relevant instruments (Anglo-German Agreement
of II March 1913, Yaoundé II Declarution, 1971; Maroua Declaration,
1975) - Nigeria's argument that Maroua Declaration not valid in international
luw becuuse not rut~jit>d - Maroua Declaration entered into,force immediately
on signature - Nigeria's argument that its constitutional rules on treaty rati-
jïcution had not been complied with - Heads of State regarded as empolvered
to represent their States ,for purpose qf performing al1acts relating to conclu-
sion of u treaty - Letter of 23 August 1974from Head of State of Nigeria to
Head of State of Cuineroon cunnot be regarded as .pxiJic wurning to Cam-
eroon tlzat hrigerianGovernment lvouldnot be bound bjl any commitment entered
into by its Head of State - YaoundéII and Maroua Beclarations must be con-
sidered as binding and imposing a legal obligation on Nigeria - Maritime
delimitation must be considcred as having been estal~lishedon a conventional
basis up to and incIut2'NZpgoint G by Anglo-Germun Agreement of 11 March
1913 and YaoundéII and Maroua Declurutions.
Maritime boundary beyond point G - Parugraph 1 of Articles 74 and 83 of
1982 Law of the Sea (3onventionconcerning delimitation of the continental shelf
und enclusii~eeconomic zone - Parties' agreement rhat delimitation between
their muritirne areas to be effected by a single line - So-called equitable prin-
cipleslrelevant circumstances method, ini~olvingjïrst dralving an equidistance
line then considering i-vhetherthere arefactors calling,for adjustment or shifting
of that line in order zo achieve an "equitable result" - Definition of Parties'
relevant coastlines - Equidistance line cannot be extc~ndedbeyond point where
it might affect rights qf Equatorial Guinea - Absente of circurnstances which
nzi'qhtrequire adjustment ofequidi.stance line: conjiguration and length of rele-
vant coastliries;preseizce of Bioko Island - Parties' oilpractice not afactor tu
be taken into account ,for purposes for maritime deiimitation in this case -
Equidistance line represents an equitable result for dzlimitation of the area in
~vhichthe Court hasjurisdiction to rule. Tracéde la linlite des zones maritimes
* *
Conclusionsdu Cameroun relatives ula responsabilitéinternationale du Nigé-
ria et demandes reconventionnelles du Nigéria concernant la responsabilité
internutionule du Cameroun.
Nigériuétant tenu de retirer dans les plus breji délaiset sans condition son
adrninistrution et sesforces arnzéeset &policeùu secteur du lac Tchad relc~vant
u' ea souverainetédu Catneroun ainsi que de la presqu'île deBakassi - Catne-
roun étant tenu de retirer dans les plus br~fisdélaiset sans condition toutes
administration ouforces arméesou de police qui pourraient se trouver, le long
de laJrontiPre terrestre allant du luc Tchad a la presqu'île deBukassi, u'rrnsles
zones relevant, confi~rmc~n~e ntl'arrêt. e la souverainetédu Nigéri- Nigériu
ayant la mêrneobligation en ce qui concerne toutes adnlinistration ou JOrces
arméesou de police qui pourraient se trouver, le long de lafrontiére terrestre
allant du luc Tcllad u lu presqu'île de Bakassi, clansles zones relemnt, confor-
mPment ul'arrêt,de lu souveruinrtk du Carneroun - Coopération entreles Par-
tiesu l'occasion de l'exécutionde I'arrP- Engagement pris u l'audiencepar le
Cumeroun concernant la protection des Nigérians habitant la presqu'île de
Bakassi ou vivunt dun.sla rGgiondu lac Tchad- Courprenant acte de cet enga-
gement - Conc1usion.sdu Cczmerounvisunt ri l'obtention de garanties de non-
répétitionne pouvant êtreaccueillies - Prrjudice subi par le Cameroun en
raison cle l'occupation de son territoire sufjsumnzent pris en compte du fait
mêmede I'urrêe tt de I'évacuutiondu territoire cunzerounais occupépar le Nigc5-
ria- Cameroun n'uyant pus Gtablique 1. Nigériaa agi en nzéconnaissancedes
mesures conservatoire.^indiquéesdans l'ordonnance du II murs 1996 - Inci-
dents frontaliers- Aucune des Parties n'ayant app«rtéde preuves sujfisantes
des faits qu'elle uvunce ou u'rleur imputabilité ù l'autre Partie- Rejet des
conc1u.sion.du Cameroun concernant la responsubilitéinternationale du Nigériu
et des demundc~sreconventionnelles du Nigéria.
Présents: M. GUILLAUME pr,ésident; M. SHI, vice-président; MM. ODA.
RANJEVAH , ERCZEGH,FLEISCHHAUER, KOROMA,Mme HIGGIN~,
MM.PARRA-ARANGURK ENO, IJMAN RSE,ZEKA, L-KHASAWNE BHU,ER-
GENTHAL, ELARABYj,uges; MM. MBAYE,AJIBOLAj,uges ad
hoc; M. COUVREUR, gref$er.
En l'affaire de la frontière terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun et le
Nigéria,
entre
la Républiquedu Cameroun,
représentéepar
S. Exc. M. Amadou Ali, ministre d'Etat chargé de la justice, garde des
sceaux,
comme agent; Course of boundur;i~of nzaritirne areas.
Cameroon's submissions on Nigeria's State responsihility and Nigeria's
counter-claims regarding Can?eroon'.sState responsihility.
Nigeria under an obligation expeditiously and without condition to ~vithdruw
its administration und nzilitary and police forces from areasof'Lukr Chadfall-
ing under Ciimerooniun sovereignty and,from tlze Bokassi Peninsula - Canl-
eroon under un obligation expeditiously und ioithout i,ondition to ,cithdruiv ar~y
adniinistration or militery or police,forces which tnuy bepresent in areas along
the land boundary Jrom Lake Cl~adto the Bakassi Peninsula wxhichpursuant to
the Judgment fa11 within the sovereignty of Nigeria - Nigeria under the same
obligations as regards any administration or military orpolice,fi)rce.swhich rnay
be present in arras dong the land boundurj~from Lake Chad to the Bakassi
Peninsula which pursivant to the Judgment fa11 ivithirt the sovereignty of'Cam-
eroon - Co-operation beticeen the Parties in impleinenting the Judgment -
C~~rneroon's undertuking ut the hearings in regard t8iprotection of Nigerians
living in the Brikassi Peninsulu or the Lake Chud arou - Court takes note of
that undertciking - (7arneroon'ssubmissions seeking guarantees ofnon-repeti-
tion cannot hr upheld - injury .sujj(>redhy Canleroorrbjj reason of the occupa-
tion of its territory sufficiently adhessed hy the very factoftlzeJudgnient and
uf'the evacuation of'clamerooniun territory occilpied by Nigeria - Canzeroon
hus not shown that Nigeria acted in breach of theprovisional measures inciicated
in the Order of'Il Afarch 1996 - Boundary incidents - Neither Party hrrs
.suj,,ciently proved th(!jacts which it alleges or their imputability to the other
Party - Rcjection of'Cameroon's suhmis.sionson Nigeria's State responsihility
unri of'Nigeria's counter-claitns.
JUDGMENT
Present: Presidrnt (~UILLAUME V;ice-President SHI ; Judges ODA. RANJEVA,
HERCZEGHF,LEISCHHAUEK RO, ROMAH , IG(;INS.PARRA-ARANGUREN,
KOOIJMANR SE, ZEKA. L-KHASAWN BEHE,RGENTHAE LL, ARARY J;dges
ad hoc MRI~YE A,JIBOLAR;egistrur COUVREIJR.
In the case concerning the land and maritime bouridary between Cameroon
and Nigeria,
the Republic of Camt:roon,
represented by
H.E. Mr. Amadou Ali. Minister of State responsible for Justice, Keeper of
the Seals,
as Agent;M. Maurice Kamto, doyen de la facultédes sciencesjuridiques et politiques
de l'université de Yaoundé II, membre de la Commission du droit inter-
national, avocat au barreau de Paris, sociétéd'avocats Lysias,
M. Peter Ntamark, professeur à la facultédes sciencesjuridiques et poli-
tiques de l'université de Yaoundé II, Barrister-ut-Law',membre de l'In-
ner Temple,
comme coagents, conseils et avocats;
M. Alain Pellet, professeur à l'université de Paris X-Nanterre, membre et
ancien présidentde la Commission du droit international,
comme agent adjoint, conseil et avocat;
M. Joseph-Marie Bipoun Woum, professeur a la facultédes sciences juri-
diques et politiques de l'université de Yaoundé II,ancien doyen, ancien
ministre,
comme conseiller spécialet avocat ;
M. Michel Aurillac, ancien ministre, conseiller d'Etat honoraire, avocat en
retraite,
M. Jean-Pierre Cot, professeur éméritede l'université de Paris 1(Panthéon-
Sorbonne), ancien ministre,
M. Maurice Mendelson, Q.C., professeur éméritede droit international de
l'université de Londres, Barrister-ut-Lalo,
M. Malcolm N. Shaw, professeur à la facultéde droit de l'université de
Leicester, titulaire de la chaire sir Robert Jennings,rrister-ut-Law,
M. Bruno Simma, professeur à l'université de Munich, membre de la Com-
mission du droit international,
Sir Ian Sinclair, K.C.M.G., Q.C., Barrister-ut-Law, ancien membre de la
Commission du droit international,
M. Christian Tomuschat, professeur a l'université Humboldt de Berlin,
ancien membre et ancien président de la Commission du droit inter-
national,
M. Olivier Corten, professeur de droit international à la facultéde droit de
l'université libre de Bruxelles,
M. Daniel Khan, chargéde cours à l'Institut de droit international de l'Uni-
versitéde Munich,
M. Jean-Marc Thouvenin, professeur à l'université de Paris X-Nanterre,
avocat au barreau de Paris, sociétéd'avocats Lysias,
comme conseils et avocats;
M. Eric Diamantis, avocat au barreau de Paris, Moquet, Bordes & Associés,
M. Jean-Pierre Mignard, avocat au barreau de Paris, sociétéd'avocats Lysias,
M. Joseph Tjop, consultant à la sociétéd'avocats Lysias, chercheur au
Centre de droit international de Nanterre (CEDIN), Universitéde Paris X-
Nanterre,
comme conseils ;
M. Pierre Semengue, générad l'armée,contrôleur général desarmées, ancien
chef d'état-majordes armées,
M. James Tataw, générad l e division, conseiller logistique, ancien chefd'état-
major de l'armée deterre,
S. Exc. MlneIsabelle Bassong, ambassadeur du Cameroun auprès des pays
du Benelux et de l'Union européenne, LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT)
307
Mr. Maurice Kamto, Dean, Faculty of Law and Political Science,University
of Yaoundé II, rnember of the International Law Commission, avocat at
the Paris Bar, sociétéd'avocats Lysias,
Mr. Peter Ntamark, Professor, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Uni-
versity of Yaoundé II, Barrister-at-Law,embei-of the Inner Temple,
as Co-Agents, Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. Alain Pellet, Professor, University of Paris X-Nanterre, member and
former Chairmari of the International Law Commission,
as Deputy Agent, Counsel and Advocate;
Mr. Joseph-Marie Bipoun Woum, Professor, Faculty of Law and Political
Science, University of Yaoundé II, former Dean, former Minister,
as Special Adviser and Advocate;
Mr. Michel Aurillac, former Minister, Honorary conseiller d'Etat, retired
avocat,
Mr. Jean-Pierre Cot, Emeritus Professor. University of Paris 1 (Panthéon-
Sorbonne), former Minister,
Mr. Maurice Mentielson, Q.C., Emeritus Professor of International Law,
University of Lo:ndon, Barrister-at-Law,
Mr. Malcolm N. Shaw, Sir Robert Jennings Professor of International Law,
Faculty of Law, University of Leicester, Barrister-at-Law,
Mr. Bruno Simma, Professor, University of Munich, member of the Inter-
national Law Commission,
Sir Ian Sinclair, K.C.M.G., Q.C., Barrister-at-Law, former member of the
International Lala Commission,
Mr. Christian Tomluschat,Professor, Humboldt University of Berlin, former
member and Cha.irman, International Law Commission,
Mr. Olivier Corten, Professor of International Law. Faculty of Law, Univer-
sité librede Bruxelles,
Mr. Daniel Khan, Lecturer, International Law Institute, University of
Munich,
Mr. Jean-Marc Thouvenin, Professor, University of Paris X-Nanterre,
avocat at the Paris Bar, sociétéd'avocats Lysias.
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. Eric Diamantis. avocat at the Paris Bar, Moqiiet, Bordes & Associés,
Mr. Jean-Pierre Mignard, avocat at the Paris Bar, sociétéd'avocats Lysias,
Mr. Joseph Tjop, Consultant to sociétéd'avocats Lysias, Researcher at the
Centre de droitinternational de Nanterre (CEDIN), University of Paris X-
Nanterre,
as Counsel;
General Pierre Semengue, Controller-General of the Armed Forces, former
Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces,
Major-General James Tataw, Logistics Adviser, Former Chief of Staff of the
Army,
H.E. Ms Isabelle B:~ssong,Ambassador of Cameroon to the Benelux Coun-
tries and to the European Union,S. Exc. M. Pascal Biloa Tang, ambassadeur du Cameroun en France,
S. Exc. M. Martin Belinga Eboutou, ambassadeur, représentant permanent
du Cameroun auprès de l'organisation des Nations Unies à New York,
M. Etienne Ateba, ministre-conseiller, chargé d'affairesa.àl'ambassade du
Cameroun a La Haye,
M. Robert Akamba, administrateur civil principal, chargé de mission au
secrétariatgénéralde la présidencede la République,
M. Anicet Abanda Atangana, attaché au secrétariatgénéralde la présidence
de la République, chargé de cours àl'université de YaoundéII,
M. Ernest Bodo Abanda, directeur du cadastre, membre de la commission
nationale des frontières,
M. Ousmane Mey, ancien gouverneur de province,
Le chef Samuel Moka Liffafa Endeley, magistrat honoraire, Barrister-at-
Law, membre du Middle Temple, ancien président de lachambre adminis-
trative de la Cour suprême,
MeMarc Sassen, avocat et conseiljuridique, société Petten,Tideman& Sas-
sen, La Haye,
M. Francis Fai Yengo, ancien gouverneur de province, directeur de l'orga-
nisation du territoire au ministèrede l'administration territoriale,
M. Jean Mbenoun, directeur d'administration centrale au secrétariatgénéral
de la présidencede la République,
M. Edouard Etoundi, directeur d'administration centrale au secrétariat géné-
ral de la présidencede la République,
M. Robert Tanda, diplomate, ministère des relations extérieures,
comme conseillers ;
M. Samuel Betah Sona, ingénieur géologuee ,xpert consultant de l'organisa-
tion des Nations Unies pour le droit de la mer,
M. Thomson Fitt Takang, chef de serviced'administration centrale au secré-
tariat généralde la présidencede la République,
M. Jean-Jacques Koum, directeur de l'exploration a la sociéténationale des
hydrocarbures (SNH),
M. Jean-Pierre Meloupou, capitaine de frégate,chef de la division Afrique au
ministèrede la défense,
M. Paul Moby Etia, géographe, directeur de l'Institut national de carto-
graphie,
M. AndréLoudet, ingénieurcartographe,
M. André Roubertou, ingénieur généradle l'armement C.R. (hydrographe),
comme experts;
MmeMarie Florence Kollo-Efon, traducteur interprète principal,
comme traducteur interprète ;
M'leCéline Negre,chercheur au Centre de droit international de Nanterre
(CEDIN), Universitéde Paris X-Nanterre,
M"' Sandrine Barbier, chercheur au Centre de droit international de Nan-
terre (CEDIN), Universitéde Paris X-Nanterre,
M. Richard Penda Keba, professeur certifié d'histoire,cabinet du ministre
d'Etat chargé dela justice, ancien proviseur de lycées,
comme assistants de recherche;
M. Boukar Oumara,
M. Guy Roger Eba'a,H.E. Mr. Pascal BilloaTang, Ambassador of Cameroon to France,
H.E. Mr. Martin Belinga Eboutou, Ambassador, Permanent Representative
of Cameroon to i.heUnited Nations in New York,
Mr. Etienne Ateba, Minister-Counsellor, Chargé d'affaires ai. at the
Embassy of Cameroon, The Hague.
Mr. Robert Akamba, Principal Civil Administrator, Chargé de mission,
General Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic,
Mr. Anicet Abanda Atangana, Attaché to the General Secretariat of the
Presidency of the Republic, Lecturer, University of Yaoundé II,
Mr. Ernest Bodo Abanda, Director of the Cadastral Survey, member,
National Boundary Commission,
Mr. Ousmane Mey, former Provincial Governor,
Chief Samuel M0k.a Liffafa Endeley, Honorary Magistrate, Barrister-at-
Law, member of the Middle Temple, former President of the Administra-
tive Chamber of the Supreme Court,
Maître Marc Sasseri, Advocate and Legal Adviser, Petten, Tideman & Sas-
sen. The Hague,
Mr. Francis Fai Yeingo,former Provincial Governor, Director, Organisation
du Territoire, Ministry of Territorial Administration,
Mr. Jean Mbenoun, Director, Central Administration. General Secretariat
of the Presidency of the Republic,
Mr. Edouard Etoundi, Director, Central Administration, General Secre-
tariat of the Presiidencyof the Republic,
Mr. Robert Tanda, diplomat, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
as Advisers;
Mr. Samuel Betha Sona, Geological Engineer, Consulting Expert to the
United Nations 5or the Law of the Sea,
Mr. Thomson Fitt l'akang, Department Head. Central Administration, Gen-
eral Secretariat of the Presidency of the Republic:,
Mr. Jean-Jacques Koum, Director of Exploration, National Hydrocarbons
Company (SNH),
Commander Jean-Pierre Meloupou, Head of Africa Division at the Ministry
of Defence,
Mr. Paul Moby Etia, Geographer, Director, Institut national de carto-
graphie,
Mr. André Loudet, Cartographic Engineer,
Mr. André Roubertou, ingénieur généralde l'armement C.R. (hydro-
grapher).
as Experts;
Ms Marie Florence Kollo-Efon, Principal Translater-Interpreter,
as Translator-Interpreter;
Ms CélineNegre, Researcher,Centre d'études de droit international de Nan-
terre (CEDIN), llniversity of Paris X-Nanterre,
Ms Sandrine Barbier, Researcher, Centre d'étudesde droit international de
Nanterre (CEDIN), University of Paris X-Nanterre,
Mr. Richard Penda Keba, Certified Professor of History, cabinet of the
Minister of State for Justice, former proviseurdc:lycées,
as Research Assistants;
Mr. Boukar Oumara,
Mr. Guy Roger Eba'a, M. Aristide Esso,
M. Nkende Forbibake,
M. Nfan Bile,
M. Eithel Mbocka,
M. Olinga Nyozo'o,
comme responsables de la communication;
Mm' Renée Bakker,
Mt"' Laurence Polirsztok,
Mm' Mireille Jung,
M. Nigel McCollum,
Mm"Tete BéatriceEpeti-Kame,
comme secrétaires,
la Républiquefédéraledu Nigéria,
représentée par
S. Exc. l'honorable Musa E. Abdullahi, ministre d'Etat, ministre de lajustice
du Gouvernement fédéraldu Nigéria,
comme agent;
Le chef Richard Akinjide SAN, ancien Attorney-Generul de la Fédération,
membre du barreau d'Angleterre, ancien membre de la Commission du
droit international,
M. Alhaji Abdullahi Ibrahim CON, SAN, commissaire pour les frontières
internationales, commission nationale des frontières du Nigéria, ancien
Attorney-General de la Fédération,
comme coagents ;
Mm" Nella Andem-Ewa, Attorney-General et commissaire à la justice de
I'Etat de Cross River,
M. Ian Brownlie, C.B.E., Q.C., membre de la Commission du droit interna-
tional, membre du barreau d'Angleterre, membre de l'Institut de droit
international,
Sir Arthur Watts, K.C.M.G., Q.C., membre du barreau d'Angleterre,
membre de l'Institut de droit international,
M. James Crawford, S.C., professeur de droit internationala l'université de
Cambridge, titulaire de la chaire Whewell, membre des barreaux d'Angle-
terre et d'Australie, membre de l'Institut de droit international,
M. Georges Abi-Saab, professeur honoraire à l'Institut universitaire de
hautes études internationales de Genève, membre de l'Institut de droit
international,
M. Alastair Macdonald, géomètre,ancien directeur de I'Ordnance Survey de
Grande-Bretagne,
comme conseils et avocats;
M. Timothy H. Daniel, associédu cabinet D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City de
Londres.
M. Alan Perry, associé du cabinet D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City de
Londres,
M. David Lerer, Solicitor, cabinet D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City de
Londres. Mr. Aristide Esso,
Mr. Nkende Forbibake,
Mr. Nfan Bile,
Mr. Eithel Mbocka,
Mr. Olinga Nyozo'o,
as Media Officers;
Ms Renée Bakker,
Ms Laurence Polirsztok,
Ms Mireille Jung,
Mr. Nigel McCollum,
Ms Tete BéatriceEpeti-Kame,
as Secretaries,
and
the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
represented by
H.E. the Honourable Musa E. Abdullahi, Minister of State for Justice of the
Federal Governnlent of Nigeria,
as Agent ;
Chief Richard Akinjide SAN, Former Attorney-General of the Federation,
member of the English Bar, former member of the International Law
Commission.
.4lhaji Abdullahi Ibrahim CON, SAN, Commissioner, International Boun-
daries, National Boundary Commission of Ni%eria, Former Attorney-
General of the Federation,
as Co-Agents:
Mrs. Nella Andem-Ewa, Attorney-General and Commissioner for Justice,
Cross River State,
Mr. Ian Brownlie, C.B.E., Q.C., member of the International Law Commis-
sion. member of the English Bar, member of the Institute of International
Law,
Sir Arthur Watts, IC.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, Univer-
sity of Cambridgi:, member of the English and Aiistralian Bars, member of
the Institute of International Law,
Mr. Georges Abi-Saab, Honorary Professor, Graduate Institute of Interna-
tional Studies, Geneva, member of the Institute of International Law,
Mr. Alastair Macdonald, Land Surveyor, Former Director, Ordnance Sur-
vey, Great Britain,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr. Timothy H. Daniel, Partner, D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City of London,
Mr. Alan Perry, Pa.rtner, D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City of London,
Mr. David Lerer, Solicitor, D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City of London,310 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
M. Christopher Hackford, Solicitor, cabinet D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City
de Londres,
Mm"Charlotte Breide, Solicitor, cabinet D. J. Freeman, Solic,itors,City de
Londres,
M. Ned Beale, stagiaire, cabinet D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City de Londres,
M. Geoffrey Marston, Fellow du Sidney Sussex College de l'université de
Cambridge, membre du barreau d'Angleterre et du pays de Galles,
M. Maxwell Gidado, assistant spécial principaldu présidentpour les affaires
juridiques et constitutionnelles, ancienAttorney-General et commissaire à
la justice de 1'Etatd'Adamaoua,
M. A. O. Cukwurah, conseil associé,ancien conseiller de l'organisation des
Nations Unies en matière de frontières (ASOP) auprès du Royaume du
Lesotho, ancien commissaire pour les frontières inter-Etats, commission
nationale des frontières,
M. 1. Ayua, membre de l'équipe juridiquedu Nigéria,
M. K. A. Adabale, directeur pour le droit international et le droit comparé
au ministère de la justice,
M. Jalal Arabi, membre de l'équipejuridique du Nigéria,
M. Gbola Akinola, membre de l'équipe juridiquedu Nigéria,
M. K. M. Tumsah, assistant spécialdu directeur généralde la commission
nationale des frontières et secrétairede l'équipejuridique,
comme conseils ;
S. Exc. l'honorable Dubem Onyia, ministre d'Etat, ministre des affaires
étrangères,
M. Alhaji Dahiru Bobbo, directeur généralde la commission nationale des
frontières,
M. F. A. Kassim, directeur généraldu servicecartographique de la Fédéra-
tion,
M. Alhaji S. M. Diggi, directeur des frontières internationales a la commis-
sion nationale des frontières,
M. A. B. Maitama, colonel, ministérede la défense,
M. Aliyiu Nasir, assistant spécialdu ministre d'Etat, ministre de la justice,
comme conseillers ;
M. Chris Carleton, C.B.E., bureau hydrographique du Royaume-Uni,
M. Dick Gent, bureau hydrographique du Royaume-Uni,
M. Clive Schofield, unitéde recherche sur les frontières internationales de
l'université deDurham,
M. Scott B. Edmonds. directeur des opérations cartographiques, Inter-
national Mapping Associates,
M. Robert C. Rizzutti, cartographe principal, International Mapping
Associates,
M. Bruce Daniel, International Mapping Associates,
MmeVictoria J. Taylor, International Mapping Associates,
MmeStephanie Kim Clark, International Mapping Associates,
M. Robin Cleverly, directeur de l'exploitation, NPA Group,
MmeClaire Ainsworth, NPA Group.
comme conseillers scientifiqueset techniques;
M. Mohammed Jibrilla, expert en informatique, commission nationale des
frontières,Mr. Christopher Hackford, Solicitor, D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City of Lon-
don,
Ms Charlotte Breide, Solicitor, D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City of London,
Mr. Ned Beale, Trainee, D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City of London,
Mr. Geoffrey Marston, Fellow of Sidney Sussex College, University ofCam-
bridge, member of the Bar of England and Wales,
Mr. Maxwell Gidatio, Senior Special Assistant to the President (Legal and
Constitutional Matters), former Attorney-Gener,il and Commissioner for
Justice, Adamawa State,
Mr. A. O. Cukwurah, Co-Counsel, Former UN (OPAS) Boundary Adviser
to the Kingdom of Lesotho, Former Commissioner, Inter-State Bound-
aries, National Boundary Commission,
Mr. 1.Ayua, member, Nigerian Legal Team,
Mr. K. A. Adabale, Director (International and Comparative Law), Minis-
try of Justice,
Mr. Jalal Arabi, member, Nigerian Legal Team,
Mr. Gbola Akinola, member, Nigerian Legal Teani,
Mr. K. M. Tumsah, Special Assistant to Director-General, National Bound-
ary Commission, and Secretary to the Legal Team,
as Counsel ;
H.E. the Honourable Dubem Onyia, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs,
Alhaji Dahiru Bobbo, Director-General, National Boundary Commission,
Mr. F. A. Kassim, Surveyor-General of the Federation,
Alhaji S. M. Diggi, Director (International Boundaries), National Boundary
commission,
Colonel A. B. Maitama, Ministry of Defence,
Mr. Aliyu Nasir, Special Assistant to the Minister of State for Justice,
as Advisers;
Mr. Chris Carleton, C.B.E., United Kingdom Hydrographic Office,
Mr. Dick Gent, Uriited Kingdom Hydrographic Orfice,
Mr. Clive Schofield, International Boundaries Rescarch Unit, University of
Durham,
Mr. Scott B. Edmonds. Director of Cartographic Operations, International
Mapping Associates,
Mr. Robert C. Rizzutti, Senior Mapping Specialist, International Mapping
Associates,
Mr. Bruce Daniel, International Mapping Associates,
Ms Victoria J. Taylor, International Mapping Associates,
Ms Stephanie Kim Clark, International Mapping ~lssociates,
Mr. Robin Cleverly, Exploration Manager, NPA Group,
Ms Claire Ainsworth, NPA Group,
as Scientific andTechnical Advisers;
Mr. Mohammed Jibrilla, Computer Expert, National Boundary Commis-
sion. Mm"Coralie Ayad, secrétaire, cabinet D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City de
Londres,
MmeClaire Goodacre, secrétaire, cabinet D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City de
Londres,
Mn" Sarah Bickell, secrétaire, cabinet D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City de
Londres,
MlneMichelle Burgoine, spécialiste en technologiede l'information, cabinet
D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City de Londres,
comme personnel administratif;
M. Geoffrey Anika,
M. Mau Onowu,
M. Austeen Elewodalu,
M. Usman Magawata,
comme responsables de la communication,
avec, conzme Etat autorisé à intervenir dans l'instance,
la République de Guinée équatoriale,
représentéepar
S. Exc. M. Ricardo Mangue Obama N'Fube, ministre d'Etat, ministre du
travail et de la sécurité sociale,
comme agent et conseil;
S. Exc. M. Rubén Maye Nsue Mangue, ministre de la justice et des cultes,
vice-présidentde la commission nationale des frontières,
S. Exc. M. Cristobal Marïana Ela Nchama, ministre des mines et de l'énergie,
vice-présidentde la commission nationale des frontières,
S. Exc. M. Antonio Nzambi Nlonga, Attorney-General,
M. Domingo Mba Esono, directeur national de la Sociéténationale des
pétrolesde Guinéeéquatoriale, membre de la commission nationale des
frontières,
S. Exc. M. Juan 010 Mba Nzang, ancien ministre des mines et de l'énergie,
comme conseillers ;
M. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, professeur de droit international public à l'univer-
sitéde Paris II (Panthéon-Assas) et à l'Institut universitaire européende
Florence,
M. David A. Colson, membre du cabinet LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae,
L.L.P., Washington, D.C., membre du barreau de I'Etat de Californie et
du barreau du district de Columbia,
comme conseils et avocats;
Sir Derek Bowett, C.B.E., Q.C.,
comme conseil principal ;
M. Derek C. 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'Etatde Virginie,
comme conseil ;
Mm"Jannette E. Hasan, membre du cabinet LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene &
MacRae, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., membre du barreau du district de
Columbia et du barreau de I'Etat de Floride, LAND 4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUL)GMENT) 311
Ms Coralie Ayad, Secretary, D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City of London.
Ms Claire Goodacre, Secretary, D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City of London,
Ms Sarah Bickell, Secretary, D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City of London,
Ms Michelle Burgoine, ITSpecialist, D. J. Freeman, Solicitors, City of Lon-
don,
as Administrators;
Mr. Geoffrey Anika.,
Mr. Mau Onowu,
Mr. Austeen Elewodalu,
Mr. Usman Magawata,
as Media Officers,
witlz, as State permitted to intervene in the case,
the Republic of Equatorial Guinea.
represented by
H.E. Mr. Ricardo 'MangueObama N'Fube, Minister of State for Labour
and Social Security,
as Agent and Counijel;
H.E. Mr. Rubén MayeNsue Mangue, Minister of Justice and Religion, Vice-
President of the National Boundary Commission,
H.E. Mr. Cristobal Mafiana Ela Nchama, Minister of Mines and Energy,
Vice-President of the National Boundary Commission,
H.E. Mr. Antonio Nzambi Nlonga, Attorney-General of the State,
Mr. Domingo Mba Esono, National Director of the Equatorial Guinea
National Petroleum Company, member of the hational Boundary Com-
mission,
H.E. Juan 016 Mbal Nzang, former Minister of Mines and Energy,
as Advisers;
Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Professor of Public International Law at the
University of ParisII (Panthéon-Assas) and at the European University
Institute, Florence,
Mr. David A. Colston, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P., Wash-
ington, D.C., meinber of the California State Bar and District of Colum-
bia Bar.
as Counsel and Advocates;
Sir Derek Bowett, C.B.E., Q.C.,
as Senior Counsel;
Mr. Derek C. Smith, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P., Washing-
ton, D.C., member of the District of Columbia Bar and Virginia State Bar,
as Counsel;
Ms Jannette E. Hasan, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P., Wash-
ington, D.C.,meimberof the District of Columbia Bar and Florida State
Bar, M. Hervé Blatry, membre du cabinet LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae,
L.L.P., Paris, avocatàla Cour, membre du barreau de Paris,
comme experts juridiques ;
M. Coalter G. Lathrop, Sovereign Geographic Inc., Chapel Hill, Caroline du
Nord.
M. c lei an d Me.Tait, Equator Graphics Inc., Silver Spring, Maryland,
comme experts techniques,
ainsi composée,
après délibéréen chambre du conseil,
rend ['arrêtsuivant;
1. Le 29 mars 1994. le Gouvernement de la République du Cameroun
(dénommée ci-aprèsle ((Cameroun))) a déposéau Greffe de la Cour une
requête introductive d'instancecontre le Gouvernement de la Républiquefédé-
rale du Nigéria(dénommée ci-aprèsle (Nigéria)))au sujet d'un différendpré-
senté comme «port[ant] essentiellement sur la question de la souveraineté sur la
presqu'île de Bakassi)). Le Cameroun exposait en outre dans sa requêteque la
((délimitation[dela frontière maritime entre les deux Etats était] demeurée par-
tielle et [que]les deux parties n'[avaient] pas pu, malgréde nombreuses tenta-
tives, se mettre d'accord pour la compléter)). priait en conséquencela Cour,
(([alfind'éviterde nouveaux incidents entre les deux pays, ..de bien vouloir
déterminerle tracéde la frontière maritime entre les deux Etats au-delà de celui
qui avait étéfixéen 197.5)).
La requêteinvoquait, pour fonder la compétencede la Cour, les déclarations
par lesquelles les deux Parties avaient accepté la juridiction de la Cour au titre
du paragraphe 2 de l'article 36 du Statut de la Cour.
2. Conformément au paragraphe 2 de l'article 40 du Statut, la requête a été
immédiatement communiquéeau Gouvernement du Nigériapar le greffier.
3. Le 6juin 1994,le Cameroun a déposéau Greffe une requête additionnelle
«aux fins d'élargissementde l'objet du différend))à un autre différend décrit
dans cette requête additionnelle comme«port[ant] essentiellement sur la ques-
tion de la souveraineté sur unepartie du territoire camerounais dans la zone du
lac Tchad)). Le Cameroun demandait également à la Cour, dans sa requête
additionnelle, de((préciserdéfinitivement))la frontière entre les deux Etats, du
lac Tchad a la mer, et la priait de joindre les deux requêteset ((d'examiner
l'ensemble en une seuleet mêmeinstance)). La requête additionnellese référait,
pour fonder la compétencede la Cour, à la «base de ... compétence... déjà...
indiquée))dans la requête introductive d'instancedu 29 mars 1994.
4. Le 7juin 1994,le greffier a communiquéla requête additionnelleau Gou-
vernement du Nigéria.
5. Lors d'une réunionque le présidentde la Cour a tenue avec les représen-
tants des Parties le 14juin 1994,l'agent du Cameroun a préciséque son gou-
vernement n'avait pas entendu présenterune requête distincteet que la requête
additionnelle avait étéplutôt conçue comme un amendement à la requêteini-
tiale; l'agent du Nigéria a déclaré,pour sa part, que son gouvernement ne
s'opposait pas à ce que la requête additionnelle soit considérée comme un
amendement à la requêteinitiale de façon que la Cour puisse examiner I'en-
semble en une seule et mêmeinstance. LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUI)GMENT) 312
Mr. Hervé Blatry, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae, L.L.P., Paris, avocat
à la Cour, member of the Paris Bar,
as Legal Experts;
Mr. Coalter G. Lathrop, Sovereign Geographic Inc., Chapel Hill, North
Carolina,
Mr. Alexander M. Tait, Equator Graphics Inc., Silver Spring, Maryland,
as Technical Experts,
composed as above,
after deliberation,
delivers thefollowing Judgment .
1. On 29 March 1994 the Government of the Republic of Cameroon (here-
inafter referred to as "Cameroon") filed in the Registry of the Court an Appli-
cation instit~iting proclredings against the Government of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria (hereinafter referred to as "Nigeria") concerning a dispute described
as "relat[ing] essentially to the question of sovereignty over the Bakassi Penin-
sula". Cameroon further stated in its Application that the "delimitation [of the
maritime boundary between the two States] has remained a partial one and
[that],despite many attempts to complete it, the two parties have been unable
to do so". Consequently, it requested the Court, "[ilil order to avoid further
incidents between the two countries, . . . to determini: the course of the mari-
time boundary between the two States beyond the linz fixed in 1975".
In order to found thiejurisdiction of the Court, the .$pplication relied on the
declarations made by the two Parties accepting the jurisdiction of the Court
under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court.
2. Pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the Application was
immediately communicated to the Government of Nigeria by the Registrar.
3. On 6 June 1994Cameroon filed in the Registry an Additional Application
"for the purpose of extending the subject of the dispilte" to a further dispute
described in that Additional Application as "relat[ing] essentially to the ques-
tion of sovereignty over a part of the territory of Camt:roon in the area of Lake
Chad". Cameroon alsc, requested the Court, in its Additional Application, "to
specify definitively" the frontier between the two States from Lake Chad to the
sea, and asked it to join the two Applications and "to examine the whole in a
single case". In order to found the jurisdiction of the Court, the Additional
Application referred to the "basis of. . .jurisdiction. . already . . . indicated"
in the Application insitituting proceedings of 29 March 1994.
4. On 7 June 1994 the Registrar communicated th<:Additional Application
to the Government of Nigeria.
5. At a meeting helti by the President of the Court aith the representatives of
the Parties on 14 Juni: 1994 the Agent of Cameroon explained that his Gov-
ernment had not intended to submit a separate Application and that the Addi-
tional Application haci instead been designed as an amendment to the initial
Application: the Agerit of Nigeria, for his part, declared that his Government
did not object to the Additional Application being treiited as an amendment to
the initial Application, so that the Court might examine the whole in a single
case.313 FRONTIERE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
6. Par ordonnance du 16juin 1994,la Cour a indiquéqu'elle nevoyait pas
d'objection à ce qu'il soit ainsi procédé, et afixéau 16 mars 1995 et au
18 décembre 1995, respectivement, les dates d'expiration des délaispour le
dépôtdu mémoiredu Cameroun et du contre-mémoiredu Nigéria.
7. Conformément au paragraphe 3 de l'article 40du Statut, tous les Etats
admis àester devant la Cour ont étéinformésde la requête.
8. Le Cameroun a dûment déposé son mémoire dans le délai prescritàcet
effet.
9. Dans le délai fixépour le dépôt de son contre-mémoire, le Nigéria a
déposé des exceptions préliminairesà la compétencede la Cour et à la receva-
bilitéde la requête.En conséquence,par ordonnance du 10janvier 1996,le pré-
sident de la Cour, constatant qu'en vertu des dispositions du paragraphe 3 de
l'article 79 du Règlement la procédure sur le fond était suspendue, a fixéau
15mai 1996ladate d'expiration du délaidans lequel le Cameroun pourrait pré-
senter un exposé écritcontenant ses observations et conclusions sur les excep-
tions préliminaires.
Le Cameroun a dûment déposé untel exposédans le délaiainsi prescrit, et
l'affaire s'esttrouvéeen état pour ce qui est des exceptions préliminaires.
10. La Cour ne comptant sur le siègeaucun juge de la nationalitédes Parties,
chacune d'elles s'estprévaluedu droit que lui confère le paragraphe 3 de I'ar-
ticle 31 du Statut de procéder à la désignation d'unjuge ad hoc pour siéger
en l'affaire: le Cameroun a désignéM. Kéba Mbaye, et le Nigéria M. Bola
Ajibola.
11. Par lettre datéedu 10février1996et reçue au Greffe le 12février 1996,le
Cameroun a présenté unedemande en indication de mesures conservatoires en
vertu de l'article 41 du Statut.Par ordonnance du 15mars 1996,la Cour, après
avoir entendu les Parties, a indiqué certaines mesures conservatoires.
12. La Cour a tenu des audiences sur les exceptions préliminaires soulevées
par le Nigériadu 2 au 11mars 1998.Dans son arrêt du 1l juin 1998,la Cour
a dit qu'elle avait compétencepour statuer sur le fond du différend etque les
demandes du Cameroun étaient recevables. La Cour a rejeté sept des excep-
tions préliminairessoulevéespar le Nigériaet a déclaréque la huitièmen'avait
pas un caractère exclusivement préliminaireet qu'ellestatuerait sur celle-cidans
l'arrêtqu'elle rendrait sur le fond.
13. Par ordonnance du 30juin 1998, la Cour a fixéau 31 mars 1999 la date
d'expiration du nouveau délaipour le dépôtdu contre-mémoiredu Nigéria.
14. Le 28 octobre 1998,le Nigériaa présenté unedemande en interprétation
de l'arrêt rendupar la Cour le 1l juin 1998 sur les exceptions préliminaires;
cette demande a donnélieu à une nouvelle affaire, distincte de la présente.Par
arrêtdu 25 mars 1999, la Cour a décidéque la demande en interprétation du
Nigériaétaitirrecevable.
15. Le 16 novembre 1998, le Gouvernement de la République de Guinée
équatoriale(dénommée ci-après la«Guinéeéquatoriale)))a demandé à obtenir
copie du mémoire déposépar le Cameroun ainsi que des cartes produites
devant la Cour par les Parties au cours de la procédure oralesur les exceptions
préliminaires.Les Parties ont étéconsultéesconformémentau paragraphe 1de
l'article 53 du Règlement et ont fait savoià la Cour qu'elles nes'opposaient
pas à ce que les documents demandéspar le Gouvernement de la Guinéeéqua-
toriale lui soient communiqués. Les documents en question ont ététransmis à
la Guinéeéquatoriale le 8 décembre 1998.
16. Par ordonnance du 3 mars 1999, la Cour a reporté au 31 mai 1999 la
date d'expiration du délaipour le dépôtdu contre-mémoire. 6. By an Order of 16June 1994the Court indicated that it had no objection
to such a procedure and fixed 16 March 1995and 18 December 1995respec-
tively as the time-limits for the filing of the Memoriiil of Cameroon and the
Counter-Mernorial of Nigeria.
7. Pursuant to Article 40, paragraph 3, of the Statute, al1States entitled to
appear before the Court were notified of the Application.
8. Cameroon duly filed its Memorial within the time-limit prescribed for that
purpose.
9. Within the time-limit fixed for the filing of its Counter-Memorial, Nigeria
filed preliminary obje1:tionsto the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissi-
bility of the Application. Accordingly, by an Order dated 10January 1996the
President of the Court, noting that under Article 79, paragraph 3, of the Rules
of Court the proceediiigs on the merits were suspended. fixed 15May 1996as
the time-limit within v~hichCameroon might present ;iwritten statement of its
observations and subrnissions on the preliminary objections.
Cameroon duly filed such a statement within the time-limit so prescribed,
and the case became rlradyfor hearing in respect of the preliminary objections.
IO. Since the Court included upon the Bench no judge of the nationality of
the Parties, each Party exercised its rightunder Articlc 31, paragraph 3, of the
Statute to choose a ju'dgead hoc to sit in the case. Cameroon chose Mr. Kéba
Mbaye and Nigeria chose Mr. Bola Ajibola.
11. By a letter of 10 February 1996,receivedin the Registry on 12 February
1996, Cameroon made a request for the indication of provisional measures
under Article 41 of the Statute. By an Order dated 15 March 1996the Court,
after hearing the Parties, indicated certain provisional measures.
12. The Court held hearings on the preliminary objections raised by Nigeria
from 2 to II March 1998.In its Judgment of 11June 1998the Court found that
it had jurisdiction to adjudicateupon the merits of the dispute and that Cam-
eroon's requests were admissible. The Court rejected seven of the preliminary
objections raised by Nigeria and declared that the eighth did not have an exclu-
sively preliminary character. and that it would rule on it in the Judgment to be
rendered on the merits.
13. By an Order of 30 June 1998the Court fixed 3 L March 1999as the new
time-limit for the filing of Nigeria's Counter-Memoriiil.
14. On 28 October 1998Nigeria submitted a request for interpretation of the
Judgment delivered by the Court on 11 June 1998 on the preliminary objec-
tions; that request became a new case, separate from the present proceedings.
ByJudgment dated 25 March 1999the Court decided that Nigeria's request for
interpretation was inadmissible.
15. On 16 November 1998 the Government of th. Republic of Equatorial
Guinea (hereinafter "Equatorial Guinea") requested a copy of the Memorial
filed by Cameroon and of the maps produced to the Court by the Parties at the
oral proceedings on t'hepreliminary objections. The Parties were consulted in
accordance with Article 53, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court and informed
the Court that they did not object to the communication to the Government of
Equatorial Guinea of the documents requested by it. The documents in ques-
tion were transmitted to Equatorial Guinea on 8 December 1998.
16. By an Order ol'3 March 1999 the Court extended to 31 May 1999the
time-limit for the filing of the Counter-Memorial.314 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
Le Nigéria a dûment déposé son contre-mémoiredans le délai ainsi prorogé.
Cette piècecomprenait des demandes reconventionnelles.
17. Lors d'une réunion que le président de la Cour a tenue avec les agents
des Parties le 28 juin 1999, le Cameroun a indiquéqu'il ne s'opposait pas à la
présentation par le Nigéria desdemandes reconventionnelles contenues dans le
contre-mémoire de celui-ci, et les Parties sont convenues qu'une réplique et une
duplique étaient nécessaires en l'espèce.
Par ordonnance du 30 juin 1999, la Cour a déclaré recevablesles demandes
reconventionnelles du Nigéria, a décidéla présentation d'une réplique par le
Cameroun et d'une duplique par le Nigéria,et a fixéau 4 avril 2000 et au 4jan-
vier 2001, respectivement, les dates d'expiration des délaispour le dépôtde ces
deux pièces. Dans son ordonnance, la Cour a en outre réservéle droit du
Cameroun de s'exprimer une seconde fois par écritsur les demandes reconven-
tionnelles du Nigéria, dans une pièceadditionnelle dont le dépôt pourrait faire
l'objet d'une ordonnance ultérieure.
La réplique et la duplique ont été dûmentdéposéesdans les délais ainsi pres-
crits.
18. Le 30 juin 1999, la Guinée équatoriale a déposéau Greffe une requête a
fin d'intervention dans l'affaire, en vertu de l'article 62 du Statut. Aux termes
de cette requête, l'objet de l'intervention sollicitéeétait de ((protégerles droits
de la République de Guinée équatoriale dans le golfe de Guinée par tous les
moyens juridiques disponibles)) et d'«informer la Cour de la nature des droits
et intérêts d'ordre juridiquede la Guinée équatorialequi pourraient êtremis en
cause par la décision de la Cour, compte tenu des frontiéres maritimes reven-
diquéespar les parties a l'affaire soumisà la Cour)). Dans sa requête,la Gui-
néeéquatoriale indiquait en outre qu'elle ne «cherch[ait] pasadevenir partie a
l'instance)).
Conformément aux dispositions de l'article 83du Règlement, la requête àfin
d'intervention de la Guinée équatoriale a été immédiatementcommuniquée au
Cameroun et au Nigéria, etla Cour a fixéau 16 août 1999la date d'expiration
du délai pour le dépôt d'observations écritespar ces Etats. Chacun des deux
Etats a déposéses observations dans le délai ainsifixé,et celles-ci ont ététrans-
mises à la Partie adverse ainsi qu'à la Guinée équatoriale. Le 3 septembre 1999,
l'agent de la Guinée équatoriale a portéa la connaissancede la Cour les vues de
son gouvernement sur les observations formulées par les Parties; la Guinée
équatoriale notait qu'aucune des deux Parties n'avait formulé d'objection de
principe à l'encontre de l'intervention, et elle exprimait l'avis que des audiences
n'étaient pas nécessairespour statuer sur l'admission de la requêta fin d'inter-
vention.
Par ordonnance du 21 octobre 1999, la Cour, estimant que la Guinée équa-
toriale avait suffisamment établi qu'elle avait un intérêtd'ordre juridique sus-
ceptible d'êtreaffectépar un arrêtque la Cour rendrait aux fins de déterminer
la frontière maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria,l'a autorisée a intervenir
dans l'instance dans les limites, de la manière et aux fins spécifiéesdans sa
requête.La Cour a en outre fixécomme suit les dates d'expiration des délais
pour le dépôt de la déclaration écrite et desobservations écritesviséesau para-
graphe 1de l'article 85 du Règlement: le 4 avril 2001 pour la déclaration écrite
de la Guinée équatoriale et le 4 juillet 2001 pour les observations écritesdu
Cameroun et du Nigériasur cette déclaration.
La déclaration écritede la Guinée équatoriale et les observations écrites des
Parties ont été dûmentdéposéesdans les délais ainsi prescrits.
19. Par lettre du4janvier 2001, l'agent du Cameroun, se référant à I'ordon-nance susmentionnée du 30juin 1999, a fait connaître à la Cour que son gou-
vernement souhaitait s'exprimer une seconde fois par écrit sur les demandes
reconventionnelles du Nigéria et a suggéréque la date d'expiration du délai
pour le dépôt decette pièceadditionnelle soit fixéeau 4 juillet 2001. L'agent du
Nigériaa indiqué,par lettre du 6 février2001, que son gouvernement ne voyait
pas d'objection àcette demande. Par ordonnance du 20 février 2001,la Cour a
autorisé la présentation par le Cameroun d'une pièce additionnelle portant
exclusivement sur les demandes reconventionnelles soumises par le Nigéria, et a
fixéau 4 juillet 2001 la date d'expiration du délaipour le dépôt decette pièce.
Le Cameroun a dûment déposéla pièceadditionnelle dans le délaiainsi pres-
crit, et l'affaire s'est trouvéeen état.
20. Lors d'une réunion que le président de la Cour a tenue avec les agents
des Parties et de la Guinée équatorialele 12septembre 2001, les trois Etats ont
expriméleur accord pour que la procédure orale sur le fond s'ouvre au début de
l'année 2002;ils ont en outre présenté leursvues sur l'organisation de cette pro-
cédure.La Cour a fixéau 18 février2002 la date d'ouverture de la procédure
orale et a adopté le calendrier de celle-ci. Par lettres du 24 septembre 2001, le
greffier a porté cette décisionà la connaissance des Parties et de la Guinée
équatoriale.
21. Par lettre du8janvier 2002, le Cameroun a informé laCour de son désir
de pouvoir répondre par oral, fût-ce brièvement, aux observations que leNigé-
ria serait amené à formuler lors de son dernier tour de plaidoiries au sujet des
demandes reconventionnelles qu'il avait présentées;le Nigéria a dûment été
informé de cette demande. La Cour a décidé d'accueillirladite demande. Les
agents des Parties en ont été informésar lettres du greffier en datedu février
2002.
22. Par lettre du 11janvier 2002, le Cameroun a expriméle vŒude produire
des documents nouveaux conformément aux dispositions de l'article 56 du
Règlement. La communication prévue au paragraphe 1 de cet article a été
adresséeau Nigéria.Par lettre du 29janvier 2002, le coagent du Nigéria a fait
savoir àla Cour que son gouvernement s'opposait à la production de ces docu-
ments nouveaux au motif, notamment, que le Cameroun n'avait pas indiqué
pourquoi lesdits documents, bien que présentéscomme étant «de grandeimpor-
tance)), «n'[avaient] pas étéproduits au moment approprié et, en tout état de
cause, avant la clôture de la procédure écrite)).Cette lettre a étécommuniquée
à l'agent du Cameroun qui, par lettre du 1" février 2002,a notamment expliqué
qu'au vu de l'argumentation développéedans la duplique nigériane son gou-
vernement avait ((considéréqu'un certain nombre de documents, dont il n'avait
pas jugé la production indispensable à l'occasion de sa réplique, se révélaient
être d'une importance plus grande qu'il ne l'avait envisagéauparavant)). La
Cour a décidéde ne pas autoriser la production de ces documents, à l'exception
de ceux relatifsa des événementspostérieurs à la répliquedu Cameroun. La
Cour a égalementdécidéd'autoriser le Nigéria,si celui-ci le désirait, déposer
des documents en réponse aux nouveaux documents produits par le Cameroun
età présenterses observations éventuellessur ceux-ci durant la procédure orale.
Les agents des Parties en ont été informéspar lettres du greffier en date du
7 février 2002.
23. Conformément au paragraphe 2 de l'article 53 de son Règlement, la
Cour. après s'êtrerenseignéeauprès des Parties, a décidéque des exemplaires
des piècesde procédure etdes documents annexés seraient rendus accessiblesau
public à l'ouverture de la procédure orale. Aprèsconsultation des Parties et de
la Guinée équatoriale,la Cour a décided'en faire de même avecla déclarationabove-mentioned Order of 30 June 1999, informed the Court that his Govern-
ment wished to preseni. its views in writing a second tirne on Nigeria's counter-
claims and suggested tl~at4 July 2001 be fixed as the time-limit for the filing of
that additional pleadirig. The Agent of Nigeria indicated in a letter of 6 Feb-
ruary 2001 that his Governmenthad no objection to that request. By an Order
of 20 February 2001 the Court authorized the presentation by Cameroon of an
additional pleading relating exclusively to the counier-claims submitted by
Nigeria and fixed 4 July 2001 as the time-limit for the filing of that pleading.
Cameroon duly fileclthe additional pleading within the time-limit so fixed,
and the case became rt:ady for hearing.
20. At a meeting held by the President of the Court with the Agents of the
Parties and of Equat'orial Guinea on 12 Septembei 2001 the three States
expressed their agreement that the oral proceedings on the merits should open
early in 2002; they also presented their views on the organization of those pro-
ceedings. The Court fi:<ed18 February 2002 as the date for the opening of the
oral proceedings and adopted the schedule for them. By letters dated 24 Sep-
tember 2001 the Regisi.rar informed the Parties and Equatorial Guinea of that
decision.
21. By a letter of ElJanuary 2002 Cameroon informed the Court that it
wislîed to be given the opportunity to reply orally, even if only briefly, to any
observations Nigeria niight make during its last round of oral arguments relat-
ing to the counter-claiins it had submitted. Nigeria was duly informed of that
request, which the Court decided to grant, the Agents of the Parties being so
informed by letters from the Registrar dated 7 February 2002.
22. By a letter of 11January 2002 Cameroon expressed the desire to produce
further documents in accordance with Article 56 of the Rules of Court. As pro-
vided in paragraph 1 of that Article, those documents were communicated to
Nigeria. By a letter of 29 January 2002 the Co-Agent of Nigeria informed the
Court that his Government objected to the production of those new docu-
ments. on the grounds, inter ulia,that Cameroon hacl not explained why the
documents, although described as being "of great importance", "[had] not
[been] submitted to the Court at theappropriate time, and in any event prior to
the closure of the written procedure". That letter was communicated to the
Agent of Cameroon. niho, by a letter of 1February 2002, explained inter ulia
that in the light of the argument developed in Nigeria's Rejoinder his Govern-
ment had "found that a number of documents whosi: production it had not
judged indispensable at the time of its Reply turned out to be more important
thail previously thouglit". The Court decided not to authorize the production
of the documents, with the exception of those relating to events subsequent to
Cameroon's Reply. The Court also decided to authorize Nigeria, if it so
desired, to file documi:nts in reply to the new documents produced by Cam-
eroon and to present ;any observations on them duriiig the oral proceedings.
The Agents of the Parties were so informed by letters from the Registrar dated
7 February 2002.
23. Pursuant to Artiicle53, paragraph 2, of its Rule';, the Court, after ascer-
taining the views of tht: Parties, decided that copies of the pleadings and docu-
ments annexed would be made available to the public at the opening of the oral
proceedings. After consulting the Parties and Equatorial Guinea, the Court
decided that the same should apply to the written statcment of the interveningécritede 1'Etatintervenant et les observations écritesdes deux Parties sur ladite
déclaration.
24. Des audiences publiques ont été tenuesdu 18févrierau 21 mars 2002,au
cours desquelles ont étéentendus en leurs plaidoiries et réponses:
Pour le Cameroun: S. Exc. M. Amadou Ali,
M. Maurice Kamto,
M. Alain Pellet,
M. Peter Y. Ntamark,
M. Malcolm N. Shaw,
M. Bruno Simma,
M. Jean-Pierre Cot,
M. Daniel Khan,
M. Joseph-Marie Bipoun Woum,
M. Michel Aurillac,
M. Christian Tomuschat,
M. Maurice Mendelson,
M. Jean-Marc Thouvenin,
M. Olivier Corten,
sir Ian Sinclair.
Pour le NigGria: S. Exc. l'honorable Musa E. Abdullahi,
MmeNella Andem-Ewa,
sir Arthur Watts,
M. Ian Brownlie,
M. Georges Abi-Saab,
M. Alhaji Abdullahi Ibrahim,
M. Alastair Macdonald.
M. James Crawford,
M. Richard Akinjide.
Pour la Guinéeéquatoriale: S. Exc. M. Ricardo Mangue Obama N'Fube.
M. David A. Colson,
M. Pierre-Marie Dupuy.
A l'audience, des questions ont étéposéespar des membres de la Cour. aux-
quelles il a étérépondu oralement et par écrit.Chacune des Parties a présenté
des observations écrites sur les réponsesque l'autre Partie avait fournies par
écrit, conformémentà l'article 72 du Règlement.
25. Dans la requête,les demandes ci-après ont été formuléep sar le Came-
roun :
«Sur la base de l'exposé desfaits et des moyensjuridiques qui précèdent,
la République du Cameroun, tout en se réservant le droit de compléter,
d'amender ou de modifier la présente requêtependant la suite de la pro-
cédure etde présenter à la Cour une demande en indication de mesures
conservatoires si celles-ci se révélaient nécessaires, prilea Cour de dire et
juger :
que la souveraineté sur lapresqu'île de Bakassi est camerounaise, en
a)
vertu du droit international, et que cette presqu'île fait partie inté-
grante du territoire de la Républiquedu Cameroun;
b) que la Républiquefédéraledu Nigériaa violéet viole le principe fon-State and the written observations of the two Parties on that statement.
24. Public hearings were held from 18February to 21 March 2002, at which
the Court heard the oral arguments and replies of:
For Cameroon: H.E. Mr. Amadou Ali,
Mr. Maurice Kamto.
Mr. Alain Pellet,
Mr. Peter Y. Ntamark,
Mr. Malcolm N. Shaw,
Mr. Bruno Simma,
Mr. Jean-Pierre Cot,
Mr. Daniel Khan,
Mr. Joseph-Marie Bipoun U'oum,
Mr. Michel Aurillac,
Mr. Christian Tomuschat,
Mr. Maurice Mendelson,
Mr. Jean-Marc Thouvenin,
Mr. Olivier Corten,
Sir Ian Sinclair.
For Nigeria: H.E. the Honourable Musa E. Abdullahi,
Mrs. Nella Andem-Ewa,
Sir Arthur Watts,
Mr. Ian Brownlie,
Mr. Georges Abi-Saab,
Alhaji Abdullahi Ibrahim,
Mr. Alastair Macdonald,
Mr. James Crawford,
Mr. Richard Akinjide.
Foi-Equatoriul Guinea: H.E. Mr. Ricardo Mangue Obama N'Fube,
Mr. David A. Colson,
Mr. Pierre-Marie Dupuy.
At the hearings questions were put by Members of the Court, to which
replies were given orally and in writing. Each Party submitted its written
comments, in accordance with Article 72 of the Rules of Court, on the other's
written replies.
*
25. In its Application, Cameroon made the following requests:
"On the basis cifthe foregoing statement of facts and legal grounds, the
Republic of Carneroon, while reserving for itself the right to 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, asksthe Court to adjudge and
declare:
(a) that sovereignty over the Peninsula of Bakassi is Cameroonian, by
virtue of international law, and that that Peiiinsula is an integral part
of the territory of Cameroon;
that the FecleralRepublic of Nigeria has violated and is violating the
(b) damental du respect des frontières héritéesde la colonisation (utipos-
sidetis juris)
c) qu'en utilisant la force contre la République du Cameroun, la Répu-
blique fédéraledu Nigériaa violéet viole ses obligations en vertu du
droit international conventionnel et coutumier;
d) que la République fédéraledu Nigéria, en occupant militairement la
presqu'île camerounaise de Bakassi, a violé et violeles obligations qui
lui incombent en vertu du droit conventionnel et coutumier;
e) que vu ces violations des obligations juridiques susvisées,la Répu-
blique fédéraledu Nigéria a le devoir exprès de mettre fin à sa pré-
sence militaire sur le territoire camerounais, et d'évacuersans délaiet
sans condition ses troupes de la presqu'île camerounaise de Bakassi;
e') que la responsabilité de la République fédéraledu Nigéria est engagée
par les faits internationalement illicites exposéssuh litterue a), h)c),
d) et e) ci-dessus;
e") qu'en conséquence une réparation d'un montant a déterminer par la
Cour est due par la République fédéraledu Nigéria à la République
du Cameroun pour les préjudicesmatériels et moraux subis par celle-
ci, la République du Cameroun se réservant d'introduire devant la
Cour une évaluation précise desdommages provoqués par la Répu-
blique fédéraledu Nigéria.
f) Afin d'éviterla survenance de tout différendentre les deux Etats rela-
tivement à leur frontière maritime, la République du Cameroun prie
la Cour de procéder au prolongement du tracéde sa frontière mari-
time avec la République fédéraledu Nigéria jusqu'à la limite des
zones maritimes que le droit international place sous leur juridiction
respective. »
Dans la requête additionnelle, les demandes ci-après ont été formulées par le
Cameroun :
«Sur la base de l'exposédes faits et des moyensjuridiques qui précèdent
et sous toutes les réserves formuléesau paragraphe 20 de sa requête
du 29 mars 1994, la République du Cameroun prie la Cour de dire et
juger:
a) que la souveraineté sur la parcelle litigieuse dans la zone du lac Tchad
est camerounaise en vertu du droit international, et que cette parcelle
fait partie intégrante du territoire de la République du Cameroun;
h) que la République fédéraledu Nigériaa violéet viole le principe fon-
damental du respect des frontières héritéesde la colonisation (utipos-
sidetisjuris) ainsi que ses engagementsjuridiques récents relativement
a la démarcation des frontières dans le lac Tchad;
c) que la République fédéraledu Nigéria,en occupant avec l'appui de ses
forces de sécurité des parcellesdu territoire camerounais dans la zone
du lac Tchad, a violéet viole ses obligations en vertu du droit conven-
tionnel et coutumier ;
d) que, vu les obligations juridiques susvisées,la République fédéraledu
Nigéria a le devoir exprès d'évacuersans délaiet sans conditions ses
troupes du territoire camerounais dans la zone du lac Tchad;
e) que la responsabilité de la République fédéraledu Nigéria est engagée fundamental principle of respect for frontiers inherited from coloni-
zation (ut; possidetis juris) ;
(c) that by usirig force against the Republic ol'Cameroon, the Federal
Republic of Nigeria has violated and is violating its obligations
under international treaty law and customary law;
(d) that theFederalRepublic of Nigeria, by militarily occupying the Cam-
eroonian Peninsula of Bakassi, has violated and is violating the obli-
gations incumbent upon it by virtue of treaty law and customary
law ;
that in view of these breaches of legal obligation, mentioned above,
(ej the Federal Republic of Nigeria has the express duty of putting an
end to its niilitary presence in Cameroonian territory, and effecting
an immediate and unconditional withdraw.11of its troops from the
Cameroonian Peninsula of Bakassi;
(e') that the inte:rnationally unlawful acts referred to under (a), (b), (c),
(d) and (ej above involve the responsibility of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria;
(eu) that, consequently, and on account of the niaterial and non-material
damage inflicted upon the Republic of Carneroon, reparation in an
amount to be determined by the Court is due from the Federal
Republic ol' Nigeria to the Republic of Ciimeroon, which reserves
the introduction before the Court of [proceedings for] a precise
assessment of the damage caused by the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
In order to prevent any dispute arising between the two States con-
(fj cerning their maritime boundary, the Republicof Cameroon requests
the Court to proceed to prolong the course of its maritime boundary
with the Federal Republic of Nigeria up to the limit of the maritime
zones which international law places under their respective jurisdic-
tions."
In its Additional Application, Cameroon made the following requests:
"On the basis of the foregoing statement of facts and legal grounds, and
subject to the reservations expressed in paragrapli 20 of its Application of
29 March 1994,the Republic of Cameroon asks the Court to adjudge and
declare:
(a) that sovereignty over the disputed parcel in the area of Lake Chad is
Cameroonian, by virtue of international lalv, and that that parcel is
an integral ]partof the territory of Cameroon;
(h) that the Fedleral Republic of Nigeria has violated and is violating the
fundamental principle of respect for frontiers inherited from coloni-
zation (ut; possidetis juris). and its recent legal commitments con-
cerning the demarcation of frontiers in Lake Chad;
(c) that the Fecleral Republic of Nigeria, by occ:upying,with the support
of its security forces, parcels of Camerooni;in territory in the area of
Lake Chad, has violated and is violating its obligations under treaty
law and customary law;
(d) that in view of these legal obligations, mentioned above, the Federal
Republic of Nigeria has the express duty of effecting an immediate
and unconditional withdrawal of its troops from Cameroonian terri-
tory in the iirea of Lake Chad;
(e) that the internationally unlawful acts referrcd to under (a), (b), (c) par les faits internationalement illicites exposésaux sous-paragraphes
a), b), c) et d) ci-dessus;
e') qu'en conséquence une réparation d'un montant à déterminer par la
Cour est due par la République fédéraledu Nigéria à la République
du Cameroun pour les préjudices matérielset moraux subis par celle-
ci, la République du Cameroun se réservant d'introduire devant la
Cour une évaluation précise desdommages provoqués par la Répu-
blique fédéraledu Nigéria.
f) Que vu les incursions répétées des populations et des forces armées
nigérianes enterritoire camerounais tout le long de la frontière entre
les deux pays, les incidents graves et répétéq sui s'ensuivent, et I'atti-
tude instable et réversiblede la République fédéraledu Nigéria rela-
tivement aux instruments juridiques définissant la frontière entre les
deux pays et au tracéexact de cette frontière, la République du Came-
roun prie respectueusement la Cour de bien vouloir préciser définiti-
vement la frontière entre elle et la République fédéraledu Nigériadu
lac Tchad à la mer.))
26. Dans la procédure écrite,les conclusions ci-après ont étéprésentéespar
les Parties:
Au nom du Gouvernement du Cameroun,
dans le mémoire:
«La République du Cameroun a l'honneur de conclure à ce qu'il plaise
à la Cour internationale de Justice de dire et juger:
a) Que la frontière lacustre et terrestre entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria
suit le tracésuivant:
- du point de longitude 14"04'59"9999 à l'est de Greenwich et de
latitude de 13"05'00"0001 nord, elle passe ensuite par le point
situé à 14' 12'11"7 de longitude est et 12O32'17"4 de latitude
nord ;
- de ce point, elle suit le tracéfixépar la déclaration franco-britan-
nique du 10juillet 1919, tel que précisépar les alinéas3 à 60 de la
déclaration Thomson-Marchand confirméepar l'échangede lettres
du 9janvier 1931,jusqu'au «pic assez proéminent» décritpar cette
dernière disposition et connu sous le nom usuel de «mont Kom-
bon » ;
- du mont Kombon, la frontière se dirige ensuite vers la «borne 64))
viséeau paragraphe 12 de l'accord germano-britannique d'Obo-
kum du 12 avril 1913 et suit, dans ce secteur, le tracédécrit à la
section 6 (1) du Nigeria (Protectorate and Carneroons) Order in
Council britannique du 2 août 1946;
- de la ((borne 64))elle suit le tracé décritpar les paragraphes 13à21
de l'accord d'Obokum du 12avril 1913jusqu'à la borne 114 sur la
Cross River;
- - de ce point, jusqu'à l'intersection de la ligne droite joignant Bakassi
Point à King Point et du centre du chenal navigable de llAkwayafé,
la frontière est déterminéepar les paragraphes 16 à 21 de I'accord
germano-britannique du 11 mars 1913.
b) Que, dèslors, notamment, la souveraineté sur la presqu'île de Bakassi
d'une part et sur la parcelle litigieuse occupée par le Nigériadans la LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUI)GMENT) 318
and (d) above involve the responsibility of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria ;
(e') that consequently, and on account of the material and non-material
damage inflicted upon the Republic of Cameroon, reparation in an
amount to be determined by the Court isduefromtheFederal Repub-
lic of Nigeria to the Republic of Cameroon, which reserves the
introductiori before the Court of [proceedings for] a precise assess-
ment of the damage caused by the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(f) That in view of the repeated incursions of Nigerian groups and
armed fora-s into Cameroonian territory, al1 along the frontier
between the two countries, the consequent grave and repeated inci-
dents, and the vacillating and contradictory attitude of the Federal
Republic of'Nigeria in regard to the legal instruments defining the
frontier between the two countries and the exact course of that fron-
tier, the Republic of Cameroon respectfully asks the Court to specify
definitively the frontier between Cameroon .ind the Federal Republic
of Nigeria from Lake Chad to the sea."
26. In the course of the written proceedings the following submissions were
presented by the Partiies:
On behaif of the Govttrnment of Cameroon,
in the Memorial:
"The Republic of Cameroon has the honour to request that the Court
be pleased to adjudge and declare:
(a) That the lake and land boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria
takes the folllowingcourse :
- from the point at longitude 14"04'5Y9999 E of Greenwich and
latitude13"05'00"0001 N, it then runs through the point located
at longitude 14"12'1l"7 E and latitude 12"32'17"4N;
thence il follows the course fixed by the Franco-British Declara-
tion of 10 July 1919, as specified in paragraphs 3 to 60 of the
ThomsonIMarchand Declaration, confiimed by the Exchange of
Letters of 9 January 1931, as far as the 'very prominent peak'
described in the latter provision and called by the usual name of
'Mount Kombon';
from Mount Kombon the boundary then runs to 'Pillar 64'men-
tioned irparagraph 12of the Anglo-German Agreement of Obo-
kum of 12 April 1913 and follows, iri that sector, the course
describetdin Section 6 (1) of the British Nigeria (Protectorate and
Cameroiîns) Order in Council of 2 August 1946;
from Pilllar 64 it follows the course described in paragraphs 13
to 21 of the Obokum Agreement of 12 April 1913 as far as
Pillar 114on the Cross River;
thence, as far as the intersection of the straight line joining
Bakassi Point to King Point and the centre of the navigable chan-
ne1of the Akwayafe, the boundary is determined by paragraphs
16to 21 of the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913.
(b) That in corisequence, inter alia, sovereignty over the Peninsula of
Bakassi and over the disputed parce1 occupied by Nigeria in the zone du lac Tchad d'autre part, en particulier sur Darak et sa région,
est camerounaise.
c) Que la limite des zones maritimes relevant respectivement de la Répu-
blique du Cameroun et de la République fédéraledu Nigéria suit le
tracésuivant :
de l'intersection de la ligne droite joignant Bakassi Point à King
Point et du centre du chenal navigable de I'Akwayaféjusqu'au
«point 12», cette limite est déterminéepar la «ligne de compro-
mis» reportée sur la cartede l'Amirauté britannique no3343par les
chefs d'Etat des deux pays le 4 avril 1971(déclaration de Yaoundé)
et, de ce «point 12))jusqu'au «point G»,par la déclaration signée
à Maroua le 1"'juin 1975 ;
- du point G, cette limite s'infléchitensuite vers le sud-ouest dans la
direction indiquée par les points G, H, 1,J, K représentéssur le
croquis figurant i la page 556 du présent mémoireet qui répond à
l'exigence d'une solution équitable. jusqu'à la limite extérieure des
zones maritimes que le droit international place sous la juridiction
respective des deux Parties.
ci) Qu'en contestant les tracésde la frontière définie ci-dessussub litterue
u) et c). la République fédéraledu Nigéria aviolé et violele principe
fondamental du respect des frontières héritéesde la colonisation (uti
possicietisjuri.~) ainsi que ses engagements juridiques relativement a la
démarcation des frontières dans le lac Tchad et à la délimitation ter-
restre et maritime.
e) Qu'en utilisant la force contre la République du Cameroun, et, en par-
ticulier, en occupant militairement des parcelles du territoire camerou-
nais dans la zone du lac Tchad et la péninsule camerounaise de
Bakassi, en procédant à des incursions répétéest,ant civiles que mili-
taires, tout le long de la frontière entre les deux pays, la République
fédéraledu Nigéria a violéet viole ses obligations en vertu du droit
international conventionnel et coutumier.
,f) Que la République fédéraledu Nigériaa le devoir exprès de mettre fin
à sa présencetant civile que militaire sur le territoire camerounais et,
en particulier, d'évacuer sans délaiset sansconditions ses troupes de la
zone occupéedu lac Tchad et de la péninsulecamerounaise de Bakassi
et de s'abstenir de tels faits l'avenir.
g) Que la responsabilité de la République fédéraledu Nigéria est engagée
par les faits internationalement illicites exposés ci-dessus et précisés
dans le corps du présentmémoire.
11) Qu'en conséquence,une réparation est due par la République fédérale
du Nigéria à la République du Cameroun pour les préjudicesmatériels
et moraux subis par celle-ci selon des modalités a fixer par la Cour.
La République du Cameroun a en outre l'honneur de prier la Cour de
bien vouloir l'autoriserà présenter une évaluationdu montant de I'indem-
nitéqui lui est due en réparation des préjudices qu'elle a subis en consé-
quence des faits internationalement illicites attribuables à la République
fédéraledu Nigéria, dans une phase ultérieurede la procédure.
Les présentes conclusions sont soumises sous réservede tous élémentsde
fait et de droit et de toutes preuves qui viendraientà êtresoumis ultérieu- area of Lake Chad, in particular over Darak and its region, is Cam-
eroonian.
/c) That the boundary of the maritime zones appertaining respectively to
the Republic of Cameroon and to the Federal Republic of Nigeria
follows the following course :
- from the intersection of the straight lin€joining Bakassi Point to
King Point and the centre of the navigable channel of the
Akwayafe to 'point 12',that boundary is determined by the 'com-
promise line' entered on British Admiralty Chart No. 3343 by the
Heads of State of the two countries or14 April 1971 (Yaoundé
Declaralion) and, from that 'point 12' 10 'point G', by the Dec-
laration signed at Maroua on 1June 1975;
- from point G that boundary then swings south-westward in the
direction which is indicated by points G, H, 1, J and K repre-
sented on the sketch-map on page 556 of this Memorial and
meets thierequirement for an equitable solution, up to the outer
limit of the maritime zones which international law places under
the respective jurisdictions of the two Parties.
(d) That by coritesting the courses of the boundary defined above under
(CI) and (c), the Federal Republic of Nigeria has violated and is vio-
lating the fundamental principle of respect for frontiers inherited
from colonization (uti possi~letisjz~ris) and its legal commitments
concerning the demarcation of frontiers in Lake Chad and land and
maritime delimitation.
(e) That by using force against the Republic of Cameroon and, in par-
ticular, by ~nilitarily occupying parcels of Cameroonian territory in
the area of Lake Chad and the Cameroon~an Peninsula of Bakassi,
and by making repeated incursions. both civilian and military, al1
along the boundary between the two countries, the Federal Republic
of Nigeria hiasviolated and is violating its c~bligationsunder interna-
tional treaty law and customary law.
f') That the Federal Republic of Nigeria has the express duty of putting
an end to its civilian and military presence in Cameroonian territory
and, in particular, of effecting an immediatt: and unconditional with-
drawal of its troops from the occupied area of Lake Chad and from
the Cameroonian Peninsula of Bakassi ancl of refraining from such
acts in the future;
(g) That the internationally wrongful acts referrzd to above and described
in detail in the body of this Memorial invol\e the responsibility of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(12) That, conseiquently, and on account of the rnaterial and non-material
damage inflicted upon the Republic of Cameroon. reparation in a
form to be determined by the Court is due from the Federal Republic
of Nigeria to the Republic of Cameroon.
The Republic of Cameroon furtherhas the hoilour to request the Court
to permit it to piesent an assessment of the amount of compensation due
to it as reparatic~nfor the damage it has suffered as a result of the inter-
nationally wrongful acts attributable to the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
at a subsequent !stageof the proceedings.
These submissions are lodged subject to any points of fact and law and
any evidence that may subsequently be lodged; the Republic of Cameroon rement; la République du Cameroun se réservele droit de les compléterou
de les amender le cas échéant, conformémentaux dispositions du Statut et
du Règlement de la Cour. ))
dans la réplique:
«La République du Cameroun a l'honneur de conclure à ce qu'il plaise
à la Cour internationale de Justice de dire et juger:
a) Que la frontière terrestre entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria suit le tracé
suivant:
- du point de longitude 14"04'59"9999 à l'est de Greenwich et de
latitude de 13"05'00"0001 nord, elle passe ensuite par le point
situé à 14"12'1l"7005 de longitude est et 12"32'17"4013 de
latitude nord conformément à la déclaration franco-britan-
nique du 10juillet 1919et à la déclaration Thomson-Marchand des
29 décembre 1929 et 31 janvier 1930 confirmée par l'échangede
lettres du 9 janvier 1931 ;
- de ce point, elle suit le tracéfixépar ces instruments jusqu'au «pic
assez proéminent)) décrit par l'alinéa 60de la déclaration Thom-
son-Marchand et connu sous le nom usuel de «mont Kombon));
- du mont Kombon, la frontière se dirige ensuite vers la «borne 64))
viséeau paragraphe 12 de l'accord germano-britannique d'Obo-
kum du 12 avril 1913 et suit, dans ce secteur, le tracé décrit à la
section 6 (1) du Nigeria (Protectorate and Cameroons) Order in
Council britannique du 2 août 1946;
- de la «borne 64))elle suit le tracé décritpar les paragraphes 13 à 21
de l'accord d'Obokum du 12avril 1913jusqu'à la borne 114 sur la
Cross River;
- de ce point, jusqu'à l'intersection de la ligne droite joignant Bakassi
Point à King Point et du centre du chenal navigable de l'Akwayafé,
la frontière est déterminéepar les paragraphes 16 à 21 de l'accord
germano-britannique du 11 mars 1913.
b) Que, dès lors. notamment, la souveraineté sur la presqu'île de Bakassi
d'une part et sur la parcelle litigieuse occupée par le Nigéria dans la
zone du lac Tchad d'autre part, en particulier sur Darak et sa région,
est camerounaise.
c) Que la limite des zones maritimes relevant respectivement de la Répu-
blique du Cameroun et de la République fédéraledu Nigéria suit le
tracésuivant :
-- de l'intersection de la ligne droite joignant Bakassi Point à King
Point et du centre du chenal navigable de I'Akwayaféjusqu'au
«point 12», cette limite est déterminéepar la «ligne de compro-
mis » reportée sur la cartede l'Amirauté britannique no3343 par les
chefs d'Etat des deux pays le 4 avril 1971(déclaration de Yaoundé)
et, de ce «point 12))jusqu'au «point GD, par la déclaration signée
à Maroua le 1"'juin 1975;
- du point G, cette limite s'infléchitensuite vers le sud-ouest dans la
direction indiquée par lespoints G, H, decoordonnées 8"21'16"est
et 4" 17'00"nord, 1(7"55'40"est et 3'46'00" nord), J (7" 12'08" est
et 3" 12' 35"nord) et K (6' 45'22"est et 3' 01'05" nord), représentés
sur le croquis R 21 figurant à la page 41 1 de la présente réplique et reserves the right to complete or amend them, as necessary, in accordance
with the Statute and the Rules of Court."
in the Reply :
"The Republic of Cameroon has the honour to request that the Court
be pleased to ad.judge and declare:
(a) That the land boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria takes the
following course :
- from the point at longitude 14"04'59"9999 east of Greenwich
and latitude 13"05'00"0001 north, it then runs through the
point located at longitude 14"12'1l"7005 east and latitude
12"32'17"4013 north, in accordance with the Franco-British Dec-
laration of 10July 1919and the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
of 29 tlecember 1929 and 31 Januaq 1930, confirmed by the
Exchange of Letters of 9 January 1931
- thence it follows the course fixed by these instruments as far as
the 'ver!{prominent peak' described in paragraph 60 of the Thom-
son-Marchand Declaration and called by the usual name of
'Mount Kombon';
- from 'h4ount Kombon' the boundary then runs to 'Pillar 64'
mentionied in paragraph 12 of the Anglo-German Agreement of
Obokunn of 12 April 1913 and follows, in that sector, the course
describe,din Section 6 (1) of the British .Yigeria (Protectoratr and
Cameroons) Order in Cotmçil of 2 Aupust 1946;
-- from Pillar 64 it follows the course described in paragraphs 13 to
21 of the Obokum Agreement of 12April 1913as far as Pillar 114
on the Cross River;
- thence, as far as the intersection of the straight line joining
Bakassi Point to King Point and the centre of the navigable chan-
ne1of the Akwayafe, the boundary is determined by paragraphs 16
to 21 of'the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913.
(b) That, in consequence, inter alia, sovereignty over the Peninsula
of Bakassi and over the disputed parcel occupied by Nigeria in the
area of Lake Chad, in particular over Darak and its region, is Cam-
eroonian.
(c) That the boundary of the maritime zones appertaining respectively to
the Republic of Cameroon and to the Fecleral Republic of Nigeria
follows the following course:
-- from th'eintersection of the straight line joining Bakassi Point to
King Point and the centre of the navigable channel of the
Akwayafe to 'point 12',that boundary is determined by the 'com-
promise line' entered on British Admiralty Chart No. 3433 by the
Heads of State of the two countries oii 4 April 1971 (Yaoundé
Declaration) and, from that 'point 12' to 'point G'. by the Dec-
laration signed at Maroua on 1 June 1975;
- from point G that boundary then swings south-westward in the
direction which is indicated by Points G, H with co-ordinates
8"21' 16"east and 4" 17'00" north, 1 (7"55'40" east and 3"46'00"
north), J (7" 12'08" east and 3" 12'35" north) and K (6"45'22"
east ancl 3"01'05" north), represented on the sketch-map R 21 on qui répond à l'exigence d'une solution équitable,jusqu'à la limite
extérieure des zones maritimes que le droit international place sous
la juridiction respective des deux Parties.
d) Qu'en tentant de modifier unilatéralement et par la force les tracésde la
frontière définieci-dessus suh litterae a) et c), la République fédérale
du Nigériaa violéet viole le principe fondamental du respect des fron-
tières héritéede la colonisation (utipossidetis juris) ainsi que ses enga-
gementsjuridiques relativement àla délimitation terrestre et maritime.
e) Qu'en utilisant la force contre la République du Cameroun, et, en par-
ticulier, en occupant militairement des parcelles du territoire camerou-
nais dans la zone du lac Tchad et la péninsule camerounaise de
Bakassi, en procédant àdes incursions répétéest,ant civiles que mili-
taires, tout le long de la frontière entre les deux pays, la République
fédéraledu Nigéria a violéet viole ses obligations en vertu du droit
international conventionnel et coutumier.
f) Que la République fédéraledu Nigériaa le devoir exprès de mettre fin
à sa présencetant civile que militaire sur le territoire camerounais et,
en particulier, d'évacuer sans délaiet sans conditions ses troupes de la
zone occupéedu lac Tchad et de la péninsulecamerounaise de Bakassi
et de s'abstenir de tels faits l'avenir.
g) Que la responsabilité de la République fédéraledu Nigériaest engagée
par les faits internationalement illicitesexposésci-dessus et précdans
le mémoirede la Républiquedu Cameroun et dans la présente réplique.
h) Qu'en conséquence,une réparation est due par la République fédérale
du Nigéria à la République du Cameroun pour les préjudicesmatériels
et moraux subis par celle-ci, selon des modalités à fixer par la Cour.
La République du Cameroun a par ailleurs l'honneur de prier la Cour
de bien vouloir l'autoriser à présenter une évaluation du montant de
l'indemnitéqui lui est due en réparation des préjudicesqu'elle a subis en
conséquence des faits internationalement illicites attribuableà la Répu-
blique fédéraledu Nigéria,dans une phase ultérieure de la procédure.
La République du Cameroun prie en outre la Cour de déclarer que les
demandes reconventionnelles de la République fédéraledu Nigériane sont
fondéesni en fait ni en droit et de les rejeter.
Les présentes conclusions sont soumises sous réservedetous élémentsde
fait et de droit et de toutes preuves qui viendraient a être soumisultérieu-
rement; la République du Cameroun se réservele droit de les compléterou
de les amender, le caséchéant,conformémentaux dispositions du Statut et
du Règlement de la Cour. »
dans la pièce additionnelle intitulée «Observations en duplique de la Répu-
blique du Cameroun » :
«La République du Cameroun a l'honneur de conclure à ce qu'il plaise
àla Cour internationale de Justice de direet juger que les demandes recon-
ventionnelles de la République fédéraledu Nigéria,qui apparaissent irre-
cevables à la lumière des développements qui leur sont consacrés dans la
duplique, ne sont, en tout état de cause, fondéesni en fait ni en droit, et de
les rejeter. page 411 of this Reply and which meets the requirement for an
equitable solution, up to the outer limit of the maritime zones
which international law places under the respective jurisdictions
of the t~o Parties.
(d) That in attempting to modify unilaterally and by force the courses of
the boundary defined above under (a) and 'c), the Federal Republic
of Nigeria has violated and is violating the fundamental principle of
respect for frontiers inherited from colonization (uti possidetis juris)
and its legal commitments concerning land and maritime delimitation.
(e) That by usiingforce against the Republic of Cameroon and, in par-
ticular, by rnilitarily occupying parcels of Cameroonian territory in
the area of Lake Chad and the Cameroonian Peninsula of Bakassi,
and by making repeated incursions, both civilian and military, al1
along the boundary between the two countries, the Federal Republic
of Nigeria has violated and is violating its cbligations under interna-
tional treaty law and customary law.
(f) That the Feiieral Republic of Nigeria has the express duty of putting
an end to it:;civilian and military presence In Cameroonian territory
and, in particular, of effecting an immediate and unconditional with-
drawal of itc;troops from the occupied area of Lake Chad and from
the Cameroonian Peninsula of Bakassi and of refraining from such
acts in the future.
(g) That the internationally wrongful acts referred to above and described
in detail in the Memorial of the Republic ofCameroon and in the present
Reply engage the responsibility ofthe Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(h) Tdamage infl.icted upon the Republic of Cameroon, reparation in aial
form to be determined by the Court is due from the Federal Republic
of Nigeria to the Republic of Cameroon.
The Republic of Cameroon further has the horiour to request the Court
to permit it to present an assessment of the amount of compensation due
to it as reparation for the damage it has sufferetl as a result of the inter-
nationally wrongful acts attributable to the Federal Republic of Nigeria,
at a subsequent stage of the proceedings.
The Republic of Cameroon also asks the Court to declare that the
counter-claims of the Federal Republic of Nigeria are unfounded both in
fact and in law, and to reject them.
These submissions are lodged subject to any points of fact and 1awand
any evidence that may subsequently be lodged; the Republic of Cameroon
reserves the right to supplement or amend them. as necessary. in accord-
ance with the Statute and the Rules of Court."
in the additional pleliding entitled "Observations of Cameroon by Way of
Re.joinder" :
"The Republic of Cameroon has the honou~ to request that it may
please the International Court of Justice to adjudge and declare that the
counter-claims of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which appear to be
inadmissible in light of the arguments put forwartl in the Rejoinder, in any
event have no basis in fact or in law, and to reject them."322 FRONTIERE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
Au non?du Gouvernement du Nigéria,
dans le contre-mémoire :
«Pour les raisons exposées ci-dessus,la République fédéraledu Nigéria,
tout en se réservant le droit d'amender et de modifier les présentesconclu-
sions à la lumière de la suite de la procédure en l'espèce, prie respectueu-
sement la Cour:
1) ù titre prkliminaire, de connaître des questions relatives à la frontière
terrestre;
2) en ce qui concerne le lac Tchad, de dire et juger:
- que la souveraineté sur les zones de la régiondu lac Tchad définies
au chapitre 14 du présent contre-mémoire (y compris les agglomé-
rations nigérianesénumérées à son paragraphe 14.5)appartient à la
République fédéraledu Nigéria;
- que la «démarcation» proposée sous les auspices de la commission
du bassin du lac Tchad, n'ayant pas été ratifiée par le Nigéria, ne
s'impose pas a lui;
- que les questions de délimitation et de démarcation en suspens dans
la régiondu lac Tchad doivent êtrerésoluespar les parties membres
de la commission du bassin du lac Tchad conformément au statut
et aux procédures de cette dernière;
3) en ce qui concerne le3segments interm6diaires de lafrontière terrestre:
- donnant acte du fait que les Parties reconnaissent que la frontière
entre l'embouchure de la rivière Ebedji et le point situé sur le thal-
weg de I'Akpa Yafe qui fait face au point médiande l'embouchure
de I7Archibong Creek est délimitéepar les instruments suivants:
a) les paragraphes 3 à 60 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand,
confirméepar l'échangede lettres du 9 janvier 1931,
h) le Nigeria (Protectorate and Cumeroons) Order in Council du
2 août 1946 (art. 6, par. 1)et sa deuxième annexe,
c) les paragraphes 13 à 21 de l'accord de démarcation anglo-
allemand du 12 avril 1913,
d) les articles XV à XVII du traité anglo-allemand du 11 mars
1913, et
- donnant égalementacte du fait qu'il résultedes incertitudes entou-
rant l'interprétation et l'application de ces instruments ainsi que
des accords conclus localement dans certaines régionsque le tracé
proprement dit de la frontière ne peut êtrefixédéfinitivement par
simple référence à ces instruments;
de dire que les instruments susmentionnés s'imposent aux Parties (sauf
s'ils ont été légalement modifiépsar elles) pour le tracéde la frontière
terrestr;
4) en ce qui concerne la pre~qu'îlede Bakassi, de dire et juger:
- que la souveraineté sur la presqu'île (telleque définieau chapitre 11
du présent contre-mémoire)appartient a la République fédéraledu
Nigéria;
5) en ce qui concerne lafrontière maritime, de dire et juger:
a) que la Cour n'a pas compétence pour connaître de la ligne reven-
diquéepar le Cameroun, dans la mesure ou cette ligne empiète surOn behalf cf the Government of Nigeria,
in the Counter-Memorial :
"For the reasons given herein, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, reserv-
ing the right to amend and modify these submissions in the light of the
further pleadings in this case, respectfully requests that the Court should:
(1) as u prelimNqurymatter decide to deal with the issues relating to the
land boundc~ry ;
(2) as to Lake Chad, adjudge and declare:
that sovereignty over the areas in Lake Chad defined in Chap-
ter 14 of this Couilter-Memorial (including the Nigerian settle-
ments identified in paragraph 14.5 hereof) is vested in the Federal
Republic of Nigeria;
that the proposed 'demarcation' under the auspices of the Lake
Chad BalsinCommission, not having been ratified by Nigeria, is
not binding upon it;
that outstanding issues of the delimitation and demarcation within
thearea 'ofLake Chad areto be resolved by the Parties to theLake
Chad Basin Commission within the framework of the constitution
and procedures of the Commission;
(3) as to the central sectors of the land boundary:
- acknowledging that the Parties recognize that the boundary
between the mouth of the Ebeji River and the point on the thalweg
of the Akpa Yafe which is opposite the mid-point of the mouth of
Archibong Creek is delimited by the following instruments:
(a) paragraphs 3-60ofthe ThomsonIMarchand Declaration, con-
firmed by the Exchange of Letters of 9 January 1931,
(hl the Nigeria (Protectorate and Cameroons) Order in Council of
2 August 1946,section 6 (1) and the Second Schedule thereto,
jc) paragraphs 13-21 of the Anglo-Gerrnan Demarcation Agree-
menit of 12 April 1913,
(4 Articles XV-XVII of the Anglo-German Treaty of 11 March
1913; and
- acknowledging further that uncertainties as to the interpretation
and application of these instruments, and established local agree-
ments in certain areas, mean that the actual course of the bound-
ary cannot be definitively specified merely by reference to those
instruments ;
affirm that theinstrumentsmentioned above are binding on the Parties
(unless lawfully varied by them) asto the courseof the land boundary ;
(4) as to the BulcassiPeninsulu, adjudge and declare:
- that sovereignty over the Peninsula (as defined in Chapter 11
hereof) is;vested in the Federal Republic of Nigeria;
(5) as to the mai?itimeboundary, adjudge and dcclare:
(a) that the Court lacksjurisdiction to deal with Cameroon's claim-
line, to i.heextent that it impinges on areas claimed by Equatorial FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
des zones revendiquéespar la Guinée équatorialeetlou par Sao
Tomé-et-Principe (zonesqui sont provisoirement indiquéessur la
figure 20.3 du présentcontre-mémoire),ou, subsidiairement, que la
demande du Cameroun est à cet égard irrecevable;et
b) que les Parties sont tenues, en application des articles 76 et 83 de la
convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer, de négocier de
bonne foi en vue de parvenir a un accord sur une délimitationéqui-
table de leurs zones maritimes respectives, une telle délimitation
devant tenir compte, notamment, de l'obligation de respecter les
droits existantsde prospection et d'exploitation des ressourcesminé-
rales du plateau continental accordéspar l'une ou l'autre des Par-
ties avant le29 mars 1994 sans qu'une protestation écrite ait été
élevéepar l'autre, ainsi que des revendications maritimes raison-
nables d'Etats tiers;
6) en ce qui concerne lesdemandes du Cameroun en matière de responsa-
bilitéétatique,de dire et juger que celles-cisont dépourvues de fonde-
ment en fait et en droit; et
7) en ce qui concerneles demandes reconventionnellesdu Nigéria telles que
formulées dansla sixième partie du présentcontre-mémoire, de dire et
juger que le Cameroun est responsable envers le Nigéria à raison des
griefs exposésdans ces demandes, le montant de la réparation due a ce
titre devant être déterminé par la Cour dans un nouvel arrêt à défaut
d'accord intervenu entre les Parties dans les sixmois suivant la date du
prononcéde l'arrêtde la Cour. »
dans la duplique:
«Pour les raisons exposées ci-dessus, laRépubliquefédéraledu Nigéria,
tout en se réservantle droit d'amender et de modifier les présentes conclu-
sionsà la lumièrede la suite de la procédureen l'espèce,prie respectueu-
sement la Cour:
1) en ce qui concerne lu presqu'îlede Bakassi, de dire et juger:
a) que la souveraineté sur la presqu'île appartient à la République
fédéraledu Nigéria ;
bj que la souverainetédu Nigériasur Bakassi s'étendjusqu'a la fron-
tière avec le Cameroun décriteau chapitre 11 du contre-mémoire
du Nigéria;
2) en ce qui concerne le lacTchad, de dire et juger:
a) que la «démarcation» proposée sousles auspices de la commission
du bassin du lac Tchad, n'ayant pas été ratifiép ear le Nigéria,ne
s'impose pas a lui;
b) que la souverainetésur les zones de la régiondu lac Tchad définies
au paragraphe 5.9 de la présente duplique et indiquées aux
figures 5.2 et 5.3 en regard de la page 242 (y compris les agglomé-
rations nigérianes énuméréeasu paragraphe 4.1 de la présente
duplique) appartient à la Républiquefédéraledu Nigéria;
c) que les questions de délimitation et de démarcationen suspens dans
la régiondu lac Tchad doivent êtrerésoluespar lesparties membres
de la commission du bassin du lac Tchad conformément au statut
et aux procéduresde cette dernière;
d) qu'en tout état de cause, du point de vue juridique, l'opération de
délimitation del'ensemble desfrontièresdans le lac Tchad est sans Guinea andlor Sko Tomée Principe (which areas are provision-
ally identified in Figure 20.3 herein), or alternatively that Cam-
eroon's claim is inadmissible to that extent; and
(b) that the Parties are under an obligatiori, pursuant to Articles 76
and 83 of the United Nations Law of'the Sea Convention, to
negotiaie in good faith with a view to agreeing on an equitable
delimitation of their respective maritime zones, such delimitation
to take into account, in particular, the need to respect existing
rights to explore and exploit the mineral resources of the conti-
nental shelf, granted by either Party prior to 29 March 1994with-
out wrii-ten protest from the other, and the need to respect the
reasonable maritime claims of third States;
(6) as to Canîeroon's claims of'State responsihility, adjudge and declare
that those claims are unfounded in fact and law; and
(7) as to Nigeria's counter-clairns as specified in Part VI of this Cotmter-
Men~orial,adjudge and declare that Cameroon bears responsibility to
Nigeria in respect of those claims, the amount of reparation due there-
for. if not agreed between the Parties within six months of the date of
judgment, to be determined by the Court in a further judgment."
in the Rejoinder :
"For the reasons given herein, the Federal Republic of Nigeria, reserv-
ing the right to amend and modify these submissions in the light of any
further pleadings in this case, respectfully requests that the Court should:
(1) as to the Bak-assiPeninsula, adjudge and declare
(a) that sovereignty overthe Peninsula isvested in the Federal Repub-
lic of Nigeria;
(b) that Nigeria's sovereignty over Bakassi extends up to the bound-
ary with Cameroon described in Chapte1 11of Nigeria's Counter-
Mernorial ;
(2) as ro Luke Chad, adjudge and declare:
(a) that the proposed 'demarcation' under the auspices of the Lake
Chad Basin Commission, 11othaving been ratified by Nigeria, is
not bincling upon it ;
(b) that sovereignty over the areas in Lake Chad defined in para-
graph 5.9 of this Rejoinder and depicted in Figs. 5.2 and 5.3
facing page 242 (and including the Nigerian settlements identi-
fied in paragraph 4.1 of this Rejoinder) is vested in the Federal
Republic of Nigeria;
(c) that outstanding issues of the delimitation and demarcation within
the area of Lake Chad are to be resol1,ed by the parties to the
Lake Ckiad Basin Commission within the framework of the con-
stitution and procedures of the Commission;
(4 that in any event, the operation intended to lead to an overall
delimitaition of boundaries on Lake Chad is legally without preju- préjudicedu titre sur telle ou telle zone de la régiondu lac Tchad
qui revient au Nigériadu fait de la consolidation historique du titre
et de l'acquiescement du Cameroun;
3) en ce qui concerne les segments intermGdiairesde lafrontière terrestre,
de dire et juger:
a) qu'il relèvede la compétence de la Cour de préciser définitivement
le tracé de la frontière terrestre entre le lac Tchad et la mer;
h) que l'embouchure de la rivière Ebedji, qui marque le point de
départ de la frontière terrestre, se trouve au point où le chenal
nord-est de la rivièresejette dans la formation appelée«Pond» sur
la carte reproduite a la figure 7.1 de la présenteduplique, point qui
est situépar 12"31'45" de latitude nord et 14' 13'00" de longitude
est (selon le référentield'Adindan);
c) que, sous réserve des précisions, interprétations et modifications
indiquées au chapitre 7 de la présente duplique, la frontière ter-
restre entre l'embouchure de 1'Ebedjiet le point situésur le thalweg
de 1'Akpa Yafe qui fait face au point médian de l'embouchure
de 1'Archibong Creek est délimitéepar:
i) les paragraphes 2 à 61 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand,
confirméepar l'échangede lettres du 9 janvier 1931 ;
ii) l'ordonnance adoptée en conseil du 2 août 1946 relative au
Nigéria(protectorat et Cameroun) (art. 6, par. 1)et sa deuxième
annexe ;
iii) les paragraphes 13 i 21 de l'accord de démarcation anglo-
allemand du 12 avril 1913; et
iv) les articles XV a XVII du traite ariglo-allemand du 11 mars
1913;
d) que les effets des deux premiers de ces instruments, tels que préci-
sés,interprétésou modifiésde la manière indiquéepar le Nigéria,
sont ceux énoncésdans l'appendice au chapitre 8 et mis en évidence
sur les cartes de l'atlas produit avec la présente duplique;
4) en ce qui concerne lafrontikre maritime, de dire et juger:
a) que la Cour n'a pas compétence pour connaître de la revendication
maritime du Cameroun A partir du point où la ligne que celui-ci
revendique pénètredans les eaux revendiquéespar la Guinée équa-
toriale ou reconnues par le Nigéria comme appartenant à celle-ci,
ou subsidiairement que cette demande du Cameroun est, dans cette
mesure, irrecevable ;
b) que la demande du Cameroun relative à une délimitation de la fron-
tière maritime baséesur le partage global des zones maritimes dans
le golfe de Guinéeest irrecevable, et que les Parties sont tenues, en
application des articles 74 et 83 de la convention des Nations Unies
sur le droit de la mer, de négocierde bonne foi en vue de parvenir a
un accord sur une délimitation équitable de leurs zones maritimes
respectives, une telle délimitation devant tenir compte, notamment,
de l'obligation de respecter les droits existants de prospection et
d'exploitation des ressourcesminérales du plateau continental accor-
dés par l'une ou l'autre des Parties avant le 29 mars 1994 sans
qu'une protestation écrite ait étéélevéepar l'autre, ainsi que les
revendications maritimes raisonnables d'Etats tiers; LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 324
dice to the title to particular areas of the Lake Chad region inher-
ing in Nigeria as a consequence of the historical consolidation of
title and the acquiescence of Cameroon;
(3) as to the cenrral sectors of the land boundary, adjudge and declare:
(a) that the Court's jurisdiction extends to the definitive specification
of the land boundary between Lake Chad and the sea;
(h) that the mouth of the Ebeji, marking the beginning of the land
boundary, is located at the point where the north-east channel of
the Ebeji flows into the featuremarked 'Pond' on the Map shown
as Fig. 7.1 of this Rejoinder, which location is at latitude
12"31'45"N, longitude 14"13'00"E (Adindan Datum) ;
(c) that subject to the clarifications, interpretations and variations
explained in Chapter 7 of this Rejoinder, the land boundary
between the mouth of the Ebeji and the point on the thalweg of
the Akpa Yafe which is opposite the mid-point of the mouth of
Archibong Creek is delimited by the terms of:
(i) paragraphs 2-61 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration,
confirmed by the Exchange of Lettzrs of 9 January 1931 ;
(ii) the Nigeria (Protectorate and Camt:roons) Order in Council
of :2August 1946, section 6 (1) and the Second Schedule
thereto;
(iii) par.agraphs 13-21of the Anglo-Gerrnan Demarcation Agree-
ment of 12April 1913 ; and
(iv) Articles XV to XVII of the Aiiglo-German Treaty of
11 IMarch 1913;
(d) that the effect of the first two of those instruments, as clarified,
interpreted or varied in the manner identified by Nigeria, is as set
out in the Appendix to Chapter 8 and delineated in the maps in
the At1a:isubmitted with this Rejoinder,
(4) as to the maritime boundary, adjudge and declare:
(a) tfrom the point at which its claim line enters waters claimed by or
recognizi-d by Nigeria as belonging to Equatorial Guinea, or
alternati~ely that Cameroon's claim is inadmissible to that extent;
(b) that Cameroon's claim to a maritime boundary based on the glo-
bal division of maritime zones in the Gulf of Guinea is inadmis-
sible, and that the Parties are under an obligation, pursuant to
Articles'74and 83 of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conven-
tion, to negotiate in good faith with a view to agreeing on an
equitable delimitation of their respectile maritime zones, such
delimitation to take into account, in particular, the need to
respect existing rights to explore and exploit the mineral resources
of the continental shelf. granted by either Party prior to 29 March
1994 without written protest from the other, and the need to
respect the reasonable maritime claims of third States; cj subsidiairement, que le Cameroun n'est pas fondé endroit a reven-
diquer une délimitation de la frontière maritime baséesur un par-
tage global des zones maritimes dans le golfe de Guinée etque cette
demande est rejetée ;
d) que, dans la mesure où la demande du Cameroun concernant la
frontière maritime peut êtrejugée recevable en laprésente instance,
la revendication par le Cameroun d'une frontière maritime a l'ouest
de la zone de chevauchement des concessions, telle
et au sud
qu'indiquée à la figure 10.2 de la présenteduplique, est rejetée;
e) que les eaux territoriales respectives des deux Etats ont pour fron-
tière une ligne médianedans le Rio del Rey;
f) que, au-deli du Rio del Rey, les zones maritimes respectives des
Parties seront délimitéesconformément au principe de l'équidis-
tance, jusqu'au point où la ligne ainsi tracée rencontre la frontière
avec la Guinéeéquatorialesuivant la lignemédianea environ 4"6'de
latitude nord et 8'30' de longitude est;
5) en ce qui concerne lesdrmandes du Cumeroun en matière de uesponsu-
hilitéétutique,de dire etjuger:
que, dans la mesure où le Cameroun maintient toujours chacune de ces
demandes et que celles-ci sont recevables, ces demandes ne sont fondées
ni en fait ni en droit; et
6) en ce qui concerneles demandes reconventionnellesdu Nigériatelles que
formuléesdans la sixièmepartie du contre-mémoire et au chapitre 18
de la présenteduplique, de dire et juger:
que le Cameroun est responsable envers le Nigéria à raison des griefs
exposésdans chacune de ces demandes, le montant de la réparation due
à ce titre devant être déterminépar la Cour dans un nouvel arrêtê
défaut d'accord intervenu entre les Parties dans les six mois suivant la
date du prononcé de l'arrêtde la Cour. ))
27. Dans la procédure orale. les conclusions ci-après ont étéprésentéespar
les Parties:
Au nom du Gouvernementdu Canzrroun,
«La République du Cameroun a l'honneur de conclure à ce qu'il plaise
à la Cour internationale de Justice de dire etjuger:
LI) Que la frontière terrestre entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria suit le tracé
suivant:
du point désignépar les coordonnées 13"5' nord et 14'5' est, la
frontière suit une ligne droite jusqu'à l'embouchure de l'Ebedji,
situéeau point de coordonnées 12"32'17" nord et 14' 12'12"est,
point définidans le cadrede la commission du bassin du lac Tchad
et constituant une interprétation authentique des déclarations
Milner-Simon du 10juillet 1919et Thomson-Marchand des 29 dé-
cembre 1929et 31janvier 1930,confirméespar l'échangede lettres
du 9 janvier 1931; subsidiairement, l'embouchure de 1'Ebedji est
situéeau point de coordonnées 12'31'12" nord et 14' 11'48" est;
de ce point, elle suit le tracéfixépar ces instruments jusqu'au«pic (c) in the alternative, that Cameroon's claini to a maritime boundary
based on the global division of maritime zones in the Gulf of
Guinea is unfounded in law and is rejected;
(d) that, to the extent that Cameroon's claini to a maritime boundary
may be held admissible in the present proceedings, Cameroon's
claim to a maritime boundary to the wi:st and south of the area
of over1,appinglicences, as shown on Fig. 10.2 of this Rejoinder,
is rejected;
(e) that the respective territorial waters of the two States are divided
by a median line boundary within the Kio del Rey;
(f) that, beyond the Rio del Rey, the respective maritime zones of the
Parties are to be delimited in accordance with the principle of
equidistance, to the point where the line so drawn meets the
median line boundary with Equatorial Guinea at approximately
4"6'N, 8'30'E;
(5) us to Cameroon's claims qf'State responsibility, adjudge and declare :
that, to the extent to which any such claims are still maintained by
Cameroon, and are admissible, those claims are unfounded in fact and
law; and
(6) as to Nigeria's counter-claims, as specified in Part VI of the Counter-
Memorial and in Chapter 18 of this Rejoinder, adjudge and declare:
that Cameroon bears responsibility to Nigeria in respect of each of
those claims. the amount of reparation due therefor, if not agreed
between the Parties within six months of the date of judgment, to be
determined by the Court in a further judgment."
27. At the oral proceedings, the following submissicins were presented by the
Parties:
On behalf qf the Govc,rnmentof Cameroon,
"Pursuant to tlheprovisions of Article 60, paragraph 2, of the Rules of
Court the Republic of Cameroon has the honour to request that the Inter-
national Court of Justice be pleased to adjudge and declare:
(a) That the land boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria takes the
following course :
- from the point designated by the CO-ordinates 13"05' north and
14"05' east, the boundary follows a straight line as far as the
mouth of the Ebeji, situated at the poirit located at the co-ordi-
nates 12"32'17" north and 14"12'12" eut, as defined within the
framewclrk of the LCBC and constitutiiig an authoritative inter-
pretation of the Milner-Simon Declaraiion of 10 July 1919 and
the Thoinson-Marchand Declarations of 29 December 1929 and
31 January 1930, as confirmed by the Exchange of Letters of
9 January 1931 ;in the alternative, the niouth of the Ebeji is situ-
ated at the point located at the CO-ordinates 12"31'12"north and
14"11'48" east;
- from tha~tpoint it follows the course fixed by those instruments as FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRET)
assez proéminent)) décrit par l'alinéa 60de la déclaration Thom-
son-Marchand et connu sous le nom usuel de «mont Kombon));
- du «mont Kombon)), la frontière se dirige ensuite vers la «borne
64)) visée au paragraphe 12 de l'accord germano-britannique
d'Obokum du 12 avril 1913 et suit, dans ce secteur, le tracé décrit
à la section 6, paragraphe 1, du Nigeria (Protectorate und Came-
roons) Order in Council britannique du 2 août 1946;
- de la «borne 64», elle suit le tracé décritpar les paragraphes 13
à 21 de l'accord d'Obokum du 12 avril 1913jusqu'à la borne 114
sur la rivière Cross;
- de ce point, jusqu'à l'intersection de la ligne droite joignant Bakassi
Point àKing Point et du centre du chenal navigable de l'Akwayafé,
la frontière est déterminéepar les paragraphes XVI à XXI de
l'accord germano-britannique du 11 mars 191 3.
b) Que, dèslors, notamment, la souveraineté sur la presqu'île de Bakassi
d'une part et sur la parcelle litigieuse occupéepar le Nigéria dans la
zone du lac Tchad d'autre part, en particulier sur Darak et sa région,
est camerounaise.
c) Que la limite des zones maritimes relevant respectivement de la Répu-
blique du Cameroun et de la République fédérale duNigéria suit le
tracésuivant:
- de l'intersection de la ligne droite joignant Bakassi Point à King
Point et du centre du chenal navigable de 1'Akwayaféjusqu'au
point «12»,cette limite est confirméepar la «ligne de compromis ))
reportée sur la carte de l'Amirauté britannique n03433 par les
chefs d'Etat des deux pays le 4 avril 1971(déclaration de Yaoundé
II) et, de ce point 12jusqu'au point «G», par la déclaration signée
à Maroua le 1" juin 1975;
- du point G, la ligne équitable suit la direction indiquée par les
points G, H (de coordonnées 8"2If16" est et 4'17' nord), 1
(7"55'40" est et 3'46' nord), J (7" 12'8" est et 3' 12'35" nord), K
(6'45'22" est et 3' 1'5" nord), et se poursuit àpartir de K jusqu'à
la limite extérieure des zones maritimes que le droit international
place sous la juridiction respective des deux Parties.
d) Qu'en tentant de modifier unilatéralement et par la force les tracésde
la frontière définie ci-dessus sub litterae a) et c), la République fédé-
rale du Nigéria a violéet viole le principe fondamental du respect des
frontières héritéesde la colonisation (utipossidetis juris) ainsi que ses
engagements juridiques relativement à la délimitation terrestre et
maritime.
e) Qu'en utilisant la force contre la République du Cameroun, et, en par-
ticulier, en occupant militairement des parcelles du territoire camerou-
nais dans la zone du lac Tchad et la péninsule camerounaise de
Bakassi, en procédant à des incursions répétéetsout le long de la fron-
tière entre les deux pays, la République fédéraledu Nigéria a violéet
viole ses obligations en vertu du droit international conventionnel et
coutumier.
f) Que la République fédéraledu Nigériaa le devoir exprèsde mettre fin
à sa présence tant administrative que militaire sur le territoire came-
rounais et, en particulier, d'évacuer sans délai et sans condition ses327 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
troupes de la zone occupéedu lac Tchad et de la péninsulecamerou-
naise de Bakassi et de s'abstenir de tels faitsl'avenir.
g) Qu'en ne respectant pas l'ordonnance en indication de mesures conser-
vatoires rendue par la Cour le 15mars 1996,la Républiquefédéraledu
Nigériaa manqué à ses obligations internationales.
h) Que la responsabilitéde la République fédérale du Nigéria est engagée
par les faits internationalement illicites exposés ci-dessuset précisés
dans les écritures et les plaidoiries orales de la République du Came-
roun.
i) Qu'en conséquence, uneréparation est due par la République fédérale
du Nigériaa la Républiquedu Cameroun pour les préjudices matériels
et moraux subis par celle-ci, selon les modalitésà fixer par la Cour.
La République du Cameroun a par ailleurs l'honneur de prier la Cour
de bien vouloir l'autoriser a présenter une évaluation du montant de
l'indemnitéqui lui est due en réparation des préjudices qu'ellea subis en
conséquence des faits internationalement illicites attribuables la Répu-
blique fédéraledu Nigéria,dans une phase ultérieure de la procédure.
La République du Cameroun prie en outre la Cour de déclarerque les
demandes reconventionnelles de la Républiquefédéraledu Nigériane sont
fondéesni en fait ni en droit et de les rejeter.))
Au nom du Gouvernement du NNigGria,
«La République fédérale du Nigéria prie respectueusement la Cour:
1) en ce qui concerne la presqu'île deBakassi, de dire et juger:
aj que la souveraineté sur la presqu'île appartient à la République
fédéraledu Nigéria ;
h) que la souverainetédu Nigériasur Bakassi s'étend jusqu'àla fron-
tière avec le Cameroun décriteau chapitre 11 du contre-mémoire
du Nigéria;
2) en ce qui concerne le lac Tchad, de dire et juger:
a) que la délimitation et la démarcation proposées sousles auspices de
la commission du bassin du lac Tchad, n'ayant pas étératifiéespar
le Nigéria,ne s'imposent pas a lui;
b) que la souverainetésur les zones de la régiondu lac Tchad définies
au paragraphe 5.9 de la duplique du Nigéria et indiquées aux
figures 5.2 et 5.3 en regard de la page 242 (y compris les agglomé-
rations nigérianes énuméréeasu paragraphe 4.1 de la duplique du
Nigéria)appartient à la République fédéraledu Nigéria;
c) qu'en tout état decause, du point de vuejuridique, le processus qui
s'est déroulédans le cadre de la commission du bassin du lac
Tchad, et qui devait conduirea la délimitation et la démarcation de
l'ensemble des frontières dans le lac Tchad, est sans préjudicedu
titre sur telle ou telle zone de la régiondu lac Tchad qui revient au
Nigériadu fait de la consolidation historique du titre et decquies-
cement du Cameroun; LAND 4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JULIGMENT) 327
tional evacuation of its troops from the occupied area of Lake Chad
and from the Cameroonian peninsula of Bakassi and of refraining
from such acts in the future.
(g) That in failirig to comply with the Order for the indication of provi-
sional measures rendered by the Court on 15 March 1996the Federal
Republic of Nigeria has been in breach of its international obliga-
tions.
(h) That the internationally wrongful acts referred to above and described
in detail in the written pleadings and oral argument of the Republic
of Cameroon engage the responsibility of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria.
(i) That, consequently, on account of the material and moral injury suf-
fered by the Republic of Cameroon reparation in a form to be deter-
mined by the Court is due from the Federal Republic of Nigeria to
the Republic of Cameroon.
The Republic of Cameroon further has the honour to request the Court
to permit it, at a subsequent stage of theroceedings, to present an assess-
ment of the amount of compensation due to it as reparation for the injury
suffered by it as a result of the internationally wrongful acts attributable to
the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
The Republic of Cameroon also asks the Court to declare that the
counter-claims of the Federal Republic of NigerLi are unfounded both in
fact and in law. and to reject them."
On belîulf oJthe Government of Nigeria,
"The Federal Republic of Nigeria respectfully requests that the Court
should
1. as to the Bakassi Peninsula, adjudge and declare:
(a) that sovereignty over the Peninsula is vestzd in the Federal Repub-
lic of Nigeri;
(b) that Nigeria's sovereignty over Bakassi extends up to the bound-
ary with Cameroon described in Chapter 11of Nigeria's Counter-
Memorial ;
2. as to Lake Clîad, adjudge and declare:
(a) that the lnroposed delimitation and demarcation under the aus-
pices of the Lake Chad Basin Commission, not having been
accepted by Nigeria, is not binding upon it;
(b) tgraph 5.9 of Nigeria's Rejoinder and depicted in Figs. 5.2 and 5.3
facing page 242 (and including the Nigerian Settlementsidentified
in paragraph 4.1 of Nigeria's Rejoinder) is vested in the Federal
Republic of Nigeria;
(c) that in ainy event the process which has taken place within the
framework of the Lake Chad Basin Conimission, and which was
intended to lead to an overall delimitation and demarcation of
boundariizs on Lake Chad, is legally without prejudice to the title
to partic~ilar areas of the Lake Chad region inhering in Nigeria as
a consequence of the historical consolidation of title and the
acquiescence of Cameroon;328 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
3) en ce qui concerne les segments interrnkdiaires de lafrontière terrestre,
de dire etjuger:
a) qu'il relèvede la compétence de la Cour de préciser définitivement
le tracéde la frontière terrestre entre le lac Tchad et la mer;
b) que l'embouchure de la rivière Ebedji, qui marque le point de
départ de la frontière terrestre, se trouve au point où le chenal
nord-est de la rivièresejette dans la formation appelée«Pond» sur
la carte reproduite à la figure 7.1 de la duplique du Nigéria,point
qui est situépar 12"31'45" de latitude nord et 14"13'00" de longi-
tude est (selon le référentiel'Adindan);
c) que, sous réservedes interprétations proposéesau chapitre 7 de la
duplique du Nigéria, la frontière terrestre entre l'embouchure de
1'Ebedjiet le point situésur le thalweg de 1'AkpaYafe qui fait face
au point médiande l'embouchure de I'Archibong Creek est délimi-
téepar les instruments frontaliers pertinents, a savoir:
i) les paragraphes 2 à 61 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand,
confirméepar l'échangede lettres du 9 janvier 1931 ;
ii) l'ordonnance adoptée en conseil du 2 août 1946 relative au
Nigéria(protectorat et Cameroun) (art. 6, par. 1)et sa deuxième
annexe ;
iii) les paragraphes 13 à 21 de l'accord de démarcation anglo-
allemand du 12 avril 1913; et
iv) les articles XV à XVII du traité anglo-allemand du 11 mars
1913; et
d) que les interprétations proposées au chapitre 7 de la duplique du
Nigéria, ainsi que les mesures connexes présentéesdans ladite du-
plique pour chacun des endroits où la délimitation prescrite par
les instruments frontaliers pertinents est imparfaite ou incertaine,
sont confirmées.
4) en ce qui concerne lafrontière muritirne, de dire et juger:
a) que la Cour n'a pas compétencepour connaître de la revendication
maritime du Cameroun à partir du point où la ligne que celui-ci
revendique pénètredans les eaux sur lesquelles la Guinée équato-
riale fait valoir des prétentions l'encontre du Cameroun, ou sub-
sidiairement que cette demande du Cameroun est irrecevable de ce
fait;
b) que la demande du Cameroun relative a une délimitation de la
frontière maritime baséesur le partage global des zones maritimes
dans le golfe de Guinée est irrecevable, et que les Parties sont
tenues, en application des articles 74 et 83 de la convention des
Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer, de négocierde bonne foi en
vue de parvenir àun accord sur une délimitation équitablede leurs
zones maritimes respectives, une telle délimitation devant tenir
compte, notamment,de l'obligation de respecter les droits existants
de prospection et d'exploitation des ressources minérales du pla-
teau continental accordés par l'une ou l'autre des Parties avant le
29 mars 1994 sans qu'une protestation écrite ait étéélevéepar
l'autre ainsi que les revendications maritimes raisonnables d'Etats
tiers;
c) subsidiairement, que le Cameroun n'est pas fondé en droit à reven- LAND AND MARITIMEBOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 328
3. as to the central sectors of the land boundary, adjudge and declare
(a) that the Court's jurisdiction extends to the definitive specification
of the lan'dboundary between Lake Chad and the sea;
(6) that the nnouth of the Ebeji, marking the beginning of the land
boundary., is located at the point where the north-east channel of
the Ebeji iflowsinto the feature marked 'Pond' on the map shown
as Fig. 7.1 of Nigeria's Rejoinder. whicli location is at latitude
12"31' 45" N, longitude 14" 13'00"E (Adiridan Datum) ;
(c) that subject to the interpretations proposed in Chapter 7 of Nige-
ria's Rejoinder, the land boundary between the mouth of the Ebeji
and the point on the thalweg of the Akpa Yafe which is opposite
the midpoint of the mouth of Archibong Creek is delimited by the
terms of the relevant boundary instruments, namely :
(i) paragraphs 2-61 oftheThomson-Marchand Declaration, con-
firmed by the Exchange of Letters of'9 January 1931 ;
(ii) the Nigeria (Protectorate and Camei.oons) Order in Council
of 2 August 1946 (Section 6 (1) and the Second Schedule
thereto);
(iii) paragraphs 13-21 of the Anglo-German Demarcation Agree-
ment of 12 April 1913; and
(iv) Articles XV to XVII of the Anglo-German Treaty of
11 March 1913; and
jd) that the interpretations proposed in Chapter 7 of Nigeria's Rejoin-
der, and the associated action there identified in respect of each
of the locations where the delimitation iii the relevant boundary
instruments is defective or uncertain, are confirmed;
4. as to the maritime boundary, adjudge and declare:
(a) that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Canieroon's maritime claim
from the point at which its claim line enters waters claimed against
Cameroori by Equatorial Guinea, or alternatively that Cameroon's
claim is iriadmissible to that extent;
(b) that Cameroon's claim to a maritime boundary based on the glo-
bal division of maritime zones in the Gulf of Guinea is inadmis-
sible, and that the Parties are under an obligation, pursuant to
Articles 74 and 83 of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conven-
tion, to negotiate in good faith with a view to agreeing on an
equitable delimitation of their respective maritime zones, such
delimitation to take into account, in particular, the need to
respect existing rights to explore and exploit the mineral resources
of the continental shelf, granted by either Party prior to 29 March
1994 withiout written protest from the other, and the need to
respect the reasonable maritime claims of third States;
(c) in the alternative, that Cameroon's claim to a maritime boundary diquer une délimitation de la frontière maritime baséesur un par-
tage global des zones maritimes dans le golfe de Guinée etque cette
demande est rejetée ;
d) que, dans la mesure où la demande du Cameroun concernant la
frontière maritime peut êtrejugée recevableen la présenteinstance.
la revendication par le Cameroun d'une frontière maritime à l'ouest
et au sud de la zone de chevauchement des concessions, telle
qu'indiquée à la figure 10.2de la duplique du Nigéria, est rejetée;
e) que les eaux territoriales respectives des deux Etats ont pour fron-
tière une ligne médiane situéedans le Rio del Rey;
f) que, au-delà du Rio del Rey, les zones maritimes respectives des
Parties seront délimitéespar une ligne tracée conformément au
principe de l'équidistance, jusqu'au point le plus proche où cette
ligne rencontre la frontière établie avec la Guinée équatoriale sui-
vant la ligne médiane à environ 4"6' de latitude nord et 8"30'de
longitude est;
5) en ce qui concerne les demandes du Cameroun en matière de responsa-
bilitéétatique, de dire et juger:
que, pour autant que le Cameroun maintient toujours chacune de ces
demandes et que celles-ci sont recevables, ces demandes ne sont fondées
ni en fait ni en droit; et
6) en ce quiconcerne les deinandes reconventionnellesdu Nigériatelles que
formulées dans la sixièmepartie du contre-mémoire du Nigéria et au
chapitre 18 de la duplique du Nigéria,de dire et juger:
que le Cameroun est responsable envers le Nigéria à raison des griefs
exposésdans chacune de ces demandes, le montant de la réparation due
à ce titre devant être déterminépar la Cour dans un nouvel arrêt à
défaut d'accord entre les Parties dans les six mois suivant la date du
prononcé de l'arrêtde la Cour. ))
28. Au terme de la déclaration écrite qu'ellea présentée.conformément au
paragraphe 1de l'article 85 du Règlement, la Guinéeéquatoriale a notamment
indiquéce qui suit:
«La requêtede la Guinée équatoriale est simple, va droit au but qu'elle
vise, repose sur la jurisprudence de la Cour, s'inscrit dans le droit fil de la
pratique de la communauté internationale et correspond à la pratique des
trois Etats de la régionconcernée: elle prie la Cour de s'abstenir de déli-
miter une frontière maritime entre le Nigéria et le Cameroun dans une
zone plus proche de la Guinéeéquatoriale que des Parties à l'instance. La
Guinée équatoriale estime avoir présentéplusieurs bonnes raisons pour
conduire la Cour a se ranger a cette position. ))
29. Au terme des observations orales qu'elle a présentéessur l'objet de
l'intervention,conformément au paragraphe 3 de l'article 85 du Règlement, la
Guinée équatoriale s'est notamment expriméecomme suit:
«[Nlous demandons à la Cour de ne pas délimiterde frontière maritime
entre le Cameroun et le Nigériadans des zones placées plus prèsde la Gui-
néeéquatorialeque des côtes des deux Parties ou d'émettre un quelconque
avis susceptible de porter préjudice à nos intérêtsdans le cadre de nos LAND .\ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 329
based on the global division of maritime zones in the Gulf of
Guinea is unfounded in law and is rejected;
(ci) that, to the extent that Cameroon's claim to a maritime boundary
may be held admissible in the present proceedings, Cameroon's
claim to a maritime boundary to the Westand south of the area of
overlappiing licences, as shown in Fig. 10.2of Nigeria's Rejoinder,
is rejected;
(e) that the respective territorial waters of the two States are divided
by a mediian line boundary within the Rio del Rey;
(f) that, beyclnd the Rio del Rey, the respective maritime zones of the
Parties arc to be delimited by a line drawil in accordance with the
principle of equidistance, until the approximate point where that
line meets the median line boundary with Equatorial Guinea, i.e.
at approximately 4" 6' N, 8' 30' E;
5. as to Carneroon'sclairns of State responsibiliiy, adjudge and declare:
that, to the extent to which any such claims are still maintained by
Cameroon, and are admissible, those claims are unfounded in fact and
law; and,
6. as to Nigeria's counter-c1airn.sas specified in Part VI of Nigeria's
Counter-Memorial and in Chapter 18 of Nigeria's Rejoinder, adjudge
and declare:
that Cameroon bears responsibility to Nigeria in respect of each of
those claims, the amount of reparation due therefor, if not agreed
between the Parties within six months of the date of judgment, to be
determined by the Court in a further judgment."
28. At the end of the written statement submitted I)y it in accordance with
Article 85, paragraph L,of the Rules of Court, Equatorial Guinea stated inter
alia:
"Equatorial Guinea's request is simple and straightforward, founded in
the jurisprudence of the Court, makes good sense in the practice of the
international community and is consistent with the practice of the three
States in the region concerned: its request is that the Court refrain from
delimiting a marii:ime boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon in any
area that is more proximate to Equatorial Guinea than to the Parties to
the case before the Court. Equatorial Guinea believes it has presented a
number of good reasons for the Court to adopt this position."
29. At the end of the oral observations submitted 1)yit with respect to the
subject-matter of the ii~tervention in accordance with 4rticle 85, paragraph 3,
of the Rules of Court, Equatorial Guinea stated inter alia:
"[Wle ask the Court not to delimit a maritime t~oundary between Cam-
eroon and Nigeria in areas lying closer to Equatorial Guinea than to the
coasts of the two Parties or to express any opinion which could prejudice
our interests in thie context of our maritime boundary negotiations with330 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
négociationsrelativesaux frontièresmaritimes avecnos voisins...Préserver
les intérêtde 1'Etattiers dans la présenteprocéduresignifieque la délimi-
tation établie parla Cour entre le Nigéria etle Cameroun doit nécessaire-
ment demeurer au nord de la lignemédianeentre I'île de Bioko dela
Guinéeéquatorialeet le continent.»
30. Le Cameroun et le Nigéria sont des Etats situéssur la côte occi-
dentale de l'Afrique. Leur frontière terrestre s'étend du lac Tchad au
nord jusqu'à la presqu'île de Bakassi au sud. Leurs côtes sont adjacentes
et sont baignéespar les eaux du golfe de Guinée.
Quatre Etats sont riverains du lac Tchad: le Cameroun, le Niger, le
Nigéria et le Tchad. Les eaux du lac ont beaucoup variédans le temps.
Dans sa partie septentrionale, la frontière terrestre entre le Cameroun
et le Nigéria traverse des plaines chaudes et sèchesaux alentours du lac
Tchad, à environ 300 mètres d'altitude. Puis elle parcourt des régionsde
montagnes, de hautes terres cultivéesou de pâturages, arroséespar divers
cours d'eau. Elle descend ensuite par paliers jusqu'à des régions de
savane et de forêt,avant de rejoindre la mer.
La régioncôtière où aboutit la frontière terrestre dans sa partie méri-
dionale est celle de la presqu'île de Bakassi. Cette presqu'île, situéeau
fond du golfe de Guinée,est encadréeà l'ouest par la rivière Akwayaféet
à l'est par le Rio del Rey. Elle constitue un milieu amphibie, caractérisé
par une hydrographie, des ressources halieutiques et une végétation de
mangroves abondantes. Le golfe de Guinée, qui présente un caractère
concave au niveau des côtes du Cameroun et du Nigéria, estbordé par
d'autres Etats, et en particulier par la Guinée équatoriale, dont I'île de
Bioko fait face aux côtes des Parties.
31. Le différendqui oppose les Parties, pour ce qui a trait à leur fron-
tière terrestre, s'inscrit dans un contexte historique marqué tout d'abord,
au XIX" et au début du XX' siècle, par l'action des puissances euro-
péennes en vue du partage de l'Afrique, puis par l'évolution du statut
des territoires en cause dans le cadre du régimedes mandats de la So-
ciétédes Nations et de celui des tutelles de l'organisation des Nations
Unies, et enfin par l'accession de ces territoires à l'indépendance. Cette
histoire est reflétdans un certain nombre de conventionset de traités, des
échangesdiplomatiques,certains actes administratifs, des cartes d'époque
et divers documents, qui ont été fournisà la Cour par les Parties.
Quant à la question de la délimitation de la frontière maritimeentre les
Parties, elle aÜne origine plus récente, et son histoire met également en
jeu divers instruments internationaux.
32. La Cour donnera maintenant quelques indications sur les princi-
paux instruments pertinents aux fins de déterminer le tracéde la frontière LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT)
330
our neighbours . . . Safeguardingthe interests of the third State in these
proceedingsmeans that the delimitation between Nigeriaand Cameroon
decided by the Court must necessarilyremain to the north of the median
line between EquaitorialGuinea's Bioko Island and the mainland."
30. Cameroon and Nigeria are States situated on the West Coast of
Africa. Their land boilndary extends from Lake Chad in the north to the
Bakassi Peninsula in the south. Their coastlines are adjacent and are
washed by the waters of the Gulf of Guinea.
Four States border Lake Chad: Cameroon, Chad, Niger and Nigeria.
The waters of the lake have varied greatly over tinie.
In its northern part. the land boundary between C'ameroon and Nigeria
passes through hot dry plains around Lake Chad, at an altitude of about
300 m. It then passes through mountains, cultivateci high ground or pas-
tures, watered by vari'ousrivers and streams. It theri descends in stages to
areas of savannah and forest until it reaches the sea.
The coastal region where the southern part of the land boundary ends
is the area of the Bakassi Peninsula. This peninsu1.1,situated in the hol-
low of the Gulf of Guinea, is bounded by the River Akwayafe to the West
and by the Rio del F!ey to the east. It is an amphibious environment,
characterized by an abundance of water, fish stocks and mangrove
vegetation. The Gulf of Guinea, which is concave iri character at the level
of the Cameroonian and Nigerian coastlines, is bounded by other States,
in particular by Equatorial Guinea, whose Bioko Island lies opposite
the Parties' coastlines.
31. The dispute between the Parties as regards their land boundary
falls within an historical framework marked initially, in the nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries, by the actions of the European Powers
with a view to the partitioning of Africa, followed by changes in the
status of the relevant territories under the League of Nations mandate
system, then the United Nations trusteeships, and finally by the territo-
ries' accession to independence. This history is reflected in a number of
conventions and treaties, diplomatic exchanges, certain administrative
instruments, maps of itheperiod and various documents, which have been
provided to the Court by the Parties.
The delimitation of the Parties' maritime boundary is an issue of more
recent origin, the history of which likewise involves various international
instruments.
32. The Court will now give some particulars of the principal instru-
ments which are relevant for purposes of determining the course of theterrestre et maritime entre les Parties. Elle décrira par la suite plus en
détailet analysera certains de ces instruments.
33. A la fin du XIX" et au début du XX' siécle, diversaccords furent
conclus par l'Allemagne, la France et la Grande-Bretagne pour délimiter
les frontiéresde leurs territoires coloniaux respectifs. La frontière entre la
France et la Grande-Bretagne fut ainsi fixéepar la convention entre ces
deux Etats concernant la délimitation entre les possessions britanniques
et françaises à l'est du Niger, signéeà Londres le 29mai 1906(dénommée
ci-aprés la «convention franco-britannique de 1906»), telle que complé-
téepar un protocole du mêmenom daté du 19 février 1910 (dénommé
ci-après le «protocole franco-britannique de1910»). La frontiere franco-
allemande fut définiepar la convention entre la République française et
l'Allemagne pour la délimitation des colonies du Congo français et du
Cameroun et des sphères d'influence française et allemande dans la
région du lac Tchad, signéeà Berlin le 15 mars 1894, et la convention
entre la France et l'Allemagne confirmant le protocole du 9 avril 1908
définissantles frontières entre le Congo français et le Cameroun, signéeà
Berlin le 18 avril 1908 (dénommée ci-aprèsla trconvention franco-alle-
mande de 1908 »).Quant à la frontiere entre la Grande-Bretagne et 1'Alle-
magne, elle fut tout d'abord établiepar l'accord anglo-allemand concer-
nant les frontiéres en Afrique, signé à Berlin le 15 novembre 1893 et
complétépar un nouvel accord du 19 mars 1906 concernant la frontiére
entre les territoires britanniqueset allemands de Yola au lac Tchad
(dénommé ci-aprèsl'«accord anglo-allemand de 1906))).Elle fut ensuite
redéfinie,dans sa partie méridionale, par deux accords conclus en 1913
entre la Grande-Bretagne et l'Allemagne. Le premier de ces accords,
signé à Londres le 11 mars 1913 (dénomméci-après l'«accord anglo-
allemand du 11 mars 1913»), concernait «1) l'établissement de la fron-
tiéreentre le Nigériaet le Cameroun, de Yola à la mer, et 2) la réglemen-
tation de la navigation sur la rivièreCross)), et couvrait environ 1100kilo-
mètres de frontiere; le second, signé à Obokum le 12 avril 1913 par
Hans Detzner et W. V. Nugent, représentants respectifs de l'Allemagne
et de la Grande-Bretagne (dénommé ci-après l'«accord anglo-allemand
du 12 avril 1913»), était relatif à la démarcation de la frontière anglo-
allemande entre le Nigéria et le Cameroun de Yola à la rivière Cross et
comprenait huit cartes de référence.
34. A l'issue de la premiéreguerre mondiale, l'ensemble des territoires
relevant de l'Allemagne dans la région, qui s'étendaientdu lac TchadA la
mer, furent divisésentre la France et la Grande-Bretagne par le traité de
Versailles, puis placés sous mandats britannique ou français par accord
avec la Société desNations. Cela entraîna la nécessitéde procéder à la
fixation des limites séparant lesdits territoires sous mandat. Le premier
instrument établià cet effet fut la déclaration franco-britannique signéele
10juillet 1919 par le vicomte Milner, secrétaire d'Etat aux colonies de la
Grande-Bretagne, et Henry Simon, ministre des colonies de la Répu-
blique française (dénommée ci-après la((déclaration Milner-Simon))).Enland and maritime bo~undarybetween the Parties. It will later describe in
detail and analyse certain of those instruments.
33. At the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth
centuries, various agreements were concluded by Germany, France and
Great Britain to delirnit the boundaries of their respective colonialrri-
tories. Thus the boundary between France and Great Britain was defined
by the Convention between those two States Respecting the Delimitation
of the Frontier between the British and French Possessions to the East of
the Niger, signed at Idondon on 29 May 1906 (hereinafter the "Franco-
British Convention of 1906"), as supplemented by 21Protocol of the same
name dated 19 February 1910 (hereinafter the "Franco-British Protocol
of 1910"). The Franco-German boundary was defined by the Convention
between the French Republic and Germany for the Delimitation of the
Colonies of French Congo and of Cameroon and French and German
Spheres of Influence in the Region of Lake Chad, signed at Berlin on
15 March 1894, and by the Franco-German Convention Confirming the
Protocol of 9 April 1908 Defining the Boundarie:; between the French
Congo and Cameroori, signed at Berlin on 18 Apri! 1908(hereinafter the
"Franco-German Coilvention of 1908"). The boundary between Great
Britain and Germany was first defined by the Agreement between Great
Britain and Germany respecting Boundaries in AfTica, signed at Berlin
on 15 November 1893, and supplemented by a Jùrther Agreement of
19 March 1906 respe.cting the Boundary between British and German
Territories from Yol;~ to Lake Chad (hereinafter the "Anglo-German
Agreement of 1906"). The southern part of the boundary was subse-
quently redefined by two Agreements concluded between Great Britain
and Germany in 1913. The first of these Agreeme~its, signed in London
on 11 March 1913 (hereinafter, the "Anglo-German Agreement of
11 March 1913"), concerned "(1) The Settlement of the Frontier between
Nigeria and the Cameroons, from Yola to the Sea and (2) The Regula-
tion of Navigation or1the Cross River" and covered some 1,100 km of
boundary; the second, signed at Obokum on 12 April 1913 by Hans
Detzner and W. V. Nugent representing Germariy and Great Britain
respectively (hereinafter the "Anglo-German Agreement of 12 April
1913"), concerned the Demarcation of the Anglo-German Boundary
between Nigeria and the Cameroons from Yola tc the Cross River and
included eight accompanying maps.
34. At the end of the First World War, al1the ttrritories belonging to
Germany in the reginn, extending from Lake Cliad to the sea, were
apportioned between France and Great Britain by the Treaty of Ver-
sailles and then placed under British or French mandate by agreement
with the League of Nations. As a result it was ni:cessary to define the
limits separating the cnandated territories. The first instrument drawn up
for this purpose was the Franco-British Declaratim signed on 10 July
1919 by Viscount Milner, the British Secretary of State for the Colonies,
and Henry Simon, the French Minister for the Colonies (hereinafter the
"Milner-Simon Declai-ation"). With a view to claric~ingthis initial instru-vue de préciserce premier instrument, sir Graeme Thomson, gouverneur
de la colonie et du protectorat du Nigéria, etPaul Marchand, commis-
saire de la République française au Cameroun, signèrent un nouvel
accord très détaillle 29 décembre1929et le 31janvier 1930(dénommé
ci-après la ((déclaration Thomson-Marchand»). Cette déclaration fut
approuvéeet incorporéedans un échange denotes en date du 9 janvier
1931,entre A. de Fleuriau, ambassadeur de France àLondres, et Arthur
Henderson, ministre britannique des affaires étrangères (dénommé ci-
après l'«échange denotes Henderson-Fleuriau »).
35. A la suite de la seconde guerre mondiale, les mandats britannique
et français sur le Cameroun furent remplacéspar des accords de tutelle
dans le cadre de l'organisation des Nations Unies. Les accords de tutelle
pour le Cameroun britannique et pour le Cameroun sous administration
française furent tous deux approuvés par l'Assemblée généralele
13décembre1946.Ces accords se référaient à la ligne fixéepar la décla-
ration Milner-Simon, aux fins de décrireles territoires respectifs placés
sous la tutelle des deux Puissances européennes.
Conformément à une décisionque la Grande-Bretagne avait prise dès
le 2 août 1946 à l'égard desterritoires alors sous mandat britannique,à
savoir l'Ordre en conseil de 1946relatià l'administration du protectorat
du Nigéria etdu Cameroun (dénomméci-après l'«Ordre en conseil de
1946>)),les régions placéessous sa tutelle furent diviséesen deux Bdes
fins administratives, donnant ainsi naissance au Cameroun septentrional
et au Cameroun méridional. L'Ordre en conseil de 1946 contenait plu-
sieurs dispositions décrivant la ligne qui séparaitces deux régions, et pré-
voyait que celles-ciseraient administrées partir du Nigéria.
Le le' janvier 1960, le Cameroun français accéda à l'indépendance
dans le cadre des frontières héritéesde la périodeantérieure. Le Nigéria
fit de mêmele le' octobre 1960.
Conformément aux directives des Nations Unies, le Gouvernement
britannique organisa des plébiscitesdistincts au Cameroun septentrio-
nal et au Cameroun méridional, «afin de déterminer les aspirations des
habitants ..au sujet de leur avenir)) (résolution 1350(XIII) de 1'Assem-
bléegénéraledu 13 mars 1959). Lors de ces plébiscites,tenus les 11 et
12 février 1961, la population du Cameroun septentrional « décid[a]...
d'accéder à l'indépendance en s'unissant à la Fédération de Nigéria
indépendante)), alors que celle du Cameroun méridional «décid[a]
d'accéder à l'indépendanceen s'unissant à la République du Cameroun
indépendante))(résolution 1608 (XV)de l'Assembléegénéraledu 21 avril
1961).
36. Pour ce qui a traitàla frontière dans le lac Tchad, lesquatre Etats
riverains du lac signèrentle 22 mai 1964une convention portant création
de la commission du bassin du lac Tchad (mentionnéeci-aprèscomme la
«CBLT»). Ainsi que la Cour l'a rappelédans son arrêtdu Il juin 1998
(Frontière terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria (Came-
roun c. Nigéria), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt, C.IJ. Recueil 1998,
p. 304-305,par. 64-65), lesattributions de la CBLT sont fixéesà l'article LAND ,4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUI~GMENT) 332
ment, on 29 December 1929 and 31 January 1930 Sir Graeme Thomson,
Governor of the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria, and Paul March-
and, commissaire de la République française au Cameroun, signed a
further very detailecl agreement (hereinafter the "Thomson-Marchand
Declaration"). This Declaration was approved and incorporated in an
Exchange of Notes tiated 9 January 1931 between A. de Fleuriau, the
French Ambassador in London, and Arthur Henderson, the British For-
eign Minister (hereinafter the "Henderson-Fleuriail Exchange of Notes").
35. Following the Second World War, the British and French man-
dates over the Cameroons were replaced by United Nations trusteeship
agreements. The trusteeship agreements for the British Cameroons and
for the Cameroons under French administration were both approved by
the General Assembly on 13 December 1946. These agreements referred
to the line laid down by the Milner-Simon Declaration to describe the
respective territories placed under the trusteeship of the two European
Powers.
Pursuant to a decision taken by Great Britain on 2 August 1946
regarding the territoriesthen under British mandate, namely the 1946
Order in Council Providing for the Administration of the Nigeria Pro-
tectorate and Cameroons (hereinafter the "1946 Order in Council"), the
regions placed under its trusteeship were divided into two for adminis-
trative purposes, thus giving birth to the Northern Cameroons and the
Southern Cameroons. The 1946 Order in Council contained a series of
provisions describing the line separating these two regions and provided
that they would be administered from Nigeria.
On 1January 1960the French Cameroons acceded to independence on
the basis of the boundaries inherited from the pri:vious period. Nigeria
did likewise on 1 Oclober 1960.
In accordance withiUnited Nations directives, the British Government
organized separate plebiscites in the Northern and Southern Cameroons,
"in order to ascertairi the wishes of the inhabitants . . . concerning their
future" (General Assembly resolution 1350 (XIII) of 13 March 1959). In
those plebiscites, helclon 11 and 12February 1961,the population of the
Northern Cameroons "decided to achieve independence by joining the
independent Federation of Nigeria", whereas the pc~pulationof the South-
ern Cameroons "decided to achieve independence by joining the inde-
pendent Republic of (2ameroon" (General Assembl yresolution 1608 (XV)
of 21 April 1961).
36. As regards the frontier in Lake Chad, on 22 May 1964 the four
States bordering the lake signed a Convention establishing the Lake
Chad Basin Commission (hereinafter the "LCBC") As the Court recalled
in its Judgment of 11 June 1998 (Land and Murit~me Boundury between
Carneroon und Nigeriu (Cumeroon v. Nigeria), Pveliminary Objections,
Judgment, 1.C.J. Reports 1998, pp. 304-305, paras. 64-65), the functions
of the LCBC are laid down in Article IX of its Staiute. as annexed to theIX du statut de celle-ci, tel qu'annexé à la convention de 1964. Aux
termes de cette disposition, la CBLT prépare notamment «des règlements
communs, permettant la pleine application des principes affirmésdans le
présentstatut et dans la convention à laquelle il est annexé, et en [assure]
une application effective)). La CBLT exerce diverses compétences en vue
de coordonner l'action des Etats membres en ce qui concerne l'utilisation
des eaux du bassin. Selon le paragraphe g) de l'articleIX, elle a notam-
ment pour attribution ((d'examiner les plaintes et de contribuer à la solu-
tion de différends)). Les Etats membres de la CBLT ont, au fil des ans,
donné à celle-ci certaines compétences additionnelles. Ainsi, à la suite
d'incidents survenus entre les Etats riverains en 1983 dans la région du
lac Tchad, une réunion extraordinaire de la CBLT fut convoquée du 21
au 23juillet 1983 à Lagos (Nigéria),à l'initiative des chefs d'Etat intéres-
sés,en vue de confier à la commission la tâche de traiter certaines ques-
tions frontalières et de sécurité.La CBLT s'est réuniedepuis lors régu-
lièrement pour discuter de ces questions.
37. La question de la frontière à Bakassi et de la souveraineté sur la
presqu'île met également en jeu des instruments particuliers.
Le 10septembre 1884,la Grande-Bretagne et les rois et chefs du Vieux-
Calabar conclurent un traité de protectorat (dénommé ci-aprèsle «traité
de 1884))).Par ce traité,la Grande-Bretagne s'engageait à étendre sapro-
tection à ces rois et chefs, tandis que ceux-ci, pour leur part, acceptaient
et promettaient notamment de s'abstenir de conclure des accords ou des
traitésavec des nations ou puissances étrangèressansl'autorisation préa-
lable du Gouvernement britanniaue.
Peu avant la première guerre mondiale, le Gouvernement britannique
conclut avec l'Allemagne deux accords, en date respectivement du 11mars
et du 12avril 1913(voir paragraphe 33 ci-dessus), qui avaient notamment
pour objet ((l'établissement de la frontière entre le Nigéria et le Came-
roun, de Yola à la mer)), et qui plaçaient la presqu'île de Bakassi en
territoire allemand.
38. La frontière maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria n'a fait
l'objet de négociations que relativement récemment. En effet, si l'on
excepte les accords anglo-allemands des 11 mars et 12 avril 1913, en ce
qu'ils visent le point d'aboutissement de la frontière terrestre à la côte,
tous les instruments juridiques concernant la frontière maritime entre le
Cameroun et le Nigéria sont postérieurs à l'indépendance de ces deux
Etats.
Les deux pays convinrent cet égard de constituer une «commission
mixte sur les frontières))qui, le 14 août 1970, au terme d'une réunion
tenue à Yaoundé (Cameroun), adopta une déclaration (dénomméeci-
après la ((déclaration de Yaoundé 1))) par laquelle le Cameroun et le
Nigériadécidèrentque la ((délimitation des frontières entre les deux pays
se [ferait] en trois étapes)),dont la première serait la ((délimitation de la
frontière maritime D.
Les travaux de cette commission furent à l'origine d'une seconde décla-
ration, faiteà Yaoundé le 4 avril 1971 (dénommée ci-aprèsla ((déclara-1964 Convention. Urider the terms of this provision, the LCBC inter alia
prepares "general regulations which will permit the full application of the
principles set forth in the present Convention and its annexed Statute,
and [to] ensure their effective application". It exercises various powers
with a view to co-ortiinating action by the member States regarding the
use of the waters of the basin. According to Article IX, paragraph (g),
one of its functions is "to examine complaints and to promote the settle-
ment of disputes". Over the years the member States of the LCBC have
conferred certain additional powers on it. Thus, following incidents in
1983 among ripariari States in the Lake Chad area, an extraordinary
meeting of the LCB,C was called from 21 to 2.! July 1983 in Lagos
(Nigeria). on the initiative of the Heads of State concerned. in order to
givgit thétask of dealing with certain boundary and securit; issues. The
LCBC has met regularly since to discuss these issiies.
37. The question of the boundary in Bakassi and of sovereignty over
the peninsula also involves specific instruments.
On 10 September 1884 Great Britain and the Kings and Chiefs of Old
Calabar concluded a Treaty of Protection (hereinafter the "1884Treaty").
Under this Treaty, Great Britain undertook to extend its protection to
these Kings and Chilefs, who in turn agreed and promised inter ulia to
refrain from entering into any agreements or treatics with foreign nations
or Powers without the prior approval of the Briti5.hGovernment.
Shortly before the: First World War, the British Government con-
cluded two agreements with Germany, dated resp~:ctively11 March and
12 April 1913 (see paragraph 33 above), whose objects included "the
Settlement of the Frontier between Nigeria and the Cameroons, from
Yola to the Sea" and which placed the Bakassi Peiiinsula in German ter-
ritory.
38. The maritime boundary between Cameroori and Nigeria was not
the subject of negotiations until relatively recently Thus, apart from the
Anglo-German Agreements of 11 March and 12 ilpril 1913 in so far as
they refer to the endpoint of the land boundary on the Coast, al1the legal
instruments concerning the maritime boundary bt:tween Cameroon and
Nigeria post-date the independence of those two States.
In this regard, the two countries agreed to establish a "joint boundary
con~mission", which on 14 August 1970, at the conclusion of a meeting
held in Yaoundé (Cameroon), adopted a declaration (hereinafter the
"Yaoundé 1 Declarafion") whereby Cameroon and Nigeria decided that
"the delimitation of the boundaries between tlie tuo countries [would] be
carried out in three stages", the first of these being "the delimitation of
the maritime boundary".
The work of that commission led to a second declaration, done at
Yaoundé on 4 April 197 1 (hereinafter the "Yaoiindé IIDeclaration"),334 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
tion de YaoundéII))),par laquelle leschefs d7Etat des deux pays s'accor-
dèrent a considérer comme frontière maritime, «jusqu'à la limite de
3millesmarins)), une ligne allant d'un point 1a un point 12qu'ilsavaient
tracéeet signéesur la carte no 3433 de l'Amirauté britannique annexéea
ladite déclaration.
Quatre ans plus tard, le le'juin 1975, leschefs d'Etat du Cameroun et
du Nigéria signèrent a Maroua (Cameroun) un accord de délimitation
partielle de la frontière maritime entre les deux Etats (dénomméci-après
la ((déclarationde Maroua))). Par cette déclaration, ilsconvinrent de pro-
longer le tracé dela frontière maritime entre les deux Etats et adoptèrent
en conséquenceune ligne frontière définiepar une sériede points allant
du point 12susmentionnéà un point dénomméG. La carte de l'Amirauté
britannique no 3433, complétée en conséquenceé , taitégalement annexée
à cette déclaration.
39. Après avoir décritle cadre géographique et historique dans lequel
s'inscrit le présent différend, laCour passera a présentà la délimitation
des différents secteursde la frontière entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria.
Pour ce faire, elle commencera par définirle tracé dela frontière dans la
régiondu lac Tchad. Elle déterminera ensuitece tracé depuisle lac Tchad
jusqu'a la presqu'île de Bakassi,avant d'examiner laquestion de la fron-
tièrea Bakassi et de la souverainetésur la presqu'île. Puis laCour sepen-
chera sur la question de la délimitationdes zones maritimes relevant des
deux Etats. Enfin, la dernière partie de l'arrêtsera consacréeaux ques-
tions de responsabilitéinternationale soulevéespar les Parties.
40. La Cour examinera en premier lieu la question de la délimitation
de la frontière dans la régiondu lac Tchad. Dans ses conclusions finales,
le Cameroun prie la Cour de dire et juger que, dans cette région, lafron-
tièreentre les deux Parties suit le tracésuivant:
«du point désignépar les coordonnées 13"05'nord et 14'05' est, la
frontière suit une ligne droite jusqu'a l'embouchure de I'Ebedji,
situéeau point de coordonnées 12"32'17" nord et 14"12'12" est,
point définidans le cadre de la CBLT et constituant une interpréta-
tion authentique des déclarationsMilner-Simon du 10juillet 1919et
Thomson-Marchand des 29décembre1929et 31janvier 1930,confir-
méespar l'échangede lettres du 9 janvier 1931 ;subsidiairement,
l'embouchure de 1'Ebedji est située au point de coordonnées
12"31' 12"nord et 14"11'48" est)).
Dans ses conclusions finales, le Nigéria priepour sa part la Cour de dire
et juger:whereby the Heads olfState of the two countries agreed to regard as their
maritime boundary, "as far as the 3-nautical-mile limit", a line running
from a point 1 to a point 12,which they had drawii and signed on British
Admiralty Chart No. 3433 annexed to that declaration.
Four years later, on 1June 1975,the Heads of State of Cameroon and
Nigeria signed an agreement at Maroua (Camcroon) for the partial
delimitation of the maritime boundary between the two States (herein-
after the "Maroua Declaration"). Bythis declaration they agreed to extend
the line of their mari1:imeboundary, and accordingly adopted a boundary
line defined by a series of points running from point 12 as referred to
above to a point designated as G. British Admiralty Chart No. 3433,
marked up accordingly, was likewise annexed to that Declaration.
39. Having described the geographical and historical background to
the present dispute, the Court will now address the delimitation of the
differentsectors of the boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria. Todo
so, the Court will begin by defining the boundary line in the Lake Chad
area. It will then determine the line from Lake Chad to the Bakassi
Peninsula, before examining the question of the boundary in Bakassi and
of sovereignty over the peninsula. The Court will then address the ques-
tion of the delimita.tion between the two States' respective maritime
areas. The last part of the Judgment will be devotcd to the issues of State
responsibility raised by the Parties.
40. The Court will first address the issue of the delimitation of the
boundary in the Lake Chad area. In its final submissions Cameroon
requests the Court to adjudge and declare that in this area the boundary
between the two Parties takes the following course:
"from the point designated by the CO-ordinates 13"05'N and
14"05'E, the boundary follows a straight liste as far as the mouth
of the Ebeji, situated at the point located at the CO-ordinates
12"32' 17"N and 14"12'12"E, as defined within the framework of
the LCBC and constituting an authoritativc: interpretation of the
Milner-Simon Declaration of 10July 1919and the Thomson-March-
and Declarations of 29 December 1929and 3' January 1930,as con-
firmed by the Exchange of Letters of 9 January 1931 ;in the alter-
native, themouth of the Ebeji is situated at the point located at the
CO-ordinates12"31' 12"N and 14"11'48"E".
In its final submissions, Nigeria, for its part, requests the Court to
adjudge and declare : «a) que la délimitation et la démarcation proposées sous les aus-
pices de la commission du bassin du lac Tchad, n'ayant pas
été ratifiéepsar le Nigéria, ne s'imposent pas à lui;
h) que la souveraineté sur les zones de la régiondu lac Tchad défi-
nies au paragraphe 5.9 de la duplique du Nigéria et indiquées
aux figures 5.2 et 5.3 en regard de la page 242 (y compris les
agglomérations nigérianes énuméréea su paragraphe 4.1 de la
duplique du Nigéria) appartient à la République fédéraledu
Nigéria;
c) qu'en tout étatde cause, du point de vue juridique, le processus
qui s'est déroulédans le cadre de la commission du bassin du
lac Tchad, et qui devait conduire à la délimitation et la démar-
cation de l'ensemble des frontières dans le lac Tchad, est sans
préjudice du titre sur telle ou telle zone de la région du lac
Tchad qui revient au Nigériadu fait de la consolidation histo-
rique du titre et de l'acquiescement du Cameroun)).
Le Cameroun et le Nigériaétanten désaccord quant à l'existence d'une
délimitation définitivedans la régiondu lac Tchad, la Cour recherchera
tout d'abord si la déclaration de 1919 et les instruments concernant la
délimitation dans cette région qui lui ont succédésont à l'origine d'une
frontière s'imposant aux Parties. Elle examinera ensuite l'argumentation
du Nigéria fondée sur la consolidation historique du titre qu'il reven-
dique.
41. A l'appui de son argumentation, le Cameroun soutient de manière
généraleque sa frontière avec le Nigéria dans le lac Tchad a fait l'objet
d'une délimitation conventionnelle entre les anciennes puissances colo-
niales, la France et le Royaume-Uni, ainsi que d'une démarcation dans le
cadre de la CBLT.
Selon le Cameroun, la frontière dans le lac Tchad a été établiepar la
déclaration Milner-Simon de 1919. L'article premier de la ((Description
de la frontière franco-britannique tracée sur la carte [Moisel] du Came-
roun à l'échelle1/300000», annexéeà ladite déclaration, précisaitque la
frontière partirait«du point de rencontre des trois anciennes frontières
britannique, française et allemande placédans le lac Tchad par 13'05' de
latitude nord et approximativement 14'05' de longitude est de
Greenwich)) et que de là la frontière serait déterminée«[p]ar une ligne
droite jusqu'à l'embouchure de 1'Ebejin. La ligne frontière établie par
cette déclaration fut préciséepar la déclaration Thomson-Marchand de
1929-1930, dont le texte fut incorporé dans l'échangede notes Hender-
son-Fleuriau de 1931. Le Cameroun affirme en conséquence que la fron-
tière dans le lac Tchad a été délimitépear ce dernier instrument.
42. Le Cameroun invoque en outre un certain nombre de cartes qui
confirmeraient le tracé de la frontière telle que délimitéeconventionnel-
lement. 11cite notamment la carte Moisel annexée ila déclaration Mil-336 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
ner-Simon, dont la feuille pertinente avait étééditée en1912,ainsi que la
carte jointeà la déclarationThomson-Marchand, qui constituerait selon
lui la carte officielleannexéà l'échangede notes Henderson-Fleuriau de
1931et qui aurait donc valeur de ((titre territorial)). Il relèvequ'aucune
de ces cartes n'a ((jamais fait l'objet de la moindre démarche, de la
moindre objection, de la part du Royaume-Uni ou de la République
fédéraledu Nigérian et qu'«[i]l n'existe aucune carte, même nigériane,
portant un tracé frontalier réclamépar le Nigériadans le lac Tchad)).
Le Cameroun soutient que le tracé de cette frontière aété expressément
repris par l'accord de tutelle pour le territoire du Cameroun sous
administration française approuvé par l'Assemblée générale deN sations
Unies le 13décembre1946et a par la suite été transmis «lors des indépen-
dances au Cameroun et au Nigériapar application du principe [de l'luti
possidetis)).
43. Le Cameroun soutient égalementque la modification des caracté-
ristiques physiques du lac Tchad et de la rivière Ebedji nesaurait affecter
le tracéde la ligne frontièrecar, en ((choisissant,sur ce secteur de la fron-
tière, la techniquedes coordonnées géographiqueset de la lignedroite, les
parties contractantes mettaient le tracéde la frontièreà l'abri des varia-
tions naturelles du plan d'eau et de l'affluent)),et que cette volonté d'éta-
blir une frontière stable et définitive malgréles variations hydrologiques
serait au demeurant attestéepar des conventions antérieures relatives au
statut des îles dans le lac Tchad (convention franco-britannique de 1906
et convention franco-allemande de 1908). En tout état de cause, aux
termes du paragraphe 2 de l'article 62 de la convention de Vienne du
23 mai 1969 sur le droit des traités,le changement fondamental de cir-
constances ne serait pas applicable aux traités établissantune frontière.
44. Selon le Cameroun, la délimitation conventionnelle dans le lac
Tchad ne saurait davantage être remise en cause du fait de l'absence de
démarcation effective de la frontière sur le terrain. Il faità cet égard
valoir que le Nigériaa
((reconnu, dans son principe, les frontièresinternationales dans le lac
Tchad établiesavant son indépendance, et [que] la question de la
détermination de ces frontières lacustres n'avait jamais étéabordée
avant les incidents frontaliers survenus dans le lac entre le Nigéria et
le Tchad d'avril àjuin 1983)).
Il rappelle que,iila suite de ces incidents,
cles chefs d'Etat des pays membres de la CBLT [donnèrent] leur
approbation a une proposition visant à la convocation, dèsque pos-
sible, d'une réunion dela commission au niveau ministériel, en vue
de la mise sur pied d'un comité technique conjoint chargé dela déli-
mitation des frontières internationales entre les quatre Etats qui se
partagent le lacTchad))
et que la CBLT tint en conséquenceune session extraordinaire du 21 au
23juillet 1983 à Lagos, au cours de laquelle deux sous-commissions tech-relevant sheet of which was published in 1912,and the map appended to
the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, which, it argues, constitutes the
officia1map annexed to the Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes of
1931 and has thus acquired the value of a "territorial title". Cameroon
points out that these maps have "never been the subject of the slightest
representation or objection from the United Kirigdom or the Federal
Republic of Nigeria" and that "[tlhere exists no map, not even a Nigerian
one, showing a boundary line as claimed by Nigeria in Lake Chad".
Cameroon contencls that the line of the bounda1.ywas expressly incor-
porated in the Trusleeship Agreement for the Territory of Cameroon
under French adminiistration approved by the General Assembly of the
United Nations on 13December 1946and was subsequently "transferred
to Cameroon and Nigeria on independence by application of the prin-
ciple ofuti possidetis".
43. Cameroon further contends that changes in the physical character-
istics of Lake Chad and of the Ebeji River cannot affect the course of the
boundary line, for, "[bly opting in this sector of the boundary to apply
the technique of geographical CO-ordinatesjoined by a straight line, the
contracting parties protected the boundary line ag'iinst natural variation
in the configuration of the lake and its tributary river"; and that this
desire to achieve a stable, definitive boundary despite hydrological varia-
tions is, moreover, borne out by prior agreement:, relative to the status
of the islands in Lake Chad (Franco-British Coqvention of 1906 and
Franco-German Coiivention of 1908). In any event, according to
Cameroon, under Article 62, paragraph 2, of the Vienna Convention of
23 May 1969 on the Law of Treaties, a fundamerital change of circum-
stances is not applicable to a treaty establishing a boundary.
44. Nor, in Cameroon's view, can the conventional delimitation in
Lake Chad be called into question because there has been no effective
demarcation of the boundary on the ground. Ca~neroon argues in that
respect that Nigeria
"has, in principle, recognized the international boundaries in Lake
Chad that were established prior to its indeperidence, and the matter
of the determinaltion of those lake frontiers haclnever been addressed
prior to the border incidents that occurred in the Lake between
Nigeria and Cha.d from April to June 1983".
Cameroon recalls tha.t, following those incidents,
"the Heads of State of the Member countries of the LCBC approved
a proposal aimed at the convening, at the earliest possible time, of a
meeting of the Commission at ministerial level,with a viewto setting
up a joint technical committee to be entrusted with the delimitation
of the international boundaries between the four States which
between them share Lake Chad",
and that the LCBC accordingly held an Extraordinary Session from 21 to
23 July 1983 in Lagos at which two technical sub-committees were337 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
niques furent créées:«une sous-commission chargéede la délimitation
des frontières et une sous-commission chargéede la sécurité))L . e Came-
roun préciseque tt[l]aterminologie employéepar lesparties [était]parfois
flottante, comme il arrive en de pareilles circonstances)), mais que «l'exa-
men du mandat donné auxcommissaires et expertschargésde l'opération
ne laisse aucun doute)): ce mandat «se limit[ait] Bla démarcation de la
frontière,à l'exclusion de toute opération de délimitation)).
Le Cameroun en donne pour preuve le fait que la sous-commission
chargéede la délimitationdes frontières retint comme documents de tra-
vail divers conventions et accords bilatéraux conclus entre l'Allemagne,
la France et le Royaume-Uni entre 1906et 1931,dont l'échangede notes
Henderson-Fleuriau de 1931.Le Cameroun relèveque les instruments de
délimitation ainsi retenus «ne furent jamais contestéspar les représen-
tants du Nigériatout au long de la procédure,et ceci au plus haut niveau,
notamment lors des sommets de chefs d'Etat et de gouvernement)), que
«[l]a démarcationdes frontièresdans le lac Tchad a fait l'objet de travaux
importants qui se sont dérouléssur une bonne décennie))et que «[Iles
Etats riverains du lac Tchad y ont collaboréa tous les niveaux: experts,
commissaires, ministres, chefs d'Etat, sans marquer la moindre réserve
sur la qualitédes travaux pendant très longtemps)). Le Cameroun sou-
ligne que la CBLT a notamment précisé lescoordonnéesdu tripoint dans
le lac Tchad (fixées à 13"05'00"OOOlde latitude nord et 14"04'59"9999
de longitude est) ainsi que celles de l'emplacement de l'embouchure de
1'Ebedji telle que décrite dans l'échange denotes Henderson-Fleuriau
(fixéesà 12"32'17"4 de latitude nord et à 14"12'1l"7 de longitude est). Il
ajoute que cescoordonnéesont été entérinée psar les commissaires natio-
naux du Cameroun, du Niger, du Nigéria et du Tchad le 2 décembre
1988.
Selon le Cameroun, la question de la validité destravaux de démar-
cation effectuésdans le cadre de la CBLT se pose dans les termes sui-
vants :
t(L'opération dedémarcation proprement dite fut critiquée à cer-
tains moments par lesreprésentants du Nigéria. Maisceux-cisedécla-
rèrent en fin de compte satisfaits de l'exactitude de ces opérations.
L'ensembledes travaux fut approuvé à l'unanimitépar les experts, les
commissaires et les chefs d'Etat eux-mêmes.A aucun moment les
représentantsdu Nigériane remirent en cause la délimitation conven-
tionnelle ou les instruments qui la décidaient.Ce n'estqu'au stade de
la ratification que le Nigériafit valoir son oppositio».
Le Cameroun affirme toutefois que le fait que le Nigéria n'aitpas ratifié
les résultatsdes travaux de démarcation dela frontière dans le lac Tchad
ne remet nullement en cause la validité desinstruments de délimitation
conclus auparavant; il manifesterait simplement la distance prise par le
Nigéria vis-à-visde l'opération de démarcation entreprisepar la CBLT.
45. Pour sa part, le Nigéria soutient que la régiondu lac Tchad n'a
jamais fait l'objet d'une quelconque délimitation. Il avance que la décla- LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUEIGMENT) 337
formed: "a sub-comrnittee responsible for border clelimitation and a sub-
committee responsible for security". Cameroon further states that "[tlhe
terminology employed by the parties [was] imprecise in places, as hap-
pens in such circum:;tances", but that "an examination of the mandate
given to the Commissioners and experts chargcd with the operation
leaves no room for tioubt": it was "confined to the demarcation of the
boundary, to the exclusion of any delimitation operation".
As evidence of this Cameroon cites the fact tliat the sub-committee
responsible for border delimitation retained as working documents vari-
ous bilateral conveni.ions and agreements concluded between Germany,
France and the United Kingdom between 1906 and 1931, including the
Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes of 1931. Cameroon points out
that the delimitation instruments thus relied on "were never disputed by
the representatives alf Nigeria throughout the proceedings, even at the
highest level, in particular during the summits of Heads of State and
Government". that "'ltLh3demarcation of boundaries in Lake Chad has
been the subject of significant work over a good ten years" and that "[iln
this regard the ripai-ian States of Lake Chad have co-operated at al1
levels:experts, Comrnissioners, Ministers, Heads of States - without the
slightest reservation being raised as to the quality of work accomplished
over a very substantial period". Cameroon emphasizes that, interalia,
the LCBC defined m~oreprecisely the CO-ordinatesof the tripoint in Lake
Chad (which were fixed at 13°05'00"0001 latitude North and
14'04'59"9999 longitude East) and also defined those of the mouth of
the Ebeji, as described in the Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes
(fixingthem at 12'32'17"4 North and 14"12'1l"7 East). It further states
that those CO-ordinateswere approved by the national Commissioners of
Cameroon, Chad, Niger and Nigeria on 2 December 1988.
According to Cameroon, the overall validity of 1he demarcation works
carried out under the auspices of the LCBC is to be addressed in the fol-
lowing terms :
"The demarcation operation proper was at certain points criticized
by the Nigerian representatives. However, thclserepresentatives ulti-
mately declared themselvessatisfiedwith the accuracy of these opera-
tions. All the works were approved unanimoiisly by the experts, the
Commissioners and the Heads of State themselves. At no time did
the Nigerian representatives cal1 into question the conventional
delimitation or i.heinstruments which decided it. It was only at the
ratification stage that Nigeria made its opposition known."
Cameroon contends that Nigeria's refusal to ratify the result of the
boundary demarcation work in Lake Chad in no \vay impugns the valid-
ity of the previous delimitation instruments; it siniply demonstrates how
far Nigeria has drawn back from the demarcatior operation carried out
by the LCBC.
45. For its part, Nigeria contends that the Lake Chad area has never
been the subject of any form of delimitation. It argues that the Thomson-338 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
ration Thomson-Marchand de 1929-1930 n'avait pas fixéla frontière
anglo-française de manière définitive ence qui concerne le lac Tchad,
mais prévoyait qu'une commission de frontière se chargerait de la déli-
mitation. Le Nigéria faitpar ailleurs observer que, aux termes de la note
signéepar le secrétaire d'Etat britannique Henderson, la déclaration
Thomson-Marchand «ne résult[ait]que d'une enquête préliminaire))et
qu'il y étaitpréciséque «la délimitation proprement dite [pouvait]main-
tenant êtreconfiéea la commission de frontière qu'envisage[ait] àcet effet
l'article1du mandat)). De l'avisdu Nigéria,il résultedonc clairement de
l'échangede notes Henderson-Fleuriau de 1931qu'en ce qui concerne le
lac Tchad, et contrairement a d'autres parties de la frontière terrestre
entre lesdeux Parties. cesarrang"ments étaient((essentiellementde nature
procédurale et programmatique)), et que ce n'est qu'aprèsles travaux de
délimitation - qui n'auraient pas eu lieu dans le cas du lac Tchad -
qu'il aurait pu y avoir accord.
Selon le Nigéria, l'emploi,a l'article premier de la ((Description de la
frontière franco-britannique tracéesur la carte [Moisel] du Cameroun à
l'échelle11300 000)) annexéea la déclaration Milner-Simon de 1919. de
l'adverbe ((approximativement » pour qualifier la position correspondant
à 14'05' de longitude est, conjugué au fait que l'embouchure de 1'Ebedji
s'est déplacée, signifiaiqt ue la frontière dans cette région n'était pas
encore entièrement délimitée.Les instruments ultérieurs n'auraient Das
corrigéces imperfections; et l'absence d'une délimitationcomplète cons-
tituerait l'une des raisons pour lesquelles,jusqu'i ce jour, il n'aurait pu
être convenu d'unedémarcation.
46. Le Nigériafait ensuite valoir que lestravaux exécutés dans le cadre
de la CBLT relevaient a la fois de la délimitation de la frontière dans le
lac Tchad et de sa démarcationet qu'ils n'ontpas abouti à un résultat qui
soit définitif etobligatoire pour lui, en l'absence de ratification desdocu-
ments relatifs à ces travaux.
47. Au total, le Cameroun soutient que la frontière dans la régiondu
lac Tchad, a partir du point situépar 13'05'de latitude nord et 14'05'de
longitude est, court en ligne droitejusqu'à l'embouchure de I'Ebedji.Les
instruments applicables sont selon lui la déclaration Milner-Simon de
1919 et la déclaration Thomson-Marchand de 1929-1930,telle qu'incor-
poréedans l'échangede notes Henderson-Fleuriau de 1931. Le Nigéria
expose pour sa part qu'il n'existepas de délimitation complète dans la
régiondu lac Tchad et que, tant par consolidation historique que par
acquiescement du Cameroun, il détientle titre sur les zones, dont trente-
trois localitésnommémentdésignées, qu'ila indiquéessur les figures 5.2
et 5.3 en regard de la page 242 de sa duplique.
48. La Cour rappelle que les frontièrescoloniales dans la régiondu lac
Tchad avaient fait l'objet, à la fin du XIX" et au début du XXe siècle,
d'une série d'accords bilatéraux entre l'Allemagne, la France et la LAND .4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 338
Marchand Declaration of 1929-1930did not involve a final determina-
tion of the Anglo-French boundary in regard to Lake Chad but provided
for delimitation by a boundary commission. Nigeria further points out
that, according to the Note signed by the British Secretary of State,
Henderson, the Thomson-Marchand Declaration "[was] only the result
of a preliminary survey" and that "the actual deliniitation [could]now be
entrusted to the boimdary commission envisagecl for this purpose by
Article 1 of the Mandate". In Nigeria's opinion, it was thus clearly
apparent from the 1931 Henderson-Fleuriau Excliange of Notes that in
relation to Lake Chad, by contrast with other parts of the land boundary
between the two Parties, these arrangements were 'essentiallyprocedural
and programmatic" and it was only after the delin~itationwork had been
carried out - which was not the case for Lake Chad - that there would
be agreement.
According to Nigeria, the use in Article 1 of tlie "Description of the
Franco-British frontier, marked on the [Moisel]niap of the Cameroons,
scale 1/300,000", anriexed to the 1919Milner-Simon Declaration, of the
word "approximately", in relation to 14O05'E,togzther with the fact that
the mouth of the Eblrjihas shifted through time, ineant that the frontier
in this area was still not fully delimited. Subsequeiit instruments did not,
according to Nigeria., rectify these shortcomings; and the absence of a
fully delimited frontier was one of several reasons why there was no
demarcation of the frontier agreed to until this very day.
46. Nigeria furtheircontends that the work of the LCBC involved both
delimitation and dernarcation of the boundary within Lake Chad and
that it did notproduce a result which was final anclbinding on Nigeria in
the absence of a rati:ficationof the documents relating to that work.
47. In sum, Cameroon contends that the boundary in the Lake Chad
area runs from the point designated by the CO-ordinates 13O05'N and
14'05'E in a straight line to the mouth of the Ebeji. It regards the gov-
erning instruments as the Milner-Simon Declaration of 1919, and the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration of 1929-1930, as incorporated in the
1931 Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes. Nigeria, on the other
hand, argues that there is not a fully delimited ~oundary in the Lake
Chad area and that, through historical consolidation of title and the
acquiescence of Cameroon, Nigeria has title ovcr the areas, including
33 named settlementis,depicted in Figures 5.2 and 5.3 facing page 242 of
its Rejoinder.
48. The Court rec:allsthat in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries the colonia~lboundaries in the Lake Ckiad area had been the
subject of a series of bilateral agreements entered into between Germany,Grande-Bretagne (voir paragraphe 33 ci-dessus). A l'issue de la pre-
mièreguerre mondiale, une bande de territoire situéeà l'est de la frontière
occidentale de l'ancien Cameroun allemand devint le Cameroun sous
mandat britannique. Aussi fut-il nécessaire de redéfinir une frontière,
commençant dans le lac même,entre les territoires récemment placés
sous mandats britannique et français. Ce fut chose faite avec la déclaration
Milner-Simon de 1919, qui a le statut d'accord international. Aux termes
de cette déclaration, la France et la Grande-Bretagne convenaient:
[de] déterminer la frontière séparant les territoires du Cameroun res-
pectivement placés sous l'autorité de leurs gouvernements, ainsi
qu'elle est tracée sur la carte Moisel au 11300000annexée à la pré-
sente déclaration et définiepar la description en trois articles égale-
ment ci-jointe».
Aucun tripoint précisdans le lac Tchad ne pouvait être déduitdes in-
struments antérieurs, ceux-ci pouvant conduire à situer le tripoint à 13"00'
ou 13"05' de latitude nord, tandis que le méridienétaitsimplement décrit
comme «passant a 35' a l'est du centre de Kukawa)). Ces données furent
éclaircieset préciséespar la déclaration Milner-Simon, qui disposait:
«La frontière partira du point de rencontre des trois anciennes
frontières britannique, française et allemande placédans le lac Tchad
par 13"05' de latitude nord et approximativement 14"05' de longi-
tude est de Greenwich. De là, la frontière sera déterminéede la façon
suivante :
1.Par une ligne droite jusqu'à l'embouchure de I'Ebeji;
La carte Moisel au 11300000 était présentéecomme la carte ayant
«servi pour décrire la frontière)) et était annexée à la déclaration; une
autre carte du Cameroun, au 112000000, était ((attachée a la ... descrip-
tion de la frontière)).
49. L'article premier du mandat conféréa la Grande-Bretagne par la
Société desNations confirmait la ligne préciséedans la déclaration Mil-
ner-Simon. II disposait :
«Les territoires dont Sa Majesté britannique assume l'administra-
tion sous le régimedu mandat comprennent la partie du Cameroun
qui est située a l'ouest de la ligne fixéedans la déclaration signéele
10juillet 1919, dont une copie est ci-annexée.
Cette ligne pourra, toutefois, être légèrement modifiéepar accord
intervenant entre le gouvernement de Sa Majesté britannique et le
Gouvernement de la République française, sur les points où, soit
dans l'intérêt dehsabitants, soit par suite de l'inexactitude de la carte
Moisel au 11300000, annexée à la déclaration, l'examen des lieux
ferait reconnaître comme indésirable de s'en tenir exactement à la
ligne indiquée.France and Great Britain (see paragraph 33 above,. After the First World
War a strip of territory to the east of the western frontier of the former
German Cameroon became the British Mandate over the Cameroons.
It was thus necessary to re-establish a boundary, commencing in the
lake itself, between the newly created British and French mandates.
This was achieved through the Milner-Simon Declaration of 1919,
which has the status of an international agreement. By this Declaration,
France and Great Britain agreed:
"to deterinine the frontier, separating the tzrritories of the Cam-
eroons placed respectively under the authority of their Govern-
ments, as it is traced on the map Moisel 1 :300,000, annexed to the
present declaration and defined in the description in three articles
also annexed hereto".
No definite tripoirit in Lake Chad could be detzrmined from previous
instruments, on the basis of which it might be loci~tedeither at 13'00' or
at 13"05'latitude north, whilst the meridian of longitude was described
simply as situated "35'east of the centre of Kukawa". These aspects were
clarified and rendered more precise by the Milner-Simon Declaration,
which provided :
"The frontier will start from the meeting-point of the three old
British, French and German frontiers situated in Lake Chad in
latitude 13"05'N and in approximately longitude 14"05'E of
Greenwich.
Thence the frontier will be determined as follows:
1. A straight line to the mouth of the Ebeji;
.................. ......... >)
The Moisel 1 : 300,000 map was stated to be thz map "to which refer-
ence is made in the description of the frontier" and was annexed to the
Declaration; a further map of the Cameroons, ';cale 1 :2,000,000, was
attached "to illustrai:e the description of the . . frontier".
49. Article 1of the Mandate conferred on Great Britain by the League
of Nations confirmed the line specified in the Milrier-Simon Declaration.
It provided :
"The territory for which a Mandate is conferred upon His Britan-
nic Majesty con~prisesthat part of the Cameroons which lies to the
west of the line llaiddown in the Declaration signed on the 10thJuly,
1919, of which ;acopy is annexed hereto.
This line may, however, be slightly modified by mutual agreement
between His Britannic Majesty's Government and the Government
of the French Republic where an examinatiori of the localities shows
that it is undesirable, either in the interests of the inhabitants or by
reason of any inaccuracies in the map, Moisel 1 300,000,annexed to
the Declaration, to adhere strictly to the line laid down therein.340 FRONTIERE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRET)
La délimitation sur le terrain de ces frontières sera effectuée
conformément aux dispositions de ladite déclaration.
Le rapport final de la commission mixte donnera la description
exacte de la frontière telle que celle-ci aura étédéterminéesur le
terrain; les cartes signéespar les commissaires seront jointes au
rapport ..))
La Cour relèveque la déclaration Milner-Simon prévoyait déjàle droit
de modifier légèrementla ligne, d'un commun accord, soit du fait d'inexac-
titudes mises en évidencedans la carte Moisel, soit dans l'intérêt des habi-
tants. Ce droit et la ligne elle-mêmefurent approuvés par le Conseil de la
Société desNations. Ces dispositions ne laissent a aucun moment en-
tendre que la ligne frontière n'avait pas étédélimitéedans sa totalité. La
Cour estime en outre que le libelléretenu, A savoir «la délimitation sur le
terrain de ces frontières..conformément aux disuositions de ladite décla-
ration)), renvoie sans équivoque aune démarcation, nonobstant la termi-
nologie employée.Etait également reprisede la déclaration Milner-Simon
l'idéed'une commission de frontière. Le fait qu'il ait été prévu que cette
commission procéderait a la démarcation précisede la frontière présup-
pose égalementque celle-ciétaitconsidéréecomme ayant été pour l'essen-
tiel délimitée.
50. Si les deux Puissances mandataires ne procédèrent pas, de fait, a
une ((délimitation sur le terrain)) dans le lac Tchad ou aux environs de
celui-ci, elles continuèrent en revanche, pour divers segments de la fron-
tière,a préciser l'accordautant que faire se pouvait. Ainsi, par la décla-
ration Thomson-Marchand de 1929-1930, la frontière séparant les deux
territoires sous mandat fut décrite de manière nettement plus circons-
tanciée qu'elle ne l'avait été jusqu'alors. 11y était indiqué que (([Iles
soussignés... [étaient]tombés d'accord pour déterminer la frontière [des-
dits] territoires...ainsi qu'elle [était] tracéesur la carte jointe à cette
déclaration et définiepar la description également ci-jointe)). Quelque
cent trente-huit clauses étaienténoncéesa cet effet. S'agissant de la région
du lac Tchad, la déclaration précisaitque la frontière partait du point de
rencontre des trois anciennes frontières britannique, française et alle-
mande par 13"05' de latitude nord et approximativement 14"05' de lon-
gitude est, qu'elle se poursuivait de la en ligne droite jusqu'à I'embou-
chure de I'Ebedji, et qu'elle suivait ensuite le cours de cette rivière, qui
portait en amont les noms de Lewejil, Labejed, Ngalarem, Lebeit et
Ngada, jusqu'au confluent des rivières Kalia et Lebaiit.
Cette déclaration fut approuvée et incorporée dans l'échange denotes
Henderson-Fleuriau de 1931 (voir paragraphe 34 ci-dessus). Pour re-
prendre les termes de Fleuriau, la déclaration «est destinéea donner à
la description de la ligne que devra suivre la commission de délimitation
plus de précisionque ne l'afait la déclarationMilner-Simon, de 1919)).La
Cour relèvequ'une telle démarche devait faciliter l'opération de démar-
cation confiée à la commission. Fleuriau concédait que la déclaration
Thomson-Marchand n'étaitqu'«une étude préliminaire)),laissant par la The delimitation on the spot of this line shall be carried out in
accordance withithe provisions of the said Declaration.
The final report of the Mixed Commission shall give the exact
description of the boundary line as traced on the spot; maps signed
by the Commissiionersshall be annexed to the report . . ."
The Court observes that the entitlement, by mutual agreement, to
make modest alterations to the line, either by reason of any shown
inaccuracies of the Moisel map or of the interests of the inhabitants,
was already provideclfor in the Milner-Simon Declaration. This, together
with the line itself, was approved by the Couiicil of the League of
Nations. These probisions in no way suggest a frontier line that is not
fully delimited. The Court further considers that "delimitation on the
spot of this line...in accordance with the provisions of the said Declara-
tion" isa clear reference to demarcation notwithstanding the terminology
chosen. Also carried forward from the Milner-Simon Declaration was the
idea of a boundary commission. The anticipated detailed demarcation by
this Commission eclually presupposes a frontier already regarded as
essentially delimited.
50. Although the two Mandatory Powers did not in fact "delimit on
the spot" in Lake Chad or the vicinity, they did continue in various sec-
tors of the frontier to make the agreement as detailed as possible. Thus
the Thomson-Marchand Declaration of 1929-1930described the frontier
separating the two niandated territories in considrrably more detail than
hitherto. The Declaration stated that "[tlhe under:;igned . . [had] agreed
to determine the froritier, separating [thesaid] territories, .s. traced on
the map annexed to [that] declaration and defined in the description also
annexed [tlhereto". Some 138clauses were specified. So far as the Lake
Chad area was concerned the Declaration affirmed that the frontier
began at the tripoint of the old British-French-Gr:rman frontiers, 13"05'
latitude north and approximately 14"05'longitude east. Then the frontier
went in a straight line to themouth of the Ebeji; and it then followed the
course of that river,bearing on its upper part the names Lewejil, Labejed,
Ngalarem, Lebeit and Ngada, as far as the confluence of the Rivers Kalia
and Lebaiit.
This Declaration was approved and incorporated in the Henderson-
Fleuriau Exchange of Notes of 1931(see paragraph 34 above). As Fleu-
riau put it, the Declaration "is intended to describe the line to be fol-
lowed by the Delimiitation Commission, more ex.ictly than was done in
the Milner-Simon Declaration of 1919". The Court observes that this
would facilitate the envisaged demarcation task given to the Commission.
Fleuriau conceded that the Thomson-Marchand Ileclaration was "a pre-
liminary survey only", thus implying that even more detail might onedayentendre que les parties pourraient un jour convenir d'une frontiere plus
détailléeencore. Que la frontière fût néanmoins, à ce stade, fixéede
manière suffisamment détaillée,c'est ce qui ressort de la note adressée en
réponse par Henderson à Fleuriau, selon laquelle la ligne décrite dans la
déclaration de 1929-1930 ((définiten substance la frontière)).
Le fait que cette déclaration et cet échange de notes aient été prélimi-
naires à de futurs travaux de démarcation d'une commission de frontière
ne signifie pas, contrairement à ce qu'affirme le Nigéria, que l'accord
conclu en 1931 ne revêtaitqu'un caractère «programmatique)).
La déclaration Thomson-Marchand, telle qu'approuvée et incorporée
dans l'échangede notes Henderçon-Fleuriau, a le statut d'accord inter-
national. La Cour reconnaît certes que cette déclaration présentait
quelques imperfections techniques et que certains détails restaient à pré-
ciser. Elle n'en estime pas moins que ladite déclaration établissait une
délimitation qui suffisait de manière généraleà la démarcation.
51. Le Nigéria a soutenu devant la Cour que la frontière dans cette
région était restée néanmoins indéterminée,pour deux raisons impor-
tantes :tout d'abord, l'expression ((approximativement 14"05' de longi-
tude est» n'avait pas été explicitée; en second lieu,le sens à donner aux
mots «l'embouchure de I'Ebedji)) était incertain, le cours de la rivière
s'étantmodifiéet le lac ayant vu sa surface diminuer.
La Cour observe qu'il est expressément fait référenceà la déclaration
Thomson-Marchand de 1929-1930 et a l'échange de notes Henderson-
Fleuriau de 193 1 dans les accords de tutelle pour les territoires du Came-
roun respectivement placés sous administration britannique et sous admi-
nistration française, approuvés l'un et l'autre le 13décembre 1946. Bien
qu'en des termes qui diffèrent quelque peu, ces accords partent tous deux
du principe que la frontière avait étédéfiniepar la déclaration Milner-
Simon, et ((déterminéed'une façon plus précise)) dans la déclaration
Thomson-Marchand, incorporée dans l'échange de notes Henderson-
Fleuriau.
La Cour relève que, si le mandat réservait aux deux Puissances man-
dataires le droit de modifier légèrement lafrontière d'un commun accord,
soit dans l'intérêt desabitants, soit par suite de l'inexactitude de la carte
Moisel annexéeà la déclaration Milner-Simon, ce droit ne fut maintenu
aux termes des accords de tutelle que pour le premier de ces motifs. Cela
suppose que les problèmes liés à l'inexactitude de la carte Moisel au
11300000étaient, en 1946, tenus pour résolus.
52. Malgré les incertitudes entourant la longitude exacte du tripoint
dans le lac Tchad ainsi que la localisation de l'embouchure de I'Ebedji, et
bien qu'il n'ait étéprocédéà aucune démarcation dans le lac Tchad avant
l'indépendance du Nigériaet celle du Cameroun, la Cour estime qu'il res-
sort des instruments applicables que, à partir de 1931 à tout le moins, la
frontière dans la région du lac Tchad avait bien été délimitée eatpprou-
véepar la Grande-Bretagne et la France.
En outre, la Cour ne peut manquer d'observer que le Nigéria fut
consulté lors des négociations qui précédèrentson indépendance, puis àbe agreed between t:he parties. That the frontier was nonetheless in fact
now specified in suf'ficientdetail was affirmed by Henderson's Note in
reply to Fleuriau, stirting that the line described in the 1929-1930 Decla-
ration "[did] in substance define the frontier in q~iestion".
That this Declaration and Exchange of Notes were preliminary to the
future task of demarcation by a boundary commission does not mean, as
Nigeria claims, that the 1931 Agreement was merely "programmatic" in
nature.
The Thomson-Marchand Declaration, as approved and incorporated
in the Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes, has the status of an inter-
national agreement. The Court acknowledges that the Declaration does
have some technical imperfections and that certain details remained to be
specified. However, it finds that the Declaration provided for a delimita-
tion that was sufficient in general for demarcatioii.
51. Nigeria has argued that the boundary in this area had nonetheless
remained undetermined for two important reason5: in the first place, the
reference to the longitude as "approximately 14"05' east" of Greenwich
had not been made more precise; second, the meaning to be given to the
words "the mouth of the Ebeji" was unclear in the light of the changes to
the course of the river and the shrinking dimensions of the lake.
The Court observes that specific reference to the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration of 1929-1930 and to the 1931 Henderion-Fleuriau Exchange
of Notes was made in the Trusteeship Agreements for the territory of the
Cameroons under British Administration, and fol-the territory of Cam-
eroon under French Administration, each approved on 13 December
1946. Although the language of each is not entirely identical, they each
take the boundary ;as being defined by the Millier-Simon Declaration
"and determined more exactly" in the Thomson-Marchand Declaration,
as incorporated in the Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes.
The Court notes that, whereas the Mandate hiid reserved to the two
Mandatory Powers the right of joint minor modification, in the interests
of the inhabitants or because of inaccuracies in the Moisel map attached
to the Milner-Simon Declaration, under the Trustt:eship Agreements that
right was preserved only on the former ground. 'Theimplication is that
any problems associated with inaccuracies of the Moisel 1:300,000 map
were by 1946 regarded as having been resolved.
52. Despite the uncertainties in regard to the longitudinal reading of
the tripoint in Lake Chad and the location of the mouth of the Ebeji, and
while no demarcation had taken place in Lake Chad before the indepen-
dence of Nigeria and of ~ameroon, the Court is of the view that the gov-
erning instruments show that, certainly by 1931, the frontier in the Lake
Chad area was indeed delimited and agreed by Great Britain and France.
Moreover, the Coiurt cannot fail to observe that Nigeria was consulted
during the negotiations for its independence, .ind again during thel'occasion des plébiscitespar lesquels allait être déterminél'avenir des
populations du Cameroun septentrional et du Cameroun méridional
(voir paragraphe 35ci-dessus),et qu'il ne laissaentendre a aucun moment
que, en ce qui concernait tant la régiondu lac Tchad que d'autres sec-
teurs, les frontières restaientdélimiter.
53. La Cour estime en outre que les travaux menéspar la CBLT entre
1983et 1991confirment cette interprétation.
Elle rappelle que, la suite d'incidents survenus dans la régiondu lac
Tchad en 1983,les chefs des Etats membres de la CBLT avaient convo-
quéune session extraordinaire de la commission. Le rapport de cette ses-
sion, qui se tint en 1983,fait étatde deux questions figurant I'ordre du
jour: les ((problèmesde délimitationdes frontières))et les ((questionsde
sécurité))P. our autant, les membres ne considéraient pas que la commis-
sion était appelée a élaborer des propositions concernant une frontière
non délimitée,comme le montre le rapport lui-même.Pour tous les
aspects importants, ce sont les termes dedémarcation>)et de ((sécurité))
qui sont employés s'agissantde ces points de I'ordre du jour. De fait, la
première des deux sous-commissions mises en place adopta un ordre du
jour générallibellé((Ordre du jour de la commission chargéedela démar-
cation)). Il y étaitenvisagéde procéderà des échangesd'informations et
de documents relatifs aux frontières (point 1) et d'établir une équipe
mixte chargéede la démarcation(point 3). De même, I'ordredu jour de la
sous-commission chargéede la sécurité comprenait un point consacré à la
sécuritéde l'équipe chargée de la démarcation des frontières.
La Cour observe que, l'année suivante,en novembre 1984, la ((sous-
commission chargéede la délimitationdes frontiéres))convint de retenir
comme documents de travail les divers accords et instruments bilatéraux
conclus de 1906 à 1931 entre l'Allemagne, la France et la Grande-Bre-
tagne, à savoir: la convention franco-britannique de 1906,la convention
franco-allemande de 1908, le protocole franco-britannique de 1910 et
l'échangede notes Henderson-Fleuriau de 1931. La sous-commission
examina égalementles thèmes suivants: ((démarcation proprement dite
des frontières)), ((photographie aérienne de la zone», ((établissement
d'une cartographie » et «levétopographique ».
Le rapport soumis en 1985 à la cinquième conférence des chefsd'Etat
de la CBLT par le président en exercicedu conseil des ministres de la
commission indiquait clairement que les ((problèmesfrontaliers >)décou-
laient de l'absence de ((démarcation)),et se référait à un ((cahier des
charges des travaux à exécuterpour la démarcation des frontières))éta-
bli par la sous-commission. La sixièmeconférence des chefs d'Etat, qui se
tint en 1987, prit une décision concernant la ((démarcation des fron-
tières)), par laquelle les Etats membres s'engageaient «à assumer le
coût des travaux de démarcation)).Cette décision prévoyait aussique les
travaux débuteraient «en mars 1988)). Lors d'une réunion tenue en
mars 1988, les experts des Etats membres de la CBLT adoptèrent en
conséquencetrois documents concernant respectivement: 1)les ((spécifi-
cations techniques pour la démarcation des frontiéres, la photogram-plebiscites that were to determine the future of the populations of the
Northern and Soutl-iern Cameroons (see paragraph 35 above). At no
time did it suggest, either so far as the Lakead ;ireswas concerned, or
elsewhere, that the frontiers there remained to be delimited.
53. The Court is further of the view that the work of the LCBC, from
1983to 1991,affirmr;such an interpretation.
It recalls that, as a consequence of incidents occurring in the Lake
Chad area in 1983, the Heads of State of the memher States of the LCBC
had convened an extraordinary session of the Commission. The report of
that session in 1983 indicates that there were tao topics listed on the
agenda: "border delimitation problems" and "security matters". This did
not, however, signify an understanding by the members that the Com-
mission's work wasto make proposals on a non-clelimited frontier, as is
shown by the repori. itself. Al1 substantive aspects contained within it
refer tothese agenda items as "demarcation" and "security". Indeed, the
generalized agenda for the first of the two Sub-Cornmittees which was
established was entitled "Agenda for the Commiitee on Demarcation".
There was envisaged an exchange of information and relevant documents
on the boundary (item 1)and the establishment of a Joint Demarcation
Team (item 3). Equally, the agenda for the C3mmittee on Security
included an item on the security of the demarcation team.
The Court observlcsthat the following year, iri November 1984, the
"Siib-Commission Responsible for the Demarcation of Borders" agreed
to adopt, as working documents, the various bilateral agreements and
instruments which had been concluded in the year:; 1906to 1931between
Germany, France and the United Kingdom. Thest: were identified as the
Franco-British Convention of 1906; the Franco-German Convention of
1908 ; the Franco-British Protocol of 1910 and the Henderson-Fleuriau
Exchange of Notes of 1931.The Sub-Commission also addressed the fol-
lowing matters: "the actual demarcation of the borders", "aerial photo-
graphy of the area", "ground survey and mappini:".
The report submitted in 1985by the current Chairman of the Council
of Ministers of the LCBC to the Fifth Confereiice of Heads of State
clearly indicated that the "border problems" arose from the absence of
"demarcation", and referred expressly to the "tzchnical specifications
for the border demarcation" drawn up by the Sub-Commission. The
Sixth Conference of Heads of State, in 1987,took a decision on "Border
Demarcation", whereby the member States agrecd to "finance the cost
of the demarcation exercise". That decision further provided that the
work would start "in March 1988". At a meeting held in March 1988
the experts of the LCBC member States accordingly adopted three
documents concerning respectively : 1. "Technical Specifications for
boundary demarcation, Aerial Photogrammetri and Topographical
Mapping in the Lake Chad at a scale of 1150,000";2. "General Condi-métrie aérienneet la cartographie topographique dans la zone du lac
Tchad à l'échellede 1/50000»; 2) les ((conditions généralesde l'appel
d'offres international));et 3) les «soumissions».
54. La Cour ne saurait retenir la thèse du Nigéria selon laquelle la
CBLT aurait, de 1983 i 1991, procédé à des opérations de délimitation
aussi bien que de démarcation. L'étudedes documents révèleque, bien
que le terme «délimitation» ait été employé épisodiquement pour intro-
duire des clauses ou désigner despoints de l'ordre du jour, c'est le terme
«démarcation» qui est le plus souvent utilisé.Bien plus, la nature même
des travaux réalisés relevaitde la démarcation.
La Cour note égalementque la CBLT confia a l'Institut géographique
national-France International (IGN-FI) les tâches suivantes2 L~écifiéeàs
l'article 5 du Marché passé avec l'Institut, tel qu'approuvé le 26 mai
1988 :
«i) Reconnaissance, matérialisation des vingt et un points appro-
chés et des septpoints limites des frontières.
ii) Pose de soixante-deux bornes de resserrage à 5 kilomètres
maximum entre les points limites.
iii) Démarcation des coordonnées des bornes des frontières et des
bornes intermédiaires.»
En vue de l'exécutionde cette tâche furent communiqués à I'IGN-FI
les ((textes et documents traitant de la délimitation des frontières dans le
lac Tchad))(Marché, article 7) - i savoir les instrumentsjuridiques déjà
citésdans le rapport de 1984 de la sous-commission, auxquels s'ajoutait
le procès-verbal signéle2 mars 1988concernant la position de l'extrémité
septentrionale de la frontière entre le Tchad et le Niger. L'IGN-FI acheva
ses travaux de démarcation en 1990,après avoir posé deuxbornes prin-
cipales aux deux extrémitésde la frontière entre le Cameroun et le Nigé-
ria dans le lac Tchad (c'est-à-dire au tripoint itl'embouchure de 1'Ebe-
dji) et treize bornes intermédiaires. Le procès-verbal de bornage des
frontières dressépar I'IGN-FI fut ensuite signépar les experts de chacun
des Etats membres de la CBLT. Lors de leur septièmesommet, en février
1990, les chefs d'Etat de la CBLT <<pri[rent]note du déroulement satis-
faisant des travaux)) et chargèrent(lescommissaires d'apprêterles docu-
ments y afférentsdans un délaide trois mois[, en leur donnant] mandat
de les signer au nom de leur pays)). Le Nigéria refusatoutefois de signer
le procès-verbal de bornage, ayant fait part de son insatisfaction concer-
nant, entre autres, la numérotation des bornes, la non-destruction de
l'une d'elles et le fait que certains points GPS et azimuts n'étaient pas
stabilisés. Ces éléments relevaient clairementde la démarcation. Peu de
temps après, les experts nationaux demandèrent des travaux de bornage
supplémentaires pour compléterles travaux réaliséspar 1'IGN-FI. Après
plusieurs tentatives, les travaux de la CBLT furent finalement menés à
leur terme et, le 23 mars 1994, lors de leur huitième sommet, les chefs
d7Etat de la CBLT décidèrentd'approuver le procès-verbal final de bor-
nage, signépar lesexperts nationaux et le secrétariatexécutifde la CBLT, LAND 4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUI)GMENT) 343
tions of the International Invitation for Tenders"; 3. "Applications for
Tenders".
54. The Court is ina ableto accept Nigeria's contention that the LCBC
was from 1983 to 1991 engaged in both delimitation and demarcation.
The records show that, although the term "delimitation" was used from
time to time, inintro~ducingclauses or in agenda hcadings, it was the term
"demarcation" that was most frequently used. Moreover, the nature of
the work was that 01"demarcation.
The Court notes further that the LCBC entrusied to the Institut géo-
graphique national-France International (IGN-FI) the following tasks,
specified in Article 5 of tContract concluded with IGN-FI, as approved
on 26 May 1988:
"(i) Reconnaissance and marking out of the 21 points approached
and the 7 boundary limit points.
(ii) Placing of 62 intermediate markers: ai a maximum of 5 km
between them.
(iii) Demarcation of the coordinates of the boundary markers and
intermediate markers."
For the performance of this task there was passed to IGN-FI the "texts
and documents concerning the delimitation of tlie boundaries in Lake
Chad" (Contract, Art. 7)- namely, the legal ins~ruments already listed
in the 1984 Report of the Sub-Committee, with the addition of the
Minutes signed on 2 March 1988concerning the position of the northern
limit of the border between Chad and Niger. [GN-FI completed its
demarcation work iri 1990, having set up two principal beacons at each
end of the border between Cameroon and Nigeria in Lake Chad (that is,
at the tripoint and at the mouth of the Ebeji), as well as 13 intermediate
beacons. The Report of the Marking Out of the Boundary completed by
IGN-FI was then signed by the experts of each member State of the
LCBC. During their Seventh Summit in February 1990, the Heads of
State and Governments of the LCBC "took note of the satisfactory
achievement" and "directed that the Commissioner s should get the appro-
priate documents rea~dywithin three months and Ivere authorized to sign
on behalf of their (:ountries". However, Nigeria declined to sign the
Report, expressing dissatisfaction over inter uliu,heacon-numbering, the
non-demolition of a beacon, and the non-stabi1iz;ition of GPS and Azi-
muth stations. These items were clearly matters of demarcation. Shortly
thereafter, the national experts ordered additional beaconing work to
complete the work of IGN-FI. After several attempts, the work of the
LCBC was finally completed and, at their Eighth Summit on 23 March
1994, the Heads of State of the LCBC decided to approve the final
demarcation report as signed by the national experts and the executive
secretariat of the LCBC and referred to in the Miilutes of the Summit as
"the technical docunient on the demarcation of the international bound-344 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
et qualifiédans le procès-verbal du sommet de ((document technique de
la démarcation des frontières internationales des Etats membres dans le
lac Tchad)). Le procès-verbal du sommet précisaittoutefois que ((chaque
pays adopte[rait] le document [technique de la démarcation] conformé-
ment à ses propres lois» et que ce ((document [serait] signéau plus tard
lors du prochain sommet de la commission». Le Nigéria nel'a pas fait.
Le Cameroun reconnaît en conséquence qu'il ne s'agitpas d'un instru-
ment liant le Nigéria.
55. La Cour observe que la CBLT mena pendant sept ans des travaux
techniques de démarcation, en sefondant sur des instruments dont il était
convenu qu'ils délimitaient lafrontière dans le lac Tchad. Les questions
de la localisation de l'embouchure de'Ebedjiet de la détermination dela
longitude du tripoint en des termes autres qu'«approximati[fs]» furent
confiéesà la CBLT. Rien n'indique que le Nigéria jugeaitces questions si
préoccupantesqu'il fallût considérer la frontière commenon délimitée))
par les instruments évoqués.La Cour note que, en ce qui concerne la
frontière terrestre se dirigeant vers le sud depuis l'embouchure debe-
dji, le Nigériaadmet qu'elle est définiepar les instruments en question,
tout en estimant qu'il convient de remédier à certaines incertitudes et
lacunes. De l'avis de la Cour, le Nigériaa suivi cette mêmeapproche en
participant aux travaux de démarcation de la CBLT entre 1984et 1990.
La Cour convient avec les Parties que le Nigéria n'estpas liépar le
procès-verbal de bornage. Pour autant, cette constatation n'implique pas
que les instruments juridiques applicables aient été remis enquestion, ou
qu'ils aient cesséde lier le Nigéria. En résumé, laCour estime que la
déclaration Milner-Simon de 1919 ainsi que la déclaration Thomson-
Marchand de 1929-1930incorporéedans l'échangede notes Henderson-
Fleuriau de 1931délimitentla frontière entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria
dans la régiondu lac Tchad. La carte jointe par les parties'échange de
notes doit êtreconsidéréecomme précisantd'un commun accord la carte
Moisel. La régionfrontalière dans le lac Tchad est ainsi délimit,ncore
que deux questions restent à examiner par la Cour, à savoir celle de la
détermination exacte de la longitude du tripoint Cameroun-Nigéria-
Tchad dans le lac Tchad, et celle de l'embouchure de 1'Ebedji.
56. Le Cameroun, tout en admettant que le procès-verbal de bornage
des frontières internationales dans le lac Tchad ne liepas le Nigéria, prie
néanmoins la Cour de dire et juger que les propositions de la CBLT
concernant le tripoint et l'embouchure de I7Ebedji «constitu[e]nt une
interprétation authentique des déclarations Milner-Simon ... et
Thomson-Marchand ...confirméespar l'échange de lettresdu 9 janvier
1931 D.
La Cour ne saurait accéder à cette demande. A aucun moment les
Etats ayant succédé àces instruments n'ont chargéla CBLT d'en donneraries of Member St,ates in Lake Chad". Those Minutes specified that
"each country should adopt the document in accordance with its national
laws", and that "the document should be signed latest by the next summit
of the Commission". Nigeria has not done so. Cameroon accordingly
acknowledges that it is not an instrument which binds Nigeria.
55. The Court observes that the LCBC had engaged for seven years in
a technical exercisealfdemarcation, on the basis of instruments that were
agreed to be the instruments delimiting the frontier in Lake Chad. The
issues of the location of themouth of the Ebeji, and the designation of
the tripoint longitude in terms other than "approuimate", were assigned
to the LCBC. There is no indication that Nigeria regarded these issues
as so grave that the frontier was to be viewed as "not delimited" by
the designated instrilments. The Court notes that, as regards the land
boundary southwardls from the mouth of the Ebeji, Nigeria accepts that
the designated instruments defined the boundary, but that certain
uncertainties and defects should be confirmed and cured. In the view
of the Court, Nigeria followed this same approach in participating in
the demarcation work of the LCBC from 1984to 1990.
The Court agrees with the Parties that Nigeri.1 is not bound by the
Marking Out Report. Nonetheless, this finding of law implies neither
that the governing legal instruments on delimitation were put in question,
nor that Nigeria dici not continue to be bound by them. In sum, the
Court finds that the Milner-Simon Declaration of 1919, as well as the
1929-1930 Thomson-Marchand Declaration as incorporated in the
Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes of 1931. delimit the boundary
between Cameroon and Nigeria in the Lake Chad area. The map attached
by the parties to the Exchange of Notes is to be regarded as an agreed
clarification of the Moisel map. The Lake Chad border area is thus
delimited, notwithstanding that there are two questions that remain to be
examined by the Court, namely the precise location of the longitudinal
co-ordinate of the C'ameroon-Nigeria-Chad tripoint in Lake Chad and
the question of the rnouth of the Ebeji.
56. Cameroon, while accepting that the Report of the Marking Out of
the International Boiundariesin the Lake Chad is riot binding on Nigeria,
nonetheless asks the Court to find that the proposals of the LCBC as
regards the tripoint and the mouth of the Ebeji "constitut[e] an authori-
tative interpretation of the Milner-Simon Declararion and the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration, as confirmed by the Evchange of Letters of
9 January 1931".
The Court cannot accept this request. At no time was the LCBC asked
to act by the successors tothose instruments as thtir agent in reaching anune interprétation authentique. En outre, le seul fait qu'il ait été décidé,
en mars 1994, que les résultats des travaux techniques de démarcation
devaient êtreadoptéspar chacun des Etats membres conformément à son
droit interne indique que la commission n'étaitnullementàmêmede pro-
céder,de son propre chef, à une ((interprétationauthentique)).
57. Ces considérations n'empêchenttoutefois pas la Cour, lorsqu'elle
est appelée à préciser lafrontière, de juger utiles les travaux menéspar
ailleurs. Aux termes des instruments applicables, les coordonnées du tri-
point dans le lac Tchad sont 13"05' de latitude nord et ((approximative-
ment)) 14'05' de longitude est. La Cour a examiné la carte Moisel
annexée à la déclaration Milner-Simon de 1919 et la carte jointe à
l'échangede notes Henderson-Fleuriau de 1931. Suite à cet examen, elle
arrive aux mêmesconclusions que la CBLT et estime que le tripoint se
situe a 14'04'59"9999 de longitude est, plutôt qu'à ((approximative-
ment)) 14'05'. La différence minime qui sépare ces deux positions
confirme d'ailleurs que cette question n'a jamais revêtu uneimportance
telle qu'elle pût laisser la frontière ((indéterminée))dans cette région.
58. S'agissant de préciser lafrontière sur le segment joignant par une
ligne droite le tripoiàtl'embouchure de I'Ebedji, diverses solutions ont
été avancéep sar les Parties. Les instruments de délimitation n'ont jamais
définipar des coordonnées l'emplacement de l'extrémitéde la ligne droite
partant du tripoint. Sur la carte qui illustre la déclarationco-britan-
nique fixant la frontière du Cameroun, jointe à l'échangede notes de
1931probablement peu après sa conclusion, 1'Ebedjiprésenteun chenal
unique débouchant dans le lac juste au-delà de Wulgo. La carte de 1931
indique: ((Note: Le niveau des eaux du lac Tchad est variable et indéter-
miné.»
A l'évidence,depuis 1931, ces variations ont dans l'ensemble pris la
forme d'un recul marquédes eaux, et le lac semble aujourd'hui recouvrir
une superficie sensiblement réduite par rapport à ce qu'elle étaità
l'époque del'échangede notes Henderson-Fleuriau. L'Ebedji ne déverse
plus seseaux dans le lac par une embouchure unique, mais sedivisà,l'ap-
proche de celui-ci, en deux chenaux. Sur la base des informations qui
ont étéfournies à la Cour par les Parties, il semble que le chenal oriental
débouche dans des eaux qui ne font pas partie de l'actuel lac Tchad.
Le chenal occidental semble aboutir à une zone marécageuse proche
du rivage actuel.
Pour le Cameroun, la Cour devrait indiquer que l'emplacement de
l'embouchure de 1'Ebedjiest définipar les coordonnées déterminées à cet
effet par la CBLT, qui résultenà son sens d'une ((interprétationauthen-
tique» de la déclaration et de l'échangede notes de 1931.La Cour a déjà
expliquépourquoi le procès-verbal de bornage des frontières de la CBLT
ne saurait êtreconsidérécomme tel. Le Cameroun prie la Cour de dire et
juger que, ((subsidiairement,l'embouchure de 1'Ebedjiest situéeau point
de coordonnées 12"31'12" nord et 14'11'48" est». Le Cameroun privi-
légieainsi, dans son argumentation subsidiaire, I'«embouchure» du che- LAND .4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUIGMENT) 345
authoritative interpretation of them. Moreover, the very fact that the
outcome of the technical demarcation work was agreed in March 1994to
require adoption under national laws indicates that it was in no position
to engage in "authoritative interpretation" sua sponte.
57. This does not, however, preclude the Court, when called upon to
specifythe frontier,from finding work that has been done by others to be
useful. According to the governing instruments, the co-ordinates of the
tripoint in Lake Chad are latitude 13O05'north and "approximately"
longitude 14"05' easit.The Court has examined the Moisel map annexed
to the Milner-Simon Declaration of 1919 and thr map attached to the
Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes of 1931. Following that exami-
nation, it reaches the same conclusions as the LCBC and considers that
the longitudinal CO-ordinateof the tripoint is situ-lted at 14"04'59"9999
longitude east, rather than at "approximately" 14'05'. The minimal dif-
ference between theije two specifications confirms, moreover, that this
never presented an issue so significant as to leaveIhe frontier in this area
"undetermined".
58. As for the spei:ification of the frontier as it passes in a straight line
from the tripoint to the mouth of the Ebeji, various solutions have been
proposed by the Parties. This ending point of the straight line running
from the tripoint was never described in the dellmiting instruments by
reference to CO-ordinates.The map to illustrate th* Anglo-French Decla-
ration defining the Cameroons Boundary, annexed to the Exchange of
Notes of 1931 probably shortly after their conclusion, shows a single
stream of the Ebeji having its mouth on the lake jiist beyond Wulgo. The
1931map states :"N~ote :The extent of the water iriLake Chad isvariable
and indeterminate."
Certainly since 1931 the pattern has generally been one of marked
recession of the waters. The lake today appears to l)esignificantlyreduced
from its size at the time of the Henderson-Fleuriiiu Exchange of Notes.
The River Ebeji tod,ay has no single mouth through which it discharges
its waters into the lake. Rather, it divides in10 two channels as it
approaches the lake. On the basis of the information the Parties have
made available to the Court, it appears that the eastern channel termi-
nates in water that i:;short of the present Lake Cliad. The western chan-
ne1seems to terminate in a muddy area close to the present water line.
Cameroon's position is that the mouth of the Ebeji should be specified
by the Court as lying on the co-ordinates determiried for that purpose by
the LCBC, that being an "authentic interpretation" of the Declaration
and 1931Exchanges. The Court has already indic.ited why the Report of
the Marking Out of Boundaries by the LCBC is not to be so regarded.
Cameroon asks the Court to find that "in the alternative, the mouth of
the Ebeji is situated at the point located at the co-ordinates 12O31'12"N
and 14"11'48"E". Thus Cameroon prefers, in its alternative argument,
the "mouth" of the western channel, and bases itself on tests adduced byna1occidental, et se fonde sur certains critères retenus par la Cour dans
l'affaire del'lle de KasikililSedudu (BotswanalNamihie) (C.I.J. Recueil
1999, p. 1064-1072,par. 30-40) pour identifier le «chenal principal)). Il
invoque notamment le plus grand débitet la plus grande profondeur de
ce chenal. Pour sa part, le Nigéria demande à la Cour de dire que
«l'embouchure» de la rivière Ebedjicorrespond à celle du chenal le plus
long, le chenal oriental, en invoquantàl'appui de cette thèsela sentence
arbitrale rendue le 9 décembre 1966en l'affaire relative au Rio Palena,
qui mentionnait l'importance de la longueur, de l'étendue du bassin
hydrographique et du débit(International Law Reports (ILR), vol. 38,
p. 93-95).
59. La Cour observe que le texte de la déclaration Thomson-Mar-
chand de 1929-1930,incorporéen 1931dans l'échangede notes Hender-
son-Fleuriau, se réfèreà «l'embouchure de I7Ebedji».Dès lors, la tâche
de la Cour n'est pas, comme dans l'affaire del'lle de KasikililSedudu, de
déterminer quel est le ((chenal principal)) de la rivière, mais d'identifier
son «embouchure». Aux fins d'interprétercette expression, la Cour doit
rechercher quelle étaitl'intention desparties l'époque.Tant le texte des
instruments susmentionnés que la carte Moisel annexée à la déclaration
Milner-Simon et celle jointe à l'échangede notes Henderson-Fleuriau
montrent que les parties n'envisageaient l'existence que d'une seule
embouchure.
La Cour note que les coordonnées de I'embouchure de I'Ebedji, telles
que calculéessur ces deux cartes, dans la zone situéeimmédiatementau
nord de l'emplacement indiqué commeétantcelui de Wulgo, sont remar-
quablement proches. Ces coordonnées sont en outre identiques à celles
retenues par la CBLT lorsque celle-ci a entendu localiser, à partir des
mêmescartes, l'embouchure de 1'Ebedjitelle qu'ellese présentaitpour les
parties en 1931. Le point ainsi identifiése trouve au nord aussi bien de
l'«embouchure» proposée par le Cameroun, dans son argumentation
subsidiaire, pour le chenal occidental que de celleproposéepar le Nigéria
Dour le chenal oriental.
60. La Cour conclut de ce qui précèdeque l'embouchure de la rivière
Ebedji, telleque mentionnéedans lesinstruments confirmésdans I'échange
de notes Henderson-Fleuriau de 1931, a pour coordonnées 14"12' 12"de
longitude est et12"32' 17"de latitude nord.
61. De là, la frontière doit se diriger en ligne droite jusqu'au point de
bifurcation où la rivière Ebedji se sépareen deux chenaux, les Parties
étantd'accord sur le fait que ce point se trouve sur la frontière. Lescoor-
données géographiquesdudit point sont 14"12'03" de longitude est et
12"30'14" de latitude nord (voir ci-après,p. 348, le croquiso1).
62. La Cour abordera maintenant les revendications du Nigériafon-
dées sur sa présence dans certaines zones du lac Tchad. Le Nigéria
demande à la Cour de dire et juger quethis Court in the case concerning KasikililSedudu Island (Botswana1
Namibia) (I.C. J.Reports 1999, pp. 1064-1072,paras. 30-40)for identifying
"the main channel". In particular, it refers to greater flow and depth of
this channel. Nigeria, on the other hand, requests the Court to prefer the
mouth of the longer, eastern channel as "the mouth" of the River Ebeji,
finding support for thiatproposition in thePalena arbitration of 9 Decem-
ber 1966,which spoke of the importance of length, size of drainage area,
and discharge (38 Infernational Law Reports (ILR), pp. 93-95).
59. The Court notes that the text of the Thomson-Marchand Declara-
tion of 1929-1930, incorporated in 1931 in the Henderson-Fleuriau
Exchange of Notes, refers to "the mouth of the Ebeji". Thus the task of
the Court is not, as linthe KasikililSedudu Island case, to determine the
"main channel" of the river but to identify its"mouth". In order to inter-
pret this expression, the Court must seek to ascertain the intention of
the parties at the tirrie. The text of the above instruments as well as the
Moisel map annexeti to the Milner-Simon Declaration and the map
attached to the Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes show that the
parties only envisaged one mouth.
The Court notes that the co-ordinates, as calculated on the two maps,
for the mouth of the Ebeji in the area just north of the site indicated as
that of Wulgo are strikingly similar. Moreover these co-ordinates are
identical with those used by the LCBC when, in reliance on those same
maps, it sought to locate the mouth of the Ebeji ar it was understood by
the parties in 1931. The point there identified is north both of the
"mouth" suggested by Cameroon for the western channel in its alterna-
tive argument and of the "mouth" proposed by Nigeria for the eastern
channel.
60. On the basis of the above factors, the Court concludes that the
mouth of the River Ebeji, as referred to in the instruments confirmed in
the Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes of 1931, lies at 14"12'12"
longitude east and 12"32' 17"latitude north.
61. From this point the frontier must run in a straight line to the point
where the River Ebeji bifurcates into two branches, the Parties being in
agreement that that ]pointlies on the boundary. The geographical co-or-
dinates of that point are 14"12'03"longitude east .ind 12"30'14"latitude
north (see below, p. 348, sketch-map No. 1).
62. The Court turns now to Nigeria's claim based on its presence in
certain areas of Lake Chad. Nigeria has asked the Court to adjudge and
declare that347 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
LEGENDEDES
CROQUIS
Nm 1-2et4-12
DécisiondelaCour
--- LignefrontièreéclamépearleCameroun
--- LigneftontièrréclaméparleNigéria
A Montagne
$3 Village,ville
Relief
Route LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 347
LECiENDOF
SKETCH-MAPS
Nos. -2 and4-12
Decisionof theCourt
- -- Boundary lineclaimedby Cameroon
- -- - BoundarylineclaimedbyNigeria
- River
Village,town
Relief348 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT) SKETCH-MA P O.1
TheMouthof the
Ebeji
NB'Thsketcpasbetnpnpand
foriilusuiiodypurpoaca
1NIGERIA 1349 FRONTIERE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
«le processus qui s'est déroulédans le cadre de la commission du
bassin du lac Tchad, qui devait conduire a la délimitation et a la
démarcation de l'ensemble desfrontières dans le lac Tchad, est sans
préjudicedu titre sur telle ou telle zone de la régiondu lac Tchad qui
revient au Nigériadu fait de la consolidation historique du titre et de
l'acquiescement du Cameroun)).
Le Nigéria revendique ainsila souveraineté surdes zones du lac Tchad
comprenant un certain nombre de villages désignéspar leurs noms. Il
s'agit, selon lesdénominations donnéespar le Nigéria, desvillagesd'Aisa
Kura, Ba shakka, Chika'a, Darak, Darak Gana, Doron Liman, Doron
Mallam (Doro Kirta), Dororoya, Fagge, Garin Wanzam, Gorea Changi,
Gorea Gutun, Jribrillaram, Kafuram, Kamunna, Kanumburi, Karakaya,
Kasuram Mareya, Katti Kime, Kirta Wulgo, Koloram, Logon Labi,
Loko Naira, Mukdala, Murdas, Naga'a, Naira, Nimeri, Njia Buniba,
Ramin Dorinna, Sabon Tumbu, Sagir et Sokotoram. Le Nigéria explique
que ces villages ont été établissoit sur ce qui constitue aujourd'hui le lit
asséchédu lac, soit sur des îles pérennes, soitencore en des endroits qui
ne sont des îles que durant la saison des pluies.
Le Nigéria affirmeque sa revendication repose sur trois fondements
s'appliquant a la fois séparémentet conjointement, et dont chacun se
suffit a lui-même :
<1) une occupation de longue duréepar le Nigériaet par des res-
sortissants nigérians, laquelleconstitue une consolidation histo-
rique du titre;
2) une administration exercéeeffectivementpar le Nigéria agissant
en tant que souverain, et l'absence deprotestations;
3) des manifestations de souveraineté par le Nigéria, parallèlement
al'acquiescement par le Cameroun ala souverainetédu Nigéria
sur Darak et les villages avoisinants du lac Tchad)).
Au rang des élémentsconstitutifs de la consolidation historique de son
titre sur les localités en litige,le Nigériamentionne: 1) l'attitude et les
attaches de la population de Darak et des autres villages du lac Tchad,
ainsi que la nationalité nigériane deshabitants desdits villages; 2) l'exis-
tence dans la régionde liens historiques avec le Nigéria, et en particulier
le maintien du système des chefstraditionnels et le rôle du Shehu de Bor-
nou; 3)l'exercicede l'autoritépar leschefs traditionnels, qui est présenté
comme demeurant un élémentimportant de l'organisation étatique du
Nigériamoderne; 4) l'établissementde longue date de ressortissants nigé-
rians dans la région;et 5) l'administration pacifique des villages en litige
par le Gouvernement fédéraldu Nigéria et 1'Etatde Borno.
Le Nigériafait en outre observer que les élémentsde preuve d'activités
étatiquesdu Cameroun dans la régiondu lac Tchad présentéspar ce der-
nier souffrent de graves insuffisances; il soutient notamment que la majo-
ritéde ces éléments neconcernent que les années1982 a 1988,alors que
ceux relatifs aux activités nigérianescouvrent une périodebeaucoup plus LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 349
"the process which has taken place within the framework of the
Lake Chad BasiriCommission, and which was intended to lead to an
overall delimitation and demarcation of boundaries on Lake Chad,
is legally withoul.prejudice to the title to particular areas of the Lake
Chad region inhering in Nigeria as a consequence of the historical
consolidation of title and the acquiescence of Cameroon".
Thus Nigeria claims sovereigntyover areas in Lake Chad which include
certain named villages. These villages, according to the nomenclature
used by Nigeria, arc: the following: Aisa Kura, Ba shakka, Chika'a,
Darak, Darak Gana, Doron Liman, Doron Mallam (Doro Kirta), Doro-
roya, Fagge, Garin PJanzam, Gorea Changi, Gorea Gutun, Jribrillaram,
Kafuram, Kamunna, Kanumburi, Karakaya, Kasuram Mareya, Katti
Kime, Kirta Wulgo, I<oloram, Logon Labi, Loko Naira, Mukdala, Mur-
das,Naga'a, Naira, hlimeri, Njia Buniba, Ramin Dorinna, Sabon Tumbu,
Sagir and Sokotoram. Nigeria explains that these villages have been
established either on what is now the dried up lake bed, or on islands
which are surrounded by water perennially or on locations which are
islands in the wet season only.
Nigeria contends that its claim rests on three bases, which each apply
both individually ancljointly and one of which would be sufficient on its
own :
"(1) long occupation by Nigeria and by Nigerian nationals consti-
tuting an historical consolidation of tit;e
(2) effective administration by Nigeria, acting as sovereign and an
absence of protest; and
(3) manifestati'ons of sovereignty by Nigeria together with the
acquiescence by Cameroon in Nigerian sovereignty over Darak
and the associated Lake Chad villages".
Among the componeilts of the historical consolidation of its title over the
disputed areas, Nigeria cites: (1)the attitude and affiliations of the popu-
lation of Darak and the other Lake Chad villages, the Nigerian nation-
ality of the inhabitants of those villages; (2) the existence of historical
links with Nigeria in the area, and in particular tlie maintenance of the
system of traditional chiefs and the role of the Shehu of Borno; (3) the
exercise of authority by the traditional chiefs, which is claimed to betill
an important element within the State structure of modern Nigeria;
(4) the long settlement of Nigerian nationals in the area; and (5) the
peaceful administration of the disputed villages by the Federal Govern-
ment of Nigeria and the State of Borno.
Nigeria further coritends that Cameroon's evidence of its State activi-
ties in the Lake Chad area has serious flaws; in particular, it contends
that the greater part of that evidence relates onljr to the years 1982 to
1988, whereas the evidence regarding Nigerian activities covers a sub-
stantially longer period. Moreover, Cameroon supplied no evidence in350 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
longue. Le Cameroun n'aurait par ailleurs fourni aucune preuve concer-
nant un nombre important de villages revendiqués par le Nigéria. Le
Nigériarelèveégalementque «bon nombre de documents produits par le
Cameroun ne portent que sur des activités envisagées,liéesnotamment à
la planification de tournées de recensement, et ne fournissent aucun élé-
ment prouvant qu'elles se soient effectivement déroulées)).Il souligne en
outre que, dans l'examen des élémentsde preuve présentéspar le Came-
roun en ce qui concerne ses activitésétatiques, il ne faut pas perdre de
vue le fait que ce n'est qu'en 1994que ce dernier a élevpour la première
fois des protestations contre l'administration des villages par le Nigéria,
ce silence du Cameroun revêtantune importance particulière à la lumière
du caractère public et notoire des activitésétatiquesdu Nigéria.
Le Nigéria fait enfin valoir que le Cameroun a acquiescé à I'exercice
paisible de la souveraineté nigériane sur les localitésen litige et que cet
acquiescement constitue un élément très important du processus de conso-
lidation historique d'un titre. L'acquiescement du Cameroun àI'exercice
d'activités souverainespar le Nigériajouerait un triple rôle. Son premier
rôle consisteraità intervenir conjointement avec les autres éléments sus-
mentionnés de la consolidation historique. Son deuxième rôle, tout à fait
indépendant, serait de confirmer un titre reposant sur la possession pai-
sible du territoire contesté, c'est-à-direl'administration effective des vil-
lages du lac Tchad par le Nigéria agissant en saqualité desouverain et en
l'absence de toute protestation de la part du Cameroun. Le Nigériasou-
tient en troisième lieu que l'acquiescement peut êtreconsidérécomme
l'élément principaldu titre, c'est-à-dire comme l'élément quein constitue
l'essence et le véritable fondement, plutôt que comme la confirmation
d'un titre nécessairement antérieur à I'acquiescement et indépendant de
celui-ci. Il ne fait selon lui aucun doute que, dans des conditions qui s'y
prêtent,un tribunal peut parfaitement reconnaître un titre fondé sur le
consentement tacite ou l'acquiescement.
Comme preuves de I'acquiescement du Cameroun à l'exercice de la
souveraineténigérianesur les localités en litige,le Nigériaavance notam-
ment le fait que le peuplement de ces villages par des ressortissants nigé-
rians menant des activités pacifiques et publiques ainsi que les actes
d'administration pacifique du Nigéria sur ces villages n'ont jamais fait
l'objet de la moindre protestation de la part du Cameroun avant avril
1994et que les incursions arméescamerounaises menéesen 1987,qui ont
troublé le statu quo administratif nigérian et ont étérepousséespar les
villageois nigérians etles forces de sécurité nigérian,'ont débouché sur
aucune revendication de la régionpar le Cameroun.
63. Le Cameroun, pour sa part, fait valoir que, titulaire d'un titre ter-
ritorial conventionnel sur les zones contestées, il n'a pas à démontrer
I'exerciceeffectif de sa souveraineté sur celles-ci, un titre conventionnel
valide prévalant sur d'éventuelles effectivités contraires.Une consolida-
tion historique, quelle qu'elle soit, ne saurait donc prévaloir sur un titre
territorial conventionnel en l'absence du consentement clair du titulaire
de ce titreà la cession d'une partie de son territoire. Le Cameroun ne se LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUI)GMENT) 350
regard to a s~bstanti~alnumber of the villagesclainied by Nigeria. Nigeria
further notes that "'many of the documents produced on behalf of
Cameroon are entirely programmatic in content, involving the planning
of census tours and so forth, in the absence of evidence that the events
actually occurred". Nigeria further points out that any consideration
of Cameroon's evidence regarding its State acti~ities is bound to take
account of the fact that it was only in 1994that Cameroon first protested
against the Nigerian administration of the villages, and that this silence
on the part of Cameroon is of particular significance in light of the fact
that Nigeria's State activities were entirely open and visible to all.
Finally, Nigeria contends that Cameroon acqiiiesced in the peaceful
exercise of Nigerian sovereignty over the disputed areas and that that
acquiescence constitiltes a major element in the process of historical con-
solidation of title.Iitclaims that Cameroon's acquiescence in Nigeria's
sovereign activitieshiada triple role. The first was the role that it played
alongside the other elements of historical consolidation. Its second, and
independent, role was that of confirming a title on the basis of the peace-
ful possession of the territory in dispute, that is to say, the effective
administration of the Lake Chad villages by Nigeria, acting as sovereign,
together with an absence of protest on the part of Cameroon. Thirdly,
Nigeria contends that acquiescence may be chai-acterized as the main
component of title, that is, providing the essence and very foundation of
title rather than a confirmation of a title necessarily anterior to and inde-
pendent of the process of acquiescence. There can be no doubt, according
to Nigeria, that in alppropriate conditions a tribunal can properly recog-
nize a title based on tacit consent or acquiescence.
As evidence of C,ameroon's acquiescence in the exercise of Nigerian
sovereignty over the:disputed areas, Nigeria relies in particular on the
fact that the settlenient of these villages by Nigerian nationals openly
carrying on peacefullactivities, and Nigeria's peaceful administration of
those villages, aroused no protest of any kind from Cameroon before
April 1994, and that Cameroon's armed incursions in 1987, which dis-
turbed the Nigerian administrative status quo and were repulsed by the
Nigerian villagers and security forces, did not result in any claim to the
area by Cameroon.
63. For its part, Cameroon contends that, as the holder of a conven-
tional territorialtitlt: to the disputed areas, it does not have to demon-
strate the effective exercise of its sovereignty over those areas, since a
valid conventional title prevails over any effectivitésto the contrary.
Hence, no form of historical consolidation can prevail over a conven-
tional territorial title in the absence of clearconsent on the part of the
holder of that title to the cession of part of its territory. Cameroon is351 FRONTIERE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
prévauten conséquence des effectivités qu'à titre subsidiaire, comme «un
moyen auxiliaire au soutien de [ses] titres conventionnels». 11soutient
ainsi avoir exercé sasouverainetéconformémentau droit international en
administrant pacifiquement les localités revendiquéespar le Nigéria et
mentionne de nombreux exemples d'exercice allégué de cette souverai-
neté.
Les implantations de villagesnigériansdu côté camerounais dela fron-
tière par des personnes privées, suiviespar l'établissementde services
publics nigérians,doivent donc selon le Cameroun êtreassimilées à des
actes de conquête,lesquelsne sauraient établir un titre territorial en vertu
du droit international. Le Cameroun indique qu'il n'a jamais acquiescéà
la modification de sa frontière conventionnelle avec le Nigéria;il précise
que, pour engager I'Etat, l'acquiescementà la modification d'une fron-
tièredoit êtrele fait des autoritéscompétenteset qu'a cet égard l'attitude
des autoritéscentrales prévaut sur celledes autoritéslocales. Aussi, selon
lui, dès qu'ellesfurent au courant des revendications nigérianes,les auto-
ritéscentrales camerounaises ne manquèrent pas de réagirde manière à
préserver lesdroits du Cameroun; elles le firent tout d'abord dans le
cadre de la CBLT, puis par le biais d'une note du ministère des affaires
étrangères camerounaisen date du 21 avril 1994.
Le Cameroun fait enfin valoir l'existenced'une situation'estoppel qui
empêcheraitaujourd'hui le Nigériade remettre en cause la délimitation
conventionnelle existante. Le Nigériaaurait en effet acceptéla délimita-
tion conventionnelle du lac Tchad sans la moindre protestation pendant
de très longuesannées, ycomprisdurant les travaux de démarcation dela
CBLT, adoptant ainsi un comportement attestant de manière claire et
constante qu'il avait accepté cette frontière. Le Cameroun s'étant en
toute bonne foi fondésur cette attitude pour collaborer a l'opération de
démarcation, il subirait un préjudicesi le Nigéria était en droit de se
prévaloir d'un comportement sur le terrain contraire à son attitude
antérieure.
64. La Cour observera tout d'abord que les travaux de la CBLT
visaientà déboucher surla démarcation d'ensemble d'une frontièredéjà
délimitée. Lerésultat du processus de démarcation ne lie certes pas le
Nigéria,mais cette circonstance est sans incidence juridique sur la déli-
mitation préexistante de la frontière. Il s'ensuit nécessairementque la
revendication du Nigéria fondée surla théorie dela consolidation histo-
rique du titreet sur l'acquiescement du Cameroun doit êtreappréciée à la
lumière de la conclusion à laquelle la Cour est ainsi déjà parvenue.
Durant la procédure orale, l'affirmation du Cameroun selon laquelle les
effectivités nigérianesseraientontra Iegem a été écartép ear le Nigéria
comme n'étant «qu'une pétition de principe et un raisonnement circu-
laire)).La Cour note toutefois que, dèslors qu'elle a conclu que la fron-
tièredans le lac Tchad se trouvait délimitée bienavant que ne débutent
les travaux de la CBLT, leséventuelles effectivitésnigérianesoivent bien
êtreconsidéréesd , u point de vue de leurs conséquencesjuridiques, comme
des actes contra legem.accordingly only asezrting effeectivitéas a subsidiary ground of claim,
"an auxiliary means of supportfor [its]conventional titles". Thus, it con-
tends that it has exercised its sovereignty in accordance with international
law by peacefully administering the areas claimecl by Nigeria and cites
many examples of the alleged exercise of that sovr:reignty.
The establishment of Nigerian villages on the Cameroonian side of the
boundary by private individuals followed by Nigerian public services
must therefore, in Cameroon's view, be treated as ;retsof conquest which
cannot found a valid territorial title under international law. Cameroon
states thatit has never acquiesced in the modification of its conventional
boundary with Nigeria; it argues that acquiescence in a boundary change
must, in order to birid a State, be the act of competent authorities and
that in this regard the attitude of the central authorities must prevail
over that of the locial ones. Hence, according to Cameroon, once the
Cameroonian central authorities became aware of the Nigerian claims,
they proceeded to react so as to preserve the rights of Cameroon; they
did so first in the context of the LCBC, then through a Note from the
Cameroonian Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated 21 April 1994.
Finally, Cameroon claims that an estoppel has arisen which today pre-
vents Nigeria from ishallenging the existing comentional delimitation.
Thus it argues that, for very many years, including while the LCBC
demarcation work was proceeding, Nigeria accepted the conventional
delimitation of Lake Chad without any form of protest, thus adopting an
attitude which clearly and consistently demonstr.ited its acceptance of
that boundary. Since Cameroon had relied in gooclfaith on that attitude
in order to collaborate in the demarcation operation, it would be prejudi-
cial to it if Nigeria vliereentitled to invoke conduct on the ground that
conflicted with itspri:vious attitude.
64. The Court firsitobserves that the work of the LCBC was intended
to lead to an overall demarcation of a frontier already delimited. Although
the result of thedemarcation process is not binding on Nigeria, that fact
has no legal implication for the pre-existing frontier delimitation. It
necessarily follows thiat Nigeria's claim based on the theory of historical
consolidation of title and on the acquiescence of Cameroon must be
assessed by reference to this initial determination of the Court. During
the oral pleadings Cameroon's assertion that Nigerian effectivitéswere
contra legem was dismissed by Nigeria as "completely question-begging
and circular". The Court notes, however, that riow that it has made
its findings that the frontier in LakeChad was delimited long before the
work of the LCBC began, it necessarily follo\vs that any Nigerian
effectivitésare indeeclto be evaluated for their legal consequences as acts
contra iegem.352 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
65. La Cour examinera à présent l'argumentation du Nigériafondée
sur la consolidation historique du titre.
A cet égard,la Cour relèveque, dans l'affaire desPêcheries(Royaume-
Unic. Norvège) (C.I. J. Recueil 1951, p. 130),elleavait fait état d'uncer-
tain nombre de décretsde délimitation promulguéspar la Norvège près
d'un siècleauparavant et dont l'adoption et l'application n'avaient pen-
dant des décennies soulevéaucune opposition. La Cour les avait décrits
comme représentant «un système bien définiet unifié...qui aurait béné-
ficiéd'une tolérancegénérale,fondement d'une consolidation historique
qui le rendait opposable à tous les Etats» (ibid., p. 137). Elle observe
cependant que la notion de consolidation historique n'a jamais étéutili-
séecomme fondement d'un titre territorial dans d'autres affaires conten-
tieuses, que ce soit dans sa propre jurisprudence ou dans celle d'autres
organes juridictionnels.
Le Nigériasoutient que la doctrine a développéla notion de consoli-
dation historique et il se réclamede cette théorie,qui serait associéea
maxime quieta non movere.
La Cour note que la théorie dela consolidation historique a fait l'objet
de nombreuses controverses et estime que cette notion ne saurait se sub-
stituer aux modes d'acquisition de titre reconnus par le droit internatio-
nal, qui tiennent compte de nombreux autres facteurs importants de fait
et de droit. Elle observe par ailleurs que rien dans l'arrêt renduen
l'affaire desPêcheriesne donne à entendre que la c(conso1idationhisto-
rique» dont il est fait étaten ce qui concerne les limites extérieuresde la
mer territoriale autoriserait faire prévaloir l'occupation d'un territoire
terrestre sur un titre conventionnel établi. Aussi bien les faits et circons-
tances avancéspar le Nigéria àl'égard desvillages du lac Tchad concer-
nent-ils une périoded'une vingtaine d'annéesen tout étatde cause trop
brèveau regard mêmede la théorie invoquée. L'argumentationdu Nigé-
ria sur ce point ne peut par suite être retenue.
66. Le Nigéria ajoute que la possession paisible dont il se réclame,
accompagnéed'actes d'administration, représenteune manifestation de
souveraineté et participe de ce fait des deux autres fondements sur les-
quels repose sa revendication,à savoir, d'une part, l'administration exer-
céeeffectivement par le Nigériaagissant à titre de souverain et l'absence
de protestation et, d'autre part, les manifestations de souveraineté du
Nigéria sur Darak et les villages avoisinants, conjuguées à l'acquiesce-
ment du Cameroun à une telle souveraineté.
67. Il està observer à cet égard que,à mesure que des Nigérianss'in-
stallaient dans les villages, les autorités locales nigérianesde Ngala leur
apportaient une assistance, tout en exerçant certaines activitésd'adminis-
tration et de contrôle.
Ayant écartéles élémentsde preuve concernant 1994,année dela sai-
sine de la Cour, et lesannéessuivantes, la Cour note que, dèsle débutdes
années quatre-vingt et jusqu'en 1993, des rapports ont étéadressésaux
autoritéslocales de Ngala; celles-cicontribuaient au fonctionnement des
dispensaires créésdans ces villageset aux unitéssanitaires mobiles, et les 65. The Court will now examine Nigeria's argument based on histori-
cal consolidation of ititle.
The Court observes in this respect that in the Fisheries (United King-
dom v. Nor~vay)case (1.C.J. Reports 1951, p. 130)it had referred to cer-
tain maritime delimitation decrees promulgated by Norway almost a cen-
tury earlier which hatj been adopted and applied for decades without any
opposition. These decrees were said by the Couri to represent "a well-
defined and uniform system . . which would reap the benefit of general
toleration, the basis of an historical consolidation which would make it
enforceable as against al1States" (ibzd p.,137). l'he Court notes, how-
ever, that the notion of historical consolidation has never been used as a
basis of title in other territorial disputes, whether in its own or in other
case law.
Nigeria contends that the notion of historical consolidation has been
developed by acadeniic writers, and relies on that theory, associating it
with the maxim quieltanon movere.
The Court notes that the theory of historical consolidation is highly
controversial and carinot replace the established rriodes of acquisition of
titleunder international law, which take into accoiint many other impor-
tant variables of fact and law. It further observes that nothing in the
Fisheries Judgment suggests that the "historical consolidation" referred
to, in connection with the external boundaries of the territorial sea,
allows land occupation to prevail over an established treaty title. More-
over, the facts and circumstances put forward by Nigeria with respect to
the Lake Chad villagesconcern a period of some 20 years, which is in any
event far too short, even according to the theory relied on by it. Nigeria's
arguments on this point cannot therefore be upheld.
66. Nigeria further states that the peaceful possession on which it
relies, coupled with acts of administration, represents a manifestation of
sovereignty and is thus a specificelement of its other two claimed heads
of title, namely: on the one hand, effective administration by Nigeria,
acting as sovereign, and the absence of protests; arid, on the other, mani-
festations of sovereignty by Nigeria over Darak and the neighbouring
villages, together witlhacquiescence by Cameroon in such sovereignty.
67. In this regard, it may be observed that the gradua1 settling of
Nigerians in the villageswas followed in turn by support provided by the
Ngala Local Government in Nigeria, along with a degree of adminis-
tration and supervision.
Setting aside evidence relating to the years including and after 1994,
when the Court was seised of the case, the Court notes that from the
early 1980s until 1993 reports were made to Ngala Local Government,
which provided support for health clinics in villages and mobile health
units, along with advice on disease control. Evidence of this nature has353 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRET)
conseillaient en matière de lutte contre les maladies. Des élémentsde
preuve de ce type ont étéfournis pour Kirta Wulgo, Darak ou encore
Katti Kime. Il est égalementprouvé quelesautoritéslocales de Ngala ont
financé,en 1988,des servicesd'enseignement publicdépendantdu village
nigériande Wulgo à Katti Kime, Darak, Chika'a et Naga'a, et ont fait de
même à Darak en 1991. En 1989, une redevance pour l'enseignement a
étéperçue dans les différentes localitésdépendant du villagede Wulgo et,
en 1992,des créditsont été affectés à la construction de salles de classà
Naga'a. Des documents ont également été soumi àsla Cour qui montrent
que des impôts ont été calculée st perçus dans la régiondépendant de
Wulgo en 1980-1981et qu'une coopérative depêcheurs activedans les
villages concernés a effectué des versements aux autorités locales de
Ngala en 1982-1984.L'un desdocuments soumis à la Cour fait étatd'un
jugement rendu en 1981 par le tribunal de première instance de Wulgo
entre des plaignants résidant à Darak.
Certaines de ces activités organisation de servicespublics de santéet
d'enseignement, maintien de l'ordre, administration de lajustice - pour-
raient normalement êtreconsidéréescomme des actes accomplis à titre de
souverain. La Cour constate cependant que, puisque le Cameroun déte-
nait un titre préexistant sur cette régiondu lac, le critèrejuridique appli-
cable est l'existenceou non d'un acquiescement manifeste du Cameroun
au transfert de son titre au Nigéria.
68. A cet égard,la Cour relèveque les activitéspropres du Cameroun
dans la régiondu lac Tchad ont une incidence très limitéesur la question
du titre.
La Cour a déjàeu à plusieurs reprisesà se prononcer sur la relation
juridique qui existe entre les((effectivités))et les titres. Dans l'affaire du
DijJérendfrontalier (Burkina FasolRépublique du Mali), elle a souligné
que sur ce point «plusieurs éventualitésdoivent être distinguées))E . lle a
notamment jugéque:
«Dans le cas où le fait ne correspond pas au droit, où le territoire
objet du différend estadministréeffectivement par un Etat autre que
celui qui possède le titre juridique, ila lieu de préférerle titulaire
du titre. Dans l'éventualitéoù «17effectiviténe coexiste avec aucun
titre juridique, elle doit inévitablementêtreprise en considération.)
(C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 587, par. 63;voir aussiDiffërend territorial
(Jarnahiriyu arabe lihyennelTchud), arrêt, C.I.J. Recueil 1994,p. 38,
par. 75-76.)
C'est la premièreéventualitéainsi envisagéepar la Cour et non la
seconde qui correspond àla situation telle qu'ellese présentedans la pré-
sente affaire. En effet le Cameroun détenait le titre juridique sur le terri-
toire se trouvant à l'est de la frontière fixéepar les instruments appli-
cables (voir paragraphe 53 ci-dessus). Dès lors, laconduite du Cameroun
sur le territoire en cause n'est pertinente que pour déterminer s'il a
acquiescé à une modification du titre conventionnel, éventualité qui ne
peut être entièrementexclue en droit (voir Diffërend frontulier terrestre, LAND .4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 353
been submitted as regards Kirta Wulgo, Darak and Katti Kime. There is
evidence of the provision of education funding by the Ngala Local Gov-
ernment in 1988 for the Nigerian village of Wulgo and its dependent
settlements, and for Katti Kime, Darak, Chika7;i and Naga'a and for
Darak in 1991. In 1989 there was an education levy in Wulgo and its
dependencies and iri 1992 some funding provitled for classrooms in
Naga'a. The Court has been shown evidence relating to the assessment
and collection of taxes in Wulgo and its dependencies in 1980-1981;
and to payments made to Ngala Local Governmcnt by the Fisherman's
Cooperative operating in the villages in question in 1982-1984.Among
the documents submitted to the Court is a copy of a decision in 1981by
the Wulgo Area Court in a case involving litigants residing in Darak.
Some of these activities- the organization of piiblic health and educa-
tion facilities, policing, the administration ofjustic- could normally be
considered to be ac1.sà titre de souverain. The Court notes, however,
that, as there was a pre-existing title held by Cameroon in this area of the
lake, the pertinent legal test is whether there wasthus evidenced acquies-
cence by Cameroon in the passing of title from itself to Nigeria.
68. In this context the Court also observes that Cameroon's own
activities in the Lake Chad area have only a 1imiti:dbearing on the issue
of title.
The Court has already ruled on a number of occasions on the legal
relationship betweeni "eflectivités" and titles. In the Frontier Dispute
(Burkina FasolRepucSlicof'Mali) case, it pointed out that in this regard
"a distinction must be drawn among several eventualities", stating inter
alia that:
"Where the act does not correspond to the law, where the territory
which is the subject of the dispute is effectively administered by a
State other than the one possessing the legal title, preference should
be given to the holder of the title. In the event that the effectivité
does not CO-existwith any legal title, it must iiivariably be taken into
consideration." (I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 587, para. 63; see also
Territorial Dispute (Libyun Arab JanzahiriyalChad), Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 1994, p. 38, paras. 75-76.)
It is this first evei~tuality here envisaged by the Court, and not the
second, which corresponds to the situation obtain~ngin the present case.
Thus Cameroon held the legal title to territory lying to the east of the
boundary as fixed bythe applicable instruments (seeparagraph 53 above).
Hence the conduct of Cameroon in that territory lias pertinence only for
the question of whetlherit acquiesced in the establishment of a change in
treaty title, which c,annot be wholly precluded as a possibility in law
(Land, Island and A4aritime Frontier Dispute (LI SalvadorlHonduras:insulaire et maritime (El SalvadorlHonduras; Nicaragua (intervenant)),
arrêt,C.I.J. Recueil 1992, p. 408-409, par. 80). Il ressort des élémentsde
preuveprésentés a la Cour qu'avant 1987leCameroun exerçait unecertaine
activitéadministrative dans les villages qui commençaient à se créersur
les îleset l'ancien litdu lac Tchad. Des tournées administratives annuelles
y furent effectuéesentre 1982 et 1985; les villages de Chika'a, Naga'a,
Katti Kime et Darak participèrent aux élections présidentielles organisées
au Cameroun; des mesures administratives furent prises en vue d'assurer
le maintien de l'ordreà Naga'a, Gorea Changi et Katti Kime. Dix-huit
villages, parmi lesquels Darak, furent couverts par le recensement de
1984.La nomination des chefs de villageétaitsoumise à l'approbation du
préfetcamerounais. Il existe enfin quelques preuves modestes montrant
que le Cameroun a perçu des impôts de 1983 à 1985dans les villages de
Katti Kime, Naga'a et Chika'a.
69. Il ressort du dossier de l'affaire aue l'autorité de certains fonction-
naires locaux camerounaisétait limitéedans la région.Lorsque a la créa-
tion de villages nigérianset l'organisation d'une vie communautaire au
sein de ces villages s'ajoutèrent,partir de 1987, une administration et
une présence militaire nigérianes,le Cameroun se contenta de protester
contre quelques «incidents» (en particulier l'occupation du centre de for-
mation a la pêche,a Katti Kime) plutôt que contre l'évolutionde la situa-
tion en tant que telle.l est cependant établi que le Cameroun a toujours
tenté,de temps à autre, d'exercer un certain contrôle administratif sur les
zones en question, avec un succès limitédurant les dernières années.
Le Cameroun a déclaré a la Cour qu'à son sens les activitésdu Nigéria
dans la régiondu lac Tchad, entre 1984et 1994,n'avaient pu êtreexer-
cées à titre de souverain, dès lors que pendant cette période le Nigéria
participaità part entière aux travaux confiésà la CBLT et à ses cocon-
tractants, et avait acceptéque ces travaux se déroulent sur la base des
différents instruments conventionnels régissantle titre. La Cour ne sau-
rait partager l'avisdu Nigéria selon lequell'argumentation du Cameroun
présupposerait que les conclusions des experts auraient étéautomatique-
ment contraignantes pour le Nigéria.Cette argumentation part plutôt du
principe que les travaux de démarcation étaient entrepris sur une base
agréée.
C'est le 14 avril 1994, dans une note diplomatique, que le Nigéria
revendiqua pour la première fois la souveraineté sur Darak. Le Came-
roun réagitpar une note verbale du 21 avril 1994,dans laquelle il expri-
mait <csa profonde consternation devant la présomption que Darak fai-
sait partie du territoire nigérian)),et réaffirmaitsa propre souveraineté.
Peu de temps après, il élargitégalement l'objetde la requêtedont il avait
saisi la Cour.
70. La Cour estime que les événementssusmentionnés, pris conjoin-
tement, montrent que le Cameroun n'a pas acquiescé à l'abandon de
son titre sur la régionen faveur du Nigéria. La Cour en conclut que,
pour l'essentiel, les effectivités invoquéespar le Nigéria n'étaientpas
conformes au droit et que dès lors cil y a lieu de préférerle titulaire LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUZ~GMENT) 354
Nicaragua intervening), Judgment, 1. C.J. Reports 1992, pp. 408-409,
para. 80). The evidericepresented to the Court suggests that before 1987
there was some admiinistrative activity by Cameroon in the island and
lake-bed villagesthat were beginning to be established. There were yearly
administrative visits from 1982to 1985; the villages of Chika'a, Naga'a,
Katti Kime and Darak participated in elections for the presidency of the
Republic of Cameroon; administrative action was undertaken for the
maintenance of law a~ndorder in Naga'a, Gorea Changi and Katti Kime.
The 1984 census included 18villages, among them Darak. Appointments
of village chiefs were referred for approval to the Cameroon prefect. As
for the collection of taxes by Cameroon, thereis modest evidence relating
to Katti Kime, Naga.'a and Chika'a for the years 1983to 1985.
69. It appears from the case file that the control of certain localm-
eroonian officialsover the area was limited. As Nigerian settlements, and
the organization within them of village life, became supplemented from
1987 onwards by Nigerian administration and the presence of Nigerian
troops, Cameroon restricted its protests to a few "incidents" (notably the
taking over of the fislheriestraining station at Katti Kime), rather than to
the evolving situatiori asuch. There is some evideiicehowever that Cam-
eroon continued sporadically to seek to exercise some administrative
control in these areas, albeit with little success in this later period.
Cameroon has put to the Court that it did not regard the activities of
Nigeria in Lake Chad in the years 1984to 1994 as a titre de souverain,
because Nigeria was in those years fully participating in the work
entrusted to the LCBC and its contractors, and agreed that they should
work on the basis of the various treaty instruments which governed title.
The Court cannot accept Nigeria's argument that the explanation given
by Cameroon depends upon the supposition that the Report of Experts
was binding upon Nigeria automatically. It depends rather upon the
agreed basis upon wlhichthe demarcation work was to be carried out.
On 14 April 1994, Nigeria in a diplomatie Note, for the first time
claimed sovereignty over Darak. Cameroon firmly protested in a Note
Verbale of 21 April 1994,expressing "its profound shock at the presump-
tion that Darak is part of Nigerian territory", and reiterating its own
sovereignty. Shortly after, it also enlarged the scope of its Application
to the Court.
70. The Court finds that the above events, taken together, show that
there was no acquiescence by Cameroon in the abandonment of its title
in the area in favour of Nigeria. Accordingly, the Court concludes that
the situation was essentially one where theffectivitéadduced by Nigeria
did not correspond to the law, and that accordingly "preference shoulddu titre» (Diffërend frontalier (Burkina FasolRépubliquedu Mali), arrêt,
C.I.J. Recueil1986, p. 587, par. 63).
La Cour conclut en conséquenceque les localités situées à l'est de la
frontière confirméedans l'échangede notes Henderson-Fleuriau de 1931
sont demeuréessous souveraineté camerounaise (voir ci-après,p. 356, le
croquis no2).
71. Ayant examinéla question de la délimitationdans la régiondu lac
Tchad, la Cour abordera à présentle tracé dela frontière terrestre du lac
Tchad à la presqu'île de Bakassi.
72. Dans sa requête additionnelledéposéele 6juin 1994,le Cameroun
a demandé à la Cour «de préciserdéfinitivement))sa frontière avec le
Nigériadu lac Tchad à la mer. Selon le Cameroun, la frontière terrestre
entre le Cameroun et le Nigériacomporte trois secteurs, dont chacun est
clairement délimitépar un instrument distinct.
73. Le premier secteur de cette frontière terrestre tel que mentionné
par le Cameroun court de l'embouchure conventionnelle de 1'Ebedji
jusqu'au «pic proéminent)) que le Cameroun dénomme ctmont Kom-
bon» (voir ci-après, p.361, le croquis no3, sur lequel cesecteur est repré-
sentéen orange). Le Cameroun demande à la Cour de dire que la décla-
ration Thomson-Marchand, incorporée à I'échangede notes Henderson-
Fleuriau de 1931,délimitece secteur et constitue la basejuridiqàepartir
de laquelle pourra s'effectuer sa future démarcation.
74. Le deuxième secteur court du «mont Kombon» jusqu'à la
«borne 64)) mentionnée à l'article 12 de l'accord anglo-allemand du
12avril 1913(voir ci-après,p. 361, lecroquis no3, sur lequel ce secteur est
représentéen mauve). Le secteur en question de la frontière est présenté
comme trouvant sa base juridique dans l'Ordre en conseil britannique du
2 août 1946,dans lequel étaitdécrite en détail la liséparantles parties
septentrionale et méridionale de ce qui constituait alors le Cameroun
britannique sous mandat. Selon le Cameroun, cet Ordre en conseil réaf-
firmait la ligne auparavant fixéepar la Puissance mandataire pour des
raisons de commodité administrative puis confirmée par les organes
internationaux compétents, i savoir la Commission permanente des man-
dats et le Conseil de tutelle. Le Cameroun affirme que la délimitation
intérieure séparant le Cameroun septentrional du Cameroun méridio-
nal et décritedans l'Ordre en conseil aéipsofacto transforméeen fron-
tièreinternationale entre le Nigériaet le Camerounlorsqu'il a été misfin
au régimede tutelle à la suite des plébiscites des11et 12 février1961.
75. Le troisième secteur, qui court de la borne 64à la mer (voir ci-
après,p. 361, le croquis n03, sur lequel ce secteur est représenté enbrun),
est présentépar le Cameroun comme ayant étédélimitépar les accordsbe given to the holder of the title" (Frontier Dispute (Burkina FusolRepuh-
licqf Muli), Judgmtlnt, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 557, para. 63).
The Court therefore concludes that, as regards ihe Settlements situated
to the east of the frontier confirmed in the Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange
of Notes of 1931, sovereignty has continued to lie with Cameroon (see
below, p. 356, sketch-map No. 2).
71. Having examined the question of the delirnitation in the area of
Lake Chad, the Court will now consider the course of the land boundary
from Lake Chad to the Bakassi Peninsula.
72. In its Additional Application filed on 6 June 1994, Cameroon
requested the Court "to specify definitively" the frontier between Cam-
eroon and Nigeria from Lake Chad to the sea. According to Cameroon,
the land boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria consists of three
sectors, each of which is clearly delimited by a separate instrument.
73. The first suc11 sector of the land boundary as referred to by
Cameroon extends from the conventional mourh of the Ebeji as far
as the "prominent peak" named by Cameroon as "Mount Kombon" (see
below, p. 361, sketch-map No. 3, on which this secror is shown in orange).
Cameroon asks the Court to hold that the Thomson-Marchand Dec-
laration, incorporated in the Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes
of 1931, delilnits this sector and constitutes the legal basis upon which
its futuredemarcatioln can be based.
74. The second sector runs from "Mount Konibon" to "pillar 64" as
referred to in Article 12 of the Anglo-German Agreement of 12 April
1913(see below, p. 361, sketch-map No. 3, on which this sector is shown
in mauve). The sector of the boundary in question is claimed by Cam-
eroon to have its leg,albasis in the British Order in Council of 2 August
1946, which described in detail the line dividing tlie northern and south-
ern parts of what was then the mandated territory of the British Cam-
eroons. According to Cameroon, the Order in Coiincil reaffirmed the line
decided upon earlier by the mandatory Power for reasons of administra-
tive convenience, arid confirmed subsequently by the relevant interna-
tional organs, namely, the Permanent Mandates Commission and the
Trusteeship Council Cameroon claims that the interna1 line between the
Northern and Southern Cameroons described in the Order in Council
was ipsojuc.to converted into the international boundary between Nigeria
and Cameroon wheri the trusteeship régimewas terminated following the
plebiscites of 11 and 12 February 1961.
75. The third sector, running from pillar 64 to the sea (see below,
p. 361, sketch-map No. 3, on which this sector is shown in brown), is said
by Cameroon to have been delimited by the Anglo-German Agreements 14"20' 11430'
ripoi(14'04'59"99913"05'00"N)
13"00' Frontiérdeansla 13"02
régiondulacTchad
XB.Cecroqa4Mtmbii
Bdefid'üiuasnubmat
O 10 20 30km
apDarak
12"50' KattKirne 12"50'
@
Chika'a
" Naga'a
B
CAMEROUN 1
12"40' 12"40'
Embouchurede I'Ebedji
12O30' ifurcution 12"30'
1140"0' 114"10' 14"20' 114'30' Boundary inthe
LakeChadArea
N.B.Thinskucli-mphasbccnprcparcd
Darak
KattiKime
Chika'a
" Naga'a
Banglo-allemands des 11 mars et 12 avril 1913,l'un et l'autre de ces ins-
truments contenant des cartes portant une description de la frontière (à
savoir les deux feuilles de la carte TSGS 2240 annexées à l'accord du
11mars et lesfeuillesno" à8de la carte GSGS 2700annexées à l'accord
du 12avril). Le Cameroun insiste sur le fait que sa revendication concer-
nant l'ensemble de ce tronçon de la frontière, y compris la presqu'île de
Bakassi, peut être tranchée((purement et simplement)) par application
des accords anglo-allemands de 1913 et du matériau cartographique y
annexé.
76. A l'exception de ce qu'il appelleles ((dispositionssur Bakassin du
traitéanglo-allemand du 11 mars 1913, le Nigéria neconteste pas, pour
sa part, la pertinence ni l'applicabilité desquatre instruments invoqués
par le Cameroun aux fins du tracé deces trois secteurs de la frontiere
terrestre.
77. Le point sur lequel les avis des Parties divergent est celui de la
nature de la tâche dont la Cour est appelée à s'acquitter. Les positions
respectives des Parties sur ce point ont connu une certaine évolution au
cours de la procédure.Ainsi, dans la requête additionnelle,le Cameroun
priait la Cour de ((préciserdéfinitivement lafrontiere entre [lui] et la
République fédéraledu Nigériadu lac Tchad à la mer)). Puis, dans ses
écritureset il'audience, le Cameroun a demandé à la Cour de confirmer
le tracé dela frontière tel qu'indiquédans les instruments de délimitation,
insistant sur le fait que, en priant la Cour deréciserdéfinitivement)) la
frontiere entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria,il ne lui avait pas demandé de
vrocéderelle-même à une délimitation de cette frontiere. Le Cameroun a
maintenu ces demandes dans ses conclusions finales.
78. Lors de la phase de l'affaire consacréeaux exceptions prélimi-
naires, le Nigéria,pour sa part, a tout d'abord soutenu qu'il n'existaitau-
cun différendterritorial entre les Parties du lac Tchad la presqu'île de
Bakassi. L'exception préliminairecorrespondante ayant été rejetép ear la
Cour dans son arrêt du 11juin 1998, le Nigériaa mentionnépar la suite
plusieurs emplacements précis de la frontière terrestre qui appelaient
selon lui,à un titre ouà un autre, un examen de la part de la Cour, soit
parce que les instruments de délimitation eux-mêmesseraient ((défec-
tueux)), soit au motif que ces instruments seraient appliqués par le Came-
roun de manière ((manifestement contraire)) à leurs dispositions. Tout en
acceptant «en principe)) l'application des instruments en question, le
Nigéria estime,dans le dernier étatde son argumentation, que, si la Cour
devait se borner à confirmer ces instruments de délimitation, les diver-
gences entre les Parties quant au tracé dela frontière ne s'entrouveraient
pas résolues, etque rien ne garantirait que d'autres divergences ne surgi-
raient pasà l'avenir. Le Nigériademande dèslors àla Cour de ((préciser))
la délimitation dans les régions à l'égard desquellesles instruments de
délimitationsont défectueux etde rectifier la ligne frontière réclampar
le Cameroun s'agissant des régionsoù, selon lui, celui-ci ne respecte pas
les termes clairs de ces instruments.
79. Le Cameroun reconnaît lui aussi que les instruments de délimita-of 11 March and l;! April 1913, both agreements containing maps on
which the boundary line is depicted (namely, the two sheets of map
TSGS 2240 annexed to the 11 March Agreement, and sheets Nos. 5 to 8
of map GSGS 2700 annexed to the 12 April Agreement). Cameroon
insists that its claim in relation to the entire course of this sector of the
boundary, including the Bakassi Peninsula, can be resolved by the appli-
cation "pure and simple" of the Anglo-German Agreements of 1913and
the annexed cartographie material.
76. With the exception of what it calls the "Bakassi provisions" of the
Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913, Nigeria, for its part, does
not dispute the relevance and applicability of the fourinstruments invoked
by Cameroon with ri:spect to the course of these tliree sectors of the land
boundary .
77. The question iipon which the Parties differ is the nature of the task
which the Court shoilld undertake. The respective positions of the Parties
on this point changed somewhat in the course of the proceedings. Thus,
in its Additional Application, Cameroon requested the Court "to specify
definitively the frontier between [it] and the Federal Republic of Nigeria
from Lake Chad to the sea". Then, in its writteii pleadings and at the
hearings, it requested the Court to confirm the course of the frontier as
indicated in the delimitation instruments, emphasizing that, in requesting
the Court "to specify definitively" the frontier bi:tween Cameroon and
Nigeria, it had not requested the Court itself to uridertake a delimitation
of that frontier. It maintains those requests in its final submissions.
78. In the preliminary objections phase of the case, Nigeria, for its
part, first argued that there was no territorialispute between the Parties
from Lake Chad to the Bakassi Peninsula. That preliminary objection
having been rejecteci by the Court in its Judgnient of 11 June 1998,
Nigeria subsequently indicated a number of specificlocations on the land
boundary which, in its view, called for some form ~sfconsideration by the
Court, either because the delimitation instruments themselveswere "defec-
tive", or because the!/ had been applied by Cameroon in a way which was
"manifestly at variance" with their terms. While Nigeria accepts the
application of the instruments concerned "in principle", it considers that,
if the Court were merely to confirm these delimitation instruments, that
would not resolve the differences between the Parties in regard to the
course of the boundary, and there would be no guarantee that others
would not arise in the future. Nigeria therefore askj the Court to "clarify"
the delimitation in the areas in which the delimitation instruments are
defective and to correct the boundary line claimed by Cameroon in the
areas where Nigeria inaintains Cameroon is not observing the clear terms
of these instruments.
79. Cameroon alscsacknowledges that there are some ambiguities and358 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
tion en question comportent certaines ambiguïtés etincertitudes. Il admet
en outre qu'il peut y avoir quelques difficultésdémarquer la ligne déli-
mitéepar ces instruments, en raison, par exemple, de modifications de
l'emplacement de cours d'eau, de marécages,de pistes, de villages ou de
bornes auxquels il est fait référencedans lesdits instruments, ou encore
du fait que la localisation d'une ligne de partage des eaux exige des tra-
vaux approfondis de recherche hydrologique. Le Cameroun souligne tou-
tefois que la Cour ne saurait, sous couvert d'interprétation, modifier les
textes applicables, et affirme que c'est là précisémencte que le Nigéria
demande à la Cour de faire.
80. Le Cameroun expose qu'il y a lieu d'opérerune distinction entre,
d'une part, le concept de délimitation(a savoir le processus consistantà
décrirele tracé d'une frontièreau moyen de mots ou de cartes dans un
instrument juridique) et, d'autre part, leconcept de démarcatio(à savoir
le processus consistantà matérialisersur le terrain le tracé dela frontière
ainsi décrite).Il souligne qu'en l'espèceil est demandé à la Cour de
confirmer la délimitutionde la frontière, et non d'opérersa démarcution.
Il estime aue la correction d'un certain nombre de ((défauts mineurs»
dans les textes, la suppression de certaines incertitudes et la solution des
quelques difficultésgéographiques rencontréesrelèvent de la démarca-
tion. Pour le Cameroun, il s'agitlà de questions qui devront êtreréglées
par les Parties la lumièrede la décision de laCour sur la délimitation de
la frontière dans son ensemble. Au début du premier tour de plaidoiries,
le Cameroun s'était déclaré en conséquence disposé à procéder, avec le
Nigéria, à une démarcation partout où cela se révélerait nécessairpeour
rendre le tracéde la frontière plus précis.Lors du second tour de plai-
doiries, il proposa au Nigériala mise en place d'un organe de démarca-
tion sous les auspices de la Cour ou des Nations Unies afin d'opérerla
démarcation desSecteurs frontaliers non encore démarquésou pour les-
quels l'arrêtde la Cour laisserait subsister quelques incertitudes, mais
précisaque, si la Cour estimait qu'elle devait directement trancher cer-
tains des problèmes soulevéspar le Nigéria,il n'y verrait pas le moindre
inconvénient.
81. Bien qu'il n'ait pas donné son accord à la proposition du Came-
roun de mettre en place un organe de démarcation, le Nigériaa accepté
que les questions de nature purement technique soient régléesau stade de
la démarcation. Il affirme toutefois que les difficultés qu'ila identifiées
constituent des questions de fond relevant de la délimitation. Il estime
nécessairede préciser la frontière terrestre en détail afin de prévenir
d'éventuels problèmesfrontaliers et de pouvoir procéder a terme a une
démarcation sur des bases solides.
82. La Cour constate que le Cameroun et le Nigéria s'accordent à
considérerquela frontière terrestre entre leurs territoires respectifs depuis
le lac Tchad a déjàfait l'objet d'une délimitation,celle-ciayant étéopé- LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 358
uncertainties in the delimitation instruments in question. It admits
further that there triay be certain difficulties in demarcating the line
delimited by these iristruments, for instance because of changes in the
location of watercourses, swamps, tracks, villages or pillars referred to
in those instruments, or because the location of a watershed requires
detailed hydrological investigation. However, Cameroon insists that
the Court cannot, on the pretext of interpreting them, modify the appli-
cable texts, and it claims that thiss precisely what Nigeria is requesting
the Court to do.
80. Cameroon contends that a distinction must be maintained between,
on the one hand, the concept of delimitation (being the process by which
the course of a boundary is described in words or maps in a legal instru-
ment) and, on the other, the concept of demarcation (being the process
by which the course of the boundary so described is marked out on the
ground). It points oiit that in the present case wliat the Court is being
asked to do is to confirm the delimitation of the boundary and not to
effect itsdemarcation. It considers that the correction of a number of
"minor defects" in the instruments, the eliminatiori of various uncertain-
ties and the solution of any existing geographical difficulties are matters
of demarcation. Cameroon considers these to be cjuestions to be settled
by the Parties in the light of the Court'sdecision on the delimitation of
the boundary as a whiole.At the start of the first round of oral argument,
Cameroon accordingly declared itself willing to engage in a demarcation
effort with Nigeria wherever this should prove to be necessary to render
the course of the boundary more precise. In the second round of oral
argument, Camerooi~ proposed to Nigeria that a demarcation body
should be set up under the auspices of the Court or of the United Nations
in order to undertakir the demarcation of those boundary sectors as yet
undemarcated, or in respect of which the Court's Judgment left some
uncertainties, but made it clear that, if the Coiirt considered that it
should itself settle certain of the problems raised by Nigeria, it would
have no objection to this.
81. Although it does not accept Cameroon's proposal for the estab-
lishment of a demarcation body, Nigeria agrees that purely technical
matters should be settled at the demarcation stage. It claims, however,
that the points of difficulty it has identified represent substantivelimi-
tation issues. It believesthat a detailed specificatioriof the land boundary
is necessary if future border problems are to beavciidedand any eventual
demarcation is to take place on a sound basis.
82. The Court notes that Cameroon and Nigeria agree that the land
boundary between their respective territories froni Lake Chad onwards
has already been delimited, partly by the Thomson-Marchand Declara-359 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
rée, selonle cas, par la déclaration Thomson-Marchand incorporée dans
l'échange de notes Henderson-Fleuriau de 1931, par l'Ordre en conseil
britannique de 1946, et par les accords anglo-allemands des 11 mars et
12 avril 1913. La Cour constate également que, à l'exception des dispo-
sitions relatives à Bakassi contenues dans les articles XVIII et suivants de
l'accord anglo-allemand du 11 mars 1913, le Cameroun et le Nigéria
reconnaissent l'un comme l'autre la validité des quatre instruments juri-
diques susmentionnés qui ont opéré cette délimitation. La Cour n'aura
dèslors pas à examiner plus avant ces questions, s'agissant du secteur de
la frontière allant du lac Tchad au point décrit il'article XVII inJine de
l'accord anglo-allemand de mars 1913. Elle aura en revanche à revenir
sur celles-ci en ce qui concerne le secteur de la frontière terrestre située
au-delà de ce point, dans la partie de son arrêtconsacrée à la presqu'île
de Bakassi (voir paragraphes 193-225ci-dessous).
83. Indépendamment des questions qui viennent d'êtreévoquées, un
problème a continué à diviser les Parties au sujet de la frontière terrestre.
Ce problème a trait à la nature et à l'étendue du rôle que la Cour est
appeléeà jouer quant aux secteurs de la frontière terrestre dont les Par-
ties ont débattu à différents stades de la procédure, au motif soit que les
instruments de délimitation pertinents seraient défectueux, soit que l'inter-
prétation de ceux-ci prêteraità discussion. Si la Cour a certes pu noter
que les positions des Parties en la matière ont connu une évolution
notable et se sont nettement rapprochées au cours de la procédure, les
Parties semblent êtrerestées diviséessur la question de savoir quelle doit
êtrela mission exacte de la Cour à cet égard.
84. Les Parties ont abondamment discuté de la différence entre déli-
mitation et démarcation et de la possibilitépour la Cour d'effectuer l'une
ou l'autre de ces opérations. Comme la Cour a eu l'occasion de le relever
dans l'affaire du Dqférend territorial (Jurnuhiriyu uruhe 1ihyennelTchad)
(C.I.J. Recueil 1994, p. 28, par. 56), la délimitation d'une frontière
consiste en sa ((définitio»,tandis que la démarcation d'une frontière, qui
présuppose la délimitation préalable de celle-ci, consiste en son aborne-
ment sur le terrain. En l'espèce, lesParties ont reconnu l'existence et la
validité des instruments dont l'objet était d'opérerla délimitation entre
leurs territoires respectifs; par ailleurs, les deux Parties ont insistéà de
multiples reprises sur le fait qu'elles ne demandaient pas à la Cour de
procéder à des opérations de démarcation, celles-ci devant êtreeffectuées
par leurs propres soins à un stade ultérieur. La tâche de la Cour n'est
donc ni de procéder à une délimitation de novo de la frontière, ni de
démarquer celle-ci.
85. La tâche dont le Cameroun a saisi la Cour aux termes de sa
requêteest de ((préciserdé$nitivernent» (les italiques sont de la Cour) le
tracé de la frontière terrestre tel qu'il a étéfixédans les instruments de
délimitation pertinents. La frontière terrestre ayant étédélimitéepar dif-
férentsinstruments juridiques, iléchetcertes, aux fins de préciser défini-
tivement son tracé, de confirmer que ces instruments lient les Parties ettion incorporated in the Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes of 1931,
partly by the British(Orderin Council of 2 August 1946and partly by the
Anglo-German Agreements of 11 March and 12 April 1913. The Court
likewise notes that, with the exception of the provisions concerning
Bakassi contained in Articles XVIII et seq. of the Anglo-German Agree-
ment of 11 March 1913, Cameroon and Nigeria both accept the validity
of the four above-mentioned legal instruments which effected this delimi-
tation. The Court will therefore not be required 10 address these issues
further in relation to the sector of the boundary from Lake Chad to the
point defined infine linArticle XVII of the Anglo-German Agreement of
March 1913. The Court will, however, have to return to them in regard
to the sectoi-of the land boundary situated beyond that point, in the part
of its Judgment dealing with the Bakassi Peninsu1.i (see paragraphs 193-
225 below).
83. Independently of the issues which have just been mentioned, a
problem has continued to divide the Parties in regard to the land bound-
ary. It concerns the nature and extent of the role which the Court is
called upon to play in relation to the sectors of the land boundary in
respect of which there has been disagreement between the Parties at vari-
ous stages of the proceedings, either on the ground that the relevant
instruments of delimitation were claimed to be dcfective or because the
interpretation of those instruments was disputed. The Court notes that,
while the positions of the Parties on this issue have undergone a signifi-
cant change and have clearly become closer in the course of the proceed-
ings, they still appear unable to agree on what the Court's precise task
should be in this reg,ard.
84. The Parties have devoted lengthy arguments to the difference
between delimitation and demarcation and to the Court's power to carry
out one or other of these operations. As the Court had occasion to state
in the case concerning the Territorial Dispute (Lilyun Arab Jumahiriyul
Chad) (1C..J. Reporls 1994, p. 28, para. 56), the dr-limitation of a bound-
ary consists in its "definition", whereas the demarcation of a boundary,
which presupposes its prior delimitation, consists of operations marking
it out on the ground. In the present case, the Parties have acknowledged
the existence and validity of the instruments whosr: purpose was to effect
the delimitation between their respective territmies; moreover, both
Parties have insisted time and again that they are riot asking the Court to
carry out demarcation operations, for which they themselves will be
responsible at a latei: stage. The Court's task is thus neither to effecta
delimitation de novo of the boundary nor to demarcate it.
85. The task which Cameroon referred to the Court in its Application
is "to specijy definitlvely" (emphasis added by the Court) the course of
the land boundary as fixed by the relevant instruments of delimitation.
Since the land bouridary has already been deliniited by various legal
instruments, it is indeed necessary, in order to specify its course defini-
tively, to confirm that those instruments are binding on the Parties and360 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
sont applicables. Toutefois, contrairemenà ce que le Cameroun a laissé
entendre à certains stades de la procédure,la Cour ne saurait remplir la
mission qui lui a été confiée el'espèce ens'en tenantà une telle confir-
mation. En effet, dès lors que le contenu mêmede ces instruments fait
l'objet d'un différendentre les Parties, la Cour, pour préciser définitive-
ment le tracé dela frontière en question, doit nécessairementse pencher
plus avant sur ceux-ci. Le différendqui oppose le Cameroun et le Nigéria
sur certains points de la frontière terrestre entre le lac Tchad et Bakassi
ne consiste en réalité en riend'autre qu'en un différendsur l'interpréta-
tion ou l'application de tel ou tel passage des instruments de délimitation
de cette frontière. C'estce différendque la Cour s'attachera maintenant
trancher.
86. A cet effet, la Cour examinera successivementchacun des points en
litige sur la frontière terrestre allant du lac Tchad la presqu'île de
Bakassi. Elle les dénommera de la manière suivante: 1) Limani; 2) la
rivièreKeraua (Kirewa ou Kirawa); 3) la rivièreKohom; 4) la ligne de
partage des eaux de Ngosi à Humsiki (Roumsiki)/Kamale/Turu (les
monts Mandara); 5)du mont Kuli à BourhaIMaduguva (la ligne erronée
de partage des eaux de la carteoisel); 6) Kotcha (Koja); 7)la source de
la rivièreTsikakiri; 8)de la borne frontière6 à Wammi Budungo; 9) le
Maio Senche; 10) Jimbare et Sapeo; 11) Nomberou (Namberou)-Bang-
lang; 12)Tipsan; 13)le franchissement du Mayo Yim; 14)la région des
monts Hambere; 15) des monts Hambere à la rivière Mburi (Lip et
Yang); 16) Bissaula-Tosso; 17) la rivièreSama. Par souci de clarté,ces
points seront abordés selon leur ordre d'apparition sur une ligne nord-
sud suivant le cours de la frontière terrestre depuis le lac Tchad vers la
mer comme indiquésur le croquis général ci-joint (voir ci-aprè,. 361, le
croquis no3). De même,par commodité,les paragraphes pertinents de la
déclaration Thomson-Marchand et de l'Ordre en conseil de 1946 seront
reproduits préalablement à la discussion desdits points. En outre, dans la
mesure du possible, là où elle le jugera utile, la Cour accompagnera ses
décisionssur lespoints en litige de croquis illustratifs ou de cartes. Elle se
référera enfin la question de la borne 64 eàdes points supplémentaires
de la frontière terrestre que les Parties ont discutés.
Limani
87. Les paragraphes 13 et 14 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand
fixent la frontière comme suit:
«13) Ensuite continuant, elle rencontre le lit d'une rivière mieux
marquée à travers les marais de Kuludjia et Kodo jusqu'à un marais
nommé Agzabam. LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 360
are applicable. However, contrary to what Camzroon appeared to be
arguing at certain stages in the proceedings, the Court cannot fulfil the
task entrusted to it in this case by limiting itself to such confirmation.
Thus, when the actual content of these instrumenis is the subject of dis-
pute between the Parties, the Court, in order to specify the course of the
boundary in question definitively,is bound to examine them more closely.
The dispute between Cameroon and Nigeria ove1 certain points on the
land boundary between Lake Chad and Bakassi is in reality simply a dis-
pute over the interpretation or application of particular provisions of the
instruments delimitirig that boundary. It is this dispute which the Court
will now endeavour itosettle.
86. For this purpose, the Court will consider in succession each of the
points in dispute along the land boundary from Lake Chad to the
Bakassi Peninsula, designating them as follows: (1) Limani; (2) the Ker-
aua (Kirewa or Kirawa) River; (3) the Kohom Rlver; (4) the watershed
from Ngosi to Humsiki (Roumsiki)lKamale/Turu (the Mandara Moun-
tains); (5) from Mount Kuli to BourhaIMaduguva (incorrect watershed
line on Moisel's map); (6) Kotcha (Koja); (7) source of the Tsikakiri
River; (8)from Beacon 6 to Wamni Budungo; (9) Maio Senche; (10)Jim-
bare and Sapeo; (11) Noumberou-Banglang; (12) Tipsan; (13) crossing
the Maio Yin; (14) the Hambere Range area; (15) from the Hambere
Range to the Mburi River (Lip and Yang); (16) Bissaula-Tosso; (17) the
Sama River. For the sake of clarity, these poiiits will be dealt with
according to theirortler of appearance along a north-south line following
the course of the land boundary from Lake Chad towards the sea as indi-
cated on the attachetl general sketch-map (see below, p. 361, sketch-map
No. 3). Likewise, for the sake of convenience, the relevant paragraphs of
the Thomson-Marchand Declaration and the 1046 Order in Council
will be set out in full before the discussion of each point. In addition,
wherever possible, the Court will accompany its tlecisions on the points
in dispute with illusitrative sketches or maps.Lastly it will address the
question of pillar 64 and additional points on the land border that have
been discussed by the Parties.
87. Paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
determine the boundary as follows :
"13. Thence ,going on and meeting the bed of a better defined
stream crossing the marsh of Kulujia and Kodo as far as a marsh
named Agzabame.Les pointsen litige entrele
N.BCe cmqwsattSbli LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 361
INDEX 1
1 Limani
2 KcrauaRivcr
3 KohomRiver
4 NgositoHumsiki
- BritishOrderinof2Augusr1946the 12O-
5 Mt.Kuli to Bourha Scctofthc landbodclimibythc
6 Kotcha ---- AngloGcrmAgrccmcntsoMarcand 12
April1913
7 SourceoftheTsikakui 2, i
FromBeaconNo. 6 il0-
toWarnnB i udungo 3,
I 40
9 1MaioSenche
101JimbareandSa~eo 1 5.
131CrossinnofMaio Yin 1
141TheHambereRangem:a 1
FromtheHambereRange
totheMburiRiver
171SamaRiver 1
SKETCH-MAPNO.3
Pointsin Disputebeîween
LakeCliadandBakassi
Yeninsula
N.B.Thissketcbeeprrpiusd
Toillushpurpowsonly362 FRONTIERE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
14) Ensuite traversant ce maraisà l'endroit où il est rejoint par une
rivièrepassant dans levoisinagedu villagede Limanti (Limani),jusqu'à
un confluent situéàenviron 2 kilomètresau nord-ouest dece village.»
88. Le Nigéria observe que, entre le marais d'Agzabam et la ville
moderne de Banki qui se trouve à 3 kilomètresau nord-ouest de Limani,
la rivièrementionnéeau paragraphe 14de la déclarationThomson-Mar-
chand comporte en réalitéquatre bras. Le Nigéria propose de suivre le
bras qui se trouve le plus au sud. Ce bras, qui ne figure pas sur la feuille
((Ybiri N.W.» de la carte au 1150000du Nigériaétabliepar le Directo-
rate of Overseas Surveys (DOS), apparaîtrait toutefois, selon le Nigéria,
sur la photographie aériennede la région qu'ila présentée. Lebras sud de
la rivièrecorrespondrait àla ligne frontière indiquéesur un croquis signé
en 1921 par des fonctionnaires français et britannique et fixant la fron-
tière provisoireà 300 mètres environ au nord de Limani et au sud de
Narki. Le Nigériaajoute que le bras ainsi choisi rejoint bien, comme le
prévoit le paragraphe 14 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand, un
confluent à 2 kilomètres au nord-ouest de Limani.
89. Le Cameroun reconnaît que «[l]e problèmeconsiste en la détermi-
nation de la rivièrequi part du marais d'Agzabam, passe dans le voisi-
Limani et rejoint un confluent situéà 2 kilomètresau nord-ouest
nage de
de ce village)).II propose que la frontière suive le deuxièmebrasàpartir
du nord. Selon le Cameroun, le Nigéria inventerait en effet des bras de
rivièreinexistants puisque le bras proposépar ce dernier ne figure pas sur
lescartes qu'il a lui-mêmesoumises. Quant au croquisde 1921,il n'aurait
aucun statut juridique et confirmerait en tout état de cause le point de
vue du Cameroun. Le Cameroun précise enfinque, «[s]ur le terrain, le
lamido de Limani au Cameroun administre les populations de Narki)).
90. La Cour constate que, dans la régionde Limani, l'interprétationde
la déclarationThomson-Marchand soulèvedes difficultés.En effet, alors
que la déclaration ne se réfèredans cette zone qu'à(une rivière)),il existe
plusieurs bras de rivièreentre le marais'Agzabam et le ((confluentsitué
à environ 2 kilomètres au nord-ouest [du village de Limanti (Limani)] >)
(par. 14de la déclaration).
Une étude attentive du texte de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand
ainsi que des cartes et du matériau fournis par les Parties a amené la
Cour aux conclusions suivantes. Tout d'abord, la Cour observe que le
deuxièmebras à partir du nord, préconisépar le Cameroun pour le tracé
de la frontière, ne saurait êtreretenu. Ce bras ne satisfait pas aux prévi-
sions du paragraphe 14 de la déclaration, car, d'une part, son éloigne-
ment du village de Limani ne permet pas de le considérer, dans le
contexte du paragraphe 14 de la déclaration, comme «passant dans le
voisinage)) de cette localitéet, d'autre part, son confluent est situéau
nord-nord-est du village et non au «nord-ouest».
Le bras méridional proposépar le Nigériapose d'autres problèmes.Sa
proximitétout à fait immédiate aveclevillage de Limani ainsi que sa cor-
respondance apparente avec le croquis signéen 1921 par des fonction- 14. Thence crossing this marsh where it reaches a river passing
quite close to the village of Limanti (Limaiii) to a confluence at
about 2 kilometres to the north-west of this \.illage."
88. Nigeria observes that between the Agzat~ame Marsh and the
modern town of Banki, which lies 3 km north-west of Limani, the river
referred to in paragraph 14 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration in
fact has four channels. Nigeria advocates folloming the southernmost
channel. It claims that this channel, which does not appear on sheet
"Ybiri N.W." of the 1 :50,000 map of Nigeria prcpared by the Directo-
rate of Overseas Surveys (DOS), is shown on the acrial photograph of the
area submitted by it. It contends that the southern channel of the river
corresponds to the boundary line shown on a sketch-map signed in 1921
by French and Britiish officials which fixed the provisional boundary
some 300 m north of Limani and south of Narki. It points out that this
channel does indeed flow to a confluence 2 km north-west of Limani, as
stated in paragraph 14of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration.
89. Cameroon acknowledges that "[tlhe problem lies in determining
the stream which flows out of the Agzabame marsh, passes quite close to
Limani and flows to a confluence at 2 km to the north-west of this vil-
lage". It argues that the boundary should follow the second channel from
the north. According to Cameroon, Nigeria is ~nventing non-existent
river channels, since the channel it proposes does not appear on its own
maps; as for the 192 1sketch-map, it has no legal status and in any event
confirms Cameroon's view. Finally, Cameroon points out that "[oln the
ground, the Lamido of Limani in Cameroon governs the inhabitants of
Narki".
90. The Court notes that in the Limani area the interpretation of the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration raises difficulties. The Declaration
simply refers to "a river" in this area, whereas there are in fact several
river channels between the Agzabame marsh and the "confluence at about
2 kilometres to the north-west [of the village of Limanti (Limani)]"
(para. 14 of the Declaration).
A careful study of the wording of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
and of the map andi other evidence provided by the Parties leads the
Court to the followirigconclusions. In the first place, the Court observes
that the second charinel from the north, proposed by Cameroon as the
course of the bounda.ry, is unacceptable. That channel does not meet the
requirements of paragraph 14 of the Declaration, on the one hand
because its distance from the village of Limani precludes it from being
regarded, in the context of paragraph 14of the Declaration, as "passing
quite close" to Limani and, on the other, becausc its confluence is situ-
ated to the north-north-east of the village and not to the "north-west".
The southern charinel proposed by Nigeria poses other problems. Its
immediate proximity to the villageof Limani and its apparent correspon-
dence with the sketch-map signed by French and British administrators363 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
naires des administrations française et britannique ne font pas de doute.
Ce bras ne figure toutefois sur aucune carte. Par ailleurs, un examen sté-
réoscopiquedes photographies aériennesde la régionmontre que, s'ilexiste
bien un cours d'eau trèsmodeste qui joint la rivièreNgassaoua au point
indiqué par le Nigéria, ce cours d'eau est tréscourt et s'arrête rapide-
ment, bien avant le marais d'Agzabam, ce qui est incompatible avec le
texte du paragraphe 13de la déclarationThomson-Marchand.Ce modeste
cours d'eau coule par ailleurs beaucoup plus prèsde Narki que ne le sug-
gérele Nigéria.La Cour ne saurait dèslors pas davantage retenir ce bras.
La Cour constate en revanche qu'il existe un autre bras de la rivière,
appeléNargo sur la feuille «Ybiri N.W.» de la carte DOS reproduite à la
page 23 de l'atlas annexé à la duplique du Nigeria, qui remplit les condi-
tions posées parla déclaration Thomson-Marchand. Ce bras part en effet
du marais d'Agzabam, passe au nord de la localitéde Narki et au sud de
la localitéde Tarmoa, coule non loin de Limani, et aboutità un confluent
qui se situeà peu près à 2 kilomètres au nord-ouest de Limani. La Cour
considéredèslors qu'il s'agitlà du bras qui étaitvisépar les rédacteurs de
la déclaration Thomson-Marchand.
91. En conséquence, la Cour conclut que la «rivière» viséeau para-
graphe 14de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand est le bras coulant entre
Narki et Tarmoa et que la frontière partant du marais d'Agzabam doit
suivre ce bras jusqu'a son confluent avec la rivière Ngassaoua (voir ci-
après, p. 364, le croquis n04).
La rivi2re Keraua (Kirewa ou Kirawa)
92. Le paragraphe 18 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand fixe la
frontière comme suit:
«18) Ensuite suivant la rivièreKeraua jusqu'à son confluent, dans
la montagne, avec une rivière venant de l'ouest et connue par les
habitants de Kiridis sous le nom de Kohom (désignéesur la carte
Moisel sous le nom de Gatagule), coupant en deux le village de
Keraua et séparant les deux villages de Ishigasja. »
93. Le Nigéria soutient que le paragraphe 18 de la déclarationThom-
son-Marchand «est défectueu[x]parce que la rivièreKeraua (aujourd'hui
la Kirawa) a deux bras dans cette région etque la déclarationThomson-
Marchand ne donne aucune indication permettant de savoir lequel de ces
bras constitue la frontière)).Selon lui, la frontière devrait suivre le chenal
oriental qui est continu et nettement définipar opposition au chenal occi-
dental, comme le montrent la carte au 1150000jointe par le Nigériaa sa
duplique ainsi que les photographies aériennes de1963.LeNigéria dément
que ce chenal soit artificiel et ajoute que la carte Moisel situe en territoire
nigérian deuxvillages dénommésSchriweet Ndeba qui correspondent aux
villages actuels de Chérivéet Ndabakora situésentre les deux branches.
94. Le Cameroun affirme quant a lui que «[l]e problème vient du faitin 1921 are not in doubt. However, this channel does not appear on any
map. Moreover, a stereoscopic examination of the aerial photographs of
the area shows that, while there is indeed a small watercourse running
from the Ngassaoua River to the point indicated by Nigeria, it is very
short and quickly peters out, well before the Agzabame marsh, which
is incompatible with the wording of paragraph 13 of the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration. This small watercourse also runs much closer to
Narki than Nigeria suggests. The Court cannot therefore accept this
channel either.
The Court notes, however, that the river has aiiother channel, called
Nargo on DOS sheet "Ybiri N.W.", reproduced at page 23 of the atlas
annexed to Nigeria's Rejoinder, which meets th(: conditions specified
in the Thomson-Marchand Declaration. This chaiinel does indeed start
from the Agzabame marsh, passes to the north of Narki and to the south
of Tarmoa, runs not far from Limani and reaches a confluence which is
about 2 km north-west of Limani. The Court therefore considers that this
is the channel to which the drafters of the Thomson-Marchand Declara-
tion were referring.
91. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the "river" mentioned in
paragraph 14 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration is the channel
running between Narki and Tarmoa, and that from the Agzabame marsh
the boundary must follow that channel to its confluence with the
Ngassaoua River (see below, p. 364, sketch-map No. 4).
The Keraua (Kirewu or Kirawu) River
92. Paragraph 18 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration determines
the boundary as follows :
"18. Thence following the Keraua as far as its confluence in the
mountains with a river coming from the West and known by the
'Kirdis' inhabiting the mountains under the name of Kohom (shown
on Moisel's map under the name of Gatagule), cutting into two parts
the village of Keraua and separating the two villages of Ishigashiya."
93. Nigeria maintains that paragraph 18 of the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration "is defeciive in that there are in this area two courses of the
Keraua (now Kirawa) River, and the Thomson-hlarchand Declaration
provides no guidance as to which channel forms the boundary". In its
opinion, the boundary should follow the eastern channel, which is con-
tinuous and well-defiried,in contrast to the western channel, as shown by
the 1 50,000 map included by it in its Rejoinder and by the 1963 aerial
photographs. Nigeria denies that this is an artificial channel and adds
that Moisel's map places on Nigerian territory two villagescalled Schriwe
and Ndeba, correspclnding to the present-day villages of Chérivéand
Ndabakora, situated between the two channels.
94. Cameroon for its part asserts that "[tlhe problem arises from theN.B.CecmquYlaCiCétabli SKETCH-MA PO.4
Limani
N.Bforillustmtivïpurpm ailyardque le cours de la rivièreKerawa a été dévip éar le Nigériaqui a construit
un chenal artificiel aux environs du village de Gange détournant les eaux
de la Kerawa afin de déplacerle lit de la rivière etpar conséquentle tracé
de la frontière)). Le Cameroun soutient dès lors que la frontière devrait
passer par le chenal occidental, qui est le cours normal de la rivière,
mêmesi celui-ciest temporairement asséchépar suitede ce détournement
des eaux. Le Cameroun ajoute à ce propos que le village de Chérivé
n'existe plus sur le terrain et qu'il administre paisiblement cette région.
95. La Cour constate que, dans la régionde la rivièreKeraua (Kirewa
ou Kirawa), l'interprétation du paragraphe 18de la déclarationThomson-
Marchand soulèvedes difficultésd ,ans la mesure où letexte de cettedisposi-
tion se contente de faire passer la frontière par «la rivière))Keraua, alors
que la rivière est divisée cetndroit en deux chenaux: un chenal occidental
et un chenal oriental. La tâche de la Cour consistera donc a identifier le
chenal par lequel la déclaration Thomson-Marchand faitpasser la frontière.
La Cour a tout d'abord examinél'argument avancépar le Cameroun,
selon lequel le cours de la rivière Keraua aurait étédéviépar le Nigéria,
du fait de la construction par celui-ci d'un chenal artificiel aux environs
du village de Gange. La Cour estime que le Cameroun n'a pas apporté la
preuve de ses allégations sur ce point. Les matériaux cartographiques et
photographiques dont elle dispose ne lui ont pas non plus permis de
confirmer l'existence de travaux de détournement du cours de la rivière
au niveau de Gange.
La Cour ne saurait par ailleurs accueillir l'argument du Nigéria selon
lequel le chenal oriental doit êtrepréférau motif qu'il serait plus impor-
tant et mieux définique le chenal occidental. Les photographies aériennes
de la régionque la Cour a étudiéesmontrent en effet que les deux che-
naux sont d'une importance comparable.
La Cour constate, en revanche, que la carte Moisel fait passer la fron-
tière, comme le relèvele Nigéria, juste il'est de deux villages dénommés
Schriwe et Ndeba, qui se trouvent à l'emplacement actuel des villages de
Chérivéet Ndabakora, et qu'elle laisse en territoire nigérian.Or, seul le
chenal oriental remplit cette condition.
96. La Cour en conclut que le paragraphe 18de la déclaration Thom-
son-Marchand doit être interprété comme faisantpasser la frontière par
le chenal oriental de la rivièreKeraua.
La rivière Kohorn
97. Le paragraphe 19 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand fixe la
frontière comme suit:
((19) Ensuite la frontière, partant de ce confluent, atteint le som-
met de la montagne Ngosi dans la direction du sud-ouest donnéepar
le cours du Kohom (Gatagule), qui est pris comme frontière natu-
relle, de son confluent jusqu'a sa source dans les monts Ngosi; les LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 365
fact that Nigeria has dug an artificial channel in the vicinity of the village
of Gange, changing the Kerawa's course and diverting its waters in order
to move the riverbed and, as a consequence, the course of the boundary".
Cameroon therefore maintains that the boundary should be the western
channel, which is the normal course of the river, even though it has tem-
porarily dried up as a result of the diversion of tlie waters. It adds that
the village of Chérivéno longer exists on thegrouiid and that Cameroon
peacefully administers thisarea.
95. The Court notes that, in the area of the Keraua (Kirewa or
Kirawa) River, the interpretation of paragraph 18 of the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration raises difficulties, since the wording of this provi-
sion merely makes tlhe boundary follow "the Keraua", whereas at this
point that river splits into two channels: aestern channel and an east-
ern channel. The Court's task is thus to identify the channel which the
boundary is to follov~pursuant to the Thomson-Marchand Declaration.
The Court has firsf examined Cameroon's argument that the course of
the Keraua River ha:; been diverted by Nigeria as a result of an artificial
channel constructed by it in the vicinity of the village of Gange. The
Court considers that Cameroon has provided no evidence of its asser-
tions on this point. Nor has thecartographic and photographic material
in the Court's possession enabled it to confirm the existence of works to
divert the course of the river near Gange.
Neither can the Court accept Nigeria's argumentthat preference should
be given to the eastern channel because it is broader and better defined
than the western chai~nel,since the aerial photographs of the area which
the Court has studied show that the two channels are comparable in size.
The Court notes, however, that according to the Moisel map the
boundary runs, as Nigeria maintains, just to tht: east of two villages
called Schriwe and Ndeba, which are on the site now occupied by
the villages of Chérivéand Ndabakora, and which the map places on
Nigerian territory. Only the eastern channel meets this condition.
96. The Court accordingly concludes that paragraph 18 of the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration must be interpreted as providing
for the boundary to l'ollowthe eastern channel of the Keraua River.
The Kohom River
97. Paragraph 19 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration determines
the boundary as follows :
"19. Thence it runs from this confluence as far as the top of
Mount Ngosi in a south-westerly direction given by the course of the
Kohom (Gatag~ile) which is taken as the natural boundary from
its confluence as far as its source in Mount Ngosi; the villages of villages de Matagum et de Hidjie étant attribués à la France et les
quartiers de Uledde et de Laherre, au nord de Kohom, à l'Angle-
terre. Les quartiers de Tchidoui (Hiduwe) situésau nord de Kohom
sont attribuésa la France.))
98. Le Nigériasoutient que le paragraphe 19de la déclarationThom-
son-Marchand «est défectueu[x]car [il] présumeque la rivière Kohom
prend sa source dans le mont Ngosi D, ce qui ne serait pas le cas. Le Nigé-
ria explique que les rédacteurs dela déclarationThomson-Marchand ont
fait une erreur en pensant que le Kohom était l'affluent de la rivière
Keraua coulant vers le nord-est a partir du mont Ngosi, un mont que le
Nigéria estime clairement identifiable.Cette erreur proviendrait d'un cro-
quis, établien mars 1926par des fonctionnaires des administrations bri-
tannique et française, qui aurait été utilisépour rédiger ladéclaration
Thomson-Marchand. Selon le Nigéria «la rivière qui prend sa source
dans le mont Ngosi est la Bogaza)). Le Kohom est bien un affluent de la
Keraua, admet le Nigéria,mais qui trouve sa source beaucoup plus au
nord. Il propose dèslors que la frontière remonte le Kohom, tel qu'il l'a
identifié, vers sasource, «jusqu'à l'endroit le plus proche du point ou la
rivière Bogaza opèreun virage brutal vers le sud-est»,puis qu'elle suivele
cours de la Bogaza jusqu'au mont Ngosi.
99. Le Cameroun soutient pour sa part que les monts Ngosi consti-
tuent une chaîne de montagne et non un sommet déterminé,si bien que
tant la rivièreKohom que la rivière Bogaza y prendraient leur source. Le
Cameroun estime que «[l]es termes de la déclaration [Thomson-Mar-
chand] sont assez clairs pour identifier la rivière que les Kirdis (Mata-
kams) dénomment Kohom dans la zone)). Cette rivière se situerait au
nord du cours d'eau que le NigériadénommeKohom.
100. La Cour constate que le paragraphe 19de la déclarationThom-
son-Marchand pose tout d'abord le problème de l'identification du cours
de la riviéreKohom, par lequel doit passer la frontière. Aprèsune étude
minutieuse du matériaucartographique àsa disposition, la Cour est arri-
vée a la conclusion que, ainsi que l'affirmele Nigéria, c'est bien la rivière
Bogaza qui prend sa source dans le mont Ngosi, et non la rivièreKohom.
La question de savoir si le texte de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand
doit être compris commese référanta un mont Ngosi ou à des monts
Ngosi au pluriel n'est pas pertinente en l'espèce,dans la mesure où, quel
que soit le cours du Kohom indiquépar les Parties, cette rivièrene trouve
pas sa source dans les environs de ce mont. La tâche de la Cour est donc
de déterminerquel est le tracé queles rédacteurs dela déclarationThom-
son-Marchand ont entendu donner à la frontière dans cette région enla
faisant passer par une rivièredénommée «Kohom)).
101. Afin de localiser le cours du Kohom, la Cour s'est tout d'abord
penchéesur le texte de la déclarationThomson-Marchand. La lecture de
celui-ci ne s'est pas révéléeéterminante. Ainsi, la Cour n'a pas été en
mesure de retrouver, sur l'ensemble descartes fournies par les Parties, un
seul des villages et quartiers visésau paragraphe 19de la déclaration.De Matagum and 1-Iijiebeing left to France, and the sections of Uledde
and of Laherre situated to the north of the Kohom to England; those
of Tchidoui (Hiiduwe)situated to the south of Kohom to France."
98. Nigeria contends that paragraph 19 of the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration "is defective in that it assumes that the River Kohom has its
source in Mount Ngossi", which it alleges is not the case. It explains that
the drafters of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration were mistaken in
believing the Kohoni to be the Keraua (Kirawa) River tributary flowing
north-easterly from Mount Ngosi, a mountain which, in Nigeria's view,
is readily identifiable. It contends that this mistakc derives from a sketch-
map prepared in March 1926by British and French colonial officialsand
used in the preparation of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration. Accord-
ing to Nigeria, "the river which rises on Mount Ngossi is the Bogaza
River". Nigeria acki~owledgesthat the Kohom is indeed a tributary of
the Keraua, but one which rises well to the north. It therefore proposes
that the boundary should follow the Kohom, as Nigeria has identified it,
to its source "neareat to the point at which the Bogaza River makes its
abrupt turn to the south-east", and then follow the course of the Bogaza
to Mount Ngosi.
99. For its part, (Cameroon maintains that the Ngosi is a mountain
chain, not a single peak, and that both the Kohom and Bogaza Rivers
have their sources there. Cameroon believes that "[tlhe terms of the
[Thomson-Marchand] Declaration are sufficiently clear to identify the
river which the Kirdis (Matakams) cal1the Kohom in the area". It con-
siders that this river lies to the north of the watt:rcourse which Nigeria
has identified as the Kohom.
100. The Court notes that the initial problem posed by paragraph 19
of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration consists in the identification of
the course of the River Kohom, along which the boundary is to pass.
After a detailed study of the map evidence available to it, the Court has
reached the conclusion that, as Nigeria contends, it is indeed the River
Bogaza which has it:;source in Mount Ngosi, and not the River Kohom.
The question whether the text of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
must be taken as referring to a single Mount Ngosi or to the Ngosi
Mountains in the plural is irrelevant here,since, irrespective of the course
of the Kohom indicated by the Parties, that river cloesnot have its source
in the vicinity of Mount Ngosi. The Court's task is accordingly to deter-
mine where the drafters of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration intended
the boundary to run in this area when they descr~bedit as following the
course of a river callled"Kohom".
101. In order to locate the course of the Kohom, the Court has first
examined the text of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration. which has not
provided a decisive answer. Thus the Court has been unable to find, on
any of the inaps provided by the Parties, a single one of the villages and
localities mentioned in paragraph 19 of the Declaration. Likewise, the367 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
même, lamention selon laquelle, en vertu du paragraphe 18 de la décla-
ration, la frontière emprunte la rivière Kohom à partir d'un endroit ou
elle croise la Keraua ((dans la montagne)) n'a pas davantage permis de
localiser le cours du Kohom, compte tenu en particulier de ce que ni le
tracé proposépar le Cameroun, ni celui présentépar le Nigéria necor-
respondent à une telle mention.
La Cour a, partant, dû avoir recours à d'autres moyens d'interpréta-
tion. Elle a ainsi étudié attentivementle croquis, établi en mars 1926par
des fonctionnaires français et britannique, qui a servi de baseàla rédac-
tion des paragraphes 18 et 19 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand.
Comme l'a rappeléle Nigériadans sa duplique, ce croquis démontre en
effet quelle était l'intention des partiei l'époque,lorsqu'elles faisaient
étatde la rivièreKohom. Ledit croquis est tout particulièrement utile en
ce qu'il comporte des indications trèsclaires sur le relief de la régionet la
direction de la rivière, indications que la Cour a pu comparer avec les
cartes fournies par les Parties. La Cour est en mesure de déterminer, sur
la base de cette comparaison, que le cours du Kohom par lequel la décla-
ration Thomson-Marchand fait passer la frontière est celui indiquépar le
Cameroun. A cet égard, la Cour relève tout d'abord que le croquis de
1926indique de manière fort prononcée,juste un peu avant que la fron-
tièren'oblique brutalement vers le sud, un affluent qui descend du mont
Kolika et qui rejoint le cours du Kohom. Cet affluent se retrouve sur la
rivière identifiéeDar le Cameroun comme étantle Kohom. mais non sur
celle choisie par le Nigéria.La Cour tient ensuite à faire observer que le
croquis de 1926indique très clairement que la frontière passe au nord des
monts Matakam, ce que fait la ligne réclaméepar le Cameroun, alors que
celle prônéepar le Nigéria passenettement au sud de ces monts.
La Cour relèvetoutefois que la lignefrontièreréclamée par le Cameroun
dans cette régionva au-delà de la source de la rivière qu'ellea identifiée
comme étantle Kohom. De même,la Cour ne saurait faire abstraction du
fait que la déclaration Thomson-Marchand prévoitexplicitement que la
frontière doit passerpar une rivièrequi prend sa source dans lemont Ngosi.
Afin de respecter la déclaration Thomson-Marchand, il échet dèslors
d'assurer la jonction entre la source de la rivièreKohom, telle qu'identifiée
par la Cour, et la rivière Bogaza,qui prend sa source dans le mont Ngosi.
102. En conséquence, la Cour conclut qu'il convient d'interpréter le
paragraphe 19de la déclarationThomson-Marchand comme faisant passer
la frontièrepar la rivièreKohom, telle que la Cour l'aidentifiée,squ'à sa
source situéepar 13'44'24" de longitude est et 10°59'09"de latitude nord
puis, de ce point, par une ligne droite orientéevers le sud et rejoignant le
mont marqué à une altitude de 861 mètres sur la carte au 1150000consti-
tuant la figure7.8 en regard de la page 334 de la duplique du Nigéria -
mont situépar 13'45'45" de longitude est etIO059'45"de latitude nord -,
avant de suivre le cours de la rivière Bogazadans la direction sud-ouest
jusqu'au sommet du mont Ngosi (voir ci-après,p. 368,le croquis n05).provision in paragralph 18of the Declaration that the boundary is to fol-
low the course of the River Kohom from its confluence "in the moun-
tains" with the Keraua has not enabled the Court to identify the course
of the Kohom, given in particular that neither the course proposed by
Cameroon,nor that :submittedby Nigeria, corresponds to such a descrip-
tion.
The Court has therefore had to have recourse to other means of inter-
pretation. Thus it has carefully examined the sketch-map prepared in
March 1926by the French and British officials which served as the basis
for the drafting of paragraphs 18and 19of the Thomson-Marchand Dec-
laration. As Nigeria pointed out in its Rejoinder this sketch-map does
indeed show what the intention of the Parties was at the time, when they
referred to the River Kohom. The sketch-map 1s particularly helpful,
since it includes very clear indications in regard to the relief of the area
and the direction of .theriver, which the Court has been able to compare
with the maps provided by the Parties. The Court is able to determine, on
the basis of this corriparison, that the Kohom whose course the Thom-
son-Marchand Declaration provides for the bouridary to follow is that
indicated by Cameroon.In this regard, the Court riotes first that the 1926
sketch-map indicates very clearly,just before the boundary turns sharply
to thesouth, a tributiary descending from Mount Kolika and flowing into
the Kohom. Such a tributary is to be found on the river identified by
Cameroon as the Kohom but not on that proposed by Nigeria. The
Court would further observe that the 1926sketch-map quite clearly indi-
cates that the boundiiry passes well to the north of the Matakam Moun-
tains, as does the line claimed by Cameroon, whr:reas that favoured by
Nigeria passes well tlothe south of those mountains.
The Court notes, however, that the boundary line claimed by Cam-
eroon in this area runs on past the source of the river which the Court
has identified as the Kohom. Nor can the Coi~rt disregard the fact
that the Thomson-Marchand Declaration expressly provides that the
boundary must follow a river which has its source in Mount Ngosi.
In order to comply with the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, it is
therefore necessary t'ojoin the source of the River Kohom, as identified
by the Court, to the River Bogaza, which rises on Mount Ngosi.
102. The Court ac'cordinglyconcludes that paragraph 19of the Thom-
son-Marchand Declaration should be interpreted as providing for the
boundary to follow the course of the River Kohom, as identified by the
Court, as far as its source at 13"44'24" longitudeeast and10" 59'09" lati-
tude north, and then to follow a straight line in a southerly direction until
it reaches the peak shown as having an elevation of 861 m on the
1 :50,000 map in Figure 7.8 at page 334 of Nigeria's Rejoinder and
located at 13O45'45"longitude east and 10"59'45'''latitude north, before
following the River Bogaza in a south-westerly direction as far as the
summit of Mount Ngosi (see below, p. 368, sketch-map No. 5). 11 02-
LarivièrKohom
N.B.CccmquiraWCtPbli
1Io01'-
O 1 2 3km
il0oa_ 4
P
mci
2
-10"59' 1o059'-
IO058'- h
ici
ici
V3'
1157' 1Io57'-
113"41' 113O42' 113"43' 11344' 13"45' 13"46' 1134T 113"48' 11349'La ligne de partage des eaux de Ngosi à Humsiki (Roumsiki)lKamalel
Turu (les monts Mandara)
103. Les paragraphes 20 a 24 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand
fixent la frontiere comme suit:
((20) Ensuite elleest déterminéepar une ligne ayant une direction
sud-ouest et qui suit la crêtedu massif du Ngosi, laissantla France
lesquartiers de Ngosi situéssur lespentes orientales etl'Angleterre
ceux situéssur le versant ouest,usqu'à un point situéentre la source
de la rivièreZimmunkara et la source de la rivièreDevurua; la ligne
de partage des eaux ainsi définielaissele villagedegelta à l'Angle-
terre et le village deru à la France.
21) Ensuite elle s'infléchitau sud-sud-ouest, laissant le village
de Dile en zone anglaise, celui de Libam en zone française, pour
atteindre la colline deatakam.
22) De là elle se dirige directementà l'ouestjusqu'à un point au
sud du village de Wisik ou elle s'infléchitdans la direction du sud en
empruntant la ligne de partage des eaux et franchit Mabas, sur le
côté français,puis quitteWula, sur le côte anglais, et continue dans
la direction du sud, limitéepar des cultures l'estde la ligne de par-
tage des eaux.
23) Ensuite, franchissant Humunsi sur le côté français,elle passe
entre les montagnes de Je1et Kamale Mogode, en zone française, et
suit la ligne de partage des eaux.
24) Passant Humsiki, la frontière traverse le mont Kuli, laissant
la France les terres cultivéesde la vallàel'ouest du village.))
104. Le Nigéria affirmeque les paragraphes 20 à 24 de la déclaration
Thomson-Marchand délimitent clairement la frontiere dans la région en
renvoyant àune ligne de partage des eaux et que celle-cidevrait donc être
suivie plutôt que la ligne proposéepar le Cameroun. Le Nigéria insiste
sur le fait que le village camerounais deTuru, qui devait se trouver en
territoire camerounais d'après la déclaration Thomson-Marchand, s'est
étendu en territoire nigérian.Il relèveégalementque la route camerou-
naise fait des incursions en territoire nigérianet que la carteproduite
par le Cameroun dans le volume II de sa réplique déplace lafrontière de
500 à 800 mètres versl'ouest, en territoire nigérian,dans tout ce secteur.
105. Le Cameroun soutient pour sa part que la controverse ((résulte
d'une divergence sur le report de la ligne de partage des eaux sur les
cartes)). Le Cameroun indique que la notion de ligne de partage des eaux
est complexe et qu'il est particulièrement difficile de fixer une telle ligne
le long d'un escarpement abrupt comme c'est le cas en l'espèce. Selonle
Cameroun, la ligne frontière qu'ila tracée suit bienla ligne de partage des
eaux, du moins jusqu'à proximité deHumsiki (ou Roumsiki). A partir de
ce point, la frontière s'écarte nécessairemendt e la ligne de partage des
eaux puisque, selon la déclaration Thomson-Marchand, elle doit traver- LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 369
The watershed from Ngosi to Humsiki (Roumsiki)lKamalelTuru
(the Mandara Mountains)
103. Paragraphs :!Oto 24 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
determine the boundary as follows:
"20. Thence on a line in a south-westerly direction following the
tops of the mountain range of Ngosi, leaving to France the parts of
Ngosi situated on the eastern slopes, and to lhgland the parts situ-
ated on the western slopes, to a point situated between the source of
the River Zimunkara and the source of the River Devurua; the
watershed so defined also leaves the village of Bugelta to England
and the village of Turu to France.
21. Thence in a south-south-westerly direction, leaving the village
of Dile on the Bi-itishside, the villageof Liban1on the French side to
the hi11of Matakam.
22. Thence running due Westto a point to the south of the village
of Wisik where it turns to the south on a line running along the
watershed and passing by Mabas on the French side, after which
it leavesWula on the English side running south and bounded by
cultivated land to the east of the line of the watershed.
23. Thence passing Humunsi on the French side the boundary lies
between the mountains of Jel and Kamale hlogode on the French
side and runninj: along the watershed.
24. Thence passing Humsiki, including the farmlands of the valley
to the west of the village on the French side. the boundary crosses
Mount Kuli."
104. Nigeria contends that paragraphs 20 to 24 of the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration clearly delimit the boundai-y in the area by refer-
ence to a watershed line and that this line should therefore be followed,
rather than the line proposed by Cameroon. It enlphasizes the fact that
the Cameroonian village of Turu, which the Thorrison-Marchand Decla-
ration places in Caineroonian territory, has expanded ont0 Nigerian
territory. It also points out that Cameroon's road makes incursions
into Nigerian territory and that map No. 6 produced by Cameroon in
Volume II of its Reply moves the boundary between 500 and 800 m
westwards into Nigerian territory throughout the sector.
105. For its part, Cameroon argues that the disagreement "is the result
of a divergence in the marking of the watershed on the maps". Cameroon
notes that the concept of a watershed is a complex one and that it is par-
ticularly difficult to determine such a line along steep escarpments, as is
the case here. Itontends that the boundary line it has drawn does indeed
follow the watershed at least until the vicinity of Humsiki (or Roumsiki).
From that point, the boundary must necessarily deviate from the
watershed because, according to the Thomson-Marchand Declaration,
itmust cross Mount Kuli and leave the farmlands Westof the village toser le mont Kuli et laisser lesterres cultivéesa l'ouest du villageau Came-
roun. Le Cameroun ajoute que le villagede Turu est entièrement situé en
territoire camerounais.
106. La Cour constate que le problème dans la régions'étendant de
Ngosi à Roumsiki a pour origine le fait que le Cameroun et le Nigéria
appliquent différemmentles dispositions des paragraphes 20 a 24 de la
déclarationThomson-Marchand. Dans ce secteur, la tâche de la Cour est
donc de déterminerle tracé dela frontière en se référantaux termes de la
déclarationThomson-Marchand, c'est-à-dire essentiellement à la ligne de
crête,à la ligne de partage des eaux eà des villages devant êtresituésde
part et d'autre de la frontière. La Cour examinera cette question tronçon
par tronçon.
107. De Ngosi à Turu, la frontière suit la ligne de partage des eaux
comme le prévoitle paragraphe 20 de la déclarationThomson-Marchand.
La Cour note sur ce point que la lignede partage des eaux proposéepar le
Cameroun coupe un certain nombre de cours d'eau etne saurait donc être
retenue. La ligne de partage des eaux présentépar le Nigéria, qui suit sur
la plus grande partie de sa longueur la route allant de Devura vers le sud,
apparaît plus crédible.La Cour se doit néanmoins de préciserque cette
route demeure sur toute sa longueur en territoire camerounais. En ce qui
concerne le village deTuru, la Cour rappelle par ailleurs que, si elle peut
interpréter les dispositions des instruments de délimitation lorsque leur
libelléappelle une telle interprétation, elle ne saurait en revanche modifier
le tracéde la frontière tel que ces instruments l'établissent.En l'espèce,il
n'est pas contestépar les Parties que la frontièrepasse par la ligne de par-
tage des eaux. Cette ligne frontière ne saurait donc êtremodifiéepar la
Cour. S'ilétaitdès lors avéré que le village deuru s'est étenduen terri-
toire nigérian au-delàde la lignede partage des eaux, il appartiendrait aux
Parties de trouver une solution aux problèmes quien résulteraient, auxfins
d'assurer le respect des droits et intérse la population locale.
108. De Turu à Mabas, les Parties ne divergent quant au tracé dela
frontière viséaux paragraphes 21 et 22 de la déclarationThomson-Mar-
chand que sur deux endroits: l'un au sud de Wisik, où la Cour ne voit pas
de raison de ne pas retenir le tracé indiquépar le Cameroun, et l'autre
près de Mabas. Aux environs de cette localité, la ligne indiquéepar le
Cameroun coupe certains cours d'eau et n'apparaît en conséquencepas
pouvoir constituer la ligne de partage des eaux. Le tracépréconisépar le
Nigéria ne semblepas convenir non plus dans la mesure où il passe au
travers de la localitéde Mabas. Or, selon la déclaration,la frontièrelaisse
Mabas du côté français(((franchit Mabas, sur le cotéfrançais)) [pass[es]
by Mabas on the French side]). La frontière doit donc, a cet endroit,
suivre la ligne de partage des eaux tout en laissant I'entièretédu village
de Mabas du côté camerounais. La Cour considèreici encore que, lorsque
la route allant deTuru vers le sud suit la frontière, cette route demeure
sur toute sa longueur en territoire camerounais.
109. De Mabas àOuro Mavoum, l'emplacement de la ligne de partage
des eaux ne fait l'objet d'aucune discussion entre les Parties. LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 370
Cameroon. Cameroon adds that the village of Tiiru is situated entirely
on Cameroonian territory.
106. The Court notes that the problem in the ar-eabetween Ngosi and
Humsiki derives fronithe fact that Cameroon and Nigeria apply the pro-
visions of paragraphs 20 to 24 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration in
different ways. In this sector of the boundary the Court's task is thus to
determine the course of the boundary by reference to the terms of the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration, that is to say by reference essentially
to the crest line, to thieline of the watershed and to the villages which are
to lie to eitheride of the boundary. The Court will address this question
section by section.
107. From Ngosi 1.0Turu, the boundary follows the line of the water-
shed as provided by paragraph 20 of the Thomson-Marchand Declara-
tion. On this point the Court notes that the watershed line proposed by
Cameroon crosses a riumber of watercourses and thus cannot be accepted.
The watershed line presented by Nigeria, which over the greater part of
its length follows thle road running southwards Jkom Devura, appears
more credible. The Court must. however. oint outthat that road remains
throughout its length within Cameroonian territory. As regards the vil-
lage of Turu, the Court recalls moreover that, while it may interpret the
provisions of delimitation instruments where their language requires this,
it may not modify tlhecourse of the boundary as established by those
instruments. In the present case, the Parties do not dispute that the
boundary follows the: line ofthe watershed. That boundary line may not
therefore be modifieti by the Court. Hence, if it should prove that the
village ofTuru has spread into Nigerian territory beyond the watershed
line, it would beup to the Parties to find a solution to any resultant prob-
lems, with a view to ensuring that the rights and interests of the local
population are respected.
108. From Turu t~oMabas, the Parties disagree on the course of the
boundary as described in paragraphs 21 and 22 of the Thomson-March-
and Declaration only at two points: one to the south of Wisik, where the
Court sees no reason not to adopt the line indicated by Cameroon, and
the other near Mabas. There, the line indicated by Cameroon crosses cer-
tain watercourses an13therefore cannot be the watershed line. Nor does
the line favoured by Nigeria appear suitable, since it passes through
Mabas, whereas the Declaration provides that that village should remain
entirely on the French side ("pass[es] by Mabas on the French sideml
"jirnnclzitMabus, sur lecoté français"). Hence at tliis point the boundary
must follow the watershed line, whilst leaving al1of the village of Mabas
on the Cameroonian side. Here too the Court corisiders that, where the
road running south from Turu follows the bountlary, it remains at al1
times on Cameroonian territory.
109. From Mabas to Ouro Mavoum, the line of the watershed has not
been in issue betweeri the Parties. 110. D'Ouro Mavoum a la montagne de Jel via Humunsi (Roumzou),
la frontière suit la ligne proposéepar le Nigériatout en laissant sur toute
sa longueur la route en territoire camerounais. La Cour estime que le
tracé proposépar le Cameroun ne saurait en effet êtreretenu: il corres-
pond certes à la ligne de partage des eaux, mais le paragraphe 22 de la
déclaration Thomson-Marchand fixe la frontière à cet endroit non pas
sur cette ligne, mais la limite de cultures se trouvan«à l'estde la ligne
de partage des eaux)).
111. De la montagne de Jel a Mogodé,la frontiere suit à nouveau la
ligne de partage des eaux. La ligne indiquéepar le Cameroun coupe de
nombreux cours d'eau et doit dès lors être écartée. La lUnAe ~réconisée
par le Nigéria semble plus exacte.
112. De Mogodé à Humsiki (Roumsiki), la frontière continue à suivre
la ligne de partage des eaux, tout en laissant en permanence la route en
territoire camerounais. Ici encore, la ligne proposéepar le Cameroun doit
êtrerejetée,étant donne qu'ellecoupe de nombreux cours d'eau. La ligne
nigériane sembleconvenir davantage, pour autant toutefois que la route
reste en tout point du côté camerounais de la frontière et que cette ligne
laisse l'entièretéde Humsiki au Cameroun.
113. Au-delà de Humsiki, la frontiere continue à suivre la ligne pro-
poséepar le Nigéria.Cette ligne apparaît au demeurant plus avantageuse
pour le Cameroun que celle reproduite sur sespropres cartes, et le Came-
roun ne s'est opposéen tout état de cause a aucun moment aux préten-
tions du Nigéria à cet endroit de la frontière.
114. La Cour conclut de ce qui précèdeque, dans la régionallant de
Ngosi àHumsiki, la frontière suit le tracédécritpar les paragraphes 20à
24 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand tels que préciséspar la Cour.
Du mont Kuli ù Bourha/Maduguva (la ligne erronéedepartage des eaux
de la carte Moisel)
115. Le paragraphe 25 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand fixe la
frontiere comme suit:
((25) Ensuite elle continue vers le sud entre Mukta (anglais) et
Muti (français), la ligne erronée departage des eaux indiquéepar la
carteMoisel étantadoptée,laisse Bourha et Dihi en zone française,
Madogoba Gamdira en zone anglaise, Bugela ou Bukula, Madoudji,
Kadanahanga en zone française, Ouda Tua, et Tsambourga en zone
anglaise et Buka sur le côté français»
116. Le Nigéria affirmeque le texte du paragraphe 25 de la déclaration
Thomson-Marchand qui place la frontière sur «la ligne erronée depar-
tage des eaux»
«est défectueux: l'obligationqu'il imposede suivre une ligne de par-
tage des eaux figurant sur une carte vieille de quatre-vingt-dix ans LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUIIGMENT) 371
110. From Ouro Mavoum to the mountains of Jel, passing through
Humunsi (Roumzou), the boundary follows the liiie proposed by Nigeria
whilst leaving al1of the road on Cameroonian territory. Thus the Court
finds that the line prlnposed by Cameroon cannot be accepted: while that
line does indeed correspond to the watershed line, paragraph 22 of the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration places the bouridary at this point not
on that line, but alcing a line bounded by cultivated land lying "to the
east of the line of the watershed".
111. From the mountains of Je1 to Mogode, tlie boundary again fol-
lows the watershed line. The line indicated bv Caineroon crosses numer-
ous watercourses and must therefore be rejected. The line favoured by
Nigeria appears to be more correct.
112. From Mogode to Humsiki (Roumsiki), the boundary continues
to follow the watershed line, whilst leaving al1 of the road on Cam-
eroonian territory. Here again the line proposed by Cameroon must
be rejected, since it crosses numerous watercourses. The Nigerian line
appears more suitable, provided that the road remains throughout on the
Cameroonian side of the boundary and that the lirieleaves al1of Humsiki
to Cameroon.
113. Beyond Hurnsiki, the boundary continues to follow the line
proposed by Nigeria~.That line appears, moreover, more favourable to
Cameroon than the one shown on its own maps, and in any event
Cameroon has never challenged Nigeria's claims at this point on the
boundary.
114. The Court concludes from the foregoing tliat in the area between
Ngosi and Humsiki the boundary follows the course described by para-
graphs 20 to 24 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration as clarified by
the Court.
From Mount Kuli r'oBourha/Maduguva (incorrect watershed line on
Moisel's map)
115. Paragraph 25 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration determines
the boundary as follows:
"25. Thence running due south between Mukta (British) and
Muti (French) the incorrect line of the watershed shown by Moisel
on his map being adhered to, leaving Boiirha and Dihi on the
French side, Madogoba Gamdira on the British, Bugela or Bukula,
Madoudji, Kadanahanga on the French, Ouda, Tua and Tsam-
bourga on the British side, and Buka on the French side."
116. Nigeria contends that paragraph 25 of the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration, which lprovides for the boundary to follow "the incorrect
line of the watershecl"
"is defective in that the requirement to follow a watershed line which
is expressly adniitted to be incorrect, shown on a 90 year old map372 FRONTIERE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRET)
n'offrant que très peu de détails et expressémentreconnue comme
étant erronéeest susceptible d'un certain nombre d'interprétations)).
Le Nigériapropose donc une simplification jusqu'à l'endroit où la ligne
Moisel coupe la ligne correcte de partage des eaux au nord de Bourha.
Cette simplification serait notamment justifiéepar un procès-verbal de
1920, aux termes duquel la frontière devrait suivre le centre d'une piste
joignant Muti àBourha. Au sud de Bourha, le Nigériapropose de suivre
la ligne correcte de partage des eaux en laissant Bourha en territoire
nigérian.
117. Le Cameroun allègue quant à lui que la déclaration Thomson-
Marchand ((placesciemment la frontière sur «la ligne erronéede partage
des eaux» indiquée sur la carte Moisel)), si bien qu'il propose de s'en
tenir purement et simplement à la transposition de la ligne Moisel sur une
carte moderne et sur le terrain.l ajoute que le procès-verbal de 1920au-
quel seréfèrele Nigériaa été maltraduit en anglais et que la version fran-
çaise originale ne corrobore en aucune manière la position de ce dernier.
118. La Cour relèveque le texte du paragraphe 25 de la déclaration
Thomson-Marchand prévoit très expressémenq tue la frontière doit pas-
ser par «la ligne erronéede partage des eaux indiquéepar la carte Moi-
sel». Un tracéclair ayant étédonné a la frontière par les auteurs de la
déclaration, la Cour ne saurait s'écarterde ce tracé.
La Cour a étudiéavec le plus grand soin la carteMoisel et a comparé
les informations donnéespar celle-ci avec celles disponibles sur les meil-
leures cartes modernes, en particulier sur la feuille«Uba N.E.» de la
carte DOS au 1150000du Nigériaétablieen 1969et sur la feuille NC-33-
XIV-2c «Mokolo 2c» de la carte au 1150000 de l'Afrique centrale établie
par l'Institut géographique national (IGN) en 1965, qui lui ont toutes
deux étéfournies par le Nigéria. La Cour observe que si, dans cette
région, lacarte Moisel contient un certain nombre d'erreurs, elle com-
porte néanmoins certains critèresobjectifs permettant d'opérer aisément
le report du tracé dela «ligne erronée de partage desaux» sur les cartes
modernes. La Cour remarque tout d'abord que sur la carte Moisel la
«ligne erronée de partage des eaux» est clairement marquée commeres-
tant en permanence a l'est du méridien13"30'de longitude est. La Cour
relèveensuite qu'un certain nombre de localitéssont indiquéescomme se
situant àI'estou à l'ouest de cette ligne erronéeet doivent par conséquent
se trouver du mêmecôté dela frontière aprèsle report de ladite ligne sur
les cartes modernes.
La Cour ne saurait retenir la ligne présentéepar le Cameroun comme
correspondant au report de la «ligne erronée de partage des eaux». Cette
ligne se trouve en effet sur toute sa longueArl'ouest du méridien13"30'
de longitude est. Le report de la «ligne erronée de partage des eaux»
opérépar le Nigéria posed'autres problèmes. S'ilsitue bien cette ligne en
permanence a I'estdu méridien13"30'de longitude est, ilne saurait néan-
moins êtreaccepté,dans la mesure où son tracé suit une ligne brisée,
alors que celui de la carte Moisel est sinueux. which displays ,verylittle detail, can be interpreted in a number of
ways".
Nigeria thus proposes simplifying the line up to the point where Moisel's
line cuts the true watershed north of Bourha. That simplification is
claimed to bejustified by a procès-verbal of 1920,which provides for the
boundary to follow the centre of a track runnirig from Muti towards
Bourha. South of B'ourha, Nigeria proposes following the true water-
shed, leaving Bourha on Nigerian territory.
117. Cameroon, for its part, argues that the Thomson-Marchand Dec-
laration "deliberatel!i places the boundary along 'the incorrect line of the
watershed' shown by Moisel on his rnap", and accordingly proposes
adhering strictly to the transposition ofMoisel's line ont0 a modern map
and on the ground. It adds that the 1920procès-verbal cited by Nigeria
was mistranslated into English and that the French original provides no
support whatsoever for Nigeria's position.
118. The Court n~otesthat the text of paragraph 25 of the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration provides quite expressly that the boundary is to
follow "the incorrect line of the watershed shown by Moisel on his map".
Since the authors oifthe Declaration prescribed a clear course for the
boundary, the Court cannot deviate from that course.
The Court has carefully studied the Moisel map and has compared the
data provided by it vdiththose available on the best modern maps, and in
particular sheet "Ubla N.E." of the 1969 DOS 1 :50,000 rnap of Nigeria
and sheet NC-33-XI'V-2c"Mokolo 2c" of the 1965Institut géographique
national (IGN) 1 :50,000rnap of Central Africa, both of which were pro-
vided to the Court by Nigeria. The Court observe:,that, while the Moisel
map contains some errors in this area, it nonetheless provides certain
objective criteria thqatpermit the course of the "incorrect line of the
watershed" to be readily transposed ont0 modern maps. The Court notes
first that on the Mloisel map the "incorrect linr of the watershed" is
clearly shown as rerniainingat al1times to the east of the meridian 13"30'
longitude east. The Court further notes that a certain number of localities
are indicated as lying either to the east orto the Westof the incorrect line
and must accordingly remain on the same side of the boundary after that
line has been transposed ont0 modern maps.
The Court cannoit accept the line presented by Cameroon as corre-
sponding to a transposition of the "incorrect line of the watershed". That
line lies throughout its length to the Westof the meridian 13'30' longi-
tude east. Nigeria's transposition of the "incorrect line of the watershed"
poses other problems. While it places this line at al1times to the east of
the meridian 13"30'longitude east, it cannot, however, be accepted, since
it consists of a series of angled lines, whereas the line on the Moisel map
follows a winding course. 119. La Cour conclut en conséquence qu'il convientd'interpréter le
paragraphe 25 de la déclarationThomson-Marchand comme faisant pas-
ser la frontière du mont Kuli au point marquant le début de la ((ligne
erronée de partage des eaux)), situépar 13"31'47" de longitude est et
10"27'48" de latitude nord, point qu'elle rejoint en suivant la ligne cor-
recte de partage des eaux. Puis, de ce point, la frontière suit le tracé de
la ((ligneerronée de partage des eaux))jusqu'au point marquant la finde
cette ligne, qui se trouve par 13"30'55" de longitude est et 10"15'46"de
latitude nord. Entre ces deux points, le tracé dela frontiere est celui qui
est indiqué sur la carte jointe au présentarrêt',qui a étéétabliepar la
Cour en opérantle report de la ((ligneerronée de partage des eaux)) de la
carte Moisel sur la premièreédition dela feuille cuba N.E. ))de la carte
DOS au 1/50000 du Nigéria.Ensuite, la frontière recommence a suivre la
ligne de partage des eaux correcte vers le sud.
*
Kotcha (Koja)
120. Les paragraphes 26 et 27 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand
fixent la frontière comme suit:
((26) Puis la frontière passe par le mont Mulikia (appelé aussi
Lourougoua).
27) Du sommet du mont Mulikia elle atteint la source du Tsika-
kiri, laissant Kotcha à l'Angleterre et Dumo à la France; puis elle
longe une ligne jalonnée provisoirement par quatre bornes par
MM. Vereker et Pition en septembre 1920.))
121. Selon le Nigéria,lesparagraphes 26et 27de la déclarationThom-
son-Marchand présenteraient un problème dans la mesure où, sur les
quatre bornes mises en place en 1920qui y sont indiquées, une seulement
pourrait éventuellement êtreidentifiéeaujourd'hui. Il propose dès lors
que la frontiere, avant d'arriver a ce cairn, suive la ligne de partage des
eaux, sauf à proximité de Kotcha où les terres cultivéespar les fermiers
de Kotcha du côtécamerounais de la ligne de partage des eaux seraient
laisséesau Nigériadu fait que le village nigérian deKotcha s'est étendu
de part et d'autre de celle-ci.
122. Le Cameroun estime que la ligne frontiere demandéepar le Nigé-
ria a proximité de Kotcha est contraire a la déclaration Thomson-Mar-
chand et que le texte de celle-cidevrait êtrerespecté.Le reste de la ligne
proposéepar le Nigériadans cette région, qui suit la lignede partage des
eaux, n'est pas contestépar le Cameroun.
123. La Cour constate que, dans la régionde Kotcha, la difficultépro-
vient uniquement de ce que, comme le reconnaît le Nigéria, le village
nigérian de Kotcha s'est étendu du côté camerounais de la frontiere.
Comme la Cour a déjàeu l'occasion de l'indiquer à l'égarddu village de
'On trouvera un exemplaire de cette carte dans une pochetàela fin du présent
fascicule ou du volume C.I.J. Recueil 2002 selon le cas. [Note du Greffi.1
74 119. The Court accordingly concludes that paragraph 25 of the Thom-
son-Marchand Declaration should be interpreted as providing for the
boundary to run frorn Mount Kuli to the point marking the beginning of
the "incorrect line of the watershed", located at 13031f47" longitude east
and 10"27'48" latitude north, having reached that point by following the
correct line of the watershed. Then, from that point, the boundary fol-
lows the "incorrect liineof the watershed" to the point marking the end of
that line, located at 13"30' 55"longitude east and 10"15'46" latitude
north. Between these two points the boundary fcdlows the course indi-
cated on the map ainnexed to this Judgment', which was prepared by
the Court by transposing the "incorrect line of the watershed" from the
Moisel map to the first edition of sheet "Uba N.E." of the DOS 1:50,000
map of Nigeria. From this latter point, the boundary will again follow
the correct line of the watershed in a southerly direction.
120. Paragraphs 216and 27 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
determine the boundary as follows:
"26. Thence the boundary runs through Mount Mulikia (named
also Lourougoua).
27. Thence from the top of Mount Mulikia to the source of
the Tsikakiri, leaving Kotcha to Britain and Dumo to France and
following a line marked by four provisional landmarks erected in
September 1920 by Messrs. Vereker and Piticin."
121. According to Nigeria, paragraphs 26 ancl 27 of the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration pose a problem in that only one of the four land-
marks erected in 1920 referred to in those paragraphs is possibly identi-
fiable today. It therefore proposes that, before arriving at that cairn, the
boundary should folllowthe watershed, except in ihe vicinity of Kotcha,
where the farmland lying on the Cameroonian side of the watershed line
which is worked by farmers from Kotcha would be left to Nigeria, in
order to take account of the fact that the Nigerian village of Kotcha has
expanded to either side of that line.
122. Cameroon considers that the boundary line sought by Nigeria in
the vicinity of Kotcha is contrary to the Thomson-Marchand Declara-
tion and that the text of the Declaration shoiild be respected. The
remainder of the line proposed by Nigeria in this ares,following the line
of the watershed, is i~otcontested by Cameroon.
123. The Court finds that, in the Kotcha area, the difficulty derives
solely from the fact, as Nigeria recognizes, that the Nigerian village of
Kotcha has spread over ont0 the Cameroonian sicleof the boundary. As
the Court has already had occasion to point out in regard to the village
' A copy of this map viill be found in a pocket at the end of this fascicle or inside the
back cover of the volume 1.CIJ.Reports 2002. [Nothythe Registry.]
74374 FRONTIERE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRET)
Turu, ellen'a pas compétencepour modifier une ligne frontièredélimitée,
mêmedans l'hypothèse où un village auparavant situéd'un côté dela
frontière se serait étendu au-delà de celle-ci. appartiendra en revanche
aux Parties de trouver une solution aux problèmes qui en résulteraient,
aux fins d'assurer le respect des droits et intérde la population locale.
124. En conséquence, laCour conclut que la frontière dans la région
de Kotcha, viséeaux paragraphes 26 et 27 de la déclaration Thomson-
Marchand, passe par la ligne de partage des eaux, et cela y compris à
proximitédirecte du village de Kotcha, où les terres cultivéesse trouvant
du côté camerounais de la ligne de partage des eaux demeurent en terri-
toire camerounais.
La source de la rivière Tsikakiri
125. Le paragraphe 27 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand fixe la
frontière comme suit :
((27) Du sommet du mont Mulikia elle atteint la source du Tsi-
kakiri, laissant Kotchaà l'Angleterre et Dumo à la France; puis elle
longe une ligne jalonnée provisoirement par quatre bornes par
MM. Vereker et Pition en septembre 1920.))
126. Le Nigéria relève que la rivière Tsikakiri mentionnée au para-
graphe 27 de la déclarationThomson-Marchand a trois sources possibles.
Il affirme que, contrairement à ce que prétend le Cameroun, il convient
de faire passer la frontière parl'un des tributaires sud de la rivière, et
non par le tributaire nord, puisque seuls les premiers partent de la
ligne de crête commel'implique ladéclaration.
127. Le Cameroun affirme pour sa part que la source correcte du Tsi-
kakiri qu'il convient de retenir est le tributaire nord. Se référantà la
figure 7.14en regard de la page 344de la duplique du Nigéria,il souligne
que le point désignépar une flèchecomme source du tributaire sud ne
correspond à rien de tel.
128. La Cour constate que l'interprétation du paragraphe 27 de la
déclarationThomson-Marchand soulève des difficultésdans la mesure où
la rivière Tsikakiri possède plusieurs sources, alors que la déclaration
indique seulement que la frontière passe par «la source)) du Tsikakiri,
sans donner d'indication quant à celle à retenir. La Cour observe tout
d'abord qu'il n'existe,du point de vue de la sciencegéographique, aucune
définition permettant de déterminer en toute certitude les facteurs à
prendre en considération aux fins de l'identification de la source princi-
pale d'une rivièrelorsque celle-cipossède plusieurs sources.La tâche de la
Cour n'est cependant pas d'identifier la source ((géographique))du Tsi-
kakiri, mais d'identifier la source par laquelle les rédacteurs de la décla-
ration Thomson-Marchand entendaient faire passer la frontière. Etant
donné que la déclaration Thomson-Marchand délimite en général la
frontièreà l'aide de descriptions physiques du paysage, il y a tout lieu deof Turu, it has no power to modify a delimited boundary line, even in a
case where a village previously situated on one side of the boundary has
spread beyond it. It is instead up to the Parties to find a solution to any
resultant problems, arith a view to respecting the rights and interests of
the local population.
124. The Court acc:ordinglyconcludes that the boundary in the Kotcha
area, as described in paragraphs 26 and 27 of the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration, follows the line of the watershed, including where it passes
close to the village of Kotcha, the cultivated land lying on the Cam-
eroonian side of the lwatershedremaining on Cameroonian territory.
Source of the Tsikak,iri River
125. Paragraph 27 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration detennines
the boundary as follows :
"27. Thence from the top of Mount Mulikia to the source of
the Tsikakiri, leaving Kotcha to Britain and Dumo to France and
following a line marked by four provisional landmarks erected in
September 1920by Messrs. Vereker and Pition."
126. Nigeria observes that the Tsikakiri Rive1 referred to in para-
graph 27 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration has three possible
sources. It asserts that, contrary to Cameroon'scontention, the boundary
should be one of the southern tributaries, not tlie northern tributary,
since only the southern tributaries originate at ththcrest line, as implied
by the Declaration.
127. For its part,Cameroon asserts that the northern tributary is the
true source of the Tsikakiri and the one to be taken into account. It con-
tends that the spot iridicated by an arrow on Figure 7.14 at page 344 of
Nigeria's Rejoinder as the source of the southern tributary is nothing of
the kind.
128. The Court notes that the interpretation of paragraph 27 of the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration poses problems because the Tsikakiri
River has more than one source, whereas the Declaration simply states
that the boundary passes through "the source" of the Tsikakiri without
providing aiiy indication as to which source is to be chosen. The Court
would first observe tliat, in terms of geographical theory, there exists no
definition enabling the principal source of a river to be identified with full
certainty where that river has several sources. However, the task of the
Court is not to identify the "geographical" source of the Tsikakiri, but to
identify the source through which the drafters of the Thomson-March-
and Declaration intended that the boundary should pass. Considering
that the Thomson-Marchand Declaration delimitetl the boundary in gen-
eral by means of a physical description of the terrain, it may reasonably
be assumed that the drafters of the Declaration, in referring to the source375 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
penser que les rédacteurs de la déclaration, en se référaàtla source du
Tsikakiri, ont entendu retenir un point aisément reconnaissable, aussi
bien sur une carte que sur le terrain. Or, la Cour note que l'une des
sources du Tsikakiri se démarque des autres. Il s'agit de la source située
par 13"16'55" de longitude est et 10°02'02" de latitude nord, qui est la
plus élevéeet ne correspond a aucune des propositions des Parties.
129. En conséquence, laCour conclut que la frontière dans la région
viséeau paragraphe 27 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand part du
point de coordonnées 13"17'50"de longitude est et 10"03'32"de latitude
nord qui se trouve aux abords de Dumo. Puis, de ce point, la frontière
rejoint par une ligne droite le point que la Cour a interprété commeétant
la ((source du Tsikakiri)) mentionnée par la déclaration, avant de suivre
le cours de cette rivière (voir ci-après, p. 376, le croquis nn6).
De lu bornefrontière no 6 u Wummi Budungo
130. Les paragraphes 33 et 34 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand
fixent la frontière comme suit:
((33) Puis par une ligne partant du repère no 6 et passant par le
repèreno 7 pour finir au no 8.
34) De ce repère no 8, placésur la rive gauche du Mao Youwai,
petit cours d'eau venant de l'ouest pour se jeter dans le Faro, par
une ligne droite orientée sud-ouest qui atteint le sommet du mont
Wammi, pic élevé,au nord d'une chaîne de montagnes qui s'étend
vers les Alantikas et qui est situéea l'est de l'ancienne borne fron-
tière no 10.»
131. En ce qui concerne le tracé de la frontière de la borne no 6 a
Wammi Budungo, le Nigériarelèveque les bornes no56 et 8par lesquelles
la déclaration Thomson-Marchand fait passer la frontière n'ont pas pu
être retrouvées.Des traces de la borneno7 subsisteraiental'emplacement
de celle-ci. Le Nigéria, se référantau paragraphe 32 de la déclaration
Thomson-Marchand, qui mentionne l'«ancienne frontière anglaise-alle-
mande)), estime qu'il convient en conséquence de tenter de localiser ces
bornes à partir de l'accord anglo-allemand de 1906,qui a servi de basea
la fixation du tracé de la frontière dans cette région. L'annexe 1 a cet
accord, rédigée en1903, contient en effet une description de la méthode
utiliséepour fixer l'emplacement des bornes. Ainsi, le paragraphe 3 de
l'annexe prévoitce qui suit:
«[l]a ligne suit alors la ligne médianedu Faro vers l'amont jusqu'au
confluent du Mao Hesso avec la rivière principale, et ensuite la ligne
médianedu Mao Hesso jusqu'au poteau n06 sur la rive gauche du
Mao Hesso, à 3 kilomètres environ au nord-ouest de Béka. Elle
court alors de la ligne médiane dela rivièrejusqu'au poteauo6 per-
pendiculairement au cours de la rivière» LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 375
of the Tsikakiri, inte:nded to designate a point which could be readily
identified, both on m~apsand on the ground. Thus the Court notes that
one of the sources of the Tsikakiri stands out frorn the others. This is a
source situated at 13"16'55" longitude east and 10'02'02" latitude north
and having the highest elevation which is not proposed by either of the
Parties.
129. The Court accordingly concludes that, in the area referred to in
paragraph 27 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, the boundary
starts from a point having CO-ordinates 13"17' 50" longitude east and
10"03'32" latitude north, which is located in the vicinity of Dumo. From
there, the boundary irunsin a straight line to the point which the Court
has identified as the "source of the Tsikakiri" as referred to in theDec-
laration, and then folllowsthat river (seebelow, p. 376,sketch-map No. 6).
From Beacon 6 to Wamni Budungo
130. Paragraphs 33 and 34 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
determine the boundary as follows:
"33. Thence a line starting from Beacon 6, passing Beacon 7,
finishing at theold Beacon 8.
34. Thence from this mark 8 placed on the left bank of the Mao
Youwai, a smalllstream flowing from the West and emptying itself
into the Mayo Faro, in a straight line running towards the south-west
and reaching the summit of Wamni Range, a \ ery prominent peak to
the north of a chain of mountains extending towards the Alantika
Mountains, and situated to the east of the old frontier mark No. 10."
131. In respect oî the course of the boundary from Beacon 6 to
Wamni Budungo, Nigeria states that Beacons 6 and 8, through which the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration provides for the boundary to pass,
have not been found. Some traces of Beacon 7 are said to remain at its
location. Citing paragraph 32 of the Thomson-hlarchand Declaration,
which refers to the "old British-German Frontier", it argues that an
attempt should therefore be made to locate those beacons by reference to
the 1906Anglo-Gerrnan Agreement, which served as the basis for fixing
the course of the boundary in this area. Thus Anncx 1 to that Agreement,
which was drafted in 1903, contains a description of themethod employed
to determine the locations of the beacons. Paragraph 3 of the Annex pro-
vides :
"[tlhe line then f'ollowsthe median line of the Faro up-stream, as far
as the junction of the Mao Hesso with the main stream; and after-
wards the median line of the Mao Hesso, as far as a post, No. 6, on
the left bank of the Mao Hesso, about 3 km north-west of Beka. It
then runs from the median line of the river at right angles to its
course, to No. 6 post." 376 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
113"15' 113'16 113"IT 113"18' 1 1319'
delarivièreTsikakiri
- 1O"04' 10004-
10"02'-
lO00l'-Le paragraphe 4 poursuit alors en expliquant:
«A partir du poteau no6, elle court en ligne droite jusqu'à un
rocher bien visible, sur une petite éminencede la route Gurin-Karin.
Une marque de frontière (no7) «D B»(Deutsch-British) est gravée
sur ce rocher. A partir de ce rocher, elle court en ligne droite
jusqu'au poteau no8 implanté surla route à l'entréedu col entre les
collines de Karin, au nord du village deKarin.))
Le Nigéria exposeque, en application de cette méthode,la borne no6 se
trouverait sur la rive gauche du Mao Hesso, à environ 3 kilomètres au
nord-ouest de Beka. tandis aue la borne no 8 se trouverait a l'intersection
du prolongement de la ligne reliant les bornes nos6 et 7 et du ruisseau
mentionnéau paragraphe 34 de la déclarationThomson-Marchand.
132. Le Cameroun indique pour sa part que le problème dans cette
région est celuide l'identification de toutes les bornes mentionnées aux
paragraphes 33et 34 de la déclarationThomson-Marchand, y compris la
borne no 7, qui ne serait pas celle présentéepar le Nigéria, ainsique
l'identification du sommet du mont Wammi. Le Cameroun insiste néan-
moins sur le fait que ce problèmeest un problème de démarcationet non
de délimitation.
133. La Cour constateque l'interprétationdes paragraphes 33et 34 de
la déclarationThomson-Marchand soulève une difficulté dès lors que ces
dispositions font passer la frontière par trois bornes donttout le moins
deux ont aujourd'hui disparu.
La Cour s'est penchée avec beaucoup d'attention sur le texte de
l'annexe 1 à I'accord anglo-allemand de 1906, ainsi que sur le matériau
cartographique que lui ont fourni lesParties, afin de retrouver la position
de ces bornes. La Cour note ainsi que le point indiqué par le Nigéria
comme correspondant à la borne no 6 et situépar 12'53'15"de longitude
est et 9'04' 19" de latitude nord reflète bien les termes de la description
qu'en donne l'accord, puisqu'il se trouve sur la rive gauche du Mao
Hesso à 3 kilomètres au nord-ouest du villa"e de Beka. La Cour estime
de mêmeque le point indiquépar le Nigériacomme correspondant à la
borne no 7 et situépar 12'51'55" de longitude est et 9'01'03" de latitude
nord doit être retenu.Bien que le Nigéria n'aitpas apporté la preuve de
ce que des traces réellesde la borne no 7 aienttétrouvées A cet endroit,
son positionnement correspond en effet à ce que prévoit I'accordanglo-
allemand de 1906, et ce d'autant plus qu'il s'agitde la seule éminence
rocheuse présentedans cette région.Quant a l'emplacement de la borne
no 8, qui est décritecomme étantsituéesur la route à I'entréedu col pas-
sant entre les collines de Karin, et sur la rive gauche du Mao Youwai,
c'est le point proposé par le Cameroun, de coordonnées 12'49'22" de
longitude est et8'58' 18" de latitude nord, qui doit être retenu,dèslors
qu'il remplit tant les conditions poséespar I'accord de 1906 que celles
prévuesau paragraphe 34 de la déclarationThomson-Marchand.
134. La Cour conclut en conséquenceque les paragraphes 33 et 34 de
la déclaration Thomson-Marchand doivent être interprétés commefai- LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 377
Paragraph 4 then goes on to explain:
"From No. 6 post the line runs straight to a conspicuous rock, on
a slight eminence on the road from Gurin to Karin. This rock has a
boundary mark (No. 7) "D B" (Deutsch-British)cut into it. From
this rock it runs straight to a post, No., fixed on the road at the
entrance to the pass through the Karin Hills, north of the village of
Karin."
Nigeria claims that, pursuant to that method, Beacon 6 is situated on
the left bank of the ]MaoHesso about 3 km north-west of Beka, while
Beacon 8 is situatedi at the intersection of the extension of the line
joining Beacons 6 and 7 and the stream mentioned in paragraph 34 of the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration.
132. For its part, Cameroon States that the problem in this area con-
sists in identifying al1 of the beacons referred to in paragraphs 33 and
34 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, including Beacon 7, which
Cameroon denies to be the one described by Nigeria, and identifying
the summit of Wamni Range. Cameroon nevertheless stresses that this
is a problem of dema.rcation, not delimitation.
133. The Court notes that the interpretation of paragraphs 33 and 34
of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration raises a problem in that those
provisions describe the line of the boundary as passing through three
beacons of which at least two have now disappeared.
The Court has studied most attentively the text of Annex 1 to the
Anglo-German Agreement of 1906,as well as the cartographic material
provided to it by the Parties, in order to discovei. the location of these
beacons. The Court thus notes that the point indicated by Nigeria as cor-
responding to Beacon 6 and situated at 12"53' 15"longitude east and
9"04'19"latitude north does indeed reflect the ternis of the description of
it given in the Agreernent,ince it lies on the left bank of the Mao Hesso
3 km to the north-wlest of the village of Beka. The Court likewise con-
siders that the point indicated by Nigeria as corresponding to Beacon 7
and situated at 12"2ilf55" longitude east and 9O01'03" latitude north
must be accepted. Although Nigeria has produced no evidence of Bea-
con 7 having been found at that point, its location does indeed corre-
spond to the description in the 1906Anglo-German Agreement, particu-
larly in view of the fact that it is the only high ground in that area. As
regards the location of Beacon 8, which is described as situated at the
entrance to the pass through the Karin Hills on the road crossing the
pass, and on the left bank of the Mao Youwai, it is the point proposed by
Cameroon, located at 12O49'22" longitude east and 8"58'18" latitude
north, which must be taken to be the correct one, since it satisfies both
the conditions laid down by the 1906 Agreement and those in para-
graph 34 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration.
134. The Court accordingly concludes that paragraphs 33 and 34 of
the Thomson-Marchand Declaration must be inierpreted as providing378 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
sant passer la frontière par les points qu'elle a identifiéscomme corres-
pondant auxbornes no" 6, 7 et 8viséesdans cesparagraphes et situésaux
coordonnées susmentionnées(voir ci-après, p. 379, le croquis no7).
Le Maio Senche
135. Le paragraphe 35 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand fixe la
frontière comme suit :
((35)Puis par la ligne de partage des eaux du Mao Wari a l'ouest
et du Mayo Faro à l'est pour rejoindre les monts Alantikas; de là
par la ligne de partage des eaux de la Benouéau nord-ouest et du
Faro au sud-est jusqu'au pic du sud des monts [Alantikas] en un
point situéa 2 kilomètres au nord de la source de la rivièreMali.»
136. Le Nigériasoutient que la frontière dans ce secteur doit suivre la
ligne de partage des eaux. Il fait observer que la ligne réclaméepar le
Cameroun dans cette région décale lafrontière par rapport a la ligne de
partage des eaux que cette ligne doit suivre en vertu du paragraphe 35 de
la déclarationThomson-Marchand, «ce qui revient à attribuer au Came-
roun le petit village deBatou (Batodi Dampti) et environ 1200hectares
de territoire.
137. Le Cameroun maintient quant à lui que «la représentation de la
ligne de partage des eaux dans la traversée desmonts [Alantikas] et [de]la
localisation du villagedeBatou)) dont il est question dans cette région est
exclusivement un problème de démarcation.
138. La Cour constateque la difficulté,dans la régiondu Maio Senche
à laquelle le paragraphe 35 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand s'ap-
plique, consiste à identifier la ligne de partage des eaux, dont les deux
Parties ont proposédes représentations cartographiques différentes.
139. La Cour confirme que la frontière dans la régiondu Maio Senche
passe par la ligne de partage des eaux de la Benoué etdu Faro. Le para-
graphe 35 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand est très clair sur ce
point, qui n'est d'ailleurs pas contesté par les Parties. La Cour, après
étudedu matériaucartographique que lui ont fourni les Parties, observe
qu'elle nesaurait accepter le tracéde la ligne de partage des eaux proposé
par le Cameroun, dans la mesure en particulier où celui-ci suit le cours
d'une rivièresur la plus grande partie de sa longueur, ce qui est incom-
patible avec le concept de ligne de partage des eaux. La ligne de partage
des eaux, comme le soutient le Nigéria, passe entre le bassin du Maio
Senche et celui de deux rivièresqui se trouvent plus au sud (voir ci-après,
p. 380, le croquisno8).for the boundary to pass through the points having the above-mentioned
CO-ordinates,which iit has identified as corresponding to Beacons 6, 7
and 8 as referred to iinthose paragraphs (see below, p. 379, sketch-map
No. 7).
Maio Senche
135. Paragraph 35 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration determines
the boundary as follows :
"35. Thence the frontier follows the watershed from the Mao
Wari to the west and from the Mao Faroto the east, where it rejoins
the Alantika Range, it follows the line of the watershed of the Benue
to the north-west and of the Faro to the south-east as far as the
south peak of thleAlantika Mountains to a point 2 kilometres to the
north of the source of the River Mali."
136. Nigeria contends that the boundary in this sector must follow the
watershed. It points (outthat the line claimed by Cameroon in this area
displaces the boundairy from the watershed which the boundary is to fol-
low pursuant to paragraph 35 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration,
"thereby attributing to Cameroon the small vill.ige of Batou (Batodi
Dampti) and some 1.,200hectares of land territor)".
137. For its part, Cameroon maintains that "the representation of the
watershed as it crosse:sthe Alantika Range and the location of the village
of Batou" is solely a problem of demarcation.
138. The Court notes that, in the Maio Senche area, covered by para-
graph 35 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, the difficulty lies in
identifying the lineoc the watershed, of which the two Parties have pro-
posed differing cartographic representations.
139. The Court ccinfirmsthat the boundary in the Maio Senche area
follows the line of the watershed between the Benile and the Faro. Para-
graph 35 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration is quite clear on this
point, which is inder:d not disputed by the Parties. After studying the
cartographic material provided to it by the Parties, the Court observes
that it cannot accept the watershed line proposed by Cameroon, in par-
ticularbecause it follows the course of a river ove1the greater part of its
length, which is incompatible with the concept of the line of a water-
shed. The watershed line passes, as Nigeria conte~ids,between the basin
of the Maio Senche and that of the two rivers to the south (see below,
p. 380, sketch-map No. 8). FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
De labornefrontière no6
A Wamini Budungo
N.BCccmquia bMli
ides fd'illu?hneiùacnt380 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDI~MENT) 380Jimbare et Sapeo
140. Les paragraphes 35 a 38 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand
fixent la frontière comme suit:
« 35) Puis par la ligne de partage des eaux du Mao Wari a l'ouest
et du Mayo Faro à l'est pour rejoindre les monts Alantikas; de la
par la ligne de partage des eaux de la Benouéau nord-ouest et du
Faro au sud-est jusqu'au pic du sud des monts [Alantikas] en un
point situé à2 kilomètres au nord de la source de la rivièreMali.
36) De ce pic, par la rivière Sassiri, laissant Kobi en zone fran-
çaise et Kobi Leinde en zone anglaise, Tebou et Tscho a la France,
jusqu'a son confluent avec le premier ruisseau venant de la chaîne
des Balakossa (ce confluent touche la piste Kobodji Mapeo). De ce
ruisseau la frontière sedirige vers le sud, laissant Uru Belo a l'Angle-
terre etNananoua a la France.
37) Ensuite elle rejoint l'ancienne frontière aux environsde Lapao
en territoire français et suit la ligne de partage des eaux de la chaîne
des Balakossa jusqu'a un point situéà l'ouest de la sourcede Labidje
ou Kadam, rivièrequi sejette dans le Mayo Deo, d'une part, et la
rivièreSampze, qui se jette dans la riviere Baleo, au nord-ouest,
d'autre part.
38) De ce point la frontière suit la ligne de partage des eaux entre
la rivière Baleo et la rivièreNomberou, en empruntant la ligne de
faîte des monts Tschapeu, jusqu'a un point situéa 2 kilomètres au
nord de Noumberou, s'infléchissantà la hauteur de ce village, qui est
en Nigéria, puis empruntant une valléenord-est, puis sud-est, qui
franchit la chaîne des Banglang à environ 1kilomètre de la source de
la rivièreKordo. »
141. En ce qui concerne le tracé dela partie de la frontière terrestre
telle que décrite aux paragraphes 35 à 38 de la déclaration Thomson-
Marchand, le Nigériarelèvetout d'abord que le texte de la déclaration
est,à bien des égards,défectueux etpropose de le clarifier. Selon lui, la
Cour devrait dire que le pic sud des monts Alantikas est constituépar le
Hosere Bila situé a 2kilomètresau nord de la source de la rivière Mali. Il
précise égalementque la rivièreSassiri citéeau paragraphe 36de la décla-
ration Thomson-Marchand ne vient pas du Hosere Bila mais de la chaîne
des Balakossa, qui se trouve plus au sud. La rivièrequi est en fait viséeau
paragraphe 36 serait le Leinde ou Lugga. Le Nigériaajoute que, au sud
de Nananoua, la description du tracé dela frontière devrait êtreprécisée
et modifiéepar la Cour dans la mesure où le texte des paragraphes 37
et 38 de la déclarationThomson-Marchand et la carte qui l'accompagne
se contredisent. Le Nigéria expliqueque l'intention des Gouvernements
britannique et français était depuis 1920d'attribuer Jimbare à la France
et Sapeo a la Grande-Bretagne. Il rappelle a cet effet que, le 12novembre
1920, à la suite d'une mission de délimitation sur le terrain, une propo- LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 381
Jimhare and Sczpeo
140. Paragraphs 35 to 38 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
determine the boundiiry as follows:
"35. Thence the frontier follows the watershed from the Mao
Wari to the Westand from the Mao Faroto the east, where it rejoins
the Alantika Range, it follows the line of the watershed of the Benue
to the north-west and of the Faro to the south-east as far as the
south peak of the Alantika Mountains to a point 2 kilometres to the
north of the source of the River Mali.
36. Thence from this peak by the River Sassiri, leaving Kobi to
France and Kobi Leinde to Great Britain, Tebou and Tscho to
France, as far aii the confluence with the first stream coming from
the Balakossa Range (this confluence touches the Kobodji Mapeo
Track), from this stream towards the south. leaving Uro Belo to
Great Britain and Nanaoua to France.
37. Thence the boundary rejoins the old boundary about Lapao
in French territo'ry, following the line of the watershed of the Bala-
kossa range as far as a point situated to the west of the source of the
Labidje or Kadam River, which flows into the River Deo, and from
the River Sampce flowing into the River Baleo to the north-west.
38. Thence from this point along the line of the watershed between
the River Baleo and the River Noumberou .dong the crest of the
Tschapeu Range, to a point 2 kilometres to the north of Namberu,
turning by this village, which is in Nigeria, going up a valley north-
east and then south-east, which crosses the Banglang range about a
kilometre to the south of the source of the Kordo River."
141. In regard to the course of that part of the laiid boundary described
in paragraphs 35 to .38of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, Nigeria
first notes that the wording of the Declaration is defective in many
respects and propose!; to clarify it. It contends that the Court should find
that the south peak of the Alantika mountains is Hosere Bila, situated
2 km north of the source of the Mali River. It further points out that the
Sassiri River referred to in paragraph 36 of the Thomson-Marchand Dec-
laration does not flow from Hosere Bila but from the Balakossa Range
lying further to thesouth, and that the river referred to in paragraph 36
is in fact the Leinde or Lugga. It adds that, soiith of Nananoua, the
description of the boundary should be clarified and modified by the
Court, since the text of paragraphs 37 and 38 of the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration and the accompanying map are mutually contradictory. It
explains that the intention of the British and French Governments had
since 1920 been to attribute Jimbare to France anci Sapeo to Great Brit-
ain. In this connection it points out that on 12 November 1920 a joint
proposal to this effect had been signed by W. D. K. Mair, a British Dis-382 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
sition conjointe allant dans ce sens avait été signéear W. D. K. Mair,
responsable de district britannique, et le capitaine Louis Pition, représen-
tant de I'administration française (dénomméeci-après la ((proposition
conjointe Mair-Pition))). Cette mêmeproposition aurait ensuite été reprise
dans un document signéle 16octobre 1930par R. Logan, responsable de
district britannique, et le lieutenant Le Brun, représentant de l'admi-
nistration française (dénomméci-après le «procès-verbal Logan-Le
Brun))). Ce procès-verbal, établi après la rédaction de la déclaration
Thomson-Marchand, mais avant sa signature, aurait eu pour but de
remédiersur le terrain aux difficultés poséespar le texte de cette dernière
et aurait depuis lors été respectpar les deux Parties.
Selon le Nigéria,alorsqu'une partie des propositions contenues dans le
procès-verbal Logan-Le Brun auraient étéintroduites dans le texte de la
déclarationThomson-Marchand, on aurait oublié de modifier également
la partie de la déclaration relative Jimbare et Sapeo. Pour Sapeo, les
propositions faites dans le procès-verbal auraient néanmoins bien été
reprises sur la carte de 1931jointe la déclaration. De l'avisdu Nigéria,
c'est dèslors la carte, et non le texte de la déclaration, qui devrait être
prise en compte, dans la mesure ou ce dernier «ne concorde pas avec
l'abondante pratique observéesur le terrain depuis trois quarts de siècle)).
Ainsi, le Nigéria affirmeque Sapeo a été traité commenigérianlors des
plébiscitesde 1959 et 1961 et qu'il en assure I'administration. Selon le
Nigéria, la solution serait donc d'interpréter la déclarationThomson-
Marchand à la lumièrede la proposition conjointe Mair-Pition, du pro-
cès-verbal Logan-Le Brun et de la pratique locale bien établie.La nou-
velle description baséesur le procès-verbal Logan-Le Brun aboutirait a
laisser I'entièretéde la chaîne des Balakossa au Cameroun età donner la
plaine de Sapeo, sur le flanc sud du Hosere Sapeo, au Nigéria.La ligne
frontière ainsi modifiéeaurait d'ailleurs été acceptépear le Cameroun,
comme l'indiquerait une lettre du 17 mars 1979 adresséeau préfet du
département de la Bénouépar le sous-préfetde l'arrondissement de Poli.
142. Le Cameroun s'accorde avec le Nigériapour dire que le pic visé
au paragraphe 35 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand est le Hosere
Bila et que les rivièresdont le cours està suivre dans cette régionsont
bien leLeinde, puis le Sassiri. Le Cameroun soutient en revanche que, au
sud de Nananoua, seule la déclaration Thomson-Marchand doit être
prise en compte pour établirle tracé dela frontière. Il rappelle en effet
que, si la proposition conjointe Mair-Pition fut soumiseà la France età
la Grande-Bretagne, elle ne fut néanmoins pas retenue par ces dernières,
ni reportée dans la déclaration Thomson-Marchand. Il en va de même
pour le procès-verbal Logan-Le Brun. Quant a la lettre de 1979,le Came-
roun observe qu'en l'occurrence «[un simple sous-préfet]n'avait pas bien
compris la situation juridique réelle)).Il conviendrait dès lors selon le
Cameroun de s'en tenir au texte de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand.
143. La Cour constate que l'interprétation des paragraphes 35à 38 de
la déclaration Thomson-Marchand soulève des difficultés, ence que la
description de la frontière qu'ils contiennent semble d'une part compor-trict Officer, and Captain Louis Pition, representing the French adminis-
tration (hereinafter the "Mair-Pition Joint Proposal"), following a delimi-
tation mission on the ground, that proposa1 being subsequently incorpo-
rated into a document signed on 16 October 1930 by R. Logan, British
District Officer, and Lieutenant J. Le Brun, representing the French
administration (hereinafter the "Logan-Le Brun procès-verbal"). Nigeria
claims that this document, drawn up after the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration was prepared but before it was signed, was intended to set
out a solution on the ground to the difficulties created by the text of the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration and that it has been respected since
then by both Parties.
Nigeria contends that, while part of the proposals in the Logan-
Le Brun procès-verbill wereincorporated into the text of the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration, the drafters forgot to amend also the part of the
Declaration concerning Jimbare and Sapeo; as far as Sapeo was con-
cerned, the proposals in the Logan-Le Brun procès-verbal were none-
theless shown on the 1931map annexed to the Declaration. In Nigeria's
view, itis the map which should therefore be followed and not the text of
the Declaration, since this "does not accord with the extensive practice
on the ground for the past three quarters of a ceiitury". Thus it asserts
that Sapeo was treated as Nigerian during the 1959and 1961plebiscites
and that Nigeria is rirsponsible for its administrat~on. In Nigeria's view,
the solution is therefore to construethe Thomson-Marchand Declaration
in the light of the hdair-Pition Joint Proposal, of the Logan-Le Brun
procès-verbal and of the well-established local practice. The new descrip-
tion based on the Logan-Le Brun procès-verbal would result in leaving
al1of the Balakossa Range to Cameroon and giving Nigeria the Sapeo
plain on the southern side of Hosere Sapeo. It contends that the modified
boundary line was rnoreover accepted by Camer.oon in a letter dated
17 March 1979 to t'he "Prefect of Benue Department" from the Sub-
Prefect of Poli Subdivision.
142. Cameroon agrees with Nigeria that the peak referred to in para-
graph 35 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration is Hosere Bila and that
the rivers whose courses are to be followed in this area are indeed first the
Leinde and then the Sassiri. Cameroon maintains, however, that south of
Nananoua only the Thomson-Marchand Declaration should be used in
order to establish the course of the boundary; it argues that, although the
Mair-Pition Joint Proposa1was submitted to France and Great Britain, it
was not accepted by them and not incorporated in the Thomson-March-
and Declaration; the same applied to the Logan-Ide Brun procès-verbal.
As regards the 1979 letter, Cameroon observes that "[a mere sub-prefect]
had not properly uriderstood the true legal position". In Cameroon's
view, the text of the Thomson-Marchand Dec1ar;ition should therefore
be adhered to.
143. The Court notes that the interpretation of paragraphs 35 to 38 of
the Thomson-Marchand Declaration poses problt:ms, since the descrip-
tion of the boundary therein appears both to cont.lin a series of material383 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
ter une séried'erreurs matérielleset, d'autre part, dans certains passages,
êtreen contradiction avec la représentation faite de cette frontière sur la
carte de 1931 annexéeà la déclaration.
La Cour relève toutefois que, ce qui concerne la région au nord de
Nananoua viséeau paragraphe 36 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand,
les Parties sont d'accord pour considérer que les rivièresdont la frontière
suit le cours sont le Leinde et le Sassiri. De même,les représentations
cartographiques de ce segment de la frontière proposées Gr les Parties
correspondent en tout point.
Au sud de Nananoua, il n'existe par contre pas d'accord entre le
Cameroun et le Nigéria.
144. La Cour se penchera d'abord sur la régionde Sapeo. Après avoir
étudié attentivement les cartes fournies par les Parties et le procès-verbal
Logan-Le Brun, la Cour constate que, comme le Nigériale soutient, c'est
bien la ligne frontière décrite dans ce procès-verbal, et non celle décrite
dans la déclaration Thomson-Marchand, qui a été reprisesur la carte de
1931jointe à la déclaration. La Cour note par ailleurs que, dans la pra-
tique, Sapeo a toujours étéconsidéré comme se trouvant en territoire
nigérian. Ainsi, Sapeo fut considéré comme nigérian lors des plébiscites
de 1959et 1961. Si le Cameroun a précisédans ses écritures qu'il estimait
((insuffisants)) les divers éléments avancéspar le Nigéria comme preuve
de son administration du village de Sapeo, il n'a toutefois pas sérieuse-
ment contesté ceux-ci. De même,le Cameroun n'a à aucun moment pré-
tendu exercer son administration sur ce village. La lettre du 17mars 1979
adressée au préfet du département de la Bénouépar le sous-préfet de
l'arrondissement de Poli constitue une indication utile de ce que I'admi-
nistration exercéepar le Nigériasur Sapeo était connue du Cameroun. La
Cour estime dès lors qu'il convient, dans cette région, d'interpréter la
déclaration Thomson-Marchand conformément à l'intention de ses rédac-
teurs, telle qu'est s'est manifestée sur la carte qui y était jointe et sur le
terrain, à savoir de manière à faire suivre à la frontière le tracé décrit
dans le roce es-verbalLo"an-Le Brun.
145. Se penchant ensuite sur la situation dans la régionde Jimbare, la
Cour note que, contrairement à ce qui s'est passépour Sapeo, la revision
de la frontière contenue dans le procès-verbal Logan-Le Brun n'a pas été
transposée sur la carte de 1931 jointe a la déclaration Thomson-Mar-
chand, pour ce qui concerne la régionde Jimbare. Le tracé dela frontière
sur la carte est celui décrit dans la déclaration. La Cour estime néan-
moins que c'est égalementle tracédécritdans le procès-verbal Logan-Le
Brun qui doit ici prévaloir. Comme la Cour vient de le déterminer, le
tracé Logan-Le Brun correspond en effet à l'intention des rédacteurs de
la déclaration dans l'ensemble de cette région.Dans sa duplique, le Nigé-
ria a par ailleurs accepté cette interprétation de la déclaration Thomson-
Marchand favorable au Cameroun, tandis que ce dernier ne s'y est pas
opposé.
146. La Cour conclut dès lors tout d'abord que les paragraphes 35 et
36 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand doivent être interprétés commeerrors and, in certain places, to contradict the representation of that
boundary on the 1931 map appended to the Dec1;iration.
The Court notes, however, that, as regards th<:area to the north of
Nananoua as referred to in paragraph 36 of the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration, the Parties agree that the rivers whose courses form the
boundary are the Leinde and the Sassiri. Similarly, the cartographic
representations of this section of the boundary proposed by the Parties
correspond in every respect.
To the south of Nananoua, on the other hand, there is no agreement
between Cameroon and Nigeria.
144. The Court will first address the Sapeo area After carefully study-
ing the maps provided by the Parties and the Logan-Le Brun proces-
verbal, the Court finidsthat, as Nigeria claims, it is indeed the boundary
described in that prcicès-verbal and not that described in the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration which was transposed ont0 the 1931 map
appended to the Declaration. The Court further ilotes that, in practice,
Sapeo has always been regarded as lying in Nigerian territory. Thus
Sapeo was regarded as Nigerian in the 1959 and 1961plebiscites. While
Cameroon has statedl in its written pleadings thatit regarded as "insuffi-
cierit" the various items of evidence presented by Nigeria as proof of its
administration of the village of Sapeo, it has however not seriously chal-
lenged them. Cameroon has also never claimed to exercise any form of
administration over the village. The letter of 17 March 1979 from the
Sub-Prefect of Poli Subdivision to the "Prefect of Benue Department"
indicates that Cameroon was aware of Nigeria's administration of Sapeo.
The Court accordingly considers that in this area the Thomson-March-
and Declaration should be interpreted in accordance with the intention
of its authors, as manifested on the map appended thereto and on the
ground, namely so as to make the boundary follow the course described
in the Logan-Le Brun procès-verbal.
145. Turning next to the situation in the Jimbare area, the Court notes
that, contrary to wh,at occurred in regard to Sapco, the modification of
the boundary provided for in the Logan-Le Brun procès-verbal was not
transposed ont0 the 193 1 map appended to the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration in respect of the Jimbare area. The course of the boundary
on the map is as described in the Declaration. The Court nonetheless
takes the view that lit is the course as described in the Logan-Le Brun
procès-verbal which must also prevail here. As the Court has just found,
the Logan-Le Brun {coursein effect corresponds TO the intention of the
authors of the Declaration throughout this region. In its Rejoinder
Nigeria has moreover accepted this interpretation of the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration, which is favourable to Cameroon, whilst the
latter has notopposi:d it.
146. TheCourt accordingly concludes, first, that paragraphs 35 and 36
of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration must be iriterpreted as providing384 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
faisant passer la frontière par le Hosere Bila, qu'elle a identifiécomme
étant le«pic du sud des monts [Alantikas])) viséau paragraphe 35, puis
de ce point par le cours de la rivièreeinde et par le cours de la riviere
Sassiri ((jusqu'à son confluent avec le premier ruisseau venant de la
chaîne des Balakossa ».
La Cour conclut ensuite que les paragraphes 37 et 38 de la déclaration
Thomson-Marchand doivent être interprétés comme faisantpasser la
frontière par le tracé décritau paragraphe 1 du procès-verbal Logan-Le
Brun, tel que représentépar le Nigéria sur les figures 7.15 et 7.16 en
regard des pages 346 et 350 de sa duplique.
Nomberou (Namberou) -Banglang
147. Le paragraphe 38 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand fixe la
frontière comme suit :
((38) De ce point la frontière suit la ligne de partage des eaux
entre la rivière Baleoet la rivièreNomberou, en empruntant la ligne
de faîte des monts Tschapeu, jusqu'a un point situéa 2 kilomètresau
nord de Noumberou, s'infléchissanta la hauteur de ce village, qui est
en Nigéria, puisempruntant une valléenord-est, puis sud-est, qui
franchit la chaîne des Banglangà environ 1kilomètrede la source de
la rivièreKordo. »
148. Le Nigéria considère que le paragraphe 38 de la déclaration
Thomson-Marchand est également défectueux ence qu'il décrit lafron-
tièrecomme ((empruntant une valléenord-est, puis sud-est)),alors que la
seule vallée présentedans la région est orientée nord-ouest, puis sud-
ouest. Selon le Nigéria,cette erreur aurait étéconstatéedans le procès-
verbal Logan-Le Brun de 1930 et corrigéede manière à faire passer la
frontière «par le cours principal du Mayo Namberu jusqu'à sa source
dans une dépressionbien définie situéea un demi-mille environ a l'estdu
sommet principal du Hossere Banglang)).
149. Le Cameroun estime pour sa part qu'il convient de s'en tenira la
définitionde la frontière contenue dans les paragraphes 37 et 38 de la
déclaration Thomson-Marchand.
150. La Cour constate que la fin du paragraphe 38 de la déclaration
Thomson-Marchand soulève des difficultésd'interprétation en ce qu'elle
contient des erreurs matériellesfondamentales. Après une étudedu maté-
riau cartographique fourni par les Parties, la Cour est en effet parvenue
la conclusion que, comme le Nigéria l'allègue,il n'existe aucune vallée
orientée ((nord-est, puis sud-est)) dans la région,contrairementàce que
prévoitle texte de ce paragraphe. La Cour s'attachera donc à identifier le
tracéquelesrédacteurs dela déclarationThomson-Marchand ont entendu
donner à la frontière dans cette région.
La Cour relèvesur ce point que seule la partie de la frontière situéeau
sud de la source du Nomberou pose problème. LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 384
for the boundary to pass over Hosere Bila, which it has identified as the
"south peak of the Alantika Mountains" referred to in paragraph 35, and
then from that point along the River Leinde and the River Sassiri "as far
asthe confluence with the first stream coming from the Balakossa Range".
The Court further concludes that paragraphs 3'7and 38 of the Thom-
son-Marchand Declaration must be interpreted as providing for the
boundary to follow the course described in paragraph 1 of the Logan-
Le Brun procès-verbal, as shown by Nigeria in Figures 7.15 and 7.16 at
pages 346 and 350 of its Rejoinder.
147. Paragraph 38 of the Thomson-Marchand Ileclaration determines
the boundary as follows :
"38. Thence from this point along the line of the watershed
between the River Baleo and the River Noumberou along the crest
of the Tschapeu Range, to a point 2 kilometres to the north of Nam-
beru, turning by this village, which is in Nigeria, going up a valley
north-east and ithen south-east, which crosses the Banglang range
about a kilometre to the south of the source of the Kordo River."
148. Nigeria considers that paragraph 38 of the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration is also defective in that it describes the boundary as "going
up a valley north-ea:st and then south-east", whereas the only valley in
the area runs north-vvestand then south-west. According to Nigeria, this
error was noted in the 1930Logan-Le Brun procès-.verbaland rectified by
a provision for the boundary to follow "the main course of the Mayo
Namberu upstream to its source in a well-defined saddle approx. % mile
to the east of the main summit of Hossere Banglang".
149. For its part, Cameroon stands by the defiiiition of the boundary
set out in paragraphs 37 and 38 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration.
150. The Court notes that the final part of paragraph 38 of the Thom-
son-Marchand Declaration poses problems of interpretation in that it
contains fundamental1errors of a material nature. After examining the
cartographic material provided by the Parties, the Court has thus reached
the conclusion, as Nigeria contends, that there is no valley in the area
running "north-east, then south-east", contrary to what is stated in the
text of this paragraph. The Court will therefore endeavour to identify the
course which the authors of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
intended the boundary to follow in this area.
The Court notes that in this regard only the part of the boundary situ-
ated to the south of the source of the Noumberoii poses any problem. Au nord de ce point, le Cameroun et le Nigériasont en effet d'accord
pour faire passer la frontière par le cours du Nomberou. Le tracé dela
frontière sur les cartes camerounaises et nigérianes confirme cetaccord.
Au sud de la source du Nomberou, en revanche, les représentations
cartographiques de la frontière présentéespar les Parties divergent.
151. La Cour observe que, si le texte de la déclarationThomson-Mar-
chand ne contient que peu d'informations lui permettant de déterminer le
tracéexact de la frontière dans ce secteur, la description qu'en fait le pro-
cès-verbalLogan-Le Brun est en revanche beaucoup plus détaillée et per-
met une telle détermination. La Cour rappelle qu'ellea déjieu l'occasion
de se servir du texte de ce procès-verbal pour interpréter la déclaration
Thomson-Marchand li où il étaitclair que son contenu correspondait a
l'intention des rédacteurs de la déclaration (voir paragraphe 143 ci-des-
sus). La Cour ne doute pas que ce soit à nouveau le cas ici. Elle note en
particulier que le procès-verbal Logan-Le Brun et le paragraphe 38 de la
déclaration Thomson-Marchand semblent faire aboutir la frontière dans
ce secteur a un point identique. Le procès-verbal Logan-Le Brun prévoit
en effet que la frontière aboutit au mont Tapare situé «a environ 1 mille
au sud de la source du Mayo Korda)) tandis que, dans sa version
anglaise, la déclaration Thomson-Marchand prévoit qu'elleaboutit «a
environ 1kilomètre au sud de la source de la rivière Korda)). La version
française du paragraphe 38 fait l'économiedu qualificatif «au sud)). La
Cour ne saurait manquer en outre de relever à cet égard quele segment
de la frontière situéau nord de la source du Nomberou, sur lequel il y a
accord des Parties, suit le tracé établipar le procès-verbal Logan-Le
Brun.
La Cour estime que c'est la lignefrontière proposéepar le Nigériaqui
doit êtrepréféréeC .ette ligne rejoint en effet le plus directement le Hosere
Tapere, situépar 12"14'30"de longitude est et 8O22'00"de latitude nord,
indiquépar le procès-verbal Logan-Le Brun comme le point d'aboutisse-
ment de ce segment de la frontière. Cette ligne est par ailleurs plus favo-
rable au Cameroun que celle qui figure sur ses propres cartes, et ce der-
nier ne s'y est pas oppose.
152. La Cour en conclut que le paragraphe 38 infine de la déclaration
Thomson-Marchand doit être interprété comme faisanp t asser la fron-
tière par le cours de la rivièreNamberou jusqu'a sa source, puis de ce
point, par une ligne droite,jusqu'au Hosere Tapere tel que localisépar la
Cour (voir ci-après, p. 386, le croquis n09).
153. Les paragraphes 40 et 41 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand
fixent la frontière comme suit: To the north of i:hat point, Cameroon and Nigeria agree that the
boundary should follow the course of the Noumberou. The course of the
boundary shown on the Cameroonian and Nigerian maps confirms that
agreement.
However, to the south of the source of the Noumberou, the carto-
graphie representations of the boundary presented by the Parties diverge.
151. The Court observes that. while the text of the Thomson-March-
and Declaration contains scant information enabling it to determine the
precise course of the boundary in this sector, the description of it in the
Logan-Le Brun procès-verbal is, however, far more detailed and enables
such a determinatiori to be made. The Court reciills that it has alreadv
had occasion to use the text of that procès-verbal inrder to interpret the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration, where it was clear that its terms corre-
sponded to the intention of the authors of the Declaration (see para-
graph 143 above). The Court has no doubt that this is again the case
here. It notes in particular that the Logan-Le Brun procès-verbal and
paragraph 38 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration appear to make
the boundary in this sector terminate at the same point. Thus the Logan-
Le Brun procès-verbal provides that the boundary runs to Mount Tapare,
situated "about a mile to the south of the source of the Mayo Kordo",
whilst the English text of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration provides
for the boundary to pass through a point "about a kilometre to the south
of the source of the Kordo River". The French text of paragraph 38
omits the phrase "to the south of'. The Court is bound moreover to note
in this regard that the part of the boundary situated to the north of the
source of the Noumberou, on which the Parties are in agreement, follows
the boundary established by the Logan-Le Brun procès-verbal.
The Court considers that it is the boundary line proposed by Nigeria
which is to be preferred. That is the line which runs most directly to
Hosere Tapere, located at 12'14'30"longitude east and 8"22'00" latitude
north, the point indicated by the Logan-Le Brun procès-verbal as the
terminal for this section of the boundary. That line is moreover more
favourable to Cameroon than the line shown on its own maps, and
Cameroon has not opposed it.
152. The Court accordingly concludes that the final part of para-
graph 38 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration must be interpreted as
providing for the boundary to follow the course of'the River Noumberou
as far as its source, and then from that point to run in a straight line as
far as Hosere Tapere as identified by the Court (set:below, p. 386, sketch-
map No. 9).
153. Paragraphs 40 and 41 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
determine the bounclary as follows:Nomberou-Banglang
N.BCa cmquisa8tWli
Bdu,finsd'ilhscrsnilemnt-8"27' 8' 27'
Namberu 826'
go1
8"24'-
823-
SKETCH-MAPO.9
Noumberou-Banglang 8"22'-
N..hisrkpkepmpred
O -- 2 3km 8"21'-
112"21'387 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRET)
((40) Puis une ligne parallèle a la route de Fort-Lamy-Baré en se
maintenant a une distance de 2 kilomètres de cette route, qui se
trouve toujours en territoire français.
41) Puis par une ligne parallèle et distante de 2 kilomètres a
l'ouest de cette route, qui est approximativement celle marquée
Faulborn, janvier 1908, sur la carte Moisel, jusqu'au point sur le
Mayo Tipsal (Tiba, Tibsat, ou Tussa sur la carte Moisel) àenviron
2 kilomètres au sud-ouest du point où le Mayo Tipsal est traversé
par la piste.)
154. Tant le Nigériaque le Cameroun se sont accordés lors dela pro-
cédure orale a considérer comme claire la description de la frontière
contenue aux paragraphes 40 et 41 de la déclaration.
Le Cameroun soutient toutefois qu'un problème de démarcation, à
savoir l'identification sur le terrain des formations citéesdans ces dispo-
sitions, se pose dans cette région.l affirme en particulier qu'il existe en
territoire camerounais une localité appeléeTipsan qui se situe à environ
3 kilomètres de la ville de Kontcha.
Le Nigéria niequant a lui l'existenced'un villageappeléTipsan du côté
camerounais de la frontière, le seul lieu-dit Tipsan étantun poste d'immi-
gration situéen territoire nigérian.
155. La Cour observe que, al'audience, lesParties se sont accordées
pour reconnaître que la frontière doit passer par une ligne parallèle la
route Fort-Lamy-Baré et distante de celle-ci de 2 kilomètres a l'ouest,
comme le prévoit le paragraphe 41 de la déclaration Thomson-Mar-
chand. La Cour prend acte de cet accord. Elle précisetoutefois, pour
lever toute ambiguïté,qu'il convient d'identifierle point d'aboutissement
de ce segment de la frontièreà savoir le point situé surle Mayo Tipsa«à
environ 2 kilomètresau sud-ouest du wointoù le MavodT.wsalest traversé
par la piste)), comme correspondant aux coordonnées 12"12'45"de lon-
gitude est et7' 58'49" de latitude nord.
Le franchissement du Mayo Yim
156. Les paragraphes 48 et 49 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand
fixent la frontière comme suit:
((48) Puis elle atteint le mont Lowul, qui se trouve a environ
2 kilomètres de la route Banyo-Kotcha (route de Fort-Lamy). Du
sommet de la passe du Genderou l'azimut du mont Lowul est 296.
De ce sommet, situé a 3 milles et demi du gîte d'étape, quise trouve
et qui est situéentre un pic des monts M'Bailadji (à l'ouest) etune
colline moins élevéeappelée Hosere Burutol (à l'est), le mont
M'Bailadji est a l'azimut 45 et le mont Burutelà l'azimut 185.
49) La frontière est ensuite déterminéepar une ligne qui franchit
le Mayo Yim en un point situé a environ 4 kilomètres à l'ouest du "40. Thence along a line parallel to the Bare Fort Lamy Track
and 2 kilometres to the Westof this track, which remains in French
territory.
41. Thence a line parallel to and distant 2 kilometres to the West
from this road (which is approximately that marked Faulborn,
January 1908, on Moisel'smap) to a point on the Maio Tipsal (Tiba,
Tibsat or Tussa on Moisel's map) 2 kilometres to the south-west of
the point at which the road crosses said Maio Tipsal."
154. Both Nigeria and Cameroon agreed at the hearings that the
description of the boundary set out in paragraphs 40 and 41 of the Dec-
laration is clear.
Cameroon maintaiins, however, that there is a demarcation problem in
this area, namely in identifying on the ground the features mentioned in
those provisions. Specifically, it contends that there is a locality called
Tipsan on Camerooriian territory some 3 km from the town of Kontcha.
Nigeria denies the existence of a village called Tipsan on the Cam-
eroonian side of the boundary, claiming that the only place called
Tipsan is an immigration post situated on Nigerian territory.
155. The Court observes that at the hearings the Parties agreed that
the boundary must follow a line running parallel IO the Fort Lamy-Baré
road some 2 km to the west thereof, as paragraph 41 of the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration provides. The Court takzs note of that agree-
ment. However, the (Courtconsiders that, in order to remove any doubt,
it should identify thi: terminal point of this section of the boundary -
namely the point situiatedon the Mayo Tipsal "2 kilometres to the south-
west of the point at which the road crosses said Mayo Tipsal" -- as cor-
responding to the CO-ordinates 12"12'45" longitude east and 7"58'49"
latitude north.
Crossing the Maio l'in
156. Paragraphs 48 and 49 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
determine the boundlary as follows:
"48. Thence to Hosere Lowul, which is well over 2 kilometres
from the Kwancha-Banyo main road. This peak (Hosere Lowul) lies
on a magnetic blearingof 296 from the apex of the Genderu Pass on
the above-mentioned main road. From this apex, which is distant
3% miles from Genderu Rest-house, and which lies between a peak
of Hosere M'Blailaji (to the west) and a smaller hill, known as
Hosere Burutol, to the east, Hosere M'Bailaji has a magnetic bear-
ing of 45 and H[osereBurutol one of 185.
49. Thence a line, crossing the Maio Yin ;it a point some 4 kilo-
metres to the west of the figure 1,200(denotirig height in metres of a chiffre 1200(chiffre indiquant la hauteur en mètresd'une montagne
de forme conique (sur la carteMoisel, section E 2),jusqu'a un pic de
forme conique, le mont Golungel, au pied duquel (en zone française)
se trouve une source natronnée bien connue des pasteurs. Du gîte
d'étape de compagnie Massa situé surla piste Kontcha-Banyo (route
de Fort-Lamy) on aperçoit le mont Golungel sous l'azimut 228. Du
mêmepoint le mont Lowul est a l'azimut 11. Lelahoréde Banarése
trouve en territoire britannique.)
157. Le Nigériaconsidère que les paragraphes 48 et 49 de la déclara-
tion Thomson-Marchand sont trop vagues, tout particulièrement en ce
qui concerne la localisation du point ou cette ligne frontiere traverse le
Mayo Yim. La Cour devrait dèslors identifier celui-ci.
158. Selon le Cameroun, lesdeux paragraphes de la déclarationThom-
son-Marchand en question ne nécessitentaucune clarification de la part
de la Cour. Les deux sommets et la ligne droite qui doit lesjoindre, ainsi
que le point de franchissement de la rivière, seraient définis avecsuffi-
samment de précision pour qu'il n'y ait là qu'un simple problème de
démarcation.
159. La Cour observe que, si le Nigériaa soulevédans son contre-mé-
moire la question du tracé dela frontière au niveau du franchissement du
Mayo Yim viséau paragraphe 49 de la déclarationThomson-Marchand,
il n'est pas revenu sur ce point dans sa duplique, ni lors de la procédure
orale. Le Nigéria n'a pas non plus contesté l'argument du Cameroun
selon lequel le problèmedans cette région est unpur problème de démar-
cation. Dans ces conditions, la Cour n'estime pas nécessairede préciser
les coordonnéesdes points par lesquels la déclaration fait passer la fron-
tièredans ce secteur.
160. La Cour confirme en conséquenceque la frontiere, dans la région
du franchissement du Mayo Yim, suit le tracéviséaux paragraphes 48
et 49 de la déclarationThomson-Marchand.
La région desmonts Hambere
161. Les paragraphes 60 et 61 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand
fixent la frontiere comme suit:
((60) Puis elle suit la ligne de partage des eaux au travers des
monts Gesumi ou Hambere, au nord des sources des Mayo Kombe,
Gur et Malam jusqu'a un pic assez proéminent quiest à l'azimut 17
en se plaçant sur un tumulus de pierres de 8 pieds de haut élevéle
15 septembre 1920 sur le côté sud de la piste Banyo-Kumbo-Ba-
menda à environ 1mille du gîte d'étape deN'Yorong et 8 milles et
demi du village de Songkorong.
61) De ce pic, dans les monts Hambere ou Gesumi, qui est situéà low conical hill) on Moisel's map E 2, to a prominent conical peak,
Hosere Gulungel, at the foot of which (in French Territory) is a
spring impregnated with potash, which is well-known to al1cattle-
owners in the vicinity. This Hosere Gulungel lias a magnetic bearing
of 228 from the point (5 miles from Genderii Rest-house, which is
known locally as 'Kampani Massa' on the main Kwancha-Banyo
road where it (Hosere Gulungel) first comes into view. From this
same point the magnetic bearing to Hosere Lowul is 11.The Salt lick
of Banare lies in British Territory."
157. Nigeria considers that paragraphs 48 and 49 of the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration are too vague, in particulai in respect of the loca-
tion of the precise point where the boundary crosses the Maio Yin; the
Court should therefclre identify that point.
158. In Cameroon's view, the two paragraphs of'the Thomson-March-
and Declaration in question do not require any clarification by the
Court; the two peak:; and the straight line to be drawn between them, as
well as the point at which the river is crossed, are identified in precise
enough terms to malte this simply a question of demarcation.
159. The Court observes that, while Nigeria did in its Counter-
Memorial raise the question of the course of the boundary where it
crosses the Maio Yiin as described in paragraph 49 of the Thomson-
Marchand Declaratilon, it did not return to this point in its Rejoinder,
or at the hearings. Nor did Nigeria challenge Cameroon's argument that
the problem in this area is merely one ofemarcat~on.The Court accord-
ingly considers that it is not necessary to specify the CO-ordinatesof the
points through which, pursuant to the Declaration, the boundary is to
pass in thisarea.
160. The Court accordingly confirms that the boundary in the area
where it crosses the Maio Yin follows the course described in para-
graphs 48 and 49 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration.
The Hurnbere Range areu
161. Paragraphs 60 and 61 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
determine the bound.ary as follows:
"60. Thence the Frontier follows the watershed amongst these
Hosere Hambere (or Gesumi) to the north of the sources of the
Maio Kombe, IvIaio Gur and Maio Malam to a fairly prominent,
pointed peak which lieson a magnetic bearing of 17"from a cairn of
Stones, 8 feet hiigh, erected on the 15th September, 1920, on the
south side of the above Banyo-Kumbo-Banienda road at a point
1 mile from N"Yorong Rest-camp and 8% niiles from Songkorong
village.
61. From thil;peak in the Hosere Hambert: (or Gesumi), which is l'est de la source visible du Mayo Mfi ou Baban, la frontière conti-
nue de suivre la ligne de partage des eaux, visible du tumulus sur
tout son parcours, entre le Mayo Malam (à l'est) enzone française et
le Mayo Mfi ou Baban (àl'ouest) en zone anglaise,jusqu'au moment
où elle franchit la piste Banyo-Kumbo-Bamenda à ce tumulus. Ce
tumulus se trouve exactement sous le mont le plus élevédes Nang-
ban, qui est dénommésur la carte Moisel, section F 2, mont Jadji,
bien que Jadji soit en réalitélenom du chef de villagede'Yorong. »
162. En ce qui concerne le secteur de la frontière délimipar les para-
graphes 60 et 61 de la déclarationThomson-Marchand, le Nigéria affirme
que le pic qui y est décritcomme «assez proéminent)),et pour lequel la
version anglaise du texte ajoute le qualificatif «pointu», serait «Itang
Hill)). Ce pic aurait été identifié ecalculant un azimut 17 à partir du
point de coordonnées 1Io11'55"de longitude est et 6O24'05"de latitude
nord où le Nigéria affirmeavoir situé «avec un degréraisonnable de pro-
babilité)) I'emplacement du tumulus de pierres mentionné au para-
graphe 60 de la déclarationThomson-Marchand. Ce pic n'étant toutefois
pas sur la ligne de partage des eaux, contrairementà ce que prévoientles
paragraphes 60 et 61 de la déclaration,il conviendrait selon le Nigéria de
tracer la frontière enjoignant la ligne de crêteItang Hill au nord-est de
ce sommet, puis en suivant l'escarpement jusqu'au sud-ouest du village
nigériande Sanya où elle rejoindrait la ligne de partage des eaux.
163. Le Cameroun affirme pour sa part que l'identification du pic
((assezproéminent»mentionnéau paragraphe 60de la déclarationThom-
son-Marchand et dans l'Ordre en conseil de 1946est un pur problème de
démarcation. Il soutient par ailleurs que la solution proposéepar le Nigé-
ria pourrait avoir pour but de régulariser des empiétementsdans la
régionde Tamnyar en déplaçant demanièrearbitraire la ligne de partage
des eaux et qu'aucune carte ne mentionne de village portant le nom de
Sanya.
164. La Cour constate que les paragraphes 60 et 61 de la déclaration
Thomson-Marchand soulèvent des problèmes d'interprétation dans la
mesure où ils font passer la frontièrepar«un pic assezproéminent D,sans
plus de précision (si ce n'est que, dans la version anglaise du para-
graphe 60, cepic est en outre qualifiéde((pointu))), et que I'emplacement
de ce pic fait l'objet d'une divergence de vues entre les Parties.
165. La Cour observe que les paragraphes 60 et 61 contiennent un cer-
tain nombre d'indications utiles pour retrouver lepic assezproéminent))
qui y est visé.Premièrement, ces paragraphes indiquent que le pic doit
être situésur la ligne de partage des eaux passant au travers des monts
Hambere. Selon le paragraphe 60, on atteint en effet le pic, venant de
l'est, en suivant «la ligne de partage des eaux au travers des monts
Gesumi ou Hambere)). Le texte français du paragraphe 61 ajoute qu'à
partir du pic«la frontièrecontinue de suivre la ligne de partage des eaux))
(les italiques sont de la Cour). Le fait que le pic viséau paragraphe 60
doit se trouver sur la ligne de partage des eaux passant au travers des situated just to the east of the visible source of the Maio M'Fi (or
Baban), the Frontier follows the watershed, visible al1the way from
the Cairn, between the Maio Malam to east (French) and the
Maio M'Fi (or Baban) to west (British), till it cuts the Banyo-
Kumbo-Bamendia road at the Cairn. This Cairn is immediately
under the highest peak of the Hosere Nangban, which is shown
on Moisel's map F 2 as Hosere Jadji, but Jadji is really the name of
the Pagan head of N'Yorong village."
162. In respect of the sector of the boundary delimited by para-
graphs 60 and 61 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, Nigeria asserts
that the peak described therein as being "fairly prominent", which in the
English version of the text is further described as "pointed", is "Itang
Hill". It claims to have identified this peak as lying on anetic bearing
of 17' from a point whose co-ordinates are 11' 1 1'55" longitude east and
6'24'05" latitude north, where it claims to have located "with a fair
degree of probability" the site of the cairn referred to in paragraph 60 of
the Thomson-Marchand Declaration. As that ~eak is not however on the
watershed, contrary itowhat is provided in paragraphs 60 and 61 of the
Declaration, the boundary should, according to Nigeria, be drawn by
connecting the crest line to Itang Hill north-east of this summit, andhen
by following the escarpment to the south-west of the Nigerian village of
Sanya, where it would join the watershed line.
163. For its part, Cameroon argues that identifying the "fairly promi-
nent" peak referred to in paragraph 60 of the Thomson-Marchand Dec-
laration and in the 1046 Order in Council is purely a problem of demar-
cation. It further coritends that the solution proposed by Nigeria could
be intended to justify encsoachments in the Tamnyar area by arbitrarily
moving the watershetl line and that no map shows a village called Sanya.
164. The Court notes that paragraphs 60 and 61 of the Thomson-
Marchand Declaration raise problems of interpretation, since they pro-
vide for the boundarji to pass over "a fairly prominent peak" without any
further clarification (although in the English text of paragraph 60, that
peak is further descsibed as "pointed"), and the Parties have differing
views as to the location of that peak.
165. The Court observes that paragraphs 60 and 61 contain a number
of indications which ;ire helpful in locating the "fairly prominent, pointed
peak" referred to therein. First, those paragraphs state that the peak
must be located on tlhewatershed passing through the Hosere Hambere.
Thus paragraph 60 provides that the peak is to be reached, coming from
the east, by following;"the watershed amongst these Hosere Hambere (or
Gesumi)". The French text of paragraph 61 further provides that from
the peak "la frontière continue de suivre la ligne de partage des eaux" (the
boundary continues to follow the line of the watershed) (emphasis added
by the Court). Morirover, the fact that the peak referred to in para-monts Hambere a par ailleurs étéreconnu par le Nigériacomme devant
fonder le tracéde la frontière dans ce secteur. Deuxièmement, les para-
graphes 60et 61 précisentque lepic setrouve dans un (<azimut 17 )- que
la version anglaise du texte qualifie de «magnétique» - calculéa partir
d'un «tumulus de pierres)) élevéen 1920et situé csur le cotésud de la
piste Banyo-Kumbo-Barnenda)), ((exactement sous le mont le plus élevé
des Nangban)). Troisièmement, le paragraphe 61 prévoit que, après le
pic, la ligne de partage des eaux sépareles bassins du Mayo Malam et du
Mayo Mfi et que cette dernière ligne est visible depuis le tumulus uti-
lisépour calculer l'azimut magnétique de 17".Quatrièmement, le para-
graphe 61 ajoute dans sa version anglaise que ce pic est «situéjuste à
l'est de la source visible du Mayo Mfi», la version française du texte
n'utilisant pas le qualificatif «ju».e
166. La Cour a étudiéavec le plus grand soin lescartes fournies par les
Parties et tout particulièrement le tracé dela ligne de partage des eaux
passant au travers des monts Hambere. Elle est parvenue, sur la base de
cette étude,à la conclusion que le pic assez proéminentviséa l'article 60
de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand n'est pas Itang Hill comme le
Nigériale soutient.
La Cour observe en effet que si Itang Hill se trouve bien sur un azimut
magnétique de 17" (8"géographiques après conversion) calculé à partir
du point que le Nigéria décritcomme correspondant a l'emplacement du
tumulus de pierres viséau paragraphe 60 et sur un méridienqui se situe
a l'estdu méridiensur lequel se trouvent lessources de la rivièreMfi, il ne
répond en revanche à aucun des autres critères poséspar les para-
graphes 60 et 61. En effet, Itang Hill ne se trouve pas sur la ligne de par-
tage des eaux passant au travers des monts Hambere, qui se situe deux
kilomètres plus au nord. A aucun moment non plus la ligne de partage
des eaux entre le Mayo Malam et le Mayo Mfi ne se rapproche-t-elle
sensiblement d'Itang Hill.
167. La Cour relèveen revanche que, lorsque l'on suit la ligne depar-
tage des eaux passant au travers des monts Hambere en venant de l'est,
comme leprévoitle paragraphe 60, on aboutit aun mont fort proéminent
et particulièrement marqué,le mont Tamnyar, qui remplit les conditions
prévuespar la déclarationThomson-Marchand et culmine à une altitude
supérieure à celle d'Itang Hill. Ce mont est indiqué sur la figure 7.37
reproduite en regard de la page 388 de la duplique du Nigériacomme
culminant a une altitude de 5968 pieds, ou environ 1820mètres. Mis à
part le fait essentiel que la ligne de partage des eaux passant au travers
des monts Hambere court par lescontreforts de ce mont, la Cour observe
en effet que ce mont se trouve égalementsur un méridienqui se situe à
l'est du méridiensur lequel se trouvent les sources du Mfi et que la ligne
de partage des eaux sur laquelle il est placé devient bien,après avoir obli-
quévers le sud, la ligne de partage des eaux entre le Mayo Malam et le
Mayo Mfi. La Cour note pour le surplus que le mont Tamnyar se trouve
dans un azimut pratiquement identique à celui d'Itang Hill.
168. La Cour conclut de ce qui précèdeque le paragraphe 60 de la LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 390
graph 60 must lie on the watershed passing through the Hosere Hambere
has been accepted by Nigeria as a basic requiremerit for the course of the
boundary in this sector. Secondly, paragraphs 60 and 61 make it clear
that this peak lies on a "bearing" - described in the English text as
"magnetic" - of 17" from a "cairn of stones" erected in 1920 and situ-
ated "on the south side of the . . . Banyo-Kumbo-Bamenda road",
"immediately under i.he highest peak of the Hoseie Nangban". Thirdly,
paragraph 61 states that the line of the watershed from the peak sepa-
rates the Mayo Malam and the Mayo M'Fi basinj, and that it is visible
from the cairn used to calculate the magnetic bearing of 17". Fourthly,
the English text of paragraph 61 further states that this peak is "situated
just to the east of the visible source of the Maio M'Fi", while the French
text omits the adverti "just".
166. The Court hais studied with the greatest care the maps provided
by the Parties, and in particular the course of the watershed running
through the Hosere Hambere. On the basis of this study, it has concluded
that the fairly promirient pointed peak referred to in paragraph 60 of the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration is not Itang Hill as Nigeria contends.
Thus the Court observes that, while Itang Hill does indeed lie on a
magnetic bearing of 17"(a true bearing of 8" after conversion) calculated
from the point which Nigeria describes as corresponding to the site of the
stone cairn referred to in paragraph 60 and located on a meridian lying to
the east of that of the sources of the River M'Fi, it does not, however,
satisfy any of the other criteria prescribed by paragraphs 60 and 61. Thus
Itang Hill does not lie on the watershed running through the Hosere
Hambere, which is located 2 km to the north. Moreover, at no time does
the watershed between the Mayo Malam and the R4ayo M'Fi come at al1
close to Itang Hill.
167. The Court notes, on the other hand, that fc~llowingthe line of the
watershed through the Hosere Hambere from the east, in accordance
with paragraph 60, bi-ingsone to a very prominent peak, Tamnyar, which
satisfies the conditions laid down in the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
and whose elevation is greater than that of Itang Hill. This peak is shown
on Figure 7.37 reprotiuced at page 388 of Nigeria's Rejoinder as bearing
the name Tamnyar and having an elevation of 5,968 feet, or approxi-
mately 1,820 m. In addition to the essential fact that the watershed
through the Hosere IHambere passes over the foothills of this peak, the
Court notes that Tamnyar is also located on a meridian lying to the east
of that of the sources of the M'Fi and that the watershed on which it lies
does indeed, after turning to the south, become the watershed between
the Mayo Malam and the Mayo M'Fi. The Court further notes that
Tamnyar Peak lies on a bearing almost identical to that of Itang Hill.
168. The Court concludes from the foregoing that paragraph 60 of thedéclaration Thomson-Marchand doit être interprété comme faisantpas-
ser la frontière par la ligne de partage des eaux aux travers des monts
Gesumi ou Hambere, telle qu'indiquéesur la feuille NB-32-XVIII-3a-3b
de la carte au 1150000du Cameroun établieen 1955 par I'IGN et pro-
duite en l'instance par le Nigéria,jusqu'au pied du mont Tamnyar, mont
que la Cour a identifiécomme constituant le «pic assez proéminent))visé
par la déclaration (voir ci-après, p. 396, le croquis0).
Des monts Hambere à la rivière Mburi (Lip et Yung)
169. L'Ordre en conseil de 1946fixe la frontière d'ouest en est comme
suit:
«[D]e la, par la rivièreMburi dans la direction du sud jusqu'a son
confluent avec un cours d'eau sans nom a 1mille environ au nord du
point où la nouvelle route Kumbo-Banyo franchit la rivièreMburi a
Nyan (aussi appeléeMon), ledit point se trouvant a 4 milles environ
au sud-est quart est de Muwe; de là, le long de ce cours d'eau sans
nom suivant un azimut géographique de 120"en généralsur une dis-
tance de 1,5mille jusqu'i sa sourceà un point situé a hauteur de la
nouvelle route Kumbo-Banyo, prèsde la source de la rivièreMfi; de
là, suivant un azimut géographique de 100" sur une distance de
3,83 milles par la crêtedes montagnes jusqu'au pic proéminent qui
marque la frontière franco-britannique.»
170. D'après le Nigéria, la secondepartie de la frontière terrestre, telle
que fixéepar I'Ordre en conseil de 1946,doit commencer a l'estde «Tonn
Hill». Il considère en effet que, contrairement à ce que prétend le Came-
roun, le« pic pointu assez proéminent» décritdans la version anglaise du
paragraphe 60 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand, et le «pic proémi-
nent», décritdans l'Ordre en conseil, qui déterminele point de départde
la frontière vers l'ouest partir de cette région, nesont pas identiques.
Selon le Nigéria,le mont décritdans I'Ordre en conseil n'est en effet pas
qualifiéde ((pointu)); ce mont serait «Tonn Hill». Il conviendrait dès lors
de joindre les deux parties de la frontière en établissant une ligne le long
des crêtesdepuis Itang Hill jusqu'a Tonn Hill. A partir de la, le Nigéria
soutient que le texte de I'Ordre en conseil est ambigu et défectueuxdans
la mesure ou il ne correspond pas àla topographie locale. Ainsi, la route
Kumbo-Banyo croiserait la rivièrenon a Nyan (Yang) mais a 1,25mille
au nord, et aucun des deux ruisseaux présents sur le terrain dans cette
région ne remplirait exactement les conditions fixéesdans le texte et
n'aurait en particulier sa source sur la routeproximité de la source du
Mfi. Selon le Nigéria, une enquêteaurait été menés eur les lieux en 1941
par un fonctionnaire colonial britannique du nom de Jeffreys, à la suite
de différendstribaux. La limite entre le Cameroun méridional etle Came-
roun septentrional sous mandat britannique aurait alors étfixéea l'ouest
d'un cairn placésur la piste Bang-Yang a proximitéde Yang, selon uneThomson-Marchand Declaration must be interpreted as providing for
the boundary to follow the line of the watershed through the Hosere
Hambere or Gesumi, as shown on sheet NB-32-XVIII-3a-3b of the 1955
IGN 1 :50,000map of Cameroon, produced in the proceedings by Nigeria,
as far as the foot of Tamnyar Peak, which the Court has identified as the
"fairly prominent, pointed peak" referred to in the Declaration (see
below, p. 396, sketch-map No. 10).
From the Hambere R'angeto the Mburi River (Lip and Yang)
169. The 1946Order in Council determines the boundary from west to
east as follows:
"thence the Rivei-Mburi southwards to itsjunction with an unnamed
stream about one mile north of the point wliere the new Kumbo-
Banyo road crosses the River Mburi at Nyan (aliasNton), the said
point being aboiut four miles south-east by cast of Muwe; thence
along this unnanied stream on a general true bearing of 120"for one
and a half miles to its source at a point on the new Kumbo-Banyo
road, near the source of the River Mfi; thence on a true bearing of
100"for three anidfive-sixths miles along the c:restof the mountains
to thepromineni. peak which marks the Franco-British frontier."
170. According to Nigeria, the second part of the land boundary, as
fixed by the 1946 Orlder in Council, must begin east of "Tonn Hill". It
takes the view, contrary to what Cameroon claims, that the "fairly
prominent, pointed peak" as referred to in the English text of para-
graph 60 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration and the "prominent
peak" referred to inthe Order in Council, which fixesthe point where the
boundary departs from this area in a westerly direction, are not identical.
It points out that the peak specified in the Order in Council is not
described as "pointed"; in its view, this peak is 'Tonn Hill". The two
sections of the boundary should accordingly be joined by drawing a line
along the crest line from Itang Hill to Tonn Hill. Nigeria maintains that
from that point the text of theOrder in Council is ambiguous and defec-
tive in that it does riot correspond to the local lopography. Thus the
Kumbo-Banyo road does not cross the river at Nyan (Yang)but 1% miles
to the north and neither of the two streams in this area exactly matches
the description given in the text and, in particular, neither has its source
on the road near the source of the M'Fi. Nigeria States that a British
colonial official, Dr. Jeffreys, carried out a survey on the ground in 1941
following tribal disputes;the boundary between British-mandated North-
ern and Southern Carneroons was then fixed to the west of a cairn placed
on the Bang-Yang triick near Yang along a line different from that laid
down in the 1946 Orclerin Council. The descriptioi-iof that line was sub-ligne différentede celle fixéedans I'Ordre en conseil de 1946.La descrip-
tion de cette ligne aurait éconfirméeen 1953lors d'une réuniontenue à
Yang entre des responsables provinciaux et des représentants des popu-
lations locales au sujet des limites géographiquesapplicables aux fins de
la collecte des impôts dans la région.Pour le Nigéria, c'est cette lignequi
devrait êtresuivie.A l'est du cairn placésur la piste Bang-Yang, le Nigé-
ria propose de suivre la ligne de partage des eaux jusqu'à Tonn Hill.
171. Le Cameroun prétend quele problème soulevépar le Nigéria est
un simple problème de démarcation de la ligne décritedans l'Ordre en
conseil de 1946.11soutient tout d'abord que le pic «proéminent» visépar
l'Ordre en conseil ne ferait qu'un avec lepic assez proéminent))viséau
paragraphe 60 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand. Durant la procé-
dure orale, le Cameroun a commencépar contester l'existenceet la valeur
de la ligne de délimitation «Jeffreys» invoquéepar le Nigéria.Insistant
sur le fait que la ligne frontière dans cette région est déterminpar les
dispositions pertinentes de l'Ordre en conseil de 1946,le Cameroun a tou-
tefois préciséque la frontière «suit la rivière Maven, puis la rivière
Makwe, et passe par la borne plantéepar Jeffreys pour atteindre ensuite,
par une ligne de crête,le pic assez proéminent dénommémont Kom-
bon ».
172. La Cour constate que l'interprétation de l'Ordre en conseil de
1946 soulève deux difficultés essentiellesdans la région allant du «pic
assezproéminent » visépar la déclarationThomson-Marchand à la rivière
Mburi. La première difficulté consisteàopérerla jonction entre leslignes
fixéespar chacun des deux textes et, en particulier,identifier le pic qua-
lifiépar l'Ordre en conseil de «proéminent», sans plus de précision.La
seconde consiste à déterminerle tracé dela frontière au-delà de ce point.
173. La Cour s'est d'abord attachée à identifier le «pic proéminent)),
point de départ de la partie de la frontière délimitéepar l'Ordre en
conseil. Elle s'est tout particulièrement interrogée sur la question de
savoir si lepic proéminent))visépar I'Ordre en conseil correspondait au
«pic assez proéminent))mentionnépar le paragraphe 60 de la déclaration
Thomson-Marchand, que la Cour a déjàidentifié,ou s'il s'agissait d'un
autre pic. La Cour relève,ici encore, que le texte de l'Ordre en conseil
contient un certain nombre d'informations relatives à l'identification de
ce pic. Ainsi, il est préciséque le pic «marque la frontière franco-bri-
tannique)) et qu'il se situà environ 3,83 milles d'un point localisé près
des sources du Mfi, en suivant un azimut géographique de 100".La Cour
constate néanmoins quele report de ces informations sur les cartes dont
elle dispose ne lui permet pas de déterminer l'emplacement du «pic pro-
éminent»visépar I'Ordre en conseil.La Cour observe en particulier que
le seul mont identifiable en calculant une distance de3,83 milles sur un
azimut géographique de 100" àpartir des sources de la rivièreMfi est le
mont Kombon, indiqué sur la figure 7.37 de la duplique du Nigéria
comme culminant à 1658mètres d'altitude. Or ce mont se trouve loin à
l'est de l'ancienne frontière franco-britannique et ne saurait en aucun cas LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 392
sequently confirmed in 1953 at a meeting in Yarig between provincial
officiaisand representatives of the local communities regarding the geo-
graphical boundaries applicable for purposes of tax collection in the area.
Nigeria contends that it is this line which should be followed. To the east
of the cairn placed on the Bang-Yang track, Nigeria proposes following
the watershed up to Tonn Hill.
171. Cameroon malintains that the problem raised by Nigeria is merely
one of demarcating the line described in the 1946 Order in Council. It
contends that the "prominent" peak referred to in the Order in Council
can only be the "faiirly prominent, pointed peak" referred to in para-
graph 60 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaratiori. At the hearings, it
challenged the existence and validity of the "Jeffreys Boundary" relied
upon by Nigeria. While stressing that the line of the boundary in this
area is determined by the relevant provisions of the 1946Order in Coun-
cil, Cameroon statecl that in its view the boundary "runs along the
Maven River, then the Makwe River, then through the pillar set up by
Jeffreys and then along a crest line to the fairly prominent, pointed peak
known as Mount Kombon".
172. TheCourt noi.esthat the interpretation of the Order in Council of
1946 raises two f~nd~amentaldifficulties in the area between the "fairly
prominent pointed peak" referred to in the Thomson-Marchand Declara-
tion and the River Mburi. The first lies in joining iip the lines prescribed
by the two texts and. in particular, in identifying the peak described in
the Order in Council as "~rominent". without further clarification. The
second consists in determihg the course of the boundary beyond that
point.
173. The Court hris first sought to identify the "prominent peak",
starting point for the sector of the boundary delirnited by the Order in
Council. The Court has placed particular emphasis on the issue of
whether the "prominent peak" referred to in the Order in Council corre-
sponds to the "fairly prominent, pointed peak" mentioned in para-
graph 60 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, which the Court has
already identified, or whether it is some other peak. Here too, the Court
notes that the text of the Order in Council contains a certain amount of
information regarding identification of the peak in question. Thus it
states that the peak "marks the Franco-British frontier" and that it lies
some 3.83 miles from a specificpoint close to the sources of the M'Fi on
a true bearing of 100".The Court finds, however, ihat, when transposed
ont0 the maps in its possession, these data do not enable it to identify the
location of the"prominent peak" referred to in the Order in Council. The
Court observes in particular that the only peak identifiable by calculating
a distance of 3.83 miles on a geographical bearing of 100" from the
sources of the River R4'Fiis Mount Kombon, indicated on Figure 7.37 in
Nigeria's Rejoinder as having an elevation of 1,658 m. However, that
peak is located far to the east of the former Franco-British frontier and393 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
être considéré commemarquant cette frontière. Le mont Kombon ne se
trouve pas non plus sur une ligne de crête comme le prévoit I'Ordre en
conseil. De même,les critères poséspar I'Ordre en conseil ne permettent
d'identifier ni Tonn Hill, ni Itang Hill, ni le mont Tamnyar, ni aucun
autre mont préciscomme étant le «pic proéminent))par lequel il fait pas-
ser la frontière.
174. A défaut de pouvoir désigner un mont en particulier, la Cour a
toutefois étéen mesure d'identifier la ligne de crêteà laquelle ce mont
doit appartenir. L'Ordre en conseil de 1946 prévoit en effet que le «pic
proéminent))par lequel il fait passer la frontiere se trouve sur une crête
de montagnes qui marque l'ancienne frontière franco-britannique. Or,
cette crête de montagnes est aisément identifiable. Elle commence a
l'endroit où la ligne de partage des eaux qui passe au travers des monts
Hambere oblique brutalement vers le sud au lieu dénomméGaladima
Wanderi sur la figure 7.37 de la duplique du Nigéria,pour se diriger plein
sud jusqu'aux environs du point indiqué comme étant Tonn Hill sur la
même figure.L'intention des rédacteurs de I'Ordre en conseil était de
faire passer la frontière par cette ligne de crête.En conséquence, il échet
à la Cour d'opérer la jonction entre le mont viséau paragraphe 60 de la
déclaration Thomson-Marchand, à savoir le mont Tamnyar, et cette
ligne de crête.La ligne de partage des eaux au travers des monts Ham-
bere, sur laquelle se trouve le mont Tamnyar, se prolonge naturellement
jusqu'à la ligne de crête qui marque l'ancienne frontière franco-britan-
nique et à partir de laquelle commence la partie de la frontière délimitée
par l'Ordre en conseil de 1946. La jonction entre les secteurs de la fron-
tière délimitéspar chacun des deux textes peut dèslors êtreopérée en sui-
vant, depuis le mont Tamnyar, cette ligne de partage des eaux telle
qu'indiquée sur la feuille NB-32-XVIII-3a-3b de la carte au 1/50000 du
Cameroun établie en 1955 par I'IGN et produite en l'instance par le
Nigéria.
175. La Cour s'est ensuite penchéesur la question du tracé dela fron-
tière à partir de cette ligne de crête.La Cour note d'emblée qu'elle ne
saurait interpréter I'Ordre en conseil sur la base d'une décisionqui aurait
été priseunilatéralement par un fonctionnaire britannique en 1941, cinq
ans avant l'adoption dudit Ordre en conseil, alors mêmeque le contenu
de cette décisionn'a pas étéincorporé dans l'Ordre en conseil et que le
Nigéria reconnaît que celle-ci n'a pas étéretrouvée. C'est l'Ordre en
conseil de 1946et lui seul aui a fait I'obiet d'une reconnaissance interna-
tionale en se transformant en instrument de délimitation international
lorsque le Cameroun méridional sous mandat britannique a étérattaché
au Cameroun nouvellement devenu indépendant.
176. La Cour relèveaue I'Ordre en conseil de 1946 contient un eran"
nombre d'informations sur le tracé dela frontière dans cette région. Ainsi
prévoit-ilque la frontière passe par la rivière Mburi jusqu'i sa confluence
avec un autre cours d'eau, «a 1mille environ au nord du point où la nou-
velle route Kumbo-Banyo franchit la rivière Mburi)); ce dernier point,
précisel'Ordre en conseil, se trouve «a Nyan)). L'Ordre en conseil ajoutecan in no circumstances be regarded as marking that frontier. Nor does
Mount Kombon lie on a crest line as prescribed by the Order in Council.
Similarly, the criteria laid down by the Order in Council do not enable
either Tonn Hill, or Itang Hill, or Tamnyar Peak. or any other specific
peak, to be identified as the "prominent peak" over which it provides for
the boundary to pass.
174. While unable to designate a specific peak, the Court has nonethe-
less been able to ideni.ifythe crest line of which that peak must form part.
Thus the 1946Order in Council provides that the "prominent peak" over
which the boundary is to pass lies along the crest of the mountains which
mark the former Franco-British frontier. That crest lineis readily identi-
fiable. It begins at the point where the watershed through the Hosere
Hambere turns suddenly to the south at the locality named Galadima
Wanderi on Figure 7.37 in Nigeria's Rejoinder, then runs due south until
it approaches the point named Tonn Hill on that same Figure. The inten-
tion of the drafters of the Order in Council was to have the boundary
follow this crest line. As a result, what the Court has to do is to trace a
line joining the peak ireferredto in paragraph 60 of the Thomson-March-
and Declaration, naniely Tamnyar Peak, to that crest line. The watershed
through the Hosere Hambere, on which Tamnyar Peak lies, extends
naturally as far as the crest line marking the former Franco-British fron-
tier, starting point of the sector of the boundary delimited by the 1946
Order in Council. It is thus possible to link the boundary sectors delim-
ited by the two texts by following, from Tamnyar Peak, that watershed as
represented on sheet NB-32-XVIII-3a-3b of the 1955 IGN 1:50,000 map
of Cameroon, produced in the proceedings by Nigeria.
175. The Court tlien addressed the question of the course of the
boundary from that crest line. The Court would begin by noting that it
cannot interpret the Order in Council on the basis of a decision alleged to
have been taken unilaterally by a British officia1 in 1941,five years before
the adoption of the Order, whose terms were not incorporated in the
Order and which Nigeria itself recognizes that it lias been impossible to
locate. It is the Order in Council of 1946, and it alone, which secured
international recognition by being transformed into an instrument of
international delimitation when the Southern Carneroons under British
mandate were incorporated into the newly independent Cameroon.
176. The Court observes that the 1946 Order in Council contains a
great deal of information on the course of the l-~oundaryin this area.
Thus it provides for the boundary to follow the River Mburi to its junc-
tion with a stream "about one mile north of the point where the new
Kumbo-Banyo road crosses the River Mburi", a point which, according
to the Order, is located "at Nyan". The Order atids that the boundary394 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
que la frontière emprunte ensuite cet autre cours d'eau en suivant un
((azimut géographiquede 120°en généralnjusqu'à ce qu'elle atteigne la
source dudit cours d'eau, 1,5 mille plus loin, ((prèsde la source de la
rivièreMfi)). Enfin, de là, la frontière est censée passerpar une ligne de
crêtesuivant un ((azimut géographique de 100))jusqu'au «pic proémi-
nent qui marque la frontière franco-britannique)).
177. La Cour a attentivement étudiéles cartes qui lui ont étéfournies
par lesParties. Elle observe que, sila topographie des lieuxne correspond
pas exactement àla description qu'en fait I'Ordre en conseil, elle a néan-
moins pu retrouver sur ces cartes suffisamment d'éléments de cette des-
cription pour pouvoir déterminer le tracéde la frontière. Celui-ci ne cor-
respond ni à la ligne réclamépar le Cameroun, ni a celle réclaméepar le
Nigéria.
178. La Cour relève tout d'abord que les noms des villages et des
rivières dans la régionvarient largement d'une carte à l'autre. Comme
cela a été observépar le Nigéria, c'esttout particulièrement le cas de la
rivièreMburi, qui est dénomméetantôt Manton ou Mantu, tantôt Ntum,
tantôt Maven, et dont le cours change selon le nom qui lui est donné.
La Cour note ensuite que le village de Yang correspond bien, comme
l'affirme le Nigéria, celui de Nyan visépar I'Ordre en conseilet que,
comme le Nigéria l'a souligné, la«nouvelle route Kumbo-Banyon ne
franchit pas la riviere Mburià Nyan, mais au nord de Nyan. La Cour
observe toutefois qu'il existe,entre les sources du Mfi et un point qui se
trouve à 1mille au nord de Nyan, une rivièredont le cours correspond à
la description que I'Ordre en conseilfait de la partie de la frontière située
à l'estde Nyan: il s'agitde la rivièredénommée Namkwer surla première
édition de la feuille(Mambilla S.W.» de la carte DOS au 1150000du
Nigériaétablieen 1965et mise à la disposition de la Cour par le Nigéria.
Cette rivière, qui trouve en effet sa sourceà proximité immédiate des
sources occidentales de la rivière Mfi, couledepuis sa source dans un azi-
mut géographique généralde 120°, sur une distance légèrement supé-
rieureà 1,5mille,jusqu'à un point situéà 1mille au nord de Nyan où elle
rejoint la rivière Mburi, comme indiqué sur la feuille1 de la troisième
éditionde la carte au 11500000du Nigériaétabliepar le «Survey Depart-
ment» en 1953et que le Cameroun a fournie àla Cour, ainsi que sur les
croquis projetéspar le Nigériaau cours de la procédure orale. De sur-
croît, la source de la rivière Namkwer se situe précisémentsur la ligne de
crête qui,plus à l'est, marque l'ancienne frontière franco-britannique et
sur laquelle le«pic proéminent))décritpar l'Ordre en conseil doit être
situe. Il en résulteque la frontiàrl'estde Nyan passe par le cours de la
rivièreNamkwer et par cette ligne de crête.
En ce qui concerne la partie de la frontiere située'ouest de Nyan, la
Cour note tout d'abord que les Parties s'accordent pour faire obliquer au
mêmeendroit vers l'est lafrontière qui, selon I'Ordre en conseil, vientdu
nord en suivant le cours de la rivièreMburi. Les Parties conviennent éga-
lement que la frontiere doit passer par le cours de la riviere Mburi, aussi
appeléesur ce tronçon Maven ou Ntum, sur une distance d'un peu plusthen follows this stream on a "general true bearing of 120"" as far as its
source 1.5 miles away "near the source of the River Mfi". Finally, from
there the boundary iij required to follow a crest on "a true bearing of
100"" to the "prominent peak which marks the Franco-British frontier".
177. The Court has carefully studied the maps provided to it by the
Parties. It notes that, while the topography of the area does not exactly
correspond to the description of it in theOrder in Council, the Court has
nevertheless been able to locate on these maps a sufficient number of
elements of that description to enable it to determine the course of
the boundary. That course corresponds neither to the line claimed by
Cameroon nor to that claimed by Nigeria.
178. The Court notes first that the names of the villages and rivers in
the area Vary greatly from one map to another. As Nigeria has pointed
out, this is particularly true of the River Mburi, which is sometimes
called the Manton or Mantu, sometimes the Ntem, and sometimes the
Maven, and that its course changes according to the name given to it.
The Court next notes that the village of Yang does indeed correspond,
as Nigeria contends, to that of Nyan referred to in the Order in Council,
and that, as Nigeria stressed, the "new Kumbo-Banyo road" does not
cross the River Mburi at Nyan, but to the north of Nyan. The Court
notes, however, that there is, between the sources of'the M'Fi and a point
situated 1 mile north of Nyan, a river whose course corresponds to the
description in the Order of the boundary to the east of Nyan: this is the
river called Namkwer on the first edition of the shcet, "Mambilla S.W.",
of the 1965 DOS 1: 50,000 map of Nigeria, provided to the Court by
Nigeria. This river, whose source is indeed in the immediate vicinity of
the western sources OFthe River M'Fi, flows from its source on a general
true bearing of 120°, over a distance slightly greater than 1.5miles, to a
point situated 1 mile north of Nyan, where it joins the River Mburi, as
shown on sheet 11 oifthe third edition of the 1953 Survey Department
1 :500,000 map of Nigeria, provided to the Court l~yCameroon, and on
the sketch-maps projected by Nigeria at the oral pioceedings. Moreover,
the source of the Riber Namkwer lies precisely on the crest line which,
further east, marks the former Franco-British frontier and on which the
"prominent peak" decjcribedin the Order in Countil must be situated. It
accordingly follows that the boundary to the east of Nyan follows the
course of the River PIJamkwerand this crest line.
Ir1respect of the section of the boundary lying west of Nyan, the Court
would first note that the Parties agree on the point at which the bound-
ary, following the River Mburi from the north as described in the Order
in Council, should turn eastward. The Parties also agree that the bound-
ary must follow the River Mburi, also here called the Maven or Ntem,
for a distance of slightly more than 2 km to the point where it divides395 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
de 2 kilomètres, jusqu'au point où elle se sépare en deux bras. La Cour
note ensuite que I'Ordre en conseil fait passer la frontière par le cours de
la rivièreMburi jusqu'à son confluent avec la rivièreque la Cour a iden-
tifiécomme étant la rivièreNamkwer. Or, seul le bras nord de la rivière
Mburi/Maven/Ntum permet d'atteindre la rivièreNamkwer. C'est donc
par ce bras qu'il convient de faire passer la frontière.
179. De l'ensemble de ce qui précède, laCour conclut que, d'est en
ouest, la frontière suit en premier lieu la ligne de partage des eaux au
travers des monts Hambere, depuis le mont Tamnyar jusqu'à ce que cette
ligne atteigne la ligne de crêtemarquant l'ancienne frontière franco-bri-
tannique. Conformément à l'Ordre en conseil de 1946, la frontière suit
ensuite cette ligne de crêtevers le sud, puis vers l'ouest-sud-ouest jusqu'à
la source de la rivièreNamkwer. La frontière emprunte alors le cours de
la rivièreNamkwer jusqu'i son confluent avec la rivièreMburi, à 1mille
au nord de Nyan. De ce point, la frontière suit le cours de la rivière
Mburi. Elle se dirige d'abord vers le nord sur une distance approximative
de 2 kilomètres, puis emprunte un cours sud-ouest sur environ 3 kilo-
mètreset ensuite ouest-nord-ouest dans un secteur où la rivièreporte éga-
lement le nom de Maven ou Ntum. Elle s'infléchitalors, quelque 2 kilo-
mètres plus loin,pour suivre une direction plein nord, là où la rivièreMburi
est aussi appeléeManton ou Ntum (voir ci-après,p. 396,le croquis no10).
Bissuulu- Tosso
180. L'Ordre en conseil de 1946fixe la frontière comme suit:
«[D]e là, elle suit une ligne droite jusqu'au point le plus élevédu
mont Tosso; de là, elle suit une ligne droite dans la direction de l'est
jusqu'à un point situésur la route principale Kentu-Bamenda, où
elle est coupée par un affluent sans nom de la rivière Akbang
(Heboro sur la feuille E de la carte Moisel à l'échelle11300000) -
dit point étant marquépar un tumulus de pierres; de là, elle descend
ce cours d'eau jusqu'à son confluent avec la rivièreAkbang; de là,
par la riviere Akbang jusqu'à son confluent avec la rivièreDonga;
de là, par la rivière Donga jusqu'à son confluent avec la rivière
Mburi. »
181. Le Nigéria affirmeque l'Ordre en conseil de 1946doit êtreinter-
prétédu fait que la rivièreAkbang possède plusieurs affluents. Selonle
Nigéria, l'affluent sud est celui prendre en considération pour la fixa-
tion de la frontière, car c'est le seul qui coupe la route Kentu-Bamenda
comme l'exige le texte de I'Ordre en conseil. Le Nigéria préciseencore
qu'il aurait retrouvé le tumulus de pierres mentionné dans le texte de la
délimitation à l'endroit qu'il propose.
182. Le Cameroun maintient pour sapart que l'interprétation que fait
le Nigériadu texte de l'Ordre en conseil et des cartes est erronée etqueinto two. The Court ~wouldnext note that the Order in Council provides
for the boundary to f'ollowthe course of the River Mburi to its junction
with a watercourse which the Court has identified as the River Namkwer.
However, only the northern branch of the River MburilMaven/Ntem
joins the River Namlcwer. Thus the boundary must follow this branch.
179. From al1of the foregoing, the Court concludes that, from east to
West, the boundary first follows the watershed line through the Hosere
Hambere from Tamriyar Peak to the point where that line reaches the
crest line marking the former Franco-British frontit:~. In accordance with
the 1946 Order in C'ouncil, the boundary then follows this crest line
southward, then wesit-south-west to the source of'the River Namkwer
and then follows the (courseof that river to its confluence with the River
Mburi, 1 mile north cifNyan. From that point, the boundary follows the
course of the River Mburi. It first runs northwards for a distance of
approximately 2 km, and then takes a south-westerly course for some
3 km and then west-north-west along a stretch v.here the river is also
called the Maven or the Ntem. Then, some 2 km Further on, it turns to
run due north where the River Mburi is also called the Manton or Ntem
(see below, p. 396, sketch-map No. 10).
Bissuulu-Tosso
180. The 1946 British Order in Council determines the boundary as
follows :
"thence a straight line to the highest point of Tosso Mountain;
thence in a straight line eastwards to a point on the main Kentu-
Bamenda road v~hereit is crossed by an unniimed tributary of the
River Akbang (Heboro on Sheet E of Moisel's map on Scale
11300,000) - the said point being marked by a cairn; thence down
the stream to its junction with the River Akbang; thence the River
Akbang to its jlunction with the River Donga; thence the River
Donga to its junction with the River Mburi".
181. Nigeria asserts that the 1946Order in Council requires interpreta-
tion because the Akbang River has several tributaries. According to
Nigeria, the southern tributary is the correct one, because it alone crosses
the Kentu-Bamenda road, as required by the Order in Council. Nigeria
further states that it has found the cairn described in the delimitation text
at the spot which it proposes.
182. Cameroon maintains that Nigeria's interpretation of the Order in
Council and of the maps is incorrect and that the Akbang lies further to 1i0tO1' 1l0l6'35'-
DesmontsHambere a
larivièrMburi
1l0O5'TheHambere RangeArea
Fromthe HambereRange
totheMburiRiver
N.B.This&wh-habaaiprepTor17Akbangse situe plus à l'est que ne le soutient le Nigéria. Il rejette par
ailleurs les affirmations de ce dernier selon lesquellesle tumulus de pierres
aurait étéidentifié. Selonle Cameroun, le problème demeure un simple
problème de démarcation.
183. La Cour constate que la difficultédans la région de Bissaula-
Tosso est de déterminerquel est l'affluent de la rivièreAkbang qui coupe
la route Kentu-Bamenda, et est par conséquent I'affluent par lequel
l'Ordre en conseil fait passer la frontière.
Une étude du texte de l'Ordre en conseil de 1946ainsi aue des cartes à
la disposition de la Cour a amenécette dernière à la conclusion que la
rivièreAkbang est bien celle indiquéepar le Nigériaet que cette rivière
possèdedeux affluents principaux, l'un au nord, l'autre au sud, comme le
Nigéria le soutient. La question est donc de savoir par lequel de ces
affluents I'Ordre en conseil fait passer la frontière.
La Cour observe que l'affluent nord de la rivière Akbang ne saurait
être retenu.Si cet affluent couàeproximité immédiatede la route Kentu-
Bamenda, il ne la coupe néanmoins à aucun moment, et ne pourrait la
couper à aucun moment puisque, dans ce secteur, la route se trouve sur la
ligne de partage des eaux.
La Cour constate, en revanche, que I'affluent sud de 1'Akbang coupe
bien la route Kentu-Bamenda comme le Nigériale prétend.C'est donc le
tracé de la frontière proposé par le ~i~éria-~uidoit êtrepréféré.
184. La Cour conclut, dèslors, qu'il convient d'interpréterI'Ordre en
conseil de 1946comme faisant passer la frontière par lepoint où I'affluent
sud de la rivièreAkbang, tel qu'identifiépar la Cour, coupe la route Ken-
tu-Bamenda, puis de ce point par l'affluent sud jusqu'à son confluent
avec la rivièreAkbang.
La rivièreSama
185. L'Ordre en conseil de 1946 fixe la frontière comme suit:
«De la borne 64 de l'ancienne frontière anglo-allemande, la ligne
remonte la riviére Gamana jusqu'à son confluent avec la rivière
Sama; de là, elle remonte la rivièreSama jusqu'au point où celle-ci
se divise en deux; de là, elle suit une ligne droite jusqu'au point le
plus élevédu mont Tossa.»
186. Le Nigéria relèveque les dispositions pertinentes de l'Ordre en
conseil de 1946sont défectueuses lorsqu'ellesfont passer la frontière par
la rivièreama; en effet, elles n'indiqueraient pas clairement quel affluent
de la rivière doit être pris encompte aux fins d'identifier le point où la
rivière«se divise en deux)). Selon le Nigéria, cet affluent devrait être
I'affluent sud de la rivière Sama dans la mesure où celui-ci est trois fois
plus long que I'affluent nord, a un débitégal à celui de la rivière elle-
mêmeavant le confluent, et coule dans une vallée pluslarge.the east than Nigeria claims. Further, it rejects Nigeria's claim that the
cairn has been identified. According to Cameroon, the problem remains
simply one of demarcation.
183. The Court notes that the problem in the Bissaula-Tosso area
consists in determining which tributary of the River Akbang crosses
the Kentu-Bamenda road and is thus the tributary which the Order in
Council provides for the boundary to follow.
A study of the text of the 1946Order in Council and of the maps avail-
able to the Court has led the Court to the conclusion that the River
Akbang is indeed the river indicated by Nigeria and that it has two main
tributaries, one to th12north, the other to the south, as Nigeria claims.
The question is then which of these tributaries is the one where the Order
in Council provides fi3rthe boundary to run.
The Court observes that the northern tributary of the River Akbang
cannot be the correct one. While it does flow close beside the Kentu-
Bamenda road, it never crosses it, however, and could not do so, since in
this area the road ruris along the line of the watershed.
The Court finds, on the other hand, that the southern tributary of the
Akbang does indeed cross the Kentu-Bamenda road as Nigeria claims. It
is accordingly the course of the boundary propoïed by Nigeria which
must be prefèrred.
184. The Court therefore concludes that the 1046 Order in Council
should be interpreted as providing for the boundary to run through the
point where the southern tributary of the River Akbang, as identified by
the Court, crosses th~eKentu-Bamenda road, and then from that point
along the southern tributary until its junction with the River Akbang.
The Sama River
185. The 1946 Ordler in Council determines the boundary as follows:
"From bound;ir-y post 64 on the old Anglo-German frontier the
line follows the River Gamana upstream to the point where it is
joined by the River Sama; thence up the Ri\w Sama to the point
where it divides .into two; thence a straight line to the highest point
of Tosso Mount;iin."
186. Nigeria observes that the relevant provisions of the 1946Order in
Council are defective inasmuch as they place the boundary along the
Sama River; it claims that they fail to provide a clear indication of which
tributary should be used in identifying the point where the river "divides
into two". According to Nigeria, this tributary should be the southern
tributary of the Sama River, since it is three times the length of the north-
ern tributary, has a fllowequal to that of the river itself upstream of the
confluence, and empties into a T-junction in a larger valley.398 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
187. Selon le Cameroun, au contraire, «[l]'affluent nord de la Sama a
toujours été prisen compte par les deux Parties pour le tracé dela fron-
tière)).
188. La Cour constate que, dans la régionde Sama, l'interprétationde
l'Ordre en conseil soulève des difficultésdèlors qu'il existedeux affluents
de la rivièreSama et que celle-ci «se divise en deux)), en deux endroits,
sans qu'il soit précisé quel est l'endroit retenir pour la fixation de la
frontiere.
La Cour a tout d'abord examinél'argument avancé par le Nigéria,
selon lequel l'affluent sud devrait êtrepréféréa,u motif qu'il serait plus
long, présenterait un débit plus important et coulerait dans une vallée
plus large. La Cour relèveque, si les observations du Nigéria quant à la
longueur des affluents et à la topographie des lieux sont confirméespar
les cartes qu'il a présentées,il n'en va par contre pas de mêmepour
d'autres cartes. La Cour note ainsi en particulier que, sur la carteisel,
les deux affluents ont la mêmelongueur et la mêmeimportance. Par
ailleurs, la Cour ne dispose d'aucune donnéeen ce qui concerne le débit
des affluents. Elle ne saurait dèslors accueillir l'argument du Nigéria.
La Cour ne saurait non plus accueillir l'argument du Cameroun selon
lequel l'affluent nord aurait toujours servi pour la détermination de la
frontière dans la pratique entre les deux Parties. Le Cameroun n'a en
effet pas apporté de preuve de cette pratique.
La Cour estime en revanche que la lecture du texte de l'Ordre en
conseil permet de déterminerquel est l'affluent à retenir pour la fixation
de la frontière. La Cour observe, à ce propos, que, tout comme c'est le
cas de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand, l'Ordre en conseil décrit le
tracé dela frontièreà l'aide des caractéristiquesphysiques du paysage. Le
texte de cette description a dû, ici encore, avoir étéconçu afin de per-
mettre de reconnaître le tracé dela frontière aussi aisémentque possible.
Or, I'Ordre en conseil décritla frontière en venant du nord et prévoitque
«[la frontière] remonte la rivière Sama jusqu'au point où celle-ci se di-
vise en deux)). Il y a donc tout lieu de penser que les rédacteurs de
l'Ordre en conseil entendaient faire passer la frontiere par le premier
confluent rencontré surla rivière envenant du nord. C'esten conséquence
ce confluent qui doit être retenu,ainsi que le soutient le Cameroun.
189. La Cour conclut de ce qui précèdeque I'Ordre en conseil britan-
nique de 1946doit être interprété comme faisanp tasser la frontièrepar la
rivière Sama jusqu'au point où aboutit son premier affluent, point de
coordonnées 10"10'23"de longitude est et 6"56'29" de latitude nord, que
la Cour a identifiécomme étantcelui, visépar l'Ordre en conseil, où la
rivièreSama «se divise en deux)), puis, de ce point, par une ligne droite
jusqu'au point le plus élevédu mont Tosso.
Lu borne 64
190. Ayant initialement présenté des thèses différentelse, Cameroun et 187. According to Cameroon, on the other hand, "[tlhe Parties have
always looked to the northern tributary of the Sania as the course of the
boundary".
188. The Court notes that the interpretation of the Order in Council
poses problems in regard to the River Sama, since the river has two tribu-
taries, and hence two places where it "divides intc two" as the Order in
Council prescribes, but the Order does not specify which of those two
places is to be used iinorder to determine the couise of the boundary.
The Court has begim by addressing Nigeria's argument that the south-
ern tributary should be preferred because it is longer and has a greater
flow and the point of division occurs in a larger valley. The Court
observes that, while Nigeria's observations in regard to the length of the
tributaries and the topography of the area are confirmed by the maps
which ithas presented, this is not, however, the case in respect of other
maps. Thus the Court notes in particular that, or1the Moisel map, the
two tributaries are of thesame length and size. Moreover, the Court has
no information enabling the flow to be determined. The Court accord-
ingly cannot accept Nigeria's argument.
Nor can the Court accept Cameroon's argurnent that the Parties
have always in practice taken the northern tributary as determining the
boundary. Cameroori has provided no evidence of'this practice.
The Court considers, however, that a reading of i.hetext of the Order in
Council permits it to det termine hich tributary should be used in order to
fix the boundary. The Court observes in this connection that, just as with
the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, the Order in Council describes the
course of the boundary by reference to the area's physical characteristics.
Here again, the text of this description must have been drafted in such a
way as to render the course of the boundary as readily identifiable as pos-
sible. The description of the boundary in theOrder in Council starts from
the north, and provides for it to run "up the River Sama to the point
where it divides into two". Thus the inference is that the drafters of the
Order in Council intended that the boundary should pass through the first
confluence reached coming from the north. It is accordingly that conflu-
ence which must be chosen, as Cameroon contends.
189. The Court concludes from the foregoing that the Order in Coun-
cil of 1946must be interpreted as providing for the boundary to run up
the River Sama to the confluence of its first tributary, that being the
point, with co-ordinates 10"10'23" longitude east and 6"56'29" latitude
north, which the Court has identified as the one specifiedin the Order in
Council where the River Sama "divides into two"; and then, from that
point, along a straight line to the highest point of Mount Tosso.
Pillur 64
190. Having initially expressed differing positions, Cameroon and399 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
le Nigériase sont mis d'accord lors de la procédure orale surle fait que la
borne 64 se trouve au nord de la rivière Gamana et que la frontière
décritedans l'Ordre en conseil de 1946doit s'arrêteràl'intersection de la
ligne droite joignant les bornes 64 et 65a la ligne médianede la rivière
Gamana. La Cour prend acte de cet accord et n'a dèslors plus à exami-
ner ce point.
Autres points
191. Lors de la phase orale et dans les réponses écritesaux questions
poséespar des membres de la Cour, un certain nombre de points supplé-
mentaires relatifsà la frontière ont été discutéspar le Cameroun et le
Nigéria. De brèves mentions ont ainsi étéfaites du village de Djaran-
doua, du confluent de la Bénouéet du Mayo Tiel, de Dorofi, d'Obodu
Cattle Ranch et de la borne 103. Aucune conclusion n'a cependant été
présentéepar les Parties sur ces points. La Cour n'aura donc pas à se
prononcer à leur sujet.
192. La Cour conclut en conséquenceque, dans lessecteurs en litige,la
frontière terrestre entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria, du lac Tchad à la
presqu'île de Bakassi, est fixéepar les instruments de délimitation perti-
nents mentionnés aux paragraphes 73 à 75 ci-dessus, tels qu'interprétés
aux paragraphes 87 à 191du présent arrêt.
193. La Cour passera maintenant àl'examende la question de la fron-
tièrea Bakassi et de la souveraineté sur la presqu'île. Dans ses conclu-
sions finales, le Cameroun demande a la Cour de dire et juger
«a) Que la frontière terrestre entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria suitle
tracé suivant:
...........................
- de [la borne 114 sur la rivière Cross],jusqu'à l'intersection
de la ligne droite joignant Bakassi Pointà King Point et du
centre du chenal navigable de I'Akwayafé,la frontière est
déterminéepar les paragraphes XVI a XXI de l'accord
germano-britannique du 11 mars 1913.
b) Que, dèslors, notamment, la souveraineté sur la presqu'île de
Bakassi ...est camerounaise. »
Le Nigériaadopte la position opposée.Dans ses conclusions finales, il
prie la CourNigeria agreed at the hearings that pillar 64 lies north of the Gamana
River and that the boundary described in the 1946Order in Council must
terminate at the intersection of the straight linejoining pillars 64 and 65
with the median line of the Gamana River. The Court takes note of this
agreement and therefore need no longer address tliis point.
Other points
191. At the hearin,gs and in the written responses to the questions put
by Members of the Court, a number of additional points concerning the
boundary were discussed by Cameroon and Nigeria. Brief mentions were
thus made of the village of Djarandoua, the confluence of the Benue and
the Maio Tiel, Dorofi, the Obodu Cattle Ranch and pillar 103. No sub-
missions were, however, presented by the Parties on these points. The
Court is accordingly not required to adjudicate upon them.
192. The Court accordingly concludes that, in the disputed areas, the
land boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria from Lake Chad to the
Bakassi Peninsula is fixed by the relevant instruments of delimitation
specified in paragraphs 73 to 75 above as interpreted by the Court in
paragraphs 87 to 191 of this Judgment.
193. The Court will next address the issue of the boundary in Bakassi
and the question of sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula. In its final
submissions Cameroon asks the Court to adjudge and declare
"(a) [tlhat the land boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria takes
the following course :
...........................
- thence [from Pillar 114 on the Cross River], as far as the
intersection of the straight line from Bakassi Point to King
Point with the centre of the navigable channel of the
Akwayafe, the boundary is determined by paragraphs XVI
to XXI of the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March
1913.
(h) That, in consequence, inter alia,sovereignty over the penin-
sula of Bakassi . . is Cameroonian."
Nigeria takes the contrary position. In its final submissions it requests
that the Court shoultj «1) en ce qui concerne lapresqu'île de Bakassi, de dire et juger:
a) que la souverainetésur la presqu'île appartient à la Répu-
blique fédéraledu Nigéria;
h) que la souverainetédu Nigériasur Bakassi s'étend jusqu'à la
frontière avecle Cameroun décriteau chapitre 11du contre-
mémoiredu Nigéria )>.
194. Le Cameroun soutient que l'accord anglo-allemand du 11 mars
1913 fixait le tracé dela frontière entre les Parties dans la régionde la
presqu'île de Bakassi, plaçant cette dernière du côtéallemand de la fron-
tière. Lors de l'accessionà I'indépendancedu Cameroun et du Nigéria,
cette frontière serait devenue la frontière entre les deux Etats, qui succé-
daient aux puissances coloniales et se trouvaient liéspar le principe de
l'utipossidetis. Le Nigériasoutient pour sa part, d'une manièregénérale,
que le titre appartenait en 1913 aux rois et chefs du Vieux-Calabar, et
qu'il fut conservépar euxjusqu'à ce que ce territoire revienne au Nigéria
lors de I'indépendance.La Grande-Bretagne n'aurait dèslors pas étéen
mesure de transmettre son titre sur Bakassi, du fait qu'ellen'avait aucun
titreà transmettre (nemo dut quod non hahet) ;en conséquence,les dis-
positions correspondantes de l'accord anglo-allemand du 11 mars 1913
doivent êtreconsidéréescomme dépourvues d'effets.
Le Nigériasoutient par ailleurs que cet accord serait défectueuxaux
motifs qu'il estcontraire au préambule de l'Actegénérad l e la Conférence
de Berlin du 26 février1885,qu'il n'a pas étéapprouvépar le Parlement
allemand et qu'il a étéabrogéen application de l'article 289 du traité de
Versailles du 28 juin 1919.
195. Avant d'aborder la question de savoir si la Grande-Bretagne était
habilitéeà transmettre le titre sur Bakassi par I'accord anglo-allemand du
Il mars 1913,la Cour examinera ces trois arguments du Nigéria concer-
nant le caractère défectueux dudit accord.
En ce qui concerne l'argument tiréde l'Acte général de la Conférence
de Berlin, la Cour note que cet argument présenté très brièvemenptar le
Nigériadans son contre-mémoire n'a été reprisni dans sa duplique, ni
lors des audiences. Point n'est donc besoin pour la Cour de l'examiner.
196. Le Nigéria affirmepar ailleurs que, selon le droit interne alle-
mand de l'époque,tous les traitésportant cession ou acquisition de ter-
ritoires coloniaux par l'Allemagne devaient être approuvéspar le Parle-
ment. Il expose que I'accord anglo-allemand du 11mars 1913n'a pas fait
l'objet d'une telle approbation. Il soutient que cet accord portait acqui-
sition d'un territoire colonial,à savoir la presqu'île de Bakassi. Il en
conclut que I'accord «aurait dû êtreapprouvé par le Parlement allemand,
tout au moins en ce qui concerne les dispositions relatives à Bakassi)).
Selon le Cameroun, «le Gouvernement allemand estima que, dans le
cas de Bakassi, il s'agissait d'une pure rectification de frontière parce que "(1) as to the Bizkassi Peninsula, adjudge and declare:
(a) that sovereignty over the Peninsula is vested in the
Federal Republic of Nigeria;
(b) that Nigeria's sovereignty over Bakassi extends up to
the boundary with Cameroon described in Chapter 11 of
Nigerka'sCounter-Memorial".
194. Cameroon contends that the Anglo-German Agreement of
11 March 1913 fixed the course of the boundary 1)etweenthe Parties in
the area of the Bakassi Peninsula, placing the latter on the German side
of the boundary. Hence, when Cameroon and Nigeria acceded to inde-
pendence, this boundary became that between the two countries, succes-
sor States to the colonial powers and bound by the principle of uti pos-
sidetis. For its part, Nigeria argues generally that title lay in 1913 with
the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar, and was retained by them until the
territory passed to Niigeriaupon independence. Great Britain was there-
fore unable to pass title to Bakassi because it had no title to pass (nemo
dut quod non habet): as a result, the relevant provisions of the Anglo-
German Agreement of II March 1913must be regarded as ineffective.
Nigeria further claims that that Agreement is delèctiveon the grounds
that it is contrary to the Preamble to the General Act of the Conference
of Berlin of 26 February 1885,that it was not approved by the German
Parliament and that it was abrogated as a result of Article 289 of the
Treaty of Versailles a~f28 June 1919.
195. Before addressing the question of whether Great Britain was
entitled to pass title to Bakassi through the Anglo-German Agreement
of 11 March 1913. i:he Court will examine these three argumen"s of
Nigeria concerning the defectiveness of that Agreement.
As regards the argument based on the General Act of the Conference
of Berlin, the Court notes that, having been raised very briefly by Nigeria
in its Counter-Memorial, it was not pursued either in the Rejoinder or at
the hearings. It is thereforeunnecessary for the Court to consider it.
196. Nigeria further contends that, under cnntemporary German
domestic legislation, al1 treaties providing for cession or acquisition of
colonial territory by Germany had to be appro~red by Parliament. It
points out that the Anglo-German Agreement of 1I March 1913was not
so approved. It argues that the Agreement involved the acquisition of
colonial territory,nainely the Bakassi Peninsula, and accordingly ought
to have been "approved by the German Parliament, at least so far as its
Bakassi provisions wi:re concerned".
Cameroon's position was that "the German Government took the view
that in the case-of Bakassi the issue was one of simple boundary rectifica-déjà antérieurementBakassi avait été traitéeen fait comme appartenant a
l'Allemagne»; dès lors, aucune approbation parlementaire n'aurait été
nécessaire.
197. La Cour constate que l'Allemagne a estiméque les procédures
requises par son droit interne avaient eté respectées, etque la Grande-
Bretagne n'a pour sa part jamais soulevé laquestion. L'accord avait fait
en outre l'objet d'une publication officielle dans les deux pays. Peu
importe dèslors que I'accord anglo-allemand du 11mars 1913n'ait pas
étéapprouvé par le Parlement allemand. L'argument du Nigériasur ce
point ne peut donc en tout étatde cause êtreaccueilli.
198. Pour ce qui est du traité deVersailles,le Nigériafait observer que
l'article 289 de celui-ci prévoyait que«les traitésbilatéraux concluspar
l'Allemagne avant la guerre [seraient] remis en vigueur aprèsnotification
a l'Allemagne par l'autre partie)). Il affirme que, la Grande-Bretagne
n'ayant pris aucune mesure en application de l'article 289 pour remettre
en vigueur l'accord du 11 mars 1913, celui-ci a en conséquence été
abrogé; le Cameroun «n'[aurait] donc pas succédéau traité lui-même)).
Le Cameroun affirme que l'article 289 du traitéde Versaillesétait sans
incidence juridique sur l'accord du 11 mars 1913, étant donnéque «le
champ d'application de cette disposition se limitait aux seuls traités à
caractère économique,au sens large du terme». Il estime que son inter-
prétation est corroborée par le contexte dudit article, sa place dans la
structure du traitéet l'historique de sa rédaction,ainsi que par son objet
et son but à la lumièredu traité pris dans son ensemble.
199. La Cour note que, à partir de 1916, l'Allemagne n'avait plus
exercéaucune autorité territoriale au Cameroun. Aux termes des articles
Il8 et 119du traité deVersailles, l'Allemagne renonçait a tout titre sur
ses possessions d'outre-mer. Dèslors, la Grande-Bretagne n'avait aucune
raison d'inclure I'accord anglo-allemand du 11 mars 1913 parmi les
((conventions bilatéralesou les traités bilatéraux))dont elle souhaitait la
remise en vigueur avec l'Allemagne. Il en découleque cet argument du
Nigériadoit en tout état de cause être écarté.
200. La Cour examinera a présent laquestion de savoir si la Grande-
Bretagne était habilitée a transmettre, par I'accord anglo-allemand du
11mars 1913,le titre sur Bakassi.
Le Cameroun rappelle a cet égard queI'accord du 11mars 1913fixait
le tracé dela frontière entre les Parties dans la régionde Bakassi et pla-
çait cette dernière du côté camerounais de la frontière. 11invoque a cet
effet les articles XVIII XXI dudit accord, qui disposent notamment que
la frontière «suit le thalweg de I'Akwayaféjusqu'a une ligne droite joi-
gnant Bakassi Point et King Point)) (art. XVIII) et qu7«[a]u cas ou le
cours inférieurde I'Akwayafédéplacerait son embouchure de telle sorte
que celle-ci arrive au Rio del Rey, il est entendu que la région actuelle-
ment appelée presqu'île de Bakassi restera néanmoins territoire alle- LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 401
tion, because Bakassi had already been treated pre\.iously as belonging de
,factoto Germany"; and thus parliamentary approval was not required.
197. The Court notes that Germanv itself considered that the Dro-
cedures prescribed by its domestic law had been complied with; no;did
Great Britain ever raise any question in relation thereto. The Agreement
had, moreover, been officiallypublished in both countries. It is therefore
irrelevant that the Ariglo-German Agreement of 1 IMarch 1913was not
approved by the German Parliament. Nigeria's argument on this point
accordingly cannot be upheld.
198. In relation to the Treaty of Versailles, Nigeria points out that
Article 289 thereof pi-ovidedfor "the revival of pre-war bilateral treaties
concluded by Germainy on notification to Germany by the other party".
It contends that, sinci:Great Britain had taken no steps under Article 289
to revive the Agreement of 11March 1913,it was accordingly abrogated;
thus Cameroon "could not have succeeded to the [Agreement] itself'.
Cameroon argues that Article 289 of the Treaty of Versailles did not
have any legal effect on the Agreement of 11 March 1913, because "the
scope of this Article lwaslimited to treaties of an economic nature in the
broad sense of the term" - which in Cameroon's viewwas confirmed by
the context of the Article, its position within thecliemeof the Treaty, its
drafting history and its object and purpose in lipht of the Treaty as a
whole.
199. The Court notes that since 1916 Germany had no longer exer-
cised any territorial authority in Cameroon. Under Articles 118 and 119
of the Versailles Treaty, Germany relinquished ils title to its overseas
possessions. As a result, Great Britain had no reason to include the
Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913 among the "bilateral
treaties orconventioi?~"which it wished to revive with Germany. Thus
it follows that this argument of Nigeria must in aiiy event be rejected.
200. The Court now turns to the question of whether Great Britain
was entitled to pass title to Bakassi through the Anglo-German Agree-
ment of 11 March 19113.
In this regard, Cameroon contends that the Agreement of 11 March
1913fixed the course of the boundary between the Parties in the area of
the Bakassi Peninsula and placed the latter on the Cameroonian side of
the boundary. Ttrelies for thispurpose on Articles XVIII to XXI of the
said Agreement, which provide inter aliathat the boundary "follows the
thalweg of theAkwayafe as far as a straight linejoining Bakasi Point and
King Point" (Art. XVIII) and that "[s]hould the lower course of the
Akwayafe so change its mouth as to transfer it to the Rio del Rey, it is
agreed that the area riow known as the Bakasi Peninsula shall still remain402 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRET)
mand)) (art. XX). Le Cameroun ajoute que, depuis l'entrée en vigueurde
I'accord du 11 mars 1913, Bakassi a appartenu aux prédécesseursdu
Cameroun et qu'aujourd'hui la souveraineté sur la presqu'île lui appar-
tient.
201. Le Nigéria neconteste pas que le sens de ces dispositions était
bien d'attribuer la presqu'île de Bakassi l'Allemagne. Il souligne toute-
fois que ces dispositions n'ont jamais étémises en pratique, et se trou-
vaient mêmedépourvues de validité pour divers motifs, mêmesi les
autres articles de I'accord du 11mars 1913 sont demeurés valides.
Le Nigériafait valoir que le titre de souveraineté sur Bakassi dont il se
réclame appartenait initialement aux rois et chefs du Vieux-Calabar.
Selon lui, les cités-Etats dela régiondeCalabar constituaient,à l'époque
précoloniale, une ((fédérationacéphale » composée d'«entités indépen-
dantes ayant la personnalité juridique internationale)). Aux termes du
traité de protectorat conclu le 10 septembre 1884 entre la Grande-Bre-
ta"ne et les rois et chefs du Vieux-Calabar. ces derniers auraient
conservéleur statut et leurs droits propres sur le plan international, y
compris le pouvoir d'entrer en relations avec des «nation[s] ou puis-
sance[~] étrangère[s]»,mêmesi le traité prévoyait qu'ils nepouvaient
exercer ce pouvoir qu'après avoir informéle Gouvernement britannique
et obtenu l'agrément de ce dernier. Selon le Nigéria, ce traité ne
conférait àla Grande-Bretagne que certains pouvoirs limités;il ne trans-
féraiten aucune manière à celle-ci la souverainetésur les territoires des
rois et chefs du Vieux-Calabar.
Le Nigériasoutient que la Grande-Bretagne, ne possédantpas la sou-
verainetésur ces territoires en 1913,ne pouvait les céderà un tiers. 11en
résulterait que, dans sa partie pertinente, I'accord anglo-allemand du
1 1mars 1913excédaitle «pouvoir de conclure des traitésde la Grande-
Bretagne)) et que ((cette partie du traiténe liait pas les rois et chefs du
Vieux-Calabar)). Le Nigériaajoute que, «[a]u moment où [I'accord] de
1913 a étéconclu)), les limites des pouvoirs de la Grande-Bretagne en
vertu du traité de 1884,
«et en particulier le fait que celle-ci n'était pas souveraine sur la
presqu'île de Bakassi et qu'il ne lui appartenait donc pas, en droit
international, de disposer du titre sur celle-ci, devaient être connues
de l'Allemagne, ou auraient dû l'être, ensupposant que celle-ci agis-
sait avec une prudence raisonnable)).
De l'avisdu Nigéria, l'invaliditéde l'accord du 11mars 1913au motif
qu'il contrevenait au principenrmo dut quod non hubet ne portait toute-
fois«que sur les parties [de I'accord] censées définirne frontière qui, si
elles avaient étésuivies d'effet, auraient entraînéla cession d'un territoire
à l'Allemagne», c'est-à-dire essentiellementsesarticles XVIIIàXXII. Les
autres dispositions de l'accord n'étaientpas, quant elles,entachéesdece
vice et demeuraient par conséquenten vigueur et pleinement exécutoires;
elles étaientautonomes et leur application ne dépendaitpas des disposi- LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 402
German territory" (Art. XX). Cameroon further states that, since the
entry into force of the Agreement of March 1913,Bakassi has belonged
to its predecessors, ,and that sovereignty over tlie peninsula is today
vested in Cameroon.
201. Nigeria does not contest that the meaning of these provisions is
to allocate the Bakassi Peninsula to Germany. It does, however, insist
that these terms weri: never ut into effect. and iiideed were invalid on
various grounds, thoiigh the ither Articles of the Agreement of 11March
19 13 remained valid.
Nigeria contends that the title to sovereignty over Bakassi on which it
relies was originally vested in the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar. It
argues that in the pre-colonial era the City States of the Calabar region
constituted an "acephalous federation" consisting of "independent enti-
ties with internati~n~allegal personality". It considers that, under the
Treaty of Protection isignedon 10September 1884 between Great Britain
and the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar, the latter retained their sepa-
rate international status and rights, including thelr power to enter into
relationships with "other international persons" although under the
Treaty that power c:ould only be exercised witli the knowledge and
approval of the British Government. According to Nigeria, the Treaty
only conferred certain limited rights on Great Britain; in no way did it
transfer sovereignty to Britain over the territories of the Kings and Chiefs
of Old Calabar.
Nigeria argues thait, since Great Britain did not have sovereignty over
those territories in 1913, it could not cede them to a third party. It fol-
lowed that the relevant part of the Anglo-German Agreement of
11 March 1913was "outwith the treaty-making power of Great Britain,
and that part was no'tbinding on the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar".
Nigeria adds that the limitations on Great Britain's powers under the
1884Treaty of Proteirtion,
"and in particular its lack of sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula
and thus its lack of legal authority in international law to dispose of
title to it, must have been known to Germany at the time the 1913
Treaty was concluded, or ought to have been cmthe assumption that
Germany was conducting itself in a reasonably prudent way".
In Nigeria's view,the invalidity of the Agreement of 11March 1913on
grounds of inconsistency with the principle nemo dut quod non habet
applied only, howew:r, "to those parts of the Trr:aty which purport to
prescribe a boundary which, if effective,would have involved a cession of
territory to Germany", that is to Say,essentially Articles XVIII to XXII.
The remaining provisions of the Treaty were untairited by that defect and
accordingly remained in force and fully effective; they wereself-standing
provisions, and their application was not dependent upon the Bakassi403 FRONTIERE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
tions relativesàBakassi qui, étantentachéesd'un vicejuridique, devaient
êtreséparéesdu reste de l'accord.
202. En réponse,le Cameroun soutient que l'argumentation du Nigé-
ria selon laquelle la Grande-Bretagne n'avait pas la capacitéjuridique de
céder la presqu'îlede Bakassi par voie de traitéest manifestement dénuée
de tout fondement.
Selon le Cameroun, le traité conclu le 10 septembre 1884 entre la
Grande-Bretagne et les rois et chefs du Vieux-Calabar établissait un
((protectorat colonial)) et, «dans la pratique de l'époque,il n'y avait
que peu de différencesde fond, au plan international, en termes d'acqui-
sition territoriale, entre les colonies et les protectorats coloniaux)).
C'étaitplus au regard du droit interne des puissances coloniales que du
droit international qu'il aurait existé des différencesde fond entre le sta-
tut de colonie et celui de protectorat colonial. Le Cameroun ajoute que
l'élémentclef du protectorat colonial était le c<postulatde souveraineté
extérieurede 1'Etatprotecteur)), qui se manifestait
«de différentes manières,mais principalement par l'acquisition et
l'exercicede la capacitéet de la compétence decéder unepartie des
territoires couverts par les protectorats par des traités internatio-
naux, sans aucune intervention de la population ou de l'entité en
question ».
Le Cameroun soutient en outre que, mêmedans l'hypothèse où la
Grande-Bretagne n'aurait pas disposéde la capacité juridique de trans-
férer lasouverainetésur la presqu'île de Bakassi par le biais de l'accord
du 11mars 1913,cette circonstance ne saurait être invoquée par le Nigé-
ria comme cause d'invalidité dudit accord. Il fait observer que ni la
Grande-Bretagne, ni le Nigéria, Etat qui lui a succédé,n'ont jamais
invoqué une telle cause d'invalidité;il indique a cet égard que
«[b]ien au contraire, jusqu'au débutdes années1990,le Nigériaavait
de manière non équivoqueconfirmé et acceptéla ligne frontière de
1913 par sa pratique diplomatique et consulaire, ses publications
géographiques et cartographiques officielles et, enfin, ses déclara-
tions et sa conduite sur la scènepolitique)),
et que «[l]a même choseétaitvraie en ce qui concerne l'appartenance de
la presqu'île de Bakassi au Cameroun)). Le Cameroun précise enoutre
qu'aucune autre cause d'invaliditéde l'accord du 11 mars 1913ne peut
êtreinvoquée.
Le Cameroun soutient égalementque, en tout état de cause, l'accord
du 11mars 1913forme un tout indivisible et qu'on ne saurait en séparer
les dispositions relatives la presqu'île de Bakassi. Il affirme qu'«il existe
une forte présomptionque les traitésacceptéscomme valides doivent être
interprétés globalementet l'ensemble de leurs dispositions respectées et
appliquées)),et que «[Iles parties ne peuvent choisir les dispositions [de
l'accord] qui doivent être appliquéeset celles qui ne doivent pas l'être,provisions, which, being in law defective, were to be severed from the rest
of the Agreement.
202. In reply, Canieroon contends that Nigeria's argument that Great
Britain had no legal power to cede the Bakassi Peninsula by treaty is
manifestly unfoundetl.
In Cameroon's view, the treaty signed on 10 September 1884between
Great Britain and the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar established a
"colonial protectorate" and, "in the practice of the period, there was little
fundamental difference at international level,in terms of territorial acqui-
sition, between coloriies and colonial protectorates". Substantive differ-
ences between the status of colony and that of a colonial protectorate
were matters of the national law of the colonial Powers rather than of
international law. The key element of the colonial protectorate was the
"assumption of external sovereignty by the protecting State", which
manifested itself principally through
"the acquisition and exercise of the capacity and power to cede part
of the protected territory by international treirty, without any inter-
vention by the population or entity in question".
Cameroon further argues that, even on the hypnthesis that Great Brit-
ain did not have legal capacity to transfer sovereignty over the Bakassi
Peninsula under the Agreement of 11 March 1913, Nigeria could not
invoke that circumstance as rendering the Agreement invalid. It points
out that neither Gr~rat Britain nor Nigeria. the successor State, ever
sought to claim that the Agreement was invalid on this ground; in this
regard Cameroon states that,
"[oln the contrary, until the start of the 1990s Nigeria had un-
ambiguously confirmed and accepted the 1913 boundary line in
its diplomatic and consular practice, its official geographical and
cartographie publications and indeed in its statements and conduct
in the political field",
and that "[tlhe same was true as regards the appurtenance of the Bakassi
Peninsula to Camerolon". Cameroon further states that there is no other
circumstance which might be relied on to rentier the Agreement of
11 March 1913invalid.
Cameroon also contends that, in any event, the Agreement of
11 March 1913 formisan indivisible whole and that it is not possible to
sever from it the prclvisions concerning the Bakassi Peninsula. It main-
tains that "there is a strong presumption that treaties accepted as valid
must be interpreted as a whole and al1 their provisions respected and
applied"; and that "parties cannot choose the provisions of a treaty
which are to be applied and those which are no1 - they cannot 'pick404 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
elles ne sauraient faire un tr...en l'absence d'une disposition leur per-
mettant d'agir de la sorte».
203. La Cour observera tout d'abord que, a l'époque de la Conférence
de Berlin, les Puissances européennessignèrentde nombreux traités avec
des chefs locaux. La Grande-Bretagne en conclut quelque trois cent cin-
quante avec les chefs locaux du delta du Niger. Parmi ceux-ci figuraient
des traités conclus en juillet 1884 avec les rois et chefs'Opobo et, en
septembre de la mêmeannée,avec les rois et chefs du Vieux-Calabar. Que
ceux-ci aient étéconsidéréscomme des personnalités ressort clairement
du fait que ces traités furent conclus par le consul, représentant expres-
sément la reine Victoria,et que les Britanniques s'engagèrent a ce que
soient étendues à ces rois et chefs les «bonnes grâces et [la]bienveillante
protection)) de Sa Majestéla reine de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande.
L'article II du traité du 10 septembre 1884 disposait en contrepartie
'l'Je
c<[l]esrois et chefs du Vieux-Calabar s'engage[aient]à s'abstenir de
toute correspondance, de tout accord et de tout traitéavec une quel-
conque nation ou puissance étrangère sans l'autorisation préalable
du gouvernement de Sa Majestébritannique)).
Le traitéconclu avec les rois et chefs du Vieux-Calabar ne précisaitpas
sur quel territoire la Couronne britannique entendait étendre«ses bonnes
grâces et sa bienveillante protection)), ni sur quel territoire chacun des
rois et chefs du Vieux-Calabar, signataires du traité,exerçait son pouvoir.
Toutefois, le consul qui négocia et signa le traité présenta le Vieux-
Calabar comme un ((pays [qui], avec ses dépendances, s'étendde Tom
Shots ...jusqu'à la rivière Rumby (a l'ouest des monts Cameroun))).
Quelque six années plus tard, en 1890, un autre consul britannique,
Johnston, dans un rapport adresséau Foreign Office, devait indiquer:
((l'autoritédes chefs du Vieux-Calabar s'étend bienau-delà de la rivière
Akpayafe, jusqu'au pied même desmonts Cameroun)). La Cour relève
que, bien qu'un tel territoire s'étendeconsidérablementà l'estde Bakassi,
Johnston précisa à cette occasion que leschefs du Vieux-Calabar s'étaient
retirés desterres situées l'est de la Ndian. Bakassi et le Rio del Rey se
trouvent à l'ouest de la Ndian, région que Johnston présente comme
constituant sans conteste «leur véritableterritoire)).
Selon la Cour, la Grande-Bretagne se faisait une idée assez exacte des
territoires sur lesquelsles rois et chefs du Vieux-Calabar oàtdifférentes
époques,exercéleur autorité, comme de leur rang.
204. Le Nigéria a soutenu que le titre mêmedu traité de 1884 et la
mention faite, à son article 1, de l'exerciced'une «protection» montrent
que la Grande-Bretagne n'étaitpas habilitée à faire davantage que pro-
tégeret, en particulier, n'était pashabilitée céderle territoire concerné
à des Etats tier: «nemo dat quod non habet».
205. La Cour tient àfaire observer que le statut juridique international
d'un «traitéde protection)) conclu sous l'empiredu droit alors en vigueur
ne saurait être déduitde son seul titre. Certains traités de protectionand choose' --, unless there is a provision enabling them to act in that
way".
203. The Court first observes that during the era of the Berlin Confer-
ence the European P'owersentered into many treaties with local rulers.
Great Britain concluded some 350 treaties with the local chiefs of the
Niger delta. Among these were treaties in July 1884with the Kings and
Chiefs of Opobo ancl, in September 1884,with the Kings and Chiefs of
Old Calabar. That these were regarded as notable personages is clear
from the fact that thlesetreaties were concluded by the consul, expressly
as the representative of Queen Victoria, and the British undertakings of
"gracious favour ancl protection" were those of Her Majesty the Queen
of Great Britain and Ireland.
In turn, under Article II of the Treaty of 10 September 1884,
"The King and Chiefs of Old Calabar agree[d] and promise[d] to
refrain from entering into any correspondence, Agreement, or Treaty
with any foreigri nation or Power, except with the knowledge and
sanction of Her Britannic Majesty's Governnient."
The Treaty with the Kings and Chiefs of Old C'alabar did not specify
the territory to which the British Crown was to extend "gracious favour
and protection", nor did it indicate the territories over which each of the
Kings and Chiefs signatory to the Treaty exercised his powers. However,
the consul who negotiated and signed the Treaty, said of Old Calabar
"this country with its dependencies extends from Tom Shots .. .to the
River Rumby (on the west of the Cameroon Mountains), both inclusive".
Some six years later, in 1890,another British consul, Johnston, reported
to the Foreign Officethat "the rule of the Old Calabar Chiefs extends far
beyond the Akpayafe River to the very base of the Cameroon Moun-
tains". The Court observes that, while this territory extends considerably
eastwards of Bakassi, Johnston did report that tlie Old Calabar Chiefs
had withdrawn from the lands east of the Ndian. Bakassi and the Rio del
Rey lay to the west of the Ndian, an area referi-ed to by Johnston as
"their real, undoubted territory".
In the viewof the Court Great Britain had a clear understanding of the
area ruled at different times by the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar, and
of their standing.
204. Nigeria has contended that the very title of the 1884Treaty and
the reference in Article 1to the undertaking of "protection", shows that
Britain had no entitlement to do more than proteci, and in particular had
no entitlement to ceclethe territory concerned to third States: "nemo dut
quod non hczbet".
205. The Court calls attention to the fact that the international legal
status of a "Treaty of Protection" entered into under the law obtaining at
the time cannot be deduced from its title alone. Some treaties of protec-furent ainsi conclus avec des entitésqui conservèrent,dans le cadre de ces
traités,la souveraineté qui était antérieurement la leur au regard du droit
international, que ces territoires protégésaient ensuite été appelé« spro-
tectorats)) (comme dans le cas du Maroc, de la Tunisie et de Madagascar
(1885; 1895) dans leurs relations conventionnelles avec la France) ou
~Etats protégés)) (commedans le cas de Bahreïn et de Qatar dans leurs
relations conventionnelles avec la Grande-Bretagne). En Afrique sub-
saharienne, en revanche, des «traités de protection)) furent conclus non
pas avec des Etats, mais avec d'importants chefs indigènesexerçant un
pouvoir local sur des parties ide~itifiablesde territoire.
Considérant un traité de ce type dans une autre région du monde,
Max Huber, siégeantcomme arbitre unique en l'affaire de 1'11ede Pal-
mas, devait dire :
«il n'y a pas la d'accord entre égaux; c'est plutôt une forme d'orga-
nisation intérieured'un territoire colonial, sur la base de l'autonomie
des indigènes ...Et c'est [ainsi]la suzeraineté exercée sur 1'Etatindi-
gènequi devient la base de la souveraineté territoriale a l'égard des
autres membres de la communauté des nations. ))(Revuegénéralede
droit international public, t. XLII, 1935,p. 187.)
La Cour fait observer que ces concepts ont également trouvé leur
expression dans son avis consultatif concernant le Sahara occidental. La
Cour déclara a cette occasion que, à l'égardde territoires qui n'étaient
pas terrae nullius, mais étaient habitéspar des tribus ou des peuples dotés
d'une organisation sociale et politique, «on voyait dans [Ilesaccords avec
leschefs locaux ...un mode d'acquisition dérivé)) (Sahara occidental, avis
consultutif; C.1J. Recueil 1975, p. 39,par. 80). Mêmesice mode d'acqui-
sition ne correspond pas au droit international actuel, leprincipe du droit
intertemporel impose de donner effet aujourd'hui, dans la présente ins-
tance, aux conséquencesjuridiques des traités alors intervenus dans le
delta du Niger.
206. Le choix d'un traité deprotectorat par la Grande-Bretagne décou-
lait de ses préférencesquant a la façon de gouverner. Ailleurs, et en par-
ticulier dans la régionde Lagos, ce furent des traités decession de terri-
toire que la Grande-Bretagne conclut avec les chefs locaux. Et c'est
précisémenten raison de ces différencesque l'on se trouva en présenceau
Nigériad'une colonie de Lagos et d'un protectorat de la côte du Niger,
qui devait devenir le protectorat du Nigéria méridional.
207. De l'avisde la Cour, de nombreux élémentsamènent à considérer
que le traitéde 1884conclu avec lesrois et chefs du Vieux-Calabar n'était
pas un traitéde protectorat international. 11s'agissait d'un traitéparmi
une multitude d'autres conclus dans une région où les chefs locaux
n'étaientpas assimilésa des Etats. De fait, et mis à part les déclarations
parallèles par lesquelles plusieurs chefs de moindre importance accep-
tèrent d'êtreliéspar le traitéde 1884,on ne dispose pas même de preuves
convaincantes de l'existenced'un pouvoir fédérac lentral.Il semble plutôt
que le Vieux-Calabar ait étéconstitué d'agglomérationsdirigéespar destion were entered ini:o with entities which retained thereunder a previ-
ously existing sovereignty under international law. This was the case
whether the protected party was henceforth termed 'protectorat" (as in
the case of Morocco, Tunisia and Madagascar (1885; 1895) in their
treaty relations with France) or "a protected State" (as in the case of
Bahrain and Qatar in their treaty relations with Great Britain). In sub-
Saharan Africa, however, treaties termed "treaties of protection" were
entered into not with States, but rather with important indigenous rulers
exercising local rule over identifiable areas of territory.
In relation to a treaty of this kind in another part of the world,
Max Huber, sitting as sole arbitrator in the Island qf Palmas case,
explained that such a.treaty
"is not an agreement between equals; it is rather a form of interna1
organisation of a colonial territory, on the basis of autonomy of the
natives . . And thus suzerainty over the native States becomes the
basis of territorial sovereignty as towards other members of the com-
munity of natioris." (United Nations, Reports of International Arhi-
tral A,r;ards(RIAA), Vol. II, pp. 858-859.)
The Court points out that these concepts also found expression in the
Western Salzara Advisory Opinion. There the Court stated that in terri-
tories that were not lerra nullius,but were inhabited by tribes or people
having a social and political organization, "agreements concluded with
local rulers . . . we:re regarded as derivative roots of title" (Western
Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 39, para. 80). Even if
this mode of acquisition does not reflect current international law, the
principle of intertemporal law requires that the legal consequences of the
treaties concluded at that time in the Niger delta be given effect today, in
the present dispute.
206. The choice of a protectorate treaty by Great Britain was a ques-
tion of the preferred manner of rule. Elsewhere, and specifically in the
Lagos region, treaties for cession of land were being entered into with
local rulers. It was precisely a reflection ofthose differences that within
Nigeria there was the Colony of Lagos and the Niger Coast Protectorate,
later to become the E'rotectorate of Southern Nigeria.
207. In the view of the Court many factors point to the 1884 Treaty
signed with the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar as not establishing an
international protectorate. It was one of a multitude in a region where
the local Rulers were not regarded as States. Indeed, apart from the
parallel declarations of various lesser Chiefs agreeing to be bound by
the 1884Treaty, there is not even convincing evidence of a central federal
power. There appeairs in Old Calabar rather to have been individual
townships, headed by Chiefs, who regarded themselves as owing a gen-
eral allegiance to more important Kings and Chiefs. Further, from thechefs qui se considéraient comme vassaux de rois et chefs plus impor-
tants. En outre, la Grande-Bretagne estima d'emblée qu'illui incombait
d'administrer les territoires couverts par le traitéde 1884,et non pas seu-
lement de les protéger. Le consul Johnston devait d'ailleurs exposer en
1888 que «le pays situé entre la frontière de Lagos et la frontière du
Cameroun allemand est actuellement administré par les agents consu-
laires de Sa Majesté, en vertude divers Ordres en conseil)).Qu'une délé-
gation des rois et chefs du Vieux-Calabar se soit rendue à Londres en
1913pour y discuter de questions relatives au régime foncier nesaurait
être considéré comme impliquantune personnalité internationale. Cela
ne fait que confirmer l'exercice par la Grande-Bretagne d'une adminis-
tration indirecte sur ces territoires.
Le Nigériaa lui-même été dans l'incapacitéde faire état d'unrôle quel-
conque joué,aprèsla conclusion du traité de1884,par lesrois et chefs du
Vieux-Calabar dans des domaines pertinents aux fins de la présente ins-
tance. Répondant à une question d'un membre de la Cour, le Nigériaa
indiquéqu'ilétait((impossiblede savoir précisémenc te qu'il [étaadvenu
de la personnalité juridique internationale des rois et chefs du Vieux-
Calabar après 1885 ».
La Cour relèveque l'une descaractéristiques d'un protectorat interna-
tional résidedans des rencontres et discussions régulièresentre la puis-
sance protectrice et les dirigeants locaux du protectorat. Dans l'affaire de
la Délimitation maritime et des questions territoriales entre Qatar et
Bahreïn (Qatar c. Bahreïn), de nombreux documents de ce type ont été
présentés àla Cour,pour la plupart issus des archives britanniques. En la
présenteespèce,il a étéindiqué à la Cour que le Nigéria«ne peut pas dire
que de telles rencontres n'ont jamais eu lieu, ni le contrairet que] les
documents qui permettraient de répondre àla question n'existent proba-
blement plus ».
208. O.ant à la auestion de savoirà auel moment les rois et chefs ont
cesséd'exister en tant qu'entitédistincte, le Nigériaa indiquéà la Cour
qu'il étaitimpossible d'y répondreavec précision.
La Cour note à cet égard que,dès 1885,la Grande-Bretagne avait éta-
bli par proclamation un ((protectorat britannique des districts du Niger))
(qui changea plusieurs fois de nom par la suite) regroupant en une entité
unique les différentsterritoires couverts par les traités de protection pas-
sésdans la régiondepuis juillet 1884. Elle relèveen outre qu'il n'est fait
mention du Vieux-Calabar dans aucun des divers Ordres en conseil qui
énumèrentles protectorats et Etats protégés,et ce quelle qu'en soit la
date. Il en va ainsi de l'Ordre en conseil de 1934sur les personnes proté-
géesbritanniques, qui, àson annexe, fait étatdu ((protectoratdu Nigéria
et du Cameroun sous mandat britannique)). La deuxième annexe à
l'Ordre en conseil de 1949relatif aux protectorats britanniques, aux Etats
protégés etaux personnes protégées n'enfait pas davantage mention,
alors que la première annexe contient une référenceau ((protectorat du
Nigéria ».
En outre, aucun élément n'a été présen àtla Cour qui donnerait àoutset Britain regarded itself as administering the territories comprised in
the 1884Treaty, and not just protecting them. Consul Johnston reported
in 1888that "the country between the boundary of Lagos and the Ger-
man boundary of Carneroons" was "administered by Her Majesty's Con-
sular Officers, under various Orders in Council". The fact that a delega-
tion was sent to Londlonby the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar in 1913
to discuss matters of land tenure cannot be considcred as implying inter-
national personality. It simply confirms the Brit~sh administration by
indirect rule.
Nigeria itself has b'eenunable to point to any role, in matters relevant
to the present case, played by the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar after
the conclusion of the 1884Treaty. In responding to a question of a Mem-
ber of the Court Nigeria stated "It is not possible to say with clarity and
certainty what happened to the international legal personality of the
Kings and Chiefs of (31dCalabar after 1885."
TheCourt notes th.ata characteristic of an international protectorate is
that of ongoing meetings and discussions between the protecting Power
and the Rulers of the Protectorate. In the case concerning Maritime
Delimitation and Territorial Questions hetiveen Qatar and Bahrain
(Qatar v. Buhrain) the Court was presented with substantial documenta-
tion of this character., in large part being old British State papers. In the
present case the Court was informed that "Nigeria can neither say that
no such meetings ever took place, or that they did take place . .. the
records which would enable the question to be answered probably no
longer exist .. .".
208. As to when the Kings and Chiefs ceased to exist as a separate
entity, Nigeria told the Court it "is not a question susceptible of a clear-
cut answer".
The Court notes iri this regard that in 1885 Great Britain had estab-
lished by proclamati~ona "British Protectorate of the Niger Districts"
(which subsequently changed names a number of times), incorporating in
a singleentity the various territories covered by the treaties of protection
entered into in the re:gionsince July 1884.The Court further notes that
there is no reference itoOld Calabar in any of the various British Orders
in Council, of whatever date, which list proteciorates and protected
States. The same is tirueof the British Protected Persons Order of 1934,
the Schedule to which refers to "Nigerian Protectorate and Cameroons
under British Mandate". Nor is there any reference to Old Calabar in the
Second Schedule to the British Protectorates, Protected States and Pro-
tected Persons Order in Council, 1949,though in the First Schedule there
is a reference to the "Nigerian Protectorate".
Moreover, the Court has been presented with no evidence of any pro-penser qu'en 1913 les rois et chefs du Vieux-Calabar auraient émis
quelque protestation que ce fût, ni qu'en 1960 ils auraient pris des me-
sures en vue de transférer un territoire au Nigérialors de l'accession de
ce dernier à l'indépendance.
209. La Cour conclut par conséquent que,au regard du droit qui pré-
valait à l'époque, laGrande-Bretagne, en 1913, pouvait déterminer sa
frontière au Nigéria avec l'Allemagne, y compris pour ce qui est de sa
partie méridionale.
210. La Cour examinera à présentle traitement réservée,ntre 1913et
1960, au segment méridional de la frontière définiepar l'accord anglo-
allemand du 11 mars 1913.
Le Cameroun soutient que la périodedu mandat et de la tutelle ainsi
que le processus d'accessionà l'indépendance qui asuivi montrent que la
communauté internationale avait reconnu l'appartenance de la presqu'île
de Bakassi au Cameroun.
A l'issue de la première guerre mondiale, il fut décidéque I'adminis-
tration de la colonie allemande du Cameroun serait partagée entre la
Grande-Bretagne et la France dans le cadre du régime desmandats de la
Société desNations. Bakassi aurait fait partie de la régiondu Cameroun
britannique dénomméeCameroun méridional. Cette définition territo-
riale aurait été reprisedans les accords de tutelle qui se substituèrent au
régime desmandats après la seconde guerre mondiale. Selon le Came-
roun, les autorités britanniques n'auraient jamais douté que Bakassi fît
partie du territoire camerounais, d'abord sous mandat puis sous tutelle,
puisqu'elle avait fait partie du Cameroun allemand en vertu de l'accord
anglo-allemand du 11mars 1913.En outre, bien que l'Ordre en conseil de
1923relatif au Cameroun britannique ait prévuque les provinces septen-
trionale et méridionale du Cameroun seraient administrées ((comme si
ellesfaisaient partie)) du Nigéria,le Cameroun souligne qu'ilne s'agissait
là que d'un arrangement administratif qui n'entraînait pas l'intégration
de ces territoires au sein du Nigéria. LeCameroun a produit des preuves
documentaires, des Ordres en conseil britanniques et des cartes qui
démontrent selon lui que, durant cette période, Bakassia toujours été
considéréecomme faisant partie du Cameroun britannique.
Le Cameroun rappelle par ailleurs que, lors des plébiscites desNations
Unies des 11et 12février1961,une nette majorité seprononça, au Came-
roun septentrional, en faveur d'une union avec le Nigéria,alors que, au
Cameroun méridional, une nette majoritése prononça en faveur du rat-
tachement à la République du Cameroun. Ilaffirme que, aux fins de
l'organisation et du déroulementdu scrutin, il fut nécessairede définirles
régions relevant respectivementdu Cameroun septentrional et du Came-
roun méridional.Le Cameroun fait observer que la carte annexéeau rap-
port du commissaire des Nations Unies aux plébiscitesmontre que la
presqu'île de Bakassi faisait partie de la circonscription électoralede Vic- LAND A.ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 407
test in 1913by theKiiigs and Chiefs of Old Calabar ;nor of any action by
them to pass territory to Nigeria asit emerged to independence in 1960.
209. The Court thiss concludes that, under the law at the time, Great
Britain was in a position in 1913 to determine its boundaries with Ger-
many in respect of Nigeria, including in the southt:rn section.
210. The Court will now examine the treatment. in the period 1913to
1960, of the southerri sector of the boundary as defined by the Anglo-
German Agreement of 11 March 1913.
Cameroon contends that the mandate and trusteeship period, and the
subsequent independence process, show recognition on the part of the
internationalcommunity of Cameroon's attachment to the Bakassi Penin-
sula.
Following the First World War, it was decicled that the German
colony of Cameroori should be administered in partitioned form by
Britain and France under the framework of League of Nations mandate
arrangements. Bakassi is said to have formed part of the area of the Brit-
ish Cameroons termed Southern Cameroons. This territorial definition is
said to have been repeated in the trusteeship agreements which succeeded
the mandates system after the Second World War. According to Cam-
eroon, there was never any doubt in the minds of the British authorities
that Bakassi formed part of the mandated and trusteeship territory of the
Cameroons since Balkassihad formed part of German Cameroon pur-
suant to the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913. Moreover,
although the British Cameroons Order in Council of 1923 established
that the Northern and Southern Cameroons would be administered "as if
they formed part of' Nigeria. Cameroon emphasized that this was merely
an administrative arrangement which did not lead to the incorporation of
these territories into Nigeria. Cameroon produces clocumentary evidence,
British Orders in Council and maps which, it claims, evidence that
Bakassi is consistently placed within the British Cameroons throughout
this period.
Cameroon further recalls that the United Nations plebiscites, held on
11 and 12 February 1961, resulted in a clear majority in the Northern
Cameroons voting toljoin Nigeria, and a clear majority in the Southern
Cameroons voting to join Cameroon. It maintains that the process of
holding the plebiscitc meant that the areas that fell within the Northern
and Southern Cameroons had to be ascertained. Cameroon points out
that the map attached to the Report of the United Nations Plebiscite
Commissioner shows that the Bakassi Peninsula formed part of the Vic-
toria South West plebiscite district in theuth-east corner of Cameroon.
This would show that the peninsula was recognized by the United Nationstoria Sud-Ouest, dans l'angle sud-estdu Cameroun. Cela prouverait que
la presqu'île était reconnue par les Nations Unies comme faisant partie
du Cameroun méridional.Le Cameroun met également enavant l'absence
de protestation du Nigéria à l'égard dela frontiere proposée durant le
processus qui devait conduire à l'indépendance,et le vote de celui-ci en
faveur de la résolution 1608 (XV) de l'Assemblée générale, qum i ettait
officiellement fin au régimede la tutelle britannique.
Le Cameroun se réfèreen outre aux négociations maritimes inter-
venues entre le Nigéria etle Cameroun depuis l'indépendance,qui abou-
tirent à des accords aux termes desquels le Nigéria aurait reconnu la
validitéde l'accord anglo-allemand du 11mars 1913,lafrontiere en décou-
lant, ainsi que la souverainetédu Cameroun sur la presqu'île de Bakassi.
Ces accords comprendraient la note nigérianeno570du 27mars 1962,I'ac-
cord de Yaoundé II du 4 avril 1971,l'accord de Kano du 1"'septembre
1974et l'accord de Maroua du le'juin 1975.
Le Cameroun invoque enfin les permis d'exploration et d'exploitation
pétrolières qu'ila attribués sur la presqu'île elle-même etau large de
celle-ci dès le débutdes années soixante, ainsi qu'un certain nombre de
visites effectuées dans la région de Bakassi par des consuls et des
ambassadeurs du Nigéria. L'attitude de ces derniers, consistant à
demanderl'autorisation et la coopérationdes fonctionnaires locaux came-
rounais et à les en remercier, militerait selon lui en faveur du bien-fondé
de sa revendication de souverainetésur Bakassi.
211. Le Nigériafait valoir pour sa part que, pendant toute la période
où le traité de 1884 est demeuré en vigueur, la Grande-Bretagne n'a
jamais eu le pouvoir de céder Bakassi.De ce fait, il prétend que, pour
nombreuses qu'aient pu êtreles activitésbritanniques relativesà Bakassi
sous le régimede mandat ou de tutelle, elles n'auraient pu détacher
Bakassi du protectorat du Nigéria. 11se fonde égalementsur le fait que,
pendant toute la périodeallant de 1913 à 1960,Bakassi fut, dans la pra-
tique, administrée depuis le Nigéria etcomme partie intégrante de celui-
ci, etjamaisà partir du Cameroun ni comme partie intégrante de celui-ci.
Le Nigéria soutient également qu'aucun document ne prouve que la
population de la presqu'île de Bakassi ait participé au plébiscite des
Nations Unies; la description de la circonscription électoralede Victoria
Sud-Ouest donnée dans le rapport du commissaire ne viserait aucune
zone situéedans la presqu'île de Bakassi.
Par ailleurs, le Nigéria ne reconnaît aucune force obligatoire aux
accords de délimitation invoqués par le Cameroun, en particulier la
déclaration deMaroua, dont l'adoption n'a jamais, selon lui, étéapprou-
véepar le conseil militaire suprême,contrairementaux prescriptions de la
Constitution du Nigéria. Il refuse égalementde reconnaître la moindre
valeur probante aux visites effectuéesdans la régionde Bakassi par les
dignitaires nigériansauxquels le Cameroun fait référence,au motif que
des fonctionnaires consulaires ne sont pas habilités traiter de questions
relatives au titre sur un territoire, ni prononcer sur des questions de
souveraineté; dès lors, leurs actes ne sauraient êtreconsidéréscomme LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 408
as being a part of thr: Southern Cameroons. Cameroon also emphasizes
the absence of protest by Nigeria to the proposed boundary during the
independence process, and the fact that Nigeria voted in favour of
General Assembly resolution 1608(XV) by which the British trusteeship
was formally terminated.
Cameroon further refers to the maritime negotiations between Nigeria
and Cameroon since independence, which resulted in instruments under
which Nigeria is said to have recognized the validity of the Anglo-
German Agreement of 11March 1913,the boundary deriving fromit,and
Cameroon's sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula. These instruments
included the Nigeriari Note No. 570 of 27 March 1962,the Yaoundé II
Agreement of 4 April 1971, the Kano Agreement of 1 September 1974
and the Maroua Agrleementof 1June 1975.
Cameroon finally refers to its granting of permits for hydrocarbon
exploration and exploitation over the Bakassi Peninsula itself and off-
shore. commencing.un the earlv 1960sas well as to a number of consular
and ambassadorial visits to the Bakassi region by Nigerian consuls and
ambassadors, whose conduct in requesting permission and CO-operation
from the Cameroonian local officials and expressirig thanks for it is said
to corroborate Cameroon's claim to sovereignty over Bakassi.
211. Nigeria for its part argues that, at al1times while the 1884Treaty
remained in force, Great Britain continued to lack power to give Bakassi
away. As such, it claims that no amount of British activity in relation to
Bakassi in the mandate or trusteeship periods could have severed Bakassi
from the Nigeria protectorate. It draws additional support from the fact
that, in practice throughout the period from 1913to 1960, Bakassi was
administered from and as part of Nigeria, and was never administered
from or as part of Cameroon. Nigeria also asserts that there is no docu-
mentary evidence that the population of the Bakassi Peninsula partici-
pated in the United Nations plebiscite; the description of the Victoria
South West plebiscite district in the Commissioner's Report does not
refer to any areas sitiuated in the Bakassi Peninsula.
Nigeria further denies the binding nature of the delimitation agree-
ments referred to by Cameroon, in particular the Maroua Declaration,
whose adoption, it claims, was never approved by the Supreme Military
Council in contravention of Nigeria's constitutional requirements. It also
denies the evidentiary value of the visits to tlie Bakassi region by
Nigerian dignitaries referred to by Cameroon, on the basis that consular
officials are not mandated to deal with issues of title to territory, nor to
make assessments of questions of sovereignty. and, as such, their actions
cannot be taken to irnpact upon these questions. IGnally,on the issue of
the granting of oil exploration permits and production agreements,409 FRONTIERE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRET)
ayant une quelconque incidence sur de tellesquestions. Enfin, concernant
la question de l'octroi de permis d'exploration et de licences de produc-
tion, le Nigériasoutient entre autres que«la région litigieuseétaitle ter-
rain d'activitésde prospection concurrentes)) et que «les activitéspétro-
lièresn'étaient pasconsidérées ..[par les Parties] comme revêtantun rôle
déterminant pour trancher la question de la souveraineté)).
212. La Cour note que, àl'issuede la premièreguerre mondiale, 1'Alle-
magne renonça a ses possessions coloniales. En vertu du traité de Ver-
sailles, les possessions allemandes du Cameroun furent partagéesentre la
Grande-Bretagne et la France. En 1922,laGrande-Bretagne acceptaleman-
dat de la Sociétdes Nations pour « la partie du Cameroun [l'anciennecolo-
nie allemande]qui est située i l'ouest de la ligne fixéedans la déclaration
[Milner-Simon] signéele 10juillet 1919 ». Bakassi se trouvait nécessai-
rement couverte par lestermes de cemandat. La Grande-Bretagne n'avait
pas compétencepour modifier unilatéralementla frontière,et ellen'a d'ail-
leursprésentéa la Société deNsations aucune demandeen cesens.LeConseil
de la Sociétédes Nations fut informéde l'intention de la Grande-Bretagne
d'administrer le Cameroun méridional conjointement avec les provinces
méridionalesduprotectorat du Nigéria, etne s'yopposa pas. Ainsi, l'Ordre
en conseil du 26 juin 1923, relatif à l'administration du territoire sous
mandat du Cameroun britannique, prévoyaitque lesrégions duCameroun
britannique s'étendantau sud de la ligne décriteen annexe audit Ordre
seraient administrées«commesiellesfaisaientpartie))desprovincesméridio-
nales du protectorat du Nigéria.La Cour fait observer que la terminologie
utiliséedans l'Ordreen conseilpréservaitle statut distinctdesterritoiressous
mandat, tout en en permettant, pour des raisons de commodité,une admi-
nistration commune. La thèsedu Nigériadoit par conséquent être rejetée.
Lorsque, à l'issuede la seconde guerre mondiale et aprèsla création de
l'organisation des Nations Unies, le régime desmandats cédala place au
régimede tutelle, la situation territoriale demeura exactement la même.
La disposition «comme si ..» demeura en vigueur, et l'autoritéadminis-
trante ne fut pas davantage dotée dela compétencede modifier unilaté-
ralement les frontières du territoire sous tutelle. C'est ainsi que, pour
toute la période compriseentre 1922et 1961(annéeoù prit fin le régime
de tutelle), Bakassi fit partie du Cameroun britannique. La frontière entre
Bakassi et le Nigéria,indépendamment des arrangements d'ordre admi-
nistratif, demeura une frontière internationale.
La Cour n'est pas en mesure d'accepter l'affirmation du Nigéria selon
laquelle, jusqu'a l'indépendancede celui-ci en 1961, et malgré l'accord
anglo-allemand du 11mars 1913,la presqu'île de Bakassi serait demeurée
sous la souverainetédes rois et chefs du Vieux-Calabar. Ni la Société des
Nations, ni les Nations Unies ne considérèrent quetelle étaitla situation.
213. La Cour n'a de mêmeconnaissance d'aucun élémentqui tendrait
à prouver que le Nigéria pensait, au moment de l'indépendance,avoir
acquis Bakassi des rois et chefs du Vieux-Calabar. Le Nigéria,au moment
de son accession à l'indépendance, ne souleva d'ailleurs lui-mêm aeucune
question concernant l'étenduede son territoire dans cette région. LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 409
Nigeria argues interolia that "the area in dispute M'asthe subject of com-
peting exploration activities" and that "the incidence of oil-related activi-
ties was not .. .regarded [by the Parties] as conlslusiveof the issue of
sovereignty ".
212. The Court riotes that after the First World War Germany
renounced its colonia~lpossessions. Under the Versailles Treaty the Ger-
man possessions of Cameroon were divided between Great Britain and
France. In 1922 Great Britain accepted the mandate of the League of
Nations for "that part [of the former German colony] of the Cameroons
which lay to the Westof the line laid down in the [Milner-Simon] Declara-
tion signed on the 10th July, 1919". Bakassi was necessarily comprised
within the mandate. Great Britain had no powers iinilaterally to alter the
boundary nor did it inake any request to the Leapue of Nations for any
such alteration. The League Council was notified, and did not object to,
the British suggestion that it administer Southern Cameroon together
with the eastern region of the Protectorate of Nigeria. Thus the British
Order in Council of 26 June 1923providing for the Administration of the
Mandated Territory of the British Cameroons stipulated that British
Cameroons lying southwards of the line described in the Schedule would
be administered "as if it formed part of' the souchern provinces of the
Protectorate of Nigeria. The Court observes that the terminology used in
the Order in Council preserved the distinctive status of the mandated
territory, while allowing the convenience of a coinmon administration.
The Nigerian thesis rnust therefore be rejected.
When, after the Second World War and the establishment of the
United Nations, the mandate was converted to a trusteeship, the territo-
rial situation remained exactly the same. The "as if" provision continued
in place, and again the Administering Authority had no authority uni-
laterally to alter the boundaries of the trusteeship territory. Thus for
the entire period frorn 1922until 1961(when the 'Trusteeshipwas termi-
nated), Bakassi was ~comprisedwithin British Canieroon. The boundary
between Bakassi and Nigeria, notwithstanding the administrative arrange-
ments, remained an international boundary.
The Court is unable to accept Nigeria's contention that until its inde-
pendence in 1961,and notwithstanding the Anglo-German Agreement of
11 March 1913, the Bakassi Peninsula had remained under the sover-
eignty of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar. Neither the League of
Nations nor the United Nations considered that to be the position.
213. Equally, the Court has seen no evidence that Nigeria thought that
upon independence it was acquiring Bakassi from the Kings and Chiefs
of Old Calabar. Nigeria itself raised no query as to the extent of its ter-
ritory in this region lupon attaining independence. La Cour relèveen particulier que rien n'aurait pu permettre au Nigéria
de croire que le plébisciteayant eu lieu au Cameroun méridionalen 1961,
sous la surveillance des Nations Unies, ne concernait pas Bakassi.
Il est vrai que les dispositions de l'Ordre en conseil de 1960 relatif au
plébisciteau Cameroun méridional ne font mention d'aucun bureau de
vote qui aurait porté le nom d'un village de Bakassi. La Cour fait toute-
fois observer que cet Ordre en conseil n'exclut pas non plus Bakassi de
son champ d'application. L'Ordre en conseil vise tout simplement le
Cameroun méridional dans son ensemble. Or, il étaitclairement établi à
l'époqueque Bakassi faisait partie du Cameroun méridional, territoire
sous tutelle administré par le Royaume-Uni. Les frontières de ce terri-
toire avaient en effet été définies avec précisnans la ((Proclamation de
1954sur la régionnord, la région ouestet la régionest, portant définition
des frontières)),faite en application de I'Ordre en conseilde 1951relatif
la Constitution du Nigéria. Cette proclamation, reprenant les disposi-
tions de l'accord anglo-allemand du 11 mars 1913,prévoyait enparticu-
lier:«A partir de la mer, la frontière suit le chenal navigable de la rivière
Akpa-Yafe; de là elle suit le thalweg de ladite rivière Akpa-Yafe vers
l'amont jusqu'au confluent de celle-ci et des rivières Akpa-Korum et
Ebe. n Le fait que I'Ordre en conseil de 1960visait le Cameroun méridio-
nal dans son ensemble est encore confirmépar le fait que, comme l'a
relevéle commissaire des Nations Unies aux plébiscitespour le Came-
roun sous administration du Royaume-Uni dans son rapport du 30 mars
1961 à l'Assemblée générale l,s vingt-six «circonscriptions de plébiscite))
crééespar I'Ordre en conseil de 1960correspondaient aux «circonscrip-
tions électoralespour la Chambre d'Assemblée duCameroun méridional D.
La carte des Nations Unies sur laquelle sont figuréesles circonscrip-
tions de plébiscite reflétait égalementles dispositions de l'accord du
11 mars 1913. remises dans la rocl la mat ionsusmentionnée de 1954.
La Cour relèveen outre que cette ligne frontiere fut à son tour recon-
nue par le Nigéria, lorsque celui-ci vota en faveur de la résolution de
l'Assemblée général1 e608(XV), qui a la fois mettait un terme au régime
de tutelle et entérinait le résultat du plébiscite.
214. Peu de temps après, dans sa note verbale n0570 en date du
27 mars 1962adresséeau Cameroun, le Nigériaaborda la question d'un
certain nombre de concessions pétrolières. Il ressort du croquis annexéà
cette note que le bloc «N» auquel celle-ci fait référence estsituédirecte-
ment au sud de la presqu'île de Bakassi. Ce bloc est décritcomme setrou-
vant au large du Cameroun. La note verbale précise ensuite que «la
frontiere suit le cours inférieurde la rivière Akwayafé sansqu'il semble y
avoir là le moindre doute, puis débouche sur l'estuaire de la rivière
Cross)). Il est donc clair que le Nigéria considérait la presqu'île de
Bakassi comme faisant partie du Cameroun. La Cour relèveen outre que
cette façon de voir se trouve reflétéedans toutes les cartes officielles du
Nigéria jusqu'en 1972.
Cette communauté de vues quant à l'appartenance du titre sur Bakassi LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 410
The Court notes in particular that there wasnothing which might have
led Nigeria to believethat the plebiscite which took place in the Southern
Cameroons in 1961 under United Nations supervision did not include
Bakassi.
It is true that the Southern Cameroons Plebiscite Order in Council,
1960 makes no mention of any polling station bearing the name of a
Bakassi village. Nor. however, does the Order in Council specifically
exclude Bakassi from its scope. The Order simply refers to the Southern
Cameroons as a whole. But at that time it was already clearly established
that Bakassi formed part of the Southern Cameroons under British trust-
eeship. The boundarii:~ of that territory had been precisely defined inthe
"Northern Region, VlresternRegion and Eastern Region (Definition of
Boundaries) Proclamation, 1954", issued pursuant to the Nigeria (Con-
stitution)Order in Council, 1951.That Proclamation, repeating the pro-
visions of theAnglo-{GermanAgreement of 11March 1913,provided in
particular: "From the sea the boundary follows the navigable channel of
the River Akpa-Yafe; then follows the thalweg of the aforesaid River
Akpa-Yafe upstream to its confluence with the Ri~ers Akpa-Korum and
Ebe." That the 1960 Order in Council applied to the Southern
Cameroons as a whole is further confirmed by tht: fact, as noted in the
Report of the United Nations Plebiscite Commissioner for the Cam-
eroons under United Kingdom Administration, that the 26 "plebiscite
districts" established by the 1960 Order in Council corresponded to
the "electoral constituencies for the Southern Cameroons House of
Assembly".
The United Natioris map indicating the voting districts for the plebi-
scite also reflected thie provisions of the Agreement of 11 March 1913
reiterated in theabove-mentioned 1954Proclamation.
The Court further observes that this frontier line was acknowledged in
turn by Nigeria when it voted in favour of General Assembly resolution
1608 (XV), which both terminated the Trusteeship and approved the
results of the plebiscite.
214. Shortly after, inNote Verbale No. 570of27 March 1962addressed
to Cameroon, Nigeri,a referred to certain oil licensing blocks. A sketch-
map was appended to the Note, from which it is clr:arthat the block "N"
referred to lay directlysouth of the Bakassi Peninsula. The block was
described as offshore Cameroon. The Note Verbale further stated "the
boundary follows the lower courses of the Akpa-Yafe River, where there
appears to be no uncertainty, and then out into the Cross River estuary".
Nigeria clearly regarded the Bakassi Peninsula as part of Cameroon.
The Court further notes that this perception was reflected in al1Nigerian
officia1maps up until 1972.
This common understanding of where title lay in Bakassi continuedperdura jusqu'à la fin des annéessoixante-dix, lorsque les Parties enga-
gèrent des discussions concernant leur frontière maritime. L'articleXXI
de l'accord anglo-allemand du 11 mars 1913disposait a cet égard :
«A partir de l'intersection du milieu du chenal navigable et d'une
ligne joignant Bakassi Point et King Point, la frontière suivra le
milieu du chenal navigable de la rivière Akwayafé jusqu'a la limite
des eaux territoriales, c'est-à-dire 3 milles. Aux fins de la définition
de cette frontière, le chenal navigable de la rivière Akwayafé sera
considéré comme situé entièrement à l'est du chenal navigable des
rivièresCross et Calabar. >)
L'article XXII disposait pour sa part que, «[e]nce qui concerne I'embou-
chure de l'estuaire, la limite des3 milles sera une ligne tracéeau larga
3 milles marins d'une lignejoignant Sandy Point et Tom Shot Point)).
En 1970, le Cameroun et le Nigéria décidèrend te procéder a une déli-
mitation et à une démarcation complètesde leurs frontières,en commen-
çant par la mer. Aux termes de l'article 2 de la déclaration deYaoundé 1
du 14août 1970et conformément ala carte signéefigurant en annexe à la
déclaration deYaoundé II du 4 avril 1971,il fut décidéde fixer la fron-
tiéredans l'estuaire de la rivière Akwayafédu point 1 au point 12 (voir
paragraphe 38ci-dessus).Puis, par déclarationsignée à Maroua le 1" juin
1975, les deux chefs d'Etat convinrent de ((prolonger le tracé dela fron-
tière maritime entre les deux pays du point 12 au point G sur la carte
marine no3433 annexée a [ladite] déclaration)),et définirent précisément
la frontière au moyen de coordonnées maritimes (voir paragraphe 38 ci-
dessus). La Cour estime qu'il ressort clairement de chacun de ces docu-
ments que les Parties tenaient pour établi que Bakassi appartenait au
Cameroun. Le Nigéria, s'appuyant sur les vues de ses experts et de ses
plus hautes personnalités politiques, considéraitBakassi comme relevant
de la souverainetédu Cameroun.
La nécessité qu'iyl a eu de recalculer, aprèsla déclaration deMaroua,
les coordonnéesdu point B par un échangede lettres en date des 12juin
et 17juillet 1975entre les chefsd'Etat concernés,et la question de savoir
si cette déclaration constituait un accord international liant le Nigéria ne
changent rien à ce fait. La Cour reviendra sur ces deux questions aux
paragraphes 262 à 268 ci-dessous.
La Cour conclut en conséquence qu'à cette époque le Nigéria avait
admis qu'il était liépar les articles XVIII a XXII de l'accord anglo-
allemand du 11 mars 1913, et avait reconnu que la souveraineté sur
la presqu'île de Bakassi était camerounaise.
215. La Cour estime que cette communautéde vues entre les Parties se
trouve égalementreflétée par la répartition géographiquedes concessions
pétrolières accordéespar l'une et l'autre jusqu'en 1991. Mêmesi ces
concessions n'ont pas étéattribuéesen suivant des lignes de délimitation
précises, elles n'en étaient pas moins accordées en supposant que le
Cameroun disposait de droits sur lesressources setrouvant dans des eaux
définies enfonction de la frontière terrestreà Bakassi, telle qu'elle avaitthrough until the late: 1970s, when the Parties were engaging in discus-
sions on their maritime frontier. In this respect. Article XXI of the
Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913provided :
"From the centre of the navigable channel on a line joining
Bakassi Point and King Point, the boundary shall follow the centre
of the navigable channel of the Akwayafe River as far as the 3-mile
limit of territorial jurisdiction. For the purpose of defining this
boundary, the n.avigable channel of the Akwayafe River shall be
considered to lie wholly to the east of the na\,igable channel of the
Cross and Calab,ar Rivers."
Article XXII provided that: "The 3-mile limit shall, as regards the mouth
of the estuary, be taken as a line 3 nautical miles seaward of a linejoining
Sandy Point and Tom Shot Point."
In 1970Cameroon and Nigeria decided to carr] out a total delimita-
tion and demarcation of their boundaries, starting from the sea. Under
the terms of Article 2 of the Yaoundé 1 Declaration of 14 August 1970
and the agreement reached in the Yaoundé II Declaration of 4 April 1971
with its signed appended chart, it was agreed to fix the boundary in the
Akwayafe estuary from point 1 to point 12 (see paragraph 38 above).
Then, by declaration rsignedat Maroua on 1June 1975,the two Heads of
State "agreed to extend the delineation of themaritime boundary between
the countries from Point 12to Point G on the Admiralty Chart No. 3433
annexed to this Declaration" and precisely defined the boundary by
reference to maritime CO-ordinates (see paragraph 38 above). The Court
finds that its clear from each one of these elements that the Parties took
it as a given that Baltassi belonged to Cameroon. Nigeria, drawing on
the full weight of its experts aswell as its most senior political figures,
understood Bakassi to be under Cameroon sovereignty.
This remains the case quite regardless of the need to recalculate the
co-ordinates of point B through an Exchange of Letters of 12June and
17July 1975between the Heads of State concerned; and quite regardless
whether the Maroua Declaration constituted an international agreement
by which Nigeria was bound. The Court addresses these aspects at para-
graphs 262 to 268 below.
Accordingly, the Court finds that at that time Nigeria accepted that it
was bound by Articles XVIII to XXII of the Anglo-German Agreement
of 11 March 1913,and that it recognized Cameroonian sovereignty over
the Bakassi Peninsula.
215. In the view of the Court, this common understanding of the
Parties is also reflected by the geographic pattern of the oil concessions
granted by the two Parties up to 1991.While no precise offshore delimi-
tation lines were adhered to in the grants made, their underlying assump-
tion was that Cameroon had the right to the resources in those waters
that depended on the. land boundary in Bakassi as fixed in the Anglo-
German Agreement of 11 March 1913. It is true, as Nigeria insists, that412 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
étéfixéepar I'accord anglo-allemand du 11 mars 1913. Il est vrai, ainsi
que le Nigériale souligne, que l'attribution de concessions pétrolièrese
constitue en rien une cession de territoire)). La Cour considèrecependant
que la répartition géographiquedes concessions correspond àl'idée,telle
qu'établiepar ailleurs, que les Parties se faisaient de la situation, et selon
laquelle leCameroun possédaitpréalablementun titre sur Bakassi. L'affir-
mation selon laquelle les Parties auraient tout simplement choisi de trai-
ter les questions d'exploitation pétrolièrede manière totalement indépen-
dante du titre territorial ne saurait expliquer cette remarquable cohérence
(qui ne souffre que très peu d'exceptions).
216. Afin de déterminer si le Nigéria,en tant qu'Etat indépendant, a
reconnu I'applicabilité desdispositions de I'accord anglo-allemand du
11mars 1913relatives a Bakassi, la Cour a égalementtenu compte d'un
certain nombre de demandes officiellesformuléesjusque dans les années
quatre-vingt par l'ambassade du Nigéria a Yaoundé ou par les autorités
consulaires nigérianes en vue d'effectuer destournées auprès deleurs res-
sortissants résidantà Bakassi. La reconnaissance par le Nigériade la sou-
verainetédu Cameroun ne saurait en rien êtresubordonnée a la question
de savoir si telle ou telle visite officiellea effectivement eu lieu ou non.
217. Pour toutes ces raisons, la Cour juge que I'accord anglo-allemand
du 11mars 1913étaitvalide et applicable dans son intégralité. Dès lors,
point n'est besoin pour la Cour d'examiner les arguments avancéspar le
Cameroun et le Nigériaquant à la divisibilité desdispositions conven-
tionnelles, que ce soit de manière généraleou en ce qui concerne les trai-
tésde frontière.
De même,la Cour n'a pasjugé utilede se prononcer sur les arguments
relatifsàl'utipossidetis avancéspar les Parties pour ce qui est de Bakassi.
218. La Cour abordera maintenant les autres bases sur lesquelles le
Nigériafonde sa revendication sur Bakassi. Le Nigéria fait à cet égard
valoir «trois fondements [de son] titre sur la presqu'île de Bakassi, dis-
tincts mais intimement liés», à savoir:
«i) l'occupation de longue date de ce territoire par le Nigériaet des
ressortissants nigérians[, qui]constitue une consolidation his-
torique du titre et confirme le titre originel des rois et chefs du
Vieux-Calabar dévolu au Nigéria au moment de I'indépen-
dance ;
ii) la possession paisible par le Nigéria enqualité de souverain,
possession qui n'a suscitéaucune protestation de la part du
Cameroun; et
iii) les manifestations de souverainetédu Nigéria, en même temps
que l'acquiescement du Cameroun à la souveraineténigériane
sur la presqu'île de Bakassi.»
Le Nigéria souligne en particulier que le titre fondé sur la consolida-
tion historique ainsi que sur l'acquiescement pendant la période écoulée LAND P,ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 412
oil licensing "is certa~inlynot a cession of territory". The Court finds,
however, that the geographic pattern of the licensing is consistent with
the understanding of the Parties, evidenced elsewhere, as to pre-existing
Cameroon title in Bakassi. Nor can this striking consistency (save for a
very few exceptions) be explained by the contention that the Parties
simply chose to dead with matters of oil exploitation in a manner
wholly unrelated to territorial title.
216. In assessing sihether Nigeria, as an independent State, acknow-
ledged the applicabiliity of the provisions of the Anglo-German Agree-
ment of 11 March 1913 relating to Bakassi, the Court has also taken
account of certain forma1 requests up until the 1980s submitted by the
Nigerian Embassy in Yaoundé, or by the Nigerian consular authorities,
before going to visit their nationals residing in Bakassi. This Nigerian
acknowledgment of Cameroon sovereignty is in no way dependent upon
proof that any particular officia1visit did in fact take place.
217. For al1of these reasons the Court finds that the Anglo-German
Agreement of 11 Ma.rch 1913 was valid and applicable in its entirety.
Accordingly, the Court has no need to address the arguments advanced
by Cameroon and Nigeria as to the severability of treaty provisions,
whether generally or as regards boundary treaties.
Equally, the Court has not found it necessary to pronounce upon the
arguments of utipossfdetis advanced by the Parties in relation to Bakassi.
218. The Court nclw turns to further claims to Bakassi relied on by
Nigeria. Nigeria advances "three distinct but interrelated bases of title
over the Bakassi Peninsula" :
"(i) Long occupation by Nigeria and by Nigerian nationals consti-
tuting an historical consolidation of title and confirming the
original title of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar, which title
vested in Nigeria at the time of independence in 1960;
(ii) peaceful possession by Nigeria, acting as sovereign, and an
absence of protest by Cameroon; and
(iii)manifestaticlns of sovereignty by Nigeria together with acquies-
cence by Cameroon in Nigerian sovereignty over the Bakassi
Peninsula."
Nigeria particularly emphasizes that the title on the basis of historical
consolidation, together with acquiescence, in the period since the inde-depuis l'accession à I'indépendancedu Nigéria((constitue un titre indé-
pendant sur Bakassi qui se suffit Blui-même))D . u point de vue du Nigé-
ria, cette situation serait comparable à celle rencontrée en l'affaire des
Minquiers et Ecréhous, dans laquelle les deux parties affirmaient détenir
un titre ancien (C.I.J.Recueil 1953, p. 53), mais où la Cour avait estimé
que l'élémend t éterminant étaitconstituépar ctles preuves se rapportant
directement à la possession des groupes des Ecréhouset des Minquiers))
(ibid.,p. 57). Le Nigéria expose égalementavoir exercé différentes acti-
vitésétatiques, en sus d'autres composantes de la consolidation histo-
rique du titre.Il affirme entre autres que les autoritésnigérianesont perçu
des impôts de manière systématique,qu'il a ouvert des centres médicaux
pour les populations de Bakassi, souvent avec l'assistance de communau-
tés locales, etqu'un centre médical nigérian situé a Ikang, de l'autre côté
de la rivière Akwayafé,traitait des patients de Bakassi. Le Nigériafait
égalementétat d'uncertain nombre d'autres activitésétatiquesvariéesau
cours de la périodequi a suivi I'indépendance,parmi lesquelles I'utilisa-
tion de la devise nigérianea des fins tant publiques que commerciales, ou
celle de passeports nigérianspar les résidentsde Bakassi.
219. Le Cameroun affirme pour sa part qu'un titre conventionnel licite
ne saurait être supplantépar ce qui, à ses yeux, ne constitue rien de plus
qu'un certain nombre de prétendues effectivités. Il soutient que la
Grande-Bretag?e, après s'êtrevu confier le mandat, n'administra pas la
régionau nom des rois et chefs du Vieux-Calabar, ni au nom du Nigéria,
mais en qualité de Puissancemandataire conformémentau paragraphe 1de
l'article 22 du Pacte de la Société desNations, au nom de la communauté
internationale et des habitants du Cameroun méridional. Le Cameroun
rejette également l'existencede la consolidation historique en tant que
fondement distinct d'un titre licite. Selon lui, ce que leNigériaévoquepar
ce concept n'est autre que «l'établissementdu titre par la possession de
fait, ce quel'on appelle traditionnellement la ((prescription acquisitive)).
Le Cameroun affirme égalementque, pour établirl'existenced'une pres-
cription, il faut que les actes de1'Etatqui n'est pas le détenteur du titre
soient accom~lis dans le cadre de l'exercicede la souveraineté. au titre
d'un droit revendiqué,de manière ouverte et pacifique, en l'absence de
protestation ou d'activitéconcurrente de la part du souverain existant, et
pendant une périodesuffisamment longue. Selon le Cameroun, si ces cri-
tèresétaient appliquésaux élémentsde preuve avancéspar le Nigéria,sa
liste d'effectivités en seraittotalement réduite à néant. En invoquant
l'arrêt rendupar la Chambre constituéeen l'affaire du Difjcérendfronta-
lier (Burkina FasolRépublique du Mali), le Cameroun fait enfin valoir
que, en matière de prescription, «il y a lieu de préférerle titulaire du
titre)) en cas de conflit d'effectivités.
220. La Cour rappelle tout d'abord la conclusion à laquelle elle est
parvenue auparavant concernant un titre ancien sur Bakassi remontant
aux rois et chefs du Vieux-Calabar. Ils'ensuit que, au moment de l'indé-
pendance du Nigéria,il n'existait aucun titre nigérian susceptibled'être
ensuite confirmépar une ((longue occupation)) (voir paragraphe 212 ci-pendence of Nigeria, "constitutes an independent .ind self-sufficient title
to Bakassi". Nigeria perceived the situation as comparable to that in the
Minquiers und Ecrehos case, in which both parties contended that they
retained an ancient title (1 ..J. Reports 1953, p. 53) but the Court con-
sidered that "[wlhat is of decisive importance . .. is . . . the evidence
which relates directly to the possession of the Ecrehos and Minquiers
groups" (ibid.,p. 57). Nigeria also presents evidznce of various State
activities, together with other components of historic consolidation of
title. It contends intrr ulin that Nigerian authorities had collected tax
as part of a consistent pattern of activity, that Nigeria had established
health centres for the benefit of the communities ;it Bakassi, often with
the assistance of local communities, and that its health centre at Ikang on
the other side of the Akwayafe treated patients from Bakassi. Nigeria
also refers to a number of other miscellaneous State activities during
the post-independence era, including the use of Nigerian currency for
both public and comrnercial purposes or the use of Nigerian passports by
residents of Bakassi.
219. Cameroon for its part argues that a legal treaty title cannot be
displaced by what in its view amounts to no more than a number of
alleged ejfectivités. Itcontends that after the conferral of the Mandate,
Great Britain's administration of the region was carried out, not on
behalf of the Kings aind Chiefs of Old Calabar, no]. on behalf of Nigeria,
but as the mandatory Power under Article 22, paragraph 1,of the League
Covenant acting on behalf of the international community and the inhab-
itants of the Southern Cameroons. Cameroon further denies the existence
of historical consolidation as a separate basis of legal title. What Nigeria
brings under this concept is, in Cameroon's view, nothing more than "the
establishment of title by adverse possession, which has traditionally been
labelled as 'acquisitive prescription"'. Cameroon also contends that, in
order to establish prescription, the acts of the Statz which does not hold
title must be carried tout in a sovereign capacity, under a claim of right,
openly, peacefully, without protest or competing activity by the existing
sovereign, and for a :sufficientlylong time. In Canieroon's view, if these
criteria are applied to the evidence adduced by Nigeria, this would elimi-
nate the whole of Nigeria's list of <ffectivités.Referring to the Judgment
of the Chamber in the Frontier Dispute (Burkinu F~zsolRepuhlicof Mali),
Cameroon finally maintains that, in a case of prescription, if there is a
conflict of efjrectivité:,preference should be given to the holder of the
title".
220. The Court first recalls its finding above regarding the claim to an
ancient title to Bakassi derived from the Kings and Chiefs of Old Cala-
bar. It follows therefirom that at the time of Nigeria's accession to inde-
pendence there existed no Nigerian title capable of'being confirmed sub-
sequently by "long occupation" (see paragraph 212 above). On thedessus). Au contraire, au moment de son indépendance, le Cameroun a
succédéau titre sur Bakassi tel qu'établipar l'accord anglo-allemand du
11 mars 1913(voir paragraphes 213 et 214 ci-dessus).
La consolidation historique a également été invoquéeen rapport avec
le premier des autres fondements du titre invoqués par le Nigéria, à
savoir sa possession paisible en l'absence de toute protestation. La Cour
note qu'elle a déjàtraitéde ces aspects de la théoriede la consolidation
historique aux paragraphes 62 à 70 ci-dessus. Aussi considère-t-elle que
l'invocation de la consolidation historique ne sauraiten tout état de cause
conférerau Nigériaun titre sur Bakassi, dès lors que l'«occupation» de
la presqu'île était contraire un titre conventionnel préexistant détenu
par le Cameroun et qu'au surpluscette possession ne s'inscrivait que dans
une ~ériodelimitée.
La Cour ne peut dèslors accueillir le premier fondement invoqué par le
Nigéria à l'appui de sa revendication d'un titre sur Bakassi.
221. La Cour traitera à présentd'autres aspects des deuxièmeet troi-
sièmefondements du titre invoquéspar le Nigéria,fondements que, par
commodité et parce qu'ils sont liésl'unà l'autre, elle examinera conjoin-
tement. Elle utiliserà cette fin les dénominations données,selon le cas,
par le Nigériaet le Cameroun aux localitésde Bakassi.
La Cour conclut des élémentsde preuve qui lui ont été soumisque la
population de Bakassi, peu nombreuse, qui se trouvait déjàprésentesur
la presqu'île au début des années soixante, s'est accrue en 1968 du fait
d'un afflux en provenance du Nigérialiéila guerre civile qu'a connue ce
pays. Des centres habités de taille croissante se sont ainsi constitués. Les
Parties sont en désaccord quant au nombre total de ressortissants nigé-
rians vivant aujourd'hui sur la presqu'île, mais il ne fait pas de doute que
celui-ci a considérablement augmenté par rapport au chiffre modeste
figurant dans les recensements de la population de 1953et 1963 Bakassi.
Il n'y a de mêmeaucune raison de douter du caractère efik et effiat de la
toponymie des localités de cette presqu'île, ni des relations entre leurs
habitants et le Nigéria. Mais ces divers faits n'établissent paspar eux-
mêmesle titre nigérian sur le territoire de Bakassi, pas davantage qu'ils
ne Deuvent servir àétaverune revendication de consolidation historiaue
du titre, et ce pour les raisons déjà exposéespar la Cour (voir para-
-rauhes 64 à 70,.
k2. Le ~ig&ia a invoqué devant la Cour, de façon extrêmement
détaillée, etsouvent en produisant à l'appui des élémentsde preuve
appropriés, nombre d'activités déployéessur Bakassi qu'il considère
comme témoignant à la fois d'une administration nigérianebien établieet
d'actes de souveraineté de la part du Nigéria.Parmi ces derniers figurent
la créationd'écoles etd'équipements sanitairesdans de nombreuses loca-
lités, ainsique des activitésde collecte d'impôts.
Il est vrai que la prestation de services d'enseignement dans les agglo-
mérations de Bakassi semble largement nigériane. Des écolesreligieuses
ont été fondées en 1960 à Archibong, en 1968 à Atabong et en 1969 à
Abana. Si elles n'ont pas bénéficide financements publics, elles se trou- LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 414
contrary, on the date of its independence Cameroon succeeded to title
over Bakassi as established by the Anglo-German Agreement of 11March
1913 (see paragraphs 213-214 above).
Historical consolidation was also invoked in connection with the first
of Nigeria's further claimed bases of title, namely peaceful possession in
the absence of protest. The Court notes that it has already addressed
these aspects of the theory of historical consolidation in paragraphs 62 to
70 above. The Court thus finds that invocation of historical consolida-
tion cannot in anv event vest title to Bakassi in Nig.>ia.,where its "occu-
pation" of the peninsula is adverse to Cameroon':; prior treaty title and
where, moreover, the possession has been for a limited period.
The Court cannot therefore accept this first bas~sof title over Bakassi
relied on by Nigeria.
221. The Court will now deal with other aspects of the second and
third bases of title advanced by Nigeria, and finds it convenient to deal
with these interrelated matters together. Localities in Bakassi will be
given either their Nigerian or their Cameroonian names as appropriate.
The Court finds tliat the evidence before it indicates that the small
population of Bakasiji already present in the early 1960s grew with the
influx from Nigeria in 1968 as a result of the civil war in that country.
Gradually sizeable centres of population were established. The Parties
are in disagreement as to the total number of Nigerian nationals living in
the peninsula today, but it is clear that it has grown considerably from
the modest numbers reported in the 1953 and 1963population censuses.
Nor is there any reason to doubt the Efik and Effiat toponomy of the
settlements, or their relationships with Nigeria. Biit these facts of them-
selves do not establish Nigerian title over Bakassi territory; nor can they
serve as an element in a claim for historical consolidation of title, for
reasons already giveri by the Court (see paragraphs 64-70).
222. Nigeria has relied before the Court, in corisiderable detail, often
with supporting evidtmce, on many activities in Bakassi that it regards as
proof both of settled Nigerian administration and of acts in exercise of
sovereign aiithority. Among these acts are the establishment of schools,
the provision of health facilities for many of the settlements and some tax
collection.
It is true that the provision of education in tlie Bakassi settlements
appears to be largely Nigerian. Religious schools were established in 1960
at Archibong, in 19613at Atabong and in Abana iri 1969. These were not
supported by public funds, but were under the authority of the Nigerian415 FRONTIERE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
vaient néanmoins placées sous l'autorité des administrations nigérianes
compétentes en matière d'examens et d'enseignement. Des écoles locales
furent égalementcrééesà Atabong Est en 1968, à Mbenonong en 1975et
à Nwanyo en 1981. Quant aux établissements créésa Abana en 1992, et
à Archibong et Atabong en 1993, il s'agissait d'écoleset de collèges
dépendant de 1'Etat nigérian.
Ila étédémontré aue1,emis L959. des centres médicaux ont étécréés
avec l'assistance de communautés locales; le Nigéria leur fournissait du
matériel. des directives et des facilitésde formation du ~ersonnel. Parmi
les dix centres ainsi mis en place figurent des centres créésà Archibong en
1959, Mbenonong en 1960, Atabong Ouest en 1968, Abana en 1991 et
Atabong Est en 1992.
Des activitésde collecte d'impôts sont avéréespour Akwa, Archibong,
Moen Mong, Naranyo, Atabong et Abana.
Le Nigéria relèveque le Cameroun n'a guère protestécontre certaines
des pratiques administratives nigérianes avant 1994 (sauf, et il convient
de le noter, lorsque le Nigéria a tenté de construire une écoleprimaire a
Abana en 1969). 11soutient également qu'il ressort clairement de la juris-
prudence de la Cour et de plusieurs sentences arbitrales que ces activités
relèvent bien d'actes effectuésà titre de souverain et sont dès lors perti-
nentes pour résoudre la question du titre territorial (Minquiers et Ecré-
hous, arrêt, C.I. J. Recueil 1953; Sahara occidental, avis consultatif;
C.I.J. Recueil 1975; Rann de Kutch, sentence arbitrale, International
Law Reports (ILR), vol. 50, p. 1; Canal de Beugle, arbitrage, ILR,
vol. 52, p. 93).
223. La Cour relève toutefois aue. dans aucune de ces affaires. les
actes invoqués n'étaient des actes contra Iegem, et que par suite ces pré-
cédentsne sont pas pertinents. La question d'ordre juridique consistant a
déterminer dans quelle mesure des effectivités peuvent amener à considé-
rer qu'un titre appartient a un Etat plutôt qu'a un autre n'est pas la
mêmeque celle consistant à déterminer si de telles effectivités peuvent
permettre de supplanter un titre conventionnel établi. Ainsi que la
Chambre de la Cour constituée en l'affaire du Diffërend frontalier
(Burkina FasolRépublique du Mali) l'a clairement indiqué, dans I'éven-
tualité où il existe un conflit entre effectivitéset titre juridique, il y a lieu
de préférer le titre (C.IJ. Recueil 1986, arrêt,p. 586-587, par. 63).
La Cour estime que la question d'ordre juridique qui se pose véritable-
ment en l'espèce estde savoir si la conduite du Cameroun en tant que
détenteur du titre peut êtreconsidérée comme uneforme d'acquiescement
à la perte du titre conventionnel dont celui-ci avait hérité lorsde son
accession à l'indépendance. Un certain nombre d'éléments prouventque
le Cameroun a notamment tenté de percevoir un impôt auprès de rési-
dents nigérians en 1981-1982dans les localitésd'Idabato 1 etII,Jabare 1
et II,Kombo Abedimo, Naumsi Wan et Forisane (Atabong Est et Ouest,
Abana et Ine Ikoi). Il n'a toutefois procédé qu'occasionnellement à des
actes d'administration directs sur Bakassi, en raison des ressources maté-
rielles limitées qu'ilpouvait consacrer à cette région éloignée. LAND .4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUI)GMENT) 415
examination and education authorities. Commutiity schools were also
established at Ataboilg East in 1968,Mbenonong in 1975and Nwanyo in
1981. The schools established in Abana in 1992, and in Archibong and
Atabong in 1993, were Nigerian government schools or State secondary
schools.
There is evidence ithat since 1959 health centres have been established
with the assistance of local communities receiving supplies, guidance and
training for personnel in Nigeria. The ten centres include centres estab-
lished at Archibong in 1959,Mbenonong in 1960, 4tabong West in 1968,
Abana in 1991 and Atabong East in 1992.
There was also solme collection of tax, certainly from Akwa, Archi-
bong, Moen Mong, Naranyo, Atabong and Abana.
Nigeria notes that Cameroon failed actively to protest these adminis-
trative activities of Nigeria before 1994 (save, notably, the building by
Nigeria of a primary school in Abana in 1969). It also contends that the
case law of this Court, and of certain arbitral awards, makes clear that
such acts are indeed acts ù titre de souverain, and as such relevant to the
question of territorial title (Minquiers and Ecrthos, Judgment, I. C.J.
Reports 1953; Western Sahura, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975;
Rann of Kutch, Arbitral Award, 50 International Laci;Reports (ILR) 1 ;
Beagle Channel Aubitration, 52 ILR 93).
223. The Court ot)serves, however, that in none of these cases were the
acts referred to acts cvntra legem; those precedents are therefore not rele-
vant. The legal question of whether ejfectivités suggest that title lies with
one country rather than another is not the same legal question as whether
such eflectivités can serve to displace an establislied treaty title. As the
Chamber of the Court made clear in the Frontirr Dispute (Burkina Fu.sol
Republic of Mali) case, where there is a conflict hetween title and effec-
tivités,preference will be given to the former (I.C.J. Reports 1986, Judg-
ment, pp. 586-587, para. 63).
In the view of the Court the more relevant legal question in this case is
whether the conduct of Cameroon, as the title holder, can be viewed as
an acquiescence in the loss of the treaty title that it inherited upon inde-
pendence. There is some evidence that Cameroon attempted, inter aliu, to
collect tax from Nigerian residents, in the year 1381-1982, in Idaboto 1
and II, Jabare 1 ancl II, Kombo Abedimo, Naumsi Wan and Forisane
(West and East Atabong, Abana and Ine Ikoi). But it engaged in only
occasional direct acts of administration in Bakassi, having limited
material resources to devote to this distant area. Son titre était toutefois déjà établi.En outre, ainsi que la Cour l'a
montréplus haut (voir paragraphe 21 3), en 1961-1962,le Nigéria recon-
naissait clairement et publiquement le titre du Cameroun sur Bakassi.
Cette position perdura au moins jusqu'en 1975,année dela signature par
le Nigéria de la déclaration de Maroua. Aucune effectivité nigériane a
Bakassi antérieure à cette date ne saurait revêtir unequelconque portée
juridique aux fins de démontrerl'existenced'un titre nigérian,ce qui peut
en partie expliquer l'absence de protestations du Cameroun à l'égard des
activitésdu Nigériadans les domaines de la santé, de l'éducationet de la
fiscalité.La Cour note égalementque dèsson indépendancele Cameroun
déployades activitésqui démontraient qu'il n'entendait nullement aban-
donner son titre sur Bakassi. Le Cameroun et le Nigériaont participéaux
négociationsqui, entre 1971et 1975,devaient débouchersur les déclara-
tions de Yaoundé, Kano et Maroua, et qui portaient sur une ligne mari-
time dont il étaitclair qu'elle supposait l'existenced'un titre camerounais
sur Bakassi. Le Cameroun a égalementaccordé un certain nombre de
concessions pétrolièressur la presqu'île et ses eaux adjacentes, témoi-
gnant encore du fait qu'il n'avait pas abandonné son titre malgré une pré-
sence nigériane significativesur Bakassi ou toutes effectivités nigérianes
contra legem. L'action militaire nigérianede 1994suscita quant a elledes
protestations immédiates.
224. Au vu de ce qui précède, la Courestime que le Nigérian'aurait pu
agir à titre de souverain avant la fin des années soixante-dix, dans la
mesure où il ne se considérait pas lui-mêmecomme détenteur d'un titre
sur Bakassi, et que, pour la périodepostérieure à cette date, les éléments
de preuve ne permettent pas de conclure à un acquiescement du Came-
roun à l'abandon de son titre en faveur du Nigéria.
Pour toutes ces raisons, la Cour ne saurait davantage faire droit aux
deuxièmeet troisièmefondements invoquéspar le Nigéria a l'appui de sa
revendication d'un titre sur Bakassi.
225. La Cour conclut en conséquenceque la frontière entre le Came-
roun et le Nigéria à Bakassi est délimitéepar les articles XVIII a XX de
l'accord anglo-allemand du 11 mars 1913 et que la souveraineté sur la
presqu'île estcamerounaise.
226. La Cour examinera àprésentla frontière maritime entre le Came-
roun et le Nigéria.
Dans la requêtequ'il a déposéele 29 mars 1994,sur la base du para-
graphe 2 de l'article 36 du Statut, le Cameroun a prié laCour, (([alfin
d'éviterde nouveaux incidents entre les deux pays, ..de bien vouloir
déterminer le tracé dela frontière maritime entre les deux Etats au-delà However, its title was already established. Moreover, as the Court has
shown above (see pairagraph 213),in 1961 -1962Nigeria clearly and pub-
liclyrecognized Cameroon title to Bakassi. That continued to be the posi-
tion until at least 1975,when Nigeria signed the Maroua Declaration. No
Nigerian efectivités in Bakassi before that time can be said to have legal
significance for demonstrating a Nigerian title; this may in part explain
the absence of Cameroon protests regarding health, education and tax
activity in Nigeria. 'TheCourt also notes that Ciimeroon had since its
independence engaged in activities which made clear that it in no way
was abandoning its title to Bakassi. Cameroon and Nigeria participated
from 1971to 1975in the negotiations leading to the Yaoundé, Kano and
Maroua Declarations, with the maritime line clearly being predicated
upon Cameroon's title to Bakassi. Cameroon also granted hydrocarbon
licences over the peniinsula and its waters, again evidencing that it had
not abandoned title in the face of the significant Nigerian presence in
Bakassi or any Nigerian qfjÎectivitkscontra legernAnd protest was imme-
diately made regardiingNigerian military action iri 1994.
224. The Court considers that the foregoing shows that Nigeria could
not have been acting u titre de .souverainbefore tlie late 1970s,as it did
not consider itself to have title over Bakassi; and in the ensuing period
the evidence does not indicate an acquiescence by Cameroon in the aban-
donment of its title in favour of Nigeria.
For al1of these reilsons the Court is also unable to accept the second
and third bases of title to Bakassi advanced by Nigeria.
225. The Court accordingly concludes that the boundary between
Cameroon and Nigeria in Bakassi is delimited by Articles XVIII to XX
of the Anglo-Germari Agreement of 11March 191 3,and that sovereignty
over the peninsula lies with Cameroon.
226. The Court will now turn to the maritime boundary between
Cameroon and Nigeria.
In its Application filed on 29 March 1994 under Article 36, para-
graph 2, of the Statute Cameroon requested the Court, "[iln order to
avoid further incidenitsbetween the two countries, . . .to determine the
course of the maritinle boundary between the two States beyond the linede celui qui avait été fixé en197.5)).Dans les conclusions finales qu'il a
présentéesle 21 mars 2002 au terme de la procédure orale, le Cameroun
a réitéré sa demande tendant au tracé de la frontière maritime, mais l'a
formulée de manièredifférente.Le Cameroun prie désormaisla Cour de
confirmer que «la limite des zones maritimes relevant respectivement de
la République du Cameroun et de la République fédéraledu Nigéria suit
le tracé suivant)), tracé qu'il décrit en détaildans les deux sous-para-
graphes du point c) de ses conclusions.
Le Nigéria soutient que la Cour devrait s'abstenir de procéder, même
partiellement, à la délimitation demandée par le Cameroun, première-
ment parce que celle-ci toucherait à des zones revendiquéespar des Etats
tiers et, deuxièmement, parce que la condition relativeà des négociations
préalables n'a pas été remplie.
La Cour doit tout d'abord examiner cette argumentation du Nigéria.
227. Le Nigéria soutient que la Cour ne saurait procéder à la délimi-
tation demandée par le Cameroun, car si la frontière maritime entre les
Parties était prolongée versle large au-delà du point G, elle pénétrerait
rapidement des zones maritimes dans lesquelles les droits et intérêtsdu
Cameroun et du Nigériaempiéteraient sur ceux d'Etats tiers. Reprenant
les termes de sa huitième exception préliminaire,le Nigéria réaffirmeà cet
égardque « [l]aquestion de la délimitation maritime met nécessairement
en cause les droits et les intérêtsEtats tiers et la demande à ce sujet est
irrecevable)). Il observe que la Cour, en examinant cette exception préli-
minaire dans son arrêt du Il juin 1998, a conclu que celle-ci «n'a[vait]
pas, dans les circonstances de l'espèce, uncaractère exclusivement préli-
minaire » (C.I.J. Recueil 1998, p. 325, par. 117).
228. Se référantnotamment a l'affaire duPlate~lucontinentul (Jumu-
kiriya arabe IibyenneIMalte) (C.I.J. Recueil 1985,p. 24-28, par. 20-23)à
l'arrêtrendu par la Chambre en l'affaire du Dijjférendfrontulieu (Burkina
FusolRépublique du Mali) (C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 578, par. 47) et à la
sentence arbitrale en l'affaiErytlîréelYémen(deuxièmephase), le Nigé-
ria soutient que la Cour n'est pas compétente pour connaître de la
demande du Cameroun dans la mesure où celle-ci touche ou affecte
des secteurs qui sont revendiqués par des Etats tiers, et que l'absence
de compétence de la Cour est indépendante de la question de savoir si
1'Etat tiers concerné est intervenu, a moins qu'il ne l'ait fait en vue de
devenir partie à l'instance et que son intervention n'ait été acceptéae ce
titre.
229. Le Nigéria fait valoir en particulier que la ligne de délimitation
maritime que revendique le Cameroun empiètesur des zones que la Gui-
néeéquatoriale considère comme siennes. Par voie de conséquence, rete-
nir cette ligne vis-à-vis du Nigériareviendrait, pour la Cour, rejeter ipso
facto les prétentions de la Guinée équatoriale surces zones. Le Nigéria
soutient que la Cour doit exclure de la portée de sa décisionen l'espècefixed in 1975". In its final submissions presented to the Court at the end
of the oral proceedings on 21 March 2002, Canieroon maintained its
request for the drawing of the maritime boundary, but it did so in a dif-
ferent form. Cameroon now requests that the Court confirm that "[tlhe
boundary of the maritime areas appertaining respectively to the Republic
of Cameroon and the Federal Republic of Nigeria takes the following
course", which Cameroon describes in detail in the two subparagraphs of
paragraph (c) of its submissions.
Nigeria claims thal the Court should refuse to ciirry out in whole or in
part the delimitation requested by Cameroon, first, because the delimita-
tion affects areas claimed by third States, and, secondly, because the
requirement of prior negotiations has not been satisfied.
The Court must first deal with these arguments of Nigeria.
227. Nigeria maintains that the Court cannot carrv out the delimita-
u
tion requested by Cameroon, since the prolongation of the maritime
boundary between the Parties seawards beyond point G will rapidly run
into maritime zones where the rights and interests of Cameroon and
Nigeria will overlap fhose of third States. In this regard it recalls that its
eighth preliminary objection was "that the questiori of maritime delimita-
tion necessarilv involves the rights and interests of'third States and is to
u
that extent inadmissible". It observes that the Court, in considering that
preliminary objection in its Judgment of 11 June 1998, held that the
objection did "not possess, in the circumstances of the case, an exclu-
sively preliminary ch,aracter7'(1.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 325, para. 117).
228. Citing inter alia the case concerning the Cowtinental Shelj (Libyan
Aruh Jamuhiri~valMulta) (1.C.J. Reports 1985, pp. 24-28, paras. 20-23),
the Judgment of the Chamber of this Court in the Frontier Dispute
(Burkina FasolRepublic of'Mali) (1.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 578, para. 47)
and the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal in the EritveulYemen Awurd
(Second Phase), Nigeria contends that the Court has no jurisdiction over
the Cameroon claim to the extent that it toucht:~ on or affects areas
claimed by third States, and that the Court's lack. of jurisdiction is not
affected by whether or not the third State in question has intervened,
unless it has intervened with a view to becoming a party to the proceed-
ings and its intervention has been accepted on that basis.
229. Nigeria maintains in particular that the maritime delimitation
line claimed by Carrieroon encroaches on areas claimed by Equatorial
Guinea. Accordingly.,Nigeria states, if the Court were to uphold the line
claimed by Cameroon vis-à-vis Nigeria, it would 1)yclear and necessary
implication be rejectii~gthe claims of Equatorial Guinea concerning these
areas. Nigeria argues that the Court must exclude from the scope of itstoutes les parties de la zone de délimitation qui empiètent sur les préten-
tions de la Guinée équatoriale,dèslors que ces prétentions satisfont au
critèrede vraisemblance juridique. Or, il considèreque toutes les préten-
tions de la Guinée équatoriale quisont en deçà d'une ligne d'équidistance
stricte satisfont ce critère,et que, partant, la Cour ne peut pas, dans son
arrêt,tracer une ligne de délimitation allant au-delà du tripoint équidis-
tant des côtes nigérianes,camerounaises et équato-guinéennes.
230. Le Nigériasoutient en outre que, puisque la Guinée équatoriale
n'est pas intervenue en tant que partie iil'instance, la Cour n'a pas, à
l'égardde cet Etat, de compétence matérielleadditionnelle qu'elle puisse
exercer du fait de l'intervention en vertude l'article 62du Statut. ajoute
qu'il ne suffit pasd'affirmer, comme le fait le Cameroun, que l'arrêtde la
Cour ne saurait lier ni la Guinéeéquatoriale ni Sao Tomé-et-Principe,
étant donné qu'untel arrêtn'en créerait pas moins «une impression de
finalitéqui s'impose[rait] de facto,comme une sorte de présomption)).
Pour le Nigéria,le rôle d'un intervenant non partie à une affaire soumise
à la Cour est de faire connaîtreà celle-ci saposition, afin de lui permettre
d'éviter,dans sa décision,tout empiétement sur des prétentionscrédibles
du tiers, et donc de sauvegarder ces dernières sans pour autant se pro-
noncer à leur égard.
231. Le Nigériaconclut donc que la Cour n'a pas compétencepour se
prononcer sur la ligne de délimitation maritime revendiquéepar le Came-
roun, dans la mesure où celle-ciempiètesur des zones revendiquéespar la
Guinéeéquatoriale ou Sao Tomé-et-Principe,ou, à titre subsidiaire, que
la ligne de délimitation maritime revendiquéepar le Cameroun est dans
cette mesure irrecevable.
232. Pour sa part, le Cameroun prétend qu'enl'espèceaucune délimi-
tation ne peut affecter la Guinée équatorialeou Sao Tomé-et-Principe,
l'arrêt dela Cour étant res inter alios uctupour tous les Etats hormis le
Cameroun et le Nigéria. Se référant à l'arrêt rendupar la Cour en
l'affaire du Plateau continental (TunisielJamahiriya arabe libyenne)
(C.I.J. Recueil 1982, p. 91, par. 130), le Cameroun soutient que la plu-
part des traités de frontière maritime en vigueur aujourd'hui n'auraient
jamais vu lejour s'il n'avait pas été possiblepour les Etats concernésde
s'accorder sur une frontière maritime sans que la participation de tous les
Etats pouvant potentiellement êtreimpliquésdans la zone en question
soit un préalable nécessaire. Il insiste sur le fait que, dans la présente
affaire, rien n'interdità la Cour de déterminer les droits respectifs du
Cameroun et du Nigériasans préjugerles droits, quels qu'ils soient, de la
Guinéeéquatoriale et de Sao Tomé-et-Principe.
233. Le Cameroun précise qu'il nedemande nullement à la Cour de se
prononcer sur le tracé desa frontière maritime avec la Guinée équatoriale
ou Sao Tomé-et-Principe, ni mêmed'indiquer l'emplacement d'un éven-
tuel tripoint où les frontières des Parties rejoindraient celles de l'un ou
l'autre de ces Etats. Le Cameroun reconnaît de fait que la Cour n'a pas
compétencepour ce faire. Il prie la Cour de préciserle tracé dela fron-
tière maritime entre les deux Parties à la présenteinstance «jusqu'à la LAND .4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUI)GMENT) 418
Judgment in this case al1those areas of the delimitation zone which over-
lap with Equatorial Guinea's claims, provided that those claims satisfy
the test of being credible in law. It considers thatl1claims of Equatorial
Guinea which are within a strict equidistance line satisfy this test ofegal
credibility, and that the Court therefore cannot in its Judgment draw
a delimitation line beyond the tripoint equidistant from the coasts of
Cameroon, Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea.
230. Nigeria further contends that, since Equatorial Guinea has not
intervened as a party, the Court has no additional substantive jurisdic-
tion over that State by reason of the intervention under Article 62 of the
Statute. It adds that it is not enough to say, as Cameroon does, that a
decision of the Courit would not be binding on Equatorial Guinea or on
Sao Tome and Principe, since such ajudgment woilld nonetheless "create
an impression of finality which would operate in practice as a kind of
presumption". According to Nigeria, the role of a lion-party intervener in
a case before the Court is to inform the Court of its position, so that the
Court may refrain fr~omencroaching in its decision on credible claims of
that third party, thus enabling it to safeguard those claims without adju-
dicating upon them.
231. Nigeria accordingly concludes that the Court lacksjurisdiction to
deal with the maritilme delimitation line claimed by Cameroon, to the
extent that it impinges on areas claimed by Equatorial Guinea or by Sao
Tome and Principe, or alternatively, that the maritime delimitation line
claimed by Cameroon is inadmissible to that exteiit.
232. Cameroon for its part claims that no delimitation in this case can
affect Equatorial Guiineaor Sao Tome and Principe, as the Court's Judg-
ment will be res inter ulios nctu for al1 States other than itself and
Nigeria. Referring to the Judgment of the Court in the case concerning
the Continental ShelJ'(TunisiulLihyun Aruh Jumal~iriya) (1.C.J. Reports
1982, p. 91, para. 130), Cameroon contends that most of the maritime
boundary agreements that are already in force would never have come
into being if it had not been possible for the States concerned to reach a
bilateral agreement on a maritime boundary without there being any pre-
requisite as to the participation of al1such States as might potentially be
involved in the area in question. It insists that in the present case there is
no reason why the Court should not determine the respective rights of
Cameroon and Nigeria without prejudging the rights, of whatever nature,
of Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe.
233. Cameroon st,ates that it is not asking the Court to rule on the
course of its maritirrie boundary with Equatorial Guinea or Sao Tome
and Principe, or even to indicate the location of ;iny tripoint where the
borders of the Parties and the border of one or the other of these States
meet. Indeed Cameroon agrees that the Court has no power to do so.
Cameroon asks the Court to specify the course of the maritime boundary
between the two Parties in these proceedings "up to the outer limit of thelimite extérieure des zones maritimes que le droit international place sous
la juridiction respective des deux Parties)). Le Cameroun soutient que la
Cour n'en est pas pour autant appelée à décider que cette limite exté-
rieure constitue un tripoint intéressant la Guinée équatoriale ou Sao
Tomé-et-Principe et que, de plus, conformément à l'article 59 du Statut,
son arrêtne sera en tout état de cause pas opposable à ces Etats s'agis-
sant du tracé de leurs propres frontières. Pour étayer son argumentation,
le Cameroun se fonde notamment sur l'arrêt rendu par la Chambre en
l'affaire du Différendfrontalier (Burkina FasolRépublique du Mali)
(C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 554) ainsi que sur celui rendu par la Cour en
l'affaire du Dqfkrend territorial (Jarnahiriyu arabe IibyennelTchad)
(C.I.J. Recueil 1994, p. 6). Le Cameroun affirme que le raisonnement
retenu dans ces arrêts, qui concernait des frontières terrestres, devrait
également valoir lorsque sont en cause des frontières maritimes. Le
Cameroun soutient que l'arrêt de la Cour produirait le même effetqu'un
traité bilatéral de délimitation maritime, qui ne serait pas opposable
comme tel aux Etats tiers, mais en vertu duquel les deux parties au traité
pourraient s'entendre pour fixer leur frontière maritime jusqu'à un tri-
point qu'elles arrêteraient bilatéralement, sans la participation de 1'Etat
tiers concerné.
234. Le Cameroun affirme qu'il ne cherche pas à faire entrer en jeu des
Etats tiers; il ne demande pas non plus à la Cour de régler,aux dépensdu
Nigéria, les problèmes qui l'opposent à la Guinée équatoriale et à Sao
Tomé-et-Principe. Il demande plutôt à la Cour de prendre en compte la
situation géographique d'ensemble de la région,en particulier le désavan-
tage dont il souffre en raison de sa position au centre d'une ligne côtière
extrêmementconcave, avec pour conséquence que les revendications des
Etats limitrophes exercent un effet de ((resserrement ))sur ses propres pré-
tentions. Il prie simplement la Cour «de déplacer, pour ainsi dire, la
branche nigériane de la pince et d'opérer un desserrement qui soit
conforme à la géographie)).
235. Le Cameroun affirme qu'une intervention en tant que non-partie
ne saurait empêcher laCour de trancher complètement le différend qui
lui est soumis :
«[O]ù les Parties ne s'opposent pas à l'intervention et où celle-ci
est admise, comme dans la présente espèce,... la Cour peut (et doit,
conformément à la mission lui incombant de trancher complètement
les différends qui lui sont soumis) procéder à une telle délimitation
complète, que celle-ci soit ou ne soit pas juridiquement obligatoire
pour l'intervenant.. » ;
et le Cameroun d'ajouter que, s'il en était autrement, ((l'institution de
l'intervention perdrait tout son sensu. Il soutient que le but de l'interven-
tion de la Guinée équatoriale est avant tout d'informer la Cour sur
l'ensemble des intérêts juridiquesen jeu dans la zone concernée et de lui
permettre de procéder, en toute connaissance de cause, à une délimitationmaritime zones which international law places under the respectivejuris-
dictions of the two Parties". Cameroon argues that this will not amount
to a decision by the Court that this outer limit is a tripoint which affects
Equatorial Guinea 0.rSao Tome and Principe. Moreover, in accordance
with Article 59 of the Statute, the Judgment will in any event not be
opposable to those States as regards the course of their own boundaries.
In support of its argument, Cameroon relies inter uliu on the Judgment
of the Chamber in thlcFrontier Dispute (Burkina fusolRepuhlic of Mali)
(I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 554) and on that of the Court in the Territorial
Dispute (Libyan Artzb JumuhiriyulClzud) (I.C.J. Reports 1994, p. 6).
Cameroon argues that the reasoning applied in those Judgments, which
related to land bounclaries, should be no different when maritime bound-
aries are involved. Cameroon contends that the effect of the Court's
Judgment would be the same as a bilateral maritirne delimitation treaty,
which will not be opposable as such to third States,but by which the two
parties to the treaty may agree to fix their maritime boundary up to a
tripoint decided bilai.erally, without the participation of the third State
concerned.
234. Cameroon contends that it is not seeking to implicate third
States; nor is it askiilg the Court to solve its problems with Equatorial
Guinea or with Sao Tome and Principe at Nigeria's expense. Rather, it is
asking it to take into account the entire geographic situation in the
region, and in particular the disadvantage suffered by Cameroon as a
result of its position in the centre of a highly concave coastline, which
results in the claims of the adjoining States having a "pincer" effect upon
its own claims. It is simply asking the Court "to move, as it were, the
Nigerian part of the pincers in a way which reflecisthe geography".
235. Cameroon argues that non-party intervention cannot prevent the
Court from fully settling the dispute before it :
"[Wlhere the parties do not oppose the intervention and the latter
is authorized, as in the present case,. . the Court may (and must, in
accordance with the mission incumbent upon it definitively to settle
the disputes referred to it) proceed to a complete delimitation,
whether or not the latter is legally binding on the intervening
party . ..";
otherwise "the intervention régime would cease to have any point".
Cameroon argues that the purpose of Equatorial Guinea's inter-
vention is essentially to inform the Court with regard to the whole range
of interests at stake in the area concerned and to enable it with full
knowledge of the facts to undertake a complete and final delimitation.complèteet définitive. Cefaisant, la Cour devrait néanmoins veiller a ne
pas porter atteinte aux intérêtsjuridiques de 1'Etatintervenant - dont il
lui appartient d'apprécierla pertinence. Le Cameroun soutient en outre
qu'un Etat intervenant ne peut pas, en formulant des revendications fan-
taisistes, empêcherla Cour de se prononcer, dans un arrêt, surla zone qui
fait l'objet de telles revendications.
236. Le Cameroun ajoute qu'il existe plusieurs manières deprotéger,si
la Cour l'estime nécessaire,les droits de la Guinée équatoriale,notam-
ment en opérant un déplacementde la ligne de délimitation afin de tenir
pleinement compte de ces droits, en s'abstenant de se prononcer sur la
délimitation demandée à l'égardde la zone dans laquelle un problème
semble se poser, en traçant une ligne discontinue, ou en indiquant sim-
plement la direction de la frontière sans se prononcer sur un point
d'aboutissement. 11souligne que la tâche de la Cour est de donner une
solution aussi complète que possible au différend entre les Parties au
litige.
237. La Cour souhaite tout d'abord faire observer que la conclusion
qu'elle a formuléedans son arrêtdu 11 juin 1998sur la huitième excep-
tion préliminairedu Nigéria, selon laquellecelle-ci «n7a[vait]pas, dans les
circonstances de l'espèce, un caractère exclusivement préliminaire»
(C.I.J. Recueil 1998, p. 326,par. 1182)), l'oblige à considérermaintenant
cette exception préliminaireavant de poursuivre l'examen au fond, ainsi
qu'il découle desdispositions du Règlement de la Cour relatives aux
exceptions préliminaires, tellesqu'ellesont été adoptéesen 1972et conser-
vées en1978.Aux termes de cesdispositions, la Cour est appelée astatuer
dans un arrêt
«par lequel elle retient l'exception, la rejette ou déclareque cette
exception n'a pas dans les circonstances de l'espèce uncaractère
exclusivement préliminaire.Si la Cour rejette l'exception ou déclare
qu'elle n'a pas un caractère exclusivement préliminaire,elle fixe les
délaispour la suite de la procédure. ))(Règlementde la Cour, art. 79,
par. 7.)
(Voir Questions d'interprétation et d'application de la convention de
Montréal de 1971 résultant del'incident aériende Lockerbie (Jamuhiriya
arabe libyenne c. Royaume- Uni), exceptions préliminaires, arrêt,C.1.J.
Recueil 1998, p. 27-28, par. 49-50; Questions d'interprétation et d'uppli-
cation de la conventiorzde Montréal de 1971 résultantde l'incident aérien
de Lockerbie (Jarnahiriyu arabe libyenne c. Etats-Unis d'Amérique),
exceptions préliminaires, arrêt,C.I.J. Recueil 1998, p. 132-134, par. 48-
49; Activités militaires et paramilitaires au Nicaragua et contre celui-ci
(Nicaragua c. Etats-Unis d'Amérique),fond, arrêt,C. 1.J. Recueil 1986,
p. 30, par. 40.) Puisque le Nigériamaintient son exception, la Cour doit
à présentstatuer sur celle-ci.Nonetheless, in so doing, the Court will need to ensure that it does not
prejudice the interests of the intervening State, the relevance of which
it is for the Court to assess. Further, Cameroon contends that an inter-
vening State cannot, by making fanciful claims, preclude the Court from
ruling in itsjudgment on the area to which such claims relate.
236. Cameroon adds that there are several ways in which the rights of
Equatorial Guinea could be protected, should the Court find this neces-
sary, including by moving the delimitation line to take full account of
those rights, by refraining from ruling on the delimitation in the area
where there seems to be a problem, by making the line a discontinuous
one, or by indicating the direction of the boundary without ruling on a
terminal point. It emphasizes that the task of the Court should be to pro-
vide as complete a solution as possible to the dispute between the Parties.
237. The Court would first observe that its finding in its Judgment of
11 June 1998 on the eighth preliminary objectiori of Nigeria that that
preliminary objectiori did "not have, in the circumstances of the case,
an exclusively prelirninary character" (1.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 326,
para. 118 (2)) requires it to deal now with the preliminary objection
before proceeding further on the merits. That this is so follows from the
provisions on preliminary objections adopted by the Court in its Rules in
1972 and retained iri 1978, which provide that the Court is to give a
decision
"by which it shall either uphold the objection, reject it, or declare
that the objection does not possess in the circumstances of the case,
an exclusively preliminary character. If the Court rejects the objec-
tion or declares that it does not possess an exclusively preliminary
character, it shall fix time-limits for the further proceedings." (Rules
of Court, Art. 79, para. 7.)
(See Questions of In,terpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal
Convention arising from the Aerial Incident ut Lockerbie (Libyan Arab
Jun~ahiriya v. United Kingdom), Preliminury Objections, Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 1998, pp. 27-28. paras. 49-50; Questions of Interpretation and
Application of the 1971 Montreul Convention arising from the Aerial
Incident ut Lockerbie (Libyan Arah Jamahiriyu v. United States of
America), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 1.C.J. Reports 1998,
pp. 132-134, paras. 48-49 ; Military und Paramilitary Activities in and
uguinst Nicaraguu (Nicaragua v. United States of Americu), Merits,
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 30, para. 40.) Since Nigeria maintains
its objection, the Court must now rule on it.421 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
238. La compétence dela Cour repose sur le consentement des parties.
Aussi la Cour ne peut-elle se prononcer sur les droits d'Etats tiers qui ne
sont pas parties à l'instance. Dans la présente affaire, il existe des Etats
non parties à I'instance dont les droits pourraient êtreaffectésà savoir la
Guinée équatoriale et Sao Tomé-et-Principe. Ces droits ne pourraient
être déterminép sar une décisionde la Cour que si la Guinée équatoriale
et Sao Tomé-et-Principe devenaient parties a I'instance. Or, si la Guinée
équatoriale a effectivement demandé - et a étéautorisée - à intervenir,
c'est seulement en tant que non-partie à I'instance. Sao Tomé-et-Principe
a choisi de n'intervenir à aucun titre.
La Cour estime que, en particulier dans lecas de délimitations maritimes
intéressant plusieurs Etats, la protection offerte par l'article 59 du Statut
peut ne pas êtretoujours suffisante. En l'espèce,il est possible que l'article
59 ne protège pas suffisamment la Guinéeéquatoriale ou Sao Tomé-et-
Principe contre les effets- mêmeindirects - d'un arrêtaffectant leurs
droits. La jurisprudence invoquée A cet égard par le Cameroun ne dé-
montre pas le contraire. Dans son arrêten l'affaire du Plateau continen-
tal (TunisielJamahiriya arabe libyenne), la Cour n'a pas eu a se pronon-
cer sur les droits d'Etats tiers; la question qui se posait alors était avant
tout cellede la proportionnalité de la longueur des côtes dans le processus
de délimitation entre les parties (C.IJ. Recueil 1982, p. 91, par. 130). Il
s'ensuit que, pour déterminerla frontière maritime entre le Cameroun et le
Nigéria, la Cour doit veiller à ne pas adopter une position susceptible
d'affecter les droits de la Guinéeéquatorialeet de Sao Tomé-et-Principe.
La Cour n'accepte pas davantage la thèsedu Cameroun selon laquelle le
raisonnement suividans les affaires du Differendfrontalier (Burkina Fasol
Rkpublique du Mali) (C.1.J. Recueil 1986, p. 554) et duDifferend territo-
rial (Jamuhiriya arabe 1ibyc.nnelTchud)(C. IJ. Recueil 1994, p.6) au sujet
des frontières terrestres serait nécessairement transposable aux affaires
concernant des frontières maritimes.11s'agit de deux domaines distincts du
droit, auxquels s'appliquent des considérations etdes facteurs différents.
Par ailleurs, s'agissant de la question spécifiquedu tripoint, la Cour cons-
tate que les deux Parties s'accordent à considérer qu'ellene devrait pas
fixer un tel point. Elle n'a, en effet, pas le pouvoir de le faire. En détermi-
nant quelque ligne que ce soit, la Cour devra en tenir compte.
Compte tenu de ce qui précède, laCour conclut qu'elle ne saurait sta-
tuer sur les demandes du Cameroun dans la mesure où celles-ci pour-
raient affecter les droits de la Guinée équatoriale et de Sao Tomé-et-
Principe. Néanmoins, la simple présencede ces deux Etats, dont lesdroits
pourraient êtreaffectéspar la décisionde la Cour, n'empêche pasen soi
celle-ci d'avoir compétence pour procéder à une délimitation maritime
entre les Partiesà l'instance portée devant elle, c'est-à-dire le Cameroun
et le Nigéria; mais la Cour devra rester pleinement consciente, comme
toujours dans des situations de ce type, des limites qu'une telle présence
impose à sa compétence. 238. The jurisdiction of the Court is founded on the consent of the
parties. The Court cannot therefore decide upori legal rights of third
States not parties to the proceedings. In the preserit case there are States
other than the parties to these proceedings whose rights might be affected,
namely Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe. Those rights can-
not be determined by decision of the Court unless Equatorial Guinea and
Sao Tome and Principe have become parties to the proceedings. Equato-
rial Guinea has indeed requested -- and has been granted - permission
to intervene, but as a.nonlparty intervener only. ~ao Tome and Principe
has chosen not to intervene on any basis.
The Court considers that, in particular in the case of maritime delimi-
tations where the maritime areas of several States are involved, the pro-
tection afforded by A,rticle59 of the Statute may not always be sufficient.
In the present case, Article 59 may not sufficiently protect Equatorial
Guinea or Sao Tome and Principe from the effecis - even if only indi-
rect - of a judgment affecting their legal rights. The jurisprudence cited
by Cameroon does riot prove otherwise. In its decision in the case con-
cerning the Contineiztal Sl~elf (TunisialLih~an ilrub Jumahiriya), the
Court did not deal with rights of third States; what was principally at
issue there was the question of proportionality of coastline lengths in
relation to the process of delimitation between the parties (I.C.J. Reports
1982, p. 91, para. 130). It follows that, in fixing the maritime boundary
between Cameroon and Nigeria, the Court must (mure that it does not
adopt any position which might affect the rights of Equatorial Guinea
and Sao Tome and Principe. Nor does the Court accept Cameroon's con-
tention that the reasoning in the Frontier Dispute (Burkina FasolRepub-
lic of Mali) (1. C J. Reports 1986, p. 554) and the Territorial Dispute
(Llhyan Arab JamahiriyalChad) (1. C.J. Reports 1994, p. 6)in regard to
land boundaries is necessarily transposable to those concerning maritime
boundaries. These aire two distinct areas of the Iaw, to which different
factors and considerations apply. Moreover, in ielation to the specific
issue of the tripoint. i.heCourt notes that both Parties agree that it should
not fix one. It is indeed not entitled to do so. In determining any line, the
Court must take acc~ountof this.
In view of the foregoing, the Court concludes that it cannot rule on
Cameroon's claims in so far as they might affect rights of Equatorial
Guinea and Sao Torne and Principe. Nonetheless, the mere presence of
those two States, whose rights might be affected by the decision of the
Court, does not in itself preclude the Court from having jurisdiction over
a maritime delimitation between the Parties to the case before it, namely
Cameroon and Nigeria, although it must remain mindful, as always in
sitiiations of this kind, of the limitations on its jurisdiction that such
presence imposes.422 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRET)
239. De même, laCour a déjàexaminé,dans son arrêtdu Il juin 1998
sur les exceptions préliminairesdu Nigéria, laquestion des négociations
préalables entre les Parties concernant la délimitation maritime, question
qui faisait l'objet de la septième exception préliminaire.A cet égard,le
Nigériaavait notamment prétendu que la Cour ne saurait êtrevalable-
ment saisie, par voie de requêteunilatéraled'un Etat, de la délimitation
d'une zone économiqueexclusive ou d'un plateau continental si, contrai-
rement aux prescriptions des articles 74 et 83 de la convention des
Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer du 10décembre1982,I'Etat en cause
n'a fait aucune tentative pour parvenir àun accord avec 1'Etatdéfendeur
au sujet de cette frontière. La Cour a rejeté cetargument en observant
(<qu'en l'espèce, ellen'a[vait] pas été saisiesur la base du para-
graphe 1 de l'article 36 du Statut et, par application de cet article,
conformément à la partie XV de la convention des Nations Unies
sur le droit de la mer, relative au règlement des différends surgissant
entre les partiesà la convention à propos de l'interprétation ou de
l'application de cette dernière)),
mais qu'elle avait au contraire «étésaisie sur la base de déclarations
faites en vertu du paragraphe 2 de l'article 36», et que ces déclarations
«ne cont[enaient] aucune condition relative à des négociations préalables
à mener dans un délairaisonnable)) (C.Z.J. Recueil1998, p. 322,par. 109).
240. Le Nigéria,tout en déclarantaccepter cette décision,soutient que
la compétence de la Cour est une question distincte de celle du droit
matérielapplicable au différend. L'arrêt rendu le 11juin 1998par la Cour
ne concernait que la première de ces questions. Quant à la question du
droit matérielapplicable au différend,le Nigéria affirmeque, aux termes
du paragraphe 1 de l'article 74 et du paragraphe 1 de l'article 83 de la
convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer, les partiesà un dif-
férend relatifà une délimitation maritime doivent tout d'abord s'efforcer
de réglerpar voie de négociation le litige qui les oppose. Selon le Nigéria,
ces dispositions posent une règlede fond, non une condition préalable
d'ordre procédural. La négociation serait prescritecomme la méthode
appropriée - celleà laquelle il conviendrait de recourir avant toute
autre - pour parvenir à une délimitation maritime équitable,et la Cour
ne constituerait pas une enceinte de négociations.
241. Le Nigériareconnaît que, dans la mesure où le différendfronta-
lier maritime porte sur des secteurs aux alentours du point G et sur ceux
où ily a chevauchement de concessions, cette condition a été remplie.Il
soutient en revanche que les eaux situéesau sud des 4"et 3eparallélesde
latitude nord, voire du 2' parallèle, n'ont jamais fait l'objet d'une quel-
conque tentative de négociation avecle Nigériaou, pour autant que le
sache ce dernier, avec n'importe quel autre Etat affecté. Selonle Nigéria,
ce n'est qu'en recevant le mémoiredu Cameroun qu'il a appris que ce
dernier, s'écartant du statu quo, revendiquait une «ligne équitable))au-
delà du point G. Il prétend que le Cameroun n'a même pastenté, au 239. The issue of prior negotiation between the Parties in relation to
the maritime delimitation likewise was previously considered by the
Court in its Judgmerit of 11 June 1998 on the preliminary objections of
Nigeria, i.e.. under the seventh preliminary objection of Nigeria. In rela-
tion to that objection, Nigeria had argued, inter alia, that the Court can-
not properly be seised by the unilateral application of one State in rela-
tion to the delimitation of an exclusive economic zone or continental
shelf boundary if thiit State had made no attempt to reach agreement
with the respondent State over that boundary, contrary to the provisions
of Articles 74 and 83 of the United Nations Con\iention on the Law of
the Sea of 10 December 1982. The Court rejected this argument, noting
that,
"in this case, it,a[d]not been seised on the basis of Article 36, para-
graph 1,of the Statute, and, in pursuance of it, in accordance with
Part XV of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea
relating to the settlement of disputes arising between the parties to
the Convention with respect to its interpretation or application".
The Court had, on the contrary, "been seised on the basis of declarations
made under Article :36,paragraph 2", and those declarations "[did] not
contain any condition relating to prior negotiations to be conducted
within a reasonable time period" (1.C. J. Reports 1'298,p. 322, para. 109).
240. Nigeria states that it accepts this decision, but argues that the
Court's jurisdiction is a separate question from the substantive law appli-
cable to the dispute. The Court's Judgment of 11 June 1998 was con-
cerned only with the former question. As to the question of the substan-
tive law applicable to the dispute, Nigeria argues that Article 74,
paragraph 1,and Article 83, paragraph 1,of the United Nations Conven-
tion on the Law of thieSea require that the parties to a dispute over mari-
time delimitation should first attempt to resolve their dispute by negotia-
tion. According to Nigeria, these provisions lay down a substantive rule,
not a procedural prerequisite. Negotiation is prescribed as the proper and
primary way of achieving an equitable maritime delimitation, and the
Court is not a forum for negotiations.
241. Nigeria accepts that, to the extent that the dispute over the mari-
time boundary pertains to areas around point G and to the areas of over-
lapping licences, this requirement has been satisfied. However, it main-
tains that waters to the south of 4" and 3" latitude north and even 2",
have never been the subject of any attempt at negotiation with Nigeria
or, as far as Nigeriaisaware, with any other affecied State. According to
Nigeria, the first time that it had notice that Cameroon was departing
from the status quo, and was claiming an "equitable line" beyond point G,
was when it received Cameroon's Memorial. It contends that Cameroon
made no prior attempt even to present its claim at diplomatic level. While423 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRET)
préalable, d'exposer sa revendication au niveau diplomatique. Le Nigé-
ria, tout en reconnaissant, comme la Cour l'a constatédans son arrêtde
1998,que «le Cameroun et le Nigériaont entamé des négociations en vue
de la fixation de l'ensemble de leur frontière maritime))(C.I.J. Recueil
1998,p. 322,par. 1IO),insiste sur le fait que ces négociationsn'ont jamais
porté,mêmetrèsindirectement, sur aucune des versions de la ligne à pré-
sent revendiquée par le Cameroun. Pour le Nigéria, l'objetde ces négo-
ciations était wlutôt d'établir I'emvlacement du triwoint entre le Came-
roun, le Nigéria et la Guinée équatoriale, en partant du fait qu'une
frontière maritime defacto avait été agréédeans cette zone. Le Nigéria
considèrecomme irrecevable la revendication du Cameroun au-delà de la
zone de chevauchement des concessions ou dans la mesure ou cette reven-
dication vise des secteurs situésl'ouest et au sud-ouest de Bioko.
242. Pour sa part, le Cameroun soutient que le Nigéria<(ressuscite»la
seconde branche de sa septième exception préliminaire, rejetéepar la
Cour dans son arrêtdu 11juin 1998, et qu'il cherche, en des termes à
peine déguisés, à convaincre celle-ci de reconsidérer cette décision.Il
affirme que la négociation n'estqu'un premier pas dans la réalisation de
la délimitation maritime, le suivant étant, si lepremier échoue,la délimi-
tation par un organe judiciaire ou arbitral. C'est ce que reconnaissent
explicitement le paragraphe 2 de l'article 74 et le paragraphe 2 de l'ar-
ticle 83 de la convention des Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer, les-
quels disposent que, «[s]'ils ne parviennent pas à un accord dans un
délai raisonnable, les Etats concernés ont recours aux procédures pré-
vues àla partie XV».
243. Le Cameroun soutient que, si le point G est peut êtrele dernier
point sur lequel ily a eu accord entre les Parties dans la délimitation de
leur frontière maritime, ce n'est pas le dernier sur lequelyia eu négo-
ciation. Il insiste sur le fait que, mêmesi elles se sont révénfructueu-
ses, d'intenses négociationsse sont effectivement dérouléesentre les deux
Etats et ont dèsle début portésur l'ensemble de la frontière maritime, ce
que la Cour a reconnu dans son arrêtdu Il juin 1998,où elle a constaté
que «le Cameroun et le Nigériaont entamé des négociationsen vue de la
fixation de l'ensemble de leur frontière maritime))(C.I.J.Recueil 1998,
p. 322, par. 110; les italiques sont de la République du Cameroun). Le
Cameroun indique que c'est en raison de l'impossibilitéde parvenir à un
accord négociéconcernant la totalité dela frontière qu'il a portél'affaire
devant la Cour. Il ajoute que, si les deux parties n'ont pu aller plus loin
dans les négociations, c'estparce que la mauvaise foi du Nigéria a ruiné
tout espoir de parvenirà un nouvel accord ou a privépar avance de toute
valeur un accord auquel les deux Parties auraient pu parvenir. Le Came-
roun insiste sur le fait que, puisque c'est la conduite du Nigéria qui a
mené à cette impasse, celui-ci ne peut maintenant se prévaloirde son pro-
pre comportement fautif pour empêcherle Cameroun d'obtenir le règle-
ment complet et définitifdu différend entre les deux Etats en portant
cette affaire devant la Cour. Le Cameroun conclut que, faute pour les
Parties d'avoir pu se mettre d'accord, il appartienà la Cour de se subs-Nigeria accepts the Court's finding in its 1998Judgment that "Cameroon
and Nigeria entered into negotiations with a view to determining the
whole of the maritime boundary" (1. C.J. Reports 1998, p. 322, para. 1IO),
it insists that those negotiations were not even reniotely concerned with
the line now claimed by Cameroon in any of its versions. Rather, these
negotiations are said 1.0have been directed to establishing the location of
the tripoint between Cameroon, Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea, on the
basis of an acceptance that there was a de facto maritime border in
the area. Nigeria concludes that Cameroon's clairn beyond the area of
the overlapping licences, or to the extent that it coricerns the areas to the
Westand south-west of Bioko, is inadmissible.
242. For its part, Cameroon contends that Nigeria is "resurrecting"
the second branch of its seventh preliminary objection, which the Court
rejected in its Judgment of 11 June 1998, and that Nigeria is attempting,
in thinly disguised terms, to persuade the Court tc~reconsider that deci-
sion. It maintains that negotiation is only a first attempt towards achiev-
ing maritime delimitation,the next being, should that attempt fail, delimi-
tation by a judicial or arbitral body. This is expressly recognized by
paragraph 2 of Articles 74 and 83 of the United Nations Convention on
the Law of the Sea, which stipulate that if "no agreement can be reached
within a reasonable period of time, the States concerned shall resort to
the procedures provided for in part XV".
243. Cameroon ar,gues that, while point G may be the last point on
which there was agreement between the Parties in the delimitation of
their maritime bounclary, it was not the last poini on which there were
negotiations. It insists that, even if they proved to be unfruitful, there
were in fact intense neeouiations between the two States which. from
the outset, focused on the entire maritime boundary, a fact which was
acknowledged in the Court's Judgment of 11 June 1998,in which it found
that "Cameroon and Nigeria entered into negoti~tions tvith a view to
determining the ivhole of tfzemaritime boundary" (1.C.J. Reports 1998,
p. 322, para. 110; emphasis added by Cameroon). Cameroon says that a
negotiated agreement concerning the entire boundary had proved impos-
sible, and that Carneroon has acted in consequeiice by submitting the
matter to the Court. It adds that, if the two Parties were not able to go
further in the negotiations, it was because the bad faith displayed by
Nigeria either ruined any hope of reaching a new ,igreement or removed
in advance the value of any agreement which might have been arrived at.
Cameroon insists that, since it was the conduct of Uigeria that led to this
impasse, Nigeria cannot now take advantage of its own wrongful behav-
iour to prevent Cameroon from achieving full and final settlement of the
disputebetween the two States by bringing the matter before this Court.
Cameroon concludes that, as the Parties have been unable to reach agree-
ment, it is for the Court to substitute itself for them and to delimit the424 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
tituerà elles et de délimiterla frontière maritime commune sur laquelle
celles-ci n'ont pu s'entendre au-delà du point G. 11soutient que, si la
Cour s'abstenait de délimiter au-delàdu point G, cela aurait pour effet de
laisser subsister une source majeure de conflit entre les deux Parties. Ce
faisant, la Cour validerait également, de manière implicite, le partage
maritime effectuépar le Nigéria etla Guinée équatorialedans le traitédu
23 septembre 2000, lequel, de l'avis du Cameroun, fait totalement fi de
ses droits.Il ajoute qu'aucune disposition de la convention n'interdit que
les limites de la zone économiqueexclusiveet du plateau continental d'un
Etat côtier soient fixéespar une juridiction internationale,a la demande
expresse de cet Etat, dans le cadre du règlement d'un différend porté
devant elle.
244. Dans son arrêtdu Il juin 1998 (C.I.J. Recueil 1998, p. 321,
par. 107,et p. 322, par. 1IO),la Cour a relevéque des négociationsentre
les Gouvernements du Cameroun et du Nigériaconcernant la délimita-
tion maritime dans son ensemble - jusqu'au point G et au-delà -
s'étaient déroulées dè less annéessoixante-dix, sans toutefois déboucher
sur un accord. Cela étant, les articles 74 et 83 de la convention des
Nations Unies sur le droit de la mer n'exigent pas que les négociations en
matière de délimitation aboutissent; comme a chaque fois que le droit
international impose de telles négociations,celles-cidoivent êtremenées
de bonne foi. La Cour réaffirme la conclusion à laquelle elle étaitparve-
nue concernant les exceptions préliminaires, à savoir que des négocia-
tions ont effectivement eu lieu. En outre, si, la suite de l'échecde telles
négociations,une procédurejudiciaire est engagée,les articles 74 et 83 de
la convention sur le droit de la mer n'imposent pas de suspendre l'ins-
tance pour engager de nouvelles négociationssi, au cours de l'instance,
l'une des parties modifie sa demande. Il est bien entendu exact que la
Cour n'est pas une enceinte de négociations.En pareil cas, cependant,la
nouvelle demande ne pourrait êtreconsidéréeque sous un angle pure-
ment judiciaire. Toute autre solution ne ferait que retarder et compliquer
le processus de délimitation des plateaux continentaux et des zones éco-
nomiques exclusives. La convention sur le droit de la mer ne prescrit pas
une telle suspension de la procédureengagée.
245. Quant aux négociations avecla Guinée équatorialeet Sao Tomé-
et-Principe, la Cour conclut que les articles 74 et 83 de la convention sur
le droit de la mer ne l'empêchentpas de tracer la frontière maritime entre
le Cameroun et le Nigériaen l'absence de négociations préalablesinter-
venues simultanémententre les quatre Etats concernés.
La Cour est donc à mêmede procéder à la délimitation dela frontière
maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigériadans la mesure où les droits de
la Guinée équatorialeet de Sao Tomé-et-Principe n'ensont pas affectés.
246. Pour ce faire, la Cour examinera la demande du Camerounjoint maritime boundary upon which they have been unable to agree
beyond point G. It ai-guesthat for the Court to rcfrain from delimiting
beyond point G would leave a major source of coiiflict between the two
Parties. Such an abstention on the Court's part would also implicitly
uphold the maritime division agreed upon by Nigeria and Equatorial
Guinea in the Treaty of 23 September 2000, whicli Cameroon contends
was concluded in utter disregard of its own rights. It adds that no provi-
sion of the Convention precludes the limits of the exclusive economic
zone and the continental shelf of a coastal State from being determined
by an international tribunal, at the express request of that State within
the context of settlement of a dispute brought before it.
244. The Court noted in its Judgment of 11June 1998 (1C.J. Reports
1998, p. 321, para. 1017a,nd p. 322, para. 110)that negotiations between
the Governments of Cameroon and Nigeria concerning the entire mari-
time delimitation - i~pto point G and beyond - were conducted as far
back as the 1970s. These negotiations did not 1t:ad to an agreement.
However. Articles 74 and 83 of the United Nations Law of the Sea Con-
vention do not require that delimitation negotiatic~nsshould be success-
ful; like al1similar obligations to negotiate in interriational law, the nego-
tiations have to be conducted in good faith. The Court reaffirms its
finding in regard to the preliminary objections that negotiations have
indeed taken place. Moreover, if, following unsuccessful negotiations,
judicial proceedings are instituted and one of the parties then alters its
claim, Articles 74 and 83 of the Law of the Sea <:onvention would not
require that the proceedings be suspended while riew negotiations were
conducted. It is of course true that the Court is not a negotiating forum.
In such a situation, however, the new claim would have to be dealt with
exclusively by judicial means. Any other solution would lead to delays
and complications in the process of delimitation of continental shelves
and exclusive economic zones. The Law of the Sea Convention does not
require such a susperision of the proceedings.
245. As to negotiations with Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and
Principe, the Court does not find that it follows from Articles 74 and 83
of the Law of the Sea Convention that the drawing of the maritime
boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria presupposes that simultaneous
negotiations between al1four States involved have taken place.
The Court is therefore in a position to proceed to the delimitation of
the maritime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria in so far as the
rights of Equatorial Guinea and SaoTome and Principe are not affected.
246. In order to do this, the Court will deal with Cameroon's claim on425 FRONTIERE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
concernant la délimitation maritime, ainsi que les conclusions du Nigéria
sur cette question.
247. La Cour abordera maintenant la demande du Cameroun tendant
au tracé d'uneligne précisede délimitation maritime. Elle examinera tout
d'abord le secteur de la frontière maritime allant jusqu'au point
248. Selon le Cameroun, sa frontière maritime avec le Nigéria est divi-
séeen deux secteurs. Le premier, qui va de l'embouchure de la rivière
Akwayaféjusqu'au point G fixépar la déclaration deMaroua du lejuin
1975, aurait été délimitpéar des accords internationaux valides conclus
entre les Parties. Concernant ce secteur, le Cameroun demande simple-
ment àla Cour de confirmer cette délimitation, que le Nigériachercherait
à présent à remettre en question. Le secteur au-delà du point G resteà
délimiter etle Cameroun demande àla Cour d'yfixer les limitesdes zones
respectives des Parties, de façon mettre fin, complétementet définitive-
ment, au différendqui les oppose.
249. La délimitationdu premier secteur, de l'embouchure de la rivière
Akwayaféjusqu'au point G, repose principalement, selon le Cameroun,
sur trois instruments juridiques internationaux: l'accord anglo-allemand
du 11mars 1913, l'accord entre le Cameroun et le Nigériadu 4 avril 1971,
constitué de la déclaration de Yaoundé II et de la carte no 3433 y
annexée,et la déclaration de Maroua du 1" juin 1975.
250. Selon le Cameroun, l'accord anglo-allemand du 11mars 1913fixe
l'ancrage terrestre de la frontière maritime'embouchure de I'Akwayafé,
situéà l'intersection du thalweg de cette rivière etd'une ((lignedroite joi-
gnant Bakassi Point et King Point)). A partir de l'embouchure de
l'Akwayafé,le Cameroun invoque l'article XXI du traité, quidispose que
«la frontière suivra le milieu du chenal navigable de la rivière Akwayafé
jusqu'à la limite des eaux territoriales, c'est-à-dire 3)),ainsi que son
article XXII, qui indique que cette limite(sera une ligne tracéeau large
à 3 milles marins d'une lignejoignant Sandy Point et Tom Shot Point)).
251. Le Cameroun rappelle que, en 1970,une commission mixte avait
été constituéepour procéderdans une premièreétape à la délimitation de
la frontière maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria. Son objectif initial
étaitde définirle tracé dela frontière jusqu'à la limite des 3 milles. Ses
travaux débouchérentsur l'adoption, le 4 avril 1971,de la déclarationde
Yaoundé II, par laquelle les chefs d'Etat des deux parties s'accordèrent
sur une «ligne de compromis)) qu'ils reportèrent sur la carte n03433 de
l'Amirauté britanniqueen y apposant leur signature. A partir de la ligne
droite joignant Bakassi Point et King Point, la ligne passait par douze
points numérotés,dont les coordonnées précisesfurent déterminéespar
la commission qui se réunit à Lagos, au mois de juin suivant la déclara-
tion. Le Cameroun prétend que cette déclaration constituait un accord
international liantjuridiquement lesdeux parties, et que cela fut confirmé
ultérieurement par les termes de la déclaration de Maroua du 1"'juinmaritime delimitation, as well as with the submissions of Nigeria on the
issue.
247. The Court turns now to Cameroon's request for the tracing of a
precise line of maritime delimitation. It will first address the sector of the
maritime boundary up to point G.
248. According tc) Cameroon, the maritime boundary between
Cameroon and Nigeria is divided into two sectors. The first, from the
mouth of the Akwayafe River to point G fixed by the Maroua Dec-
laration of 1 June 1975, is said to have been delimited by valid inter-
national agreements between the Parties. In relation to this sector,
Cameroon asks the Court merely to confirm that delimitation, which it
says that Nigeria is now seeking to reopen. The sector beyond point G
remains to be delimited, and Cameroon requests the Court to fix the
limits of the Parties' respective areas in this sectoi, so as to put a com-
plete and final end to the dispute between them.
249. The delimitation of the first sector, froin the mouth of the
Akwayafe River to point G, is said by Cameroon to be based mainly on
three international legal instruments, namely the Anglo-German Agree-
ment of 11 March 1'913,the Cameroon-Nigeria Agreement of 4 April
1971, comprising the Yaoundé II Declaration and the appended
Chart 3433, and the ]Maroua Declaration of 1 June 1975.
250. Cameroon argues that the Anglo-German Agreement of 11March
1913 fixes the point alt which the maritime boundary is anchored to the
land at the mouth of the Akwayafe, at the intersection of the thalweg of
that river and a "straight line joining Bakassi Point and King Point".
From the mouth of the Akwayafe, Cameroon invokes Article XXI of the
Agreement, which provides that "the boundary shall follow the centre of
the navigable channel of the Akwayafe River as fai-as the 3-mile limit of
territorial jurisdiction", as well as Article XXII thereof, which States that
the said limit shall be "taken as a lin3 nautical niiles seaward of a line
joining Sandy Point and Tom Shot Point".
251. Cameroon points out that in 1970 a Joint Commission was
established, its first task being to delimit the maritime boundary
between Cameroon and Nigeria. Its initial objective was to determine
the course of the boundary as far as the 3-mile limit. Its work
resulted in the Yaoundé II Declaration of 4 Api-il 1971, under which
the Heads of State of the two parties adopted a "compromise line"
which they jointly direw and signed on British Admiralty Chart 3433.
Starting from the straight line joining Bakaisi Point and King
Point, the line consisted of 12 numbered points, whose precise co-
ordinates were determined by the Commissiori, meeting in Lagos
pursuant to the Declaration, the following June Cameroon contends
that that Declaratioln represented an international agreement bind-
ing on bot11 Parties and that this fact was later confirmed by the
terms of the Maroua Declaration of 1June 1975, which was likewise a1975, qui aurait également été unaccord international revêtant force
obligatoire (voir paragraphes 252 et 253 ci-dessous).
252. Selon le Cameroun, entre 1971et 1975, diverses tentatives en vue
de parvenir à un accord sur la délimitation de segments supplémentaires
de la frontière maritime demeurèrent par la suite infructueuses. C'est seu-
lement lors de la réunion au sommet tenue à Maroua du 30 mai au
1" juin 1975 qu'un accord put êtreconclu quant au tracé définitifde la
frontière maritime du point 12 au point G. Le communiqué conjoint
rédigéà l'issue de cette réunion fut signépar les chefs d'Etat. Le Came-
roun appelle en particulier l'attention sur la phrase du communiqué indi-
quant que les signataires «se sont mis entièrement d'accord sur le tracé
précisde la frontière maritime)) (les italiques sont du Cameroun).
253. Le Cameroun soutient en conséquence que les déclarations de
Yaoundé II et de Maroua donnent ainsi une définition contraignante de
la frontière délimitant les espaces maritimes respectifs du Cameroun et du
Nieuria.
Le Cameroun fait valoir que la signature de I'accord de Maroua par les
chefs d'Etat du Nigéria et du Cameroun le 1"' juin 1975 exprime le
consentement des deux Etats à êtreliéspar ce traité; que les deux chefs
d'Etat ont exprimé leur intention d'être liéspar l'instrument qu'ils ont
signé; qu'aucune réserveni condition ne figure dans le texte et que la vali-
dité de I'instrument n'a pas étésubordonnée à ratification; que la publi-
cation du communiqué conjoint signépar les chefs d'Etat constitue éga-
lement une preuve de ce consentement; que la validité de I'accord de
Maroua a été confirmée par un échangede lettres ultérieur entre les chefs
d'Etat des deux pays visant à corriger une erreur technique intervenue
lors du calcul de la position de l'un des points de la ligne qui venait d'être
convenue; et que la référenceà Yaoundé II dans I'accord de Maroua
confirme que le statut juridique de ce premier accord ne diffère en rien de
celui de I'accord de Maroua.
Le Cameroun soutient en outre que ces conclusions sont confirmées
par la publicitédonnéeà la frontière maritime partielle fixéedans I'accord
de Maroua, qui avait été notifiéau Secrétariat de l'Organisation des
Nations Unies et a paru dans toute une sériede publications largement
diffusées et bien connues dans le domaine de la délimitation maritime.
Elles seraient en outre confirmées par la pratique contemporaine des
Etats, la convention de Vienne sur le droit des traitéset le fait que le droit
international est incontestablement favorable à la stabilité et à la perma-
nence des accords de frontière, qu'il s'agissede frontières terrestres ou de
frontières maritimes.
254. Le Nigéria n'opère,quant alui, aucune distinction entre la zone
située endeçà et celle situéeau-delà du point G. Il nie l'existence d'une
délimitation maritime jusqu'à ce dernier, et soutient que l'ensemble de la
délimitation reste à établir dp novo. Le Nigéria invoque toutefois des
arguments spécifiques en ce qui concerne la zone située en deçà du
point G, qu'il y a lieu d'examiner dans la présente partie de l'arrêt.
255. Se fondant sur sa revendication de souveraineté sur la presqu'îlebinding international agreement (see paragraphs 252 and 253 below).
252. Thereafter, according to Cameroon, between 1971 and 1975 a
number of unsuccessfi~lattempts to reach agreement on the delimitation
of further parts of the maritime boundary were made. It was only at the
summit meeting held in Maroua from 30 May to 1 June 1975 that an
agreement could be i-eached on the definitive course of the maritime
boundary from point 12to point G. The Joint Communiqué issued at the
end of that meeting was signed by the Heads of St'ite. Cameroon draws
particular attentionto the statement in the Communiqué that the signa-
tories "have reached jûll ugreement on the exczctcourse of the maritime
boundary" (emphasis added by Cameroon).
253. Cameroon acc.ordingly maintains that the Yaoundé II Declara-
tion and the Maroua Declaration thus provide a binding definition of the
boundary delimiting the respective maritime spaces of Cameroon and
Nigeria.
Cameroon argues that the signing of the Maroua Agreement by the
Heads of State of Nigeria and Cameroon on 1 Julie 1975 expresses the
consent of the two States to be bound by that treaty; that the two Heads
of State manifested their intention to be bound bg the instrument they
signed; that no reservation or condition was expressed in the text, and
that the instrument was not expressed to be subject to ratification; that
the publication of the Joint Communiqué signed by the Heads of State is
also proof of that consent; that the validity of the Maroua Agreement
was confirmed by the subsequent exchange of letters between the Heads
of State of the two countries correcting a technicai error in the calcula-
tion of one of the points on the newly agreed line; and that the reference
to Yaoundé II in the Maroua Agreement confirms that the legal status of
the former is no diffei-ent from that of the latter.
Cameroon further argues that these conclusions are confirmed by the
publicity given to the partial maritime boundary established by the
Maroua Agreement, which was notified to the Secretariat of the United
Nations and published in a whole range of publications which have wide-
spread coverage and are well known in the field of maritime boundary
delimitation. It conterids that they are, moreover, confirmed by the con-
temporary practice of States, by the Vienna Convtmtion on the Law of
Treaties and by the fact that international law comes down unequivocally
in favour of the stability and permanence of boundary agreements,
whether land or mari1ime.
254. Nigeria for its part draws no distinction between the area up to
point G and the area beyond. It denies the existence of a maritime delimi-
tation up to that point, and maintains that the whole maritime delimita-
tion must be underta~ken de novo. Nonetheless, Nigeria does advance
specific arguments regarding the area up to point G, which it is appro-
priate to address in this part of the Judgment.
255. In the first place, on the basis of its claim to sovereignty over the FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
427
de Bakassi, le Nigéria soutient tout d'abord que la frontière maritime le
séparant du Cameroun doit commencer dans le Rio del Rey et suivre la
ligne d'équidistance jusqu'à la pleine mer. La Cour ayant déjàconclu que
la souveraineté sur la presqu'île de Bakassi appartient au Cameroun et
non au Nigéria (voir paragraphe 225 ci-dessus), iln'est pas nécessaire
d'examiner davantage cet argument du Nigéria
256. Le Nigéria fait valoir en outre que, mêmesi les prétentions du
Cameroun sur Bakassi étaient légitimes, la frontière maritime revendi-
quéepar ce pays aurait dû prendre en compte les puits et autres installa-
tions situésde part et d'autre de la ligne résultant de la pratique pétro-
lière, et n'entraîner à cet égard aucune modification du statu quo. Le
Cameroun aurait ainsi été fondéà revendiquer, tout au plus, une fron-
tière maritime se dirigeant vers le sud puis vers le sud-ouest jusqu'a la
ligne d'équidistance entre East Point (Nigéria) et West Point (Bakassi),
pour se prolonger ensuite le long de celle-cijusqu'a la frontière maritime
avec Bioko (Guinée équatoriale) en un point situé par environ 8" 19'de
longitude est et 4'4' de latitude nord, tout en laissant une zone de
500 mètres autour des installations fixes des Parties.
257. Concernant la déclaration de Yaoundé II, le Nigéria soutient
qu'il ne s'agissait pas d'un accord ayant force obligatoire, mais que cette
déclaration représentait simplement le compte rendu d'une réunion qui
((s'inscrivait dans le cadre d'une série derencontres portant sur la fron-
tièremaritime)), et que cette question «fut à nouveau discutéelors de réu-
nions ultérieures ».
258. De même,le Nigériaconsidère la déclaration de Maroua comme
dépourvue de validité juridique. Il fait valoir qu'elle «n['a] pas [étér ]ati-
fiéepar le conseil militaire suprême))aprèssa signature par le chef d'Etat
du Nigéria, et que, selon la Constitution nigériane en vigueur a l'époque
- en juin 1975-, les actes de l'exécutifétaient en généraldu ressort du
conseil militaire suprême ou soumis a son approbation. Il relève qu'il
appartient normalement aux Etats de suivre l'évolution de la situation
constitutionnelle et législativede leurs voisins lorsqu'elle a une incidence
sur les relations qu'ils entretiennent, et qu'une telle évolution ne saurait
guère trouver d'expression plus forte que l'imposition de limites au pou-
voir de conclure des traités. Le Nigériaajoute que le 23 août 1974 - soit
neuf mois avant la déclaration de Maroua - le chef d'Etat du Nigéria
alors en fonction, se référant à une réunion tenue en août 1972, à
Garoua, avec le chef d'Etat du Cameroun alors en fonction, avait déclaré,
dans une lettre adressée a celui-ci, avoir expliqué Garoua que les pro-
positions présentéespar les experts sur la base des documents qu'ils
avaient établis le 4 avril 1971 ne rencontraient pas l'agrément du Gou-
vernement nigérian)),et que les avis et recommandations de la commis-
sion mixte (([devaient] êtresoumis à l'approbation des deux gouverne-
ments)). Le Nigéria fait valoir que cela montrait bien que toutes les
dispositions dont pourraient convenir les deux chefs d'Etat étaientsubor-
donnéesa l'approbation que devrait ensuite donner de son côtéle ((Gou-
vernement nigérian».Bakassi Peninsula, Nigeria contends that the line of the maritime bound-
ary between itself and Cameroon will commence in the waters of the Rio
del Rey and run down the median line towards the open sea. Since the
Court has already found that sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula lies
with Cameroon and not with Nigeria (see paragraph 225 above), it is
unnecessary to deal any further with this argumenl of Nigeria.
256. Nigeria further contends that, even if Cameroon's claim to Bakassi
were valid, Cameroon's claim to a maritime boundiiry should have taken
into account the wells and other installations on each side of the line
established by the oil practice and should not change the status quo in
this respect. Thus, C,ameroon would have been justified in claiming at
most a maritime boundary proceeding southwards, then south-westwards
to the equidistance line between East Point (Nigzria) and West Point
(Bakassi), and then along the equidistance line until it reached the mari-
time boundary with Bioko (Equatorial Guinea), at the approximate posi-
tion longitude 8" 19'east and latitude 4'4' north, nrhile leaving a zone of
500 m around the Parties' fixed installations.
257. In relation to the Yaoundé II Declaration, Nigeria contends that
it was not a binding agreement, but simply represented the record of
a meeting which "foi-med part of an ongoing programme of meetings
relating to the maritime boundary", and that the matter "was subject
to further discussion at subsequent meetings".
258. Nigeria likewise regards the Maroua Declai-ation as lacking legal
validity, since it "was not ratified by the Supreme hlilitary Council" after
being signed by the Nigerian Head of State. It states that under the
Nigerian constitutioni in force at the relevant time - June 1975 -
executive acts were in general to be carried out by the Supreme Military
Council or subject tcs its approval. It notes thal States are normally
expected to follow legislative and constitutional df:velopments in neigh-
bouring States which have an impact upon the iriter-State relations of
those States, and that few limits can be more important than those
affecting the treaty-making power. It adds that on 23 August 1974, nine
months before the Maroua Declaration, the then Head of State of
Nigeria had written to the then Head of State of ('ameroon, explaining,
with reference to a meeting with the latter in August 1972 at Garoua,
that "the proposals of the experts based on the documents they prepared
on the 4th April 1971 were not acceptable to the Nigerian Government",
and that the views and recommendations of the joint commission
"must be subject to the agreement of the two Governments". Nigeria
contends that this shows that any arrangements that might be agreed
between the two Heads of State were subject tcl the subsequent and
separate approval of the Nigerian Government. Le Nigéria estimeque, selon le critère objectif tirédes dispositions de la
convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités, le Cameroun savait, ou
aurait dû savoir (s'il avait agi avec la prudence requise), que le chef
d'Etat du Nigérian'avait pas le pouvoir de prendre des engagements juri-
diquement contraignants sans en référerau Gouvernement nigérian - en
l'occurrence le conseil militaire suprême-, et considère qu'il aurait de ce
fait dû, aux yeux du Cameroun, être ((objectivementévident)),au sens du
paragraphe 2 de l'article 46 de la convention de Vienne, que l'autorité
exercée par le chef d'Etat du Nigéria n'était pas illimitée. De l'avis
du Nigéria, le paragraphe 2 de l'article 7 de la convention de Vienne
sur le droit des traités, qui dispose que les chefs d7Etat et les chefs de
gouvernement, «[e]n vertu de leurs fonctions et sans avoir à produire
de pleins pouvoirs, sont considéréscomme représentant leur Etab),
vise uniquement la manière d'établir la fonction d'une personne en
tant que représentant de l'Etat, mais ne traite pas de l'étendue des
pouvoirs de cette personne lorsqu'elle exerce cette fonction de représenta-
tion.
259. Le Nigériaindique égalementavoir confirméaprès 1977,au cours
de sommets bilatéraux entre chefs d'Etat et de rencontres entre ex~erts en
délimitation, que la déclaration de Maroua n'avait pas été ratifiée et ne
revêtait déslors aucun caractère contraignant à son égard.Selon lui, il est
manifeste, à la lecture des procès-verbaux de réunions tenues a Yaoundé
en 1991 et en 1993, que le Nigéria n'ajamais accepté d'êtreliépar la
déclaration de Maroua.
260. Le Cameroun rejette la thèse du Nigéria selon laquelle la décla-
ration de Maroua pourrait êtreconsidéréecomme nulle par ce dernier au
motif qu'elle n'a pas étératifiéepar le conseil militaire suprêmedu Nigé-
ria. Le Cameroun nie que, lors d'une réunion entre les deux chefs d'Etat
en 1977, la partie nigériane ait indiqué que la déclaration n'aurait eu
aucun caractère contraignant a son égard, et il soutient que ce n'est qu'en
1978, soit environ trois ans et demi après la signature de la déclaration,
que le Nigéria a annoncé son intention de la contester. Le Cameroun
affirme que le Nigéria n'a pas démontréque sa Constitution exigeait la
ratification de l'accord par le conseil militaire suprême. En tout état de
cause, invoquant le paragraphe 2 de l'articl7 de la convention de Vienne
sur le droit des traités, le Cameroun soutient que, sur le plan du droit
international, un chef d'Etat est toujours considérécomme représentant
son Etat aux fins d'exprimer le consentement de ce dernier à êtreliépar
un traité. Le Cameroun expose également que, mêmes'il y a eu violation
du droit interne nigérian,la violation invoquée n'étaitpas ((manifeste)) et
ne concernait pas une règle de droit interne ((d'importance fondamen-
tale» au sens du paragraphe 1de l'article 46 de la convention de Vienne
sur le droit des traités.
261. La Cour a déjà conclu que l'accord anglo-allemand du 11 mars
1913étaitvalide et applicable dans son intégralité,et que par suite le titre
territorial sur la presqu'île de Bakassi appartenait au Cameroun (voir
paragraphe 225 ci-dessus). Il en découleque la frontière maritime entre le Nigeria says that Cameroon, according to an objective test based upon
the provisions of the Vienna Convention, either knew or, conducting
itself in a normally prudent manner, should have kiiown that the Head of
State of Nigeria did niot have the authority to makz legally binding com-
mitinents without referring back to the Nigerian Government - at
that time the Supreme Military Council - and that it should therefore
have been "objectively evident" to Cameroon, uithin the meaning of
Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
that the Head of State of Nigeria did not have ~inrestricted authority.
Nigeria adds that Article 7, paragraph 2, of the L'ienna Convention on
the Law of Treaties, which provides that Heads clf State and Heads of
Government "[iln virtue of their functions and without having to produce
full powers . . . are considered as representing their State", is solely con-
cerned with the way in which a person's function as a state's representa-
tive is established, but does not deal with the extent of that person's
powers when exercising that representative function.
259. Nigeria further States that since 1977,in bilateral summits between
Heads of State and between boundary experts, it has confirmed that the
Maroua Declaration was not ratified and was therefore not binding on
Nigeria. It argues that it is clear also from minuti:s of meetings held in
Yaoundé in 1991 and 1993 that Nigeria had never accepted that it was
bound by the Maroua Declaration.
260. Cameroon rejects the argument of Nigeria that the Maroua Dec-
laration can be regarded as a nullity by Nigeria on the ground that it was
not ratified by Nigeria's Supreme Military Council. Cameroon denies
that any communicai.ion was made during a 1977 meeting between the
two Heads of State to the effect that the Declaration was not binding on
Nigeria, and claims that it was not until 1978, some three-and-a-half
years after the Declaration, that Nigeria announcecl its intention to chal-
lenge it. Cameroon argues that Nigeria has not shown that the constitu-
tion of Nigeria did in fact require the agreement to be ratified by the
Supreme Military Council. In any event, invoking Article 7, paragraph 2,
of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Cameroon argues that
as a matter of international law a Head of State ii always considered as
representing his or her State for the purpose of expressing the consent of
the State to be boundl by a treaty. Cameroon also inaintains that, even if
there was a violation of the internal law of Nigeria, the alleged violation
was not "manifest", and did not concern a rule oi'internal law "of fun-
damental importance", within the meaning of Article 46, paragraph 1, of
the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
261. The Court has already found that the Anglo-German Agreement
of 11 March 1913 is valid and applicable in its entirety and that, in con-
sequence, territorial title to the Bakassi Peninsula lies with Cameroon
(see paragraph 225 above). It follows from these findings that the mari-429 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
Cameroun et le Nigéria se trouve à l'ouest de la presqu'île de Bakassi, et
non a l'est, dans le Rio del Rey. Il en résulte égalementque l'«ancrage»
terrestre de la frontière maritime entre les Parties se situe à l'intersection
de la ligne droite joignant Bakassi Point et King Point avec le milieu du
chenal navigable de la rivière Akwayafé,conformément aux articles XVIII
et XXI de l'accord anglo-allemand.
262. Il ressort des documents communiqués a la Cour par les Parties
que, quelle qu'ait pu êtreà l'origine l'intention des signataires, la décla-
ration de Yaoundé II fut remise en question à plusieurs reprises par le
Nigéria après sa signature et après la réunion de la commission mixte de
délimitation de juin 1971, notamment lors d'une réunion de la commis-
sion en mai 1972, et B nouveau lors d'une réunion des deux chefs d'Etat
à Garoua, en août 1972, au cours de laquelle le chef d'Etat du Nigéria
décrivit ladéclaration comme ((inacceptable)). Le chef d'Etat du Nigéria
devait d'ailleurs confirmer par la suite cette position dans la lettre du
23 août 1974 qu'il adressa à son homologue camerounais (voir para-
graphe 258 ci-dessus).
Point n'est toutefois besoin de décider séparémentdu statut de cette
déclaration, puisque la ligne qui y est décrite est confirmée par les dis-
positions de la déclaration de Maroua, qui évoque dans son troisième
paragraphe le «point 12 ... situé à la limite de la frontière maritime
adoptée par les deux chefs d'Etat le 4 avril 1971 ». Si la déclaration de
Maroua constitue un accord international liant les deux parties, il s'ensuit
nécessairement que la ligne définie dans la déclaration de Yaoundé II,
y compris les coordonnées ayant fait l'objet d'un accord lors de la
réunion de juin 1971 de la commission mixte de délimitation, les lie
é"alement.
263. La Cour estime que la déclaration de Maroua constitue un accord
international conclu par écritentre Etats et traçant une frontière; elle est
donc régiepar le droit international et constitue un traité au sens de la
convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités (voir art. 2, par. l), à
laquelle le Nigéria estpartie depuis 1969 et le Cameroun depuis 1991, et
qui en tout état de cause reflète le droit international coutumier à cet
égard.
264. La Cour ne saurait souscrire a la thèse selon laquelle la déclara-
tion de Maroua ne serait pas valide au regard du droit international du
fait qu'elle a été signépar le chef d7Etat du Nigéria alors en fonction,
mais qu'elle n'a jamais étératifiée. En effet, même si,dans la pratique
internationale, les dispositions relatives aux modalités d'entréeen vigueur
d'un traité prévoient souvent une procédure en deux étapes consistant à
signer puis à ratifier l'instrument, il est également descas dans lesquels un
traité entre en vigueur dès sa signature. Le droit international coutumier
aussi bien que la convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités laissent les
Etats entièrement libres d'adopter la procédure de leur choix. Or, selon la
déclaration de Maroua, «les deux chefs d'Etat du Nigéria et du Came-
roun se sont mis d'accord pour prolonger le tracé dela frontière maritimetime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria lies to the west of the
Bakassi Peninsula ancl not to the east, in the Rio del Rey. It also follows
from these findings that the maritime boundary l~etweenthe Parties is
"anchored" to the mainland at the intersection of the straight line from
Bakassi Point to King Point with the centre of the navigable channel of
the Akwayafe River in accordance with Articles XVIII and XXI of the
said Anglo-German Agreement.
262. It is apparent from the documents provided to the Court by the
Parties that, irrespective of what may have been the intentions of its
original signatories,tlheYaoundé II Declaration wirscalled into question
on a number of occasions by Nigeria subsequently to its signature and to
the Joint Boundary Commission meeting of June 1971, in particular at a
Commission meeting of May 1972, and again at a meeting of the two
Heads of State at Garoua in August 1972, where the Head of State of
Nigeria, described it as "unacceptable". Moreover, the Head of State of
Nigeria subsequently confirmed his position in the Ietter of 23 August
1974 to his Cameroonian counterpart (see paragraph 258 above).
However, it is unnecessary to determine the staius of the Declaration
in isolation,since the line described therein is confirmed by the terms of
the Maroua Declaration, which refers in its third paragraph to "Point 12
. ..situated at the enidof the line of the maritime boundary adopted by
the two Heads of Staie on April4, 1971". If the Maroua Declaration rep-
resents an international agreement binding on botli parties, it necessarily
follows that the line contained in the Yaoundé II Declaration, including
the CO-ordinatesas agreed at the June 1971 meeting of the Joint Bound-
ary Commission, is also binding on them.
263. The Court considers that the Maroua Declaration constitutes an
international aeueemicnt concluded between States in written form and
tracing a boundary; it is thus governed by international law and consti-
tutes a treaty in the sense of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Trea-
ties (see Art. 2, para. l), to which Nigeria has been a party since 1969and
Cameroon since 199 1, and which in any case reflects customary interna-
tional law in this respect.
264. The Court cannot accept the argument thal the Maroua Declara-
tion was invalid uncler international law because it was signed by the
Nigerian Head of State of the time but never ratified. Thus while in inter-
national practice a tvvo-step procedure consisting of signature and ratifi-
cation is frequently provided for in provisions regarding entry into force
of a treaty, there are also cases where a treaty eiiters into force imme-
diately upon signature. Both customary internatiorial law and the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties leave it completely up to States which
procedure they want to follow. Under the Maroua Declaration, "the two
Heads of State of C;rmeroon and Nigeria agreed to extend the delinea-
tion of the maritime boundary between the two countries from Point 12
to Point G on the Admiralty Chart No. 3433 annexed to this Declara-430 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
entre les deux pays du point 12 au point G sur la carte marine no3433
annexée à la présentedéclaration)).De l'avisde la Cour, cette déclaration
entrait en vigueur immédiatement à la date de sa signature.
265. La Cour examinera à présentl'argumentation du Nigéria tiréede
la méconnaissance desrèglesconstitutionnelles de ce pays relatives à la
conclusion des traités. cet égardelle rappellera que le paragraphe 1de
I'article46 de la convention de Vienne sur le droit des traitésdispose que
«[l]e fait que le consentement d'un Etat à êtreliépar un traité a été
exprimé en violationd'une disposition de son droit interne concernant la
compétencepour conclure des traitésne peut être invoquépar cet Etat
comme viciant son conse~ltement)).Certes, ce paragraphe préciseensuite
qu'il en est ainsi«à moins que cette violation n'ait étémanifeste et ne
concerne une règlede son droit interne d'importance fondamentale)), le
paragraphe suivant disposant quant à lui qu'«[u]ne violation est mani-
feste si elleest objectivement évidentepour tout Etat secomportant en la
matière conformément à la pratique habituelle et de bonne foi». Les
règlesrelatives au pouvoir de signer des traitésau nom d'un Etat sont des
règlesconstitutionnelles d'une importance fondamentale. Cependant, si
la capacité d'un chef d'Etat à cet égard est restreinte, cette restriction
n'est manifeste au sens du paragraphe 2 de I'article 46 que si,à tout le
moins, ellea été rendue publique demanière appropriée.Cela est d'autant
plus nécessaireque les chefs d'Etat font partie des personnes qui, aux
termes du paragraphe 2 de l'article 7, sont considéréescomme représen-
tant leur Etat «[e]n vertu de leurs fonctions et sans avoià produire de
pleins pouvoirs».
La Cour ne peut souscrire à l'argument du Nigéria selonlequel le para-
graphe 2 de I'article de la convention de Vienne sur le droit des traités
vise uniquement la manière d'établirla fonction d'une personne en qua-
litéde représentant d'un Etat, et non l'étenduede sespouvoirs lorsqu'elle
exerce cette fonction de représentation. La Cour relèveque, dans son
commentaire sur ce paragraphe 2, la Commission du droit international
indique expressément que «les chefs d'Etat .. sont considéréscomme
habiles à représenterleur Etat pour accomplir tous les actes relatifà la
conclusion d'un traité» (paragraphe 4 du commentaire sur ce qui était
alors I'article du texte préliminaire de la convention, Annuaire de la
Commission du droit international1966,vol. II, p. 210).
266. Le Nigéria affirmeen outre que le Cameroun savait ou aurait dû
savoir que le chef d'Etat du Nigéria n'avaitpas le pouvoir d'engager juri-
diquement le Nigériasans en référerau Gouvernement nigérian.La Cour
relèveà ce propos qu'un Etat n'est pas juridiquement tenu de s'informer
des mesures d'ordre législatifou constitutionnel que prennent d'autres
Etats et qui sont, ou peuvent devenir, importantes pour les relations
internationales de ces derniers.
Au cas particulier, le chef d'Etat du Nigéria avait indiqué, en août
1974,dans sa lettre au chef d'Etat du Cameroun que les avis de la com-
mission mixte devaient «êtresoumis àl'approbation des deux gouverne-
ments)). Toutefois, au paragraphe suivant de cette mêmelettre, il ajou-tion". In the Court'is view, that Declaration entcred into force imme-
diately upon its signature.
265. The Court will now address Nigeria's argument that its constitu-
tional rules regarding the conclusion of treaties were not complied with.
In this regard the Court recalls that Article 46. paragraph 1, of the
Vienna Convention provides that "[a] State may not invoke the fact that
its consent to be bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a
provision of its interrial law regarding competence to conclude treaties as
invalidating its consent". It is true that the paragraph goes on to say
"unless that violation was manifest and concerneci a rule of its interna1
law of fundamental importance", while paragraph 2 of Article 46 pro-
vides that "[a] violation is manifest if it would be objectively evident to
any State conducting itself in the matter in accordance with normal prac-
tice and in good faith". The rules concerning the authority to sign treaties
for a State are constirutionalrules of fundamental importance. However,
a limitation of a Head of State's capacity in this respect is notanifest in
the sense of Article 46, paragraph 2, unless at least properly publicized.
This is particularly sobecause Heads of State belong to the group of per-
sons who, in accordamcewith Article 7, paragrapli 2, of the Convention
"[iln virtue of their f~inctionsand without having to produce full powers"
are considered as representing their State.
The Court cannot accept Nigeria's argument that Article 7, para-
graph 2, of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties is solely con-
cerned with the way in which a person's function as a state's representa-
tive is established, but does not deal with the extent of that person's
powers when exercising that representative funclion. The Court notes
that the commentary of the International Law Commission on Article 7,
paragraph 2, expressly States that "Heads of State . .. are considered as
representing their State for the purpose of perforniing al1acts relating to
the conclusion of a treaty" (ILC Commentary, Ait. 6 (of what was then
the draft Conventioni), para. 4, Yearbook of the Irtternationul Law Com-
mission, 1966,Vol. II, p. 193).
266. Nigeria furthier argues that Cameroon kriew, or ought to have
known, that the Heald of State of Nigeria had no power legally to bind
Nigeria withoiit consulting the Nigerian Governrrient. In this regard the
Court notes that there is no general legal obligation for States to keep
themselves informed of legislative and constitutonal developments in
other States which are or may become important for the international
relations of these States.
In this case the Head of State of Nigeria had in August 1974stated in
his letter to the Head of State of Cameroon that the views of the Joint
Commission "must be subject to the agreemeni of the two Govern-
ments". However, in the following paragraph of that same letter, hetait: «j7aitoujours étéconvaincu que nous pourrions réexaminertous les
deux ensemble la situation et parvenirà une décisionjudicieuse et accep-
table en l'espèce».Contrairement à ce que soutient le Nigéria, laCour
estime que ces deux phrases, prises conjointement, ne peuvent être inter-
prétéescomme un avertissement précisindiquant au Cameroun que le
Gouvernement nigérian ne seraitliépar aucun engagement pris par son
chef d'Etat. Ces phrases ne sauraient notamment être interprétéescomme
se rapportant à un quelconque engagement devant êtrepris à Maroua
neuf mois plus tard. En réalité, lalettre en question concernait une réu-
nion qui devait se tenir Kano, au Nigéria,du 30 août au le' septembre
1974.Cette lettre est semble-t-ilcaractéristique dela façon dont se dérou-
lèrent, de 1970 à 1975, les négociations entre les Parties relativàs la
frontière, négociations au cours desquelles les deux chefsd'Etat prirent
l'initiative de résoudreles difficultéspar le biais d'accords personnels, tels
que ceux de Yaoundé II et de Maroua.
267. La Cour observe en outre qu'en juillet 1975les deux Parties ont
apportéun corrigendum a la déclaration deMaroua, qu'en procédant de
la sorte elles ont considéré cettedéclaration comme valide et applicable,
et que le Nigéria neprétend pas en avoir contesté la validitéou l'appli-
cabilitéavant 1977.
268. Dans ces circonstances, la déclaration de Maroua aussi bien que
la déclaration deYaoundé II doivent êtreconsidéréescomme des instru-
ments contraignants qui imposent une obligation juridique au Nigéria.
Point n'est donc besoin pour la Cour d'examiner l'argument du Nigéria
relatifà la pratique pétrolièredans le secteur situéen deçà du point G
(voir paragraphe 256 ci-dessus). La délimitation maritime entre le Came-
roun et le Nigériadoit êtreainsi considéréecomme ayant étéétablie sur
une base conventionnelle, jusqu'au point G inclus, par l'accord anglo-
allemand du 11mars 1913,la déclaration deYaoundé II du 4 avril 1971
et la déclaration de Maroua du 1"'juin 1975,et suit le tracé ci-aprèsà
partir de la ligne droite joignant Bakassi Point et King Point, la frontière
suit la«ligne de compromis »reportée conjointement par les chefs d'Etat
du Cameroun et du Nigériale 4 avril 1971sur la carte no3433 de l'Ami-
rauté britannique jointe à la déclaration de Yaoundé II, ligne joignant
douze points numérotés,dont les coordonnées précisesfurent détermi-
néespar la commission mixte réunissant les deux pays à Lagos en juin
1971 ; àpartir du point 12de cette ligne de compromis, le tracéde la fron-
tière court jusqu'au point G précisédans la déclaration de Maroua du
1" juin 1975,tel que modifiépar l'échangede lettres entre leschefs d7Etat
du Cameroun et du Nigéria des12juin et 17juillet 1975.
269. La Cour examinera maintenant la frontière maritime au-delà du
point G, point à partir duquel aucune délimitation de frontière maritime
n'a fait l'objet d'un accord. Le Cameroun indique qu'il s'agitd'un pro-
blème classiquede délimitation maritime entre Etats dont les côtes sontfurther indicated: "It has always been my beliefthat we can, both, together
re-examine the situation and reach an appropriate and acceptable deci-
sion on the matter." Contrary to Nigeria's contention, the Court con-
siders that these two statements, read together, cannot be regarded as
a specificwarning to Cameroon that the Nigerian Government would riot
be bound by any cornmitment entered into by the Head of State. And in
particular they could not be understood as relatiiig to any commitment
to be made at Maroua nine months later. The letter in question in fact
concerned a meeting to be held at Kano, Nigeria, from 30 August to
1September 1974.This letter seems to have been part of a pattern which
marked the Parties' boundary negotiations between 1970 and 1975, in
which the two Heads of State took the initiative of resolving difficulties in
those negotiations through person-to-person agreements, including those
at Yaoundé II and Maroua.
267. The Court further observes that in July 1975 the two Parties
inserted a correction in the Maroua Declaration, that in so acting they
treated the Declarati'onas valid and applicable, and that Nigeria does not
claim to have contested its validity or applicability prior to 1977.
268. In these circumstances the Maroua Decl;iration, as well as the
Yaoundé II Declarai:ion, have to be considered as binding and as estab-
lishing a legal obligation on Nigeria. It follows that it is unnecessary for
the Court to address Nigeria's argument regarding the oil practice in the
sector up to point G (see paragraph 256 above). Thus the maritime
boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria up to and including point G
must be considered 1.0have been established on a conventional basis by
the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913, the Yaoundé II Dec-
laration of 4 April 1971and the Maroua Declaration of 1June 1975,and
takes the following course: starting from the straight linejoining Bakassi
Point and King Point, the line follows the "coinpromise line" jointly
drawn at Yaoundé cm4 April 1971 by the Heads of State of Cameroon
and Nigeria on British Admiralty Chart 3433 appeilded to the YaoundéII
Declaration of 4 April 1971, and passing througli 12 numbered points,
whose precise co-ordinates were determined by tlie two countries' Joint
Commission meeting in Lagos in June 1971 ;from point 12on that com-
promise line the course of the boundary follows the line to pointG speci-
fied in the Maroua Declaration of 1 June 197!i, as corrected by the
exchange of letters between the Heads of State of Cameroon and Nigeria
of 12 June and 17 July 1975.
269. The Court will now address the maritime boundary beyond
point G, where no maritime boundary delimitation has been agreed.
Cameroon states that this is a classic case of maritime delimitation
between States with adjacent coasts which have been unable to reach FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
432
adjacentes et qui n'ont pu s'accorder sur le tracé dela limite entre leurs
zones économiquesexclusives et leurs plateaux continentaux respectifs,
mêmesi les circonstances spécialesde la situation géographique sont ici
particulièrement marquéeset si la Cour doit également tenircompte des
intérêtsd'Etats tiers.
270. En ce qui concerne l'opération de délimitation,le Cameroun sou-
tient que le droit de la délimitation des frontières maritimes est dominé
par le principe fondamental selon lequel toute délimitationdoit aboutir à
une solution équitable. A l'appui de cette affirmation, le Cameroun in-
voque le paragraphe 1 des articles 74 et 83 de la convention de 1982sur le
droit de la mer ainsi qu'un certain nombre de décisionsde la Cour ou de
tribunaux arbitraux. Il cite notamment les précédents des affaires duPla-
teau continental de la mer du Nord (C.1.J. Recueil 1969, p. 4), qui ont
selon lui retenu l'équité entant que notion juridique applicable. Il cite
aussi, entre autres, l'arrêt dela Cour en l'affaire de lalimitation mari-
time dans la régionsituéeentre le Groenland et Jan Mayen (Danemark c.
Norvège) (C.I.J. Recueil 1993, p. 62, par. 54), dans lequel celle-cia indi-
qué que «[l]e but, dans toute situation, quelle qu'elle soit, doit être
d'aboutir à «un résultatéquitable»», ainsi qu'un dictum de portée simi-
laire du tribunal arbitral en l'affaire relativeaDélimitation du plateau
continental entre le Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'lrlande du
Nord et la Républiquefrançaise (RSA, vol. XVIII, p. 188, par. 97). Le
Cameroun fait égalementétat delajurisprudence plus récentede la Cour
sur cette question, en l'affaire de laDélimitation maritime et des ques-
tions territoriales entre Qatar et Bahrein (Qatar c. Bahreïn),et rappelle
notamment que la Cour a déclaré qu'ic lonvenait de (([tracer]d'abord, à
titre provisoire, une ligne d'équidistance [pour examiner] ensuite s'il
existe des circonstances devant conduire à ajuster cette ligne». Le Came-
roun ajoute toutefois qu'il ne pense pas que, ce faisant, la Cour ait
entendu remettre en cause sa propre jurisprudence qui établit que ((le
principe fondamental ...l'objectif essentiel,le seul objectif, est de parvenir
à une solution équitable)).
271. Le Cameroun en conclut donc qu'il n'existe pas de méthode
unique en matière de délimitation maritime; le choix de toute méthode
en ce domaine doit tenir compte des circonstances propres à chaque
affaire.A l'appui de cette affirmation, il cite notamment le dictum de la
Chambre en l'affaire de la Délimitation de lafrontière maritime dans la
régiondu golfe du Maine, selon lequel:
«les critèresles plus appropriés,et la méthodeou la combinaison de
méthodesla plus apte à assurer un résultat conformeaux indications
donnéespar le droit, ne peuvent le plus souvent êtredéterminésque
par rapport au cas d'espèce etaux caractéristiques spécifiques qu'il
présente))(C.I.J. Recueil 1984, p. 290, par. 81).
Le Cameroun insiste sur le fait que le principe de l'équidistancen'est pas
un principe de droit coutumier s'imposant automatiquement dans toute
délimitationde la frontière maritime entre Etats dont les côtes sont adja- LAND .4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 432
agreement on the lin<:to be drawn between their respective exclusiveeco-
nomic zones and continental shelves, although in this case the special cir-
cumstances of the geographical situation are pai,ticularly marked, and
the Court is also required to take account of the iiiterests of third States.
270. As regards the exerciseof delimitation, Caineroon argues that the
law on the delimitation of maritime boundaries is dominated by the
fundamental principle that any delimitation must lead to an equitable
solution. In support lofthis contention, it cites paragraph 1of Articles 74
and 83 of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention and a number of decisions
of this Court or of arbitral tribunals. In particular, it cites the North Sea
Continental Slzelf cases (I.C.J. Reports 1969, p 4), which, it claims,
adopted equity as the applicable legal concept. It also quotes, inter alia,
the Court's dictum in the case concerning Maritime Delimitation in the
Area betiveen Greenr'andand Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway) (I.C.J.
Reports 1993, p. 62, para. 54), where it is stated ihat "[tlhe aim in each
and every situation must be to achieve 'an equitable result'", as well as a
dictum of the Court of Arbitration to similar effect in the case concerning
Delimitatiorz of tlze Continental Shelf (United KingdomlFrance) (RIAA,
Vol. XVIII, p. 57, para. 97). Cameroon also refers to the Court's most
recentjurisprudence in the matter in the case conceining Maritime Delimi-
tation and Territorial Questions between Qatar und Bahrain (Qatar v.
Bahrain), and in particular the Court's statemer~tthat it should "first
provisionally draw an equidistance line and then consider whether there
are circumstances which must lead to an adjustnient of that line". But
Cameroon adds that it does not believe that the Court intended thereby
to cal1into question its own previous jurisprudence establishing that "the
fundamental principle . . the essential purpose, the sole purpose, is to
arrive at an equitabli: solution".
271. Cameroon accordingly concludes that there is no single method
of maritime delimitation; the choice of method depends on the circum-
stances specific to each case. In support of this contention, it cites inter
alia the dictum of the Chamber in the caseconcerning Delimitation of the
Maritime Boundary in the Gulfof Maine Area that
"the most appropriate criteria, and the method or combination of
methods most likely to yield a result consonant with what the law
indicates, can orily be determined in relation to each particular case
and its specificcharacteristics"1.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 290,para. 81).
Cameroon insists on the fact that the equidistance principle is not a prin-
ciple of customary law that is automatically applicable in every maritime
boundary delimitation between States whose coasts are adjacent, observ-433 FRONTIERE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
centes, en faisant observer que, si une ligne était tracée en appliquant
strictement l'équidistance, la zone économique exclusive et le plateau
continental auxquels il pourrait prétendre seraient quasiment inexis-
tants, en dépitdu fait que sa côte pertinente est plus longue que celle du
Nigéria.
272. Rappelant la jurisprudence de la Cour et l'approche suivie par le
tribunal arbitral en l'affaire de la Délimitation de la ,frontière maritime
entre lu Guinéeet la Guinée-Bissau(RSA, vol. XIX, p. 149),le Cameroun
affirme que, en raison de la géographie particulière du golfe de Guinée, il
est nécessaire de déterminer la zone pertinente dans laquelle sera entre-
prise la délimitation elle-même. Selon lui, cette zone pertinente peut
englober les côtes d'Etats tiers, et est en l'espèceforméepar la partie du
golfe de Guinée qui est circonscrite par une ligne droite allant d'Akasso,
au Nigéria, au cap Lopez, au Gabon. Le Cameroun a présentéau Nigéria
et à la Cour ce qu'il appelle une ligne équitable, tracéedans cette zone a
partir de «lignes de projection)) reliant des points sur «les côtes perti-
nentes)), dont un certain nombre sont en fait situésdans des pays tiers. Le
Cameroun, qui affirme que cette ligne constitue une ligne d'équidistance
ajustée enfonction des circonstances pertinentes de façon à produire une
solution équitable, insiste sur le fait qu'il ne vise aucunement à «refaire la
géographie)). Il précisequ'une ligne unique de délimitation de la frontière
maritime s'impose en l'espèce et que le Nigéria y a consenti. Selon le
Cameroun, les circonstances pertinentes en l'espècesont les suivantes: la
situation d'ensemble dans le golfe de Guinée, où il existe un chevauche-
ment entre les plateaux continentaux respectifs du Cameroun, du Nigéria
et de la Guinée équatoriale, ce qui interdit à ces trois pays de prétendre,
dans le prolongement naturel du territoire terrestre des autres, à des
droits exclusifs sur le plateau continental; le droit légitimedu Cameroun
à un plateau continental correspondant à la projection frontale de ses
côtes; la configuration générale des côtescamerounaises et nigérianes,en
particulier la concavité de celles du Cameroun - qui a pour conséquence
«d'enclaver» quasiment ce pays, - ainsi que l'infléchissementde la côte
nigériane à partir d'Akasso; la disparité des longueurs de côtes concer-
nées;la présence del'îlede Bioko face à la côte du Cameroun. Pour cha-
cune de ces circonstances, le Cameroun cite des précédentsqui, selon lui,
militent en faveur de la ligne de délimitation qu'il propose.
273. Concernant les auatre ~remières circonstances ainsi énumérées.
le Cameroun invoque en particulier les affaires du Plateau continental
de la mer du Nord (C. I.J. Recueil 1969, p. 4), de la Délimitationde lajron-
fière maritime duns lu régiondu golfe du Maine (C.I.J. Recueil 1984,
p. 246), du Plateau continental (Tuni.sielJama11iriya arabe libyenne)
(C.I.J. Recueil 1982, p. 18)et de la Délirî~itationrnaritirneduns la région
située entre le Groenland et Jan Mayen (Danernurk c. Norvège) (C.I.J.
Recueil 1993, p. 38), ainsi que la sentence arbitrale rendue en l'affaire de
la Délimitation de la jrontikre maritime entre la Guinéeet la Guinée-
Bissau (RSA, vol. XIX, p. 149). Le Cameroun affirme que dans toutes ces
affaires les juges ont été amenésa , u vu des circonstances, à ajuster la LAND ,\ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUT~GMENT) 433
ing that, if a strict equidistance line were drawn, it would be entitled to
practically no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf, despite the
fact that it has a longer relevant coastlinethan Nigeria.
272. Citing the Court's case law and the approach adopted by the
Arbitral Tribunal in the case concerning the Delilnitution of the Guinea
und Guinea-Bissau Maritime Boundary (International Legal Materials
JILM), Vol. 25 (1986), p. 252), Cameroon contends that, because of the
particular geography of the Gulf of Guinea, it is necessary to determine
the relevant area witliin which the delimitation itself is to be undertaken,
and that such an area may include the coastlines of third States. Accord-
ing to Cameroon, the relevant area in the present case consists of that part
of the Gulf of Guineir bounded by a straight line rilnning from Akasso in
Nigeria to Cap Lapez in Gabon. Within that area, Cameroon has pre-
sented to Nigeria and to the Court what it calls m equitable line, sub-
tended by "projection lines" connecting points on the "relevant coasts", a
number of which are in fact situated in third States It claims that this line
represents an equidistance line adjusted to take account of the relevant
circumstances so as to produce an equitable solution, and insists that this
is not an attempt to "refashion geography". It add:; that a single delimita-
tion line of the maritime boundary is appropriatt: in this case and that
Nigeria has acceptecl that this is so. The relevarit circumstances to be
taken into account according to Cameroon are the following: the overall
situation in the Gulf of Guinea, where the contiriental shelves of Cam-
eroon, Nigeria and Elquatorial Guinea overlap, so that none of the three
countries can lay clairn, within the natural extension of the land territory
of the other, to exclusive rights over the continerital shelf; Cameroon's
legal right to a continental shelf representing the frontal projection of its
coasts; the general cclnfiguration of Cameroon's and Nigeria's coasts, and
in particular the concavity of Cameroon's coastline, which creates a vir-
tua1 "enclavement" of Cameroon, and the change in direction of Nigeria's
coast from Akasso; the relative lengths of the coastlines involved; the
presence of Bioko Island opposite the coast of Cameroon. In relation
to each of these circ:umstances, Cameroon cites -urisprudence which is
claimed to support the delimitation line which it proposes.
273. As regards the first four of the above circumstances, Cameroon
relies in particular csn the North Seu Continenlul Slîelf cases (1.C.J.
Reports 1969, p. 4),the case concerning Delimitation of the Maritime
Boundary in the Gulf'of Maine Area (I.C.J. Rept~rts1984, p. 246). the
case concerning the Continental Shelf(Tunisia1Lil-tyan Arah Jumuhiriyu)
(I.C.J. Reports 1982, p. 18), the case concerning Maritime Delimitation
in the Areu hetween Greenland and Jan Mayen (Denmark v. Norwuy)
(I.C.J. Reports 1993. p. 38) and the Arbitral Award in the case concern-
ing the Delimitation of the Guinea and Guinea-Bi~sauMaritime Bound-
ary (ILM, Vol. 25 (1!)86),p. 252). It contends that in al1of these cases the
circumstances in question led the court or tribunal in question to makeligne d'équidistance de façon à obtenir un résultat équitable; dans cer-
tains cas, cet ajustement était considérable, consistant par exemple à
«déplacer» véritablement la ligne, comme dans l'affaire Jan Mayen
(C.I.J. Recueil1993, p. 79, par. 90), ou, comme dans les affaires du Pla-
teau continental de la mer du Nord,à augmenter d'environ 37,5% la zone
de plateau continental qui aurait étattribuée à l'Allemagnesi leprincipe
de l'équidistance seulavait été appliquéE. nfin, le Cameroun rappelle la
solution adoptéepar le tribunal arbitral en l'affaire de laimitationdes
espaces maritimes entre le Canada et la Républiquefrançaise (Saint-
Pierre-et-Miquelon) (RSA, vol. XXI, p. 267) en vuede supprimer l'encla-
vement de Saint-Pierre et de lui donner un accèséquitableet continu vers
le plateau continental.
274. En ce qui concerne la cinquième circonstance, à savoir la présence
face au Cameroun de l'îlede Bioko, qui fait partie de la Républiquede
Guinée équatoriale,mais qui est plus proche de la côte du Cameroun que
de celle de la Guinée équatoriale,le Cameroun établitune analogie avec
l'affaire de la Délimitation du plateau continental (Royaume-Uni c.
France) (RSA, vol. XVIII, p. 130), dans laquelle le tribunal arbitral
refusa d'attribuer aux îles Anglo-Normandes le plein effet demandé par
la Grande-Bretagne et décidade les considérer comme une enclave inté-
gralement situéesur le plateau continental français.
Le Cameroun affirme également, développant une argumentation a
contrario du raisonnement suivi par la Cour dans l'affaire du Plateau
continental (Jamahiriya arabe 1ibyenneIMalte) (C. 1J. Recueil 1985,
p. 42, par. 53), que «le régimede délimitationn'est pas identique pour un
Etat insulaire et pour une île dépendante, isolée,relevant de la souverai-
netéd'un Etat)). Affirmant qu'un plein effet ne devrait pas nécessaire-
ment êtreattribué à Bioko, le Cameroun souligne que ce qui est à éviter
à tout prix, c'est «une amputation radicale et absolue de la projection de
sa façade côtière)).A cet égard, il cite un dictum du tribunal arbitral en
l'affaire de laDélimitation des espaces maritimes entre le Canada et la
France (Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon), selon lequel «la délimitation doit
laisserà un Etat les espaces qui constituent le prolongement naturel ou
l'extension versle large de sescôtes, de telle sorte que la délimitationdoit
évitertout effet d'amputation de ces prolongements ou extensions vers le
large)) (RSA, vol. XXI, p. 287, par. 58).
275. Sur la base de ces arguments, le Cameroun, dans ses conclusions
finales, demande à la Cour de délimitercomme suit les zones maritimes
relevant respectivement du Cameroun et du Nigéria au-delà du point G:
«- du point G, la ligne équitablesuit la direction indiquéepar les
points G, H (de coordonnées 8"21'16" est et 4' 17' nord), 1
(7"55'40" est et 3'46' nord), J (7" 12'8"est et 3' 12'35" nord),
K (6'45'22" est et 3'1'5" nord), et se poursuit à partir de K
jusqu'à la limite extérieure des zones maritimes que le droit
international place sous la juridiction respective des deux
Parties)).an adjustment of thleequidistance line in order to achieve an equitable
result - in some cases a very substantial one, amounting, as for example
in the Jan Mayen case, to an actual "shifting" of the line (1. C.J. Reports
1993, p. 79, para. 90), and, in the North Sea Continental Shelfcases, to
an increase of some 37.5 per cent in the area of continental shelf which
equidistance alone accorded to Germany. Cameroon also cites the solu-
tion found by the Arbitral Tribunal in the case ccncerning the Delimita-
tion of Maritime Areas between Canada and the French Republic
(St. Pierre et Miquelon) (ILM, Vol. 31 (1992),p. 1149)in order to over-
come St. Pierre's enclavement and give it uninteriupted equitable access
to the continental shelf.
274. In relation to the fifth circumstance, the presence opposite its
coast of Bioko Island, which is part of Equatorial Guinea, but is closer to
the coast of Cameroon than to that of Equatorial Guinea, Cameroon
draws an analogy with the case concerning the Delimitation of the Con-
tinental Shelf (United KingdomiFrance) (RIAA, Vol. XVIII, p. 3), in
which the Court of Arbitration refused to attiibute to the Channel
Islands the full effect claimed by Great Britain and decided that they
were an enclave lying totally within the French continental shelf.
Cameroon further contends, arguing a contrario from the Court's rea-
soning in the case concerning the Continental Sheif (Libyan Arab Jama-
hiriyulMalta) (1.C.J. Reports 1985, p. 42, para. 53),that "[tlhe delimita-
tion régimeis not identical for an island State and for a dependent,
isolated island falling under the sovereignty of a State". Arguing that
Bioko should not necessarily be given its full effcct, it insists that what
must be avoided at al1costs isa "radical and absolute cut-off of the pro-
jection of [Cameroon's] coastal front". In this regard it cites a dictum
from the Award in the case concerning Delimitation of Maritime Areas
betbveen Canada and the French Republic (St. Pierre et Miquelon), in
which the Arbitral Tribunal stated that "the delimitation must leave to a
Statethe areas that constitutethe natural prolongation or seaward exten-
sion of itscoasts, so that the delimitation must avc~idany cut-off effect of
those prolorigations or seaward extensions" (ILM, Vol. 31(1992),p. 1167,
para. 58).
275. On the basis of these arguments, Cameroon, in its final submis-
sions, asks the Couri. to delimit as follows the maritime areas appertain-
ing respectively to Cameroon and Nigeria beyond point G:
"- from point G the equitable line follows the direction indicated
by points (3, H (CO-ordinates8'21' 16" east and 4" 17" north),
1 (7"55'40"east and 3"46'north), J (7" 12'08"east and 3"12'35"
north), K (6"45'22" east and 3"01'05" north), and continues
from K up to the outer limit of the maritime zones which inter-
national law places under the respective jurisdiction of the two
Parties". 276. Tout en reconnaissant qu'en l'espèceil convient de déterminer
une frontière maritime unique, le Nigéria rejette la lignedu Cameroun,
dont il estime qu'elle a étéconstruite au mépris desrègleset concepts fon-
damentaux du droit international, et qu'il qualifiede fantaisiste. Le Nigé-
ria critique a la fois la construction de cette ligne et son «équité» a la
lumière de la jurisprudence. Selon lui, elle pèche principalement a cinq
égards :la nature mêmede la ligne; les côtes pertinentes utiliséespour sa
construction; le traitement réservéaux îles dans cette construction; la
définition de la zone pertinente pour la délimitation; la méthode suivie
pour la construction de la ligne.
277. Concernant la nature de la ligne proposée par le Cameroun, le
Nigéria affirme qu'il ne s'agitpas d'une ((ligne de délimitation)), mais
d'une ((ligne d'exclusion)). Selon le Nigéria, la lignecamerounaise
((préemptetoute délimitation entre le Nigéria etles deux Etats dont
les côtes font facei ses côtes sans entrave, la Guinée équatorialeet
Sao Tomé-et-Principe, dans des zones qui sont en chaque point plus
proches, et plus intimement liéesaux côtes de ces trois Etats qu'aux
côtes camerounaises D.
C'est en ce sens que le Nigéria considèreque la ligneest une ligne d'exclu-
sion, de ce fait incompatible avec le droit international.
278. Concernant les côtes pertinentes, le Nigéria rappelle que, aux
termes des articles 15,74 et 83 de la convention de 1982sur le droit de la
mer, les côtes à prendre en considération dans la construction d'une ligne
de délimitation maritime doivent être((adjacentes))ou «se faire face)).En
outre, elles doivent appartenir aux parties concernées, et non a un Etat
tiers. A cet égard,le Nigériaconsidèreque sa côte pertinente est celle qui,
de la frontière entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria, part en direction de
l'ouest jusqu'à Akasso (où elle s'infléchit versle nord-ouest, tournant le
dos au golfe de Guinée), tandis que la côte camerounaise à prendre en
considération est celle qui,a partir de la frontière entre les deux Etats, se
dirige vers l'est puis vers le sud,jusqu'au cap Debundsha, où commence
l'effet d'obstruction de l'île de Bioko. Le Nigéria estime enoutre que la
ligne du Cameroun ne tient pas suffisamment compte du critère de pro-
portionnalité; il affirme en effet que la disproportion est en faveur du
Nigériapar un facteur allant de 1/1,3 à 1/3,2 selon les points utilisés.
279. Concernant le traitement réservéaux îles, le Nigéria commence
par rappeler que la Cour, en 1969,a déclaré qu'il n'était ((jamais question
de refaire la nature)(Pluteau continental de lamer du Nord, C.1. J. Recueil
1969, p. 49, par. 91).
Or, selon le Nigéria, la ligne camerounaise cherche a refaire radicale-
ment la géographie physique du golfe de Guinée, en éliminant I'impor-
tant chapelet d'îles qui le partage presque en son milieu du nord au sud.
En outre, cette ligne ignore totalement l'existencede Bioko, une île pour-
tant importante par sa surface et sa population, et qui abrite la capitale
de la République de Guinée équatoriale.En tout état de cause, aux yeux
du Nigéria, Bioko ne peut tout simplement pas êtreconsidéréecomme LAND 4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUI~GMENT) 435
276. Nigeria agrees that it is appropriate in the present case to deter-
mine a single maritime boundary, but it rejects Cameroon's line. It
describes it as fanciful and constructed in defiance of the basic concepts
and rules of international law. It criticizes both the line's construction
and the "equitableness" of the result in light of'the jurisprudence. It
directs its criticism of the construction essentially to five points: the
actual nature of the Iline;the relevant coasts used in its construction; the
treatment of the islands in this construction; the definition of the area
relevant to the delimitation; the method followed in the construction of
the line.
277. In relation to the nature of the line proposed by Cameroon,
Nigeria contends tha.t this is not a "delimitation line" but an "exclusion
line". The Camerooriian line is claimed to
"pre-empt any delimitation between Nigeri.3 and the two States
whose coasts fa~reits own with no intervening obstacle, i.e., Equa-
torial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe, in areas that at each
point are nearer to and more closely connected with the coasts of
these three States than with the Camerooniari coastline".
In that sense it is claiimedto be an exclusion line and hence incom~atible
with international law.
278. As regards relevant coasts, Nigeria, citing Articles 15, 74 and 83
of the 1982Convention on the Law of the Sea, points out that the coasts
to be taken into account in the construction of a maritime delimitation
line must be "adjacent" or "opposite". Moreover, they must be coasts of
the parties, and not i.hoseof a third State. In this regard Nigeria consid-
ers that the relevant coast of Nigeria is that running Westfrom its bound-
ary with Cameroon as far as Akasso (where it changes direction north-
westwards, turning its back on the Gulf of Guinea). and that of Cameroon
is the coast running east from the boundary between the two States and
then south, as far as Debundsha Point, which marks the beginning of the
blocking effect of Bioko Island. Moreover, according to Nigeria, Cam-
eroon's line fails to lake due account of the critei.ion of proportionality
which, Nigeria claims, is in its own favour by a factor of between 1 :1.3
and 1:3.2, depending on the precise points used.
279. As to the treatment of the islands, Nigeria begins by recalling
the dictum of the Court in 1969that "[tlhere can never be any question
of completely refashiioning nature" (North Sea Continental Shelj; 1.C. J.
Reports 1969, p. 49, para. 91).
Nigeria contends that the Cameroonian line seeks radically to re-
fashion the physical geography of the Gulf of Guinea by eliminating the
important string of islands which cuts it into two almost centrally from
top to bottom. Moreover, the existence of Bioko, an island substantial in
area and population and the seat of the capital of the Republic of Equa-
torial Guinea, is toi.ally ignored. In any event, according to Nigeria,
Bioko cannot simply be treated as a relevant circumstance; it is a majorune circonstance pertinente; elle constitue une partie importante d'un
Etat indépendant, dotée deses propres zones maritimes, sur lesquelles la
Cour n'est pas en droit d'empiéter.Et il en va de même,de l'avisduNigé-
ria, pour l'archipel de Sao Tomé-et-Principe,situé plusau sud.
Le Nigéria affirmeque la «ligne équitable))du Cameroun ne donne
aucun effet al'une quelconque de ces îles,car ellene tient compte que des
côtes continentales, en ignorant de surcroît l'impact de la présencede
Bioko sur ces côtes (voir paragraphe 278 ci-dessus). Le Nigéria souligne
que l'approche du Cameroun ne saurait prévaloir en droit, et cite à
l'appui de sa position la convention de 1982sur le droit de la mer ainsi
que lajurisprudence pertinente, en particulier le paragraphe 185de l'arrêt
récemmentrendu par la Cour dans l'affaire de la Délimitation maritime
et des questions territoriales entre Qatar et Balzreïn (Qatar c. Bahrein).
Le Nigériaadmet que l'on puisse à l'occasion n'attribuer qu'un effet par-
tiela des îles, comme ce fut le cas des îles Kerkennah dans l'affaire du
Pluteau continental (TunisielJamahiriya arabe libyenne) (C.I. J. Recueil
1982, p. 88-89, par. 128-129).Il constate égalementque l'on peut parfois
adopter la solution de l'enclave,comme ce fut le cas pour les îles Anglo-
Normandes dans l'affaire de la D&limitationdu pluteau continental entre
le Royaume-Uni de Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord et la Rtpu-
blique française (RSA, vol. XVIII, p. 130). Le Nigéria fait toutefois
observer que, dans ces deux exemples, il s'agissait d'îlesappartenant à
l'une des partiesà la délimitation, alors qu'elles appartiennent icà des
Etats tiers et qu'en conséquence leurs effetsne peuvent êtremodérés,
à moins qu'une autre circonstance pertinente ou spécialene lejustifie.
280. Concernant les troisièmeet quatrième points, c'est-à-dire ladéfi-
nition de la zone pertinente et la méthode de construction de la ligne, le
Nigériaconteste le concept mêmede ce que le Cameroun appelle ((l'aire
totale pertinente)), soulignant que la seulezone pertinente est cellequi est
circonscrite par les «côtes pertinentes)) (voir paragraphe 278 ci-dessus).
Le Nigéria affirme qu'en réalité le Cameroun cherche iitransformer un
golfe avec cinq Etats riverains en un golfe bordé dedeux pays seulement:
le Nigériaet lui-même.D'après le Nigéria,le Cameroun essaie de com-
penser l'injustice de la nature près de sa côte en s'appropriant de vastes
zones plus au large. Le Nigéria fait observerque les zones maritimes des
Etats sont simplement complémentaires du territoire terrestre, qu'elles
constituent la projection et le prolongement en mer des côtes qui les gé-
nèrent, et qu'elles doivent de ce fait être contiguëset ((intimementées))
à ces côtes. Il estime que ce serait bafouer ces principes que de construire
une ligne qui seraià l'origined'une zone se rétrécissant près des côtes qui
la génèrentmais s'élargissantensuite à mesure qu'elle s'éloignede ces
côtes, et se décalerait de son axe pour se situer dans une trajectoire plus
proche et plus directement liée à d'autres côtes. Pour le Nigéria,on ne
saurait pallier leslimitations dont souffrent leszones maritimes d'un Etat
près descôtes en attribuant à ce dernier des espaces au large.
Le Nigéria fait valoir qu'il ne saurait lui incomber de concéder au
Cameroun dans le secteur nord-ouest une compensation pour les éven- LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JULIGMENT) 436
part of an independent State, possessing its oun maritime areas, on
which the Court is inot entitled to encroach. And the same is true, in
Nigeria's view, further south, in regard to the archipelago of Sao Tome
and Principe.
Nigeria contends that Cameroon's "equitable line" allows none of
these islands any effect at all, taking account only of the mainland coasts,
while, moreover, ignoring the impact upon the latter of the presence of
Bioko (see paragraph 278 above). Citing the 1982 Convention on the
Law of the Sea and the relevant jurisprudence, in p2rrticularparagraph 185
of the recent Judgment of the Court in the case concerning Maritime
Delitnitatiotz and Territorial Questions betweer, Qatar and Buhrain
(Qatar v. Bahrain), Nigeria insists that Cameroori's approach cannot be
correct in law. Nigeria accepts that the islands m.iy sometimes be given
only partial effect, als occurred in the case conctxning the Continental
Shelf (TunisitrlLiby,an Arab Jamalziriya) regarding the Kerkennah
Islands (1.C J. Reports 1982, pp. 88-89, paras. 128-129).It also notes that
a solution of enclavement may on occasion be adopted, as occurred in
the Arbitral Award in the Delimitation of'the Cotitinental Shelf'(United
KingdomlFrance) (R'IAA, Vol. XVIII, p. 3), in regard to the Channel
Islands. However, Nigeria points out that in both these cases the islands
belonged to one of the parties to the delimitation, whereas here they
belong to third States and hence their effects cannot be moderated, in the
absence of some other relevant or special circumstance justifying this.
280. In relation to the third and fourth points. definition of the rele-
vant areaand methocl of construction of the line, Nigeria queries the very
notion of what Cameroon calls "total relevant area", insisting that the
only relevant area i:;that enclosed by the "relevant coasts" (see para-
graph 278 above). Ii.contends that, in reality, Clmeroon is seeking to
transform a gulf with five riparian States into one with only two: itself
and Nigeria. Effectikely, according to Nigeria, Cameroon seeks to com-
pensate for the injustice of nature close to the coastline by appropriating
extensive areas further out to sea. Nigeria observes that States' maritime
areas are simply adjuncts to the land, representing the seaward projection
and prolongation of the coastline generating them and must accordingly
be adjacent to, and "closely connected with", that coastline. Nigeria con-
tends that it would be contrary to these principles 1.0construct a line pro-
ducing an area which dwindles away close to the tcoastline generating it,
but then expands the further it goes from its coastline, displacing itself
from its axis so as tci take on a course lying closei-to, and more directly
linked with, other coastlines. It argues that the rt:strictions on a State's
maritime areas close to the coast cannot be relievcd by allocating spaces
to it far out to sea.
Nigeria contends that it cannot be responsible for compensating Cam-
eroon in the north-western sector for disadvantages it may possibly suffer437 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
tuels désavantages résultant de sa situation naturelle dans les secteurs
situés à l'est et au sud de Bioko, notamment du fait de la direction de la
côte camerounaise à cet endroit et de l'existence mêmede Bioko. Le
Nigéria affirme égalementque le rejet, par le Cameroun, des critères
d'appartenance, d'équidistanceet de prolongement naturel est incompa-
tible avec les méthodes modernes de délimitation. Il fait remarquer que
les tribunaux internationaux partent généralementd'une ligne d'équidis-
tance, qui est ensuite ajustée de façon à tenir compte d'autres circons-
tances pertinentes. Selon le Nigéria, ces circonstances ne comprennent
pas habituellement les désavantages géographiques: le droit internatio-
nal ne refait pas la situation géographique des Etats. Le Nigériaajoute
que, si la Cour a pu - par le passé- se montrer sensible à certains acci-
dents géographiques susceptibles de produire un effet déformant marqué
lors de la délimitation de zones maritimes. il s'est touiours aui de carac-
téristiques géographiques mineures propres à la situation géographique
intrinsèque des Etats intéressés. En revanche, cettesituation géogra-
phique intrinsèque a toujours ététenue pour acquise et la Cour n'a
jamais décidéd'ignorer la totalitéde la façade maritime d'un Etat ou de
lui reconnaître moins que son plein effet.
281. Concernant le caractère équitable de la ligne du Cameroun, le
Nigériafait valoir qu'il n'entre pas dans les fonctions de la Cour de par-
tager le plateau continental suivant une conception généralede l'équité. Il
soutient que, conformément à la jurisprudence de la Cour, délimiter un
plateau continental consiste a déterminer les limites d'une zone relevant
déjà d'un Etat et non à définir cette zone de novo. Délimiter d'une
manière équitableet attribuer une part juste et équitable d'une zone non
encore délimitéesont deux choses différentes. Après avoir analysé de
manière détailléeles différentes affaires invoquéespar le Cameroun à
l'appui de sa thèse,notamment cellesdu Plateau continental de lu mer du
Nord (C.I.J. Recueil 1969, p. l),du Plateau continental (TunisielJama-
hiriya arabe libyenne) (C.I.J.Recueil 1982, p. 18), ainsi que la sentence
arbitrale en l'affaire de la Délimitation des espaces maritimes entre le
Canada et la République française (Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon) (RSA,
vol. XXI, p. 267), le Nigériaconclut que rien de ce qui fut décidédans ces
affaires ne Deut iustifier aue le Cameroun s'écarte radicalement des
méthodes, règleset principes juridiques de la délimitation maritime pour
privilégier une ligne qui n'estpas tant((équitable))que fantaisiste. Pour le
Nigéria,ces affaires montrent précisémentque l'équitéa des limites: elle
peut justifier que l'on adoucisse les effets ((d'incidents mineurs qui pro-
duiraient des effets disproportionnés si le principe et la méthode de
l'équidistance [étaient]appliqués machinalement)), mais non que l'on
refasse complètement la nature.
282. Le Nigéria soutient en outre que la conduite des Parties en
matière d'octroi et d'exploitation de concessions pétrolièresà l'origine de
lignes de facto, joue un rôle crucial dans l'établissement desfrontières
maritimes. Selon lui, la Cour ne peut, dans la zone à délimiter,redistri-
buer les concessions pétrolièresrésultant dela pratique suivie par leNigé- LAND 4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUL)GMENT) 437
as a result of its natural situation in the sectors to the east and to the
south of Bioko, in particular as a result of the direction of Cameroon's
Coast at that point a~ndof the existence of Bioko itself. Nigeria further
states that Cameroon's rejection of any reliance 011the criteria of appur-
tenance, equidistance and natural prolongation are inconsistent with
modern methods of delimitation. It points out that international tribu-
nals generally start from an equidistance line, which is then adjusted to
take into account other relevant circumstances. According to Nigeria,
such circumstances CIOnot normally include geographical disadvantage:
international law does not refashion the geographical situation of States.
Nigeria adds that, while the Court has in the past been sensitive to some
geographical featureij which might have a significant distorting effect on
the delimitation of maritime areas, these have always been minor geo-
graphical peculiarities specific to the underlying geographical situation of
the States concerned. That underlying geographical situation has, on the
other hand, always been taken as given and the Court has never consid-
ered that a State's maritime front in its entirety coiild be ignored or could
be given anything other than its full effect.
281. As regards the equitable character of Cameroon's line, Nigeria
argues that it is not the function of the Court to delimit the continental
shelf by reference to general considerations of eqility. It maintains that,
according to the Court's jurisprudence, delimiting the continental shelf
involves establishing the boundaries of an area already appertaining to a
State, not determining de novo such an area. Deliniitation in an equitable
manner is not the same thing as awarding a just and equitable share of
a previously undeliniited area. After undertaking a detailed analysis of
various cases relied on by Cameroon, in particular the North Sea Conti-
nental Shelf cases (1'. .J. Reports 1969, p. l), the case concerning the
Continental Shelf (Tuni.siulLibyan Arub Jamahiriya) (1.C.J. Reports
1982, p. 18) and the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal in the case con-
cerning the Delimitlrtion of Maritime Areas between Canada und the
French Republic (St. Pierre et Miquelon) (ILM, \ 01.31 (1992), p. 1149),
Nigeria concludes that nothing done in those cases can justify Cam-
eroon's radical departure from the methods, rules and legal principles
of maritime delimitation, in favour of a line which is not so much
"equitable" as fanciiful. According to Nigeria, these cases demonstrate
the limitations of eqility: it can be used to mitigate the effects of "minor
features that might produce disproportionate results if the principle and
method of equidistance were applied mechanically", but not in order
completely to refashiion nature.
282. Nigeria further argues that the Parties' conduct in respect of the
granting and exploitation of oil concessions, leadiiig to the establishment
ofdejacto lines,play:,a very important role inestablishing maritime bound-
aries. It contends that, within the area to be dehited, the Court cannot
redistribute the oil (:oncessions established by the practice of Nigeria,ria, la Guinéeéquatoriale et le Cameroun, concessions dont elle doit, au
moment de déterminer le tracé de la frontière maritime, respecter la
configuration. Le Nigéria affirmeque lesjuridictions internationales n'ont
jamais méconnu de telles pratiques et n'ont ainsi jamais redistribué de
concessions pétrolières; il ajoute qu'une telle retenue est d'autant plus
compréhensible que les remaniements qui en résulteraient, s'agissantde
concessions pétrolières anciennes et de droits acquis de longue date,
entraîneraient des difficultésmajeures, et iraient l'encontre des considé-
rations d'équitéqu'il convient de prendre en compte dans le processus de
délimitation.
Selon le Nigéria,la ligne de délimitation camerounaise fait totalement
abstraction de la pratique, solide et ancienne, tant du Nigéria que du
Cameroun en matière d'exploration et d'exploitation pétrolièressur le
plateau continental, et impliquerait le transfert au Cameroun de nom-
breuses concessions appartenant au Nigéria ou à la Guinée équatoriale,
dans l'infrastructure desquelles ont été investis des milliardsde dollars.
Le Nigéria fait valoir que sa pratique en matière de concessions pétro-
lières est établie depuis longtemps: contrairement a ce qu'affirme le Ca-
meroun (voir paragraphe 283 ci-dessous), elle existait bien avant 1970 -
annéea laquelle le Cameroun fait remonter le différendqui l'oppose au
Nigériaau sujet de la frontière maritime. Le Nigéria juge enoutre l'exis-
tence de zones de chevauchement de concessions sans incidence sur la
valeur probante de la pratique pétrolière.Il indique que ses opérations
dans les zones maritimes aujourd'hui revendiquéespar le Cameroun ont
toujours été particulièrement importantes et menéesau su de tous; le
Cameroun ne les a jamais contestées, et n'a pasélevé la moindre protes-
tation avant l'introduction de la présenteinstance. Le Nigéria affirmeque
la pratique pétrolièredans la régionétaitpublique, ouverte et ancienne,
ce qui permettrait de conclure à l'existence d'un acquiescement et de
droits acquis. 11dément avoir manqué à toute obligation de tenir le
Cameroun informé de cette pratique, et affirme que les informations dont
il s'agissait étaient de toute façon du domaine public.
283. En réponse auxarguments du Nigéria fondés surla pratique des
Etats en matière de concessions pétrolières,le Cameroun soutient pour sa
part que, aux fins de délimitation maritime, la jurisprudence internatio-
nale n'accorde que peu de poids i l'existence etaux limitesdes concessions
pétrolières. Cette portée limitée s'accorderaitavec l'essence mêmedu
concept de plateau continental, sur lequel les Etats riverains ont un droit
inhérent qui «est indépendant de son exercice effectif))(Plateau continen-
talde lu mer du Nord, arrêt,C. I.J.Recueil 1969, p. 22,par. 19).Le Came-
roun fait valoir que l'attribution de concessions pétrolièresest un fait
accompli unilatéral, et non un fait juridique opposable à un autre Etat.
Dans la zone immédiatement au sud du point G, le Cameroun affirme
qu'existent des zones de chevauchement entre les concessions accordées
par le Cameroun, la Guinéeéquatoriale et le Nigéria,et que, pour cette
raison, on ne peut dire qu'il existe une ligne consensuelle des pratiques
pétrolièresformant une ligne defacto sur laquelle pourrait s'appuyer une LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUDGMENT) 438
Equatorial Guinea aindCameroon, and that it must respect the configu-
ration of the concessions in its determination of the course of the mari-
time boundary. In Nigeria's view,international jurisprudence has never
disregarded such practice in order to redistribute or1concessions, and this
restrained approach is al1the more understandable because the change in
long-standing rights and oil concessions resulting from such a redistribu-
tion would create major difficulties and would not be in keeping with the
equitableconsiderations which must be taken into account in delimitation.
According to Nigeria, Cameroon's line of delimitation completely dis-
regards the substantial, long-standing practice, followed by Nigeria as
well as by Cameroon, in respect of oil exploration and exploitation activ-
ity on the continental shelf, and would result in allotting to Cameroon a
large number of concessions belonging to Nigeria or Equatorial Guinea,
in which billions of dollars in infrastructure have been invested. Nigeria
states that itsil coniression practice is long established, contending that,
contrary to what Cameroon claims (see paragraph 283 below), it dates
back to well before 1970, when, according to Ciimeroon, its maritime
delimitation dispute with Nigeria arose. The existence of any areas of
overlapping licences is moreover considered by Yigeria to be without
effect on the evidentiary weight of oil practice. Nigeria states that its
operations within the maritime areas now claimed by Cameroon have
always been particularly significant and completely open; Cameroon
never disputed them and lodged no protest until the date on which these
proceedings were instituted. Nigeria concludes that its oil practice in the
area was public, open and of long duration, and s therefore a basis for
acquiescence and the establishment of vested rights. It denies that it failed
in an obligation to iriform Cameroon of this practice, and states that the
information was in any event publicly available.
283. In reply to Nigeria's argument on the oil practice, Cameroon, for
its part, maintains that the existence and limits of oil concessions have
been given only limitirdsignificance in matters of maritime delimitation in
international case law. This limited significance is said to accord with the
essential nature of th(;concept of the continental skielf,over which coastal
States have an inherent right which "does not depend on its being exer-
I.C.J. Reports 1969,
cised" (North Sea (Zontinental Shelj, Judgment,
p. 22, para. 19). Canieroon argues that the grantiiig of oil concessions is
a unilateral fait accompli, and not a legal fact that is opposable to
another State.
In the area immediately south of point G, Cameroon claims that there
are in fact areas of overlap of the concessions granted by Cameroon,
Equatorial Guinea and Nigeria, and that, because of this, it cannot be
said that there is anJi consensual line of oil practices forming a de facto
line which could serve as a basis for delimitation. In the area furtherdélimitation. Dans la zone plus au sud du point G, le Cameroun soutient
qu'il ne saurait être question d'uneligne de jucto, puisqu'il s'est abstenu
d'y accorder des concessions, en raison des négociations entre les Parties
et de la présenteinstance. Selon le Cameroun, en accordant des conces-
sions dans cettezone, le Nigériaa cherchéë mettre la Cour devant un fait
accom~li.
Le Cameroun considère en outre que la description donnée par le
Nigériade la pratique des Etats en matière de concessions pétrolières et
les conclusions qu'il en tire sont erronées.Le Cameroun insiste sur le fait
que, contrairement aux affirmations du Nigéria,lesconcessions citéespar
ce dernier ont toutes (à l'exception de la concession OML 67)étéaccor-
déesa partir de 1990,soit bien après l'apparition du différendsur la déli-
mitation maritime a la fin des annéessoixante-dix, que trois d'entre elles
l'ont mêmeétéaprès le dépôt de la requête introductive d'instance, et
que, par conséquent, elles ne présentent aucune pertinence aux fins du
règlement du présent litige.
Le Cameroun affirme de plus qu'on ne peut rien déduire de son silence
a l'égard des concessions nigérianes, puisqueles autorités du Nigéria ne
l'ont jamais informé, comme elles avaient promis de le faire, de l'octroi
de nouvelles concessions et que le Nigéria lui-même est resté silencieux à
l'égard des concessions camerounaises, mêmelorsque celles-ci empié-
taient sur des zones qu'il semble considérer comme siennes.
284. Ayant déjaexaminé lanature, le but et les effets de l'intervention
de la Guinée équatoriale(voir paragraphes 227 à 238 ci-dessus), la Cour
va maintenant résumer brièvementles arguments de cet Etat concernant
le tracé dela frontière maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria.La Gui-
néeéauatoriale rie en substance la Cour de ((s'abstenir de délimiterune
frontière maritime entre le Nigéria etle Cameroun dans une zone plus
proche de la Guinéeéquatoriale que des Parties à l'instance)),et de s'abs-
tenir également ((d'émettreune quelconque appréciation susceptible de
porter préjudice a [ses]intérêtsdans le cadre de [ses] négociations rela-
tives aux frontières maritimes avec [ses]voisins)). La Guinée équatoriale
demande que la frontière qui sera fixéepar la Cour n'empiète enaucun
cas sur la ligne d'équidistanceentre ses propres côtes et celles du Came-
roun et du Nigéria, laquelleserait, selon elle,(une expression raisonnable
de ses droits et intérêtd'ordre juridique qui ne doit pas êtretransgressée
dans des procédures [auxquelles elle] n'est pas partie)). La Guinéeéqua-
toriale souligne que, si la décision de la Cour dans la présente affaire
devait impliquer un tel empiétement,cela lui causerait <<unpréjudice irré-
parable)) et ((entraînerait la plus grande confusion)), malgré laprotection
offerte par l'article 59 du Statut de la Cour.
La Guinéeéquatorialeformule un certain nombre de critiques précises a
l'encontre de «la ligne équitable))proposée par le Cameroun, dont elle
déclarepar ailleurs n'avoir eu connaissance qu'en décembre1998.La Gui-
néeéquatoriale fait valoir que, lors de négociations antérieures,le Came-
roun a toujours considéréla ligne médiane commeconstituant la frontière
entre leurs zones maritimes respectives et que cela est d'ailleurs confirmésouth of point G, Cameroon argues that there can be no question of a
de Jucto line, since Cameroon refrained from granting any concessions
there, due to the negotiations between the Parties and the present pro-
ceedings. According to Cameroon, Nigeria, by granting concessions in
this area, has sought to present the Court with a fait accompli.
Moreover, Cameroon claims that Nigeria's description of the State
practice in terms of oil concessions and the conclusions it draws there-
from are erroneous. Cameroon insists that, contrary to Nigeria's claim,
the concessions cited by Nigeria are al1(with the exception of concession
OML 67) subsequenit to 1990, well after the maritime delimitation dis-
pute arose at the end of the 1970s, while three of them were even granted
after the Application instituting proceedings was jiled and therefore are
of no relevance for purposes of settling the present dispute.
Further, Cameroon States that nothing can be iriferred from its silence
with regard to Nigerian concessions, since the Nigerian authorities never
informed Cameroon, as they had promised to do, of new concessions and
Nigeria itself has rernained silent with respect to Cameroonian conces-
sions, even when these encroached on zones whii:h Nigeria appears to
consider as its own.
284. Having dealt earlier with the nature, piirpose and effects of
Equatorial Guinea's intervention (see paragraph:~ 227-238 above), the
Court will now briefly summarize Equatorial Guinea's arguments in
regard to the course of the maritime boundary between Cameroon and
Nigeria. Essentially, Equatorial Guinea requests the Court to "refrain
froin delimiting a maritime boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon in
any area that is more proximate to Equatorial Guinea than to the
Parties to the case before the Court", or from "express[ing] any opinion
which could prejudice [Equatorial Guinea's] interests in the context of
[its] maritime bounditry negotiations with [its] neighbours". Ttasks that
the boundary to be Icixedby the Court should nowhere encroach upon
the median line bet~ueen its own coasts and those of Cameroon and
Nigeria, which it regards as "a reasonable expression of its legal rights
and interests that rriust not be transgressed in proceedings to which
Equatorial Guinea is not a party". Equatorial Guinea stresses that, if the
Court's decision in the present case were to involve such an encroach-
ment, this would cause it "irreparable harm" and would "lead to a
great deal of confusion", notwithstanding the protection afforded by
Article 59 of the Court's Statute.
Equatorial Guinea has a number of specific critii:isms of the "equitable
line" proposed by Cameroon, of which, moreover, it claims it only
became aware in December 1998. It contends that in prior negotiations
Cameroon had always acknowledged that the median line represented
the boundary betwee:n their respective maritime areas and that this had
been confirmed by the two States' oil practice. IIowever, according topar la pratique pétrolière des deuxEtats. Or, selon la Guinéeéquatoriale,
la ligne équitabledu Cameroun empiètenon seulement sur la ligne d'équi-
distance entre les deux Etats, mais encore sur la ligne d'équidistanceentre
la Guinée équatoriale etle Nigéria; en outre, cette ligne ne tient pas
compte de la pratique pétrolière considérable des trois pays. La Guinée
équatorialeaffirmeque, sila Cour acceptait la ligneproposéepar le Came-
roun, il n'y aurait même plusde frontièremaritime entre la Guinéeéqua-
toriale et le Nigéria,ni, partant, deripoint entre lestrois pays, alors que le
Cameroun, lors de négociations antérieuresavec la Guinée équatorialeet
dans sa propre législation, atoujours reconnu l'existencede ce tripoint.
Pour la Guinée équatoriale,faire droit à la ligne du Cameroun revien-
drait aenclavercomplètement l'îlede Bioko. Enfin, la Guinéeéquatoriale
se réfèreau traitédu 23 septembre 2000 portant délimitationde sa fron-
tièremaritime avec le Nigéria:tout en reconnaissant que le Cameroun ne
peut êtreliépar ce traité (res inter alios acta),elleaffirme que, de même,
il ne peut chercher a en tirer bénéficeP.ar conséquent,le Cameroun n'est
pas en droit de faire jouer comme circonstance, à l'appui de ses revendi-
cations à l'encontre du Nigéria,le fait que la zone maritime attribuéeau
Nigéria en vertu de ce traité s'étendejusqu'a des eaux situéesdu côté
équato-guinéende la ligne médiane.
285. La Cour observera tout d'abord que les zones maritimes sur les-
quelles elle doit se prononcer dans cette partie de l'arrêtse situent au-delà
de la limiteextérieuredes mers territoriales des deux Etats. Ellerappellera
par ailleurs que les Parties conviennent qu'elle est appeléea se prononcer
sur la délimitation maritime conformémena tu droit international. Tant le
Cameroun que le Nigériasont parties a la convention des Nations Unies
sur ledroit de la mer du 10décembre1982,qu'ilsont ratifiée respectivement
le 19novembre 1985et le 14août 1986.Lesdispositions pertinentesdecette
convention sont donc applicableset, en particulier, les articles4et 83, qui
concernent la délimitationdu plateau continental et de la zone économique
exclusiveentre des Etats dont les côtes sont adjacentes ou se font face. Le
paragraphe 1de chacun de cesarticlesdispose qu'unetelledélimitationdoit
êtreeffectuéede manière ii((aboutir a une solution équitable)).
286. La Cour note égalementque, dans leurs écritures,les Parties ont
marqué leur accord pour que la délimitation entre leurs espaces mari-
times soit opéréeau moyen d'une ligne unique. Comme la Cour a eu
l'occasion de le rappeler dans l'arrêtqu'elle a rendu le 16mars 2001 en
l'affaire de laDélimitation maritime et des questions territoriales entre
Qatar et Bahrein (Qatar c. Bahrein),
«le concept de limite maritime unique n'est pas issu du droit conven-
tionnel multilatéral mais de la pratique étatique et ...s'expliquepar
levŒudes Etats d'établir une limiteininterrompue unique délimitant
les différenteszones maritimes - coïncidant partiellement - qui
relèventde leur juridiction)) (C.I.J. Recueil 2001, par. 173).Equatorial Guinea, C:ameroon'sequitable line not only encroaches upon
the two countries' miedian line but also upon that between Equatorial
Guinea and Nigeria and, moreover, fails to take account of the three
States' very substantiial oil practice. According to Equatorial Guinea, if
the Court were to accept Cameroon's proposed line, there would no
longer even be a maritime boundary between Equatorial Guinea and
Nigeria, and hence nio tripoint between the three countries, despite the
fact that Cameroon, in prior negotiations with Equatorial Guinea, and in
its own legislation, had always acknowledged that such a tripoint existed.
Equatorial Guinea further contends that to givt effect to Cameroon's
line would result in the complete enclavement of Bioko Island. Finally,
Equatorial Guinea refers to the Treaty of 23 Septzmber 2000 delimiting
its maritime boundary with Nigeria. While Equatorial Guinea recognizes
that that Treaty cannot be binding on Cameroon (res inter ulios acta),it
contends that, equally, Cameroon cannot seek to benefit from it. Hence,
the fact that, under the Treaty, the maritime are.1 allocated to Nigeria
extends into waters lying on Equatorial Guinea's :.ideof the median line
is not a circumstance on which Cameroon is entitlcd to rely for purposes
of its claim against Nigeria.
285. The Court observes that the maritime areas on whose delimita-
tion it is to rule in thiispart of the Judgment lie beyond the outer limit of
the respective territorial seas of the two States. The Court further recalls
that the Parties agrelcthat it is to rule on the maritime delimitation in
accordance with inti:rnational law. Both Cameroon and Nigeria are
parties to the United Nations Law of the Sea Corlvention of 10 Decem-
ber 1982,which they ratified on 19 November 1985and 14 August 1986
respectively. Accordingly the relevant provisions of that Convention are
applicable, and in particular Articles 74 and 83 thereof, which concern
delimitation of the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone
between States with opposite or adjacent coasts. Paragraph 1 of those
Articles provides thai such delimitation must be effèctedin such a way as
to "achieve an equitetble solution".
286. The Court also notes that the Parties a:;reed in their written
pleadings that the delimitation between their maritime areas should be
effected by a single line. As the Court had occasion to recall in its Judg-
ment of 16March 2013 1in the case concerning Maritime Delimitation and
Territoriul Questions between Qutar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain),
"the concept of a.singlemaritime boundary dom not stem from multi-
lateral treaty law but from State practice, and .. .finds its explanation
in the wish of States to establish one uninterrupted boundary line
delimiting the viirious - partially coincident - zones of maritime
jurisdiction appertaining to them" (1.C.J. Reports 2001, para. 173).44 1 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRET)
En l'espèce,la Cour a donca déterminer, à partir du pointG, une ligne
unique de délimitation pour les zones de juridiction qui coïncident dans
l'espace limitésur lequel elle a compétence pour se prononcer.
287. La Chambre constituée par la Cour dans l'affaire de la Délimita-
tion de lafrontière maritime dans la régiondu golfe du Muine (Canada1
Etats-Unis d'Amérique) a relevéque la détermination d'une telle ligne
«ne saurait êtreeffectuéeque par l'application d'un critère ou d'une
combinaison de critères qui ne favorise pas [l'une de ces zones]au
détriment de l'autre et soit en même temps susceptible de convenir
égalementà une division de chacun[e] d'[elles]» (C.I.J. Recue1984,
p. 327, par. 194).
La Chambre a ensuite ajouté que «la préférenceir[ait] désormais .rides
critères se prêtantmieux, par leur caractère plus neutre, à une délimita-
tion polyvalente)) (C.I.J. Recuei1984, p. 327, par. 194).
De même,après avoir constaté le lien existant entre le plateau conti-
nental et la zone économique exclusive,la Cour a relevé,dans l'affaire du
Plateau continental (Jumahiriya arabe lihyenneIMulte), que
«bien que la présente affaire n'ait trait qu'à la délimitation du pla-
teau continental et non à celle de la zone économique exclusive, il
n'est pas possible de faire abstraction des principes et règlessur les-
quels cette dernière repose. Ainsi que la convention de 1982 le
démontre, les deux institutions du plateau continentalet de la zone
économique exclusive sont liées dans le droit moderne.)) (C.I.J.
Recueil 1985, p. 33, par. 33.)
288. La Cour a eu l'occasion de préciserà diverses reprises quels sont
les critères, principes et règlesde délimitation applicabala détermina-
tion d'une ligne unique couvrant plusieurs zones de juridiction qui coïn-
cident. Ils trouvent leur expression dans la méthode dite des principes
équitableslcirconstancespertinentes. Cette méthode, très proche de celle
de I'équidistancelcirco nsécailceapplicable en matière de délimi-
tation de la mer territoriale, consiste à tracer d'abord une ligne d'équi-
distance puis à examiner s'il existe des facteurs appelant un ajustement ou
un déplacement de cette ligne afin de parvenira un «résultat équitable)).
289. Ainsi, dans l'affaire de la Délimitation muritinte dans lu région
situéeentre le Groenland et Jan Muyen (Danemark c. Norvège), la Cour,
qui avait été priéde tracer une limite maritime unique, a estimé,à pro-
pos de la délimitation du plateau continental, que
«mêmes'il convenait d'appliquer ...le droit coutumier du plateau
continental tel qu'il s'est développédans lajurisprudence, ce serait se
conformer aux précédentsque de commencer par la ligne médiane à
titre de ligne provisoire, puis de rechercher si des «circonstances spé- ciales» obligent à ajuster ou déplacer cette ligne» (C.1J. Recueil
1993, p. 61, par. 51).
Recherchant s'il existait dans le cas d'espèce des facteurs devant
conduire à ajuster ou déplacer la ligne médiane afin de parvenir à un
((résultatéquitable)),la Cour a précisé :
«[alinsi, les circonstances spécialesapparaissent comme des circons-
tances susceptibles de modifier le résultat produit par une applica-
tion automatique du principe d'équidistance.Le droit international
général,tel qu'il s'est développé grâce la jurisprudence de la Cour
et à la jurisprudence arbitrale, ainsi qu'à travers les travaux de la
troisième conférence desNations Unies sur le droit de la mer, utilise
la notion de «circonstances pertinentes)). Cette notion peut être
décritecomme un fait devant être prisen comptedans l'opération de
délimitation.))(Ibid., p. 62, par. 55.)
Dans l'affaire de la Délimitation maritime et questions territoriales
entre Qatar et Bahreïn (Qatar c. Bahreïn), la Cour a en outre décidé que
«[p]our la délimitation des zones maritimes au-delà de la zone des
12milles, elle tracera[it] d'aborà,titre provisoire, une ligne d'équi-
distance etexaminera[it]ensuite s'ilexist[ait]des circonstances devant
conduire à ajuster cette ligne» (C.Z.J. Recueil 2001, par. 230).
290. La Cour appliquera la mêmeméthodedans la présente espèce.
Avant de pouvoir tracer une ligne d'équidistance et d'examiner s'il
existe des circonstances pertinentes qui pourraient rendre nécessaire
d'ajuster celle-ci, la Cour doit néanmoins déterminerquelles sont les
côtes pertinentes des Partiesà partir desquelles seront fixésles points de
base qui serviront à la construction de la ligne d'équidistance.
Comme la Cour l'avait établidans l'arrêtqu'elle a rendu dans l'affaire
de la Délimitation maritime et questions territoriales entre Qatar et
Bahreïn (Qatar c.Bahreïn) ,
«[l]a ligne d'équidistanceest [eneffet] la ligne dont chaque point est
équidistantdes points lesplus proches des lignesde base àpartir des-
quels la largeur de la mer territoriale de chacun des deux Etats est
mesurée » (C.1.J. Recueil 2001, par. 177).
291. En l'espèce, laCour ne saurait accepter l'affirmation du Came-
roun selon laquelle il conviendrait, d'une part, pour délimiter safrontière
maritime avec le Nigéria,de prendre en considérationla côte du golfe de
Guinéed'Akasso (Nigéria)au cap Lopez (Gabon) et, d'autre part, de ne
pas tenir compte de la majeure partie des côtes de l'île de Bioko. Tout
d'abord, la frontière maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria nepeut
être déterminée qu'p àartir de points situéssur les côtes de cesdeux Etats
et non d'Etats tiers. Ensuite, la présencede Bioko se fait senàipartir de
Debundsha, à l'endroit où la côte camerounaise s'infléchit versle sud-
sud-est. Bioko n'est pas une île appartenant à l'une des deux Parties. ment or shifting of that line" (I.CJ. Reports 1993, Judgment, p. 61,
para. 51).
In seeking to ascertain whether there were in that case factors which
should cause it to adj~ustor shift the median line in order to achieve an
"equitable result", tht: Court stated:
"[ilt is thus apparent that special circumstances are those circum-
stances which might modify the result produced by an unqualified
application of th,?equidistance principle. General international law,
as it has developed through the case-law of the Court and arbitral
jurisprudence, arid through the work of the 'rhird United Nations
Conference on the Law of the Sea, has employed the concept of
'relevant circum:;tances7.This concept can bz described as a fact
necessary to be taken into account in the (lelimitation process."
(Ibid.,p. 62, para. 55.)
In the case concerining Maritime Delimitation (znd Territorial Ques-
tions hetween Qatar czndBahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain) the Court further
stated that
"[flor the delimitation of the maritime zone:; beyond the 12-mile
zone it [would]fil-stprovisionally draw an equidistance line and then
consider whether there [were]circumstances ulhich must lead to an
adjustment of that line" (I.CJ. Reports 2001, para. 230).
290. The Court will apply the same method in the present case.
Before itcan draw an equidistance line and consider whether there are
relevant circumstances that might make it necessary to adjust that line,
the Court must, however, define the relevant coastlines of the Parties by
reference to which the location of the base points IO be used in the con-
struction of the equidistance line will be determined.
As the Court made clear in its Judgment in the case concerning Mari-
time Delimitation and Territorial Questions betwet~nQatar and Bahrain
(Qatar v. Bahruin),
"[tlhe equidistance line is the line every point of which is equidistant
from the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of
the territorialseas of each of the two States is measured" (I.C.J.
Reports 2001, para. 177).
291. In the present case the Court cannot accept Cameroon's conten-
tion, on the one hancl, that account should be taken of the coastline of
the Gulf of Guinea from Akasso (Nigeria) to Cap Lopez (Gabon) in
order to delimit Cameroon's maritime boundary with Nigeria, and, on
the other, that no account should be taken of the greater part of the
coastline of Bioko Islland. First, the maritime boiindary between Cam-
eroon and Nigeria Cainonly be determined by refeience to points on the
coastlines of these two States and not of third States. Secondly, the pres-
ence of Bioko makes itself felt from Debundsha, at the point where the
Cameroon coast turns south-south-east. Bioko is not an island belongingC'est une composante d'un Etat tiers, la Guinée équatoriale. Au nord et
à l'est de Bioko, les droits maritimes du Cameroun et de la Guinée équa-
toriale n'ont pas encore étédéterminés.La partie de la côte du Cameroun
situéeau-delà de Debundsha fait face à Bioko. Elle ne saurait, par consé-
quent, êtreconsidéréecomme faisant face au Nigéria de manière à être
pertinente pour la délimitation maritime entre ces deux Etats (voir ci-
après, p. 444, le croquis no l l).
292. Etablis selon les principes susmentionnés énoncéspar la Cour
dans l'affaire de laDélimitationmaritime et questions territoriales entre
Qatar et Baizeïn (Qatar c. Buhreïn), les points de base permettront de
déterminer la ligne d'équidistance entre les côtes pertinentes des deux
Etats. Comme la Cour a déjà eu l'occasion de l'exposer, cette ligne
d'équidistance ne peut cependant pas se prolonger au-delà d'un point où
elle pourrait affecter les droits de la Guinée équatoriale. Cette limitation
de la longueur de la ligne d'équidistance est inévitable, quels que soient
les points de base utilisés. En l'espèce, la Cour a fixé,comme points
d'ancrage terrestre pour la construction de la ligne d'équidistance, West
Point et East Point, tels que déterminés surl'édition1994de la carte 3433
de l'Amirauté britannique. Ces deux points, situés respectivement par
8"16'38" de longitude est et 4"31'59" de latitude nord et par 8O30' 14" de
longitude est et 4O30'06" de latitude nord, correspondent en effet aux
points les plus méridionaux sur la laisse de basse mer du Nigéria et du
Cameroun de part et d'autre de la baie formée par les estuaires de
l'Akwayaféet de la rivière Cross. Etant donné la configuration des côtes
et l'espace circonscrit dans lequel la Cour a compétence pour opérer la
délimitation, aucun autre point de base n'a été nécessaire à la Cour pour
procéder à cette opération.
293. La Cour examinera à présent s'il existe des circonstances qui
pourraient rendre nécessaire d'ajuster cette ligne d'équidistance afin
d'aboutir à un résultat équitable.
Comme la Cour l'a déclaré dans l'affaire du Pluteau continental (Jama-
hiriya arabe 1ibyennelMalte) :
«la méthode de l'équidistance n'estpas la méthode unique appli-
cable au présent différend, et elle ne bénéficiemêmepas d'une
présomption en sa faveur. Selon le droit actuel ildoit donc être dé-
montré que la méthode de l'équidistance aboutit, dans le cas consi-
déré,à un résultat équitable.))(C.Z.J. Recueil 1985, p. 47, par. 63.)
294. La Cour se doit d'insister à ce propos sur le fait que délimiter
avec le souci d'aboutir à un résultat équitable, comme le requiert le droit
international en vigueur, n'équivaut pas à délimiter en équité. Lajuris-
prudence de la Cour montre en effet que, dans les différends de délimi-
tation maritime, l'équité neconstitue pas une méthode de délimitation
mais uniquement un objectif qu'il convient de garder à l'esprit en effec-
tuant celle-ci.
295. La configuration géographique des espaces maritimes que la Cour
est appelée a délimiter est une donnée. Elle ne constitue pas un élémentto either of the two Parties. It is a constituent part of a third State, Equa-
torial Guinea. North and east of Bioko the maritinle rights of Cameroon
and Equatorial Guinea have not yet been determined. The part of the
Cameroon coastline beyond Debundsha Point faces Bioko. It cannot
therefore be treated a,jfacing Nigeria so as to be relevant to the maritime
delimitation between Cameroon and Nigeria (see below, p. 444, sketch-
map No. 11).
292. Once the base points have been established in accordance with
the above-mentioned principles laid down by the Court in the case con-
cerning Maritime Delimitation und Territorial Quc.stions between Qatar
and Bahrain (Qatar v. Buhrain), it will be possible to determine the equi-
distance line between the relevant coastlines of tlie two States. As the
Court has already had occasion to explain, this equidistance line cannot
be extended beyond a point where it might affecl rights of Equatorial
Guinea. This limitation on the length of the equidistance line is unavoid-
able, whatever the base points used. In the preseiit case the Court has
determined that the Land-based anchorage points to be used in the con-
struction of the equidistance line are West Point and East Point, as deter-
mined on the 1994 edition of British Admiralty Chart 3433. These two
points, situated respectively at 8" 16'38" longitude fast and 4" 31'59" lati-
tude north and 8" 30'14" longitudeeast and 4"30'06" latitude north, cor-
respond to the most southerly points on the low-water line for Nigeria
and Cameroon to either side of the bay formed by the estuaries of the
Akwayafe and Cross Rivers. Given the configuration of the coastlines
and the limited area vvithinwhich the Court has jurisdiction to effect the
delimitation, no other base point was necessary for the Court in order to
undertake this operation.
293. The Court will now consider whether there ;ire circumstances that
might make it necessary to adjust this equidistance line in order to
achieve an equitable result.
As the Court stated in the Continental Shelf (Libyun Arub Jamahiriyul
Malta) case:
"the equidistance method is not the only method applicable to the
present dispute, and it does not even have the benefit of a presump-
tion in its favour. Thus. under existiug law. it inust be demonstrated
that the equidistance method leads to an equitable result in the case
in question." (I.(2J. Reports 1985, p. 47, pars. 63.)
294. The Court is bound to stress in this conn1:ction that delimiting
with a concern to aclîieving an equitable result, as required by current
international law, is not the same as delimiting iii equity. The Court's
jurisprudence shows i;hat, in disputes relating to maritime delimitation,
equity is not a method of delimitation, but solely an aiin that should be
borne in mind in effeistingthe delimitation.
295. The geographical configuration of the maritime areas that the
Court is called upon to delimit is a given. It is nct an element open to(L~XXV)3WILlXVW L3 HXlS3HH3L 31IgIlNOXPm445 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
que la Cour pourrait modifier, mais un fait sur la base duquel elle doit
opérer la délimitation. Comme la Cour a eu l'occasion de le dire dans les
affaires du Plateau continental de lu tner du Nord, «[l]'équitén'implique
pas nécessairement l'égalité)),et lors d'un exercice de délimitation «[il1
n'est jamais question de refaire la nature entièrement)) (C.Z.J. Recueil
1969, p. 49,par. 91). Si certaines particularités géographiques des espaces
maritimes à délimiter peuvent êtreprises en compte par la Cour, c'est
uniquement au titre de circonstances pertinentes aux fins, le cas échéant,
d'ajuster ou de déplacer la ligne provisoire de délimitation. Ici encore,
comme la Cour l'a décidédans les affaires du Plateau continental de lu
mer du Nord, toutes les particularités géographiques ne doivent pas être
nécessairement prises en compte par la Cour pour ajuster ou déplacer la
ligne de délimitation provisoire:
«[il1 ne s'agit donc pas de refaire totalement la géographie dans
n'importe quelle situation de fait mais, en présence d'une situation
géographique de quasi-égalitéentre plusieurs Etats, de remédier a
une particularité non essentielle d'ou pourrait résulter une injusti-
fiable différence de traitement)) (C.J. Recueil 1969, p. 50,par. 91).
296. Le Cameroun soutient, tout d'abord, que la concavitédu golfe de
Guinéeen général et des côtescamerounaises en particulier crée un effet
d'enclavement du Cameroun qui constitue une circonstance spécialeà
prendre en compte dans le processus de délimitation.
Le Nigéria conteste qu'il revienne à la Cour de compenser le Came-
roun pour les désavantages dont il pourrait souffrir en conséquence
directe de la situation naturelle dans le secteur. Il insiste sur le fait que
l'objet du droit international n'est pas de remodeler la géographie.
297. La Cour ne conteste pas que la concavité des côtes puisse consti-
tuer une circonstance pertinente pour la délimitation, ainsi qu'elle l'a
estimé dans les affaires du Plateau continental de la mer du Nord ou
comme l'a estiméle tribunal arbitral dans l'affaire de la Délimitation de
la frontière muritinze GuinéelGuinée-Bissau,que le Cameroun invoque.
La Cour rappelle néanmoins qu'il ne peut en aller ainsi que lorsque cette
concavité existe dans le secteur a délimiter. Ainsi, dans l'affaire de la
Délimitation de lu frontière rnuritit?~ GuinéelGuinée-Bissau, le tribunal
arbitral n'a pas traité l'inconvénient résultant de la concavité de la côte
d'un point de vue général, maisuniquement en liaison avec le tracéprécis
de la ligne de délimitation entre la Guinée et la Guinée-Bissau (RSA,
vol. XIX, p. 187,par. 104). En l'espèce, laCour a déjadéterminé queles
côtes pertinentes pour la délimitation entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria ne
s'étendaient pas à l'ensemble des côtes de ces deux Etats dans le golfe de
Guinée. La Cour constate que les secteurs de côte pertinents aux fins de
la présente délimitation ne présentent aucune concavité particulière. La
concavité des côtes camerounaises se manifeste en effet essentiellement
dans le secteur où elles font facea Bioko.
La Cour ne considère donc pas que la configuration des côtes perti-modification by the Court but a fact on the basls of which the Court
must effect the delin-iitation. As the Court had occasion to state in the
North Sea Continental Sheif cases, "[elquity does not necessarily imply
equality", and in a delimitation exercise "[tlhere can never be any ques-
tion of completely refashioning nature" (I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 49,
para. 91). Although (certaingeographical peculiarities of maritime areas
to be delimited may be taken into account by the Court, this is solely as
relevant circumstances, for the purpose, if necessary, of adjusting or
shifting the provisional delimitation line. Heregaiii, asthe Court decided
in the North Sea Continental Shelf cases, the Court is not required to
take al1such geographical peculiarities into account in order to adjust or
shift the provisional (delimitationline:
"[ilt is therefore not a question of totally refashioning geography
whatever the facts of the situation but, given a geographical situa-
tion of quasi-eqiiality as between a number of'States, of abating the
effects of an incidental special feature from which an unjustifiable
difference of treatment could result" (I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 50,
para. 9 1).
296. Cameroon contends that the concavity of the Gulf of Guinea in
general, and of Carneroon's coastline in particular, creates a virtual
enclavement of Came:roon, which constitutes a special circumstance to be
taken into account iri the delimitation process.
Nigeria argues that it is not for the Court to compensate Cameroon for
any disadvantages suffered by it as a direct conseqiience of the geography
of the area. It stresses that it is not the purpose of international law to
refashion geography.
297. The Court does not deny that the concavity of the coastline may
be a circumstance relevant to delimitation, as it was held to be by the
Court in the North Sea Continental Shelfcases arid as was also so held
by the Arbitral Tribunal in the case concerning the Delimitation of the
Maritime Boundary between Guinea and Guineu-Bissau, decisions on
which Cameroon relies. Nevertheless the Court stresses that this can only
be the case when such concavity lies within the area to be delimited.
Thus, in the GuineaiGuinea-Bissau case, the Arbitral Tribunal did not
address the disadvantage resulting from the concavity of the Coast from
a general viewpoint, but solely in connection with the precise course of
the delimitation line between Guinea and Guinea.Bissau (ILM, Vol. 25
(1986),p. 295, para. 104).In the present case the Court has already deter-
mined that the coastlines relevant to delimitation between Cameroon and
Nigeria do not include al1of the coastlines of the two States within the
Gulf of Guinea. The Court notes that the sectors of coastline relevant to
the present delimitation exhibit no particular concavity. Thus the con-
cavity of Cameroon':; coastline is apparent primarily in the sector where
it faces Bioko.
Consequently the Court does not consider that t?e configuration of the LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUI~GMENT) 446
coastlines relevant to the delimitation represents a circumstance that
would justify shifting the equidistance line as Canleroon requests.
298. Cameroon filrther contends that the pre,jence of Bioko Island
constitutes a relevant circumstance which should be taken into account
by the Court for purlposesof the delimitation. It aigues that Bioko Island
substantially reduces the seaward projection of C;rmeroon's coastline.
Here again Nigeria takes the view that it is not for the Court to com-
pensate Caineroon fiorany disadvantages sufferecl by it as a direct con-
sequence of the geography of the area.
299. The Court accepts that islands have somt:times been taken into
account as a relevant circumstance in delimitation when such islands lay
within the zone to be delimited and fell under the sovereignty of one of
the parties. This occilrred in particular in the case concerning the Delimi-
tation of the Continental Shelf between the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Irelandand tlzeFrench Republic (RIAA, Vol. XVIII,
p. 3), on which Cameroon relies. However, in that case, contrary to what
Cameroon contends. the Court of Arbitration sought to draw a delimi-
tation line and not to provide equitable compr:nsation for a natural
inequality.
In the present case Bioko Island is subject to the sovereignty of Equa-
torial Guinea, a State which is not a party to the proceedings. Con-
sequently the effect of Bioko Island on the seaward projection of the
Cameroonian coastal front is an issue between Caineroon and Equatorial
Guinea and not between Cameroon and Nigeria, and is not relevant to
the issue of delimitaition before the Court.
The Court does not therefore regard the presence of Bioko Island as a
circumstance that would justify the shifting of tlie equidistance line as
Cameroon claims.
300. Lastly, Cameroon invokes the disparity between the length of its
coastline and that of Nigeria in the Gulf of Guinea as a relevant circum-
stance that justifies shifting the delimitation line towards the north-west.
For its part, Nigeria considers that Cameroon fails to respect the
criteria of proportioriality of coastline length, which would operate rather
in Nigeria's favour.
301. The Court acknowledges, as it noted in the cases concerning
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area
(CanadalUnited States of America) (I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 336,
paras. 221-222) and Maritime Delimitation in th,. Area between Green-
land and Jan Mayen (Denmurk v. Norway) (I.C.J. Reports 1993,
p. 34, para. 68), that a substantial difference in the lengths of the
parties' respective coastlines may be a factor to be taken into consid-
eration in order to aldjust or shift the provisional delimitation line. The
Court notes that in the present case, whichever coastline of Nigeria is
regarded as relevani., the relevant coastline of Clmeroon, as described
in paragraph 291, is not longer than that of Nigc:ria. There is thereforevoie de conséquence, il n'y a pas lieu, a ce titre, de déplacer la ligne
d'équidistance enfaveur du Cameroun.
302. Avant de se Drononcer sur la li"ne de délimitationentre le Came-
roun et le Nigéria,la Cour doit encore traiter la question, soulevéepar le
Nigéria,de savoir si la pratique pétrolièredes Parties fournit des indica-
tions utiles aux fins de la délimitationde leurs zones maritimes respectives.
303. Le Nigéria affirme en effetque la pratique des Etats en matière de
concessions pétrolièresjoue un rôle déterminant pour l'établissementde
frontières maritimes. Il estime en particulier que la Cour ne peut, par le
biais de la délimitation maritime, opérer une redistribution de ces conces-
sions pétrolièresentre les Etats parties a la délimitation.
Le Cameroun relève,quant alui, que I'existencede concessions pétro-
lièresne s'estjamais vu reconnaître une importance particulièreen matière
de délimitation maritime en droit international.
304. Tant la Cour que les tribunaux arbitraux ont eu l'occasion d'exa-
miner le rôle de la pratique pétrolièredans les différends de délimitation
maritime. Dans l'affaire du Plateau continental ( TunisielJamahiriya arabe
libyenne) (C.I.J. Recueil 1982, p. 18),la Cour a examinépour la première
fois la question de l'importance des concessions pétrolièresaux fins de la
délimitation maritime. A cette occasion, la Cour n'a pas tenu compte de
«la ligne en direction du nord servant de limite aux zones pétrolières
libyennes)) (C.I.J. Recueil 1982, p. 83, par. 117), car celle-ci nelui a pas
«paru ...remplir les conditions qui [l'eussent rendue opposable] à l'autre
Partie)) (ihid.) ;toutefois, la Cour a considéré que,à proximitédes côtes,
les concessions des parties révélaient et confirmaientque s'était établiun
modus vivendi (ihid., p. 84, par. 119).Dans l'affaire de laDélimitationde la
frontière maritime dans la régiondu golfe du Maine (CanadalEtats- Unis
d'Amérique), la Chambre de la Cour a souligné l'importance deces élé-
ments lorsqu'elle a insistésur le fait qu'en l'espèce rienne permettait de
conclure a I'existenced'un modus vivendi (C.I.J.Recueil 1984, p. 310-311,
par. 149-152).Dans cette affaire, la Chambre a estime que, malgré la pré-
tendue coïncidence des concessions pétrolières américaineset canadiennes,
la situation était totalement différente de celle qui se présentait dans
I'affaire TunisielLihye. Dans l'affaire du Plateau continental (Jamahiriyu
arabe IibyenneIMalte) (C.I.J. Recueil 1985,p. 13),la Cour a estiméque les
indications fournies par les parties ne pouvaient être considérées comme
une preuve d'acquiescement (ihid.,p. 28-29, par. 24-25). Dans le domaine
de l'arbitrage, letribunal arbitral en l'affaireinéelGuinée-Bissau a décidé
de ne pas tenir compted'une concessionpétrolière octroyée par le Portugal
(RSA, vol. XIX, p. 174,par. 63).Le tribunal arbitral en l'affaire de laDéli-
mitation des espaces maritimes entre le Canada et la France (Saint-Pierre-
et-Miquelon) n'a pas accordéd'importance aux concessions pétrolières
octroyéespar les parties (RSA, vol. XXI, p. 295-296, par. 89-91). Dans
l'ensemble, il ressort de la jurisprudence que, si I'existence d'un accord
exprès ou tacite entre les parties sur l'emplacement de leurs concessions
pétrolièresrespectives peut indiquer un consensus sur lesespacesmaritimes
auxquels ellesont droit, lesconcessionspétrolières etlespuits de pétroleneno reason to shift the equidistance line in favoui. of Cameroon on this
ground.
302. Before ruling on the delimitation line between Cameroon and
Nigeria, the Court must still address the question raised by Nigeria
whether the oil practice of the Parties provides helpful indications for
purposes of the delirnitation of their respective maritime areas.
303. Thus Nigeria contends that State practice with regard to oil con-
cessions isa decisive factor in the establishment of maritime boundaries.
In particular it take:; the view that the Court cannot, through maritime
delimitation, redistributesuch oil concessions between the States party to
the delimitation.
Cameroon, for its part, maintains that the existence of oil concessions
has never been accalrded particular significance in matters of maritime
delimitation in international law.
304. Both the Court and arbitral tribunals have had occasion to deal
with the role of oil practice in maritime delimitation disputes. In the case
concerning the Cofiltinental Shelf (TunisialLibjan Arab Jamahiriya)
(1.C.J. Reports 1982, p. 18), the Court examinecl for the first time the
question of the significance of oil concessions for maritime delimitation.
On that occasion the Court did not take into consideration "the direct
northward line asserted as boundary of the Libyan petroleum zones"
(1.C.J. Reports 1982,p. 83, para. 117),because that line had "been found
. . to be wanting in those respects [that would h,ive made it opposable]
to the other Party" (ibid.);however, the Court lound that close to the
coasts the concessions of the parties showed and confirmed the existence
of a modus vivendi (ibid., p. 84, para. 119).In the case concerning Delimi-
tation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Areu (Canada1
United States oj Ainerica) the Chamber of the Court underlined the
importance of those findings when it stressed that in that case there did
not exist any nzodus vivendi (1C.J. Reports 1984, pp. 310-311,paras. 149-
152). In that case the Chamber considered that, notwithstanding the
alleged coincidence 'ofthe American and Canadian oil concessions, the
situation was totally different from the Tunisial1,ibya case. In the case
coiicerning the Continental Sheif (Libyan Arub JumahiriyalMalta (1.C.J.
Reports 1985, p. 13)ithe Court considered that tlie indications given by
the parties could not be viewed as evidence of acquiescence (ibid., pp. 28-
29, paras. 24-25). As to arbitration, the Arbitral 'Tribunalin the Guineal
Guinea Bissau case declined to take into consideration an oil concession
granted by Portugal (ILM, Vol. 25 (1986),p. 281, para. 63). The Arbitral
Tribunal in the case concerning Delimitation of Maritime Areas between
Canada und the French Republic (St. Pierre et P4iquelon) accorded no
importance to the oil concessions granted by the parties (ILM, Vol. 31
(1992), pp. 1174-1175,paras. 89-91). Overall, it follows from the juris-
prudence that, although the existence of an express or tacit agreement
between the parties on the siting of their respective oil concessions may
indicate a consensus on the maritime areas to which they are entitled, oil
concessions and oil wells are not in themselves to be considered as448 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
sauraient en eux-mêmes être considérés comm des circonstances perti-
nentesjustifiant l'ajustement ou le déplacementde la ligne de délimitation
provisoire. Ils ne peuvent êtrepris en compte que s'ils reposent sur un
accord exprèsou tacite entre les parties. En la présenteespèce,il n'existe
aucun accord entre les Parties en matière de concessions vètrolières.
La Cour considère partant que la pratique pétrolière desParties ne
constitue pas un facteur à prendre en compte aux fins de la délimitation
maritime en l'espèce.
305. La Cour a en outre recherché s'il existait d'autres motifs qui
auraient pu rendre nécessaire un ajustement de la ligne d'équidistance
afin de parvenir à un résultat équitable.Elle est parvenueà la conclusion
que tel n'était pasle cas en l'espèce.
306. La Cour décidepar conséquent que la ligne d'équidistanceabou-
tità un résultat équitable aux fins de la délimitation du secteur dans
lequel la Cour a compétencepour se prononcer.
307. La Cour constate cependant que le point G, qui a été définpiar
les deux Parties dans la déclaration de Maroua du le'juin 1975,n'est pas
situésur la ligne d'équidistance entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria, mais à
l'est de cette ligne. Le Cameroun est par conséquent en droit de deman-
der que du point G la limite des zones maritimes relevant respectivement
de chacune des Parties rejoigne la ligne d'équidistance. C'estce qu'il
cherche à obtenir en traçant une ligne de délimitation d'azimut de 270"
allant du point G à un point de coordonnées 8'21'16" de longitude
est et4' 17'00" de latitude nord. Après avoir attentivement étudiédiffé-
rentes cartes, la Cour observe que le point sur la ligne d'équidistance
obtenu en suivant une ligne loxodromique ayant un azimut de 270" à
partir du point G se trouve à des coordonnées légèrement différentes de
celles donnéespar le Cameroun. La Cour considère donc qu'à partir du
point G la ligne de délimitation doit rejoindre directement la ligne d'équi-
distance au voint de coordonnées8'21'20" de longi"ude est et 4' 17'00"de
latitude nord qui sera appeléX. La limite des zones maritimes relevant res-
pectivement du Cameroun et du Nigéria se poursuivra donc au-delà du
point G en suivant une ligne en direction de l'ouest, jusqu'à ce qu'elle at-
teigne le point X aux coordonnées sus-indiquées.Cettelimite s'infléchiraau
point X et se prolongera vers le sud le long de la ligne d'équidistance.
La ligne d'équidistance retenue par la Cour ne saurait toutefois se pour-
suivre trèsau large. LaCour a déjàdéclaré qu'elle ne pouvait pas prendre
de décision qui puisse affecter les droits de la Guinée équatoriale, qui
n'est pas partie il'instance. Dans ces circonstances, la Cour ne s'estime
pas en mesure de faire plus qu'indiquer, à partir du point X, la direction
généralede la limite des zones maritimes relevant de chacune des Parties.
Celle-ci suivra une ligne loxodromique ayant un azimut de 187"52'27"
(voir ci-après, p. 449, le croquiso 12).
308. La Cour examinera maintenant les conclusions du Cameroun LAND .4ND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUI)GMENT) 448
relevant circumstances justifying the adjustment or shifting of the pro-
visional delimitation line. Only if they are based on express or tacit
agreement between the parties may they be taken into account. In the
present case there is no agreement between the Parties regarding oil con-
cessions.
The Court is thereifore of the opinion that the oil practice of the Parties
is not a factor to be taken into account in the maritime delimitation in
the Dresent case.
305. The Court also sought to ascertain whether there were other
reasons that might have made an adjustment of' the equidistance line
necessary in order to achieve an equitable resuli. It came to the con-
clusion that there were no such reasons in the present case.
306. The Court aiscordingly decides that the equidistance line repre-
sents an equitable result for the delimitation of the area in respect of
which it has jurisdiction to give a ruling.
307. The Court notes, however, that point G, which was determined
by the two Parties in the Maroua Declaration of 1June 1975,does not lie
on the equidistance line between Cameroon and Nigeria, but to the east
of that line. Cameroon is therefore entitled toeqilest that from point G
the boundary of the Parties' respective maritime areas should return to
the equidistance lini:. This Cameroon seeks to achieve by drawing a
delimitation line at an azimuth of 270" from point G to a point situated
at 8"21'16" longitu~de east and 4"17'00" latitude north. The Court,
having carefully studied a variety of charts, observ1:sthat the point on the
equidistance line which is obtained by following a loxodrome having an
azimuth of 270" froni point G is located at co-ordinates slightly different
from those put forward by Cameroon. The Court accordingly considers
that from point G i;he delimitation line should directly join the equi-
distance line at a point with co-ordinates 8'2lf~!0" longitude east and
4" 17'00" latitude north, which will be called. The boundary between
the respective maritime areas of Cameroon and Nigeria will therefore
continue beyond poiint G in a westward direction imtil it reaches poiXt
at the above-mentioried co-ordinates. The boundarv will turn at woint X
and continue southwards along the equidistance line. However, the equi-
distance line adopted by the Court cannot be extended very far. The
Court has already slated that it can take no decision that might affect
rights of Equatorial Guinea, which is not a party to the proceedings. In
these circumstances the Court considers that it can do no more than indi-
cate the general direction, from point X, of the boundary between the
Parties' maritime areas. The boundary will follow~iloxodrome having an
azimuth of 187'52'27'' (see below, p. 449, sketch-map No. 12).
* * *
308. The Court will now address Cameroon's submissions concerning
149449 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)LAND .AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUI)GMENT) 449relativesà la responsabilité internationale du Nigéria et les demandes
reconventionnelles du Nigériaconcernant la responsabilitéinternationale
du Cameroun.
309. Le Cameroun développe à cet égard deux sériesde conclusions
distinctesconcernant d'une part la régiondu lac Tchad et la presqu'île de
Bakassi, d'autre part les autres secteurs de la frontière terrestre et mari-
time.
310. En ce qui concerne la régiondu lac Tchad, le Cameroun expose
qu'au cours des dernières décennies des pêcheurs nigérian se sont pro-
gressivement installés en territoire camerounais au fur età mesure de
l'assèchementdu lac. Selon le Cameroun, l'armée nigériane aurait,à par-
tir du milieu des années quatre-vingt, violédiverses reprises le territoire
camerounais sur lequel ces pêcheurs s'étaientétablis. A ces incidents
aurait succédéune véritable invasion à partir de 1987 et, au total, en
1994,dix-huit villages et six îles auraient été occupsar le Nigéria etle
seraient encore.
Pour ce qui est de Bakassi, le Cameroun expose qu'avant 1993l'armée
nigériane s'étaità plusieurs reprises infiltrée temporairement dans la
presqu'île et avait mêmetenté en 1990 d'établirune «têtede pont» à
Jabane. Toutefois, à cette époque,le Nigérian'aurait disposéd'aucune
présence militaireà Bakassi. A l'inverse, le Cameroun avait établà Ida-
bat0 une sous-préfectureavec tous les servicesadministratifs, militaires et
de maintien de l'ordre qui y sont attachés. Puis, en décembre 1993, les
forces armées nigérianesauraient lancé uneattaque sur la presqu'île dans
le cadre d'une invasion soigneusement et délibérément planifiée. Legé-
ria aurait ensuite maintenu et élargi son occupation, établissant une
seconde têtede pont à Diamond en juillet 1994.En février1996,suite à
une attaque des troupes nigérianes,le poste camerounais d'Idabato serait
tombé aux mains du Nigéria. Des postescamerounais situés àUzama et
à Kombo a Janea auraient ultérieurement subile mêmesort. Ces terri-
toires camerounais seraient encore occupés.
Par ces invasions et ces occupations, le Nigériaaurait, selon le Came-
roun, violéet continuerait de violer ses obligations en vertu du droit
international conventionnel et coutumier. Les actions du Nigéria seraient
en particulier contraires au principe de non-recours la force exprimé à
l'article 2, paragraphe 4, de la Charte des Nations Unies comme au prin-
cipe de non-intervention consacré à plusieurs reprises par la Cour. Elles
seraient en outre incompatibles avec la souveraineté territoriale du
Cameroun.
Ces actions imputables au Nigéria seraient illicites.Dèslors, le Nigéria
serait dans l'obligation«de mettre fin à sa présencetant administrative
que militaire sur le territoire camerounais et, en particulier, d'évacuer
sans délaiet sans condition ses troupes de la zone occupéedu lac Tchad
et de la péninsulecamerounaise de Bakassi)). Il devrait ((s'abstenirde tels
faitsà l'avenir)). En outre, sa responsabilitéinternationale serait engagée
sans qu'aucune des causes d'exonération prévues endroit international
puisse être retenue.Par voie de conséquence, uneréparation serait due au LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUIIGMENT) 450
Nigeria's State responsibility and Nigeria's couilter-claims concerning
Cameroon's State responsibility.
309. In this connection, Cameroon puts forward two separate series of
submissions concerning, on the one hand, the Lake Chad area and the
Bakassi Peninsula and, on the other, the remaining sectors of the land
and maritime boundary.
310. In respect of the Lake Chad area, Cameroon states that Nigerian
fishermen have over recent decades gradually settled on Cameroonian
territory as the lake has receded. According to Cameroon, from the
middle of the 1980s the Nigerian army made repeated incursions into
the Cameroonian territory on which those fishernien had settled. Those
incidents are allegeti to have been followed b> a full-scale invasion
beginning in 1987, so that by 1994 a total of 18 villages and 6 islands
were occupied by Nigeria and continue to be so occupied.
In respect of Bakalssi, Cameroon states that before 1993 the Nigerian
army had on several occasions temporarily infiltrated into the peninsula
and had even attempted in 1990 to establish a "bridgehead" at Jabane,
but did not maintaiin any military presence in Bakassi at that time;
Cameroon, on the contrary, had established a sub-prefecture at Idabato,
together with al1the administrative, military and security services apper-
taining thereto. Theri, in December 1993, the Nigerian armed forces are
said to have launched an attack on the peninsula as part of a carefully
and deliberately planned invasion; Nigeria subsequently maintained and
advanced its occupation, establishing a second bric-lgeheadat Diamond in
July 1994.In February 1996, following an attack l-)yNigerian troops, the
Cameroonian post at Idabato is alleged to havt: fallen into Nigeria's
hands. The same fate is said to have subsequently befallen the Cam-
eroonian posts at Uzama and Kombo a Janea. These Cameroonian
territories are allegeclly still occupied.
Cameroon contends that, in thus invading and occupying its territory,
Nigeria has violated, and continues to violate, its obligations under con-
ventional and customary international law. In particular, Cameroon
claims that Nigeria's actions are contrary to the principle of non-use of
force set out in Articl2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and
to the principle of non-intervention repeatedly upheld by the Court, as
well as being incompatible with Cameroon's territorial sovereignty.
Cameroon contencls that these actions imputable to Nigeria are wrong-
ful, and that Nigeria is accordingly under an obligation to "put an end to
its administrative and military presence in Cameroonian territory and, in
particular, to effect an immediate and unconditional evacuation of its
troops from the occupied area of Lake Chad and from the Cameroonian
peninsula of Bakassi". Cameroon states that Nigeria must "[refrain] from
such acts in the future", that Nigeria's international responsibility is
engaged and that nane of the grounds of defenci: provided by interna-Cameroun «pour les préjudices matériels etmoraux subis)).
311. Le Nigéria expose,quant a lui, qu'il exerçait une possession pai-
sibledu secteur du lac Tchad et de la régionde Bakassi, non seulement au
moment des prétendues invasions, mais depuis l'indépendance. Ses
déploiements de forces auraient eu pour objet de régler desquestions
d'ordre intérieur et de réagir à une campagne d'empiétements systéma-
tiques du Cameroun sur le territoire nigérian.Le Nigériaaurait agi en état
di légitime défense. Aussi bien, mêmsei la Cour estimait que ces zones
relevaient de la souverainetédu Cameroun, la présence nigérianey était-
elle la conséquenced'une ((erreur raisonnable; et d'une ((croyance sin-
cère)).De ce fait le Nigéria nepourrait être tenupour internationalement
responsable d'un comportement qu'il avait tout lieu, au moment ou il
l'avait adopté, d'estimer licite.
312. La Cour rappellera que, aux paragraphes 57,60,61 et 225du pré-
sent arrêt,ellea fixéla frontièreentre les deux Etats dans la régiondu lac
Tchad et dans la presqu'île de Bakassi. Le Nigéria neconteste pas qu'à
l'heure actuelle des forces arméeset une administration nigérianessont
installéesdans ces zones sur des territoires qui, conformémentau présent
arrêt,relèventde la souverainetédu Cameroun. Le Nigériaajoute a pro-
pos de la création dela commune de Bakassi que, si la Cour devait recon-
naître la souverainetédu Cameroun sur ceszones, il n'y aurait rien d'irré-
versible dans les dispositions adoptées à cet égard par le Nigéria. Le
mêmeraisonnement vaut bien entendu dans les autres domaines de
l'administration civile comme en ce qui concerne les forces arméesou de
police.
313. La Cour a déjàeu à connaître de situations de ce genre. Dans
l'affaire du Temple de Préah Vihéar, elle avait jugéque ce temple était
situéen territoire relevant de la souverainetédu Cambodge. Elle en avait
conclu que :«La Thaïlande est tenue de retirer tous leséléments de forces
arméesou de police ou autres gardes ou gardiens qu'elle a installésdans
le temple ou dans ses environs situés enterritoire cambodgien. » (Fond,
arrêt,C. I.J. Recueil 1962, p. 37.)
Plus récemment, dans l'affaire du Diffërend territorial (Jamahiriya
arabe libyennelTchadj, la Cour avait fixéla frontièreentre ces deux Etats
selon un tracé qui attribuait au Tchad des territoires dans lesquels la
Libye avait mis en place une administration civileet des forces armées. A
la suite de cet arrêtdu 3 février 1994, les deux Etats avaient signéle
4 avril 1994un accord en vue d'assurer l'exécutionde l'arrêt, accordpré-
voyant l'évacuationpar la Libye des territoires en cause sous le contrôle
d'un groupe d'observateurs a constituer par le Conseil de sécurité.Cette
évacuation s'était achevée le 31 mai 1994.
314. La Cour constate dans la présenteaffaire que le Nigéria est tenu
de retirer dans lesplus brefs délaiset sanscondition son administration et
ses forces arméeset de police du secteur du lac Tchad relevant de la sou-
verainetédu Cameroun ainsi que de la presqu'île de Bakassi.
315. La Cour observe de plus que le Cameroun est tenu de retirer danstional law can be upheld. Consequently, Cameroon claims that repara-
tion is due to it "on account of the material and moral injury suffered".
311. For its part, Nigeria states that it was notnly in peaceful posses-
sion of the Lake Chad area and the Bakassi region at the time of the
alleged invasions but had been since independerice. Its deployment of
force is alleged to have been for the purpose of rzsolving interna1 prob-
lems and responding to Cameroon's campaign of systematic encroach-
ment on Nigerian territory. Nigeria claims to have acted in self-defence.
It furthercontends tliat, even if the Court should find that Cameroon has
sovereignty over these areas, the Nigerian presencr there was the result of
a "reasonable mistalte" or "honest belief'. Accordingly, Nigeria cannot
be held internationally responsible for conduct which, at the time it took
place, Nigeria had every reason to believe was la~vful.
312. The Court will recall that in paragraphs 57, 60, 61 and 225 of the
present Judgment it fixed the boundary between the two States in the
Lake Chad area ancl the Bakassi Peninsula. Nigeria does not deny that
Nigerian armed forces and a Nigerian administration are currently in
place in these areas which the Court has determined are Cameroonian
territory, adding in respect of the establishment of the municipality of
Bakassi that, if the Court were to recognize Cameroon's sovereignty over
such areas, there is nothing irreversible in the relevant arrangements
made by Nigeria. The same reasoning clearly applies to other spheres of
civil administration, as well as to military orpolice forces.
313. The Court ha~salready had occasion to deal with situations of this
kind. In the case concerning the Temple of Preah Vihear, it held that the
temple was situated on territory falling under the sovereignty of Cam-
bodia. From this it concluded that "Thailand [was] under an obligation
to withdraw any military or police forces, or other guards or keepers,
stationed by her at the Temple, or in its vicinity on Cambodian territory"
(Merits, Judgment, Ir.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 37).
More recently, in the Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arah Jamahiriyal
Chad), the Court fixed the boundary between those two States along a
course which allocated to Chad territories in which Libya had set up a
civil administration and stationed military forces Following that Judg-
ment of 3 February 1994,the two States on 4 April 1994signed an agree-
ment with a view to implementing the Judgment; that agreement pro-
vided for Libya'sevacuation of the territories in quastion, to be monitored
by a group of observers to be established by the Security Council. The
evacuation was completed on 31 May 1994.
314. TheCourt notes that Nigeria is under an obligation in the present
case expeditiously and without condition to withclraw its administration
and its military and police forces from that area of LakeChad which falls
within Cameroon's sovereignty and from the Bakassi Peninsula.
315. TheCourt further observes that Camerooc is under an obligation452 FRONTIERE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRET)
les plus brefs délais et sans condition toutes administration ou forces
arméesou de police qui pourraient se trouver, le long de la frontière ter-
restre allant du lac Tchad a la presqu'île de Bakassi, dans les zones rele-
vant, conformément au présentarrêt,de la souverainetédu Nigéria.Le
Nigériaa la mêmeobligation en cequi concerne toutes administration ou
forces arméesou de police qui pourraient se trouver, le long de la fron-
tière terrestre allant du lac Tchad a la presqu'île de Bakassi, dans les
zones relevant, conformément au présent arrêt,de la souveraineté du
Cameroun.
316. La Cour constate en outre que l'exécutiondu présentarrêtdon-
nera aux Parties une occasion privilégiéde coopération dans l'intérêt des
populations concernéesafin notamment que celles-ci puissent continuer
de bénéficierde services scolaires et de santé comparables à ceux dont
elles jouissent actuellement. Une telle coopération sera particulièrement
utile en vue du maintien de la sécuritélors du retrait de l'administration
et des forces arméeset de police nigérianes.
317. Le 21 mars 2002, l'agent du Cameroun a rappelé par ailleurs
devant la Cour que «plus de trois millions de Nigérians viventsur le sol
camerounais où ils exercent, sans restriction aucune, diverses activités,
bien intégrés qu'ilssont dans la sociétécamerounaise)). Puis il a affirmé
«que, fidèlea sa politique traditionnellement accueillante et tolérante, le
Cameroun continuera à assurer sa protection aux Nigérianshabitant la
péninsule[de Bakassi] et [à] ceux vivant dans la régiondu lac Tchad)).
S'agissant de zones dans lesquelles résidentde nombreux ressortissants
nigérians,la Cour prend acte avec satisfaction de l'engagement ainsi pris.
318. Le Cameroun demande cependant à la Cour non seulement qu'il
soit mis finà la présencetant administrative que militaire du Nigériaen
territoire camerounais, mais encore que des garanties de non-répétition
lui soient donnéespour l'avenir. De telles conclusions sont certes rece-
vables (LaGrand (Allemagne c. Etats-Unis d'Amérique), arrêt, C.I.J.
Recueil 2001, p. 508et suiv., par. 117et suiv.). Toutefois l'arrêt renduce
jour précisede manière définitiveet obligatoire la frontière terrestre et
maritime entre les deux Etats. Tout doute étantlevé a cet égard,la Cour
ne saurait envisager l'hypothèse dans laquelle l'une des Parties, après
avoir retiré ses forces arméeset de police, ainsi que son administration,
du territoire de l'autre Partie, ne respecterait pas la souveraineté territo-
riale de cette dernière. Dèslors lesconclusions du Cameroun sur ce point
ne sauraient êtreaccueillies.
319. Dans les circonstances de l'espèce, laCour estime de plus que, du
fait mêmedu présent arrêtet de l'évacuationdu territoire camerounais
occupépar le Nigéria, le préjudice subipar le Cameroun en raison de
l'occupation de son territoire aura en tout état de cause été suffisamment
pris en compte. La Cour ne recherchera donc pas siet dans quelle mesure
la responsabilitédu Nigéria est engagéeA l'égarddu Cameroun du fait de
cette occupation.
320. Le Cameroun soutient par ailleurs que le Nigéria n'apas respecté
l'ordonnance en indication de mesures conservatoires rendue par la Cour LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (JUIIGMENT) 452
expeditiously and without condition to withdraw any administration or
military or police forces which may be present iii areas along the land
boundary from Lake Chad to the Bakassi Peninsula which pursuant to
the present Judgment faIl within the sovereignty of Nigeria. Nigeria has
the same obligation in regard to any administration or military or police
forces which may be present in areas along the land boundary from Lake
Chad to the Bakassi Peninsula which pursuant to the present Judgment
fall within the sovereignty of Cameroon.
316. The Court further notes that the imp1emt:ntation of the present
Judgment will afford the Parties a beneficial opportunity to CO-operatein
the interests of the population concerned, in order notably to enable it to
continue to have accessto educational and health services com~arable to
those it currently erijoys. Such CO-operation will be especially helpful,
with a view to the maintenance of securitv. durinrr the withdrawal of the
,, LJ
Nigerian administration and military and police forces.
317. Moreover. on 21 March 2002 the Aeent of uameroon stated
before the Court that "over three million Nigerians live on Cameroonian
territory, where,witkioutany restriction, they engage in various activities,
and are well integrated into Cameroonian society". He went on to declare
that, "faithful to its traditional policy of hospitality and tolerance,
Cameroon will continue to afford protection to Nigerians living in the
iBakassi1Peninsula and in the Lake Chad area". The Court takes note
with satisfaction of the commitment thus undertaken in respect of
these areas where milny Nigerian nationals reside
318. Cameroon, hiowever,is not only asking the Court for an end to
Nigeria's administrative and military presence in Cameroonian territory
but also for guarantees of non-repetition in the future. Such submissions
are undoubtedly admissible (LaGrand (Germanv v. United States of
Americu), Judgmenr', I.C.J. Reports 2001, pp. 508 et seq., paras. 117
et seq.). However, the Judgment delivered today specifies in definitive
and mandatory terms the land and maritime boundary between the two
States. With al1 uncertainty dispelled in this regard, the Court cannot
envisage a situation where either Party, after withdrawing its military and
police Forcesand adininistration from the other's territory, would fail to
respect the territorial sovereignty of that Party. Hence Cameroon's sub-
missions on this point cannot be upheld.
319. In the circunnstances of the case, the Court considers moreover
that, by the very fact of the present Judgment and of the evacuation
of the Cameroonian territory occupied by Nigeria, the injury suffered
by Cameroon by reason of the occupation of its territory will in al1
events have been sufficiently addressed. The Court will not therefore
seek to ascertain whether and to what extent Nigeria's responsibility to
Cameroon has been engaged as a result of that oc:cupation.
320. Cameroon further contends that Nigeria has failed to comply
with the Order indicating provisional measures handed down by thele 15mars 1996et a de ce fait manqué à ses obligations internationales.
Le Nigériaa affirmé à l'inverse que les griefs formuléà cet égardsont
((dépourvusde substance ».
321. Dans son arrêt du 27 juin 2001 rendu dans l'affaire LaGrand
(Allemagne c. Etats-Unis d'Amérique), la Cour est parvenue «à la conclu-
sion que lesordonnancesindiquant des mesures conservatoires au titre de
l'article 41 [du Statut] ont un caractère obligatoire)).J.Recueil 2001,
p. 506, par. 109). Toutefois, c'est «au plaideur qui chercheà établirun
fait qu'incombe la charge de la preuve; lorsque celle-cin'estpas produite,
une conclusion peut être rejetée dans l'arrêt commeinsuffisamment
démontrée)) (~ctivités militaires et paramilitaires au Nicaragua et contre
celui-ci (Nicaragua c. Etats-Unis d'Amérique), compétenceet recevabi-
lité, arrêt,C.Z.J. Recueil1984, p. 437, par. 101). Ainsi, il incombe en
l'espèceau Cameroun d'établirque le Nigériaa agi en méconnaissance
des mesures conservatoires indiquéesdans l'ordonnance du 15 mars 1996.
322. En l'espèce, laCour avait déjànoté danscette ordonnance qu'elle
n'avait pu se faire une image«claire et précise))des événementssurvenus
à Bakassi en février1996 (C.I.J.Recueil 1996, p. 22, par. 38). Il en est de
même ence qui concerne les événementssurvenus dans la presqu'île
aprèsl'adoption del'ordonnance du 15mars 1996.LeCameroun n'apporte
pas la preuve des faits qui lui incombe et ses conclusions sur ce point ne
peuvent qu'être écartées.
323. Le Cameroun se plaint en dernier lieu de divers incidents fronta-
liers survenus non seulement a Bakassi et dans la régiondu lac Tchad,
mais encore en mer et tout le long de la frontière terrestre entre les deux
Etats de 1970 à2001.Dans sa réplique et lors des plaidoiries,leCameroun
a préciséqu'il nedemandait pas qu'il soit statuésur la responsabilitédu
Nigériapour chacun de ces incidents pris isolément.Dans ses conclusions
finales, leCameroun demande àla Cour dejuger que, «en procédant à des
incursions répétées tout le long de la frontière entre les deux pays, la
Républiquefédéraledu Nigériaa violé et violeses obligations en vertu du
droit international)) et que par suite sa responsabilitéest engagée,notam-
ment du fait des décèsconstatésou des blessures infligées.
Le Nigéria estime qu'il nesaurait êtrestatué globalement sur ces
conclusions et au'elles doivent êtreexaminéesen remenant les incidents
allégués un à un. Il sollicite de la Cour le rejet desdites conclusions et
présente pour sa part des demandes reconventionnelles relatives à de
nombreux incidents survenus le long de la frontière qui, selon le Nigéria,
engageraient la responsabilité internationale du Cameroun. Ce dernier
demande à la cour-de rejeter ces conclusions.
324. La Cour constate que, là encore, aucune des Parties n'apporte de
preuves suffisantes des faits qu'elle avance ou de leur imputabilité à
l'autre Partie. Elle ne saurait Dar suite accueillir ni les conclusions du
Cameroun ni les demandes reconventionnelles du Nigéria fondéessur les
incidents invoqués.Court on 15March 1996and has thereby breacheclits international obli-
gations. Nigeria maintains that these claims are "without substance".
321. In its Judgment of 27June 2001 inthe LaGrand case (Germany v.
United States of Ainerica), the Court reached "the conclusion that
orders on provisional measures under Article 41 [of the Statute] have
binding effect" (1.C..J.Reports 2001, p. 506, para. 109). However, it is
"the litigant seeking to establish a fact who bears the burden of proving
it; and in cases where evidence may not be forthcoming, a submission
may in thejudgment be rejected as unproved" (Miiitary and Paramilitary
Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaraguu v. United States of
America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I. C.J. Reports 1984,
p. 437, para. 101). Thus in the present case it is for Cameroon to show
that Nigeria acted iniviolation of the provisional measures indicated in
the Order of 15 March 1996.
322. In this case, the Court had already noted in the above Order that
it was unable to forn-iany "clear and precise" picture of the events taking
place in Bakassi in F'ebruary 1996 (I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 22 para. 38).
The same is true in respect of events in the peninsula after the Order
of 15 March 1996 was handed down. Cameroon has not established
the facts which it bears the burden of proving, and its submissions on
this point must accoirdingly berejected.
323. Finally, Canieroon complains of various boundary incidents
occurring not only in Bakassi and the Lake Chad area but also at sea and
al1along the land boundary between the two States between 1970 and
2001. Cameroon made clear in its Reply and at the oral proceedings that
it was not seeking a ruling on Nigeria's responsibility in respect of each of
these incidents taken in isolation. In its final submissions, Cameroon
requests the Court to adjudge that "by making repeated incursions
throughout the leng1.hof the boundary between the two countries, the
Federal Republic of Nigeria has violated and is violating its obligations
under international . . .law" and that its responsibility is therefore
engaged, notably because of the casualties inflictecl.
Nigeria contends that these submissions cannot be ruled upon as a
whole and that they must be addressed by consiclering the alleged inci-
dentsone by one. It asks the Court to reject the said submissions and, for
its part, presents counter-claims concerning numerous incidents alongthe
boundary which, according to Nigeria, engage Caineroon's State respon-
sibility. Cameroon aisksthe Court to reject those jubmissions.
324. TheCourt firidsthat, here again, neither of'the Parties sufficiently
proves the facts whic:hit alleges, or their imputability to the other Party.
The Court is therefore unable to uphold either Ciimeroon's submissions
or Nigeria's counter-claims based on the incident:; cited. FRONTIERE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
454
325. Par ces motifs,
LA COUR,
1. A) Par quatorze voix contre deux,
Décideque la frontière entre la République du Cameroun et la Répu-
blique fédéraledu Nigériadans la régiondu lac Tchad est délimitéepar la
déclaration Thomson-Marchand de 1929-1930, telle qu'incorporée dans
l'échangede notes Henderson-Fleuriau de 1931;
POURM : . Guillaume,président;M. Shi, vice-président;MM. Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh,Fleischhauer, MmeHiggins,MM. Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans,
Rezek,Al-Khasawneh,Buergenthal,Elaraby,juges; M. Mbaye,jugead hoc;
CONTRE: M. Koroma,juge; M. Ajibola,juge ad hoc;
B) Par quatorze voix contre deux,
Décideque le tracé de la frontière entre la République du Cameroun et
la République fédéraledu Nigéria dans la région du lac Tchad est le
suivant :
A partir d'un tripoint situé dans le lac Tchad par 14"04'59"9999 de
longitude est et13O05'de latitude nord, la frontière suit une ligne droite
jusqu'à l'embouchure de la rivière Ebedji, situéepar 14"12'12" de longi-
tude est et 12"32'17" de latitude nord, pour ensuite rejoindre en ligne
droite la bifurcation de la rivière Ebedji, en un point situé par 14"12'03"
de longitude est et 12' 30'14" de latitude nord;
POURM : . Guillaume,président;M. Shi, vice-président; Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh.Fleischhauer, MmeHiggins,MM. Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans,
Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby, juges; M. Mbaye, juge
ad hoc ;
CONTRE M:. Koroma, juge; M. Ajibola,juge ad hoc;
II. A) Par quinze voix contre une,
Décideque la frontière terrestre entre la République du Cameroun et la
République fédéraledu Nigéria est délimitée,depuis le lac Tchadjusqu'à
la presqu'île de Bakassi, par les instruments suivants:
i) de la bifurcation de la rivière Ebedjiu'au mont Tamnyar, par les
paragraphes 2 à 60 de la déclaration Thomson-Marchand de 1929-
1930, telle qu'incorporée dans l'échange de notes Henderson-Fleu-
riau de 1931;
ii) du mont Tamnyar jusqu'à la borne 64 mentionnée à l'article XII de
l'accord anglo-allemand du 12 avril 1913, par l'Ordre en conseil bri-
tannique du 2 août 1946;
iii) de la borne 64jusqu'à la presqu'île de Bakassi, par les accords anglo-
allemands des 11 mars et 12 avril 1913;
POURM : . Guillaume,président;M. Shi, vice-président;MM. Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh,Fleischhauer,M'""Higgins,MM.Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans,
Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby, juges; MM. Mbaye, Aji-
bola,juges ad hoc;
CONTRE M:. Koroma,juge; 325. For these reasons,
1. (A) By fourteen votes to two,
Decides that the boundary between the Republic of Cameroon and the
Federal Republic of Nigeria in the Lake Chad area is delimited by the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration of 1929-1930, as incorporated in the
Henderson-Fleuriau IExchange of Notes of 1931 ;
IN FAVOUR Pr:esideniLGuillaume; Vice-President Shi; Judges Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Higgins,Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek,
Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby; Judge ad hoc Mbaye;
ACAINSJ Tu:dge Koroma; Judge ad hoc Ajibola;
(B) By fourteen votes to two,
Decides that the line of the boundary betueen the Republic of
Cameroon and the Federal Republic of Nigeria iii the Lake Chad area
is as follows:
From a tripoint in Lake Chad lying at 14O04'59"9999 longitude east
and 13"05' latitude north, in a straight line to the mouth of the River
Ebeji, lying at 14"12:'12" longitude east and 12" 32'17" latitude north;
and from there in a straight line to the point where the River Ebeji
bifurcates, located ai: 14"12'03" longitude east and 12O30'14" latitude
north;
IN FAVOUR P:esidenl Guillaume; Vice-President Shi; Judges Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek,
Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby; Judge ad floc Mbaye;
AGAINSJ Tu:dge Koroma; Judge ad hoc Ajibola;
II.(A) By fifteen votes to one,
Decides that the I,and boundary between the Republic of Cameroon
and the Federal Repilblic of Nigeria is delimited, from Lake Chad to the
Bakassi Peninsula, by the following instruments:
(i) from the point where the River Ebeji bifurcates as far as Tamnyar
Peak, by paragraphs 2 to 60 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
of 1929-1930, as incorporated in the Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange
of Notes of 193 1;
(ii) from Tamnyar Peak to pillar 64 referred to in Article XII of the
Anglo-German .4greement of 12April 1913, I,y the British Order in
Council of 2 Auigust 1946;
(iii) from pillar 64 to the Bakassi Peninsula, by the Anglo-German
Agreements of 11 March and 12 April 1913;
IN FAVOUR: President Guillaume; Vice-President Shi; Judges Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Higgins, Parra-Aranguien, Kooijmans, Rezek,
Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal. Elaraby; Judgcs ad hoc Mbaye, Ajibola;
AGAINST :Judge Koroma;455 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRET)
B) A l'unanimité,
Décideque ces instruments doivent êtreinterprétésde la manière expo-
séeaux paragraphes 91, 96, 102, 114, 119, 124, 129, 134, 139, 146, 152,
155, 160, 168, 179, 184 et 189 du présent arrêt;
III. A) Par treize voix contre trois,
Décide que la frontière entre la République du Cameroun et la Répu-
blique fédéraledu Nigéria à Bakassi est délimitéepar les articles XVIII à
XX de l'accord anglo-allemand du 11mars 19 13;
POURM : . Guillaume,président; M. Shi, vice-président;MM. Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleischhauer,MmeHiggins,MM. Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans,
Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby,juges; M. Mbaye,juge ad hoc;
CONTRE M:M. Koroma, Rezek,juges; M. Ajibola, juge ad hoc;
B) Par treize voix contre trois,
Décide que la souveraineté sur la presqu'île de Bakassi est camerou-
naise ;
POURM : . Guillaume,président; M. Shi, vice-président;MM. Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleischhauer, MmeHiggins,MM. Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans,
Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby,juges; M. Mbaye,juge ad hoc;
CONTRE M:M. Koroma, Rezek,juges; M. Ajibola, juge ad hoc;
C) Par treize voix contre trois,
Décide que la frontière entre la République du Cameroun et la Répu-
blique fédéraledu Nigéria à Bakassi suit le thalweg de la rivière Akpako-
rum (Akwayafé), en séparant les îles Mangrove prèsd71kangde la manière
indiquée sur la carte TSGS 2240, jusqu'à une ligne droite joignant
Bakassi Point et King Point;
POURM : . Guillaume, président; M.Shi, vice-président;MM. Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleischhauer,Mm'Higgins,MM. Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans,
Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal,Elaraby,juges; M. Mbaye,juge ad hoc;
CONTRE: MM. Koroma, Rezek,juges; M. Ajibola,juge ad hoc;
IV. A) Par treize voix contre trois,
Dit, après examen de la huitième exception préliminaire du Nigéria
dont elle a déclaré,par son arrêtdu Il juin 1998,qu'elle n'avait pas, dans
les circonstances de l'espèce,un caractère exclusivement préliminaire, que
la Cour est compétente pour connaître desdemandes dont elle a étésaisie
par la République du Cameroun en ce qui concerne la délimitation des
zones maritimes relevant respectivement de la République du Cameroun
et de la République fédéraledu Nigéria, et que ces demandes sont
recevables ;
POURM : . Guillaume,président; M. Shi, vice-président;MM. Ranjeva, Her-
czegh, Fleischhauer, Mme Higgins, MM. Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans,
Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby, juges; M. Mbaye. juge
ad hoc;
CONTRE: MM. Oda, Koroma,,juges; M. Ajibola, juge ad hoc; (B) Unanimously,
Drcides that the aforesaid instruments are to be interpreted in the
manner set out in paragraphs 91, 96, 102, 114, 119, 124, 129, 134, 139,
146, 152, 155. 160, 168, 179, 184 and 189 of the present Judgment;
III. (A) By thirteen votes to three,
Decides that the boundary between the Republic of Cameroon and the
Federal Republic of Nigeria in Bakassi is delimiteti by Articles XVIII to
XX of the Anglo-Gel-man Agreement of 11 Marc11 191 3;
IN FAV~UR :Presickni'Guillaume ; Vice-President Shi ;Judges Oda. Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Higgins, Parsa-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Al-
Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby; Judge ad hoc Mbaye;
AGAINST: Judges Koroma, Rezek; Judge ad hoc Ajit~ola;
(B) By thirteen votes to three,
Decides that sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula lies with the
Republic of Cameroon;
IN FAVOUR :Presidenr'Guillaume ; Vice-President Shi ;Judges Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Al-
Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby; Judge ad hoc Mbaye;
AGAINSJ Tu:dges Koroma, Rezek; Judge ad hoc Ajibola;
(C) By thirteen votes to three,
Decides that the boundary between the Republic. of Cameroon and the
Federal Republic of Nigeria in Bakassi follows the thalweg of the Akpa-
korum (Akwayafe) Fkiver, dividing the Mangrove Islands near Ikang in
the way shown on nlap TSGS 2240, as far as the straight line joining
Bakassi Point and King Point;
rN FAVOUR P:resident Guillaume; Vice-President Shi ;Judges Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleisclihauer, Higgins, Parra-Aranpuren, Kooijmans, Al-
Khasawneh, Buer,genthal,Elaraby; Judge ad hoc Mbaye;
AGAINST: Judges Koiroma,Rezek; Judge ad hoc Ajibola;
IV. (A) By thirteen votes to three,
Finds, having addressed Nigeria's eighth preliminary objection, which
it declared in its Judlgment of 11 June 1998 not to have an exclusively
preliminary character in the circumstances of the case, tliat it has jurisdic-
tion over the claims submitted to it by the Republic of Cameroon regard-
ing the delimitation of the maritime areas appertaiiiing respectively to the
Republic of Cameroon and to the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and that
those claims are admissible;
rN FAVOUR : Presidt~nt Guillaume ; Vice-President Shi ; Judges Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek,
Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby; Judge ad hoc Mbaye;
ACAINST :Judges Od,a,Koroma ;Judge ad hoc Ajibola ;456 FRONTIERE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
B) Par treize voix contre trois,
Décideque,jusqu'au point G mentionnéci-dessous, la limite des zones
maritimes relevant respectivement de la Républiquedu Cameroun et de
la Républiquefédéraledu Nigéria suitle tracésuivant:
- partant du point d'intersection entre le milieu du chenal navigable de
la rivièreAkwayaféet la ligne droite joignant Bakassi Point et King
Point indiquéeau point III C) ci-dessus, la limite suit la «ligne de
compromis)) tracée conjointement par les chefs d'Etat du Cameroun
et du Nigéria a Yaoundéle 4 avril 1971sur la carte no3433de l'Ami-
rautébritannique (déclaration de Yaoundé II) et passant par douze
points numérotés,dont les coordonnéessont les suivantes:
Longitude Latitude
point 1 : 8"30'44"E, 4O40'28"N
point 2: 8"30'00"E, 4"40'00"N
point 3 : 8"28'50"E, 4"39'00"N
point 4: 8"27'52"E, 4" 38'00"N
point 5: 8"27'09"E, 4"37'00"N
point 6: 8"26'36"E, 4"36'00"N
point 7 : 8"26'03"E, 4"35'00"N
point 8 : 8"25'42"E, 4"34'18"N
point 9: 8"25'3SfE, 4"34'00"N
point 10: 8"25'08"E, 4"33'00"N
point 11 : 8"24'47"E, 4"32'00"N
point 12: 8"24'38"E, 4'31'26"N;
- à partir du point 12,la limite suit la ligne adoptéedans la déclaration
signéepar les chefs d'Etat du Cameroun et du Nigéria à Maroua le
1"juin 1975(déclarationdeMaroua), telle que modifiéepar l'échange
de lettres entre lesdits chefsd'Etat des 12 juin et 17 juillet 1975;
cette ligne passe par les points Aa G dont les coordonnées sont les
suivantes:
Longitude Latitude
point A : 8"24'24"E, 4'31'30"N
point Al : 8"24' 24"E, 4"31f20"N
point B : 8"24'10"E, 4"26'32"N
point C : 8"23'42"E, 4"23'28"N
point D : 8"22'41"E, 4"20'00"N
point E : 8"22'17"E, 4"19'32"N
point F : 8"22' 19"E, 4" 18'46"N
point G : 8"22' 19"E, 4"17'00"N;
POUR: M. Guillaume,président;M. Shi, vice-président ; M. Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh,Fleischhauer,MmeHiggins, MM. Parra-Aranguren,Kooijmans,
Al-Khasawneh,Buergenthal,Elaraby,juges; M. Mbaye,juge ad hoc;
CONTRE: MM. Koroma, Rezek,juges; M. Ajibola,juge ad hoc; (B) By thirteen votes to three,
Decides that, up ito point G below, the boundary of the maritime
areas appertaining respectively to the Republic of Cameroon and to the
Federal Republic of 'Nigeria takes the following course:
- starting from the point of intersection of the centre of the navigable
channel of the Akwayafe River with the straight line joining Bakassi
Point and King P'ointas referred to in pointIII(C) above, the bound-
ary follows the '"compromise line" drawn jointly at Yaoundé on
4 April 1971 by the Heads of State of Cami:roon and Nigeria on
British Admiralty Chart 3433 (Yaoundé II Declaration) and passing
through 12 numblered points, whose CO-ordinates are as follows:
Longitude Lutitude
point 1: 8"30'44"E, 4"40 28"N
point 2 : 8"30'00"E, 4"40,OO"N
point 3 : 8"28' 50"E, 4"39'00"N
point 4: 8"27'52"E, 4"38'00"N
point 5 : 8"27'09"E, 4"37'00"N
point 6: 8"26'36"E, 4'36'00"N
point 7: 8"26'03"E, 4"35'00"N
point 8 : 8"25'42"E, 4"34'18"N
point 9: 8"25'35"E, 4"34'00"N
point 10: 8"25'08"E, 4"33'00"N
point 11 : 8"24'47"E, 4"32'00"N
point 12: 8"24'38"E, 4"31'26"N;
- from point 12,the boundary follows the line adopted in the Declara-
tion signed by the Heads of State of Cameroon and Nigeria at
Maroua on 1Juine 1975 (Maroua Declaratiori), as corrected by the
exchange of letters between the said Heads of'State of 12 June and
17 July 1975 ; that line passes through pointA to G, whose co-ordi-
nates are as follows :
Longitude Lutitude
poiintA : 8"24'24"E, 4"31'30"N
point Al : 8"24'24"E, 4"31'20"N
point B: 8"24' 10"E, 4"26'32"N
pount C : 8"23'42"E, 4"23'28"N
point D : 8"22'41"E, 4"20'00"N
point E : 8"22'17"E, 4" 19'32"N
pointF: 8"22'19"E, 4"1S146"N
pointG: 8"22'19"E, 4O17'00"N;
IN FAVOUR P:esident Guillaume; Vice-Presidrnt Shi; Judges Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Al-
Khasawneh, Buergenthal.Elaraby; Judge ad hoc Mbaye;
AGAINST :Judges Koroma, Rezek ;Judge ad hoc Ajibola;457 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ARRÊT)
C) A l'unanimité,
Décide que, à partir du point G, la limite des zones maritimes relevant
respectivement de la Républiquedu Cameroun et de la Républiquefédé-
rale du Nigéria suitune ligne loxodromique ayant un azimut de 270"
jusqu'à la ligne d'équidistance quipasse par le milieu de la lignejoignant
West Point et East Point; la limite rejoint cette ligne d'équidistanceen un
point X de coordonnées 8" 21'20" de longitude est et 4" 17'00"de latitude
nord;
D) A l'unanimité,
Décide que, à partir du point X, la limite des zones maritimes relevant
respectivement de la République du Cameroun et de la République
fédéraledu Nigéria suit une ligneloxodromique ayant un azimut de
187" 52'27";
V. A) Par quatorze voix contre deux,
Décide que la Républiquefédéraledu Nigéria est tenuede retirer dans
les plus brefs délais etsans condition son administration et ses forces
armées et de police des territoires relevant de la souveraineté de la
République du Cameroun conformément aux points 1 et III du présent
dispositif;
POURM : . Guillaume,résident;M. Shi,vice-présidentMM. Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh,Fleischhauer,Mme Higgins,MM.Parra-Aranguren,Kooijmans,
Rezek, Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby, juges; M. Mbaye, juge
ad hoc;
CONTRM E:. Koroma, juge; M. Ajibola,juge ad hoc;
B) A l'unanimité,
Décide que la République du Cameroun est tenue de retirer dans les
plus brefs délaiset sans condition toutes administration ou forces armées
ou de police qui pourraient se trouver sur des territoires relevant de la
souveraineté de la République fédéraledu Nigéria conformément au
point II du présent dispositif. La République fédéraledu Nigéria a la
mêmeobligation en ce qui concerne les territoires relevant de la souve-
rainetéde la Républiquedu Cameroun conformémentau point II du pré-
sent dispositif;
C) Par quinze voix contre une,
Prend acte de l'engagement pris à l'audience par la République du
Cameroun, par lequel celle-ci affirmeque, ((fidèlasa politique tradition-
nellement accueillante et tolérante)),elle ((continuerassurer sa protec-
tion aux Nigérians habitant la péninsule[de Bakassi] et [à]ceux vivant
dans la régiondu lac Tchad));
POUR: M. Guillaume, président;M. Shi,vice-présidentMM. Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh,Fleischhauer,Koroma, MmeHiggins,MM. Kooijmans,Rezek,
Al-Khasawneh, Buergenthal,Elaraby. juges; MM. Mbaye,Ajibola, juges
ad hoc;
CONTRE :M. Parra-Aranguren,juge; (C) Unanimously,
Decides that. from oint G. the boundarv line between the maritime
areas appertaining reçbectivel; to the ~e~ublic of Cameroon and to the
Federal Republic of Nigeria follows a loxodrome having an azimuth of
270" as far as the equidistance line passing through the midpoint of the
line joining West Poiint and East Point; the bouridary meets this equi-
distance line at a point X, with CO-ordinates 8"21'20" longitude east
and 4" 17'00" latitude north;
(D) Unanimously,
Decides that, from point X, the boundary between the maritime areas
appertaining respectively to the Republic of Cameroon and to the
Federal Republic of Nigeria follows a loxodrome having an azimuth
of 187" 52'27";
V. (A) By fourteeil votes to two,
Decides that the Federal Republic of Nigeria is under an obligation
expeditiously and without condition to withdraw its administration and
its military and police forces from the territories which fall within the
sovereignty of the Republic of Cameroon pursuant to points 1 and III of
this operative paragraph;
IN FAVOUR: Presideni'Guillaume; Vice-President Shi;Judges Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek,
Al-Khasawneh,Buergenthal,Elaraby; Judge ad hoc Mbaye;
AGAINST: Judge Koroma; Judge ad hoc Ajibola;
(B) Unanimously,
Decides that the R~rpublicof Cameroon is undet an obligation expedi-
tiously and without condition to withdraw any adniinistration or military
or police forces whicl~may be present in the territtx-ieswhich fa11within
the sovereignty ofthe Federal Republic of Nigeria pursuant to point II of
this operative paragraph. The Federal Republic of'Nigeria has the same
obligation in respect of the territories which f'allwithin the sovereignty of
the Republic of Carrieroon pursuant to point II of this operative para-
graph ;
(C) By fifteen votes to one,
Takes note of the commitment undertaken by the Republic of Cam-
eroon at the hearings that, "faithful to its traditional policy of hospitality
and tolerance", it "will continue to afford protection to Nigerians living
in the [Bakassi] Penirisula and in the Lake Chad area";
IN FAVOUR : PresidentGuillaume; Vice-PresidentShi ;Judges Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Higgins, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al-
Khasawneh,Buergenthal,Elaraby; Judges ad hoc:Mbaye,Ajibola;
AGAINST :Judge Parra-Aranguren ; D) A l'unanimité,
Rejettele surplus des conclusions de la République du Cameroun
concernant la responsabilitéinternationale de la Républiquefédéraledu
Nigéria ;
E) A l'unanimité,
Rejetteles demandes reconventionnelles de la Républiquefédéraledu
Nigéria.
Fait en français et en anglais, le texte français faisant foi, au Palais de
la Paix,à La Haye, le dix octobre deux mille deux, en quatre exemplaires,
dont l'un restera déposéaux archives de la Cour et les autres seront
transmis respectivement au Gouvernement de la République du Came-
roun, au Gouvernement de la République fédéraledu Nigéria et au
Gouvernement de la République de Guinée équatoriale.
Le président,
(Signé) Gilbert GUILLAUME
Le greffier,
(Signé) Philippe COUVREUR
M. le juge ODAjoint une déclaration à l'arrêt;M. le juge RANJEVA
jointà l'arrêtl'exposéde son opinion individuelle; M. lejuge HERCZEGH
joint une déclarationà l'arrêt;M. lejuge KOROMA joint a l'arrêtl'exposé
de son opinion dissidente; M. le juge PARRA-ARANGUR Eint à l'arrêt
I'exposéde son opinion individuelle;M. lejuge REZEK joint une déclara-
tion à l'arrêt;M. le juge AL-KHASAWNE et M. le juge ad hoc MBAYE
joignent a I'arrêtles exposésde leur opinion individuelle; M. le juge
ad hoc AJIBOLA joint à l'arrêtl'exposéde son opinion dissidente.
(Paraphé) G.G.
(Paraphé)Ph.C. (D) Unanimously,
Rejects al1other submissions of the Republic of'Cameroon regarding
the State responsibility of the Federal Republic of Nigeria;
(E) Unanimously,
Rejects the counter-claims of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
Done in French an~din English, the French text heing authoritative, at
the Peace Palace,The Hague, this tenth day of October, two thousand
and two, in fourcopii:~,one of which will be placed in the archives of the
Court and the others transmitted to theovernmc:nt of the Republic of
Cameroon, the Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, and the
Government of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, respectively.
(Signed) Gilbert GUILLAUME,
President.
(Signed) I'hilippe COUVREUR,
Registrar
Judge ODA appentis a declaration to the Judgment of the Court;
Judge RANJEVA appends a separate opinion to the Judgment of the
Court; Judge HERCZIZGaH ppends a declaration to the Judgment of the
Court; Judge KOROMA appends a dissenting opinion to the Judgment of
the Court; Judge PAF.RA-ARANGUR apNends a separate opinion to the
Judgment of the Cowrt; Judge REZEKappends a declaration to the Judg-
ment of the Court; Judge AL-KHASAWNa End .ludge ad hoc MBAYE
append separate opiriions to the Judgment of the Court; Judgead hoc
AJIBOLA appends a dissenting opinion to the Judgrnent of the Court.
(Initialled)G.G.
(Initialled)Ph.C.
Judgment of 10 October 2002