Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
Not an official document
CASECONCERNINGTHENORTHERNCAMEROONS
Proceedings in the case concerning the: Northern Judges Wellington Koo, Sir Percy Spender,Sir Gerald
Cameroons,betweentheFederalRepublic tdCameroonand Fitzmauriceand Morelli appendeSeparateOpinions.
theUnited Kingdomof Great Britain andhlorthemIreland, Judps BadawiandBustamanteyRiveroandJudgead hoc
wereinstitutedby an Applicationof 30Ma.y1961in which BebaDonappended Dissenting Opinions.
the Governmentof the Republicof Camleroonasked the
Court to declarethat, in the applicationof'the Trusteeship
Agreementforthe Temtoryof the Cameroons under British
Administration,the United:Kingdomfailed, withregardto
theNorthernCameroons,torespectcertainobligationsflow- InitsJudgment,theCourtrecalledthattheCameroonshad
ing from that Agreement. Governme:ntof the United fonnedpartofthepossessions towhichGermanyrenounced
Kingdomraisedpreliminaryobjections. her rightsunderthe%sty of Versaillesandwhichhadbeen
By 10votesto 5 theCou~tfoundthatit could not adjudi- placedunderthe Mandates Systemofthe LeagueofNations.
cate upon the merits of the claim of the Republic of Ithad beendividedintotwo Mandates, the onadministered
Cameroon. by Fmce and theotherby the UnitedKingdom.The latter
divided its temtory into the Northern Cameroons,which
JudgesSpiropoulosand :Koretskyappendedto the Judg- was administeredas part of Nigeria, i~ndthe Southern
ment Declarationsof their dissent. Judge Jessup, while Cameroons,whichwasadministeredas a separateprovince
entirely agreeingwiththereasoningin the Judgmentof the ofNigeria.AfterthecreationoftheUnitedNations,theman-
Court,alsoappendeda Declaration.
Continued on next pagedated territoriesof the Cameroonswere placed underthe duce to the resolutionof the issues to which the Court
international trusteeship systemby trusteeship agreements directed itsattention..
approvedbytheGeneral Assembly on13December 1946. As a Member of the United Nations, the Republic of
The temtory under French administrati011ttained inde- Cameroonhada rightto apply totheCourt andbythe filing
pendence asthe Republicof Cameroonon 1January 1960 ofthe ApplicationtheCourthad beenseised.Butthe seising
and becameaMemberoftheUnitedNations on20 Septem- ofthe Courtwasonething,theadministrationofjusticewas
ber 1960. In thecaseof thetemtory under United Kingdom another.Even if the Court, when seised, foundthat it had
administration, theUnitedNationsGeneralAssemblyrec- jurisdiction,it wasnot compelledin everycase to exercise
ommendedthattheAdministering Authority organiseplebi- thatjurisdiction.It exerciseda judicial functionwhich was
scitesinordertoascertainthe wishesoftheillhabitants.Pur- circumscribedby inherentlimitations.Like the Permanent
suanttotheseplebiscitestheSouthernCameroons joinedthe Court,itcouldnotdepartfromthe essentialrulesguidingits
Republicof Cameroonon 1October1961andtheNorthern activityasaCourt.
Cameroonson 1June 1961joinedtheFederationofNigeria, Resolution1608(XV), by whichthe General Assembly
whichhaditselfbecomeindependenton1October 1960.On decidedthat theTrusteeshipAgreementshouldbeterminated
21April 1961the General Assembly endorwdtheresultsof withrespecttothe Northern Cameroono sn 1June 1961,had
the plebiscitesand decidedthat the TrusteeshipAgreement had definitive legaleffect. The Republicof Cameroon did
concerningthe Cameroons under United Kingdomadminis- notdisputethatthedecisionsoftheGeneral Assemblywould
trationshouldbe terminateduponthe two pads of theterri- notbe reversedorthaltthe Trusteeship Agreemenwt ouldnot
tory joining the Republiof Cameroon andNigeriarespec- berevivedbyaJudgmentoftheCourton themerits, that the
tively(resolution1608(XV)). NorthernCameroonswould notbejoined to theRepublicof
The Republicof Cameroonvotedagainstthe adoptionof Cameroon, thatits union withNigeriawould notbe invali-
this resolution, after expressingdissatisfitctionwith the dated, or that theUnitedKingdomwouldhave no right or
mannerin whichthe United Kingdomhad aclministeredthe authorityto take any action with a view to satisfying the
Northern Cameroonsand had organised he plebiscites, underlyingdesiresof the Republicof Cameroon.The func-
maintaining thatthe politicaldevelopment of the temtory tionoftheCourtwastostatethelaw,butitsjudgmentsmust
andthenormalcourseoftheconsultationwiththepeoplehad becapable ofhavingsomepracticalconsequences.
beenalteredthereby.Thesecriticisms, togetherwithothers, After1June 1961, noMemberoftheUnited Nationscould
weredevelopedina WhiteBook whichwas rebuttedby the any longer claimany of the rights whichmight havebeen
representativesof the United Kingdom andof Nigeria.Fol- originallygrantedbyitheTrusteeshipAgreement.Itmightbe
lowing the adoption of the resolution tht: Republic of contended that if,dllring the life of the Itusteeship, the
Cameroon,on 1May 1961,addresseda communicationto Trusteewas responsitlleforsomeactinviolationof its terms
theUnited Kingdom inwhichitreferredtoadisputeconcern- whichresultedin danlageto anotherMember ofthe United
ing theapplication ofthe 'kusteeshipAgreement andpro- Nations or to one of'its nationals,a claim for reparation
posedthe conclusionofa specialagreement fbrthe purpose wouldnotbe liquidatedby the terminationof theTrust,but
of bringing thedisputebefore theCourt. The:United King- theApplicationof the:Republicof Cameroon sought onlya
domgavea negativereplyon26May 1961.Fourdayslater findingofabreachofthelawandincludednoclaimfor repa-
the Republicof Cameroonsubmittedan Applicationto the ration.Evenif it wen:common groundthat theItusteeship
Court. Agreementwasdesignedtoprovideaformofjudicialprotec-
TheUnitedKingdomthenraisedanumberofpreliminary tion which any Memberof the United Nationshad a right
objections. Thefirstwasthat therewas no disputebetween to invokein the generalinterest,the Courtcouldnot agree
itselfandtheRepublicofCameroon,andthatifanydispute that that judicial protection survived the terminnf the
hadatthe dateoftheApplicationexistedit wrs betweenthe TrusteeshipAgreement;in filing its Applicationo30 May
Republicof Cameroon andthe United Natio:ns.The Court 1961,theRepublicofCameroonhadexerciseda pmedural
foundin this connectionthat the opposinviewsof thepar- right which appertain.4 to it, but, after 1 June 1961, the
tiesastothe interpretationandapplicationoffheTrusteeship RepublicofCameroo1w 1 ouldnolongerhavehadanyrightto
Agreement revealedtheexistenceofa dispute,atthe dateof ask the Court to adjudicate at this stage upon questions
theApplication,inthe senserecognisedbythejurisprudence affectingtherightsof theinhabitantsoftheTerritoryandthe
oftheCourt. general interestin thesuccessfulfunctioningof the'Iiustee-
Anotherof the United Kingdom's preliminmyobjections
wasbasedonArticle32(2)oftheRulesof Cou~rt, hichpro- TheRepublicofCameroonhadcontendedthatallitsought
videsthatwhenacaseisbrought beforetheCourtthe Appli- wasadeclaratoryjudgmentoftheCourt,thatpriortotheter-
cationmust not onlyindicatethe subjectof the disputebut minationoftheTrusheshi~AgreementtheUnitedKingdom
must also as far as possiblestate the precisenature of the hadbreacheditsprovisions.TheCourtmight,in an appropri-
claim and thegroundson which itis based. Adopting the atecase, makea declmtory judgmentbut suchajudgment
viewexpressedbythePermanentCourtofInternationalJus- musthavea continuinjgapplicability.Inthiscasetherewasa
tice,theCourtconsideredthat,itsjurisdictionbeinginterna- disputeaboutthe intel~tation and applicationof a treaty,
tional,itwasnotboundto attachtomattersofformthe same but the treatywas no longerin forceand therecouldbe no
degreeofimportancewhichtheymightpossessinmunicipal 0pp0rtunityforafutuneactofinterpretationOrapplicationin
law. It foundthat the Applicanthad sufficielltlycomplied accordancewithanyjtldgmenttheCourtmightrender.
with Article 32 (2) of the Rules and that this preliminary Whetheror not at tlhemomentthe Applicationwas filed
objectionwasaccordinglywithoutsubstance. therewasjurisdictionintheCourttoadjudicateuponthedis-
pute, circumstancesthathadsince arisenrenderedanyadju-
* dicationdevoidof purpose.Underthese conditions,for the
* * Courttoproceedfurtherinthecasewouldnot,initsopinion,
beaproperdischargeofitsduties. Theanswertothequestion
The Court then saidthat a factual analysisundertakenin whether thejudicial functionwasengagedmight,incertain
the lightof certainguidingprinciplesmightsufficeto con- cases,needtowait uponanexaminationofthemerits:In the
66presentcase,however,itwasalreadyevidentthatitcouldnot expresslyuponthe severalsubmissionsof the Uniteding-
beengaged. domandfoundthatitcouldnotadjudicateuponthemeritsof
the'Iaimofthe Repub1icof
Forthesereasonsthe Courtdid notfeelclilledupontopass
Summary of the Judgment of 2 December 1963