Summary of the Judgment of 10 October 2002

Summaries of Judgments, AdvNot an official documents of the Internationa
l Court of Justice

LAND AND MARITIME BOlJNDARY ESETWEENCAMEROON AND NIGERIA
(CAMEROON v.NIGERIA: EQUATORIAL GUINEA INTERVENING) (MERITS)

Judgment of 10 October 2002

In its Judgment on t:he case concerning Land and
Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria,the
Court fixed the courseof the land and maritime boundaries
between Cameroonand Nigeria. The full textof the operativeparagraphof the Judgment
The Court requested Nigeria expeditiouslyand witliout readsas follows:
"325. Forthese reasons,
condi-tionto withdraw its administrationand it; military or
policl: forces from the area of Lake Chad falling within THECOURT,
Camt:rooniansovereigntyand fromthe BakassiPeninsula.It I. (A) By fourteenvotesto two,
also requested Cameroon expeditiously and without Decides that the boundarybetween the Republicof
condition to withdraw any administration or military or
polic~:forceswhich may bepresent along the 1a:boundary Cameroon and the FederalRepublic of Nigeria in the
from Lake Chad to the EIakassiPeninsula on territories Lake Chad area isdelimited by the Thornson-Marchand
which pursuant to thejudgment fall withinthe sovereignty Declaration of 1929-1930, as incorporated in the
Henderson-FleuriauExchangeofNotes of 1931 ;
of Nigeria. The latter has the same obligationin regard to IN FAVOUR: President Guillaume; Vice-President
territories in that area which fall within the sovereigntyof Shi; Judges Oda, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer,
Cameroon.
T:heCourt took note of Cameroon's undertaking,given Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al-
the hearings, to "continue to afford protection I:ONigerians Khasawneh,Buergenthal,Elaraby;Judgeadhoc Mbaye;
AGAINST:JudgeKoroma;Judgead hocAjibola;
living in the [Bakassi] Peninsula and in the Lake Chad (B) By fourteenvotesto two,
area".
Finally, the Court rejected Cameroon's submissions Decides that the line of the boundary between the
regarding the State responsibility of Nigeria. It likewise Republic of Cameroon and the Federal Republic of
rejectedNigeria's counterclaims. Nigeria inthe LakeChadareais as follows:
From a tripoint in Lake Chad lying at 14O04'59"9999
The Court was composed as follows: President longitudeeastand 13'05'latitudenorth,in a straightline
Guilli3ume; Vice-President Shi; Judges Oda, Ranjeva,
Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Higgins, Parra- to the mouth of the River Ebeji, lying at 14O12'12"
Aranguren,Kooijmans,Rezek,Al-Khasawneh,Buergenthal, longitude east and 12O32'17"latitude north; and from
Elaraby;Judgesadhoc Mbaye,Ajibola;RegistrarCouvreur. there ina straight line to thepoint where theRiverEbeji

Continued onnext pagebifurcates, located at 14°12'03" longitude east and Decides that the boundary betweenthe Republic of
12°30'14"latitudenorth; Cameroon and the Federal Republic of Nigeria in

IN FAVOUR: President Guillaume; Vice-President Bakassi follows the thalweg of the Akpakorum
Shi; Judges Oda, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, (A.kwayafe)River, dividing the Mangrove Islandsnear
Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al- Ikang in the way shown on map TSGS 2240, as far as
Khasawneli,Buergenthal,Elaraby;Judge adhoc Mbaye; the straightlinejoining BakassiPointandKing Point;
AGAINST:JudgeKoroma;Judgeadhoc Ajibola; IN FAVOUR: President Guillaume; Vice-President
Shi; Judges Oda, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer,
11. (A) By fifteenvotesto one,
Decidesthat the landboundarybetweenthe Republic Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Al-Khasawneh,
of Cameroon and the Federal Republic of Nigeria is Buergenthal,Elaraby;Judge adhoc Mbaye;
delimited,from Lake Chad to the Bakassi Peninsula,by AGAINST: Judges Koroma, Rezek; Judge ad hoc
Ajibola;
the followinginstrumeats: IV. (A) By thirteenvotesto three,
(i) from the point where the RiverEbeji bifurcates
as far as Tamnyar Peak, by paragraphs 2 to 60 Finds ha,ving addressedNigeria's eighthpreliminary
of the Thomson-MarchandDeclarationof 1929- objection,which it declared in its Judgment o11 June
1930,as incorporatedin the Henderson-Fleuriau 19198not to have an exclusivelypreliminary character in
Exchangeof Notes of 1931; the circumstances of the case, that it has jurisdiction
over the claims submitted to it by the Republic of
(ii) from Tamnyar Peak to pillar 64 referred toin Cameroon regarding the delimitation of the maritime
ArticleXI1of the Anglo-GermanAgreementof
12 April 1913,by the British Order in Council areas appertaining respectively to the Republic of
of 2 August 1946; Cameroon and to the Federal Republic of Nigeria,and
(iii) from pillar 64 to the Bakassi Peninsula,by the thatthose claimsare admissible;
IN FAVOUR: President Guillaume; Vice-President
Anglo-GermanAgreementsof 11March and 12 St~i;Judges Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Higgins,
April 1913; Pam-Aranguren, Kooijmans. Rezek, Al-Khasawneh,
IN FAVOUR: President Guillaume; Vice-President
Shi; Judges Oda, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Bnergenthal,Elaraby;Judge adhoc Mbaye;
Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al- AGAINST: Judges Oda, Koroma; Judge ad hoc
Khasawneh, Buergenthal, Elaraby; Judges ad hoc Ajibola;
(B) By thirteenvotesto three,
Mbaye,Ajibola;
AGAINST:Judge Koroma; Decides that, up to point G below, the boundary of
(B) Unanimously, the maritime areas appertaining respectively to the
Republic of Cameroon and to the Federal Republic of
Decides that the aforesaid instruments are to be Nigeriatakes the followingcourse:
interpreted in the manner set out in paragraphs 91, 96, . startingfromthe point of intersectionof the centre of the
102, 114, 119, 124, 129, 134, 139, 146, 152, 155, 160,
168, 179, 184and 189of the present Judgment; navigable channel of the Akwayafe River with the
111(.A) By thirteenvotesto three, straight line joining Bakassi Point and King Point as
referred to in point I11(C) above, the boundary follows
Decides that the boundary between the Republic of the "compromise line" drawn jointly at YaoundCon 4
Cameroon and the Federal Republic of Nigeria in April 1971 by the Heads of State of Cameroon and
Bakassi is delimited by Articles XVIII to XX of the Nigeria on British Admiralty Chart 3433 (YaoundCI1
Anglo-GermanAgreementof 11March 1913 ; Declaration) and passing through 12numbered points,
IN FAVOUR: President Guillaume; Vice-President
whose coordinatesareas follows:
Shi; Judges Oda, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Longitldde
Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Al-Khasawneh, point 1: 8"30' 44"E,
Buergenthal,Elaraby;Judgeadhoc Mbaye;
AGAINST: Judges Koroma, Rezek; Judge ad hoc point2: 8" 30'00"E,
Ajibola; point 3: 8"28'50" E,
point 4: 8"27' 52"E,
(B) By thirteeiivotesto three,
Decides that sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula point 5: 8"27'09"E,
lieswiththe Republicof Cameroon; point6: 8"26'36"E,
IN FAVOUR: President Guillaume; Vice-President point 7: 8"26'03"E,

Shi; Judges Oda, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, point 8: 8"25' 42"E,
Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans, Al-Khasawneh, point 9: 8"25' 35"E,
Buergenthal,Elaraby;Judgeadhoc Mbaye; point 10: 8"25'08" E,
AGAINST: Judges Koroma, Rezek; Judge ad hoc
Ajibola; point 11: 8"24'47" E,
point 12: 8"24'38" E,
(C) By thirteenvotesto three,fiom point 12,the boundaryfollows the line adopted in which maybe present inthe territorieswhich fallwithin
the Declaration signed by the Heads of State of the sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Nigeria
C.ameroon and Nigeria at Maroua on 1 June 1975 pursuant to point I1 of this operative paragraph. The
(Maroua Declaration), as corrected by the exchange of Federal Republic of Nigeria has the same obligationin
lettersbetweenthe saidI-Ieadsof Stateof 12June and 17 respect of the territories which fall within the
sovereignty of the Republic of Cameroon pursuant to
J~ily1975;thatline passes through points Ato G, whose
coordinatesareas follows: pointI1of this operativeparagraph;
(C) By fifteenvotesto one,
Longitude Latitude Takes note of the commitment undertaken by the
Republic of Cameroon at the hearings that, ''faithful to
pointA: 8"24'24"E, 4" 31'30"N
point A1 : 8"24' 24"E, 4" 31'20"N its traditional policy of hospitality and tolerance", it
pointB: 8"24'10"E, 4" 26'32"N "will continueto affordprotection to Nigerians livingin
the [Bakassi]Peninsulaand in the Lake Chadarea";
point C: 8"23'42" E, 4" 23'28" N IN FAVOUR: President Guillaume; Vice-President
pointD: 8"22'41" E, 4" 20'00"N Shi; Judges .Oda, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer,
point E: 8"22'17"E, 4" 19'32"N
Koroma, Higgins, Kooijmans, Rezek, Al-Khasawneh,
point F: 8"22'19"E, 4" 18'46" N Buergenthal,Elaraby;Judgesadhoc Mbaye,Ajibola;
pointG: 8"22'19"E, 4" 17'00"N; AGAINST:Judge Parra-Aranguren;
(D) Unanimously,
IN FAVOUR: President Guillaume; Vice-President
Shi; Judges Oda, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Rejects all other submissions of the Republic of
Hiiggins,Parra-Arangurcn, Kooijmans, Al-lihasawneh, Cameroon regarding the State responsibility of the
Buergenthal,Elaraby;Judge adhoc Mbaye; Federal Republicof Nigeria;
(E) Unanimously,
AGAINST: Judges Koroma, Rezek; Judge ad hoc
Ajibola; Rejects the counter-claimsof the Federal Republicof
(C) Unanimously, Nigeria."

Decides that, from point G, the boundary line
between themaritime areas appertainingres,pectivelyto
the Republic of Cameroon and to the Federal Republic
of Nigeria follows a loxodrome having an azimuthof Judge Oda appended a declaration to the Judgment of
270" as far as the equidistance linepassing through the the Court;JudgeRanjevaappendeda separateopinionto the
midpoint of the linejoining West Point and East Point;
Judgment of the Court; Judge Herczegh appends a
the boundary meets this equidistance line al.a point X, declaration to the Judgment of the Court; Judge Koroma
with coordinates 8'21'20" longitude east and 4"17'00" appendeda dissentingopinionto the Judgmentof the Court;
latitudenorth; Judge Parra-Aranguren appended a separate opinionto the
(D) Unanimously, Judgmentof the Court;JudgeRezekappendeda declaration
to the Judgment of the Court; Judge Al-Khasawneh and
Decides that, from point X, the boundary between Judge ad hoc Mbaye append separate opinions to the
the maritime areas appertaining respectively to the
Re:publicof Cameroon and to the Federal Itepublic of Judgment of the Court; Judge ad hoc Ajibola appends a
Nigeria follows a loxodrome having an azimuth of dissentingopinionto the Judgmentof theCourt.
187"52'2711;
V. (A) By fourteenvotesto two,

Decides thatthe FederalRepublicofNige.riais under
an obligation expeditiously and without condition to
withdraw its administrationand its military and police I. Histojy of theproceedings and szrbmissiojts of
forces from the territories which fall within the the Parties
sovereignty of the Republic of Cameroon pursuantto (paras. 1-29)

points I andI11of this operativeparagraph; On 29 March 1994 Cameroon filed an Application
IN FAVOUR: President Guillaurne; Vice-President institutingproceedingsagainstNigeria concerning a dispute
Shi; Judges Oda, Ran-jeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, described as "relat[ing] essentially to the question of
Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, Kooijmans. E-ezek, Al- sovereignty over the BakassiPeninsula". Cameroonfurther
Kt~asawneh,Buergenthal.,Elaraby;Judge adhot Mbaye; stated in its Application that the "delimitation[of the
maritimeboundarybetween the two States] has remained a
AGAINST:Judge Koroma;Judge adhocAjibola; partial one and [that], despite many attempts to complete it,
(B) Unanimously,
Decides that the Republic of Cameroon :isunder an the two partieshave been unable to doso". Consequently,it
requested the Court, "[iln order to avoid further incidents
obligation expeditiously and without condition to betweenthe two countries, ..to determinethe courseof the
wifrhdrawany administrationor militaryor police forcesmaritime boundary between the two States beyond the line EquatorialGuinea further indicatedthat it"d[id] not seekto
fixedin 1975". becomeapartyto the case".

In order to found the jurisdiction of the Court, the By an Order of 21 October 1999the Court, considering
Application relied on the declarations made by the two that :EquatorialGuinea had sufficiently established that it
Parties accepting the jurisdictionof the Court under Article had aninterestof a legal nature whichcould be affectedby
36,paragraph2, of the Statuteof theCourt. any judgment which the Court might hand downfor the
purpose of determining the maritime boundary between
On 6 June 1994 Cameroon filed an Additional
Application"for the purposeof extendingthe subjectof the Cameroonand Nigeria, authorizedit to intervenein the case
dispute" to a further dispute described as "relat[ing] to the extent, in the manner and for the purposes set out in
essentially to the questionof sovereignty over a part of the its A.pplicationand fixed time limits for the subsequent
territory of Cameroonin the area of LakeChad". Cameroon intervention proceedings (Art. 85, para. 1, of the Rules of
also requested the Court, "to specify definitively" the Court).
frontier between the two States from Lake Chad to the sea, Publichearings wereheldfrom 18Februaryto 21March

and asked it to join the two Applications and "to examine 2002.
the wholein a singlecase". A.tthe oral proceedings,the following submissionswere
After at a meeting held by the President of the Court presentedby the Parties:
with the representatives of the Parties, theAgent of Nigeria Onbeltalfof the Governmentof Cameroon,
had declared that his Government did not object to the
"Pursuantto the provisionsof Article 60,paragraph2, of
Additional Application being treated as an amendment to the Rules of Court the Republic of Cameroon has the
the initial Applicationso that the Court might examine the honour to request that the International Courtof Justice
whole in a single case, the Court,by an Order of 16 June bepleased to adjudgeanddeclare:
1994,indicatedthat it had no objectionto such a procedure
and fixed the time limits for the filing of written (a) That the land boundary between Cameroon and
proceedings. Nigeria takes the followingcourse:
from the point designatedby the coordinates 13O05'
Within the time limit fixed for the filing of itsCounter- north and 14O05e 'ast,the boundaryfollowsa straight
Memorial, Nigeria filed preliminary objections to the line as far as the mouth of the Ebeji, situatedat the
jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the
Application. point located at the coordinates12O32'17" north and
In its Judgment of 11 June 1998 on the prelimiiiary 14O12'12"east, as defined within the framework of
the LCBC and constituting an authoritative
objections raised by Nigeria the Court foundthat it had interpretationof theMilner-SimonDeclarationof 10
jurisdiction to adjudicateupon the meritsof the dispute and July 1919 and the Thomson-Marchand Declarations
that Cameroon's requests were admissible. The Court of 29 December 1929 and 31 January 1930, as
rejected seven of the preliminary objections raised by confirmed by the Exchange of Letters of 9 January
Nigeria and declared that the eighth did not have an
exclusively preliminary character,and that it would rule on 1931; in the alternative, the mouth of the Ebeji is
situated at the point located at the coordinates
it in the Judgmentto be renderedonthe merits. 12O31'12"north and 14O11'48e "ast;
On 28 October 1998 Nigeria submitted a request for from that point it follows the course fixedby those
interpretationof the Judgment deliveredby the Court on 11 instruments as far as the 'very prominent peak'
June 1998 on the preliminary objections; that request
became a new case, separate from the present proceedings. describedinparagraph60of the Thomson-Marchand
By Judgment dated 25 March 1999 the Court decided that Declarationand called by the usual name of 'Mount
Kombon' ;
Nigeria's request for interpretationwas inadmissible. from 'Mount Kombon' the boundary then runs to
Nigeria's Counter-Memorial, filed within the extended 'Pillar 64' mentionedin paragraph 12 of the Anglo-
time limit of 31May 1999,includedcounterclaims.
1999 the Court declared GermanAgreementof Obokumof 12April 1913 and
By an Order of 30 June follows, in that sector, the course described in
Nigeria's counterclaims admissible,and fixed time limits Section 6 (1) of the British Nigeria (Protectorateand
for the subsequentprocedure. Cameroons)Orderin Councilof 2 August 1946;
On 30 June 1999the Republicof EquatorialGuineafiled from Pillar 64 it follows the course described in
in the Registry an Applicationfor permissionto intervenein paragraphs 13to 21of the ObokumAgreement of12
the case pursuantto Article 62 of the Statute. Accordingto
April 1913asfaras Pillar 114on the Cross River;
that Application,the objectof the interventionsoughtwas to thence, as far as the intersectionof the straight line
"protect the legal rights of the Republic of Equatorial from Bakassi Point to King Pointwith the centre of
Guinea in the Gulf of Guinea by alllegal means available" the navigablechannelof the Akwayafe,the boundary
andto "informthe Court of the nature of the legalrightsand is determined by paragraphs XVI to XXI of the
interests of Equatorial Guinea that could be affectedby the
Court's decision in the light of the maritime boundary Anglo-GermanAgreementof 11March 1913.
(b) That in consequence, inter alia, sovereignty over
claims advancedby the parties to the case beforetheCourt". the peninsula of Bakassi and over the disputed parcel occupied by Nigeria ir~the area of Lake Chad, in from the Federal Republic of Nigeriato the Republic of
particular overDarakand its region,isCameroonian. Cameroon.

(c) That the boundary of the marctime areas The Republic of Cameroonfurther has thehonourto
appertaining respectivelyto the Republic of'Cameroon request the Court to permit it, at a subsequent stageof
and to the Federal Republic of Nigeria takes the the proceedings,to present an assessmentof the amount
followingcourse: of compensation due to it as reparation for the injury
from the intersection of the straight line from sufferedby it as a result of the internationallywrongful
actsattributableto the FederalRepublicofNigeria.
Bakassi Point to Kin.gPoint with the centre of the
navigablechannelof .theAkwayafetopoi.nt'12',that The Republic of Cameroon also asks the Court to
boundary is confirmledby the 'compromise line' declare that the counter-claims of the Federal Republic
entered on British AdmiraltyChart No. 3433 by the of Nigeria areunfounded bothin fact and in law, and to
Heads of State of the twocountries on 4 April 1971 rejectthem."
(YaoundCI1Declaration) and, from that pdint 12 to Onbehalfof the GoventmentofNigeria,
point 'G',by the Declaration signed atMaroua on 1
"The Federal Republic of Nigeria respectfully
June 1975; requeststhat theCourtshould
from point G the equitable line followstlie direction 1. m to tlzeBakassiPeninsula, adjudgeanddeclare:
indicated by points (iH (coordinates8"21116"east
and 4'17' north), I (7'55'40"east and 3'46'north), J (a) that sovereignty over the Peninsula is vested in
(7'12'08"east and 3'12'35"north), K (6"45'22"east theFederalRepublicofNigeria;
(b) that Nigeria's sovereignty over Bakassi extends
and 3"01"05" north), and continuesfromK up to the up to the boundary with Cameroondescribedin Chapter
outer limit of the maritime zones which international
law places under the respective jurisdiction of the 11of Nigeria's Counter-Memorial;
two Parties. 2. us toLake Chad, adjudgeanddeclare:
(d) That in attempting to modify unilaterallyand by (a) that the proposed delimitation and demarcation
underthe auspices of theLake ChadBasin Commission,
force the courses of the boundary defined above under
(a))and (c), the FederalE.epublicof Nigeria has violated not having been acceptedby Nigeria. is not binding
and is violating the fundamentalprincipleof respect for uponit;
frontiers inherited fiom colonization (uti possidetis (b)that sovereignty over the areas in Lake Chad
juris), as well as its legalobligationsconcerningthe land defined in paragraph 5.9 of Nigeria's Rejoinderand
andmaritimedelimitation. depicted in Figs. 5.2 and 5.3 facing page 242 (and
including the Nigerian settlements identified in
(e) That by using force against the Republic of
Cameroon and, in particular, by militarily occupying paragraph 4.1 of Nigeria's Rejoinder) is vestedin the
paircelsof Cameroonian temtory in the area of Lake FederalRepublicof Nigeria;
Chad and the Cameroonianpeninsula ofBakissi, and by (c) that in any event the process which has taken
making repeated incursionsthroughoutthe lelngthof the place within the framework of the Lake Chad Basin
boundary between the two countries, the Federal Commission, and which was intended to lead to an

Republic of Nigeria ha!; violated and is violating its overall delimitation and demarcation of boundaries on
obligationsunder.interntitiona1treaty lawand.customary Lake Chad, is legally without prejudice to the title to
law. particular areas of the Lake Chad region inhering in
That the Federal Republic of Nigeria has the Nigeria as a consequenceof the historical consolidation
eTpressduty of putting am end to its administrativeand of titleandthe acquiescenceof Cameroon;
military presence in Cameroonian temtoly and, in 3. us to the central sectors of the land bouniiarl,,

particular, of effectingan immediate andunconditional adjudgeand declare:
evacuation of its troopsikomthe occupied area ofLake (a) that the Court's jurisdiction extends to the
Chad and from the Carr~eroonianpeninsula of Bakassi definitive specification of the land boundary between
and of refrainingfrom suchactsin the future. Lake Chadandthe sea;
(g) That in failing to comply with the Order for the
(b) that the mouth of the Ebeji, marking the
indicationof provisionalmeasuresrenderedby the Court beginning of the land boundary, is located at the point
on 15 March 1996 the Federal Republic of Nigeria has where the north-east channelof the Ebeji flows into the
beenin breach ofitsinternationalobligations. feature marked 'Pond' on themap shown as Fig. 7.1 of
(h) That the internationallywrongful acts referred to Nigeria's Rejoinder, which location is at latitude
above and described in detail in the written pleadings 12'31'45"N, longitude14'13'00"E (AdindanDatum);
and oral argument of the Republic ofCameroonengage
(c) that subject to the interpretations proposed in
the:responsibilityoftheFederalRepublicofNigeria. Chapter 7 of Nigeria's Rejoinder,the land boundary
(i)That, consequently, on account of the material between the mouth of the Ebeji and the point on the
and moral injury sufferedby the Republicof'Cameroon thalweg of the Akpa Yafe which is opposite the
reparationin a form to be determinedby theCourtis due midpoint of the mouthof ArchibongCreek isdelimitedby the terms of the relevant boundary instruments, 5. as to Cameroo~i'sclainls of State responsibility,
namely: adjudgeand declare:
(i) paragraphs 2-61 of the Thomson-Marchand that, to the extent to which any such claims are still
Declaration, confirmed by the Exchange of maintained by Cameroon, and are admissible, those
Lettersof 9 January 1931; claims areunfoundedin factand law; and,

(ii) the Nigeria (Protectorate and Cameroons) 6. as to Nigeria's coui~terclai~tas specifiedin part
Order in Council of 2 August 1946 (Section 6 V1[of Nigeria's Counter-Memorialand in Chapter 18 of
(1) andthe Second Schedulethereto); Nigeria's Rejoinder,adjudgeand declare:
(iii) paragraphs 13-21 of the Anglo-German that Cameroonbears responsibility to Nigeriain respect
DemarcationAgreementof 12April 1913;and of each of those claims, the amount of reparation due

(iv) Articles XV to XVII of the Anglo-German therefor, if not agreed between the parties within six
Treaty of 11March 1913;and months of the date ofjudgment,to be determinedby the
(4 that the interpretations proposedin Chapter 7 of Courtin a furtherjudgment."
Nigeria's Rejoinder, and the associated action there Ai.the end of the oral observations submittedby it with
identified in respect of each of the locations where the respect to the subject matter of the intervention in
accordance with Article 85, paragraph 3, of the Rules of
delimitation in the relevant boundary instruments is
defectiveor uncertain, are confirmed; Court,EquatorialGuineastated inter alia:
4. as to the rnaritinie bouildaiy, adjudge and "['Wleask the Court not to delimit a maritimeboundary
declare: between Cameroon and Nigeria in areas lying closer to
EquatorialGuineathanto the coasts ofthe twoPartiesor
(a) that the Court lacksjurisdiction over Cameroon's to express any opinion which could prejudice our
maritime claim from the point at which its claiin line interests in the context of our maritime boundary
enters waters claimed against Cameroon by Equatorial
Guinea, or alternatively that Cameroon's claim is negotiations with our neighbours ...Safeguarding the
inadmissibletothatextent; interests of the third State in these proceedings means
(b) that Cameroon's claimto a maritime boundary that the delimitation between Nigeria and Cameroon
decided by the Court must necessarily remain to the
based on the global division of maritime zones in the north of the median line between Equatorial Guinea's
Gulf of Guinea is inadmissible,and that the parties are Bioko Islandand the mainland."
under an obligation, pursuant to Articles 74 and 83 of
the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, to
negotiate in good faith with a view to agreeing on an Geographical context
equitabledelimitationof theirrespectivemaritimezones, (para..30)
such delimitation to take into account, in particular, the
need to respect existing rightsto explore and exploit the The Court subsequently describes the geographical
context of the dispute asfollows:
mineral resources of the continental shelf, grantedby Cameroon and Nigeria are States situated on the west
either party prior to 29 March 1994 without written coast of Africa. Theirland boundaryextends from Lake
protest from the other, and the need to respect the Chad in the northto the Bakassi Peninsulain the south.
reasonablemaritimeclaimsofthird States; Their coastlines are adjacent and are washed by the
(c) in the alternative, that Cameroon's claimto a
maritime boundary based on the global division of waters of the Gulf ofGuinea.
Four States border Lake Chad: Cameroon, Chad, Niger
maritime zones in the Gulf of Guinea is unfounded in and Nigeria.The waters of the lake have varied greatly over
lawand is rejected; time.
(d)that, to the extent that Cameroon's claim to a
maritime boundary may be held admissible in the In its northern part, the land boundary between
present proceedings, Cameroon's claim to a maritime Cameroon andNigeria passesthrough hot dryplains around
boundary to the west and south of the area of Lake Chad, at an altitude of about 300 m. It then passes
through mountains, cultivated high ground or pastures,
overlapping licenses,as shown in Fig. 10.2of flgeria9s watered by various rivers and streams. It then descends in
Rejoinder,isrejected; stages to areas of savannah and forest until it reaches the
(e) that the respective territorial waters of the two sea.
States are dividedby a median line boundarywithin the
Riodel Rey; The coastal region where the southern part ofthe land
boundary ends is the area of the Bakassi Peninsula. This
V) that, beyond the Rio del Rey, the respective peninsula, situatedin the hollow of the Gulf of Guinea, is
maritime zones of the parties are to be delimited by a boundedby the River Akwayafe to thewest andby the Rio
line drawn in accordance with the principle of del Rey to the east. It is an amphibious environment,
equidistance,until the approximatepoint wherethat line characterized by an abundance of water, fish stocks and
meets the median lineboundarywith EquatorialGuinea,
i.e.at approximately4O6N' , 8'30'E; mangrovevegetation.The Gulf ofGuinea,which is concave
in character at the level of the Cameroonianand Nigerian
coastlines, is bounded by other States, in particular byEquatorial Guinea, whose Bioko Island lies opposite the designatedby the coordinates 13'05'N and 14'05'E in a
Parties'coastlines. straightlineto the inouthof the Ebeji.Cameroonregards the
governing instruments as the Milner-Simon Declarationof
1919, and the Thomson-Marchand Declaration of 1929-
Historical background
para.^.31-38) 1930, as incorporated in the 1931 Henderson-Fleuriau
Exchange of Notes. Nigeria, on the otherhand, argues that
The Court then observes that the dispute between the there is not a fully delimited boundary in the Lake Chad
Parties as regards their land boundary fall:; within an area and that, through historical consolidationof title and
historical frameworkmarked initially,in the nineteenthand the acquiescence of Cameroon, Nigeria has title over the
early twentieth centuries, by the actions of the European areas, including 33 named settlements, depicted in its
Powe:rswith a view to the partitioning of Africa, followed Rejoinder.
by changes in the status of the relevant territoriesunder the
League of Nations mandate system,then the UnitedNations The Court recalls that in the late nineteenth and early
twentiethcenturiesthe colonialboundariesintheLake Chad
truste:eships,and finally by the territories' rlccession to areahad beenthe subject of a series ofbilateralagreements
independence. This histon] is reflected in a number of entered into between Germany, Franceand Great Britain.
conventions and treaties, diplomatic exchanges, certain After the First World War a strip of territory to the east of
administrative acts, maps of the period and various the western frontier of the former German Cameroon
documents, which have been supplied to the Courtby the became the British Mandate over the Cameroons. It was
Parties.
thus necessary to re-establish a boundary, conunencingin
The delimitationof the1?arties7maritimeboundaryis an the lake itself,between the newlycreatedBritish and French
issue of more recent origin, the history of which likewise mandates. This was achieved through the Milner-Simon
involvesvarious internationalinstruments. Declarationof 1919,whichhas the statusof an international
The Court then gives some particulars of the principal agreement. By this Declaration, France and Great Britain
instrumentswhich are relevant for purposes of determining agreed:
the course of the land and maritime boundarybetween the
"to determine the frontier, separating the territoriesof
Parties. the Cameroons placed respectivelyunder the authority
of their Governments,as it is traced on the map Moisel
1:300,000, annexed to the present declaration and
Having described the geographical and historical defined in the descriptionin three articles also annexed
hereto".
background to the dispute, the Court addresses the
delimitationof the differentsectorsof theboundary between No definite tripoint in Lake Chad could be determined
Came:roonand Nigeria. It begins by defining the boundary fromprevious instruments,on the basis ofwhich it mightbe
line in the Lake Chad area. Itthen determinesthe linefrom located either at 13'00' or at 13'05' north, whilst the
Lake Chad to the Bakassi Peninsula, before examining the meridianof longitudewas describedsimply as situated"35'
questionof theboundaryin Bakassiand of sovereigntyover east of the centre ofKukawa". These aspectswere clarified
the peninsula. It then addresses the question of the and rendered more precise by the Milner-Simon
delim.itationbetween the two States' respective maritime Declaration,whichprovided:

areas. The last part of theJudgmentis devoted .:othe issues "The frontier will start from the meeting-point of the
of Stateresponsibilityraisedby the Parties. three old British, French and German frontiers situated
in Lake Chad in latitude 13'05'N and in approximately
Delintitation of the bozrndrrryline in the Lake longitude 14O05E ' of Greenwich.
Chad area Thencethe frontierwouldbe determinedas follows:
(paras. 40-70)
1. A straightlineto themouthof theEbeji; ..."
Since Cameroon and Nigeriadisagree on the existence The Moisel 1:300,000map wasstated to bethe map "to
of a definitivedelimitationin the Lake Chadarea, the Court which reference is made in the description of the frontier"
first examines whether the 1919 Milner-SimonDeclaration and was annexedto the Declaration; a furthermap of the
and the subsequent instrumentswhich bear on delimitation Cameroons, scale 1:2,000,000,was attached "to illustrate

in this area have establish. frontierthat isbinding on the the descriptionof the..frontier".
Parties. The Court subsequently addressesthe argument of The Court observes that Article 1 of the Mandate
Nigeria basedon the historical consolidationof its claimed conferred on Great Britain by the League of Nations
title. confirmed the line specified in the Milner-Simon
Declaration;the entitlementprovided for in the mandate, to
make by mutual agreement,modest alterations to the line,
Whetherajrorztier bindiq: on the Parties ha2
been established either by reason of any shown inaccuracies of the Moisel
(paras. 41-55) map or of the interests of the inhabitants, was already
provided for in the Milner-Simon Declaration. This,
The Court recalls that Cameroon contends that the togetherwith the line itself,was approvedby the Councilof
boundary in the Lake Chad area runs from the point the LeagueofNations.In the Court's view, these provisionsin no way suggest a frontier line that is not fully delimited.designation of the tripoint longitude in terms other than
The Court further considersthat "delimitation on thespot of "approximate", were assigned to the LCBC. There is no
this line...in accordance with the provisions of the said indicationthat Nigeria regardedthese issues as so grave that
Declaration" is a clear reference to demarcation the frontier was to be viewed as "not delimited" by the
notwithstanding the terminology chosen. Also carried designated instruments. The Court notes that as regards the
forward from the Milner-SimonDeclaration was the idea of land boundary southwards from the mouth of the Ebeji,
a boundary commission. The anticipated detailed Nigeria accepts that the designated instruments defined the
demarcation by this Commission equally presupposes a boundary, but that certain uncertainties and defects should

frontieralreadyregardedas essentiallydelimited. be confirmed and cured. In the view of the Court Nigeria
Although the two Mandatory Powers did not in fact followed this same approach in participating in the
"delimit on the spot" in Lake Chad or the vicinity, they did demarcationwork of the LCBC from 1984to 1990.
continue in various sectors of the frontier to make the The Court agrees with the Parties that Nigeria is not
agreement as detailed as possible. Thus the Thomson- boundby the MarkingOut Report.Nonetheless, this finding

Marchand Declaration of 1929-1930, later approved and of law implies neither that the governing legal instruments
incorporated in the Henderson-FleuriauExchange of Notes on delimitation were put in question, nor that Nigeria did
of 1931,described the frontier separatingthe two mandated not continue to be bound by them. In sum, the Court finds
territories in considerably more detail than hitherto. The that the Milner-Simon Declaration of 1919, as well as the
Court considers that the fact that this Declaration and 1929-1930 Thomson-MarchandDeclaration as incorporated
Exchange of Notes were preliminary to the future task of in the Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes of 1931,
demarcation by a boundary commission does not mean, as delimit the boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria inthe
Nigeria claims, that the 1931 Agreement was merely Lake Chad area. The map attached by the parties to the

"programmatic" innature. The Court further points out that Exchange of Notes is to be regarded as an agreed
the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, as approved and c1arific:ationof the Moisel map. The Lake Chad border area
incorporated in the Henderson-FleuriauExchange of Notes, is thus delimited, notwithstanding that there are two
has the status of an international agreement. It questions that remain to be examined by the Court, namely
acknowledgesthat the Declarationdoes have sometechnical the precise location of the longitudinal coordinate of the
imperfections and that certain details remained to be Cameroon-Nigeria-Chad tripoint in Lake Chad and the
specified. However, it finds that the Declaration provided questionof the mouth of the Ebeji.

for a delimitation that was sufficient in general for
demarcation. Coordinates of Canzei-oon-Nigeria-Chad tripoint
Despite the uncertainties in regard to the longitudinal and Ebeji rnotitli
reading of the tripoint in Lake Chad and the locationof the (paras. 56-61)
mouth-of the ~beji, and while no demarcation had taken
place in Lake Chad before the independenceof Nigeria and Cameroon, while accepting that the Report of the
Marking Out of the International Boundaries in Lake Chad
of Cameroon, the Court is of the view that the governing is not binding on Nigeria, nonethelessasks the Court to find
instruments show that, certainly by 1931,the frontier in the that the proposals of the LCBC as regards the tripoint and
Lake Chad area was indeed delimited and agreed by Great the mouth of the Ebeji "constitut[e] an authoritative
Britain and France. It, moreover, cannot fail to observe that
Nigeria was consulted during the negotiations for its interpretation of the Milner-Simon Declaration and the
independence, and again during the plebiscites that were to Thomson-Marchand Declaration, as confirmed by the
determine the future of the populations of the Northern and Exchangeof Lettersof 9 January 1931".
SouthernCameroons.At no time did Nigeria suggest,either The Court finds that it cannot accept this request. At no
time was the LCBC asked to act by the successorsto those
so far as the Lake Chad area was concerned, or elsewhere, instruments as their agent in reaching an authoritative
that the frontiersthereremainedto be delimited.
The Court is further of the view that the work of the interpretation of them. Moreover, the very fact that the
Lake Chad Basin Commission(LCBC), from 1983to 1991, outconle of the technical demarcation work was agreed in
affirms such an interpretation. It is unable to accept March 1994 to require adoption under national laws
Nigeria's contention that the LCBC was from 1983to 1991 indicates that it was in no position to engage in
"authoritativeinterpretation"sua sponte.
engaged in both delimitation and demarcation. The records However, having examined the Moisel map annexed to
show that, although the term "delimitation" was used from
time to time, in introducingclausesor in agendaheadings,it the Milner-SimonDeclarationof 1919and the map attached
was the term "demarcation" that was mostfrequently used. to the Henderson-FleuriauExchange of Notes of 1931, the
Moreover, the nature of the work was that of demarcation. Court reaches the same conclusions as the LCBC and
The Court observes in this respect that the LCBC had considers that the longitudinal coordinate of the tripoint is
engaged for seven years in a technical exercise of situated at 14"04'59"9999 longitude east, rather than at
"approximately" 14O05'.In the Court's view, the minimal
demarcation,on the basis of instrumentsthat wereagreedto difference between these two specifications confirms,
be the instrumentsdelimiting the frontier in Lake Chad. The
issues of the location of the mouth of the Ebeji, and the moreover,that this neverpresented an issue so significantas
to leavethe frontierin this areaundetermined. The Court then takes note of the fact that thetext of the implication for the pre-existing frontier delimitation. It
Thornson-MarchandDeclarationof 1929-1930,irtcorporated necessarily followsthat Nigeria's claimbased onthe theory
in 1931 in the Henderson-,FleuriauExchange of Notes, of historical consolidationof title and on the acquiescence

refers to "the mouth of the Ebeji". The Court co~lsidersthat of Cameroon mustbe assessed by reference to this initial
the text of the above instruments as well as theMoisel map determination of the Court. During the oral pleadings
annexed to the Milner-Simon Declaration andl the map Cameroon's assertion that Nigerian effectivitis were contra
attachedto theHenderson-F11:uriaE uxchangeofNotes show legem was dismissed by Nigeria as "completely question-
thatthe parties only envisagedonemouth.The Courtfiuther begging and circulary'.The Court notes, however, that now
notes that the coordinatesfor the mouthof the Ebeji in the that it has made its findings that the frontierin Lake Chad
area just north of the site indicated as that of Wulgo, as was delimited long beforethe work of the LCBC began, it

calculatedon the two maps,are strikingly similar.Moreover necessarily followsthat anyNigerian effectivitis are indeed
these coordinatesare identicalwith those used by theLCBC to be evaluated for their legal consequencesas acts contra
when, inrelianceon thosesamemaps,it soughtto locatethe legenz.
mouth of the Ebeji as it was understoodby the parties in The Court then points out that the theory of historical
1931.'Thepoint there identifiedisnorth bothof the "mouth" consolidationis highlycontroversialand cannot replace the
suggested by Cameroon for the western channel in its
establishedmodes of acquisitionof title under international
alternative argument and of the "mouth" proposed by law, whichtake into accountmanyother importantvariables
Nigeria for the eastern channel.On the basis of the above of fact and law.Moreover, the factsand circumstancesput
factors, the Court concludesthat the mouthof the Ebeji, as forward by Nigeria concern a period of some 20 years,
referred to in the instruments confirmedin the Henderson- which is inany event far too short, even according to the
Fleuriau Exchange of Notes of 1931, lies at 14O12'12" theory relied on by it. The Court concludes that Nigeria's
longitude east and 12O32'17" latitude north.From this point argumentson this point cannotthereforebeupheld.
the frontiermust run ina straight line to the pointwherethe
The Court observesthat some of Nigeria's activities -
River Ebeji bifurcates into two branches, the Pz.rtiesbeing the organization of public health and education facilities,
in agreement that that point lies on the boundary. The policing,the administrationofjustice - could,as arguedby
geogra.phica1 coordinates of that point are 14'12'03" it, normally be considered to be acts a titre de souveruin.
longitudeeast and 12O30'14l"atitudenorth. The Court notes, however, that, as there was a pre-existing

title held by Cameroonin this area of the lake, the pertinent
Historical consolidation of title claimed by Nigeria legal test iswhether therewas thus evidenced acquiescence
(paras. 62-70) by Cameroon inthepassingof titlefromitselfto Nigeria.
Thl: Court then turns to Nigeria's claimbased on its The Courtobservesthat it has alreadyruled on a number
of occasionson the legal relationshipbetween "effectivitis"
presence in certain areas of Lake Chad. It r.ecalls that
Nigeria claims sovereigntyover areas in Lake Clhadwhich and titles. In the Frontier Dispute (BurkinaFaso/Republic
include certain named villages. Nigeria explainsthat these ofMali), it pointed out thatin thisregard"a distinctionmust
villages have been established either on what :isnow the be drawn among several eventualities", stating inter alia
dried up lake bed, or on islands which are surrounded by that:
water perennially or on 1oca.tionswhich are islands in the "Where the act does not correspond to the law, where
the territory which is the subject of the dispute is
wet season only. Nigeria cc~ntendsthat its claim rests on
three bases, whicheach apply both individuallyandjointly effectively administered by a State other than the one
andone ofwhich wouldbe sufficienton its own: possessingthe legal title, preference shouldbe given to
"(1) long occupation by Nigeria and by Nigerian the holder of the title. In the event that the effectiviti
nationalsconstitutingan historicalconsolidati,onof title; does not coexist with any legal title, it must invariably
be taken into consideration." (I.C.J. Reports 1986, p.
(2) effectiveadministrationbyNigeria,actingas 587, para. 63.) (See also Territorial Dispute (Libyan
sovereignand an absenceofprotest;and Arab Jamakir<vdChad),I.C.J.Reports 1994,pp. 75-76,
(3) manifestationsof sovereigntyby Nigeriatogether
with the acquiescence by Cameroon in Nigerian para. 38.)
sovereignty over Darak and the associated Lake Chad The Court points out that it is this first eventualityhere
envisaged, and not the second, which corresponds to the
villages". situationobtainingin the present case.Thus Cameroon held
For its part, Camerooncontends that, as the holder of a the legal title to territorylyingto the east of the boundaryas
conventionalterritorialtitle tothe disputedareas, it doesnot
have to demonstratethe effectiveexerciseof its s.overeignty fixed by the applicable instruments. Hence the conduct of
over those areas, since a valid conventional title prevails Cameroon in that territory has pertinence only for the
question of whether it acquiescedin the establishment of a
overanyeffectivitis to the co:ntrary. changein treatytitle,whichcannotbewhollyprecludedas a
The Court first observesthat thework of the .LCBCwas possibilityin law.
intended to lead to an oveiralldemarcation of a frontier
already delimited. Although the result of the d,:marcation The Court further findsthat the evidencepresented toit
process is not binding on Nigeria, that fact has no legal as reflected in the case file, shows that there was no
acquiescenceby Cameroon inthe abandonmentof its titleinthe area in favour of Nigeria. It therefore concludesthat the The Court observes that, as noted by it in the case
situation was essentially one where theeffeectivitisadduced conce:rning the Territorial Dispute (Libyan Arab

by Nigeria did not correspond to the law, and that Jamahiriya/Cl~ad)(I.C.J.Reports 1994,p. 28, para. 56), the
accordingly"preference shouldbe given to the holder of the delimitation of a boundary consists in its "deJnition",
title". whereas the demarcation of a boundary, which presupposes
Accordingly, the Court concludes that, as regards the its prior delimitation, consists of operations marking it out
settlements situated to the east of the frontier confirmed in on the ground. In the present case, the Parties have
the Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes of 1931, acknowledgedthe existence and validity of the instruments
whose purpose was to effect the delimitation between their
sovereigntyhas continuedto lie withCameroon.
respective territories; moreover, both Parties have insisted
The cotrrse of the land boundaty~fiomLake Chad time and again that they are not asking the Court to carry
to the Bakassi Peninsula out demarcation operations, for which they themselves will
(paras. 71-192) be responsible at a later stage. The Court's task is thus
neither to effect a delimitation ilovo of the boundary nor
Having examined the question of the delimitation in the to demarcateit.
area of Lake Chad, the Court then considers the course of
the landboundary fromLake Chadto the Bakassi Peninsula. The task which Cameroon referred to the Court in its
Application is "to spec& dejitlitively"(emphasis added by
the Court) the course of the land boundary as fixed by the
Relevant instrumeizts and task of the Court relevitnt instruments of delimitation. In the Court's views
(paras. 72-86) since the land boundary has already been delimited by
various legal instruments,it is indeednecessary, in order to
After summarizing the arguments of the Parties, the specify its course definitively, to confirm that those
Court notes that Cameroon and Nigeria agree that the land
boundary between their respective territories from Lake instruments are binding on the Parties and are applicable.
Chad oilwards has already been delimited, partly by the However, contrary to what Cameroon appeared to be
Thornson-Marchand Declaration incorporated in the arguing at certain stages in the proceedings, the Court
I-Ienderson-FleuriauExchange of Notes of 1931,partly by cannot fulfil the task entrusted to it in this case by limiting
itself to such confirmation.Thus, when the actual contentof
the British Order in Council of 2 August 1946 and partlyby these instruments is the subject of dispute between the
the Anglo-German Agreements of 11 March and 12April Parties, the Court, in order to specify the course of the
1913.The Court likewise notes that, with the exception of boundary in questiondefinitively,is boundto examinethem
the provisions concerning Bakassi contained in Articles
XVIII et seq. of the Anglo-Gennan Agreementof 11March more closely. The dispute between Cameroon andNigeria
1913, Cameroon andNigeria both accept the validity of the over certain points on the land boundary between Lake
four above-mentionedlegal instrumentswhich effected this Chad and Bakassi is in reality simply a dispute over the
interpretation or application of particular provisions of the
delimitation. The Court finds that it will therefore not be instruments delimiting that boundary. It is this dispute
required to address these issues further in relation to the which the Court will undertake to settle. In order to do so,
sector of the boundary from Lake Chad to the point defined the C:ourt addresses in succession each of the points in
iiz-finein Article XVII of the Anglo-GermanAgreement of
March 1913. It will, however, have to return to them in dispute.
regard to the sector of the land boundary situated beyond
that point, in the part of its Judgment dealing with the Li~nani
(paras. 87-91)
BakassiPeninsula.
The Court points out that independently of the issues The Courtnotes that inthe Limaniarea the interpretation
which havejust been mentioned,a problemhas continuedto of the Thomson-MarchandDeclaration raises difficulties in
dividethe Parties in regardto the land boundary.It concerns that it simply refers to "a river" in this area, whereas there
tlie nature and extent of the role which the Court is called are in fact several river channels between the Agzabame
upon to play in relation to the sectors of the land boundary marsh and the "confluence at about 2 kilometres to the

in respect of which there has been disagreementbetween the north-west [ofthe village of Limanti (Limani)]" (para. 14of
Parties at various stages of the proceedings, either on the the Declaration).
ground that the relevant instruments of delimitation were A careful study of the wording of the Thomson-
claimed to be defective or because the interpretation of Marchand Declaration and of the map and other evidence
those instrumentswas disputed. The Court notes that, while provided by the Parties leads the Court to the following
the positions of the Parties on this issue have undergone a
significant change and have clearly become closer in the conclusions. In the first place, the Court observes that the
second channel from the north, proposed by Cameroon as
course of the proceedings, they still appear unable to agree the course of the boundary, is unacceptable. The southern
on whatthe Court's precisetask shouldbe in thisregard. channel proposed by Nigeria poses other problems. The
The Parties have devoted lengthy arguments to the Court cannottherefore accept this channeleither. The Court
difference between delimitation and demarcation and to the notes, however, that the river has another channel, called
Court's power to cany out one or other of these operations. Nargo on DOS sheet "Ybiri N.W.", reproduced at page 23of the:atlas annexedto Nigeria's Rejoinder,whichmeetsthe is that indicated by Cameroon. It notes, however, that the
conditions specifiedin the Thomson-Marchand .Declaration. boundary line claimed by Cameroon in this area runs on

Accoi:dingly,the Court concludesthat the"rive? mentioned past the sourceof the riverwhich theCourt has identifiedas
in pa-ragraph14 of the Thomson-MarchandDeclaration is the Kohom. Nor does the Court consider that it can
the channel running between Narki and Tarmoa, and that disregard the fact that the Thomson-MarchandDeclaration
from the Agzabame marsh the boundary must follow that expressly provides that the boundary must follow a river
channelto its confluencewiththe NgassaouaRiver. which has its source in Mount Ngosi. In order to coinply
with the Thomson-MarchandDeclaration, it is therefore
necessary to join the source of the River Kohom, as
TheKeraua (Kirewa or Kirtlwa) River
(paras. 92-96) identifiedby the Court,to the River Bogaza,which rises on
Mount Ngosi. The Court accordingly concludes that
The Court notes that, in the area of theaua (Kirewa paragraph 19of the Thomson-MarchandDeclaration should
or Ki:rawa)River, the interpretation ofparagraph 18 of the be interpretedas providing for the boundary to follow the
Thom.son-MarchandDeclarationraisesdifficulti~:~s,incethe courseof the RiverKohom,as identifiedby the Court,as far
wording of this provision merely makes the boundary as its source at 13O44'24"longitude east and 10°59'09"
follovvr"the Keraua", whereas at this point that river splitslatitude north, and then to follow a straight line in a
into two channels: a western channel and an eastern
chanael. The Court findsthat its task is thus to identify thesoutherlydirectionuntil itreachesthe peak shownashaving
an elevationof 861 m on the 1:50,000map in Figure 7.8 at
chamel which the boundary is to follow purmant to the page 334 of Nigeria's Rejoinder and located at 13O45'45"
Thomson-MarchandDeclara.tion. longitude east and 10°59'45" latitude north, before
After rejecting some of each of the Parties'~contentions,followingthe RiverBogaza ina south-westerlydirectionas
the Court notes that according to the Mois1:l map the faras the summitof Mount Ngosi.
bounclaryruns, as Nigeria maintains,just to the eastof two

villages called Schriwe and;Ndeba, which are on the site Thewatershedfrom Ngosi to Humsiki (Roumsiki)/
now occupied by the villages of CherivCand Ndabakora, Kamale/Turu(theMandnraMountains)
and which the map places on Nigerian territory. Only the (paras. 103-114)
eastern channel meets thisc~snditio. he Courtaccordingly
conclildes that paragraph 18 of the Thomson-Marchand The Court notes that the problem in the area between
Declaration must be interpreted as providing for the Ngosi andHumsikiderives fromthe factthatCameroon and
boundaryto followthe easternchannelof the KerauaRiver. Nigeria apply the provisionsof paragraphs 20 to 24 of the
Thomson-MarchandDeclaration in different ways. In this

TheKolzomRiver sectorof the boundarythe Court's taskis thus to determine
(para:;. 97-102) the course of theboundaryby reference to the terms of the
Thomson-MarchandDeclaration,that is to sayby reference
The Court notes that the initial problem posed by essentially to the crestline, to the lineof the watershed and
paragraph 19 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration to the villageswhichare to lieto either sideof the boundary.
consists in the identificatictnof the course of the River The Court addresses this question sectionby section, and
Kohom, along which the boundary is to pass. After a concludesthat in the area betweenNgosi and Humsiki the
detailed study of themap evidenceavailableto it, the Court
boundary follows the course describedby paragraphs 20 to
reaches the conclusionthat,as Nigeria contends.it is indeed 24 of the Thornson-MarchandDeclarationas clarified by the
the River Bogaza which has its sourcein MountNgosi, and Court.
not the River Kohom. The Court's task is accordingly to
determine where the drafters of the Thomson-Marchand From MountKzdi to Bourha/Maduguva(incorrect
Declaration intended theboundaryto run in thisarea when
they described it as following the course of a river called watershed line onMoisel bmap)
"Kohom". (paras. 115-119)
The Court notes that the text of paragraph 25 of the
In order to locate the course of the Kohom, the Court
first examines the text of the Thomson-Marchand Thomson-Marchand Declaration, on the application of
Declaration, finding that it does not provide a decisive whichthe twoParties disagree,providesquite expresslythat
answe:r.The Court points out that it therefore had to have the boundary is to follow "the incorrect line of the
recourse to other means of interpretation. Thus it has watershedshownby Moisel on his map". Since the authors
carefu.11~xaminedthe sketc:h-mapprepared in March 1926 of the Declaration prescribed a clear course for the
boundary,the Courtcannotdeviatefromthatcourse.
by the French and Britishofificialswhich served asthe basis
for th~edrafting of paragraphs 18and 19 of the:Thomson- From careful study of the Moisel map the Court
Marchand Declaration. The Court finds that it is able to concludes that paragraph 25 of the Thomson-Marchand
determine, on the basis of a.comparison of the indications Declaration should be interpreted as providing for the
provicled bythe sketch-mapwith the maps provided by the boundary to run from Mount Kuli to the point marking the
Parties, that the Kohom whose course the Thomson- beginningof the "incorrectlineof the watershed", locatedat
13031147"longitude east and 10°27'48" latitude north,
Marchand Declaration provides forthe boundaryto followhaving reached thatpoint by following the correct line of From Beacon 6 to WamniBudurzgo
the watershed. Then, fromthat point, the boundary follows (paras. 130-134)
the "incorrect line of the watershed" to the point marking
the end of thatline, locatedat 13' 30' 55''longitudeeastand The Court notes that the interpretation of paragraphs33
10' 15' 46" latitude north.Between these two points the and 34 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration raises a
boundary follows the course indicated onthe map annexed problem in that those provisions describe the line of the
boundaryas passing throughthree beacons ofwhich at least
to this Judgment, which was prepared by the Court by twohave now disappeared.
transposing the "incorrect line of the watershed" from the
Moisel map to the first edition of sheet"Uba N.E." of the After careful study of the text of the Anglo-German
DOS 1:50,000 map of Nigeria. From this latter point, the Agreement of 1906and the cartographic material provided
boundarywill again follow the correct line ofthe watershed by the Partiesin order to discoverthe locationof these three
in a southerlydirection. beacons, the Court concludes that paragraphs33 and 34 of
the Thornson-MarchandDeclaration must be interpretedas
providing for the boundary to pass through the points
Kotcha (Kojn) having the following coordinates:12'53'15"longitude east
(paras. 120-124)
and 9"04'19"latitude north; 12'51'55"longitude east and
The Court finds that, in the Kotcha area, the difficulty 9O01'03"latitude north; and 12'49'22"longitude east and
derives solely from the fact, as Nigeria recognizes,that the 8O58'18" latitudenorth.
Nigerian village of Kotcha has spread over onto the
Cameroonianside of the boundary.As theCourthas already Maio Senche
had occasion to pointout in regard to the villageof Turu, it
has no powerto modify a delimitedboundaryline, even in a (paras. 135-139)
The Court notes that, in the Maio Senche area, covered
case where a village previously situatedon one side of the by paragraph35 of the Thomson-MarchandDeclaration,the
boundaryhas spreadbeyondit. It is insteadup to the Parties
to find a solutionto any resultant problems,with a view to difficulty lies in identifying the line of the watershed, of
respectingtherightsand interestsofthe localpopulation. which the two Parties have proposed differing cartographic
The Court accordingly concludesthat the boundary in representations.
After studying the cartographic material provided to it
the Kotcha area,as describedin paragraphs26 and 27of the by the Parties, the Court observes that the watershed line
Thomson-Marchand Declaration, follows the line of the
watershed, including where it passes close to the village of passes, as Nigeria contends, between the basin of the Maio
Kotcha, the cultivated land lying on the Cameroonian side Sencheand thatof thetworivers to the south.
of the watershedremainingon Cameroonianterritory.
Ji~nbareand Sapeo
(paras. 140-146)
Source of the TsikakiriRiver
(paras. 125-129) The Court notes that the interpretationof paragraphs 35
to 38 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration poses
The Court notes that the interpretationof paragraph 27 problems, since the description of the boundary therein
of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration poses problems
because the Tsikakiri River has more than one source, appears both to contain a series of material errors and, in
whereas the Declaration simply states that the boundary certain places, to contradict the representation of that
passes through "the source" of the Tsikakiri without boundaryonthe 1931map appendedto the Declaration.The
providingany indicationas to which sourceisto be chosen. Court notes, however, that,as regards the area to thenorth
of Nananouaas referred to in paragraph 36 of theThomson-
The Court observes that it may reasonably be assumed Marchand Declaration, the Parties agree that the rivers
that the drafters of the Declaration,in referring to the sourcwhose courses form the boundary are the Leinde and the
of the Tsikakiri, intended to designate apoint whichcould
be readily identified,both on maps and on the ground and Sassiri. Similarly, the cartographic representationsof this
notes that one of the sources of the Tsikakiri, namely the section of the boundaryproposed by the Parties correspond
one havingthe highest elevation, stands outfromthe others. in eve:ryrespect. To the south of Nananoua, on the other
hand, there isno agreementbetween Cameroonand Nigeria.
It accordingly concludes that, in the area referred to in The Court concludes, first,that paragraphs 35 and 36of
paragraph 27 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, the the Thomson-MarchandDeclarationmust be interpreted as
boundary starts from a point having coordinates13°17'50"
longitudeeast and 10°03'32"latitudenorth, whichis located proviclingfor the boundaryto pass overHosere Bila, which
in the vicinityof Dumo. From there, the boundaryruns in a it ha:; identified as the "south peak of the Alantika
straight line to the point which the Court has identifiedas Mountains" referred to in paragraph 35, and then from that
the "source of the Tsikakiri" as referred to in the point along the River Leinde and the River Sassiri"as far as
the confluence with the first stream coming from the
Declaration,and thenfollowsthatriver. Balakossa Range". It further concludes that paragraphs 37

and 38 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration must be
interpreted as providing for the boundary to follow thecourse described in paragraph 1 of the Logan-Le Brun clarification and the Parties have differing views as to the
proctb-verbal,as shownby Nigeria in Figures 7.15and 7.16 locationof that peak.
at pages 346and 350 of its ]Rejoinder. The Court observes that paragraphs 60 and 61 containa
number of indications which are helpful in locating tlie
"fairly prominent,pointed peak" referred to therein. Having
Noumberou-Banglang
(paras. 147-152) studied with the greatest care the maps provided by the
The Court notes that thefinalpart of paragraph 38 of the Parties, the Court concludes that 'paragraph 60 of the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration must be interpreted as
Thon~son-Marchand Declaration poses problems of providing for the boundary to follow tlie line of the
interpretation in that itcclntains fundamental errors of a watershed through the Hosere Hambere or Gesumi. as
material nature; it further notes that it is, however, only theshown on sheet NB-32-XVIII-3a-3b of the 1955 IGN
part #ofthe boundary situat,edto the south of t:hesource of
the Noumberou which post:s any problem. To the north of 1:50,000map of Cameroon,produced in theproceedingsby
that point, Cameroon and :Nigeriaagree that t'heboundary Nigeria, as far as the foot of TamnyarPeak,which the Court
has identified as the "fairly prominent, pointed peak"
shoulldfollow the course o:Fthe Noumberou. The course of referredto in the Declaration.
the boundary shownon the Cameroonianand Nigerianmaps
confirmthat agreement.
The Court considers that, to the south of the source, it isFromtheHambereRange to theMburi River
the boundary line proposed by Nigeria which is to be (Lip and Yang)
paras. 169-179)
preferred. That line is :moreover more favourable to
Cameroon than the line shown on its own maps, and The Court notes that the interpretation of the Order in
Cameroon has not opposed it. The Court accordingly Council of 1946 raises two fundamental difficulties in the
concludes that the final part of paragraph 38 of the area betweenthe "fairly prominentpointed peak" referredto
Thomson-Marchand Declaration must be interpreted as in the Thomson-MarchandDeclarationand the River Mburi.
providing for the boundary to followthe course of the River The first lies in joining up the lines prescribed by the two

Nournberou as far as its soilrce,and then from that point to texts and, in particular, in identifying the peak described in
run ina straight line as far assere Tapere as identifiedby the Order in Council as "prominent", without further
the Court. clarification.The second consists in determining the course
of the boundary beyond that point.
The Court observes that, while unable to designate a
Tipsm1
(parars.153-155) specific peak, it has nonetheless been able to identify the
The Court observes that at the hearings the Parties crest line of which that peak must form part. This crest
begins at the point where the watershed through tlieosere
agree:dthat the boundary must follow a line runningparallel Hambere turns suddenly to the south at the locality nanied
to the Fort Lamy-Bark roadlsome 2 km to the l~estthereof, Galadima Wanderi on Figure 7.37 in Nigeria's Rejoinder,
as pixagraph 41 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration then runs due south until it approaches the point named
provides. The Court takes n.oteof that agreement. However,
the Court considers that, in order to remove a.nydoubt, it Tonn Hill on that same Figure. The intention of the drafters
should identify the terminal point of this section of the of the Order in Council was to have the boundary follow
this crest line. As a result, what the Court finds it has to do
boundary - namely the point situated on the IMayoTipsal is to trace a linejoining the peak referredto in paragraph 60
"2 kilometres to the south-west of the point at which the of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, namely Tamnyar
road crosses said Mayo Tipsal" - as corresponding to the Peak, to that crest line. The Court points out that the
coordinates 12'12'45"longitude east and 7'58'49" latitude watershed through the Hosere Hanibere, on which Tamnyar
north.
Peak lies, extends naturally as far as the crest line marking
the former Franco-British frontier, starting point of the
Crossiizgthe Maio fin sector of the boundary delimited by the 1946 Order in
(paras. 156-160) Council. It is thus possible to link the boundary sectors
delimited by the two texts by following, froni Tamnyar
The Court confirms that the boundary in the area where Peak, that watershedas represented on sheet NB-32-XVTII-
it crosses the Maio Yin follows the course described in
paragraphs 48 and 49 of the Thomson-Marchand 3a-3b of the 1955 IGN 1:50,000 map of Cameroon,
Declaration. producedin theproceedingsby Nigeria.
The Court then addresses the question of tlie course of
the boundary from thatcrest line. It observes that the 1946
The~YambereRange area Order in Councilcontains a great deal of informationon the
(parars. 161-168)
course of the boundary in this area. After careful study of
The Court notes that paragraphs 60 and. 61 of the the maps provided to it by the Parties, the Court concludes
Thomson-Marchand Decllaration raise problems of that, from east to west, the boundary first follows the
interpretation, since they provide for the bounsdaryto pass watershed line through the Hosere Hambere from Tamnyar
over "a fairly prominent peak" without any further Peak to the point where that line reaches the crest linemarking the former Franco-British frontier. In accordance boundarybecame that between the twocountries, successor
with the 1946 Order in Council, the boundary thenfollows Stater;to the colonial powers andbound by the principle of
this crest line southward,then west-south-westto the source uti possidetis. The Court further notes that Nigeria, for its
of the River Namkwer andthen follows the course of that part, does not contest that the meaning of these provisions
river to its confluencewiththe River Mburi, 1milenorth of was to allocate the Bakassi Peninsula toGermany. It does,

Nyan. From that point, the boundary follows the course of however, insist that the said terms were never put into
the River Mburi. It first runs northwards for a distance of effect, and indeed were invalid on various grounds,though
approximately2 km, and thentakes a south-westerlycourse the other Articles of the Agreement of 11 March 1913
for some 3 km and then west-north-west along a stretch remained valid. Nigeria contends rather, that the title to
where the river is also called theMaven or the Ntem.Then, sovereignty over Bakassi on which it relies was originally
some 2 km further on, it turns to run due north where the vested in the Kings and Chiefs of OldCalabar. It considers
RiverMburi is also calledtheMantonorNtem. that, the Treaty of Protection signed on 10 September1884

between Great Britain and the Kings and Chiefs of Old
Bissaula-Tosso Calabar only conferred certain limited rights on Great
(paras. 180-184) Britain; in no way did it transfer sovereigntyto Britain over
the territories of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar.
The Court notes that the problemin the Bissaula-Tosso Nigeria argues that. since Great Britain did not have
area consists in determining which tributary of the River sovereignty over those territoriesin 1913,it couldnot cede
Akbang crosses the Kentu-Bamenda road andis thus the them to a third party. The Court notes in this connection
tributary which the Order in Council provides for the that, in Cameroon's view, the treaty signedon10September
boundaryto follow.
1884between GreatBritainandthe Kingsand Chiefsof Old
The Court concludes that the 1946 Order in Council Calabar established a "colonial protectorate" and, "in the
should be interpreted as providing for the boundary to run practice of the period, there was little fundamental
through the point where the southern tributary of the River difference at international level, in terms of territorial
Akbang, as identified by the Court, crosses the Kentu- acquisition, between colonies and colonial protectorates".
Bamendaroad, and then fromthat point along the southern Accordingto Cameroonsubstantivedifferencesbetween the
tributaryuntilitsjunction with the RiverAkbang. status of colony and that of a colonial protectorate were

matters of the national law of the colonial Powers rather
TheSanraRiver than of internationallaw.
(paras. 185-189) The key element of the colonial protectorate was the
"assumption of external sovereignty by the protecting
The Court notes that the interpretationof the Order in State", which manifested itself principally through "the
Council poses problemsin regard to the River Sama, since acquisition and exercise of the capacityand power to cede
the river has two tributaries,and hence two places where it
"divides intotwo" as the Order in Council prescribes, but part of the protectedterritoryby internationaltreaty,without
the Order does not specifywhich of those two places is to any interventionby the populationor entityin question".
be usedin orderto determinethe course of theboundary. The Court beginsby observingthat during the era of the
Congress of Berlin the European Powers entered intomany
The Court findsthat a reading of thetext of the Order in treaties with local rulers, and that Great Britain concluded
Council of 1946permits it to conclude that this Ordermust some 350 treaties with the local chiefs of the Niger delta.
be interpreted as providing for the boundary to run up the
River Samato the confluenceof its first tributary,that being Among these were the treaties concludedin July 1884with
the point, with coordinates 10'10'23 " longitude east and the Kings and Chiefs of Opobo and, in September 1884,
6'56'29"latitudenorth,whichthe Courthas identifiedas the with the Kings and Chiefs ofOld Calabar.The latter Treaty
one specifiedin the Order in Council where the River Sama did not specify the territoryto which theBritish Crown was
to extend "gracious favour and protection", nor did it
"divides into two"; and then, from that point, along a indicate the territories over which each of the Kings and
straightlineto the highestpointof MountTosso. Chiefs signatory to the Treaty exercised hispowers. In the
view of the Court, Great Britain had, however, a clear
Boundary in Bakassi and question of sovereignty
over the Peninsula understanding of the area ruled at different times by the
KingsandChiefs of Old Calabar,and of their standing.
(paras. 193-225) Nigeria has contended that the very title of the 1884
Having recalled each of the Parties' final submissions, Treaty and the reference in Article I to the undertaking of
the Court notes that according to Cameroon the Anglo- "protection", shows that Britain had no entitlement to do

German Agreementof 11 March 1913 fixed the course of more than protect, and in particular had no entitlement to
the boundary betweenthe Parties in the area of the Bakassi cede the territory concernedto third States:"nemodat quod
Peninsula, placing the latter on the German side of the non habet".The Court in this respect calls attention to the
boundary. Cameroon relies for this purpose on Articles fact that the international legal status of a "Treaty of
XVIII to XXI of the said Agreement,and adds that hence, Protection"entered into under the law obtainingat the time
when Cameroon andNigeria acceded to independence,this canno,tbe deduced from its title alone. Some treaties ofprotection were entered into with entities which retained Cameroon contends that the mandate and trusteeship
thereunder a previously existing sovereignty under period, and the subsequent independence process, show
international law. This was the case whether the protected recognition on the part of the internationalcommunity of
party was henceforth termed "protectorat" or "a protected Cameroon's attachment to the Bakassi Peninsula. Nigeria
State". In sub-Saharan Africa, treaties termed "treaties of for its part argues that, at all times while the 1884 Treaty
protec.tion"were enteredinto not with States,but rather with remained in force, Great Britain continued to lack power to
give Bakassi away. As such, it claims that no amount of
important indigenous rulers exercising local rule over
identifiable areas of territory. In relation to a treaty of thisritish activity in relation to Bakassi in the mandate or
kind in anotherpart of the world, Max Huber, sittingas sole trusteeship periods could have severed Bakassi from the
arbitratorin theIsland ofPaltitas case, explained that sucha Nigeriaprotectorate.
treaty The Court notes thatafter the First World War Germany
"is not an agreement between equals; it is rather a form renounced its colonial possessions. Under the Versailles

of internal organisation of a colonial territ~sry,on the Treaty the Germanpossessions of Cameroon were divided
basis of autonomy of the natives ..And thus suzerainty between Great Britain andFrance. In 1922 Great Britain
over the native States klecomesthe basis af territorial acceptedthe mandateof the Leagueof Nations for "that part
sovereigntyas towards othermembers of the conlmunity [of the former German colony] of the Cameroonswhich lay
of nations." (RIIA,Vol. I[,pp. 858-859). to the west of the line laid down in the [Milner-Simon]
Th;e Court observes that these concepts also found Declaration signed on the 10th July, 1919". Bakassi was
necessarily comprised within the mandate. When, after the
exprec;sionin the Westei*iSztzhwa Advisory Opinion. There Second World War and the establishment of the United
the Court stated that in territoriesthat were not!rra iiuNilw,
but were inhabited by tribes or people having a social and Nations, the mandate was converted to a trusteeship, the
po1itic:alorganization, "agreements concluded with local territorial situation remained exactly the same. Thus for the
rulers...were regarded as derivativeroots of titll:" (Westenz entire period from 1922 until 1961 (when theTrusteeship
Sahara, Advisoi:vOpinion,1.C.J.Reports 1975,p. 39, para. was terminated), Bakassi was comprised within British
80). 'The Court points out that even if thi:; inode of Cameroon. The boundary between Bakassi and Nigeria,
notwithstanding the administrative arrangements, remained
acquisition does not reflect current internatioilal law, the an internationalboundary.
principle of intertemporal law requires that the legal
consequences of the treaties concluded at that time in the The Court is unable to accept Nigeria's contentionthat
Niger deltabe given effecttoday, in the present Cispute. until its independence in 1961, and notwithstanding the
In the view of the Court many factors point to the 1884 Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913, the Bakassi
Treaty signed with theKings and Chiefs of Old Calabar as Peninsula had remained under the sovereignty of the Kings
and Chiefs of Old Calabar. Neither the League of Nations
not establishing an international protectorate. Nigeria itself nor the United Nations considered that to be the position.
has been unable to point to any role, in matters relevant to
the present case, played by the Kings and Chiefs of Old Equally,the Court observesthat it has seenno evidencethat
Calabar after the conclusion of the 1884Treaty. The Court Nigeria thought that upon independence it was acquiring
further notes that a characteristic of an iiaternational Bakassi fromthe Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar. Nigeria
protectorate is that of ongoing meetings and discussions itself raised no queryas to the extent of its territory in this
between the protecting Power and the Rulers of the region upon attaining independence. The Court notes in
Protectorate.In the present case the Courtwas informedthat particular that there was nothing which might have led
Nigeria to believe that theplebiscitewhich tookplace in the
"Nigeria can neither say that no such meeting;$ever took Southern Cameroons in 1961 under United Nations
place, or that theydid take place..the recordswhich would
enable the question to be answered probably no longer supervision did not include Bakassi. The Court further
exist..."The Court also notes that there is no reference to observesthat this frontier line was acknowledgedin turn by
Old Calabar in any of the variousBritish Orders in Council, Nigeria when it voted in favour of General Assembly
of whatever date, which list protectorates and protected resolution 1608 (XV), which both terminated the
States. Moreover, the Court has been presented with no Trusteeship and approved the results of the plebiscite.
evidence of any protest in 1913by the Kings and Chiefs of Shortly after, in Note Verbale No. 570 of 27 March 1962
addressed to Cameroon, Nigeria referred to certain oil
Old Calabar; nor of any action by them to pass territory to
Nigeria as it emerged to independence in 1960. The Court licensing blocks. A sketch-map was appended to the Note,
thus concludesthat, under the law at the time, Great Britain from which it is clear that the block "N" referred to lay
was i11a position in 1913to determine its boun.darieswith directly south of the Bakassi Peninsula. The block was
Germany in respect of Nigeria, including in tlie southern described as offshore Cameroon. This common
section. understanding of where title lay in Bakassi continued
throughuntil the late 1970s,whenthe Partieswere engaging
The Court then examines the treatment, in the period in discussions on their maritime frontier. The Court finds
1913 to 1960, of the south.ernsector of the boundary as
define:d by the Anglo-Gennan Agreement of 11 March that it is clear from the ensuing discussions and agreements
1913. that the Parties took it as a given that Bakassi belonged to
Cameroon.Nigeria, drawingon the full weight of its experts
as well as its most senior political figures, understoodBakassi to be under Cameroon sovereignty. Accordingly, is aconflictbetween title and effectivitks,preference will be
the Court finds that at that time Nigeria accepted that it was given to the former (I.C.J. Reports 1986, Jz4dgnletzt,pp.
bound by Articles XVIII to XXII of the Anglo-German 586-587, para. 63). In the view of the Court the more
Agreement of 11 March 1913, and that it recognized relevant legal question in this case is whetherthe conductof

Camerooniansovereigntyover the Bakassi Peninsula.In the Cameroon, as the title holder, can be viewed as an
view of the Court, this commonunderstandingof the Parties acquiescence in the loss of the treaty title that it inherited
is also reflected by the geographic pattern of the oil upon independence. The Court recalls that in 1961-1962,
concessions granted by the two Parties up to 1991. The Nigeria clearly and publicly recognized Cameroon title to
Court further takes account of certain formal requests up Bakassi. That continued to be the position until at least
until the 1980s submitted by the Nigerian Embassy in 1975, when Nigeria signed the Maroua Declaration. No
Yaoundt, or by the Nigerian consular authorities, before Nigerian effectivitksin Bakassi before that time can be said

goingto visittheir nationalsresiding in Bakassi. to have legalsignificancefor demonstratinga Nigerian title;
For all of these reasons the Court finds that thenglo- this may in part explain the absence of Cameroon protests
German Agreement of 11 March 1913 was valid and regarding health, education and tax activity in Nigeria. The
applicablein itsentirety. Court also notes that Cameroon had since its independence
engaged in activitieswhich madeclear that it in no way was
The Court then turns to further claims to Bakassi relied abandoningits title to Bakassi. The Court considers that the
on by Nigeria. Nigeria advances "three distinct but
interrelatedbases of title overthe BakassiPeninsula": foregoing shows that Nigeria could not have been acting h
"(i) Long occupation by Nigeria and by Nigerian titre de souverain before the late 1970s, as it did not
nationals constitutingan historical consolidation of consider itself to have title over Bakassi; and in the ensuing
period the evidence does not indicate an acquiescence by
title and confirming the original title of the Kings Cameroon in the abandonment of its title in favour of
and Chiefs of Old Calabar, which title vested in Nigeria. For all of these reasons the Court is also unable to
Nigeria at the time of independencein 1960; acce:pt the second and third bases of title to Bakassi
(ii) peacefulpossessionby Nigeria,acting as sovereign,
and an absenceof protestby Cameroon;and advancedby Nigeria.
The Court accordingly concludes that the boundary
(iii) manifestations of sovereignty by Nigeria together between Cameroon and Nigeria in Bakassi is delimited by
with acquiescence by Cameroon in Nigerian Articles XVIII to XX of the Anglo-German Agreement of
sovereigntyoverthe Bakassi Peninsula." 11March 1913,and that sovereigntyover the peninsula lies
Nigeria particularlyemphasizesthat the title on the basis
with Cameroon.
of historical consolidation, together with acquiescence, in
theperiod sincethe independenceof Nigeria,"constitutesan The maritime botrndary between Cameroon
independent and self-sufficient title to Bakassi". Cameroon and Nigeria
for its part argues that a legaltreaty title cannotbe displaced(paras. 226-307)
by what in its view amounts to no more than a number of
alleged effectivitks. The Court then turns to the maritime boundary between
CameroonandNigeria.
The Court first recalls its finding above regarding the
claim to an ancient title to Bakassi derivedfiom the Kings In its final submissionspresented to the Court at the end
and Chiefs of Old Calabar. It observes that it follows of the oral proceedings on 21 March 2002, Cameroon
therefrom that at the time of Nigeria's accession to requests that the Court confirm that"[tlhe boundary of the
independence there existed no Nigerian title capable of maritime areas appertaining respectively to the Republic of
being confirmed subsequentlyby "long occupation".On the Cameroon and the Federal Republic of Nigeria takes the
following course", which Cameroon describes in detail in
contrary, on the date of its independence Cameroon
succeededto title over Bakassi as establishedby the Anglo- the two subparagraphs of paragraph (c) of its submissions.
German Agreementof 11March 1913.The Court also finds Nigeria claims that the Court should refuse to carry out in
that invocation of the theory of consolidation of historic whole or in part the delimitation requested by Cameroon,
titles cannot in any event vest title to Bakassi in Nigeria, first, because the delimitation affects areas claimed by third
where its "occupation" of the peninsula is adverse to States(eighthpreliminaryexception)and, secondly,because
Cameroon's prior treaty title and where, moreover, the the requirementof prior negotiationshas not been satisfied.

possessionhas been for a limitedperiod. The Court firstdeals with these argumentsof Nigeria.
The Court then deals with other aspects of the second
and thirdbases of title advancedbyNigeria together. Nigeria S eighth preliminaly objection
It points out that the legal question of whether (paras. 237-238)

effectivitkssuggestthat title lies with one countryrather than After summarizing the contentions and arguments of
another is not the same legal question as whether such each of the Parties, the Court first observes that its finding
effectivitis can serve to displace an established treaty title.in its Judgment of 11 June 1998 on the eighth preliminary
As the Chamber of the Court made clear in the Frontier
Dispute (BurkinaFaso/Republic of Mali) case, where there objection of Nigeria thatthat preliminary objection didnot
have, in the circumstances of the case, an exclusivelypreliminary character" requires it to deal now with the satisfied.However, it maintains that waters to the south "of
preliminary objection before proceeding further on the 4" N and 3" N and even 2" N" have never been the subject
merit:;.SinceNigeria maintainsits objection,the Courtmust of any attempt at negotiation with Nigeria or, as far as
rule on it. Nigeria is aware,with any otheraffected State.

The Court begins by observing that its ~UI-isdiction is The Court points out that, in its Judgment of 11 June
founded on the consent of the parties. The Court cannot 1998,it noted thatnegotiationsbetween theGovernmentsof
therefbre decide upon legal rights of third State!;not parties Cameroon and Nigeria concerning the entire maritime
to theproceedings. In the present case there are Statesother delimitation - up to point G and beyond - were
than the parties to these proceedings whose rights might be conducted as far back as tlie 1970s. These negotiations did
affected, nailiely Equatorial Guinea and Sao Toine and not lead to a11 agreement. In the Court's view, however,

Principe. Those rights cannot be determined by decision of Articles 74 and 83 of the United Nations Law of the Sea
the Clourt unless Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Convention do not require that delimitation negotiations
Principe have become parties to the proceedings. Equatorial shouldbe successful;like all similar obligationsto negotiate
Guinea has indeed requested - and has been granted - in international law, thenegotiations have to be conducted
pern~issionto intervene, but as a non-party intervener only. in good faith. The Courtreaffirmsits findingin regardto the
Sao Tome and Principe has chosen not to intervene on any preliminary objections that negotiations have indeed taken

basis. place. Moreover, if, following unsuccessful negotiations,
The Court considers that. in particular in the case of judicial proceedings are instituted and one of the pai-ties
maritime delimitations where the inaritime areas of several then alters its claim,Ai-ticles74 and 83 of the Law of the
States are involved, the protectionaffordedby Article 59 of Sea Convention would not require that the proceedings be
the Statutemay notalways be sufficient.In the present case, suspended while new negotiations were conducted. It is of
coursetrue that the Court is nota negotiating forum.In such
Article 59 may not sufficiently protect Equatorial Guinea
andlor Sao Tome and Principe froin the effects - even if a situation, however, the new claiin would have to be dealt
only indirect - of ajudgment affectingtheir legal rights. It with exclusively by judicial means. Any other solution
follows that, in fixing the maritime boundary between would lead to delays and complications in the process of
Cameroon and Nigeria, the Court must ensure that it does delimitation of continental shelves and exclusive econoinic
not adopt any position which might affect the rights of zones.The Law of the SeaConventiondoes not require such
a suspensionof theproceedings.
Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe. Moreover,
in relation to the specific issue of the tripoinl:,the Court As to negotiations with Equatorial Guinea and Sao
notes that bothParties agree that it should not fix one. It is Toine and Principe. theCourt does not find that it follows
indeed not entitled to do so. In detennining any line, the from Articles 74 and 83 of the Law of the Sea Convention
Courtmust take accountof this. that the drawing of the inaritime boundary between
Cameroon and Nigeria presupposes that siinuItaneous
The Court concludes that it cannot rule on Cameroon's
claims insofar as they might affect rights of Equatorial negotiations between all four States involved have taken
Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe. Nonetheless, the mere place.
presence of those twoStates,whose rights might be affected The Court concludes that it is therefore in a position to
by tht: decision of theCoutl:,does not in itself preclude the proceed to the delimitation of the maritinle boundary
Court from havingjurisdiction over a maritime delimitation between Cameroon and Nigeria insofar as the rights of

between the Parties to the case before it, namely Cameroon Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome 'and Principe are not
and Nigeria, although itmust remain n~indul, as always in affected.
situations of this kind. of the limitations on its jurisdiction
that silchpresence imposes. TlienzaritiiitebouizduiyLIPtopoiitt G
(paras. 247-268)

Nigeria :Yurguinenttltutthe reqtlireitteiltofprior The Court then turns to Cameroon's request for the
negotiations has not betw satisfied tracing of a precise line of maritime delimitation. It first
(paras. 239-245)
addressesthe sectorof the maritimeboundaryup topoint G.
Nigeria further argues that Article 74, paragraph 1,and The Court notes that, according to Cameroon, tlie
Article 83, paragrap111, of the United Nations Conveiltion maritime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria is
on the Law of the Sea require that the parties .:oa dispute divided into two sectors. The first, from the mouth of the
over :maritimedelimitation should first attempt to resolve AkwayafeRiver to point G fixedby theMaroua Declaration
their dispute by negotiatioii. According to Nigeria, these
of 1 June 1975, is said to have been deliinited by valid
provisions lay down a substantive rule, not a procedural international agreements between the Parties. In relation to
prerequisite. Negotiation is prescribed as the proper and this sector,Cameroon asks the Court merely to confirni that
primary way of achieving an equitable maritime delimitation, which it says that Nigeria is now seeking to
delimitation, and the Court is not a forum for negotiations. reopen. The sector beyond point G remains to be delimited,
Nigeria accepts that, to the extent that the dispute over the and Cameroon requests the Court to fix the limits of the
maritime boundary pertains to areas around point G and to
Parties' respective areas in this sector, so as to put a
the areas of overlapping lice:nces,this requiren1e:nthas been cornplete and :finalend to the dispute between them. Thedelimitation of the first .sector, from the mouth of the The Court considers that the Maroua Declaration
Akwayafe River to point G, is said by Cameroon to be constitutes an international agreement concluded between
based mainly on three international legal instruments, State:; in written form and tracing a boundary; it is thus
namely the Anglo-German ,Agreementof 1 1 March 1913, goveined by internationallaw and constitutesa treaty in the

the Cameroon-Nigeria Agreement of 4 April 1971, sense of the Vienna Conventionon the Law of Treaties (see
comprising the YaoundCI1 Declaration and the appended Art.:2,para. l), to which Nigeria has been a party since
Chart 3433, and the Maroua Declaration of 1 June 1975. 1969 and Cameroon since 1991, and which in any case
The Court then notes that Nigeria for its part draws no reflec:ts customary international law in this respect. The
distinction between the area up to point G and the area Court further considers that it cannot accept the argument
beyond. 'Itdeniesthe existence.ofa maritimedelimitationup thatthe Maroua Declarationwas invalidunder international
to that ,point, and maintains that the whole maritime law because it was signed by the Nigerian Head of State of

delimitation must be undertaken de novo. Nonetheless, the time but never ratified. It observes that, while in
Nigeria:doesadvance specific argumentsregarding the area interr~ationalpractice a two-step procedure consisting of
up to point G, which inthe Court's view it is appropriateto signature and ratification is frequently provided for in
address in thispart of the Judgment. In the firstplace, on the provisions regarding entry into force of a treaty, there are
basis of its claim to sovereigntyover the Bakassi Peninsula, alsocases where a treaty enters into force immediately upon
Nigeria contends that the line of the maritime boundary signature. In the Court's opinion, the Maroua Declaration
between itself and Cameroon .,willcommence in the waters enteredinto forceimmediatelyupon its signature.

of the Rio del Rey and run down the median line towards The Court then addresses Nigeria's argument that its
the .open sea. Since the Court has already found that constitutionalrules regardingthe conclusionof treatieswere
sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula lies with Cameroon not complied with. In this regard the Court recalls that
and not with Nigeria, it is unnecessary to deal any further Article 46, paragraph 1,of the Vienna Conventionprovides
with this argument of Nigeria.Nigeria further contendsthat, that '"[a]State may not invoke the fact that its consent to be
even if Cameroon's claim to Bakassi were valid, bound by a treaty has been expressed in violation of a
Cameroon's claim to a maritime boundary should have
taken into account the wells and other installations on each provision of its internal law regarding competence to
conclude treaties as invalidating its consent7'.It is true that
sideof the line establishedby the oil practice and should not the paragraph goes on to say "unless that violation was
change the status quo in this respect. In relation to the manifest and concerned a rule of its internal law of
YaoundCI1Declaration, Nigeria contends that it was not a fundamental importance", while paragraph2 of Article 46
binding agreement. Nigeria likewise regards the Maroua provides that "[a] violation is manifest if it would be
Declarationas lackinglegalvalidity. objectively evident to any State conducting itself in the
The Court begins by pointing out that it has already matter in accordance with normal practice and in good

found that the Anglo-GermanAgreementof 11March 1913 faith"'.The rules concerningthe authorityto sign treaties for
is valid and applicable in its entirety and that, in a State are constitutional rules of fundamental importance.
consequence, territorial title to the Bakassi Peninsula lies However, a limitation of a Head of State's capacity in this
with Cameroon. It follows from these findings that the respect is not manifest in the sense of Article 46, paragraph
maritime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria lies to 2, unless at least properly publicized. This is particularly so
the west of the Bakassi Peninsula and not to the east, in the because Heads of State belong to the group of persons who,
Rio del Rey. It also follows from these findings that the in accordancewith Article 7,paragraph2, of the Convention

maritime boundary between the Parties is "anchored" to the "[iln virtue of their functionsand without having to produce
mainland at the intersectionof the straight line from Bakassi full powers" are consideredas representingtheir State.With
Point to King Point with the centre of the navigable channel regard to the Nigerian argument that Cameroon knew, or
of the Akwayafe River in accordance with Articles XVIII ought to have known, that the Head of State of Nigeria had
and XXI of the saidAnglo-GermanAgreement. no power legally to bind Nigeria without consulting the
The Court observes that it is apparent from the Nigerian Government, the Court notes that there is no
general legal obligation for States to keep themselves
documents provided to the Court by the Parties that,
irrespective of what may have been the intentions of its informed of legislative and constitutional developments in
original signatories, the Yaounde I1Declaration was called other States which are or may become important for the
into question on a number of occasions by Nigeria interr~ationalrelationsof these States.
subsequently to its signature and to the Joint Boundary In these circumstances the Maroua Declaration, as well
Commission meeting of June 1971. However, it is as the YaoundC I1 Declaration, have to be considered as
unnecessary to determine the status of the Declaration in binding and as establishing a legal obligation on Nigeria. It
follows that it is unnecessary for the Court to address
isolation, since the line described therein is confirmed by Nigeria's argument regarding the oi1,practice in the sector
the terms of the Maroua Declaration, which refers in its
third paragraphto "Point 12 ..situatedat the end of the line up to point G. Thus the maritime boundary between
of the maritimeboundary adoptedby the two Heads of State Cameroon andNigeria up to and including point G must be
onApril 4, 1971". consideredto have been establishedon a conventionalbasis
by the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913, the
YaoundCI1 Declaration of 4 April 1971 and the MarouaDeclaration of 1June 1975,and takes the followingcourse: leading to the establishment of'de facto lines, plays a very
starting from the straight line joining Bakassi Point and important role in establishing maritime boundaries. It
King Point, the line followsthe "compromise line" jointly contends that, within the area to be delimited, the Court
drawn at Yaoundkon 4 April 1971by the Heaclsof Stateof cannot redistribute the oil concessions established by the
Cameroon and Nigeria OEI British Admiralty Chart 3433 practice of Nigeria, Equatorial Guineaand Cameroon, and

appended to the YaoundCI1 Declaration of 4 April 1971, that it must respect the configuration ofthe concessions in
and consisting of 12 nu.mbered points, whose precise its determination of the cowse ,of the maritime boundary.
coortlinates were determin.edby the two cou.ntries'Joint Equatorial Guinea, the 'Court notes, requests'sthat the
Coinmissionmeetingin Lagos in June 1971;from point 12 boundary to be fixedby thz'court shouldnowhere encroach
on'that compromiseline the courseof the boundary follows upon the median line between its own coastsand.those of
the line to point G specifiedin the MarouaDec:larationof 1 Cameroon andNigeria, which it regards as "a reasonable

June 1975,as corrected by the exchangeof letters between expressionof its legal rights and intereststhat mist. not be
the Headsof State of Came:roonand Nigeria of'12June and transgressed in proceedings to which Equatorial Guinea is
17July 1975. not a party". It has a number of specific criticisms of the
"equitable line" proposed by Cameroon, of. which,
moreover, it claims it only became aware in December
The.ntaritinlebozlndary beyond point G 1998. , i
(paras. 269-307)
The Court then addressesthe maritime boundarybeyond The Court begins by observing that the maritime areas
on whose delimitation it'is to rule in this pati of the
poinl:G, where no maritime boundary delimitationhas been Judgment lie beyond the :outer limit of the rkspective
agreed. territorial seas of the two States. The Courtfurthei.recalls
The Court notes thatin Cameroon's viewthis is a classic that the Parties agree that it is to rule on the m'aritime
case of maritime delimitation between Stateswith adjacent
coasts which have been unable to reach agree:menton the delimitation in accordance with international law. Both
Cameroon and Nigeria are'parties to the United Nations
line to be drawn between their respective exclusive Law of the Sea Convention of 10 December 1982,which
econmomic zones and continental shelves, although in this they ratified on 19 November 1985 and 14 August 1986
case the special circumstancesof the geographical situation respectively. Accordingly the relevant provisions of that
are particularly marked, and the Court is alsc~required to Conventionare applicable,and in particular Articles74 and
take account of the interests of third States.As regards the
exercise of delimitation,Cameroon argues that the law on 83 thereof, which concern delimitation of the continental
shelf and the exclusive economic zone between States with
the delimitation of maritime boundariesis dom:inatedby the opposite or adjacent coasts. Paragraph 1 of those Articles
fundamentalprinciplethat any delimitationmust leadto an provides that such delimitationmust be effected in such a
equitable solution. In suplportof this conteni~ion,it cites way as to "achieve an equitable solution". The Court also
paragraph 1of Articles 74 and 83 of the 1982Law of the notes that the Parties agreed in their written pleadingsthat
Sea Convention and a numberof decisions of this Court or
of arbitral tribunals. Cameroon concludes that:there is no the delimitation between their maritime areas should be
effectedby a singleline.
single method of maritime delimitation; the choice of The Court points out that it has on various occasions
method depends on the circumstancesspecificto each case. made it clear what the applicable criteria, principles and
Cameroon insists on the fact that the equidistance principle rules of delimitation arewhen a line covering several zones
is not a principle of customary law that is a.utomatically
applicablein every maritimeboundarydelimitationbetween of coincident jurisdictions is to be detennined. They are
States whose coasts are adjacent, observing that,if a strict expressed in the so-called equitable principles/relevant
circumstances method. This method, which is verysimilar
equitiistance line were drawn, it would be entitled to to the equidistance/specialcircumstancesmethod applicable
prac1.icallyno exclusiveeconomiczoneor continentalshelf, in delimitation of the territorial sea, involves first drawing
despite the fact that it has a longer relevant coastlinethan an equidistance line, then coiisideriiig whether there are
Nigeria. The Court observes that Nigeria agrces that it is factors calling for the adjustment or shifting ofthat line in
appropriate in the present case to determine a single
maritime boundary. but that it rejects Camt:roonYsline. order to achieve an "equitable result". The Court observes
Nigeria describes that line:as fanciful and constructed in that it will apply thesamemethod in the presentcase.
Before it can draw an equidistance line and consider
defianceof the basic conceptsand rulesof internationallaw. whether there are relevant circumstancesthat mightmake it
It criticizes both the line's constructioi~ and the
"equitableness" of the resulltin light of thejuri:sprudence.It necessary to adjust that line, the Court must, however,
directs its criticism of the construction essen1.iallyto five define the relevant coastlinesof the Parties by reference to
poin1:s:the actual nature of the line;the relevant coastsused which the location of the base points to be used in the
in its construction; the treatment of the islands in this construction of the equidistance line will be determined.In
the present case the Court cannot accept Cameroon's
conshuction; the definition of the area relevant to the contention,on theone hand, thataccountshouldbe taken of
delimitation;the methodfollowedin the constructionof the
line. Nigeria further argues that the Parties' conduct in the coastlineof theGulfof GuineafromAkasso(Nigeria)to
respe:ctof the granting and.exploitationof oil concessions, Cap Lopez (Gabon) in order to deliinit Cameroon's justify the shifting of the equidistance line as Cameroon
maritime boundary withNigeria, and, on the other, that no
account should be taken of the greater part of the coastline claims.
of Bioko Island. Oncethe basepoints havebeen established Lastly, Cameroon invokes the disparity between the
in accordance with the above-mentioned principles, itwill length of its coastline and that of Nigeria in the Gulf of
be possible to determine the equidistance line between the Guinea as a relevant circumstance that justifies shifting the
relevant coastlines of the two. States. As the Court has delimitation line towards the north-west. For its part,
already had occasion to explain, this equidistance line
Nigeria considersthat Cameroon fails to respect the criteria
cannot be extended beyond a point where it might affect of proportionalityof coastline length, whichwould operate
rights ofEquatorialGuinea. . ratherinNigeria's favour.
The Court then considers whether there are The Court notes that in the present case, whichever
circumstances that might make it necessary to adjust this coastline of Nigeria is regarded as relevant, the relevant
equidistanceline inorderto achieve an equitableresult. The coastlineof Cameroon,as describedin paragraph291, isnot
Court feelsboundto stressin thisconnectionthat delimiting
longer than that of Nigeria. There is thereforeno reason to
with a concernto achieving an equitable result,as required shift the equidistance line in favour of Cameroon on this
by currentinternationallaw,is not the same as delimitingin grou~ld.
equity, The Court's jurisprudence shows that,in disputes The Court finds that, before ruling on the delimitation
relating to maritime delimitation, equityis not a methodof line between Cameroonand Nigeria, itmust still addressthe
delimitation,but solely an aim that shouldbe borne in mind
in effectingthe delimitation.The geographicalconfiguration question raised by Nigeria whether the oil practice of the
of the maritimeareasthat the Court is calledupon to delimit Parties provides helpful indications for purposes of the
delimitationof their respectivemaritimeareas.
is a given. It is not an element open to modificationby the Thus Nigeria contends that State practice with regardto
Court but a fact on the basisof which the Court must effect oil concessions is a decisive factor in the establishment of
the delimitation. maritime boundaries. In particular it takes the viewthat the
The Court notes in this respect that Cameroon contends
that the concavity of the Gulf of Guinea in general, and of Court cannot, through maritime delimitation, redistribute
such oil concessions between the States party to the
Cameroon's coastline in particular, creates a virtual delimitation. Cameroon, for its part, maintains that the
enclavement of Cameroon, which constitutes a special existence of oil concessions has never been accorded
circumstance to be taken into account in the delimitation particular significancein mattersof maritimedelimitationin
process. Nigeria, for its part, argues that it is not for the internationallaw.
Court to compensate Cameroon for any disadvantages
suffered by it as a direct consequence of the geography of The Court concludesthat overall,it followsfromits own
the area. It stresses that it is not the purposeof internationalase law and that of arbitral tribunals that, although the
existence of an express or tacit agreement between the
lawto refashiongeography. parties on the sitingof their respective oil concessionsmay
The Court finds that although it doesnot deny that the indicatea consensuson the maritime areasto which theyare
concavityof the coastlinemay be a circumstancerelevant to entitled, oil concessionsand oil wells are not in themselves
delimitation, it neverthelessshould stress that this can only
be the case when such concavity lies within the areato be to be considered as relevant circumstances justifying the
delimited. It notes that the sectorsof coastline relevant to adjustment or shifting of the provisional delimitationline.
Only if they are based on express or tacit agreement
the present delimitation as determined above exhibit no between the parties may they be taken into account. In the
particular concavity. present case there is no agreement between the Parties
The Courtthen observesthat Cameroonfurther contends regarding oil concessions. The Court is therefore of the
that the presence of Bioko Island constitutes a relevant opinion that the oil practiceof the Parties is not a factor to
circumstance which should be taken into account by the be taken into account in the maritime delimitation in the

Court for purposesof the delimitation.It argues that Bioko present case.
Island substantially reduces the seaward projection of Having further concluded that there were no other
Cameroon's coastline.Here again Nigeria takes the view reasons that might have made an adjustment of the
that it is not for the Court to compensateCan~eroonfor any equidistance line necessaryin order to achieve an equitable
disadvantagessufferedby it as a direct consequence of the result, the Court decidesthatthe equidistanceline represents
geographyof thearea.
an equitable result for the delimitation of the areain respect
The Court points out that in the present case Bioko of whichit hasjurisdictionto givea ruling.
Island is subject to the sovereignty of Equatorial Guinea,a The Court notes, however, that point G, which was
State which is not aparty to the proceedings. Consequently determinedby the two Parties in the Maroua Declarationof
the effect of Bioko Island on the seaward projection of the 1 June 1975,does not lie on the equidistance line between
Cameroonian coastal front is an issue betweenCameroon
and Equatorial Guinea and not between Cameroon and Cameroon and Nigeria, but to the east of that line.
Nigeria, and is not relevant to the issue of delimitation Cam~:roonis therefore entitled to requestthat frompoint G
the l~oundaryof the Parties' respective maritime areas
before the Court. The Court doesnot therefore regard the should returnto the equidistanceline. The Court considers
presence of Bioko Island as a circumstance that would that ltiompoint G the delimitation line should directlyjointhe 1:quidistanceline at a point with coordiniites 8O21'20" those it currently enjoys. Such cooperation will be
longitude east and 4"17'0OU latitude north, which will be especially helpful, with a view to the maintenance of
called X. The boundary will turn at point X and continue security, during the withdrawal of the Nigerian
sout!hwardsalongthe equid.istanceline. administrationand militaryand police forces. Moreover,on
However, the equidistimce line adopted by the Court 21 March 2002 the Agent of Cameroon stated before the
Court that "over three inillion Nigerians live on
cann.otbe extended very far. The Court has already stated
that it can take no decision that might affi:ct rights of Cameroonianterritory, where, without any restriction, they
Equatorial Guinea,which is not a party to the proceedings. engage in various activities, and are well integrated into
In these circumstancesthe Court considersthat:it can dono Cameroonian society".He went onto declare that,"faithful
more than indicate the general direction,fionl point X, of to its traditional policy of hospitality and tolerance,
the boundary between the Parties' maritime areas. The Cameroon will continue to afford protection to .Nigerians
living in the [Bakassi] P,eninsulaand in the Lake Chad
bouridary will follow a loxodrome having an azimuth of area". The Court takes note with satisfaction of the
187O52'27".
commitmentthusundertakenin respectof these areaswhere
Cait.rerooi~szrbinissioi~sonNigeria's State many Nigeriannationalsreside. . >
respoizsibility and Nigeria'scouwter-claitns The Court, moreover, does not uphold Cameroon's
submissions with regard to obtaining guarantees of non-
regarding Cameroon 'sState responsibility repetition in the future,^considering that it could not
(paras. 308-324)
The Court finally addresses Cameroon's submissions envisage a situationwhere either Partywould fail to respect
the territorial sovereigntyof the other Party, now thatthe
concerning Nigeria's State responsibility and Nigeria's land and maritime boundary between the two States had
counter-claims concerning Cameroon's Stater1:sponsibility. been specified by the Court in definitive and mandatory
In this connection, Came:roonputs forward two separate terms.
series of submissionsconct:rning,on the one hand, the Lake In the circumstances of the case, the Court considers
Chad area and the Bakassi Peninsula and,on the other, the
remaining sectorsof theboundary. moreover that, by the very fact of its Judgment and of the
evacuation of the Cameroonian territory occupied by
The Court recalls that inparagraphs 57, 60, 61and 225 Nigeria, the injury sufferedby Cameroon by reason of the
of it:;Judgmentit fixed theboundary betweenthe two States occupation of its territory will in all events have been
in the Lake Chad areaandthe BakassiPeninsula.It observes sufficientlyaddressed.The Court does not therefore seek to
that Nigeriadoes not deny that Nigerianarmed forcesand a ascertainwhether andto whatextentNigeria's responsibility
Nigerrianadministrationare currentlyin place in these areas
which the Court has determined areCameroor~ianterritory, to Camerooil has been engaged as a result of that
addingin respectof the establishmentof themi~nicipalityof occupation.
Finally, concerning various boundary incidents, the
Bakassi that, if the Court were to recognize Cameroon's Court findsthat neither of the Parties sufficientlyproves the
sovereignty over such areas, there is nothingirreversiblein facts which it alleges, or their imputability to the other
the relevant arrangement:; made by Nigeria. The same Party. The Court is therefore unable to uphold either
reasoning clearly applies to other spheres of civil
administration,as well as to military or police forces. The Cameroon's submissions or Nigeria's counter-claims based
COUI- ntotesthat Nigeria isunderan obligation1:xpeditiously on theincidentscited.

and without conditionto withdrawits administrationand its
mi1it:aryand police force:; from that area of' Lake Chad
which falls within Cameroon's sovereigntyand from the Declaratiotz ofJudge Oda
BakassiPeninsula.
The Court further obse:rvesthat Caineroor~is under an Judge Oda fully supportsthe conclusionsreachedby the
obligation expeditiouslyand without conditionto withdraw Court on the main issues of the present case, namely the
Bakassi Peninsula and the land boundaries in Lake Chad
any administrationor militaryor police forceswhichmaybe and between Lake Chad and the sea, although he does
present in areas along the land boundary fromLake Chad to
the Bakassi Peninsula which pursuant to the present expresssomereservationsontechnicalmatters.
Judgment fallwithinthe sovereigntyofNigeria..Nigeriahas Judge Oda holds stronger reservations concerning the
the same obligation in regard to any administration or Court's decision in subparagraph IVYon the "maritime
military or police forces which may be present in areas boundary" issues, which cannot be considered maill issues
along the land boundary .horn Lake Chad to the Bakassi in the present dispute. He shares very few of the Court's
views andonlyvotedin favourof pointsIV (B), (C) and(D)
Peninsula which pursuant to the present Judgment fall
within the sovereigntyof Cameroon. becausethe linesdrawntherein arenot whollyinappropriate
The Court also notes that the imp1emeni:ationof the and do not in fact cause any ham. He identifies both
present Judgment will a.fford the Parties a beneficial procedural and substantive errors made not only by the
opportunity to cooperate in the interests of the population Applicantbutalso bythe Court.
From the procedural perspective,Judge Odastresses the
concerned, in order notably to enable it to continue to have
access to educational and. health services comparable to fact that in its 1994 Applications Cameroon could notbeseen as asking the Court to adjudge on any "legal dispute" the boundary line, but the present case was brought
concerning a maritime boundary within the meaning of unila1:erallyby Cameroon and the Parties have not even
Article 36 (2) of the Court's Statute.It only requested the started negotiations. The Court could not initiate

drawing of a boundary course. In its 1998 .Judgment,the compulsory procedures entailing a binding decision and
Court erred in rejectingNigeria's'preliminary objectionsand could not "decide"any specificline.
in deciding that a dispute couldbe unilaterally submitted to
the Court by Cameroon. The Applicant, Cameroon, altered Separate opinion oj'Judge Raizjeva
its ,position in later proceediilgs by asserting its own
maritime claim identified by map coordinates. This Silbscribingto the operative part and to the conclusions
procedural error effected an essential change in the set out in the Judgment, Judge Ranjeva is satisfied with the
undertaking given by the two Parties, under the auspices of
complexionof the entire case. In this light,Judge Oda voted the S~zcretary-Generao lf the United Nations, to abide by the
againstpoint IV (A) of the operativepart of the Judgment.
From the substantive perspective, Judge Oda underlines Court's Judgment in the case concerning Lnnd and
the failure by the Court and the Applicant to recognize the Mai-iti~ne Bozr~zdarybetween Catnerooil nild Nigeria
essential difference between the territorial sea and the area (Cameroon v. Nigeria), an undertakingwhich confirmstheir
of the continentalshelf,which are regulatedby two different conse:nttojurisdiction under internationalprocedurallaw.
Judge Ranjeva expresses reservations in respect of the
legal rkgimes. Judge Oda submits that on the issue of the analysis set out in paragraphs 203 and 209 of the Judgment.
boundary within the territorial sea, the difference between
the .two"Parties is, in fact, an -issue relating solely to the The Judgment relies on rules of intertemporallaw tojustify
status 'of the Bakassi Peninsula (whether the boundary the conclusion that the United Kingdom had authority to
betweefiCameroonandNigeria lies to the west or to the east detennine Nigeria's boundary with Cameroon (para. 209).
of the Bakassi Peninsula) and not to a maritime boundary. Did the refusal to accord international status to the
After stating that Bakassi is part of Cameroon, the Court's agreements concluded by the United Kingdom with the
chief:;of Old Calabarjustify referenceto the conceptof "the
Judgment should have had nothing more to add. It is law at the time"? No lawyer can help but be surprised at the
senseless for the Court to present the two tables of Courl:'swarping of the founding principle of international
coordinates refemng to the temtorial sea, as neither Party
raisedthisparticular issue. law. In effect, as far as agreements with leaders or eminent
As for the boundary of the continental shelf, the Court dignitaries of what international law terms "uncivilized
renders a decision establishing a line different from the nations" are concerned, pacta non sewanda sunt. Legal
Parties' respective claim lines. The Court's mistaken "unili~teralism"has already been the target of criticism by
legal scholars. In the case concerning Frontier Dispute
treatment of the maritime boundary may derive from its (Burhina Faso/Repuhlic of Mali), the Chamber directly
failure to understand the law governing this issue. applied colonial law, which it recognized as such and as the
According to Judge Oda, there is no legal rule or principle
that mandates recognition of a given line as the onIy one source of the applicable law. Thus, it would.have been
acceptable under international law. The concrete boundary preferable to distinguish between the two spheres of law in
line of the continental shelf is to be chosen by negotiation the present case: international law in respect of relations
provided that it remains within the bounds of equity. Judge between European colonial Powers and colonial law in
respect of relations between the metropole and the colonial
Oda further states that the 1958Geneva Convention on the territories.
Continental Shelf offers a guiding principle for parties'
negotiations:they should seek an "equitable solution"under
the so-called "equidistance (median) line + special Declaration of Judge Herczeglz
circumstance" rule. The 1982 United Nations Convention In his declaration Judge Herczegh expresses the view
on the Law of the Sea tried to further clarify the issue in its
Article 83 (I), which provides for the delimitation of the thatthe critical comments made in paragraph 238 in the
reasoning in the Judgment, concerning the insufficient
continental shelf to be "effected by agreement on the basis protection which Article 59 of the Statute may afford in
of international law ...in order to achieve an equitable some cases to third States' interestsof a legal nature, are
solution". unjustified.
In Judge Oda's view, great misunderstandingprevailsin
academic circles regarding the interpretation of Article 83
(2) of the 1982 Convention. First, this provision does not Dissenting opinion of Judge Koronza
Judge Koroma in his dissenting opinion acknowledged
constitute a compromissory clause such as is referred to in
Article 36 (1) of the Court's Statute. Second,the fact that theimportant role of the Court as a forum for the peaceful
boundary negotiations have failed does not in itself mean settlement of disputes, particularly territorial and boundary
that a "(legal) dispute" has arisen. Third, Article 83 (2) disputes between neighbouring States, which have a
should not be interpreted as conferring compulsory propensity to escalate with destructive consequencesfor the
jurisdiction on those institutions listed in Article 287, Part States concerned. However, in his view, if the Court as a
XV. Judge Oda asserts that the Court could act as a third- judicial organ is to effectively play its assigned role, its
decision must be based on the application of the relevant
party authorityif it were askedjointly by the Partiesto draw
convt:ntions and relevant principles of international law,foremostamongwhich isthe fundamentalprincipleofpacta reached. This approach led the Court quite erroneously to
sunt sen,anda, that everytreaty in force is binclingupon the uphold Cameroon's title based on the Anglo-German
parties to it and must be performed in good faith. In his Agreement of 1913, and to reject Nigeria's claim to
view, the Court cannot operate on a diffixent set of territorial sovereigntybased on originaltitle and historical
principles. He regretted the factthat on this occasion, the consolidation. He took the view that on the basis of the
majority of the Court departed from the law and legal
evidence presented to the.Court, if the issues of original
principles enriching its d.ecision which is therefore not title, historical consolidation and effective authority had
sustainable. been given their due consideration, a different conclusion
Judge Koroma obsewe:dthat, by failing to uphold the would have been reached by the Court with regard to
validity of the 1884Treatybetween the KingsimdChiefs of Bakassiand thesettlementsaroundLake Chad. ...
Old Calabar andGreatBritain,whichexpresslyprovidedfor In conclusion, Judge \Koroma insisted that where the

the "gracious protection"of the people of Old Calabar by judicial settlement of territorial and boundary disputes is
Great Britain, but instead upholding the validity of the concerned, it is imperative for the Court to apply a valid
Anglo-German Agreement of 1913 which ceded the treaty, andthe relevantprinciples of internationallaw, if the
territory of the people of Old Calabar to Geri~nany without Judgmentisto be regardedas basedon law.
their consent, the Court chose to consecratep~~liticarleality . .
over legal validity. In his view, the 1884 Treaty did not
entitle Great Britain totransfer theterritoryof thepeople of Separate opinion of Judge Parra-Arartgtcren
Judge Parra-Aranguren declared that his vote for the
Old Calabarwithout their consent, andto the extentthat the operative part of the Judgment,with the exception of point
1913 Anglo-GermanTrealy purportedly had his effect, it
should have been declared defective by the Clourt.Hence, V (C), should not be understood as an agreement to each
the Court was in error in upholding Cameroon's titlebased and every part of the reasoning followedby the Court in
on the 1913Anglo-German Agreement. reaching its conclusions. He also explained that,his vote
against point V (C), is based on the well-established
Judge Koroma also disagreedwith the Court's response principlethat"it is the dutyof the Courtnot only to reply to
to the principal claimof Nigeria to Bakassi and settlements the questions as stated in the final submissions of the
around Lake Chad based on historical consolidation and
effective authority. In his view, historical consolidation,if parties,but also to abstainfrom decidingpointsnot included
established by the evidence, remains a valid basis of in those submissions", as was recalled by the Court very
territorial title. In Judge Koroma's view, the acquisition of recently, on 14 February 2002 (case concerningthe Arrest
territorial title is not closed to what the Court describedin Warra~ltof 11 April 2000, (DemocraticRepublic of Congo
v. Belgium), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002, para. 43).
the Judgmentas "established" modes.If this were so, there Neither Cameroon nor Nigeria requested the Court in its
would have been no place in internationaljurisprudence for submissionsto take note of the commitinentundertakenby
"prescription", "recognition", "estoppel or preclusion", or
"acquiescence". Inother words,proven longusage,coupled Cameroon to afford protection to Nigerians living in the
with a complex of interests and relation;<which, in Bakassi Peninsula. Therefore, in his opinion, the Court
themselves, have the effect of attaching a territory, and should haveabstainedfrom takingnote of suchcommitment
when supported by evidence of acquiescence, constitutes a in the operativepart of the Judgment,eventhough theCourt
was entitled to address it in its reasoning, as it did in
legal basis of territorial title. Sucha basis to t1:rritorialtiparagraph317of theJudgment.
has been recognized in the jurisprudence of the Court.
Accordingly, what was required in this case was proof of the
clairn and it is for the Court to examine the evidence ifit Declaration of Judge Rezek
substantiates such claim. Nigeria, he obsew~:~,presented
substantial evidence to justify the claim of historical Judge Rezek did not join the majority in respect of the
consolidationand eSfectivii!klsinking the Bakassi Peninsula question of sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula and
adjacentwaters.
and thesettlementsaroundLakeChadwithNigeriaand with He setsout the main reasonfor that inhis declaration:in
the necessaryevidenceof acquiescence.It shouldhave been his view, it is unacceptableforthe treaty concludedin 1884
for the Court to examine such evidence, :io determine between Great Britain and the Kings and Chiefs of Old
whether it established title, and not to concentrate on the
"label" under whichthe evidence was presented to it. The Calabar not to be considered a treaty, becauseit is obvious
Court stated that apart from the NorwegianFisheries case that at the time in question even the colonial Powers were
the "notion ..has never been usedas a basis ol'titlein other requiredto showa minimumof good faith.

territorial disputes,whetherin its own or in oth.ercase law". Separate opinion of"JudgeAl-Khasawneh
Evenif this wereso, whichis not the case,what should have
mattered most is the evidence and not the appellation Judge Al-Khasawneh associates himself with the
appliedto it. reasoning of the Court in paragraphs 214 to 216 of the
In Judge Koroma'sview, it is the approach takenby the
Judgment;however he submitsthat it was unnecessary and
Court in consideringthe lawand material evidencebefore it unfortunate for the Court to revert to the questions of the
which proved to be the flaw in the decision which it 1913AgreementbetweenGreatBritainand Gennany and tothe 1884Treaty of Protectionbetween Great Britain and the 1969Vienna Conventionon the Law of Treaties, and which
Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar. Indeed, it is nlorally and was consistently rejected in successive decisions of the

legally difficult to reconcile a duty of protection with the Europc:an Court of Human Rights, overconie by certain
subsequent alienation of the entire territory of the protected decisions of this Courtand abandoned in the realm of grave
entity. crimes. In sum, the Court's hopes to find the basis for
In its Judgment, the Court fails to distinguish between ceding Bakassi to Germany are misplaced on a truncated
protectorates and colonies and concludes that Great Britain concept.
has acquired sovereigntyto the Bakassi Peninsulathrough a In conclusion, the 1884 Treaty had international legal

derivativeroot of title. The centralquestionsof the casethus standing: it concerned protection and not colonial title and
relate to the interpretation of the 1884 Treaty and of the the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar had capacity to enter
subsequent practice of the Parties. These cannot be into treaty relations. The plain words of the Treaty suggest
circumventedby the inventionof a fictitioussub-categoryof that there was no intent to transfer territorial sovereignty.
protectorates named "colonial protectorates"where title is This situationwas not altereduntil 1913,when GreatBritain
presumed to pass automatically and regardless of the terms ceded Bakassi to Germany. The cession implied powers

of the treaty. associiitedwith territorial sovereignty that Great Britain did
No support can be found to tlie Court's conclusionby not possess. The case of the Kings and Chiefs of Old
reference to the Western Sahara or the Islartd of Palmas Calabar was not weakened by the Treaty itself. However,
decisions. The latter especially mistakenly confounds their subsequentbehaviour and their failure to protest leave
inequality in status and inequality in power by concluding Judge Al-Khasawneh with no choice but to coiiclude that
that suzerainty over a native State becomes the basis of they had given their consent to that transfer:vob~ti non.fit
injtnri.
territorial sovereignty by the protecting Power. In addition,
its excessive generalization results in the assumption that
local chiefs are deemed to have become virtual colonies or Separate opirtion ofJrndgeMbaye
vassal of the States under the suzerainty of the protecting
colonial Power regardless of the nominal control exercised In imendeavourto obtaingreater insightinto this dispute
by the protecting State and the fact that they were often between two brother African countries. I have set out some
generalobservationsby way of introductionto my opinion.
recognized as sovereigns in their subsequent dealings with I share the Court's conclusions as regards "the Lake
the protecting State. Besides, it is doubtful that the
generalizationabout suzeraintyand vassalagewith regard to Chad area and Bakassi". There are existing titles in respect
the colonial protectorates was in fact supported by State of sovereignty over these areas of territory. It is Cameroon
practice at that time. Moreover, this approach is based on who holds these titles, which must prevailover et-fectivitks.
the notion of otherness, and results in an alnlost regional However, I regret that the Court did not rely on the
application of intertemporal law. Judge Al-Khasawneh principle of "respect for colonial frontiers", sincethe Parties
devoted lengthy and varied arguments to this matter, and it
emphasizesthat treatiesof protectionwere sometimesa first
step towards the development of a full colonial title, but is of great importancein Africa.
until that happened and in the absence of provisions which As regards the land boundary between Lake Chad and
may be interpretedas conveyingtitle, they remained a lever Bakassi, the maritime delimitation and the issue of
and no more. This conclusion is supported by several responsibility,my conclusionsdiffer in minor respects from
examples of State practice - in particular by Great those reachedby the Court.
Britain- contemporaneouswith the BerlinConference.

Even assuming, arpendo, that the Berlin Conference Dissenting opiilion of Judge Ajibolu
did sanction the behaviour of colonial Powers vis-A-vis
colonial protectorates, is this practice opposable to the In the case concerningthe Land andMaritimeBoundary
Parties in the present dispute? This should be addressed between Cameroon and Nigeria, Judge Ajibola votes in
within the principle of intertemporal law. Historically, support of the Court's decision on tlie issue of maritime
delimitationbeyond point "6" which the Court based on its
protection, a concept traceable to the Romanjurist Ulpian, principle of equidistance in accordance with its
excludes notion of ownership and connotes elements of jurisprudence and international law. He also supports the
guardianship.After 1885,Statepracticebegan to deform the
original classical concept and converted it into an decision of the Court to deny Cameroon's claim of State
instrumentof colonialism. Shouldthis deformationbe taken responsibility against Nigeria. In his opinion, the claim is
into consideration in the application of the intertemporal rather anticipatory in that it pertains to acts allegedly
rule? Besides, should not the rulepacta strntservanda, one committed on a disputed territory and a dispute yet to be
determinedby the Court. It is for the samereason that judge
of the most important principles of international law, Ajibola supports the decision of the Court to dismiss
continueto be applied?
Intertemporal law is not as static as somejurists would Nigeria's counter-claim of State responsibility against
like to think. Moreover,the intertemporalrule is not a well- Cameroon.
defined rule capable of automatic application, it is rather a Judge Ajibola however disagrees with the decision of
the Court, which declares that the territorial sovereignty
perplexing idea that was incapable of finding a place in the overthe BakassiPeninsulabelongsto Cameroon.In his ownopinion. the Court's acceptance of Cameroon's title claim Judge Ajibola also votes against the decision of the
based on the 1913 Anglo-German Agreementcan be Courton thedelimitationof the Lake Chadboundary.In his
faulted, because its Articles XVIII-XXII upon which opinion, the Court failed to give adequate considerationto
Cameroon bases its claim are null and void, and those Nigeria's claim based on historical consolidation and
Articles are severablefiorr~the Agreement.He goes mher effectivitkswhich entitlesNigeriato the 33 villagesclaimed.
to state that theCourt failedin its Judgmentto considerthe In his view, Judge Ajibola opines that the conclusion
effect of Nigeria's argument based on historical
consolidationand eflectivil'ks.In his opinion, the evidential reached by the Court in this case is not in line with the
developmentof its ownjurisprudence and in particular with
value of the Treaty of 10 September 1884, between the regard to the case of the Frontier Disptrte (Burkina
Kings and Chiefs of Olcl Calabar and Great Britain, is Faso/Muli). It is his view that the Court, in accepting
clearly in favour of Nigeria's case.It is a clear indication Cameroon's one-sidedargument,merely gaverecognitionto
that at all relevant times before Nigeria's independence,the a part of paragraph 63 of the case mentioned above when
territorial sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula truly reaching its decision. In Judge Ajibola's view, the Court
belonged to the Kings anti Chiefs of Old Calabar and that failed to give cognizanceto the last three sentences of that
the 'Treatywas a treatyof protection, which did nottransfer
paragraph, which urged thateffectivitksmust invariably be
any territorial sovereignty to Great Britain. laeat Britain takeninto consideration.
couldnot thereforetransferanyterritorialrights to Germany
orto Cameroon,after its independence.1was 4 1W~Y (IYWI-"" -a 9mm