INTERNATIONALCOURTOFJUSTICE
CASECONCERNING
THELANDAND MARITIME BOUNDARY
BETWEEN CAMEROON AND NIGERIA
(CAMEROON v. NIGERIA)
(EQUATORIAL GUINEA INTERVENING)
OBSERVATIONS
THE FEDERALREPUBLICOFNIGERIA
THEWRITTENSTATEMENTOF
THE REPUBLICOFEQUATORIALGUINEA
JULY2001 TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageNo.
A. Introduction
B. Issues coveredby EquatorialGuinea'sWritterzStatement
C. ConclusionA. Introduction
1. In accordance withthe Court's order of 21 October 1999,Nigeria submits the following
Observationson the WrittenStatementof the intervenor, Equatorial Guinea,dated 4 April
2001.
2. Nigeriarecallsand reaffirrnsits maritimeclaimas specifiedin its earlier pleadings. Itnotes
inparticularthat its claim(asportrayedinFig. 13.9of Nigeria'sRejoinder)doesnot trespass
on areas claimedby EquatorialGuinea. The remarksthat followare without prejudiceto
Nigeria's submissions as setoutin its Rejoinder,andthe evidenceandargument adducedby
Nigeriain supportthereof.
3. Nigeria also notesthat by a letter to the Registrar dated 22 February 2001, Cameroon
admittedthe earliererrorsin its depictionof its "claimline", errors whichhadbeen pointed
out in Nigeria'sRejoinder.' At the sametime Cameroonproducedyet anotherdepictionof
its maritimeclaim. This new line,which departsin significantrespectsfromthat shownin
Cameroon's earlier pleadings, was produced after the closure of the written pleadings as
between the parties on the maritime boundaries. It does not correct mere clerical or
arithmeticalerrors but involvesa fùrtherchangein position. In that respectit can properly
be describedas "posthumous".
4. Cameroon's posthumous line is shown in black on Fig. NO 1. Also show are: (a) the
Cameroon claimline as describedby CO-ordinatei sn its Reply(continuousred line); (b) the
Equatorial Guinea median line (brokenpurple line), (c) the line delimitedby the Nigeria-
Equatorial GuineaTreaty of 23 September 2000 (not yet ratified) (continuoug sreen line),
and (d) the Joint DevelopmentZone covered by the Agreement of 21 February 2001
between Nigeriaand SZoTomée Principe2(red stripedarea). Nigeria is depositing copies
ofthe latterAgreement withthe Registrar, fortheinformationofthe Court.
1 SeeNR,paras9.3-9.10.
2
respectof Arofthe ExclusiveEconomic Zone ofthe Two S21Febmar2001.The Agreementhasnot yet been ratified, pending other Resourcesin
agreement betweenthe parties onthe modalities of implementation5. The followingObservationsmay be made asto Carneroon'sposthumousline, in particular
as it relatestothe positionof EquatorialGuinea asset outin itsrittenStatement:
(1) Cameroon's newly-depicted line still does not precisely alignwith the CO-ordinates
given inCameroon's Repiy for Points G to K, although the differences relatingto
Points H and 1 may be due to an inaccurate or imprecise illustrationof those co-
ordinates.
(2) In whicheverversionthat rnaybe used, the line enters watersclaimedby Equatorial
Guinea at a point (around 3" 57'N, 8" 05'E) which is closer to both Equatorial
GuineaandNigeria than it isto anylandarea claimedby Cameroon.
Theposthumousversion of the Cameroonclaimlinethen extendsout to a new point
(which can be called Point L')and presumably beyond (thoughno further limit is
expressed). The CO-ordinatesof Point L' are not given, but in Cameroon'snew
depiction,its claim line isshown to extend about 115kmbeyond point K, the last
point Cameroon had definedby GO-ordinates in its Repiy. Even as compared with
the (now withdrawn)originaldepiction in its RepZy(mapR21),the extension of the
line beyond Point Kin Cameroon's newdepiction is 20km longer (as well as being
located about 40km closerto Nigeria's coast). In short, PointL'as now depictedby
Cameroon entails a substantialadditional maritime claim. Again the width of the
claim, andtherefore itsextent,are leftwhollyunspecified.
(4) PointL'ismuchcloserto three other Statesthanit isto anypartof Camer~on.~
(5) By implicationCameroon claimsbroad swathes of maritime areas claimed by the
otherthree States, and vis-à-visNigeria it claimsthose areas exclusively. In other
words, so it is said, Nigeria has no maritime relations with Equatorial Guinea, or
indeed with any State in the Gulf of Guinea otherthan Cameroon. A claimless
consistent withthe practice of al1the States concemed, or with their legitimate
expectations,itwouldbe hardto imagine.
3 ThedistancesffomL'areapproximaas follows:
To Akasso(Nigeria).101nm;
ToPrincipe,109nm;
ToBioko(SWcoast),163nm;
To Debundsc(aameroo,10 nrn.;Fig. NO1B. Issues covered bvEauatorialGuinea's WrittenStatement
6. Againstthis background, Nigeriatums to considerEquatorial Guinea'sWrittenStatement.
Astothe factualissues referredto in the WrzttenStatement,Nigeriahas very littleto add. It
notesonlythat:
(1) Equatorial Guinea's accountof Cameroon'sclaim line (the "ligne équitable")is
entirely consistentwiththat of Nigeria in the Written Pleadings. That is to Say,the
"ligne équitable" wasconstructedforthe purposesof thewrittenpleadings,markeda
major changein Cameroon's position vis-à-vis both Nigeriaand EquatorialGuinea,
andhas neverbeen thesubjectofpriornegotiationwitheitherofthem.4
(2) The three Stateshavealways proceededon the basis thatthere is a tripoint between
them,to thenorthof Bi~ko.~
(3) Cameroon hasneverprotested the openandpublic oil practiceof EquatorialGuinea
on its side of the equidistanceline, anymorethan it has protestedthe (muchlonger
and more extensive)Nigerianoil practice asalready identifiedin detail in Nigeria's
pleadings.6
Equatorial Guinea observes that Nigeria in its Rejoznder didnot depict "the
(4)
Equatorial Guineaconcessionsthat were openfor lease"in the 1970sand 1980s.' It
is of course forEquatorial Guineato providethis informationto the Court. Nigeria
would only note that, while the declaration ofmaritime areas as open for lease or
licence is an important step, it is even more significant where areas have already
been openly licensed and substantial investmentsmade. As to the areas aroundthe
tripoint affectedby Cameroon's claim,this is the case so faras al1three States are
c~ncerned.~Map 3, attachedto EquatorialGuinea'sWrittenStatement,is a tùrther
graphicrepresentationofthis long-standingreality.
4
See EGWS,paras.9-10.28-33. See also, e.g., NPOet se(especially 7.15); NC-M,paras.20.4, 20.1&,(iv); NR, paras.
10.1et se(especially 10.14, 10.1et seq11.21et se12.3, 12.4, 13.19. EquatonalGuineaobservesthatit fust becarneawareof
5 Cameroon'sclaiminDecember1998:EGWS,para.28.
See EGWS, para. 8-34.
SeeinparticularNRparas.10.16-10.22andthe Appendixto NRChapter10
7 EGWS,para.22, n. 15.
8 SeeEGWS,Map2 oppositep. 10,andEquatorialGuinea'snotethereto.7. In its WrittenStatement,EquatorialGuinea makes referenceto the Treaty of 23 September
2000 betweenNigeria and Equatorial Guinea. Nigeria has alreadyprovidedthe Court with
the text of that Treaty and relevantinformation. In fact the Treaty is not yet in force,
althoughit is being provisionallyapplied. In accordancewith itsterms, it will not be finally
brought into force until thesuccessfulconclusion ofa unitisationagreement relating to the
Ekanga area,as identifiedinNigeria's Rej~inder.~Unless anduntil this happens, each party
naturallymaintainsits pre-existingclaims as between themselves. Subjectto this obvious
point, Nigeria has nothing to add to the presentation on this matter made by Equatorial
Guinea." On any question that may emerge in the course of the proceedings as to the
meaningor implicationsof the Treaty and its possible entry into force,Nigeriareserves its
position.
8. Asto the lerralissuesaddressedinthe Witten Statement, Nigeriais in broad agreementwith
Equatorial Guinea, and indeed has already made many of the same points in previous
written pleadings dealing withthe maritimeboundary. In particular, Nigeria wouldstress
that:
(1) Equatorial Guineaisnot, andcouldnot be,a partyto the presentproceedings.
(2) Nonetheless EquatorialGuinea'sinterests are directly affected by Cameroon'sso-
called "ligneéquitable".In particular,the Cameroonclaimline impliesa claimto a
swathe of maritime territory to the south-east of that line, most of which is
attributableto EquatorialGuinea."
(3) In these respects, EquatorialGuinea'slegal interests are directly in issue as to areas
claimedby itvis-à-visCameroon.
(4) In conformity with its established jurisprudence, the Courtshould refrain from
attributingto Cameroonany maritime areas which are closer to Equatorial Guinea
thanthey areto Cameroon,i.e. whichare on the EquatorialGuinea sideof a median
SeeNR,para.10.&Figure10.6.
Io SeeEGWS,paras.35-37.
11 SeeEGWS,Map1 oppositep.6. line drawnbetweentheir respective coastlines. It is only to the north of the tripoint
between the thee States (a tripoint, moreover, substantially endorsedby them in
their respective practice, evenif its precise locationmayremainto be identified)that
the Court canavoidinfringingonthe claimsand entitlementsof athird State.
In this respect, Nigeria would respectfùlly observethat the Courtis not ina position
(5)
to assess the reasonablenessor justification for Equatorial Guinea'sclaim against
Cameroon inthe presentcase(or vice versa).
C. Conclusion
9. As to the conclusion arrivedat by Equatorial Guinea, Nigeriaaccordingly agrees thatthe
Court should refrain fiom attributingto Cameroonin the present proceedings"any area that
is more proximateto Equatorial Guinea than to the Parties to the case before the Co~rt".'~
Although of great importanceboth to the Parties to the present proceedingsand to third
parties,'3the Court'srole inthe presentcase, in applying the equitableprinciples referredto
in the 1982 Convention,is a restrictedone. It concernsareas lying to the north and east of
the tripoint with Equatorial Guinea. A decision limited to this area would be both
substantively consistentwith the practice of al1 three parties and with the equitable
considerationsapplicableas betweenthem,andwouldnot prejudicethe rightsof Equatorial
Guinea specifiedin its WrittenStatement.
4 July2001
ChiefBolaIge, S.A.N.
Honourable Attorney-General oftheFederation
andMinister ofJustice,
Agentofthe FederalRepublicofNigeria
1L EGWS, para60.
l3 Inthis respect, Nigeria would note again that EquatorialGuinea is not the only State which wCouraccedingtoy affected by the
Cameroon's claimFurthmore, it is respectfully submined that Equatorial Guinea, having intervened and presented infommîion and
submissions before the Court, should not be prejudiced thereby, as compared with S5o Tomé e Prtodo so. The has elected not
implication oferoon'sargument is that a State intervening under Article 62 may be prejudiced thereby. Any such implication would, in
Nigeria'srespectful submission,undennine the value of interventionas provided for in Article 62.
Observations of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on the Written Statement of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea