INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CASE CONCERNING THE LANDAND MARITIME BOUNDARY
BETWEEN
CAMEROON AND NIGERIA
(CAMEROON v. NIGERIA)
(EQUATORIAL GUINEAINTERVENING)
WRITTEN STATEMENT
OF
THE REPUBLIC OF EQUATORIAL GUINEA INTERNATIONALCOURT OF JUSTICE
CaseConcbetweenCameroon andNigeriae Boundary
(Cameroon v. Nigeria)
(Equatorial Guineatervening)
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF
THE REPUBLICOFEQUATORIALGUINEA
Tableof Contents
INTRODUCTION .................................................................1.......
.............................
PART1: THEREASONS WHY EQUATORIAL GUINEA REQUESTED
TOINTERVENE .......................................... ...............................
......
A. TheMaritiineBoundaryCarnerooii
Requests the Courtto DetermiiiePrejudices
EquatorialGuiiiea'sLegalRightsand Iiiterests....W...: .............3......
B. Camerooii'sLigneEquitable FallswitliiiitlieMaritiine Area
Claiinedby EquatorialGuiiiea.........................................................
C. ThePractical Inadequaciesof Article59of tlie Statuiii
the Circiiinstancesof Cainerooii'sLigne Equita...................................
PARTII: IS THEPOSITION ADOPTED BY EQUATORIAL GUINEA
REASONABLE INLAW? .........................................8......................
A. RelevalitFacts................................................
...........8...........
1. SalieiitGeographicalFacts........................................................
2. Relevant State Activit...
3. BouiidaryNegotiatingHi
a.Uiitilthis case,Camerooiiagreedtliattlie
maritimejurisdictionsof Equatorial Guiiiea,
Nigeria and Camerooii meetat a tripoiiit
southof the BakassiPeninsi~la 1I
h. Negotiatioiis with Cainerooii 14
c. Negotiationswith Nigeria 15
B. DelimitationMethods ................................................................1PART III: THELEGALBASISFOREQUATORIAL
GUINEA'S REQUEST ....................................... ..............................
A. IiiteriiatioiialCourts and TriburialsTake Care to
Avoid Prejudice to the Legal Riglitsand Iiiterests
of Non-Party Tliird States.....................................
B. Camerooil Miscoiistruesthe Frontier DisputeCase........................0..........
C. Caineroon Misconstrues the Libya/Malta Judgineiits ...................2...........
D. The Distinction Made by tlie Court intlieEast TimorCase
as Applied toa Classical Maritime Boundary Third-State Sitiiatio.......23.
E. Maritime Tripoints are a CorninonProblein................ ....................2.4
CONCLUSION ........................................................... 2..............
................................ List ofAnnexes
EGWS 1. EquatorialGuiiieaNoteVerbalto Cameroon dated25 August 1998 .............
EGWS2. Minutesofthe TliirdSession oftheNigeria-Cainerooii JointMeetingof
Expertson BoundaryMatiers, 11-13August 1993,Nigeriaii Rejoiiider,
Aniiex NR 173 .........................................................A..................
EGWS3. Joint Commuiiiquéfrom thM e eetingofDelegatioiisof EqtiatorialGuiiiea
and Cainerooiito DiscussMattersRelated tothe MaritimeBouiidary,3
August 1993 .....................................................
.....A..19............
EGWS4. List of Coastal Basepoiiit Coordiiiates Provided to Equatoil iiieaby
Cainerooii,20 August 1993 ...................................................................
List of Maas
Map 1 (para. 14) TlieMedianLineaiidLa LigneEquitable
Map2 (para. 26) Figure10.4froin tlieNigeria11Rejoiiider
Map3 (para. 27) Map of the SociétéNationale des Hydrocarbures, Republic of
Camerooii, DepictiiigCainerooii's1999-2000LicensingRound
Map4 (para.30) Map 5 Accompanying Cainerooii's Application Depictingtlie
Equatorial Guiiiea,Nigeria,Cainerooii Tripoiiit
Map 5 (para. 30) MapAccompaiiyingCamerooii's Mernorial (AiiiieC x.M.383, M52)
Identifying theGeographicalCoordinatesof tlie Equatorial Guiiiea,
Nigeria, Cameroon Tripoiiit
Map 6 Caineroon Concession Map Illustratiiigthe Tripoint(CaineroonReply,
(para. 31)
Map R25)
Map 7 (para. 56) Map Depictingthe Area oii Malta's Side of tlie MediaiiLiiiewliicll
Was ProtectedforItalyat Its Request iitlieLibya/MaltcrCase
1,RicardoMaiigiieObamaN'Fube, Miiiister ofStatefor Laborand Social Security, Agentof tlie
RepublicofEquatorialGuiiiea before tlieInteriiatioiialCourtof Justicinthe CaseConcerningthe
Land and Maritime BoundarybeiweenCameroon and Nigeria (Cameroonv. Nigeria) (Equatorial
GuineaIntervening),Iierebycertify pursuaiit to Article50of the Rulesof the Courttliat tliecopies
of tlie documents in tlie Annexesaiidthe inaps appeariiigin tlie WrittenStateinent of Equatorial
Guiiieaare truecopies of the origiiialsor of documeiitsinthe referencedsources.1 further certify
pursuaiitto Article 51, paragraph3 of the Statuteof the Courttliatal1traiislatioiisof docurniiits
the Annexesto the Writteii Statemeiitare trueto tlieorigiiials.
RicardoMangue Obama N'Fube
Agent of EquatorialGuinea INTRODUCTION
1 This Wntten Statementof the Republicof EquatorialGuiileais siibmitted iilaccordarice
with the Order of 21 Octoher 1999in the Case Concerningthe Lund and Maritime Bounduiy
Between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v.Nigeria). IIIthat Order the Court perrnitted
Equatorial Guinea "to intervenein the case,pursuantto Article62 of the Statute,to the extent,
iiithe mannerand forthe purposessetout inits Application for permission to intervene,"aiidit
established thetiine-limit forthe filing of this WrittenStatemerit.'
2 The Application of Equatorial Guinea to which theCourt'sOrder refers was filed witli
the Court on 30June 1999. Equatorial Guineais clear in that Application thatit does ]lotseek
to be a Party to the case beforethe Court,that itis only concernedwiththe maritime boundary
aspects of the case before the Court, and that:
". . .it is the purpose of Equatorial Guinea's
intervention to inform the Court of Equatorial
Guinea's legal rightsand interests so that these
may remain unaffected asthe Court proceeds to
address the question of the maritime bouildary
between Cameroon andNigeria."2
3 In the circumstances, as a non-party to the case, Equatorial Guinea does not seek a
determination of its rights; as statedbove,itspurpose is simplyto inform the Courtso that its
legalrights and interests may remain unaffected.
4 Protecting Equatorial Guinea's legal rightsandinterestsiilthis case doesnot iinply that
the Court must endorse Equatorial Guinea's maritimeclaims as boundaries; it only requires a
recognitionthatEquatorial Guinea'slegalrightsand interestsas embodiedin its maritime claims
exist,thatthey arenot unreasonable,and that theyarenot beforetheCourt fordeterminationand
'
LandandMaritirne Boundav BehveenCanzeroonandNigeriu, Ordwof21 October 1999,I.C.J Reports1999,
para.18.
Applicationfor Permissionto lnterveneof the Republicof EquatorialGuinea (hereafter"EGApplication"),
Land andMaritime Boundary BehveenCameroon andNigeria, 30June 1999,p. 6. authorizedby Equatorial Guineaon its sideof the
median line, throughout the full period of
Equatorial Guinea's independence,and even prior
thereto, including thessuanceof oil concessions
and the active exploitation of continental shelf
resources."J
8 Equatorial Guinea notes thatin Cameroon'sletter to the Court dated 16August 1999
coinmenting on Equatorial Guinea's Application, andin Cameroon'sReply filed on 4 April
2000,sCameroonfor the first time reserves its position as to themedian line as an appropriate
maritime boundary between Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea but it did not contestEquatorial
Guinea's statement that Cameroon had never once prior to presenting its Memorial acted
inconsistentlywitha medianline maritimeboundarybetween EquatorialGuineaandCameroon.
A. TheMaritimeBoundaw CameroonResuests theCourtto Determine
Preiudices Eauatorial Guinea's LeealRightsandInterests
9 The most basic meanings of Cameroon'sLigne Equituble must be stated. They are,
simply,that: 1)Cameroon believes the waterssouth and eastof Cameroon'sLigne Eqzrituhle
belongto Cameroon,not to Equatorial Guinea;2)in spiteof a longhistoryof dispute and now
agreement and cooperation, there wouldbeno maritime boundary between Equatorial Guinea
andNigeria; and 3) in spiteofa longhistoryof concurrenceamongthe three States,there would
beno Equatorial Guinea,Nigeria, Cameroonmaritime tripoint. The implicationof Cainerooiî's
Ligne Equitable is that Equatorial Guinea'sBiolco Island is entitled only to an enclave
surroundedby Cameroonwaters.
10 As ilotedabove,and aswillbeaddressedmorefullybelow,Cameroon'sLigneEquituble
reflects a fundamental changeof position, totally inconsistentwith the diplomatic and legal
actionsof Cameroon whichuntilthis case havebeenbasedonthe median line witliEquatorial
Guinea and the determination of the tripoint betweenthe three neighboring States.
EGApplication, pp. 7-8 (footnoteomitted).
' Reply of Cameroon (hereafier "CR"),para. 9.143 11 Cameroon'sLigne Equitable is not onlyinconsistentwithCameroon'sStatepractice.it
is not consisteilt with Cameroon's request tothe Court for a determination of its maritime
boundary with Nigeria. In its Application Cameroon requests the Court:
"(0 In order to prevent any dispute arising
between the two States concerningtheir maritime
boundary, the Republicof Cameroon requeststhe
Court to proceed to prolong the course of its
maritime boundary with the Federal Republicof
Nigeria up to the limit of the maritime zones
which international law places under their
respectivej~risdictions."~
Thus, Cameroon requests the Court to determine that the areaon one side of the Court's
delimitation isnderthejurisdiction ofNigeria andthatthe otherside is underthejurisdiction
of Cameroon,in other wordsto determinetitle. Cameroondoesnot seel<ajudgment simplyof
whetherit orNigeria has a betterclaimto a maritime areawhich might neverthelessbeloilgto
a third non-party State,uch as Equatorial Guinea,if the Courtliadjurisdiction to resolve al1
competing claims. EquatorialGuineasubmitsthat the very natureof Cameroon'srequest,stated
repeatedly in its pleadings, limits the area in which the Cowt may establish the Cameroon-
Nigeria maritime boundaryto areaswhere there areno third-Stateclaims.
B. Cameroon's Lime EauitableFalls within the Maritime
Area Claimed bv Eauatorial Guinea
12 In its Application, EquatorialGuinea referredto and provideda copyof itslaw of 1984
onthe Temtorial SeaandExclusiveEconomicZone of EquatorialGuinea,'whichprovidestliat,
subjectto the internationaltreatiesestablishingitsmaritimeboundarieswithneighboringStates,
Equatorial Guinea claims a median line determinedfrom basepoints on a normal baseline.
' Application lnstituting Proceedings filed in the Registry of the Court1994, byCainerooii
(hereafter "CA"),pa20(f).
' SeeEG Application, pp. 16-27Cameroon never protested this law nor the many State actions that Equatorial Guineahas
undertaken based thereon. Further,in its Application, Equatorial Guinea referredto and
provided a copy of itsMedian Line Notice of 6 March 1999: which setforth the geographic
coordinates of said median line. This noticealsowas not protestedby Cailieroon.
13 In its Reply, CameroonincorrectlysuggeststhatEquatonal Guineaistryingto establish
unilaterallythe maritime boundarywith Cameroon.~quatorial Guinea fullyunderstandsthat
maritimeboundariesmust be establishedby agreement. Thatiswhat Equatorial Guinea's 1984
lawprovides, and thatis what the 1982UnitedNations Lawof theSea Conventionprovidesto
which Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria and Cameroon areal1States Parties. But tliat does not
foreclose Equatorial Guinea from asserting its legalrightsandinterests witha maritimeclaim.
andthat claim is the median line.
14 Map 1depicts themedianlinearoundEquatorial Guinea's Bioko IslandandCameroon's
Ligne Equitable. It isclearthat thisLigne Equitablecrossessignificantlyintothe maritimearea
claimed by Equatorial Guineaand in which Equatorial Guinea has legalrights and interests.
Cameroon'sLigne Equitablerepresentsa lateand novelclaimto this area. Equatorial Guinea
sentto Cameroon a timely protest note concerningluLigne Equitableshortlyafter Equatorial
Guinea becameaware of it. A copyof this note is foundat Annex EGWS 1.
C. The Practical Inadeauacies of Article59 of the Statutein the
Circumstancesof Cameroon's LipneEquitable
15 Cameroon iswell aware that itsLigne Equitablepasses into themaritime area claiiiled
by Equatoriai Guinea. However, Cameroon suggests that Article59 of the Court'sStatute is
sufficient protection for Equatorial Guinea'sinterests.'O Article 59 of the Court's Statute
provides:
See EGApplication, pp.28-39.
This assertion ismade in para9.143of Cameroon'sReplyand in itsletterto the Couri16Augiist
1999coininenting upon EquatorialGuinea'sApplicationto Intervene. "The decision of the Court has no binding force
except between the parties and in respect of that
particular case.""
Equatorial Guineais not aParty,andthus it would not be boundto respect Carneroon'sLigne
Equitableifit was found to havemerit in the case;however,suchan eventualitywouldlead to
many serious difficulties.
16 IfCameroon'sperspectiveon Article59were correct, itwould doawayentirelywith any
need for Article 62 on intervention. As Judge Sir Robert Jennings statedin his dissent in the
Itulian Intervenrioncase:
". ..if a would-be interveningState has indeed
rights 'whichmaybe afTectedbya decisionof the
Court',it is not permissible to say then that the
third State's rightsare nevertheless not affected
because of Article 59. Article 59 applies, after
all, in al1 cases without exception that come
before the Court for judgment. If Article 59
ensures that a third State's rightscan never be
affected by a judgment, this must mean that a
third State's rightscan never be affected in the
senseofArticle62. To interpretonearticleofthe
Statutein sucha wayas to depriveanotherarticle
in thesame sectionofthe Statuteof al1meaning,
cannot be nght.""
Obviously, Article62 cannot be pointless. But,in assumingthat Article59 givesto Equatorial
Guineaal1theprotection itneeds, Cameroon is,in effect,sayingthereisno point to Article62.
"
Statute of the InternationalCourt of Justice,Art. 59
"
ConfinenlaiSheif(LibyanArabJamahiriydMalta),Applicationfo Infervene,Judgn~entI,CJ Reports1984.
pp. 159-160, para54 (dissent of Judge JenningsSeealsoIC J Reports1984, p. 134,para. 9 (dissent of
Judge Schwebel);and pp. 104-105,para.29 (dissentof Judge Oda). 17 Furthemore, the Courtismade up of experiencedjurists with practicaland diplomatic
backgroundswho can readily appreciatethe inadequaciesof Article 59of the Statute in these
circumstances. Afterall, the problempresentedby Cameroon'sLigneEquitableis not the kind
of technical problem that might have arisen forNiger in the Chamber's determinationof the
BurkinaFasolMalilandboundary" (discussedbelowin PartIII.B),to whichCainerooiialludes.
Cameroon's Ligne Equitable slashes through Equatorial Guinea's claimed maritime areain
which Cameroonhadneverbefore expressedaninterest. Ifallowedto stand,in accordancewitli
Cameroon's Application,it would allocatethe maritime areaon one side to Cameroonand on
the other sideto Nigeria, taking no accountof Equatorial Guinea's legalrights and interests.
18 That result would causeirreparableharm to EquatorialGuinea. It would certainly be
rejected by Equatorial Guinea, but Equatorial Guinea would finditself gravely injured and in
difficult circumstances. Having been granted title to tlie area south of Camerooii'sLigne
Equitable by the International Courtof Justice, why would Cameroonrespond to Equatorial
Guinea's protests? Furthemore, this is far froman academicor diplomaticissue. The area of
Equatorial Guinea'sclaimed waters through which Cameroon's Ligne Equitable runs and the
areatoits southisan areaofmajoroil-production,includingwellsandoilandgas infrastructure,
al1of whichhavebeendevelopedbyEquatorial GuineaandEquatorialGuinea'sconcessionaires
without anyprotest from Cameroonor hintthatCameroon didnot respect EquatorialGuinea's
rightsinthis area. With the apparent supporgivento itsclaimoftitleby an awardbythe Court
of the ltind of boundary Cameroon seeks north and westof Bioko Island, Cameroon,
presumably, wouldactupon the Court'sjudgment, claimingthat its title to the area Iiadbeen
upheldby the Court, and seekto disruptoperations in EquatorialGuinea'sproducingoiland gas
fields and concessions. There should beno doubt that Equatorial Guinea would protectits
intereststo thefullestextentpossible. But the questionmustbe raised,why should a non-party
to a case beforethe Court find itselfin suchcircumstances?
19 For sound legal and practical reasons the Court has refrainedin the past fromacting in
circumstanceslikethe present where third-Stateinterestscouldbe so fundamentallyaffectedby
its decision in a case betweentwo other States. Thisdoes not meaii that tlie non-party tliird
" FrontierDispute,Judgment,I.C.J.Reports1986,p. 554State's titleto its claimed area prevails. It only means that the respectivetitles in that area of
third-Stateclaims must be resolvedat anothertime ina negotiationor differentjudicial context.
PARTII
IS THEPOSITION ADOPTED BYEQUATORIALGUINEA
REASONABLE INLAW?
20 Since Equatorial Guinea requests the Courtto avoid theareas of its maritime clairnin
which it has legal rights and interests,it is appropriateto inquirewhetherthe assertionof tliose
legal rights and interests through thatclaimhas a reasonable basisso that it must be respected
as aclaim. As a non-party, it would not be appropriatefor Equatorial Guinea to engage in a
maritime boundary argument with CameroonorNigeria; therefore, Equatorial Guinea willnot
commentonthe formulationsof law and methodologythat Camerooncallsuponto support its
Ligne Equitable. However,Equatorial Guineahelievesit isconsistentwithitspositionas aiion-
party intervener to inform the Court why Equatorial Guinea believes themedian line is a
reasonable expression of its legal rights and interests that must not be transgressed in
proceedings to which Equatorial Guineais not a party. Accordingly, Equatorial Guinea will
referto a fewpertinent facts and address aspectsof delimitationmethodologyin a most general
way.
A. RelevantFacts
1. Salient GeoeraphicalFacts
21 By this stage in the Cameroon-Nigeria case, the Courtis fully familiar with the
geography of the Gulf of Guinea. Equatorial Guinea will not repeat what has beensaid and
what is obvious. Thereare two aspectsofthe geographicalfactsthat Equatorial Guinea would
liketoeinphasize,however. First, Equatorial Guinea's Bioko Islandis an island of suhstantial
size and importance. Biolto Island is more than six times the size of MaltaMand has a
14 The area of Bioko Island is slightly more than 2,000 square kilometers;Malta'sarea, including its offsiiore
islands, is about 316 squarekilometers.wells andthe placement of pipeline infrastructure andterminaisto move the oilto the tankers
that will talte the oil to markets. In the northeast cornerof the Gulf of Guinea where the
maritimejurisdictionsof EquatorialGuinea,NigeriaandCamerooncome together,theoffsliore
oil andgas activitiesofone sidearewell-luiowi~ to the govemmentsand concessionairesonthe
other side. These operations are carried out for the mostpart by large international oil
companies, manyof which have operations in more than one of the three neighboring States.
Therefore,Carneroon cannotsaythat itisor was unawareof activitiescarried out byEquatorial
Guinea on its side ofthe median linefor the last35 years,al1withoutprotest froin Cameroon.
25 The fact is that there has been a patternof practice in the offshore activitieseen
Equatorial Guinea and Cameroon that hascometogetherat the median line,just as tliere was
a pattern of practice between Equatorial Guinea andNigeria that came togetheralong a lineof
traditional usage. In neither case were the precise coordinatesof these lines determined;
nonetheless,it has been altogetherclear,in general,wherethelineswere. They were aform of
de facto boundary, acted uponfor purposes of oil and gas explorationand exploitation by al1
three concerned States.
26 This pattern of practice is illustratedby Figure 10.4 froin the Nigerian Rejoinder,
reproduced here asMap2,which showsthe oiland gas activitiesof Equatorial Guinea,Nigeria
and Cameroon north of Biolto Island in the vicinity of the tripoint. The blue color signifies
Equatorial Guineawells and installations,none of wliich were protested by Cameroon. As
stated above,this pattern of practice is not ofrecent origin;it extends back to the early 1960s
for CameroonandNigeria andto 1965for EquatorialGuinea. Thismap demonstratesthat the
patternof practiceofrespect for each country'swells, installationsand structureisn thisregion,
in the absence of a forma1boundary, is firmly established and comes together at a tripoint
southwestof the Bakassi Peninsula.
27 Even today, the most recent Cameroon licensing round undertakenin 1999-2000
conformsto that practice by respecting an Equatorial Guinea-Cameroonmedian line. Map 3 Map 2
Figure10.4from theNigerianRejoinder(Redueed)
Note: Thismaphm the NigerisnRejoinde, hicshows Camcroonoilandgaa
activiitnires,NigeriaingreenandthoseofEqwtoFialGuineainblue,acemtely
illustratherespectivareaosoperatioofEquaîorial uineaNigeri aa,
Carneroo nouthwestoftheBakassiPcninsulHm, themap isbasc dn
outdataddatafotheEquatorial umeaoiand gasinstallaT tiornlyt is
thatwithithearuiofblueweliske arcan. -. . . --.-- .-aualoridGui=
wellsanda pipeliwhich mimwb somcof theweh DQBi& Istnidis a reproduction fromthe currentofficialofferingby the Cameroon Govemment andit shows
clearlythe area in which Cameroon's interests havebeen expressedfor a very long time.lh
"
3. BoundarvNegotiatine Historv
a. Until this Case, Cameroon Agreed that the Maritime
Jurisdictionsof Equatorial Guinea,Nigeria and Cameroon
Meet at a Tripoint Southof the Bakassi Peninsula
28 Until the appearanceof Cameroon's Ligne Equitable,which appearedforthe firsttime
in Cameroon's Memorial dated16March 1995,andof whichEq~iatorialGuinea wasnot aware
untilDecember 1998," the diplomaticandlegalhistoryof themaritime boundariesin the Gulf
of Guineaproceededonthe premise that a tripointexistsbetweenEquatorial Guinea,Cameroon
and Nigeria, the precise locationof which is to be determinedby al1three States. There is
concrete evidence ofthis fact from 1970 up tojust seven months beforeCameroon filed its
preserited
Application. This evidence is foundin the record that Cameroon andNigeria have
to the Court intheir written pleadings, constitutingthe records of various boundary meetings,
interna1Cameroon Government documents,maps and a Cameroon decree. Such evidence is
also foundinthe recordof bilateralmaritimeboundarynegotiationsbetween Equatorial Guinea
and Cameroon.
29 There can be no doubt that the term "tripoint"in the record before the Court is used as
it is commonly understoodin maritime boundary practice; thatis, to refer tothe point where
three maritimejurisdictions cometogether,normallyat an equidistantpoint. Equatorial Guinea
cannothelp but note that the Courtitselfreferredto the tripoint in this way in its Judgrnent of
' SociétkNationale des Hydrocarbures (SNH), Republic of Cameroon: Third Licensing Round(c.July-
September 1999). A copy of the entire documentation hasbeen providedIo the Registry.
" Afterreviewingthe Court'sjudgment of 11June 1998concerning theprelimiiiaryobjectionsinthe Cainerooii-
Nigeria case, and the transcripts of the oral argument which occurred2-1I March 1998, EquatorialGuiiiea
requesteda copyofthe Cameroon Memorial from the Courbty letterdated 16November 1998. The Registrar's
Office provideda copy of theineroonMemorialon 8 December 1998togetherwith relevantinapsused in
the March oral proceedings.Thus,Equatorial Guinea onlybecaineaware oflaequifable44monthsafîer
itappeared in confidentialpleadings beforethe Court. Map 3
Mapofthe SociétNationa daeHydrocarbu RresublicofCameroon,
DepicüngCimeroon's1999-2000LicensfngRound(Reduced)
NoteThe"Camemonlitofoperatidepictedthismapmghly
co~espondstomedialinbetweEquatorGlui andCameroon.11June 1998in thiscase whenitmadeclearthatthe "nghtsandinterestsof thirdStates"do not
arise landwardof Point G.
"Thatis so becausethe geographical locationof
point G is clearly closer to the
Nigerianicameroonian mainland than is the
location of the tripoint Cameroon-Nigeria-
Equatorial Guinea ta the mainland."18
30 Carneroon'sreferencesta the tripoint areclearin this regard. They begin in the docuineiits
associatedwith its Application. Map4 isa reproductionof a mapslieetfiledwith thatApplication."
Map 4 designatesthe tripoint as Point T (assuming theBaltassiPeninsula belongs to Cameroon),
showsthe median linenorth of Bioko Island, and includes the notationin referenceto the tripoint
"necessitantAccord tripartite à négocier" betweenNigeria, Equatorial Guinea and Cameroon.III
the annexesta its pleadings, Cameroon even identifies the locationof the tripoint in an interna1
Governrnent report, dated 13July 1970, which refers to the equidistancetripoint and provides
alternative geographic coordinatesfor its location depending on the maps and data used."'
Cameroonquotesfromthis samereportatpara. 5.20of itsMemorial, includingthe referencetothe
tripoint. Cameroon presentsto the Courtthemap, shownIiereas Map 5,"lthat Camerooiiproposed
to use in the 1970 negotiations with Nigeria whichprovides the geographic coordinatesfor its
equidistanttripoint. WhenNigeriahesitated inthe 1970negotiationsto reacha specificagreement,
Cameroon andNigeria nonethelessrecognized that thejurisdictionsof the three neighboring States
came together. This fact is disclosed in Annex 8 ta Cameroon's Application whichpreseiits the
Declaration of the Nigeria/Cameroon Joint Boundary Commission (14-17J~ule1971) whicli
includes the finding that "the continental shelvesof Nigeria, Cameroon and Equatorial Guiriea
would appearto have a common area ...."22
IS
Land and Maritime BoundaryBetween Cameroonand Nigeria, PreliminaryObjections,Jzidgment,I.C../.
Reports 1998, p. 323, p115.
'"
CA, Map5, "CALABAR,SHEET85."
'O
CM,Annex 239,p. 1947.
" CM, Annex383, M52.
''
CA,Annex 8,p. 69. Map4
Map5Accompanying Cameroon'sApplicatioD nepicting the
Equatorial Guinea,NigerCameroon Tripoint(Reduced) Map5
MapAccompanyingCameroon'sMemorial(CM,Annex383,M52)
IdentifyingtheGeographicalCoordinatof the
Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria, Cameroonoint(Reduced) 31 Of further significance is Cameroon's 1981 decree,wliich establishes Cameroon's
southwestern-most oil concession in therelevantarea. That decree describes the southwestern
corner of that concession as the intersection of two boundaries: the boundary between
Carneroon and Equatorial Guinea; and, the boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria.?'
Cameroon's decreethus uses the maritime boundarytripoint as a reference in describing the
limits of its southwestern-mostoil concession. Pleasesee Map 6which illustratesthis point.
32 Finally,Nigeria presented to the Courtthe Cameroon-Nigeria JointCommuniqué dated
11-13 August 1993 which includes a sub-heading entitled "Determinationof tlie Tripoint
between Cameroon, Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea"and indicates that
"The Cameroonian Delegation stressed the need
to determine the tri-point betweeri Nigeria,
Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea . . . [and]
revealed that there had been an exchange of
views between CameroonandEquatorialGuinea
on the ~ubject."~~
That Communiquéis reproduced as Annex EGWS 2 to this Writteii Statement. At Anilex
EGWS 3, Equatorial Guinea submits the text of the Equatorial Guinea-Cameroon Joint
Communiquéof 3August 1993to which the Nigeria-Cameroon JoinC t ommuniquérefers.The
Communiquéof 3 August 1993 not only references the need todetermine tlie tripoint, but
indicates that Cameroon and Equatorial Guinea agreed to"draw the median line that will
constitute the maritime boundary between the two countries, according to the equidistance
prin~iple."~~
33 Clearlythen,for Cameroonnowto propose itsLignE equitable,wliichwouldensurethat
the maritime jurisdictions of Equatorial Guinea, Cameroon andNigeria do not meet, is
23 Annex RC41, pp. 502-504
2"
Annex NR 173,p.1496.
'
Joint Coinmuniquéfroin the meeting of delegationsof EquatorialGuinea and Caineroon to discuss matters
relatedto the maritime boun3aAugust 1993.SeeAnnex EGWS 3. Map 6
CameroonConcessionMapIliustratingthe
Tripoint(CR,MapR25) (Reduced,textadded)
chnomon'sDemuem.81126 1Juiy7,1981whicrppsarsaCRhmex 41)
de~thb&~rnestCPmorarndw,~ro~Vi(md
lnttheMoudic)oncessibyn,femnŒtathhttmdan oftkaeroa'sboudq
withEquntorQnineladCirwUoo n'sdarywithNigeria&uspmumm
téeexis~ofamantimCbouadsry~Otbctweeathe~~. -'i
mapR2S froitReplydepictheareandlimitsthVd./Modi Coaceesioli.inconsistent with a historyof negotiations and practice thatextendsfrom theearly 1970sup to
Augustof 1993,just months before Cameroonfiled its Application. Ratherthanrelyingsolely
on Article 59of the Statute, Equatorial Guinea through its intervention wishes to informthe
Courtof tliisbackground and requests thatthe Courtnot prejudice the possibility for thethree
neighboring Statesto determinethe tripoint.
b. Negotiations with Cameroon
34 EquatorialGuinea-Cameroonmaritimeboundarynegotiatioilshavenot been veryactive.
although meetings have been held on occasion. The reason for the relaxed pace is simply
explained: there was never a problem. But for the appearance of this purported Ligne
Equitable, both sides have operatedonthe assumption thatthe boundary was themedian line
and that it was only a matter of technicaldetailto establishitwith precisionand thento record
it in an agreement. As noted above, in early August 1993Equatorial Guinea andCameroon
agreed to draw the "median line." Thereafter, as referred to in the August 1993 Joint
Communiqué,Carneroon provided Equatorial Guinea withthecoordinatesof itsrelevantcoastal
basepoints. Thelistof basepointsasreceived from CameroonisatAnnexEGWS4. Afterthat,
the negotiating processslowedto a stop,presumablybecauseCameroon became focusedupon
proceedings against Nigeria. In al1this time until the present,unlilcethe Nigeria-Equatorial
Guinea relationship,there wereno protestsand counter-protestsrelatingto maritime boundary
matters despiteextensive oil and gas activity along themedian line. Canleroonnevernotified
Equatorial Guineathat it had presentedlaLigneEquitable in its Memorial filed on 16Marcli
1995.16
26 Mile opposinglaLign equitableNigeria suggeststhat Caineroon inayIiaveanentitleineiitin"tliegap" soutli
of Bioko. There is no basis for this suggeCameroon has always limited itself to the median line.
Cameroondidnot protestthe Equatorial Guinea-SaoTomeand Principeboundarytrea16June 1999,NR
Annex 172. c. Negotiations with Nigeria
35 Nigeria has reportedto the Courtthe successfulconclusionof the ten-year negotiating
effort to resolve the Equatorial Guinea-Nigeria maritime boundary, which culminated in the
signature of a maritime boundary treaty by the Heads of State on 23 September 2000.''
Equatorial Guinea does not wish to add to Nigeria's recordingof the history of these
negotiations, althoughmuch could be ~aid.'~Equatorial Guineadoes wish to stress, however,
that this treaty is not a reactionto Cameroon'sLigne Equitable. It is the resultof negotiations
which began in 1990and continued through morethan 15negotiating sessions, ten of which
occurredbeforeEquatorialGuineawasevenawareof Cameroon'sLigneEquitable." Equatorial
Guinea would note two other points about this treaty whichit believes are relevant to the
immediate situation.
36 First, the boundaryline in the 23 September2000treaty reflects the established State
practiceinthe area. It leavesNigeria's wells and installationsforNigeria, Equatorial Guinea's
wells and installations for Equatorial Guinea, and it does not intrude into any area that
Cameroon has ever claimed belongedto Camerooneitherin negotiations with its neighbors,or
in the oil concessionsthat Cameroon awardedinthis region. Second,the boundary lineis not
Equatorial Guinea'sstrict median line but a modified line reflecting a negotiated solution
demonstratingthat EquatorialGuineaknowsthe differencebetweena claim andtherequirement
for an agreement to establish its maritime boundaries with its neighbors. This treaty is a
demonstrationof Equatorial Guinea's conviction that maritimedelimitationsmust be achieved
through meaningful negotiations between neighboringStates.
" NR, paras.10.33-10.34
'' EquatorialGuineais fully coinmittedto the treatyof 23 September2000,hasalreadyratified it in Noveinber
of 2000, and looks forward to its early entry into force. This is a negotiated agreement; thereasonsfor
compromisearenotnecessarilythesamefor bothsides. In itsanalysis(NR, para.10.35),Nigeria suggeststhat
Equatorial Guineaacceptedcertain propositionsrelating to theweight to be given to Nigeria's coastalfront.
In EquatorialGuinea's view,it wasthe give-and-takeof negotiationsn establishedintereststhat ledto
thetreaty, not Equatorial Guinea'sacceptancethatNigeria's coastalfront wasentitled to greaterweight thaii
Equatorial Guinea's.
Nigerialiststhe dateo15of the Equatorial Guinea-Nigeria negotiatingsessions atNR, para. 10.3337 Equatorial Guinea submitsthat thepositionitrequeststhe Courtto respectisconsistent
with the established patternof practice in theegion and thatthe Court should not upset tliis
practice, particularly when one concerned Stateisnot a party to the case before the Court.
B. Delimitation Methods
38 The Court isfully familiarwith the equidistance delimitation methodand the role that
it hasplayed in the law andpracticeofmaritimeboundaries. Sofar asEquatorial Guineacan
tell, while theremay be reason to adjust the equidistanceor median line in some geograpliic
circumstances, or equidistance may not be the appropriatedelimitation method in other
circumstances,it has neverbeensaidthat anequidistanceormedianlinewasnot a claimbased
in law. Furthermore, as the law of maritime delimitation has developed,it has become
commonplaceto begin the analysisof a maritimeboundaryproblemwith aprovisional median
line.'" Equatorial Guinea submitsthat if the equidistanceor mediailline is an acknowledged
first step in an analysisof a maritime boundary problem,a median line claim itself caimotbe
disregardedas unreasonable.
39 While the place of the equidistance methodin the law of maritime boundaries has
clarified, so too has internationallaw evolved with the emergenceof the 200-nautical-mile
exclusiveeconomic zone. Title is based on distance from the Coastand EquatorialGuinea's
entitlement tomaritime spaceis the sameas Cameroon'sorNigeria's.
40 Bioko is a sizeable island in the Gulf of Guinea, and the projections seaward of its
coastalfront,inal1directions,are entitiedtothesameweightastheprojectionsofthe Cameroon
or Nigerian coasts. The coastal projectionsof Exclusive EcoiiomicZones often overlap,
however,astheydo inthe Gulfof Guinea,andthiscreatesa delimitation problem whichmust
IO
MaritimeDelimitation intheAreabetweenGreenlandandJanMayen,Judgment,1.C.J Reports1993,pp.59-
64,paras.49-58. Seealso ContinentalShe?f(LibyanArabJamahiriydMalta),Judgment,LC.J Reports 1985,
pp.46-47, paras.61-63;Prosper Weil,TheLaw ofMaritimeDelimitation-Reflections, (Cambridge:Grotius
PublicationsLtd1989)pp.206-208.be resolvedby the Statesconcemed. In any suchsituation, amedianline claim whichis based
on distanceis a reasonable claim,includingonethatextendsfrom asizableisland. IIIresolving
the boundary issues with the State making that claim,it maybe that the median line requires
adjustment in some circumstances, which Equatorial Guinea does not concede in relation to
Cameroon. But that is amatterfor directdealings between theconcemed States. Inthe present
circumstances, one concerned State, Equatorial Guinea, isnot aarty to the case before the
Court;thus,there isno basis forthe Courttoanalyzewhethertliisparticularmedianline should
or should not be adjustedor indeed whether equidistanceis an appropriate metliod in these
circumstances. In Equatorial Guinea'sview, the Court shouldnot prejudice the Equatorial
Guinea median line because it is a reasonableclaim. Thus, the Court should not extend the
Cameroon-Nigeria maritime boundaryit will determine intoareas that are more proximate to
Equatorial Guineathan to eitherof thePartiesto the casebeforethe Court, but should leave to
thethree Statesthetask of determiningas amongthemselvesthe questionoftitlein theinaritiine
area on the Equatorial Guineaside of the medianline.
PARTIII
THELEGALBASISFOR EQUATORIALGUINEA'S REQUEST
41 EquatorialGuinearequests the Courtto abstainfiomestablishingthe Cameroon-Nigeria
maritime boundary within the area claimed by Equatorial Guinea, al1 of which is more
proximate to Equatorial Guineathan to either of the Parties in the case before the Court.
EquatorialGuineabelievesthis requestissolidlysupportedbytheCourt'sjurisprudenceandthat
it is goodjudicial policyin maritime boundary cases.
A. International Courts and TribunalT s akeCareto Avoid
Preiudiceto the Leeal RiehtsandInterests of Non-PartvThird States
42 The practice of intemational courts and tribunals reflects an acceptance of the
fundamental proposition thata third State not partyto the case before the court or tribunal
should not be prejudiced by the judgment. Forthis reason, theCourt has in general avoidedmaking an award which in any way presumes territory to belong to aState before the Court
when it is claimed by a third State notpartyto the case before theCourt.
43 This practice is the direct result of anotlier fundamental proposition that a State's
territorial or maritime rights (which include itslegal relationship of sharing a boundary with
another State)cannot be determined without its consent. The practice therefore of judicial
"abstention"in suchcircumstancesappearsto benota matterofjudicial propriety,ordiscretion,
but a matter of obligation arisingfromthese fundamentalpropositions. This is certainly true
in those cases where the rights of the third State are not merely "affected" by the Court's
decision, but formthe very subject-matterof that decision (a distinction discussedin Section
D below).
44 Naturally,judicial abstention cannotoperatewhere the third-Stateclaim is not knowii
to the Court, or is so patently absurd or ill-founded as to be disregarded. However, where the
claim is brought to the attentionof the Court, and isnot unreasonable,abstention is called for
in ordernot to prejudice that claim and is not amatter of discretion.
45 The limited judicial practice that exists illustratesthe ways that the Court and other
tribunalshave goneabout protectingthird-Staterightsin maritimeboundarycases. Whileitlias
never been doubted that third States are in no sense bound by the decision of a court wliose
jurisdiction they have not accepted, the Courtand tribunals have gone beyond that forinal
protective rule and carefully abstained fromanyjudginent whichmight prejudice third-State
rights.
46 Forexample,in the TunisidLib case3'the second sectorofthe line (the52degreeliiie)
as illustrated on Map No. 3 of the judgment of the Court ends with an arrow to illustrate its
direction,12andthus avoids being construed as a terminal point,or a tripoint with Malta. The
Court explained exactly whyit had avoided a terminal point:
"
ContinentalSheif(Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya),Judgme1.C.J. Report1982, pI8
'' Ibid.p.90. "Howfar the delimitation linewill extendnorth-
eastwards will, of course, depend on the
delimitations ultimately agreed with thirdStates
on the other sideof the Pelagian sea. The Court
has not been called upon to examine that
question.""
47 In the LibydMalta case, the adjusted median-line betweenMalta and Libya, as
envisagedby the Court,14was a shortened line, carefully avoidingItaly'sclaimed area either to
the east or the West. The Court explained the shortened linein these terins:
"The present decision must, as then
foreshadowed, be limitedin geographicalscope
so asto leave the claimsof Italy unaffected, that
is to say that the decision of the Court must be
confined to the area in which, as the Court has
been informed by Italy, that Statehas no claims
to continental shelfright~.'"~
48 Thepractice of arbitraltribunals, while less obvious, isnonetheless consistent. In the
Anglo-FrenchContinentalShevcase of 1977,'"t is understoodthat the Tribunal questioned
Counselfor both Partiesto ensurethat there wereno claimsbythe Republic of Ireland whicli
mightbe prejudicedby any line ofdelimitationtheTribunalmightwish todraw in theWestern
Approaches. Inthe recent Yemen-Eritrea Arbirvafion Awardof 17December1999,the Tribunal
establishedthe maritime boundary observing that its "terminalpoints are well short of where
the boundaryline might be disputedby anythird State."j'
" Ibid. p.91, para.130.
"
1.C.J Reports 1985,p. 54, MapNo.3, andpp.56-57,para.79.
''
lbid., p.26, para.21.
36
Anglo-French ContinentalShelf:Judgment,541.L.R. (197p.1 1.
"
Yemen-EritreaArbitration, Second StoftheProceedings(MaritimeDelimitation), Judgment,para.164.B. Cameroon Misconstruesthe FrontierDisoute Case
49 In spite of this clear practice, Cameroon citesthe judgment of the Chamber in the
Frontier Disputecase (BurkinaFasoMali) forthe propositionthatthe CourtitselfseesArticle
59 as a sufficientprotectionfor athird Statein a boundarycase between two other States,and,
therefore,that the Courtis freeto delimit anyboundary thatmaybe suggestedby a Partyto tlie
case before the Court, regardless of the implications forthe third State.ja But Carneroon
overlookstwo very important differences.
50 First, inthe Frontier Disputecase, theChamberhad no basis for apprehendingthat tlie
land boundary requestedby bath Parties would impinge upon the territorial rightsof Niger.
There hadbeen noattempt byNiger to interveneand,in the 1964Niamey Protocol, Nigerhad
agreed with Burkina Faso on the basic documents for establishingthe NigerIBurkina Faso
boundary: these were the same documentson which BurkinaFaso now relied forits terminal
point with Mali. This suggested thatNiger did not see the line up to that terminal point as
involving any trespass into its own territory. Thepresent caseis radically different. Herethe
Courtis well-awarethat Cameroon'sLigne Equitableinthe most clearandsubstantialwaydoes
trespass into the maritime area claimedby EquatorialGuinea.
51 Second, in the Frontier Disputecase the Chamber made clear that its conclusions
regarding theprotection ofthird-State rights would have been differentif it had been dealing
with a maritime boundary insteadof a land boundarycase. Cameroonsuggeststhat thereis no
reason for this distinction, but theChamberexplained itsreasoning clearly:
47. . . .But the process by which a court
determines the line of a land boundary between
two States can be clearly distinguished from the
process by which it identifies therinciples and
rules applicable to the deli~nitation of the
continentalshelf. Thelegalconsiderationswhich
have to be taken into accountin determining the
locationof the land boundary betweenparties are
'' SeeCR,paras.9.127-9.129. in no way dependent on the position of the
boundary betweentheterritoryof eitherof those
parties and the territory of a third State, even
where, as in the present case, tlie rights in
question foral1three Statesderive from one and
thesamepredecessorState. On the otherhand,in
continental shelf delimitations, an agreement
between the parties which is perfectlyvalid and
binding on the treaty level may, when the
relationsbetweentheparties and athird Stateare
taken into consideration, prove to be contrary to
the rules of international law governing the
continental shelf (see North Sea Continental
Shelf;1C.J Reports1969,p. 20, para.14;pp. 27-
28, paras. 35-36). It followsthat a courtdealing
with a reauest for the delimitation of a
continental shelf must decline. even if so
authorized bv the disputant parties. torule upon
rights relatingto areasinwhich third Stateshave
such claims as mav contradict the legal
considerations - especiallvin regardto equitable
principles - which would have formedtlie basis
of itsdecisi~n.~~
Thesefeaturesof the FrontierDisputecase readilydistinguishit from the situationin the Gulf
of Guinea. Camerooncannot,therefore,use theFrontier Disputecaseas a precedentsustaining
itsclaim before the Court in the present case.
C. Cameroon MisconstruestheLibvaMaltn Judements
52 Cameroonalso argues that Equatorial Guineaisnot entitledto the sameprotection that
Italy receivedinthe LibyalMaltacase. There,theCourtabstainedfrom any delimitation which
would have trespassedintoareasclaimedbyItaly. Cameroonattemptsto distinguishthe Libya-
Malta-Italysituation from the present situation, observing that bothMalta and Libyaobjected
to Italy'sproposedintervention,whileneither CameroonnorNigeriaobjectedto theintervention
" 1C.J Reports 1986,p. 578,para.47(emphasis added) of Equatorial Guinea as a non-party third State, and that Italy's requestwas denied while
Equatorial Guinea's was granted."O
53 It is difficult to see whythese distinctionsare material. Indeed,in this context, they are
distinctionswithouta difference. Italy wasa non-partythird Stateand so is EquatorialGuinea.
The fact that Italy was not successfulin its attempt to intervene,but Equatorial Guinea was
successfulappears irrelevant. Italy made its views known tothe Court in the written and oral
pleadings associatedwith its interventionrequest." Here, Equatorial Guineamakes its views
knownas a non-party intervenerin this Written Statement. The Court recognized thatit had a
dutyto protect Italy's rightsinitsjudgment onthe meritsofthe LibydMalta case. Thereisno
goodreason why the Court is not obligated to protect Equatorial Guinea's rightj sust as much
as itprotectedItaly'srights;itwould bequiteparadoxicalthata State'sinterestbe lesstaken into
accountby the Court whenithas allowed this Stateto interveneasa non-partythan when such
a third State has not been allowed todo so.
54 There are two points,however, that EquatorialGuineabelieves should berecalledabout
the LibydMalta case. First, in assessing its obligation to Italy,the Court took note of and
attachedimportanceto thelegalnatureofthe questionitwas boundto determinebetween Libya
and Malta. The Court notedthatthe SpecialAgreementbetweenLibyaand Maltarequiredthe
Courtto rule on the areas "which appertain" to thetwo Parties tothe case. The Court said:
"21. ...Ifthereforethe decisionis to be statedin
absolute terms, in the sense of permitting the
delimitation of the areas of shelf which
'appertain' to the Parties, as distinct from the
areas to which one of the Parties has shown a
better title than the other, but which might
neverthelessproveto'appertain' to athird Stateif
the Court bad jurisdiction to enquire into the
CR,paras. 9.136-9.138 and 9.143-9.149
4,
Duringthe writtenand oral pleading associatedwith Italy'srequestto interveneinthe Libya/Malrucase, Italy
hadthe opportunityto expressthe geographicextent of the area inwhich it claimedto have legalrights and
interests. In oral argument ltaly presented amap showingsucharea. SeeICJ. Pleadings, CoShelfnt01
(LibyanArab Jamahiriya/M~ltu), Vol. V, MapNo. 25. entitlementof that third State, thedecisionmust
be limited to a geographical area in whicli no
such claimsexi~t."~~
55 As noted above, Cameroon has askedthe Court to determine the Cameroon-Nigeria
maritimeboundary "upto the limitofthe maritimezoneswhichinternationallawplacesunder
their respective jurisdi~tions."~' The legal significance of the term "appertainu in the
Libya/Maltucaseiscomparableto themeaningto begivento the phrase"undertheir respective
jurisdictions" in the Carneroon-Nigeria case. In both cases the Court is required to determine
title, notjust to determine which of the two Parties lias a betterclaim without regard to the
possibility of third-State claims. Accordingly, if the jurisprudence of the Court is to be
followed,notwithstanding thelatecomingLigneEquituble,Cameroon's Applicationlimits the
area in which the Court may establish the "respectivejurisdictions"of the two Parties toareas
where there areno third-State claims.
56 The secondpoint Equatorial Guinea wishes tonote is that Italy requested theCourt to
protectmore maritimeareafor it thanthat towhichitwouldhavebeenentitledif itsclaimswere
limitedto a median line with Malta. Map 7 showsthe Italy-Maltamedian linestogether with
the linesthat Italy usedto indicateto the Courtthe area it should protect and whichthe Court
accepted. Thus,infact, Equatorial Guinea's positinsmodestwhencomparedwithtliatof Italy
siilceEquatorial Guineaseelcsprotection for a claim that is less aggressive in a geographical
sense than the Italian claim that the Court protected for Italyin the Libya/Maltucase. It is
suggestedthat Equatorial Guinea's position meets therequirementof reasonableness.
D. TheDistinction Made bv theCourtinthe EastTimor Case
as Amlied to a Classical MaritimeBoundaw Third-State Situation
57 In the Eust Timorcase, the Court drew a distinction betweenjudgments whicli might
merely "affect" a third State'slegal interests and those judgments where those third-State
"
2.C.JReport1985,p. 25, para.21.
CA,para.20(f). SealsoCM,para. 1.05 Mhg theAra MiiltSidofthMeùh Lhiwhh
YGkt&d EarItrlyatItnRqa~SahitBcU&df&Crre
Ianarea betweentwo Stateswhen the Courtknowsit isalsoclaimedby a tliirdState. Equatorial
Guinea submits that the pathdownwhich Cameroon leads isfraught withinany perils andthat
there is no reason for the Courtto change itswell-establishedpractice.
CONCLUSION
60 Equatorial Guinea's request is simplandstraightforward,foundedin thejurisprudence of
the Court,makes goodsensein the practiceofthe internationalcommuuityand isconsistentwitli
the practice of the three Statesin the region concerned: itsrequest isthat the Court refrainfrorri
delimitinga maritimeboundary between NigeriaandCameroon inany areathatismoreproxiinate
to Equatorial Guineathan to the Parties to the case before the Court. EquatorialGuiileabelieves
it has presented anumber of good reasons for the Court to adoptthis position.
61 Equatorial Guinea is before the Court as a non-party third State. In its view, it has
demonstrated that it has a maritime claim which is theinedian line and that this claim is
reasonable;also,in its view,ithas demonstratedthat thelegalpracticeconceming State-sponsored
activitiesin the Gulf of Guinea has proceededon the assumptionthat a tripoint exists where the
maritimejurisdictionsof Equatorial Guinea,Nigeria and Camerooncometogether. Theseare the
legal interests of Equatorial Guinea which are the object of its intervention. Cameroon has
requested the Court to delimit a maritime boundary thatwould prejudice these legal interests of'
Equatorial Guinea. As a non-party third State,it is Equatorial Guinea's request thatthese legal
interests not be prejudicedby the Court'sdecision in the case betweenCameroon andNigeria.
62 Equatorial Guinea accepts that if the Court so limits the Cameroon-Nigeria maritime
boundaryto areasthat Equatorial Guineadoesnot claim,it willnot amountto a determinationof
Equatorial Guinea'stitleto its claimedea. But Equatorial Guinea'slegal rightsandinterestswill
not be prejudiced; they will remain unaffectedbythe Court'sjudgment. Nor will the legal riglits
andinterestsof CameroonorNigeria, if therebeanyinthatarea,beprejudiced. As forCainerooii,
it will be freein negotiations to seekas against Equatorial Guinea amaritime bounday it deenls
appropriate. Asit alwayswas,EquatorialGuineaiswillingto undertakeseriousnegotiationswith
Cameroonat any time. As forNigeria,it also will be fi-eeto seekas against Equatorial Guinea amaritime boundary it deems appropriate to the northeastof Point (i)of the Equatorial Guinea-
Nigeria maritime boundary treatyof 23 September 2000.
63 In lceepingwith its status as a non-party intervener, Equatorial Guinea has preparedthis
Written Statementin the spiritthat itsduty wasto informthe COLU o?f its legal interestsbut not to
engage in legal debate directly relatedto la LigneEquitable. It should go without saying that
Equatorial Guineareserves its positionto do so,if necessary,inthe appropriatecircumstailces.
64 The Government of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea appreciates theopportunity to
present this Written Statement to the Court and stands ready to participate in any furtlier
proceedings as the Court may direct in accordance with Article85of the Rules of the Court.
Ricardo MangueObamaN'Fube
Ministerof State for Laborand Social Security
Agent forthe Republicof Equatorial Guinea INTERNATIONALCOURT OF JUSTICE
CASE CONCERNING THE LANDAND MARITIME BOUNDARY
BETWEEN
CAMEROONAND NIGERIA
(CAMEROONV. NIGERIA)
(EQUATORIAL GUINEAINTERVENING)
WRITTEN STATEMENT
OF
THE REPUBLIC OF EQUATORIALGUINEA Annex EGWS 1
25 August 1998
Equatorial Guinea Note Verbal to Cameroon TRANSLATION
VERBALNOTE
The MinistryofAffairs [sic]andInternationalCooperationoftheRepublicofEquatorial
Guinea salutestheEmbassyofoursisterRepublicofCameroonandishonoredtomakereference
to Resolution 98/25 of thé Internationalurt of Justice of The Hague regarding Boundary
disputesbetweenthe sisterRepublicsofCameroonandNigeria,receivedbythisMinistry through
the Organization for African Unity (OAU).
TheMinistryofForeignAffairs andInternationalCooperation also expresseitsconcerii
due to the arguments submitted to the International Courtof Justiceregarding the delimitation
of the boundary between Cameroon andNigeriainwhichweobservethat duringthe arguments
andinthemaps submittedbyCameroon,EquatorialGuinea'sinterests are not onlyignored,but
also its maritimereas are infringed upon.
FortheMinistry ofForeign AffairsandInternationalCooperation,themaritimerights and
interestsof Cameroon andNigeria northofthe Islandof Biokoare delimitedby the equidistant
tripointbetweenthethreecountries,asdeterminedusingthelegalbaselinesofEquatorialGuinea,
Cameroon andNigeria and the median linebehveen EquatorialGuinea and Cameroon.
Therefore,theMinistryofForeignAffairsandInternationalCooperationdemandsthatal1
the parties involved, in accordance with international law, recognizeand respect Equatorial
Guinea's interests inrespect tothe maritime boundary betweenthe threeuntries.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and InternationalCooperation of the Republic of
Equatorial Guineatakes thisopportunitytoconveyitsmost sincereregards totheEmbassyofthe
Republic of Cameroon.
Malabo, August 25, 1998
EMBASSY OF THEREPUBLICOF CAMEROONIN MALABO NOTAVERBAL
ElMinistenodeAsuntosy CooperaciSInternacionaldela Rephblicaûuinea
Ecuatoriaisaludaatentamentea la Embajadade la hermanaRepfibliCam&l y
tieneelhonordereferke alaResoluci6n98/25delTribunalInternacionaldela Raya,
sobrelasifaenciasFronterizasenke las h~manans Repfiblicasde Cay Nigeria,
recibidosen este Ministeriopor conductodela OrganUaciSndUnidad ficana
(OUA).
El Ministuio de AsuntosExterioyeCooperacionIntemacionaltiene a bien
expresarsuprwcupacionpor losplantea~nicnsechosantela CorteInternacionalde
Jdcia enrelaciona la delimitacih dela frontuaeam&rC yNigcria& lasque
se observa que, en el curso de las deliberayila cartogda presentadaspor
Cam& losinteresesdGuineaEcuatoriaino solosonignorados,sinoqueinfringen
lairea maritimasdela RepubiicadGuineaEcuatorial.
Para el Ministeno de htos Exteriorey CooperacibnInternacion4 los
derechoseinteresesmaritirnosde CameyiNigeriaalnoriede laisladeBioestan
delimitadporelpuntotriple equidistcntrelotrespaisestacomo se deternuina
a partdelaslineasde baselegalesdGuinc Ecuatorial,Cam& yNigeriay porla
linea mediaenteuineaEcuatorialyCam&.
Por10que,elMinideriodeAsimtosFkteriorysCoopcraci6nInternacionaleige
ath lapinteisvolucradaque,deacuerdconelderechointanacional, losintaeses
deGuina Ecuatonalseaureconocidosy respetadosenlfionterasmari& entr os
trespaists.
EiMinisteriodeAslmtosExhiorey Coopesaci6nIntemacionaldelaRepublica
deGuina Ecuatoridaprovechaestaocasibp&i
Repubiicade Cam& lasseguridadesde su& aity Annex EGWS 2
11-13 August 1993
Minutes of the Third Session
of the Nigeria-Cameroon Joint Meeting
of Experts on Boundary Matters,
taken from Annex NR 173 ANNEXNR173
11- 13August 1993
Minutesof theThird Sessionofthe Nigeria-Cameroon
JointMeetingof ExpertsonBoundaryattersMINUTES OF THE THlRDSESSION OFTHE NIGERIA-CAMEROON
JOINT MEETlNG OF EXPERTSON BOUNDARY MATTERS
YAOUNDE,11TH - 13 TH AUGUST, 1993
1491 MINUTES OFm~ THIRD SESSIONOTHE NIGERLA-CAMEROON
JOIM MEETINGOFEXPERTS ONBOUNDARYbIATîERS
YAOUNDE, 11TH-13THAUGUST,1993
.11.11."..1..
ATTHE INVITATIONOFTHECAMEROONIAN GOVERNMENT, THETHIRD
SESSION OF THE NIGERIA-CAMEROONJOINT hEETMG OF EXPERTS ON
BOUNDARYMAXERS MET M YAOUNDE.CAMEROON,FROM I ITH TO 13TH
AUGUST,1993.
THE MGERIAN DELEGATION WAS LED BY THE HONOURABLE
SECRETARYOF FOREIGNAFFAIRSOF THE FEDERALREPUBLIC OF NIGERIA,
CHIEFM.T. MBU : WHILEHIS EXCELLENCY.HAMADOUMOUS-~APHA- VICE-
PRD~~MINISTERINCHARGE OFTOWN PLANN INDGHOUSING,ASSISTEDBY
HONOURABLEFRANCISNKWAiN,MMISTERDELEGATETO THEMMlSTRY OF
EXTEF34.a RELATIONSOFCAhdEROON, ETHECAMEROONIAN DELEGATION.
THE TWO DELEGATIONS DESIGNATED PROFESSOR ANTHONY 1.
ASiW.4TU. COMMiSSlONER (PTTERNATIONAL BOUNDARLES). NATIONAL
BOU~ARY COMMISSION OFNIGERIAANDMR MESSOBOTSEP,-DIRECTOR OF
AFRICANAND ASIANAFFAiRSINTHEMMISTRYOFEXTERNALRELATIONS OF
CAMEROON RESPECTIVELY TO HEAD ïïiEIRTEAMS OF EXPERTS. THE
R4PPORTEURS-GENERAi WEE PROFESSOR B.M. BAIUUNDO, DIRECTOR
RESEARCH AND DOCUMENTATION CENTRE. NATIONALBOUNDARY
COMMISSIONF, ORNIGERIAND MRSMADELEINESAO.DEPUTYDECTOR OF
MRICAN AND ASIAN AFFAIRSi?THE MiNiSTRY OF EXTERNAL RELATIONS,
FORCAMERDON.
THELISTOFTHETWODELEGATIONS IS HERETOATTACHED.
EACH OF THE HEADS OF DELEGATION MADE AND IMPORTANT
ADDRESS,THE SUBSTANCE AND SPIRIT OF WHiCH WERE A SOURCE OF
NSPIRrlTION THROUGHOUTTE DELLBER4TIONSTHE TWO SPEECHES ARE
HEXETOATTACHED. mR A FEW AMENDEMENTS.THE AGENDA WAS ADOPTED AS
FOLLOWS :
I-M~~~TESOFTHE2NDSESSIONOFTHECAMEROONMIGERIAJOMf
MEETING OFEXPERTSONBOUNDARY MAlTERSHELD M ABUJAM
DECEMBER 1991MATïEFSARlSING
I-NIGERJA-CAbEROONTRANSBORDER CO-OPERATIONWOXSHOP
AT YOLAM MAY. 1992.
II-BORDERDELMTATIONANDDEMARCATION :
(A) EXAMMATIONOFAGREEMENTS AND TREATESRELATMG
TOBORDERS ,
(B) DETERMMATIONOF THETm-?ON BETWEENC-ROON.
NlGERlAANDEQUATORJAL GUMEA.
IV-TRANSBORDERCO-OPERATION :
(A) PROPOSEDGULFOFGUINEACOMMISSION
(B)UTUAL UTILIZATIOOFTRANSBORDER RESOURCES
AND JOINTCONTROLOFTRANSBORDER HAZARDS ;
-LAGDODAM
-GASEOUSLAKE NYOS,
(CACTIVITIESOFTHEMGEU-CAMEROON JOMTCOMTMISSION.
V-CONSULARMATïESS.
VI-DATE DANDVENUE OFNEXT MEETING.I-MINUTES OF THE SECONDJOINT MEETINGOF EXPERTS OhBOUKDARY
MATïERS IN DECEMBER1991ATABUJA :hlAITERS ARISING
THE .WO PARTIESCONFIRMEDTHE MR\TU-TESOF THEION MEETiNG
OF EXPERTS M ABUJA iNDECEMBER1991, ASA CORRECTRECORD OF THE
DISCUSSIONSTHAT TOOKPLACE.
Il-NIGERIA-CAMEROONTR4NSBORUER CO-OPERATIONWORKSHOP
HELD iNYOLA
THE TWO PARTES EXPRESSEDSATISFACTIONWITHTHECONDUCT OF
THE WOWSHOP AS WELL AS WITH ITS HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE WCH
RECORDEDCONSIDERABLEIMPACTBOTH lNTHE TWO COUNTFUES AND AT
CONTMENTALLEVEL.
THE MGERlAN DELEGATION OBSERVEDTUT THE REC~MMENDED
LEGALFRAMEWORI(ON THE CONCLUSIONSOFTHE WORKSHOP RELATMG TO
THE TWSBORDER CO-OPERATION BETWEEN THE TWOCOUNTRIESWAS YET
TO~~~-~~~. UP.1T.THEREFORE.URGEDTHATTHE NECESSARY MACHMERY
FOR DOMG so BE S'EUP AS SOONAS POSSIBLEso THAT m DECISIONS
REACHEDAT THEWORSHOPCOULDBE EMBEDDED M ALEGALFFL4MEWORK.
ON ITS PART.THE CAMEROONIANDELEGATION OBSERVED THAT THE
PAPERSPUSENTED AT THE WORKSHOPWERE YET TO BE PLIBLISHED.THE
NiGERlANDELEGATIONEXPLAMEDTHATTHE DELAY INTHISREGARD WAS
DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE DOCUMENTSPRESENTED AT YOLA BY THE
CAMEROONRESOURCEPERSONSWERE YETTOBE MADEAVAILABLÈ FORTHE
PURPOSE OF PUBLICATION.BOTH PARTES, THEREFORE.URGED THAT ALL
NECESSARYANUNGEMENTS BE COMPLETEDTO ACCELEUTE THE PROCESS
OF PUBLICATION. THE CAMEROONIAN DELEGATlON REITERATED ITS
DEERMMATION TO ORGANISE THE NEXT NIGERIA-CAMEROON
TRANSBORDERCO-OPERATION WOMSHOP 3 CAMEROON
II-BORDER DELUVlITATlONAND DEhIARCATION
(A)-EXAMINATIONOF AGREEMENTSANDTREATES RELATING
TOTIIELANDBORDER
INPURSUITOF TÏE CONCLUSION OF THE ABUJAJODV MJZETMG OF
EXPERTS CF DECEMBE? 1991RECOMMENDMGTHE ASSEMBLAGE OF AN
lMrTNTORY OF ExSTP4rJ DOCUlrEhl7S PERTNNT TO THE DDELIMITI\TION
.WD DEMN(CATI0X OF T TWO COUNTRES' LAW BORDER THE
C!AVEROONI,?NSIDE PROÎOSED TUT SUCH INSTRübENTS IDENTIFED BY
BOTH P+R?IES BEEX4MNED VnTHOlJTFLIRTFERDELAY. THE MGERIAN DELEGATIONPOMfED OUT THATTE EWATION OF
THESELEGALINSTRUMENTSS. MCEIT WASANIMPORTANTELE-NT, COULD
NOT BE DOM. AT THIS MEETMG.THE TWO SIDES REGRETTED THAT THE
JOm SUB-COMMITI'EEOFTWENTY (20EXPERTS SETLJPATABUJA MEETING
OF 1991 7DRAW LJPTHESEMSTRWNTS HAD NOT MET ASSCHEDULED.
BOTH PARTIES, THEREFORE,AGREEDTHAT THE SUB-COMMITTEESHOULD
MEETM MGEFUAM THENEARFUTUREONA DATETO BE DEïERMTNED AND
CONMYEDTM(0UGH DIPLOMATIC CHANMLS.
ONTHE LAKECHAD,THE NICERIANDELEGATIONAFFIRiMEDTHAT THE
OUTSTANDINGWOMS HAD BEENSATISFACTONLYCOMPLETED AM) THAT
THE NIGERiAN EXF'ERTHAD SIGNED THE TECHNICALREPORT ON THE
EXERCISE.HOWEVES THE SOUTHERNEXTREMITYCONNECTMG WITH THE
EBEn NVES IVHICHIS BILATER4LBETWEENNIGERlAANDCAMEROON. HiID
BEEN REFERRED TO THE TWO COWUES BY THE LAKE CI-IAD BASM
COh?MISSIOFORRESOLUTION.
AS REGARDSïHE MARlTIMESECTOROF THEBORDEf(.THE MGEIUNA
DELEGATION RE-AFFIRMEDITS NON-RECOGNITION OF THE .MAROUA
DECLPLRATIONOF 1975ON THE GRO&D THAT IT WAS NOT RATEIED. THE
CAMEROONlANDELEGATIONRE-AFFiRMEDTHE VALIDITYOF Tm MAROUA
DECLMION. FOR ER, THE DECLARAfION WAS A RESULT OF A LONG
NEGOTIATIONAND DETAILEDWORKBY EXPERTS.
AFTER A LONG AND MCONCLUSIVE DISCUSSION, -CH RE-
ESTABLISHEDTHE PARALLELPOSITIONSOF THE TWOPARTIES. 1T WAS
AGREED THAT THE MATTER TO SUBMlTTED TO THE TWO HEADS OF
DELEGATIONFOR CONSIDERATION.
AFTER DUE CONSULTATION THEHEADS OF DELEGATIONOBSERVED
TH4T THEGROUNDSOFDISAGREEMENT BETWEENNlGERTAANDCAMEROON
OVER THE MXROUA DECLARATION OF1975 ARE MORE POLITICAL THAN
TECHNICAL.M ORDERNOTTO HTNDERTHE FLlRfHERiNGOFTHE EXSTING
EXCELLENTRELATIONSBETWEENîHE TWO NATIONS,THEYRESOLVED TO
REFER THE MATTER TO THER RESPECTIVE HEADS OF STATE FOR
DETERMINATION. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVEDTHAT ATTEMPTS BY NIGERIA XND
c~EROON TO EXPLORE AM) EXPLOIT SEPEIUTELY THE RESOURCES
STMDLMG THE MARITIMEBORDERFROMPOMT 1TO POMT G. M Pm?
COmD BY THE MAROUA DECLAR4TION. HAM LED TO AVOIDABLE
WASTAGE AND LOSSESFOR BOTHCOUNTRIES.INTHE LIGHT OF THIS, THE
TWOEADS OF DELEGATIONAGREEDTO RECOMMENDARRANGEMENTSFOR
JOKT MNTUFES M THE EXPLORATION AMi EXPLOITAXON OF THE
RESOURCESOF AREA.
CONCERNMG EXPLOITATIONOF HYDRO-CARBONRESOURCES SOUiH
OF PONT G, THE TWO DELEGATIONSCONFIRMED THESPmT AND THE
LETTEROF THE PROVISIONOF THE MMUTES SJGNEiN ABUJA BETWEEN
THE TWO DELEGATIONS ON 19DECEMBER 1991, iPARflCULAS THE
FREEDOMOF EACH COUNTRYTO DEVELOP ITS RESOURCESALONG THE
BORDER
M THE MEANTW, THETWOHEADSOFDELEGATIONEMPHASISED THE
NEEDTO MAMTAM AEGIhE OFPEACE INTHE AREAAND TO PFZEVW ON
TFIEIRESPECTIVELAWENFORCEMENTAGENCIESli.HISREGARD.
(B-DETERMENATIONOFTEE TRI-POINBETWEENCAMEROON,
NIGEFUAANDEQUATORlALGUINEA
THECAMEROONIANDELEGATIONSTRESSED THENEED TODETEFLMNE
TE TRI-PONT BEfWEEN NIGERl4 CAMEROOANDEQUATORIALGUINEA M
ORDER TO ENABLE EACH OF THE THFEECOUNTRiEST0 EXPLOIT ITS
NATURELRESOURCESM THEAREA N PEACE.ITARGUEDTHATTHE ABSENCE
OFEQUATORIALGürIiEA ATTHiSFORUMSHOULDNOTPREVENTCAMEROON
AND NIGERIAFROM EXCHANGMGCONSTRUCTIM:VIEWSON THEPROPOSAL.
IT FURTHERREVEALEDTHAT THEREHAD BEEN AN EXCHANGEOF VIEWS
BETWEENCAMEROON AND EQUATONALGUiNEAONTHESUBIECT.
THE NTGERIANSmE. ON ITS PART, EXPRESSED ITS RESERVATIONS
CONCERNINGTHE EXAMMATIONOF THE PROPOSAL M THE ABSENCE OF
EQUATORIALGWA. THETWOPARTLESTHENAGREEDTHATATRDARTITE
hEETNG SHOULD BE CONVENED TO EXAMTNE THE ISSUE OF THE
DETEMATION OFTHETRI-POMT.IV-TRANSBORDER CO-OPERATION
(A)MUTUAL UTLLIZATIONOFTRANSBORDERRESOURCES
REGARDING THE CONCLUSIONSREFLECTEDIN THE WES OFTHE
mUJA MEETMG OF DECEMBER,1991,ESPECIALLYTHATRELATING TO THE
MED FOREITHER COUNTFtYTO MFORMTHE OTHEROF ANY INITIATIVE TO
EXPLOITTRANSBORDERRESOURCES,THECAhlEROONlANDELEGATIONDREW
ATTENTIONTOTHE FACT THATASPECIAL ENVOYHAD BEENDESPATCHEDM
UY, 1993BYHIS EXCELLENCY.PAULBIYA,PRESIDENTOFTHEREPUBLIC OF
CAMEROONT, O HIS NIGEPJANCOUNTERPAR, ENERALIBRAHIMBADAMASI
BABANGIDA.
THE CAMEROONIANDELEGATION STATED THAT IN SPITETHE STEP
TAKEN,WOW ON THE BFiKA WEST STRUCTUREHAD BEENSTALLED AS A
RESULTOF NIGERIA'SUNCO-OPERATIVESTANCE.HOWEVER,IT IîORMED
THENlGERlANDELEGATIONTH.4TCAMEROON WOULD GOAHEADTO RESUME
WORKON THE SAlD STRUCTUREAND EXPLOREAND EXPLOITTHE HYDRO-
CARBONDEPOSIT SOUTHOF POIINTG.THE NIGERIANDELEGATION NOTED
THIS INFORMATIONAND UNDERTOOK TO imm THIS MATTER TO 'IHE
COMPETENTAUTHONTES FOR NECESSARY ACTION WHICH WOULD BE
COMrEYED BACK .TO THE CAMEROONIANSIDE THROUGH THE NORMAL
DiPLOhLATIC-S.
(B)JOINT COXTROL OFTRANSBORDERELAZARDS
LAGDODAM
THENlGEIUANDELEGATIONDREWTHE ATTENTIONOF THE METMG
TO THE DISASIROUS EFFECTSOF THE SPORADICRELEASESOFTHE WATERS
OF?HE LAGDODAM,LOCATEDONTHE RIVERBENUEM CAMEROON.ONTHE
DOWSTREAM COMM~JNITIESOF ADAMAW~ BENUE. TARABA AND KOGI
STATESOF NIGERTA.IT EMPHASISEDTHE NEED FOR URGENSEPS TO BE
TAEN SO AS 70 AVOIDA RECURRENCEOF THE PERENMALDISASTERS. IT,
TIEREFORE, PASSIONATELYAPPEALEDTO THE CAMEROONIAAUTHOPJTJES
70 REGULATETfiEEALE.4SES1NSUCHAWAYTHAT THEDAMWOULD BE OF
bffJTU.4L REh'EFIT TO BOTH COUhlTNES, R4THER THAIWREAKIhlG
PERPETUAL E!.~VOC ON POPULP.TIONS, FARM-LPAQS, LIVESTOCKS ANI)
PRîiPERTIESDl T-E AFFECTEDïü?X?J.QJNlGiNAN COMMT'hqTiES. THE CAMEROOh7.4N SIDE SYMPATHISED WH TE hqGERifil
DELEGATION AND REASSURED IT OF CAMEROON'SCO-OPERATION. IT,
THESFORE, PROMSED TO COWY NIGERIA'S REQUEÇT TT OTHE
,ztppROPRIATEROONIAN AmORITIES WITH A VEW TO FINDMG AN
DWIATE SOLUTIONTOTHE PROBLEM.ADDMGTHAT THECMROOMAN
DELEGATIONWASNOTCOMPETEhTTOADDRESSTHEPROBLEM.
THE.MGERiAN SIDEEXPRESSEDAPPREHENSIOOMR THEHAZARDOUS
POTENTIALOF THEGASEOUSLAKENYOS M CAMEROON.STUDIES ON THE
LAKE COMIMD THAT THE NATURAL DAM HAD DEVELOPED CRACKS
ALONGITSWALLS AM)THATTEHYWERECAPABLE OFPRECPITATMG A DAM
BREAKWHlCH COULDSPELL DISASTROUS CONSEQUENCEES.PECIAUY FOR
NIGERIANCOMMUh?TES AROUNDTHE CAMEROOMANBORDER IFURGENT
STEPSWERENOTE TAKEN70 ARRESTTI-IESITUATION.THE CAMEROONIW
DELEGATION.HOWEVER,DREW ATTENTIONTO THEFACT THATTHERE WAS
NO MOREDANGEROF A GAS EXPLOISIONAT LAKENYOS. THTWO PATES
RECOMMENDEDTHE IMPLEMENTATIONOF THE STUDIES CONDUCTED BY
MGERlAN AND CAMEROONIANEXPERTSMD ATAVERTMG THE HARMnn
EFFECTSOFTHEPOSSIBL EURSTINGOFTHE NATURADAM.
(C)ACTMTIES OFTHE XIGERIA-CAhlEROONJOMT COMMISSION
THE CAhEROONlAN DELEGATION MfORMED THE 'WETING TIUT
AFER SEVEW POSTPOMMENTSSMCE 198THE SECONDSESSION OF THE
JOINTCOMMISSIONON CO-OPERATIONBETWEENNfGERiAAND CAMEROON
WOULD HOLD M ABUJ4 NIGERIAN GOMWNT. IT ADDED THAT
NECESSARYPREPAFL4TOr.STEPS HAD BEENTAKEN10 ENSURE ?HATTHE
MEETING WOULDTAKEPLACEAS SCHEDULED.THE MGERlAN DELEGATION
EXPRESSEDDEEP SATISFACTIOMR THE POSITIVDEVELOPMENT. THENIGERIANDELEGATION.EXPRESSWCONCERNOMR THERECENT
DEVELOPMENI REGARDINGTHE ALLEGEDHARIUSShENT OFTHE MGERirVI'
ClTIZENIN CAMEROON,ESPECIALLYWITHREGARDT0 IMMIGRATION AND
STAYOFFoREIGNERS INTHECOUNTRY.M THIS RESPECT.ITLTNDERSCORED
THE CONSIDERABLESE OF THE NIGEFUANCOMMLMITYM CAMEROON.
ESTIMATEDAT 2.3MIUION,AND RESQUESTEDTHAT SPECIL EXEMPTION
MEASURES BEAPPLIEDIN THEIRFAVOUR!T DECLAREDTHATZTWASSTiLL
WAITING FOR THE CAMEROONIANREACTION TO THE TWO SPECIAL
MESSAGES RUATING TO ?HIS SUBJECT WHICH THE HONOURABLE
SECRErARY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF NIGERIA, CWFM.T. MBU, HAD
DELIVWD ON ?WO SUCCESSIVEOCCASIONST0 HIS EXCELLENCY, PAUL
BIYA. PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLICOF CAMEROONAT THE MSTANCE OF
GENERALIBRAHIM BADAMASIBABANGIDAT. HE PRESIDENTOFTHE FEDERAL
NPUBLIC OFNIGERIA.
INREACTION. THE CAMEROONIANSIDE DENIED TH.4T THE NEW
REGULATIONSON IMMIGRATIONAND RESIDENCEOF ALIENM CAMEROON
WERE SPECmCWY TARGETTED AT NIGWANS. IT REOUESTED
NIGERIAN DELEGATION TODRAW THE ATTENTION OF THÈ COMF'ETENT
AUTHORITIESIN NIGERTOTHEMED TOFüRTHER SENSITIITS CITIZENS
M BAKASSI AND JABANEON THELROBLIGATIONSTO CAMEROON AND TO
RESPECTITLAWS.
VI-DATEAND VENUE OFNEXT MEETING
CONSIDERMG mE SEVERALOTHERSCHEDULEDMEETiNG BETWEEN
CAhEROON A?? NIGERIq THE TWO PARTES AGREEDTO MEET AGAM M
NIGERIABElWEEN APIULANDMAY 1994.
W -ANYOTER BUSINESS
THE CAMEROONIANSIDE COMPLAMEDOF MGATlM FEPORTMG OF
THE MGERU-CAMEROONRELATIONSBY SOME NlGERIANNEWSPAPERS. IT
REFERREDTO A RELEVANT RECOMMENDATIONOF THE YOLA WORKSHOP
REGARDING THECONTRIBUTIONOF THE PRESS TO THE PRESERVATION OF
THECLn\.lAfEOF PEACEANDFRATERNITYBETWEETHETWO COUNTRIES. IN REACTIONTO THIS OBSERVATION.THE NlGERlAN DELEGPiTION
CREW ATENTION TO THE FREEDOM OF THE PRESS INTHE FEDERC
REPUBLICOF NIGERIABUTREQUESTEDITSCAMEROONIANCOWTERPART TO
PRODUCE EXAMPLESOFSUCHREPORTMGBY THE NlGERlANPRESS SOTHAT
IT COLiLTAKEUP THE MATTERWITHTHEAPPROPRIATEMEDIA-HOUSESON
PERSONALBASIS. SOMECOPIESOF SUCHNEWSPAPERPUBLICATIONS WERE
SUBMTED TOTHENIGERlANDELEGAT~ON BEFOREITSDEPARTURE.
DOM ATYAOUNDE.THIS13THDAY OF
AUGUST.1993
INENGLISHAND FRENCH,BOTHTEXTS
BEMGAUTHENTIC.
FORTHENICERIAN FOR THE CAMEROONLAN
DELEGATION DELEGATION
MR MESSOBOTSEP
COMMISSIONER, DIRXCTOR.AFRICANIASLAN
INTERNATIONALBOUNDARIES, AFFArn, MINISTRYOF
NATIONALBOUNDARY EXTERNALRELATIONS
COMMISSION Annex EGWS 3
3 August 1993
Joint Communiqué from the Meeting of Delegations
of Equatorial Guinea and Cameroon
to Discuss Matters Related to the Maritime Boundary OnAugust2 and 3, 1993,a meeting between the delegations representintg he
Republicof Equatorial Guinea and the Republio cf Cameroon washeldto discussthe matters
related totheirmaritimeboundary.
Thedelegationrepresenting the Republic of Equatorial Guineawas ledby His
ExcellencyMr. Juan 010 MbaNzeng, MinisterofMines and Hydrocarbons, assisted by His
ExcellencyMr. FranciscoJavierNgomo Mbengono, Vice Ministeo rf JusticeandVice
Presidentof the NationalCommissiononBoundary Issues.
The delegationrepresenting the Republic of Canieroonwasheadedb! His Excellency
Mr.Hamadou Moustapha,Vice Prime Minister,incharge ofHousing and City Planning.
presidentof the NationalSubcommissionforBoundary Issues, assistedbyMr. Francis
Nkwain,Minister in charge ofForeign Affairs.
The listof attendeesofbothdelegations is attachedinthe Appendix.
Uponconcludingtheir work, which was fulo l f objectivity,sincerityandcordiality,
both partieshaveproceeded:
1. Tothe determinationofthe baselinesfor the Republicof Cameroon, accordingto
the dispositionsof theontegoBayConventionontheLawof the Seaof 1982.
They have agreed touse forthesepurposesthe nauticalchartnumber2353 Kwa
Ibo RiverBenito including Fernando Poo.at a scale 1:299.500. Both parties have
recognizedtheneutrality and reliabiliof tliatmapuponwhich theywill later
draw themedianlinetliatwillconstitute thernaritiiilebouiidary betweenthe two
countries,accordingtotheequidistaiiceprinciple.
2. To adopt amethodologythatwouldallowforthedetem~inationof theboundary
pointcalledthetripoint(Cameroon,Nigeriaand EquatorialGuinea), accordingto
theMontegoBay Conventionon theLawofthe Sea of 1982 .
Both partieshaveagreed tomeetagainin Malaboat a dateto be determined,in order
to finalizethe work already beganin Yaounde.
Duringthe EquatorialGuineandelegation'sstayin Yaounde,TheirExcellenciesthe
MinistersMr.Juan 010 MbaNzeng andMr.Francisco Javier Ngomo Mbengoiio, were
received by:
H.E.Mr. SimonAchidi, Prime Minister, Chieo ff the Governmentof the Republic
of Cameroon. 8 H.E. MI. HamadouMoustapha,VicePrimeMinisterin chargeof Housingand
City Planning.
H.E.Mr. Bosco Sambga, Ministerof Mines, Waterand Energy.
H.E.Mr. FrancisNkwain,Ministerin chargeof Foreign Affairs.
His ExcellencyMI. Juan 010MbaNzeng, chiefof thedelegation representingthe
Republicof EquatorialGuineaexpressedhisappreciationfor thewarmand fratemal
welcomeaswell asthe courtesy thathe andhis delegation receivedduringtheirstay in
Cameroontemtory and expressedhis hopesthatthepresentdiscussions onboundaryissues
will proceedas smoothly, in theerestof theRepublicof Equatonal Guineaand the
Republicof Cameroon.
Enteredin Yaoundeon this31ddayof AugustofNineteenNinety-Three,in the French
and Spanishlanguages,being both authentic.
FORTHEREPUBLICOF CAMEROON FORTHEREPUBLICOF
EQUATORIALGUINEA
isignedl isignedl
H.E.HAMADOUMOUSTAPHA H.E.JUANOLOMBANZENG /-OHUNICM0 CONJONTO
+++++++++++++++++++
DEL DOS AL TRES DE ACOSTODE 1993, TWO
LUGAR EN YAOUNDE UNA REUNION ENTRE LES DELECACIONES DE
LA REPUBLICA DE CUINEA ECUATDRIAL Y DE LA REPUBLICA DEL CA-
MEROUN PARA EXAMINAR CUESTIONES RELACIONADAS A SU FRONTERA
MARITIMA.
LA DELEGACIDN DE LA REPUBLICA DE CUINEA
ECUATORIAL ESTABA ENCABEZADA POR EL EXCMO. SR D. JUAN OLO
MBA NZENC, MINISTRO DE MINAS E HIDROCARBUROS. ASlSTlDO POR
EL EXCMO. SR. D. FRANCISCO JAVIER NCOMOMBENCOND. VlCE MINIS-
TRO DE JUSTlClA Y CULTO Y VICEPRESIDENTE DELA COMISION NACIONA
DE FRONTERAS.
LA DELECACION DE LA REPUBLICA DE CAMEROUN
ESTABA ENCABEZADA POR EL EXCMO. SR. D.HAMADOU MOUSTAPHA.
VlCE PREMIER MINISTRO. ENCARCADO DE VlVlENDA Y URBANISMO.
PRESIDENTE DE LA SUBCDMISION NACIDNAL DE FRDNTERAS, ASlSTlDO
POR EL EXCMO. SR.D. FRANCIS NKWAIN, MlNlSTRO DELECADO DEL MI-
NlSTERlO DE ASUNTOS EXTERIORES.
LA LISTA DE LOS MIEMBROSDE LAS DOS DELECA-
CIONES SE ADJUNTA EN ANEXO.
AL TERMIND Dt LOS TRABAJOS QUE SE DESARROL-
LARON EN UNA INPRECNADA DE OBJETIVIDAD, DE SlNCERlDAD Y DE COR-
DIALIDAD. LAS DOS PARTES HAN PAOCEDIDO :
II A LA DETERMINACION DE LAS LINEAS DE BASE DE
LA REPUBLICA DE CAMEROUN, DE CONFORMIDADA LAS DISPOSICIONES
PERTINENTES DE LA CONUENCION DE MONTECO BAY DE 1982 SOBRE EL
DERECHD DEL MAR. HAN CONVENIDD EN ESTE SENTIDO UTlLlZAR EL
MAPA MARlTlMO NUMERO 1353 KWA IBO RIVER TO BENITO INCLUDING
FERNANDO POO, DE ESCALA 11299500.LAS DOS PARTES HAN RECONO-
Cl00 LA NEUTRALIDAD Y FlABlLDAD DE DlCHO NAPA SOBRE EL CUAL
TRANZARAN ULTERIDRMENTE LA LlNEA MEDIANA QUE CONSTITUIRA LA
FRONTIERA MARlTlMA ENTRE LOS DOS PAISES, SECUN EL PRINCIP10 DE
EQUIDISTANCIA.
11 A LA ADOPCION DE LA METODOLOCIA QUE PERMITA
LA DETERMINACION DEL PUNTO FRONTERIZO DENOMINADO PUNTO TRIPLE .
(CAMEROUN. NIGERIA Y CUINEA EQUATORIAL), DE CONFORMIDAD CON
LAS DISPOSICIONES DE LA CONVENCION DE MDNTECO BAY DE 1982. S0-
BRE EL DERECHO DEL MAR.
.../...
P ... 21
LAS DOS PAR= HdNCONVENIDO EN ENCONTRARSE DE
NUEVO EN MALABO. EN UNA FECHA A DETERMINAR LOS TRABAJOS
DE DELIMITACION DE FRONTERA MARlTlMA INCIADOS EN YAOUNDE.
DURANTE LA ESTANCIA DE LA DELECACION DE LA REPUBLICA
DE CUINEA ECUATORIAL EN CAMEROUN. LOS EXCMOS. SRM SINISTROS
JUAN OLO MBA NZENC FRANCISCOJANVIER NCOMOMBENCOND, FUERON
RECIBIDOS EN AUDlENClA POR :
- S.E. SR. SIMON ACHIDI ACHU. PRIMERMINISTRO, JEFE
DEL COBIERNO DE LA REPUBLICA DEL CAMEROUN.
- S. E. SR. HAMADOUMOUSTAPHA. VICE PREMIER MINISTRO
ENCARCADO DE VlVlENDA Y URBANISMO.
- S. E. SR. BOSCO SAMCBA, MlNlSTRO DE MINAS, ACUAS
Y ENERGIA.
- S.E. SR. FRANCIS NKWAIN. MlNlSTRO DEECADO DEL
MlNlSTERlO DE ASUNTOS EXTERIORES.
EL EXCMO SR. D. JUAN OLO MBA NZENC, JEFE DE LA DEE-
CACION DE LA REPUBLICA DE CUINEA ECUATORIAL, TUVO A BIEN
EXPRESAR SU VIVO ACRADECIMIENTO POR EL CALUROSO Y FRATERNAL
REClBlMlENTO Y POR TOOAS LAS ATENCIONES DE QUE HAN SlDO OBJET0
EL Y SU OELECACION. DURANTE SU ESTANCIA EN TIERRA CAMERUNESA
Y HA EXPRESADO EL DESEO DE QUE LAS DlSCUSlDNES EN CURSO SOBRE
LAS CUESTIONES DE FRONTERAS SE PROSICAN CON LA MISMA ARMONIA
Y EN EL INTERES ACEPTADO DE LA REPUBLICA DE CUINEA ECUATORIAL
Y LA REPUBLICA DE CAMEROUN.
HECHO EN YAOUNDE A TRES DIAS DEL MES DEACOSTO DE
MIL NOVECIENTOS NOVENTA Y TRES. EN VERSION FRANCESA Y ESPA-
NDLA, SIENDO LAS DOS AUTENTICAS.
POR LA REPUBLlCA DE CAMEROUN
S.E. HAMADOU MOUSTAPHA S.E. JUAN OLO MBA NZENC
t Annex EGWS 4
20 August 1993
List of Coastal Basepoint Coordinates
Provided to Equatorial Guinea by Cameroon DATE:
S OWME-~S ES LIGNES
Written Statement of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea