SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN
The operativepart ofthe Judgmentshouldonly reply tothejnal submissions
of the Parties.
1.1 have voted for the operative part of the Judgment, with the excep-
tion of point V (C), but my favourable vote does not mean that 1 share
each and every part of the reasoning followed by the Court in reaching its
conclusions.
2. 1have voted against point V (C) of the operative part of the Judg-
ment where the Court:
"Takes note of the commitment undertaken by the Republic of
Cameroon at the hearings that, 'faithful to its traditional policy of
hospitality and tolerance', it 'will continue to afford protection to
Nigerians living in the [Bakassi] Peninsula and in the Lake Chad
area'."
3. The reasons for my dissent are the following.
4. Very recently, on 14 February 2002, the Court stated:
"The Court would recall the well-established principle that 'it is
the duty of the Court not only to reply to the questions as stated in
the final submissions of the parties, but also to abstain from deciding
points not included in those submissions' (Asylunz, Judgment, 1. C.J.
Reports 1950, p. 402). While the Court is thus not entitled to decide
upon questions not asked of it, the non ultra petita rule nonetheless
cannot preclude the Court from addressingcertain legal points in its
reasoning." (Arrest Warrant of II April2000 (Democratic Republic
of Congo v.Belgium), Judgment, 1. C.J. Reports 2002, pp. 18-19,
para. 43.)
5. Neither Cameroon nor Nigeria has requested the Court in its sub-
missions to take note of the commitment undertaken by Cameroon at the
hearings that "it will continue to afford protection to Nigerians living in
the [Bakassi] Peninsula". Therefore, in my opinion, the Court had to
abstain from taking note of such commitment in the operative part of the
Judgment, even though the Court is entitled to address it in its reasoning,
as it did in paragraph 317 of the Judgment.
(Signed) Gonzalo PARRA-ARANGUREN.
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN
The operativepart ofthe Judgmentshouldonly reply tothejnal submissions
of the Parties.
1.1 have voted for the operative part of the Judgment, with the excep-
tion of point V (C), but my favourable vote does not mean that 1 share
each and every part of the reasoning followed by the Court in reaching its
conclusions.
2. 1have voted against point V (C) of the operative part of the Judg-
ment where the Court:
"Takes note of the commitment undertaken by the Republic of
Cameroon at the hearings that, 'faithful to its traditional policy of
hospitality and tolerance', it 'will continue to afford protection to
Nigerians living in the [Bakassi] Peninsula and in the Lake Chad
area'."
3. The reasons for my dissent are the following.
4. Very recently, on 14 February 2002, the Court stated:
"The Court would recall the well-established principle that 'it is
the duty of the Court not only to reply to the questions as stated in
the final submissions of the parties, but also to abstain from deciding
points not included in those submissions' (Asylunz, Judgment, 1. C.J.
Reports 1950, p. 402). While the Court is thus not entitled to decide
upon questions not asked of it, the non ultra petita rule nonetheless
cannot preclude the Court from addressingcertain legal points in its
reasoning." (Arrest Warrant of II April2000 (Democratic Republic
of Congo v.Belgium), Judgment, 1. C.J. Reports 2002, pp. 18-19,
para. 43.)
5. Neither Cameroon nor Nigeria has requested the Court in its sub-
missions to take note of the commitment undertaken by Cameroon at the
hearings that "it will continue to afford protection to Nigerians living in
the [Bakassi] Peninsula". Therefore, in my opinion, the Court had to
abstain from taking note of such commitment in the operative part of the
Judgment, even though the Court is entitled to address it in its reasoning,
as it did in paragraph 317 of the Judgment.
(Signed) Gonzalo PARRA-ARANGUREN.OPINION INDIVIDUELLE DE M. LE JUGE PtiRRA-ARANGUREN
[Traduction]
Le dispositif'de l'arrêtdoit uniquement réponareaux conclusions des
Parties.
1. J'ai voté enfaveur du dispositif de l'arrêt,à l'exception du point
V C), mais cela ne signifie pas que je partage en fous points le raisonne-
ment que la Cour a suivi pour arriver à ses conclusions.
2. J'ai votécontre le point V C) du dispositif de l'arrêt,dans lequel la
Cour:
«Prend acte de l'engagement pris a 1'audit:ncepar la République
du Cameroun, par lequel celle-ci affirme qut, ((fidèlea sa politique
traditionnel1emr:ntaccueillante et tolérante)),Ale((continuerà assu-
rer saprotectioi~aux Nigérianshabitant la pininsule [de Bakassi] et
[à]ceux vivant (dansla régiondu lac Tchad.:)
3. Les raisons de mon vote négatifsont les suivantes.
4. Très récemment,le 14février2002, la Cour s'exprimait ainsi:
«La Cour rappellera le principe bien établiselon lequel elle a «le
devoir de révondre aux demandes des variies telles au'elles s'ex-
priment dans leurs conclusions finales, maismssi celui de s'abstenir
de statuer surclespoints non compris dans lesdites demandes ainsi
exprimées)) (Droit d'asile, arrêt, C.I.J. Rec~ei1950, p. 402). Si la
Cour ne peut donc pas trancher des questions qui ne lui ont pas été
soumises, en revanche la règlenon ultra petitcne saurait l'empêcher
d'aborder certains points de droit dans sa motivation.)) (Mandat
d'arrêtdu 11 avril 2000 (République démocrlztiquedu Congo c. Bel-
gique), C.1.J. Recueil 2002,p. 18-19,par. 411.)
5. Ni le Cameroun ni le Nigérian'ont priéla COur,dans leurs conclu-
sions, de prendre acte de l'engagement pris par le Cameroun lors des
audiences, à savoir qu'il ((continuera a assurer sa protection aux Nigé-
rians habitant la péninsule[de Bakassi])). Par conséquent,je suis d'avis
que la Cour aurait dû s'abstenir de prendre acle d'un tel engagement
dans le dispositif de son arrêt, mêmesi elle peut en faire état dans
l'exposéde ses motifs, comme elle l'a fait au paiagraphe 317 de l'arrêt.
(Signé) Gonzalo PARRA-ARANGUREN.
Separate opinion of Judge Parra-Aranguren