Memorial of Equatorial Guinea

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
LAND AND MARITIME DELIMITATION AND SOVEREIGNTY
OVER ISLANDS
(GABON/EQUATORIAL GUINEA)
MEMORIAL OF
THE REPUBLIC OF EQUATORIAL GUINEA
VOLUME I
5 October 2021

i
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2 The Geographic Context of The Present Dispute ............................. 9
Chapter 3 The Colonial History and the Legal Titles Acquired by Spain and
France ............................................................................................. 17
I. The Period before the 1900 Convention .............................................. 17
II. The 1900 Convention and the Legal Titles recognized during the
Remainder of the Colonial Period..................................... 25
III. The Status of the Colonial Powers’ Legal Titles to Islands and
Continental Territory upon Gabon’s
Independence in 1960, and Equatorial Guinea’s
Independence in 1968 ....................................................... 62
Chapter 4 The Origin of the Parties’ Dispute ................................................. 77
Chapter 5 Efforts to Resolve the Boundary and Territorial Dispute
from 1979 to 2016 .......................................................................... 85
I. 1979-1984: Bilateral Negotiation Efforts to Establish a Joint
Development Zone ............................................................ 85
II. 1985-2001: Bilateral Negotiations to Resolve the Sovereignty and
Boundary Disputes ............................................................ 88
ii
Chapter 6 The Legal Titles that Have the Force of Law between the Parties
Concerning Sovereignty of Mbañe, Cocoteros and Conga and the
Delimitation of their Common Land and Maritime Boundaries .... 99
I. The Legal Titles of Equatorial Guinea and of Gabon to Insular and
Continental Territory were Acquired by Succession to the
Legal Titles Held by Spain and France ............................. 99
II. Legal Title to the Islands and Islets of Corisco Bay at Independence
......................................................................................... 103
III. Legal Titles to Continental Land Territory ..................................... 111
IV. The Legal Titles in the Sea Adjacent to the Parties’ Coasts ........... 120
iii
Chapter 7 The Alleged 1974 Convention that Gabon First Produced and Invoked
in 2003 Does Not Establish Legal Title or Have the Force of Law in
the Relations between the Parties ................................................. 127
I. The Document Presented in 2003 By Its Terms Is Not a Final Treaty
......................................................................................... 132
II. The Parties Did Not Take the Actions that Would Have Been
Necessary to Implement the Terms of the Document
Presented in 2003 ............................................................ 135
III. The Parties Continued their Efforts to Settle their Sovereignty and
Boundary Disputes Based on Other Legal Titles and Made
No Reference to the Document Presented in 2003 ......... 137
IV. The Document Presented in 2003 Did Not Acquire the Force of Law
Between the Parties after 2003 ....................................... 139
Submissions ...................................................................................................... 143

1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The Republic of Equatorial Guinea submits this Memorial in
accordance with the Court’s Order of 7 April 2021, which fixed the dates of 5
October 2021 for the submission of Equatorial Guinea’s Memorial, and 5 May
2022 for the submission of the Gabonese Republic’s Counter-Memorial. As set out
in the Court’s Order, the Court was seised of the present dispute on 5 March 2021,
upon receipt of Equatorial Guinea’s formal notification of the “Special Agreement
between the Gabonese Republic and the Republic of Equatorial Guinea concluded
on 15 November 2016” (“Special Agreement”).
Article 1 of the Special Agreement defines the dispute submitted to
the Court as follows:
“Soumission à la Cour et objet du différend
1. La Cour est priée de dire si les titres juridiques,
traités et conventions internationales invoqués par
les Parties font droit dans les relations entre la
République Gabonaise et la République de
Guinée Equatoriale s’agissant de la délimitation
de leurs frontières maritime et terrestre
communes et de la souveraineté sur les îles
Mbanié, Cocotiers et Conga.
A cette fin :
2. La République Gabonaise reconnaît comme
applicables au différend la Convention spéciale
sur la délimitation des possessions françaises et
espagnoles dans l’Afrique Occidentale, sur la
Côte du Sahara et sur la Côte du Golfe de Guinée
du 27 juin 1900 (Paris) et la Convention
délimitant les frontières terrestres et maritimes de
la Guinée Equatoriale et du Gabon du 12
septembre 1974 (Bata).
2
3. La République de Guinée Equatoriale reconnaît
comme applicable au différend la Convention
spéciale sur la délimitation des possessions
françaises et espagnoles dans l’Afrique
Occidentale, sur la Côte du Sahara et sur la Côte
du Golfe de Guinée du 27 juin 1900 (Paris).
4. Chacune des Parties se réserve le droit d’invoquer
d’autres titres juridiques.” 1
The English translation of Article 1, as provided by the Registry,
reads:
“Submission to the Court and subject of the
dispute
1. The Court is requested to determine whether the
legal titles, treaties and international conventions
invoked by the Parties have the force of law in the
relations between the Gabonese Republic and the
Republic of Equatorial Guinea in so far as they
concern the delimitation of their common
maritime and land boundaries and sovereignty
over the islands of Mbanié/Mbañe,
Cocotiers/Cocoteros and Conga.
To this end:
2. The Gabonese Republic recognizes as applicable
to the dispute the special Convention on the
1 Special Agreement between the Gabonese Republic and the Republic of Equatorial Guinea (15
November 2016) (authentic French version on record), art. 1. The equally authentic Spanish version
of Article 1 reads as follows: “… Se solicita a la Corte que determine si los títulos jurídicos, tratados
y convenios internacionales invocados por las Partes son aplicables en las relaciones entre la
República Gabonesa y la República de Guinea Ecuatorial en lo que se refiere a la delimitación de
sus fronteras marítima y terrestre comunes y de la soberanía sobre las islas de Mbañe, Cocoteros y
Conga. Para este propósito: 2. La República Gabonesa reconoce como aplicable a la controversia
el Convenio especial para determinar los límites entre las posesiones españolas y francesas del
África Occidental ….”).
3
delimitation of French and Spanish possessions in
West Africa, on the coasts of the Sahara and the
Gulf of Guinea, signed in Paris on 27 June 1900,
and the Convention demarcating the land and
maritime frontiers of Equatorial Guinea and
Gabon, signed in Bata on 12 September 1974.
3. The Republic of Equatorial Guinea recognizes as
applicable to the dispute the special Convention
on the delimitation of French and Spanish
possessions in West Africa, on the coasts of the
Sahara and the Gulf of Guinea, signed in Paris on
27 June 1900.
4. Each Party reserves the right to invoke other legal
titles.”2
The Special Agreement determines the Court’s jurisdiction, which
extends to deciding which of the legal titles, treaties and international conventions
(“Legal Titles”) invoked by either Party, in the Special Agreement or in the course
of these proceedings, have the force of law between the Parties. Having regard to
the Spanish text of the Special Agreement, in Equatorial Guinea’s submission, this
may equally be understood as being applicable between the Parties, in their
relations for the determination of sovereignty over the islands of Mbañe, Cocoteros
and Conga, as well as the determination of the Parties’ land and maritime
boundaries. The phrase “legal titles” in Article 1, paragraph 1, and the reference
in paragraph 4 to the invocation of “other legal titles”, indicate that the Parties have
agreed that the Court’s task is to determine all Legal Titles having the force of law
between them, not just those emanating from particular treaties and conventions.
2 Special Agreement between the Gabonese Republic and the Republic of Equatorial Guinea (15
November 2016) (English translation provided by the Registry on record), art. 1.
4
In regard to treaties and conventions, paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article
1 of the Special Agreement establish, in regard to the Legal Titles applicable to the
present dispute, that the Parties are in agreement that the “Special Convention on
the delimitation of French and Spanish possessions in West Africa, on the coasts
of the Sahara and the Gulf of Guinea, signed in Paris on 27 June 1900” (the “1900
Convention”) has the force of law between them. Further, these provisions reflect
the agreement of the Parties that the 1900 Convention was applicable – along with
any Legal Titles invoked by a Party and recognized by the Court in accordance
with paragraph 4 of Article 1 – in their territorial relations at (i) the date of Gabon’s
independence from France in 1960, and (ii) the date of Equatorial Guinea’s
independence from Spain in 1968, as each newly independent State inherited the
Legal Titles held by its colonial predecessor. The same paragraphs of Article 1
indicate that the Parties disagree as to whether the alleged “Convention Delimiting
the Land and Maritime Boundaries of Equatorial Guinea and Gabon”, signed in
Bata on 12 September 1974” asserted by Gabon has the force of law in their
relations. Equatorial Guinea considers that it does not, for the reasons elaborated
in Chapter 7 of this Memorial.
The dispute that the Parties have submitted to the Court arose in 1972,
12 years after Gabon became independent and four years after Equatorial Guinea
achieved independence. In that year, for the first time, Gabon asserted a claim to
the small island of Mbañe in the Bay of Corisco, and then occupied it by force.
Following Equatorial Guinea’s protest, the Parties engaged in bilateral negotiations
that extended over a period of 31 years, and then third-party mediation under the
auspices of the United Nations for another 13 years. They were unable to reach
agreement on sovereignty over Mbañe, Cocoteros or Conga, or to agree on the
delimitation of their land or maritime boundaries. However, the mediation was
fruitful by allowing the Parties to conclude the Special Agreement to submit to the
5
Court, pursuant to Article 36(1) of the Court’s Statute, the dispute identified in
Article 1 of the Special Agreement.
The Parties have seised the Court with jurisdiction to determine the
Legal Titles applicable to sovereignty over the three disputed islands (Mbañe,
Cocoteros y Conga), and identify the Legal Titles applicable to the delimitation of
their land and maritime boundaries. Accordingly, Equatorial Guinea has organized
this Memorial to focus on the identification of the Legal Titles applicable to the
settlement of these issues. The Memorial does not seek to address other issues that
are in dispute between the Parties, or draw the consequences that would follow
from the Court’s judgment.
Following this introductory chapter, Chapter 2 describes the
geographic context of the dispute, including the locations of the islands identified
in the Special Agreement, the land boundary terminus on the coast of the Bay of
Corisco from which the maritime boundary must be drawn; and the adjacent land
territories of the Parties, within which the delimitation of the land boundary must
eventually take place. Chapter 3 then describes the colonial histories of Equatorial
Guinea and Gabon, with a focus on the facts pertaining to the acquisition by Spain
of the islands of the Bay of Corisco, and the acquisition by Spain and France,
respectively, of land territories that today comprise the sovereign States of
Equatorial Guinea and Gabon. The facts detailed in this chapter show that there
was a well-settled and stable territorial and boundary relationship between France
and Spain when Gabon gained independence in 1960, including in regard to the
islands of Corisco Bay, and that this relationship continued without alteration
between Gabon and Spain until Equatorial Guinea’s independence eight years later.
The chapter shows that Equatorial Guinea and Gabon did not consider themselves
to – and did not – inherit any territorial disputes from Spain and France.
6
Chapter 4 addresses the origin of the present dispute and sets out the
facts regarding Gabon’s unexpected and sudden move to make territorial and
maritime claims that sought to change the established territorial order that the
Parties inherited from Spain and France. Chapter 5 describes the efforts by the
Parties to resolve the ensuing dispute over the next four decades, including Gabon’s
surprising invocation, in 2003 of a purported agreement alleged to have been
reached in 1974 – after decades of negotiations in which no mention was made of
a purported agreement alleged to have been reached in 1974 – and Equatorial
Guinea’s rejection of that “agreement”.
Based on these historical facts, which are fully supported by the
evidence included in and annexed to this Memorial, Chapter 6 describes the Legal
Titles of Equatorial Guinea and Gabon that have the force of law and are applicable
in their relations for the determination of sovereignty over the islands of Mbañe,
Cocoteros and Conga in the Bay of Corisco, and for the delimitation of their
common land and maritime boundaries. As described in the following chapters,
Spain acquired title to the islands of Corisco Bay as a consequence of: (i) the 1778
Treaty of El Pardo with Portugal; (ii) its uncontested 1843 Declaration of
sovereignty over Corisco Island and 1846 signature of a Record of Annexation with
King I. Orejeck of Corisco Island, Elobey and their dependencies; and (iv) its
uncontested and effective occupation of the islands for the following 122 years.
Equatorial Guinea succeeded to this title when it became an independent sovereign
State, and has maintained it ever since. France never held or claimed legal title to
these islands, and Gabon did not acquire such title upon its independence or
thereafter.
Chapter 6 further establishes that, in regard to land territory on the
continent of Africa and the delimitation of the land boundary between Equatorial
Guinea and Gabon, the colonial powers, Spain and France, delimited the boundary
7
in their 1900 Convention, with each State recognizing the other’s title to the
territory on its side of the agreed boundary. That 1900 boundary, described in
Article 4 of the Convention, was subsequently modified by Spain and France in
accordance with Article 8 and Annex 1 of the 1900 Convention. This is the
boundary that was in force, and which Gabon and Equatorial Guinea inherited, at
the time of their succession to French and Spanish land titles, respectively. Figure
1.1 (following page 8) shows (as detailed in the chapters of this Memorial) the
territory of Spain on the date of Equatorial Guinea’s independence on 12 October
1968 and shows Spain’s boundary relationship with France at Gabon’s
independence on 17 August 1960 and with Gabon in 1968. Those inherited titles –
Gabon’s on its side of the boundary existing at independence, and Equatorial
Guinea’s on its side – have remained intact to this day.
Finally, Chapter 6 shows that the Legal Titles applicable to the
delimitation of the maritime boundary between Equatorial Guinea and Gabon are:
(i) the same Legal Titles that determine sovereignty over the Corisco Bay Islands
and the continental land territory in Africa; and (ii) those provided for by the United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (“UNCLOS”), of which both Equatorial
Guinea and Gabon are State Parties.
Chapter 7 explains why the alleged “Convention demarcating the
land and maritime frontiers of Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, signed in Bata on 12
September 1974”, invoked by Gabon for the first time in 2003, is not a Legal Title
and has no force of law between the parties in relation to sovereignty over Mbañe
or the other Corisco Bay Islands, or to the delimitation of the land and maritime
boundaries between the Parties. The alleged agreement, which was never
mentioned by Gabon during the decades of negotiations after its alleged signature,
was suddenly invoked as having settled all of the issues that the Parties had been
negotiating in a series of bilateral meetings over the past decades – including
8
sovereignty over the disputed islands and the location of the land and maritime
boundaries. In 2003, Gabon did not produce a signed original of the document, but
only a partially illegible photocopy reflecting a purported “agreement” that was
incomplete as to central subjects on its face. No copy of the original has been
provided in the following eighteen years. When, in 2004, Gabon first sought to
register the alleged agreement with the United Nations, it was rejected as illegible.
Only after submitting a retyped copy (but not the original) was registration
achieved, over Equatorial Guinea’s protest. The conduct of the Parties between
1974 and 2003 makes clear that neither of them regarded it as a binding agreement,
let alone a settlement of the very issues over which they continued to negotiate
during that thirty-year period.
Equatorial Guinea’s Submissions follow Chapter 7 and conclude the
main text of the Memorial, which is Volume I. The Memorial also includes six
volumes of Annexes. Volume II reproduces Equatorial Guinea’s Maps and Figures,
and Volumes III to VII contain the exhibits supporting Equatorial Guinea’s claims.

9
CHAPTER 2
THE GEOGRAPHIC CONTEXT OF THE PRESENT DISPUTE
Equatorial Guinea and Gabon are both situated along the western
coast of sub-Saharan Africa, as shown in Figure 2.1 following page 10.
Equatorial Guinea, which became independent from Spain in 1968,
consists of two regions: an insular region and a mainland or continental region.3
The estimated population of Equatorial Guinea in 2019 was approximately
1,405,704 in 2019,4 around 72% of which lives in the continental region.5 The
official language is Spanish, with French and Portuguese as co-official languages.6
Equatorial Guinea’s insular region is composed of two main islands
in the eastern Atlantic Ocean. The two islands are Bioko, formerly Fernando Po or
Fernando Póo, where the country’s capital, Malabo, is located, and Annobón.7
There is no dispute as to title to these islands; the Parties and the international
community recognize them as part of Equatorial Guinea.
3 Equatorial Guinea National Statistics Institute, Equatorial Guinea in Figures (2019), p. 6.
Memorial of Equatorial Guinea (hereafter “MEG”), Vol. VI, Annex 195.
4 Equatorial Guinea National Statistics Institute, Statistical Yearbook of Equatorial Guinea (2020),
pp. 7-8. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 196; Equatorial Guinea National Statistics Institute, Equatorial
Guinea in Figures (2019), p. 9. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 195.
5 Equatorial Guinea National Statistics Institute, Equatorial Guinea in Figures (2019), p. 10. MEG,
Vol. VI, Annex 195.
6 Equatorial Guinea National Statistics Institute, Statistical Yearbook of Equatorial Guinea (2020),
p. 7. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 196.
7 Equatorial Guinea National Statistics Institute, Equatorial Guinea in Figures (2019), p. 6. MEG,
Vol. VI, Annex 195.
10
The continental region of Equatorial Guinea, commonly referred to
as Rio Muni in reference to the river that forms part of its southern boundary,8
covers a surface area of approximately 26,000 square kilometres.9 It includes the
associated insular features in the Bay of Corisco. These are Elobey Grande, Elobey
Chico, Corisco Island, and the islets adjacent to Corisco Island: Mbañe, Cocoteros
and Conga (the “Corisco Dependencies”).10 Rio Muni is surrounded by Gabon to
the south and east, the Republic of Cameroon to the north, and Corisco Bay, which
is part of the Gulf of Guinea, to the west.11 The most populous city in the country
is the coastal city of Bata, in Rio Muni, with approximately 309,345 inhabitants.12
Other large population centres in Rio Muni include Mongomo, Ebebiyin and
Evynayong. The continental region of Equatorial Guinea is shown on Figure 2.2,
following Figure 2.1.
Gabon, which became independent from France in 1960, has a land
territory covering approximately 257,000 square kilometres.13 In addition to its
borders with Equatorial Guinea, Gabon is also bordered by the Republic of
Cameroon in the north, and by the Republic of Congo to the east and south. It has
8 Equatorial Guinea National Statistics Institute, Statistical Yearbook of Equatorial Guinea (2020),
p. 6. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 196.
9 Equatorial Guinea National Statistics Institute, Equatorial Guinea in Figures (2019), p. 8. MEG,
Vol. VI, Annex 195. Equatorial Guinea National Statistics Institute, Statistical Yearbook of
Equatorial Guinea (2020), p. 7. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 196.
10 Equatorial Guinea National Statistics Institute, Equatorial Guinea in Figures (2019), p. 7. MEG,
Vol. VI, Annex 195.
11 Equatorial Guinea National Statistics Institute, Statistical Yearbook of Equatorial Guinea (2020),
pp. 7-8. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 196.
12 Equatorial Guinea National Statistics Institute, Statistical Yearbook of Equatorial Guinea (2020),
p. 7. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 196.
13 “Gabon” CIA World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency available at www.cia.gov/the-worldfactbook/
countries/gabon/ (9 September 2021), pp. 1-4. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 244.

11
an estimated population as of summer 2021 of approximately 2,285,000.14 Its
capital and largest city, Libreville, with a population as of 2021 of approximately
845,000,15 is located on the coast, some 25 km south of Corisco Bay. Its official
language is French.16
The islands to which title is disputed by the Parties - Mbañe,
Cocoteros and Conga - are located in Corisco Bay, as shown in Figure 2.3
(following page 12). Corisco Island, which is not in dispute, is the largest feature
in Corisco Bay. It is located some 16 nautical miles southwest of the mouth of the
Rio Muni. It has a land area of approximately 14 square km. It has been
continuously inhabited since before Europeans arrived in the region, and currently
supports a permanent population of approximately 2,443.17 Corisco has significant
infrastructure, including a commercial port and a free international airport. Title to
it is not disputed. Nor is there a dispute over title to Elobey Grande, Elobey Chico
or the islet of Leva, located 10, 11 and 1 nautical miles, respectively, from Corisco
Island. As discussed in Chapters 3 and 6, Equatorial Guinea succeeded to all of the
islands and islets of Corisco Bay upon its independence from Spain.
The disputed islets of Mbañe, Conga and Cocoteros lie between 5 and
6 nautical miles southeast of Corisco Island. These features, along with several
low-tide elevations – Banco Laval in the west, Bancos del Este in the east and
several unnamed low-tide elevations in between – sit atop Mbañe Bank, a
submerged feature that is a geological continuation of the shallows surrounding
14 Ibid., pp. 1-4.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Ministry of Planning and Economic Development, General
Census of Population and Housing: General Status of Population (2002), p. 3. MEG, Vol. VI,
Annex 194.
12
Corisco Island. Mbañe Bank ends in the south at a channel separating it from banks
extending north from Gabon’s mainland coast. All of these islets and low-tide
elevations are closer to Corisco Island than they are to Gabon’s coast. Corisco
Island and the Corisco Dependencies are shown on Figure 2.4 (following Figure
2.3).
Mbañe is the largest insular feature on Mbañe Bank, although with
an area of only 0.5 square km at low tide and 0.07 square km at high tide, most of
it is covered by substantial vegetation. Mbañe is the only feature on Mbañe Bank
that has been consistently recognised as a named high-tide feature since at least
1800.18 On the earliest charts of the region, Mbañe was known as Corisco Islet.19
Mbañe has continued to appear as a named high-tide feature on subsequent charts.
An early example is the Carta Esférica de la Bahía de Corisco, a large-scale
Spanish nautical chart published in 1859 on the basis of survey work done between
1836 and 1838, on which Mbañe is labeled “I. Mbanya”. An excerpt of this chart
is shown at Figure 2.5 (following Figure 2.4). Mbañe has been referred to at
different times and on different sources as an island (isla) and as an islet (islote),
but, like Leva just to the north, it is recognised as a named feature above water at
high tide on all available charts and maps beginning in the mid-1800s. On most
early charts Mbañe and Leva are the only named features in the bay other than
Corisco Island and the Elobeys.20
18 See, e.g., Figure 2.5 (Hydrographic Direction, Madrid, Spain, Corisco Bay Spherical Chart
(1859)).
19 See Figure 3.1 (D. Tomas Lopez, Geographer of His Majesty's Domains, Spain, Gulf of Guinea
(1778)).
20 See, e.g., Figure 2.5 (Hydrographic Direction, Madrid, Spain, Corisco Bay Spherical Chart
(1859)).

13
Mbañe has been intermittently inhabited by people originating from
Corisco Island and has often been used by its fishermen. Given its small size, its
proximity to Corisco, and its historic use by the inhabitants of Corisco, Mbañe is,
and has historically been treated as a dependency of Corisco.21
Cocoteros sits to the east of Mbañe on the eastern edge of the Mbañe
Bank. Cocoteros is approximately 0.1 square km at low tide and 0.003 square km
at high tide in size and is uninhabited. On some charts, Mbañe and Cocoteros are
connected at low tide by a 1.5 nautical mile-long, attenuated sand spit.22 But on
most charts, Cocoteros is shown as a separate feature at the eastern end of a series
of disconnected sand banks. Cocoteros has a small vegetated portion that is above
water at high tide. On earlier charts, it was depicted as a low-tide elevation,
sometimes called Crown Sands (Arenas Crown) (see Figure 2.5), but it was
sometimes included in the group of low-tide elevations named Bancos del Este. In
more recent charts, it is depicted as a sand cay and referred to as an “islet”.
Historically, Cocoteros has been regarded as a dependency of Corisco Island, for
the same reasons as Mbañe.
Conga is a rocky feature located approximately 1 nautical mile
southwest of Mbañe. Conga is 1.6 square km at low tide and 0.003 square km at
high tide in size, but is surrounded by an expansive sand bank that dries at low tide.
Unlike Cocoteros, Conga appears on early charts as a high-tide feature, and this
status has not changed (see Figure 2.5). It is not clear when Conga was first named,
21 See Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua
intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1992, p. 351, para. 356 (“The small size of Meanguerita, its
contiguity to the larger island, and the fact that it is uninhabited, allow its characterisation as a
‘dependency’ of Meanguera, in the sense that the Minquiers group was claimed to be a ‘dependency
of the Channel Islands’ (I.C.J. Reports 1953, [p.47], p. 71).”).
22 U.S. National Imagery and Mapping Agency, Bahía de Corisco, 57181 6th ed. (1999). MEG,
Vol. 2, Annex M3.
14
but early records indicate that Conga was also known as Mbañe Rocks. Conga is
uninhabited and has sparse vegetation. It, too, has been regarded as a dependency
of Corisco Island.
The land boundary of Equatorial Guinea and Gabon referred to in
Article 1 of the Special Agreement was established between Spain and France prior
to the independence of Gabon in 1960 and remained unchanged on the date of
Equatorial Guinea’s independence in 1968. As detailed in Chapter 3 below, this
boundary is that described in Article 4 of the 1900 Convention as modified by
Spain and France in accordance with Article 8 and Annex 1 of the 1900 Convention
and international law. There are two geographic areas along the land boundary that
are of particular relevance to the determination of the Legal Titles applicable
between the Parties: the Utamboni River Area in the southwest and the Kie River
Area in the northeast. These areas are depicted on Figure 2.6 (following page 14).
The Utamboni River Area is centred around the Utamboni River and
its tributaries in the south-western region of Rio Muni/north-western coastal region
of Gabon on Corisco Bay and is depicted at Figure 2.7 (following Figure 2.6). The
western half of this area is low-lying while the eastern half is occupied by the
Crystal Mountains, a range that runs north-south from Equatorial Guinea’s Rio
Muni region into Gabon. The Utamboni River rises in the Crystal Mountains in Rio
Muni and then crosses the 1° north parallel twice before empting into the Muni
River near the coast on Corisco Bay.
The most significant population centres in this area are the Equatorial
Guinea towns of Asobla, Mibonde-Elon and Midyobo. The data available to
Equatorial Guinea indicates that there are no significant Gabonese towns in the
Utamboni River Area.

15
The Kie River Area is centred on the north-flowing Kie River in the
north-eastern region of Rio Muni/north-western region of Gabon and is depicted at
Figure 2.8 (following page 16). The Kie, a tributary of the Ntem or Campo River
in Cameroon, rises southeast of the city of Mongomo. The Kie flows north between
Equatorial Guinea and Gabon before crossing the undefined boundary between
Equatorial Guinea and Cameroon. North of this boundary, the Kie forms the
boundary between Cameroon and Gabon pursuant to the 1908 French-German
Treaty, which adopted natural features in place of the rectilinear boundaries
described in the 1885 French-German Protocol. From its source to the Cameroon
boundary, the Kie River crosses the meridian 9 degrees East of Paris at least four
times.
As detailed in Chapter 3, there have long been a number of Spanish
and Equatoguinean towns and villages along the western bank of the Kie River.
The most important of these are Ebebiyin (currently the capital city of Kie-Ntem
Province), Alen and Mongomo (currently capital city of Wele-Nzas Province).
Since Spain began to develop them in the early 20th Century, Ebebiyin and
Mongomo have grown from small villages, and later Spanish military posts, into
major Equatorial Guinean cities bounded on the east by the Kie River. The nearest
large Gabonese populations centres, Bitam and Oyem (currently the capital city of
Gabon’s Wele-Ntem Province) are some 20 to 25 kilometres east of the Kie.
16
[page intentionally left blank]

17
CHAPTER 3
THE COLONIAL HISTORY AND THE LEGAL TITLES ACQUIRED
BY SPAIN AND FRANCE
This Chapter describes the history of Spain and France’s
acquisition of territorial sovereignty, respectively, over the territories that today
make up Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, including the continental territories of
both States and Spain’s acquisition and exercise of sovereignty over the islands
of Corisco Bay. It sets out the history of the region before 1900 (A); the 1900
Convention (B); and the territorial relationship between Spain and France, up to
Gabon’s independence in 1960, and between Spain and Gabon from 1960 to
Equatorial Guinea’s independence in 1968 (C).
I. The Period Before the 1900 Convention
Spain’s Legal Titles to the territory that is now Equatorial Guinea
have their origins in the Treaty of El Pardo of 24 March 1778 (the “1778
Treaty”).23 Portugal—in exchange for the island of Santa Catalina and the colony
of Sacramento (both in South America)—ceded to Spain the islands of Fernando
Póo (present day Bioko) and Annobón.24 Portugal also ceded to Spain the right
to engage in commerce in the Gulf of Guinea from Cape Formozo (situated at the
mouth of the Niger River) to Cape López (south of the Gabon River). Figure 3.1
(following page 18) is a contemporaneous map of the geography covered by the
1778 Treaty. Shortly after signing the 1778 Treaty, Spain took possession of
23 Kingdom of Spain, Negotiations with France to Sign a Border Treaty Between the Spanish and
French Possessions on the West Coast of Africa, 1899-1900 No. 2 Report by the Political Section
in Regard to the Foregoing Royal Order (22 November 1899), p. 5. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 53.
24 Treaty of Amity, Guarantee, and Commerce between Portugal and Spain, Signed at El Pardo (11
March 1778), Art. 13. MEG, Vol. III, Annex 1.
18
Fernando Pó and Annobon. It later took possession of the islands in Corisco Bay,
where it established trading posts to engage in trade along the rivers flowing into
Corisco Bay (the Muni River and the Mondah River) and along the Gabon
River.25 These islands included the Elobey Islands as well as Corisco and its
dependencies, such as Mbañe. Spain also took possession of a short section of
the mainland coast from south of the mouth of the Muni River to a point north of
Cape San Juan.
Historical references to Spain’s title to the Corisco Dependencies
begin in the 1840s. In 1841, an English warship destroyed a Spanish commercial
installation on Corisco Island. Spain sent a naval expedition to Corisco in 1843
to reassert its sovereign control. The leader of that expedition, Captain Juan José
de Lerena, issued a Declaration of Spanish Sovereignty for Corisco Island on 16
March 1843 (“Declaration of Corisco”), which stated in pertinent part that:
“Spaniards have been established on the island of
Corisco for many years without any nation disputing
their possession and rights, … [and t]he entire
population has shown its loyalty to Spain,
proclaiming Queen Isabel as their ruler, …
I DECLARE to Commanders of any nation’s
warships that may come to this island of Corisco:
that; for the circumstances described and in the name
of the Regent of the Kingdom …, I declare it a
Spanish island, an integral part of the monarchy. The
display of any other nation’s flag on her is
prohibited. All her inhabitants and any foreigners
who trade on her are subject and bound by the
current laws governing the Spanish colonies and
25 Kingdom of Spain, Negotiations with France to Sign a Border Treaty Between the Spanish and
French Possessions on the West Coast of Africa, 1899-1900 No. 2 Report by the Political Section
in Regard to the Foregoing Royal Order (22 November 1899), pp. 5-6. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 53.

19
those that the Kingdom’s Parliament may enact in
the future.”26
The next day, as part of its colonial administration of Corisco and
its dependencies, Spain named King Baldomero Boncoro as Pilot of Corisco Bay
and Chief of the Southern Point of Corisco Island.27
On 18 February 1846, Boncoro’s successor, King I. Orejeck
(Boncoro II) of Corisco Island, Elobey and their dependencies, signed a
document called a “Record of Annexation” with the Inspector General of the
Spanish Possessions in the Gulf of Guinea.28 In that document, King I. Orejeck
recognized that “the Island of Corisco, Elobey and their current dependencies are
Spanish”, and he pledged obedience to the laws of Spain.29 Pursuant to that
document and the earlier Declaration of Corisco, the Spanish Inspector General
issued a “Letter of Spanish Citizenship given to the inhabitants of Corisco”,
affirming that Corisco “and its dependencies, among which is the islet of Elobey,
are Spanish”, and that “the inhabitants of Corisco and dependencies enjoy the
same protection as Spanish residents of the motherland”.30
Spain’s claim of Legal Title to the Island of Corisco and its
dependencies was further asserted in a declaration of Spanish sovereign
26 Kingdom of Spain, Royal Commissioner for the Islands Fernando Póo, Annobón and Corisco on
the Coast of Africa, Declaration of Corisco (16 March 1843). MEG, Vol. V, Annex 110.
27 Kingdom of Spain, Original Documents on the Annexation to Spain of Corisco, Elobey and their
Dependencies (17 March 1843), p. 2. MEG, Vol. V, Annex 111.
28 Kingdom of Spain, Ministry of State, Record of Annexation (18 February 1846). MEG, Vol. V,
Annex 112.
29 Ibid., p. 2.
30 Kingdom of Spain, Ministry of State, Letter of Spanish Citizenship Given to the Inhabitants of
Corisco, Elobey and their Dependencies (18 February 1846), pp. 2-3 (emphasis added). MEG, Vol.
IV, Annex 47.
20
possession signed on 21 July 1858 by Carlos Chacón, Governor General of the
Islands of Fernando Poo, Annobon, Corisco and dependencies, during his
expedition to Corisco.31 No European State challenged Spain’s sovereignty.
By the late 1800s, the stretch of West African coast referred to in
the 1778 Treaty between Spain and Portugal was occupied not only by Spain but
also by Germany to the north and France to the south.32 As of 1884, all three
colonial powers—Spain, France and Germany—maintained posts along parts of
the coast between the German-held areas north of the Campo (Ntem) River and
French-held areas south of Corisco Bay.
In 1885, Germany entered into a border treaty with France, ceding
to France its possessions south of the line from the Atlantic coast formed by “the
Campo river to the 10th meridian, and thence from the point of intersection, the
parallel of latitude to the 15th meridian.”33 The area south of German territory
was also claimed by Spain.34
The same year, France and Spain appointed a mixed commission
to resolve the countries’ competing territorial claims in West Africa. The mixed
31 The Spanish State, Ministry of State, Letter Reaffirming Spanish Possession of the Island of
Corisco (21 July 1858). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 48.
32Kingdom of Spain, Negotiations with France to Sign a Border Treaty Between the Spanish and
French Possessions on the West Coast of Africa, 1899-1900 No. 2 Report by the Political Section
in Regard to the Foregoing Royal Order (22 November 1899), p. 5. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 53.
33 US Department of State, International Boundary Study No. 115, Cameroon – Gabon Boundary
(24 September 1971), p. 4. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 158, citing Protocol relating to the German and
French Possessions on the West African Coast. Signed at Berlin, December 24, 1885 [Ratifications
exchanged at Berlin, July 28, 1886]. Edward Hertslet, The Map of Africa by Treaty, 3 vols. 3rd
Edition (London: Harrison and Sons, 1909) (Vol. 2, p. 653-4).
34Kingdom of Spain, Negotiations with France to Sign a Border Treaty Between the Spanish and
French Possessions on the West Coast of Africa, 1899-1900 No. 2 Report by the Political Section
in Regard to the Foregoing Royal Order (22 November 1899), pp. 7-8. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 53.
21
commission met between 1886 and 1891. Its negotiations were referred to as the
“Conference on the Delimitation in West Africa” (the “Conference”).
At the time of the Conference, Spain had claimed title to the
African coast from the Campo (Ntem) River in the north to Cape Santa Clara in
the south. From that coast Spain’s territorial claim extended inland to the
meridian that ran 17º East of Greenwich. Spain claimed as the northern limit of
its territory the limit with German territory, and as the southern limit “the dividing
line between the waters of the Munda and the Gabon [rivers],”35 thus creating a
substantial area of overlapping claims between Spain and France. The territorial
situation among Spain, France and Germany after 1885 can be seen on Figure
3.2 (following page 22).
There was no dispute, however, in regard to Corisco Island or any
of the islands or islets of Corisco Bay. France acknowledged that Spain had title
to Corisco and its dependencies. At the Conference meeting on 17 December
1886, the French delegation presented a memorandum in response to arguments
Spain made at prior meetings regarding the extent of the territories it acquired by
virtue of Spain’s annexation of Corisco. In addressing the meaning of
“dependencies of Corisco”, the French memorandum stated that “[t]he
geographical dependencies of Corisco are: Laval [Leva] and the one called
Baynia [Mbañe]”.36 The following year, at another Conference meeting on
35 Ibid., p. 5.
36 French-Spanish Commission, Conference on the Delimitation in West Africa, Archives of the
French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Annex to Protocol No. 17 (24 December 1886), p. 2 (“Les
dépendances géographiques de Corisco sont: Laval y celle nommée Baynia.”). MEG, Vol. III,
Annex 11.
22
26 December 1887, the head of the French delegation, referring to Spain’s 1843
Declaration of Corisco, stated:
“In effect, the [A]ct of 1843 is the one to which Spain
owes the annexation of Corisco and of its natural
dependencies, the islets of Laval [Leva] and Baynia
[Mbañe], included in the zone of the territorial
waters of that island.”37
The mixed commission concluded its work at the final Conference
meeting in July 1891, without resolving Spain and France’s conflicting claims to
the continental territory north of the Muni River.38
Talks to resolve this dispute resumed in 1900. In the interim,
additional documents and correspondence between Spain and France during the
1890s confirmed their shared understanding that Spain had Legal Title to Corisco
Island, and to Mbañe as a dependency of Corisco. Spain received reports in
November 1895 that France might be planning to occupy Mbañe. In response,
the Spanish Governor General of Fernando Poo wrote to the Minister of Overseas
Possessions in Madrid that Spain would be within its full rights to object to any
French occupation of Mbañe based on Spain’s “possession since time
immemorial”. He also expressed the understanding that Mbañe did not fall within
37 French-Spanish Commission, Conference on the Delimitation in West Africa, Archives of the
French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Protocol No. 30 (16 September 1887), p. 13 (“En effet, l’acte
de 1843 est celui auquel l’Espagne doit l’annexion de Corisco et de ses dépendances naturelles, les
îlots Laval et Baynia, compris dans la zone des eaux territoriales de cette île.”). MEG, Vol. III,
Annex 3.
38 Kingdom of Spain, Negotiations with France to Sign a Border Treaty Between the Spanish and
French Possessions on the West Coast of Africa, 1899-1900 No. 2 Report by the Political Section
in Regard to the Foregoing Royal Order (22 November 1899), p. 11. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 53.
There is no indication that any member of the mixed commission ever visited the territory of Guinea
they were discussing or had any detailed knowledge of local circumstances.

23
the territories in dispute between France and Spain.39 The Spanish Governor
General then travelled to the area to prevent the French from “setting foot” on
Mbañe, and to defend Spain’s title to that island.40
The Spanish Governor General also sent a letter to the General
Commissar of the French Congo protesting certain French actions in Corisco
Bay. With regard to Mbañe, the Governor General wrote:
“Furthermore, the fishermen from Corisco have
brought to my attention that, upon traveling to the
Embagna [Mbañe] Islet, located 6 miles southeast of
Corisco Island, to conduct their fishing activity, they
were ordered to leave by a French agent because
France intends to establish a new post at that
location. Since Corisco belongs to Spain, Embagna
[Mbañe] is a dependency attached thereto. And
while it cannot be conclusively established that the
inhabitants of Corisco have a permanent residence in
that area, there is no question that the use they have
been making of it since time immemorial amounts to
a right of possession. And this is a right that Spain
cannot relinquish, let alone acquiesce to its being
supplanted by a French agent’s occupation, which
would constitute a violation of the status quo.”41
Significantly, the French General Commissar did not refute or
contest the Spanish Governor General’s assertions of Spanish title to Mbañe.
Rather, in his response of 4 February 1896, he simply denied the reports of a
planned French occupation, stating that “[t]he information that [your letter]
39 Kingdom of Spain, Letter No. 367 from the Governor-General of Fernando Póo to the Minister
of Overseas Possessions (2[1] November 1895), p. 3. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 49.
40 Kingdom of Spain, Ministry of Overseas, Visit from the Governor-General of Elobey (1897).
MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 52.
41 Letter No. 368 from the Spanish Governor-General of Fernando Póo to the General Commissioner
of the French Congo (22 November 1895), pp. 1-2. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 50.
24
mentions regarding establishing a post on an islet located 6 miles to the SE of
Corisco is unfounded.”42
Contemporaneous French source maps from that period further
corroborate the colonial powers’ shared understanding that Mbañe belonged to
Spain.43 A map from the “Atlas des Colonies Françaises” of 1899, the relevant
portion of which is depicted in Figure 3.3 (following this page), indicates that
Corisco and “Baynia [Mbañe]” are Spanish territories with the notation “(E)” for
“Espagne”.44 Another French map from 1900 identifies both the Island of Corisco
and the Bay of Corisco together as a single unit belonging to Spain.45
Thus, in the period before the Spanish-French 1900 Convention,
both Spain and France recognized Spain’s Legal Title to the dependencies of
Corisco by Spain’s effective occupation and possession “since time
immemorial”. Both States acknowledged that the islet of Mbañe was a
dependency of Corisco. The only disputed title between Spain and France was in
regard to continental territory, not any of the islands.
42 Letter No. 203 from the Commissioner-General of the Colonial Administration of the French
Republic to the Governor-General of Fernando Póo and Dependencies of the Kingdom of Spain (4
February 1896), p. 1 (“Les informations qu’elle mentionne au sujet de l’établissement d’un poste
sur un ilot situe à 6 milles au S.E. de Corisco sont dénuées de fondement.”). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex
51.
43 Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 554, para. 56
(describing maps as providing “evidence of an auxiliary or confirmatory kind”).
44 Figure 3.3 (Atlas of French Colonies, Map of the Congo (1899)).
45 Atlas Larousse, French Colonies of Africa, 1900. MEG, Vol. II, Annex M1.

25
II. The 1900 Convention and the Legal Titles Recognized During the
Remainder of the Colonial Period
In November 1899, Spain proposed to renew negotiations with
France regarding the two States’ African territories. France accepted the proposal
in March 1900.46
Three months later, on 27 June 1900, Spanish and French
representatives signed the 1900 Convention, which entered into force on 27
March 1901.47 The 1900 Convention acknowledged Spain’s long-standing title
to Corisco Island and the Elobey Islands.48 It did not specifically mention the
Corisco Dependencies, but like Spain’s islands of Fernando Poo, Annobon and
Corisco, their legal situation did not change with the signing of the 1900
Convention. By their subsequent conduct, Spain and France continued to
manifest their understanding that Spain’s title to Corisco Island included
sovereignty over these dependencies. In regard to continental territory, the 1900
Convention settled the dispute between the two colonial powers on the West
46 See Kingdom of Spain, Negotiations with France to Sign a Border Treaty Between the Spanish
and French Possessions on the West Coast of Africa, 1899-1900 No. 2 Report by the Political
Section in Regard to the Foregoing Royal Order (22 November 1899), pp. 14-15, Ambassador of
France to the President of Council of Ministers, 24 January 1900. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 53;
Kingdom of Spain, Negotiations with France to Sign a Border Treaty Between the Spanish and
French Possessions on the West Coast of Africa, 1899-1900 No. 2 Report by the Political Section
in Regard to the Foregoing Royal Order (22 November 1899), pp. 15-16, President of Council of
Ministers to Ambassador of France, 29 January 1900. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 53. The two States
agreed for the negotiations to take place in Paris. Kingdom of Spain, Negotiations with France to
Sign a Border Treaty Between the Spanish and French Possessions on the West Coast of Africa,
1899-1900 No. 2 Report by the Political Section in Regard to the Foregoing Royal Order (22
November 1899), p. 17, Ambassador of France to the President of Council of Ministers, 2 February
1900. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 53.
47 Special Convention on the Delimitation of Spanish and French Possessions in Western Africa on
Coasts of the Sahara and the Gulf of Guinea, between the Kingdom of Spain and The French
Republic (signed. 27 June 1900, ratified 27 March 1901). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 4.
48 Ibid., art. 7.
26
Coast of Africa by providing for the delimitation of their common land boundary,
as discussed in more detail in Subsection 2 below. Article 4 of the Convention
described the course of the land boundary between the Spanish territory of Río
Muni and French Congo, as running along the thalweg of the Muni and Utamboni
Rivers near the coast and then along the line of latitude 1 degree North (hereafter
“1º North parallel”) until turning north to follow the line of longitude 9 degrees
East of Paris (hereafter “9º East of Paris meridian”) to the boundary with German
Kameroon. The 1900 Convention, in Article 8 and Annex 1, provided that the
exact boundary would be demarcated by the two States’ commissioners or local
delegates, authorizing them to modify the boundary to take into account natural
features and human settlements.
REFERENCES TO THE CORISCO DEPENDENCIES IN THE
HISTORICAL RECORD FROM 1900 TO 1960
While the Corisco Dependencies are very small features, they
appear with relative frequency in the historical record after 1900. The former
Royal Commissioner of the Spanish Possessions in West Africa visited Corisco
Bay and reported that in 1907 the island of Mbañe was “inhabited by a family
whose head of household is deputized with our authority.”49
In 1908, letters and cables were exchanged among the Spanish
Minister of State in Madrid, the Governor General of Spanish Guinea, and the
Sub-Governor of Elobey and its dependencies, regarding the Corisco
Dependencies. The Minister of State requested that local authorities in Spanish
Guinea look into the veracity of rumours of a possible French occupation of
49 D. Saavedra y Magdalena, SPAIN IN WEST AFRICA (RIO DE ORO AND GUINEA) (1910), p. 4. MEG,
Vol. VII, Annex 222.
27
Mbañe. Both the Governor and Sub-Governor concluded that the rumours were
not true and that Spanish sovereignty was “incontestable”.50 Out of an abundance
of caution, however, the Spanish Governor ordered the Sub-Governor to station
Spanish guards on Mbañe and Leva:
“with regard to the islets of Mbañe and Leva, over
which our sovereignty is indisputable … proceed
immediately to ensure that they be occupied and our
glorious flag be raised upon them, for which purpose
I send you with this steamer eight guards that will be
based at the post on Corisco, to give service in the
occupation of said islets, with a pair or sentinel of the
eight individuals continuously stationed on each one,
and the pairs will be relieved weekly.”51
In 1911, a Spanish official visited Corisco Island and other
Spanish territories in Corisco Bay. The General Government of Fernando Póo
and its Dependencies reported to the Minister of State that Spain continuously
deployed officials on the Corisco Dependencies, writing:
“To the southeast of the island [Corisco] you can see
the small islands of Bahia [Mbañe] where two people
in charge of raising the Spanish flag in those
locations live. They rotate constantly and they
receive a small salary provided by the
Subgovernor.”52
50 Letter from the Sub-Governor of Elobey to the Governor of Spanish Territories of the Gulf of
Guinea (19 May 1908). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 60; Letter of the Minister of State of the Kingdom
of Spain (18 May 1908). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 59.
51 Letter of the Minister of State of the Kingdom of Spain (18 May 1908), p. 2. MEG, Vol. IV,
Annex 59.
52 Report from Spanish Official of the Kingdom of Spain to the Minister of State (18 November
1911), p. 46. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 61.
28
This continuing deployment of Spanish officials on the Corisco
Dependencies was also reported by the former Governor General of Spain’s
continental African territories: in his 1912 book he wrote that Mbañe was
occupied “by an encampment of the Colonial Guard, the purpose of which is to
exercise our sovereignty over it”.53
No further incidents regarding Mbañe or the other Corisco
Dependencies appear in the historical record until December 1942, when the
vessel Pierre Loti sank near Mbañe. In a June 1943 communication describing
the possibility of raising the ship, a British official in Libreville recognized that
the shipwreck was located adjacent to Spanish territory:
“The opinion of the people on the spot (Mackenzie
and Binge) at Libreville, backed up by the opinion
given by various ‘Empire’ tug masters who have
recently visited the ship, and who have had
considerable salvage experience, is that there is no
possibility of getting the ship off, and that it is
inadvisable to risk other vessels standing by in those
waters which are adjacent to a Spanish colony.”54
In a communication dated 4 September 1954, the Spanish
Ministry of the Navy concluded that the Pierre Loti was in Spanish waters, and
attached a sketch map of the location of the vessel, in close proximity to Mbañe.
Figure 3.4 (following this page) shows this sketch map in Panel A and then
shows in Panel B the image of the sketch maps superimposed on a geographically
53 L. Ramos-Izquierdo y Vivar, GEOGRAPHICAL DESCRIPTION AND GOVERNMENT,
ADMINISTRATION AND COLONIZATION OF THE SPANISH COLONIES OF THE GULF OF GUINEA (1912),
p. 3. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 223.
54 The United Kingdom, Ministry of War Transport, Report on Libreville and Port Gentil (22 June
1943), p. 6. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 80.

29
accurate rendition of this area of Corisco Bay.55 The wreck of Pierre Loti has
remained in place and has appeared on nautical charts ever since.
The next reference to the Corisco Dependencies in the historical
record regards the construction of a beacon on Cocoteros in 1955. In 1953, the
French Government requested permission from Spain to allow a French
hydrographic ship named Beautemps-Beaupré to visit Spanish territory as part of
its technical survey of Corisco Bay.56 In 1954, Spain granted the French ship
permission to place buoys and beacons in Spanish territory, provided that they
were temporary and that the French gave prior notification to Spanish
authorities.57
On 17 February 1955, the Spanish Governor General wrote to the
Director General of Morocco and Colonies in Madrid about a communication he
received from the Spanish Sub-Governor of the Continental District.58 The
Governor General indicated that local civilians had reported that construction
work was being carried out on Cocoteros.59 The Governor General dispatched the
Colonial Coast Guard to investigate.60
55 The Spanish State, Telegram No. 1001-2 from the Ministry of the Navy to the General Directorate
of Morocco and Colonies (4 September 1954). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 82.
56 Letter No. 223 from the Embassy of the Republic of France to the Spanish State to the Spanish
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (7 May 1953). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 79.
57 The Spanish State, Letter No. 87 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Department of
Morocco and Colonies (24 February 1954). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 81; Letter from the Governor-
General of the Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea to the High Commissioner for French
Equatorial Africa (22 March 1955), para. 1. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 93.
58 The Spanish State, Letter No. 20-R from the Governor General of Santa Isabel to the General
Directorate of Morocco and Colonies (17 February 1955). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 83.
59 Ibid.
60 Ibid.
30
The Spanish Colonial Guard investigated and found that a group
of 11 people under authority of officials in French Congo were building a
navigation beacon on Cocoteros.61 The Spanish Governor General then informed
officials in Madrid that the French had not received permission to construct the
beacon as part of the authorizations given to Beautemps-Beaupré in 1954. In a
telegram dated 19 February 1955 to the Director General of Morocco and
Colonies in Madrid, the Spanish Governor General wrote:
“because it is deemed that work is being performed
within Spanish jurisdiction, I am ordering that the
Puerto Iradier62 Administrator meet with the French
Coco-Beach[63] Administrator to demand
clarification on why timely authorization was not
requested.”64
In a subsequent letter dated 22 February 1955, the Spanish
Governor General informed the Director General in Madrid that the Spanish
Territorial Administrator had, as ordered, met with the French Head of the
District in Coco-Beach to discuss the matter. According to the Governor
General’s letter, the French District Head indicated that he was not aware of the
construction because it was being carried out by Naval authorities in
Brazzaville.65 In a 26 February 1955 coded telegram, the Spanish Director
61 Ibid.
62 Currently known as Cogo, Puerto Iradier was a port town on the Muni estuary in Rio Muni from
which the Spanish colonial administration would operate.
63 Cocobeach is a town in north-western Gabon on the south bank of the mouth of the Muni River,
and was also the name of an administrative district during French colonial rule.
64 The Spanish State, Telegram No. 3 from the Governor of Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea
to the General Directorate of Morocco and Colonies (19 February 1955), p. 2. MEG, Vol. IV,
Annex 84.
65 The Spanish State, Letter from the Governor of Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea to the
General Directorate of Morocco and Colonies (22 February 1955). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 85.
31
General of Morocco and Colonies authorized the dispatch of Spanish forces to
Mbañe.66 On 28 February, a Spanish gun ship named Canovas del Castillo landed
Spanish Colonial Guard forces on Mbañe, “without incident”.67
Subsequently, on 8 March 1955, the Director General of Morocco
and Colonies ordered the Spanish Governor General to take action to suspend the
French construction of the beacon on Cocoteros.68 Spain decided upon this course
of action because the work appeared to exceed the prior authorization that had
been given to the French, and because ordering the suspension of the work would
most clearly affirm Spain’s title to Mbañe and Cocoteros.69 On 12 March, the
Spanish Governor General reported that he had directed the French Territorial
Administrator to suspend the work, and that the latter went to Cocoteros in person
to inform the head of the French construction crew that the construction should
be stopped and the island evacuated. The head of the construction crew informed
the French Territorial Administrator that he had just received orders from his
superiors that a French tugboat would arrive on 14 March to collect the workers
and the material, so that they could carry out the evacuation.70
66 The Spanish State, Telegram No. 8 from the Department of Morocco and Colonies to the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs (26 February 1955). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 86.
67 The Spanish State, Telegram No. 6 from the Governor of Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea
to the General Directorate of Morocco and Colonies (28 February 1955). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex
87.
68 The Spanish State, Telegram No. [ ]11 from the General Directorate of Morocco and Colonies
to the Governor of Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea (8 March 1955). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex
88.
69 The Spanish State, Memo No. 436 to the Department of Morocco and Colonies (10 March 1955)
(“the work suspension measure … is considered to be the most convenient to strengthen the Spanish
point of view regarding the statement of our sovereignty over the aforementioned Islet of Mbañe
and the sandbanks to the East of the Islet”). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 90.
70 The Spanish State, Telegram No. 7 from the Governor of Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea
to the Director-General of Morocco and Colonies (12 March 1955). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 91.
32
That same day, the High Commissar for French Equatorial Africa
sent a letter to the Spanish Governor General indicating his understanding that
the commander of the Spanish gun ship Canovas del Castillo had been informed
of the work and raised no objection.71 Noting this understanding, the letter sought
permission for the work to be allowed to continue.72 In response, the Spanish
Governor General reaffirmed Spain’s sovereignty over Mbañe and Cocoteros,
stated that the work was halted for exceeding the original authorization, and
indicated that Spain would be willing to have the beacon on Cocoteros finished
under Spanish authority.73 On 17 March 1955, the Spanish Territorial
Administrator reported that the order to evacuate the French workers from
Cocoteros had been carried out.74
A letter from the French Minister of Foreign Affairs to the
Minister of Overseas France, dated 6 May 1955, makes clear that France
recognized Spain’s title to the Corisco Dependencies, and that France had no
competing claim. The memorandum acknowledges:
“that the ‘Cocotier’ must be considered as following
the fate of Baynia Island, of which it is a geographical
dependency …
71 Letter from the High Commissioner for French Equatorial Africa to the Governor-General of the
Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea (14 March 1955). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 92.
72 Ibid.
73 Letter from the Governor-General of the Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea to the High
Commissioner for French Equatorial Africa (22 March 1955). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 93.
74 The Spanish State, Letter from the Governor-General of the Spanish Territories of the Gulf of
Guinea to the General Directorate of Morocco and Colonies (17 March 1955). MEG, Vol. IV,
Annex 89.
33
Over the past fifty years, Baynia Island was occupied
by the Spanish on several occasions, without protest
or alternate occupation by us.
Baynia [Mbañe] Island is located within the six
nautical mile-limit forming the boundary of Spanish
territorial waters. … [and that] the situation of the
islet within Corisco’s territorial waters places
[France] in a disadvantageous basic legal
position.”75
Subsequent reports indicate that the beacon was eventually
constructed on Cocoteros and used by the French hydrographic ship in its survey
of the area in 1955, both with Spain’s permission. Several navigational charts
show the location of the beacon, or its ruins, on Cocoteros. A map of Corisco Bay
that was published in 1960 by the French Hydrographic Service credits surveys
conducted in 1955 and 1957 by engineers on the vessel Beautemps-Beaupré.76 A
1958 article in a French hydrographic journal lists the coordinates for the beacon
on Cocoteros and specifies that the islet is Spanish.77
Spain’s legislation regarding its territories further reflects its
Legal Title to the Corisco Dependencies. A 1958 draft law on the reorganization
of the Spanish territories provided that the province of Guinea “shall include the
continental territory by the same name, the islands of Fernando Póo, Corisco,
75 The French Republic, Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Minister of Overseas
France (6 May 1955), pp. 3-4 (“l’îlot ‘Cocotier’ doit être considéré comme suivant le sort de l’île
Baynia dont il est une dépendance géographique … Que l’île Baynia a été à plusieurs reprises, au
cours des cinquantes dernières années occupée alternée de notre part. Que l’île Baynia se trouve
située à l’intérieur des six milles marins formant la limite des eaux territoriales espagnoles. … De
plus la situation de l’îlot à l’intérieur des eaux territoriales de Corisco nous place dans une position
juridique de base désavantageuse.”). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 94.
76 French Naval Hydrographic Service, Chart 6183, 1960. MEG, Vol. 2, Annex M2.
77 The French Republic, Navy Hydrographic Department, Lights and Fog Signals, English Channel
and Eastern Atlantic Ocean, [No. 212] (12 April 1958), p. 9. MEG, Vol. V, Annex 132.
34
Elobey Grande, Elobey Chico, and Annobón, and the islet of Mbañe.”78 In a later
draft of that law, the text “islet of Mbañe” was replaced with a reference to
“adjacent islets”.79 Changing the text from “islet of Mbañe” to “adjacent islets”
ensured the inclusion of Cocoteros and Conga along with Mbañe. The next year,
on 12 March 1959, the Spanish Head of State issued a decree reorganizing the
districts in Spanish Guinea. The district of Rio Benito included “the coastline of
Continental Guinea from the mouth of the Tubana River to the southern border
of the territory, as well as the islands of Corisco and the Elobeys, with the
adjacent islets”.80 The reference to “adjacent islets” was understood by other
States to include the Corisco Dependencies. The United Kingdom, for example,
understood that the reference to “adjacent islets” in the later version of the draft
law included Mbañe.81
On 15 June 1959, Spain issued a regulation offering blocks for the
exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbon resources in Spanish territory,
including the Gulf of Guinea. One of the blocks included “Elobey and Corisco
and their jurisdictional waters.”82 In November of the same year, Spain issued
78 The Spanish State, Bill on Terms for Reorganization of the Spanish Territories of Guinea (4
March 1958). MEG, Vol. V, Annex 131; The Spanish State, File D 474 Secret Document from the
General Directorate of Morocco and African Provinces to the Governor General of Santa Isabel (7
June 1958). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 95.
79 The Spanish State, Bill of Terms for Administration and Governance of the Provinces of Guinea
(22 June 1958), Term Four. MEG, Vol. V, Annex 133.
80 The Spanish State, Official Journal of the Navy, (No. 65), Decrees 72-73 (12 March 1959). MEG,
Vol. V, Annex 134.
81 The United Kingdom, Letter No. 10132/14 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the British
Embassy to The Spanish State (4 August 1959), p. 1 (“the Province of Rio Muni will comprise the
territories of continental Guinea and the islands of Corisco, Elobey Grande, Elobey Chico, and
Mbañe”). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 96.
82 The Spanish State, Decree 977/1959, of June 12, Approving the Regulation for Application of the
Law on the Legal Regime for the Exploration and Exploitation of Hydrocarbons (12 June 1959), p.
26. MEG, Vol. V, Annex 135.
35
an oil and gas concession based on this regulation to the Spanish Gulf Oil
Company and the Compañía Española de Petróleos, S.A.U (“CEPSA”).83 A map
produced by Spanish Gulf Oil Co. in 1960, seen at Figure 3.5 (following page
36), shows Corisco, Mbañe, and Conga as Spanish islands, as well as what
appears to be an equidistance line maritime boundary with Gabon drawn using
those islands as Spanish base points.84 Neither France, before 1960, nor Gabon
after its independence, protested this concession.
THE HISTORICAL RECORD REGARDING LEGAL TITLE TO CONTINENTAL
TERRITORY FOLLOWING THE 1900 CONVENTION
The 1900 Convention settled the Spanish and French claims to
possessions along the West Coast of Africa by providing for the delimitation of
neighbouring Spanish and French territories in both Saharan and sub-Saharan
Africa. Of relevance to the dispute before the Court, Article 4 of the 1900
Convention described the course of the agreed boundary between the Spanish
territory of Río Muni and neighbouring French territory. As described, the line
started in the Bay of Corisco at the intersection of the thalweg of the Muni River
with a straight line drawn from Cocobeach to Punta Diéké. From there, the
boundary followed the thalweg of the Muni River to the east and then that of the
Utamboni River up to the latter’s first intersection with the parallel of latitude
running 1º North, which it then followed eastward to the meridian running 9º East
of Paris. There the line turned north and followed the meridian 9º East of Paris to
83 H. D. Hedberg, “Summary of Wildcat Drilling in 1959” Petroleum Developments in Africa
(1959). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 227.
84 Figure 3.5 (Spanish Gulf Oil Co., Map Showing the Zone of Interest Near the Boundary between
Spanish Guinea and Gabon (1961)). Circular No. 142 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the
State of Spain to the Ambassadors of the Spanish State to the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, to The
Gabonese Republic, to The Ethiopian Empire, The French Republic, and the Permanent
Representative at the United Nations (19 September 1972). MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 163.
36
the southern boundary of the then German colony of Kamerun. The course of this
boundary was depicted in Annex 3 to the 1900 Convention, which is reproduced
below at Figure 3.6 (following Figure 3.5).85
At the time they executed the 1900 Convention, Spain and France
had only a limited understanding of the geography of the area they were agreeing
to divide between themselves. This lack of knowledge was reflected in the map
at Annex 3 of the 1900 Convention at Figure 3.6. There is an absence of detailed
information about the largely unexplored hinterland in the east. While the
colonial powers were familiar with the courses of the Muni and Utamboni
(“Outemboni” on the Annex 3 map) Rivers near the coast, they were less
informed about the course and locations of rivers farther inland. For this reason,
Annex 1 of the Convention recognized that the lines of demarcation on the maps
annexed to the Convention were not “absolutely correct” and that further surveys
in the field would be required:
“Although the lines of demarcation traced on the
maps attached to this Convention (appendices
numbers 2 and 3) are generally assumed to be
accurate, these lines cannot be considered an
absolutely correct representation until confirmed by
new maps.”86
85 Special Convention on the Delimitation of Spanish and French Possessions in Western Africa on
Coasts of the Sahara and the Gulf of Guinea, between the Kingdom of Spain and The French
Republic (signed. 27 June 1900, ratified 27 March 1901), Art. 8 provides that “[t]he boundaries
delimited by this Convention shall be recorded on the attached maps (appendices numbers 2 and 3)
with the reservations made in appendix no. 1 to this Convention.” (“Les frontières déterminées par
la présente Convention sont inscrites sous les réserves formulées dans l’annexe numéro 1 a la
présente Convention, sur les cartes ci-jointes (annexes numéros 2 et 3).”). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 4.
This is the only cartographic representation of the boundary described in Article 4 that is included
in the 1900 Convention itself.
86 Special Convention on the Delimitation of Spanish and French Possessions in Western Africa on
Coasts of the Sahara and the Gulf of Guinea, between the Kingdom of Spain and The French
Republic (signed. 27 June 1900, ratified 27 March 1901), Appendix 1 (“Bien que le tracé des lignes

37
To enable and facilitate any correction of the lines of delimitation
that may have been required, the Convention provided for a streamlined process
for modifying the boundaries described in Article 4, based on the work of
commissioners or local officials. In this respect, Annex 1 provided:
“Therefore, it is agreed that the Commissioners or
local Delegates of both Nations that are subsequently
responsible for delimiting the boundaries on the
ground of all or some of the boundaries, shall use as
a basis the description of the boundaries as
established in the Convention. At the same time, they
may modify said lines of demarcation in order to
delimit them more accurately and to rectify the
position of the dividing lines of roads, rivers, cities,
or villages indicated on the above-mentioned
maps.”87
Annex 1 further provided that:
“The changes or corrections proposed by mutual
agreement by said Commissioners or Delegates shall
be submitted to the respective Governments for
approval.”88
de démarcation sur les cartes annexes a la présente Convention (annexes numéros 2 et 3 soit supposé
être généralement exact, il ne peut être considéré comme une représentation absolue, correcte de
ces lignes, jusqu’à ce qu’il ait été confirmé par de nouveaux levés.”). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 4.
87 Special Convention on the Delimitation of Spanish and French Possessions in Western Africa on
Coasts of the Sahara and the Gulf of Guinea, between the Kingdom of Spain and The French
Republic (signed. 27 June 1900, ratified 27 March 1901), Appendix 1 (“Il est donc convenu que les
Commissaires ou Délégués locaux des deux Pays qui seront chargés, par la suite, de délimiter tout
ou partie des frontières sur le terrain, devront se baser sur la description des frontières telle qu’elle
est formulée dans la Convention. Il leur sera loisible, en même temps, de modifier les dites lignes
de démarcation en vue de les déterminer avec une plus grande exactitude et de rectifier la position
des lignes de partage des chemins ou rivières, ainsi que des villes ou villages indiqués dans les
cartes susmentionnées.”). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 4.
88 Special Convention on the Delimitation of Spanish and French Possessions in Western Africa on
Coasts of the Sahara and the Gulf of Guinea, between the Kingdom of Spain and The French
Republic (signed. 27 June 1900, ratified 27 March 1901), Appendix 1 (“Les changements ou
38
Article 8 of the Convention set out the parties’ commitment to
appoint Commissioners who would be responsible for delimiting the boundary
on the ground, and for proposing the modifications referenced in Annex 1:
“Both Governments agree to designate
Commissioners, within four months of exchanging
ratifications, who shall be responsible for tracing on
the ground the demarcation lines between the
Spanish and French possessions, in accordance with
and in the spirit of the provisions of the present
Convention.”89
By this provision, France and Spain subjected the straight lines
described in Article 4 and drawn on the map included in Annex 3 to the
reservations and corrective procedures made in Annex 1. Further, they agreed to
designate, within four months from the date of the exchange of ratifications, their
respective Commissioners who would be charged with drawing the demarcation
lines on the ground reflecting the “spirit” of the Convention and proposing how
the boundary described in Article 4 should be modified.
In keeping with these commitments, shortly after ratification,
Spain and France undertook to delimit on the ground the boundary between
Spanish Guinea and the French territories through the appointment of a binational
corrections proposes d’un commun accord par les dits Commissaires ou Délégués seront soumis à
l’aprobation des Gouvernements respectifs.”). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 4.
89 Special Convention on the Delimitation of Spanish and French Possessions in Western Africa on
Coasts of the Sahara and the Gulf of Guinea, between the Kingdom of Spain and The French
Republic (signed. 27 June 1900, ratified 27 March 1901), Art. 8 (“Les deux Gouvernements
s’engagent a designer, dans le délai de quatre mois à compter de la date de l’échange des
ratifications, des Commissaires qui seront chargés de tracer sur les lieux les lignes de démarcation
entre les possessions espagnoles et françaises, en conformité et suivant l’esprit des dispositions de
la présente Convention.”). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 4.
39
commission, known as the Franco-Spanish Delimitation Commission (the “1901
Commission”).
The 1901 Commission was headed by the French Commissioner,
M. Bonnel de Mézières, and the Spanish Commissioner, Don Eladio Lopez
Vilches. By correspondence dated 19 June 1901, the French Minister of Colonies
instructed M. Bonnel de Mézières that the Commissioners were “charged with
making a delineation of the French-Spanish possessions in the Gulf of Guinea, in
execution of the Agreement dated June 27, 1900.”90 The Members of the 1901
Commission understood that their mandate under Annex 1 of the 1901
Convention was to propose a boundary “that they find best reflects the spirit of
the treaty”.91
Based on this mandate, in 1903, the Commission finalized a
complete boundary proposal describing a line that followed natural and manmade
features, depicted on two maps, the locator inset of which is reproduced at
Figure 3.7 (following page 40).
The 1901 Commission started its work on 2 August 1901, by
determining the location of the thalweg at the mouth of the Río Muni on the
Atlantic coast, as per Article 4 of the 1900 Convention. From the mouth of the
Río Muni, the Commissioners moved east and inland along the southern frontier
90 Letter from the French Minister of Colonies to the Administrator of the Franco-Spanish
Delimitation Commission (19 June 1901), p. 1 (“qui est chargée de procéder à une délimitation des
possessions franco-espagnoles du golfe de Guinée, en exécution de la Convention du 27 Juin 1900
…”). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 55.
91 Franco-Spanish Delimitation Commission of the Gulf of Guinea, Border Project: Southern
Border (1 January 1902), p. 1 (“la plus conforme à l’esprit de la Convention”). MEG, Vol. III,
Annex 14.
40
of the Spanish territory of Río Muni and the northern frontier of French Congo.92
The first substantial modification they proposed was that the boundary should
continue to follow the Utamboni Mitombé Rivers, rather than the 1º North line
set out in Article 4 of the 1900 Convention:
“The [C]ommissioners propose as a natural border,
in this segment, the waterline [of the Muni River]
that is equidistant from the Spanish and French
lands.
The border will continue, in the same fashion, along
the Utamboni (Outemboni) River, becoming
conjoined with the line situated equidistant between
the two banks, up to the confluence of the Mitombé
River, leaving the island of Yingué (D’Jimbué)
under French dominion.
Starting from the confluence of the Mitombé River,
the natural border will travel along the midline of its
waters (defined as above) up to its source.”93
The 1901 Commission’s decision to follow the course of the
Utamboni, Mitombe and Miang Rivers, instead of the line of 1º North, was one
of many modifications to the boundary described in Article 4 of the Convention.94
This modification was consistent with its effort to delimit the boundary in
92 Itinerary Followed by the Commission for the Delimitation of the Gulf of Guinea (1900), p. 2.
MEG, Vol. III, Annex 12.
93 Franco-Spanish Delimitation Commission of the Gulf of Guinea, Border Project: Southern
Border (1 January 1902), pp. 3-4 (“Les Commissaires proposent d’adopter comme frontière
naturelle la ligne des eaux qui passe à égale distance des terres françaises & espagnoles. La frontière
suivra de même dans la rivière Utemboni (Outemboni) la ligne située à égale distance des rives,
jusqu’au confluent de la rivière Mitombé en laissant à la France l’Ile de Yigué (D’Jimbué). A partir
du confluent de la rivière Mitombé, la frontière naturelle remonterait la ligne moyenne de cette
rivière (définie comme ci-dessus) jusqu’à sa source.”). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 14.
94 The 1901 Commission also used the midpoint rather on the straight line drawn from Cocobeach
to Punta Diéké as the land boundary terminus rather than the intersection of that straight line with
the thalweg of the Muni River.

41
accordance with the spirit of the Convention. The Utamboni River, explicitly
mentioned in the 1900 Convention, is oriented generally parallel to the 1º North
line in its relevant reach and crosses that line twice. An extension of the proposed
boundary up the Utamboni River, which allowed both parties to access this
important channel of transportation and communication, was in the interests of
both of them, and reflected common practice in the delimitation of colonial
boundaries in Africa. For the same reason, the Commission recommended that
the boundary follow the Mitombe River—a tributary of the Utamboni River—
which runs near the 1º North line in a generally east to west direction and crosses
that line approximately 10 km from its confluence with the Utamboni River. The
boundary proposed by the 1901 Commission in the Utamboni River Area based
on the description in its report is rendered on a geographically accurate map at
Figure 3.8 following page 42.
During its work, the 1901 Commission identified several villages
in the Utamboni River area as having either Spanish or French “nationality”. It
assigned Spanish nationality to Assang and Mandung on the right (northern)
banks of the Utamboni and Mitombe rivers, and to Anguma, Ebé and Mebé
further east. It assigned French nationality to the villages of Mitombe on the left
(southern) bank of the Mitombe River, and to the village of Masile east of the
Mitombe.95 Although not expressly named, the villages of Kangañe, Asobla and
Umvan, also north of the Utamboni, fell within Spanish territory under the
Commission’s proposal. Likewise, the villages of M’Beto and Ekododo located
south of the Utamboni, although not expressly assigned French nationality, fell
95 Franco-Spanish Delimitation Commission of the Gulf of Guinea, “Table of the Villages
Recognized by the Delimitation Commission of Spanish Guinea with Names of Chiefs, Tribes, and
Nationality According to the Border Project (Southern Border)” (2 January 1902). MEG, Vol. III,
Annex 15
42
within French sovereignty as a result of the proposed boundary. These villages
are shown on Figure 3.8 (following this page).
Further to the east, the 1901 Commission continued to mark its
proposed boundary by reference to rivers, mountains, foot paths and villages. In
the Commission’s words:
“In this border project, the Commissioners used
bodies of water as natural land features, preferring
them to mountains …. Where there are no bodies of
water, the Commission used indigenous paths that
connect villages and also have a permanent nature
and are well-known among the inhabitants.”96
In practice, the Commission’s delimitation largely followed rivers
where a river was both considered to be in the vicinity of the 1º North line, or
was generally oriented east-west.
When the 1901 Commission reached the area of what it believed
to be the south-eastern corner of the Muni River, at what it thought was the
intersection of the meridian 9º East of Paris with the parallel of latitude running
1º North, it turned north and generally followed what it believed to be the
meridian until it intersected the northern boundary of Spain’s Muni River with
German Kamerun. The Commission again deviated from the description of the
boundary in the 1900 Convention in order to draw it in conformity with natural
and human-created features, instead of rigidly following a straight line. As it had
96 Franco-Spanish Delimitation Commission of the Gulf of Guinea, Border Project: Eastern Border
(1 January 1902), pp. 10-11 (“Dans ce projet de frontière, les Commissaires se sont servis des cours
d’eau comme accidents naturels du sol, de préférence aux montagnes …. Lorsqu’il n’y a pas eu de
cours d’eau, la Commission s’est servie des sentiers indigènes qui, reliant entre eux les villages,
présentent également un caractère de permanence & de notoriété parmi les habitants.”). MEG, Vol.
III, Annex 13.

43
done along the southern boundary, the work of the Commission prioritized rivers
to define the eastern boundary.
Despite its best efforts, however, the Commission’s work was in
part geographically inaccurate, and some of its proposed modifications were
therefore ill-founded. By 1907, both France and Spain understood that as the
Commission moved east from the Utamboni River and then north along what it
believed to be the 9º East of Paris meridian described in Article 4 of the 1900
Convention, it essentially lost its way and, inadvertently, ended up far from the
meridian.97 The Commissioners’ findings were thus increasingly inaccurate (by
reference to the requirements of the 1900 Convention), as they travelled north
through the eastern frontier area. By the time they reached the town of Mabentem,
which, for the Commission, represented the approximate northeast corner of
Spanish territory, they were, in fact, 80 kilometres west of the 9º East of Paris
meridian. It turned out that the natural features they used to determine the
boundary were not, in fact, the natural features in the vicinity of the actual 9º East
of Paris meridian. They, therefore, never encountered the rivers that flowed along
and in close proximity to that line, such as the Kie River, which flows along that
meridian from its source near the town of Mongomo in Equatorial Guinea into to
the boundary with Cameroon and beyond.
97 See The French Republic, Letter from the French Ministry of Colonies to Ministry of Foreign
Affairs (1907) (referring to a 50 km error in the demarcation work). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 55 bis;
Kingdom of Spain, Letter from the Minister of State Concerning the Borders of Congo and Spanish
Guinea (20 April 1907) (noting enormous discrepancies in demarcation work so far, and stating that
the German and French commissions deviated to the west of 9° East of Paris). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex
58; and Kingdom of Spain, Letter from the Colonial Section of the Ministry of State (20 April 1907)
(discussing inconsistencies in the boundary expeditions and discounting d’Almonte's maps (used
by the Spanish) as not verified astronomically and containing landmasses proven to be “pure
invention”). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 56.
44
Neither Spain nor France objected to the 1901 Commission’s use
of natural features to demarcate the boundary. In fact, both colonial powers
accepted the underlying premise that the boundary should take account of the
area’s natural and human geography, while following the general direction
indicated in the Convention. The problem was the Commission’s use of the
wrong natural features—far removed from the boundary generally described in
the 1900 Convention—in delimiting the boundary in the east up to German
Kamerun, which marked the northern limit of the territory delimited between
France and Spain at the time.
Thus, as described below, in the southwest, where the errors were
relatively minor, the parties accepted in practice the modified boundary proposed
by the Commission along the Utamboni, Mitombe and Miang rivers and its
designation of the nationality of towns to the east to the Spanish town of Mebé.
However, in the east, where the Commission’s errors were more significant,
Spain and France ultimately rejected the Commission’s proposals. Instead, they
eventually agreed to a boundary line in the northeast following the Kie River,
which is much closer to the 9º East of Paris meridian and follows the same
direction, from the river’s source southeast of Mongomo to its intersection the
southern limit of Cameroon’s territory. The map at Figure 3.9 (following this
page) compares the boundary described in Article 4 of the 1900 Convention with
the modifications in the southwest and northeast accepted by France and Spain
in practice, which, while generally adhering to the terms of Article 4, departed
from the prescribed straight lines to conform to the natural and human geography
of the border areas.
THE LAND BOUNDARY IN THE SOUTHWEST
Following the report of the 1901 Commission, Spain administered
the territory on its side of the boundary with France’s colonial possessions in the

45
southwest as proposed by the 1901 Commission. Its administration was
unchallenged by France, or by Germany, which briefly exercised sovereignty
over French territory in this area.
In particular, Spain administered the land in the Utamboni River
Area, including the principal towns of Asobla and Anguma. By 1905, Spain had
established an outpost in Asobla and the Spanish head of the outpost acted as a
judge.98 By 1907, Asobla functioned as a Spanish customs post.99 It also had
significant services, infrastructure, and personnel, including a delegation (and
housing for delegates), an infirmary staffed with medical professionals, a treasury
administration, and a postal service.100 Spain also maintained a police force in
Asobla, collected taxes, and gave the town an allocated budget.101 Asobla was a
particularly important outpost during the tenure of Governor Angel Barrera
(1908-1927), as he used it as a key station for his inland tours of the country,
98 Kingdom of Spain, Royal Order on Justice, Powers of Government Representatives (27 July
1905). MEG, Vol. V, Annex 113.
99 A. Barrera, “What They are and What They Should be: the Spanish Possessions in the Gulf of
Guinea” General Marine Review, Conference of the Royal Geographic Society (November 1907).
MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 57; L. Martín y Peinador, “Geographical Studies: Morocco and Spanish
Places, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli, Sahara and Spanish Sahara, Spanish Mainland and Island
Guinea, Moroccan Problem” (1908), pp. 6-7. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 221.
100 A. Barrera, “What They are and What They Should be: the Spanish Possessions in the Gulf of
Guinea” General Marine Review, Conference of the Royal Geographic Society (November 1907),
p. 6. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 57.
101 Royal Geographical Society, “Legislation and Provisions of the Central Administration”,
Magazine of Colonial and Mercantile Geography, Spain (1907), PDF pp. 2-3. MEG, Vol. VII,
Annex 220.
46
returning by motorboat from Asobla to Elobey.102 Asobla also served as the seat
of an administrative subdistrict within the district of Elobey.103
France had full knowledge of Spain’s administration of these
settlements on the Spanish side of the boundary proposed by the 1901
Commission in the Utamboni River Area. The French members of the Franco-
German Commission that had surveyed France’s boundary with the German
territory of Cameroon also informally surveyed France’s border with Spain while
returning from their 1905-1908 delimitation exercise. In his 1911 report on the
expedition, Captain Cottes, the leader of the French component of the Franco-
German Commission, reported on Spain’s occupation of the Utamboni River
Area.104 He observed that Spain effectively occupied the right (i.e., northern)
bank of the Utamboni River,105 which, being less swampy, was the easier bank
from which to exert control over this key export route. He therefore suggested
that it would be advantageous if France seized control of this area as it would
allow France to control (and tax) trade more effectively than it could from the
left bank at Ekodo and M’beto.106 Despite this recommendation, France made no
attempt to seize this Spanish territory, and took no action to challenge Spain’s
occupation or administration of the area.
102 L. Martín y Peinador, “Geographical Studies: Morocco and Spanish Places, Algeria, Tunisia and
Tripoli, Sahara and Spanish Sahara, Spanish Mainland and Island Guinea, Moroccan Problem”
(1908). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 221.
103 Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Decree on Territorial Division, Official Bulletin (1
March 1907). MEG, Vol. V, Annex 114.
104 The Cottes Mission to South Cameroon, Presentation of Scientific Results, According to Works
of Various Members of the French Section of the Commission for Delimitation Between the French
Congo and Cameroon (Southern Border) and the Documents Studied at the Museum of Natural
History (1911). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 16.
105 Ibid., p. 29.
106 Ibid.
47
From 1911 to about 1916, Germany administered the territory that
fell on the French side of the boundary in this area,107 by virtue of the Morocco-
Congo Treaty of 4 November 1911. Under German administration, the territory
was called “Neukamerun” – and was made a subdivision of the Kamerun colony.
Germany recognized that the straight lines described in the 1900 Convention
were “intangible lines not established on the ground,”108 and agreed with Spain
that they should be adjusted to follow “natural boundaries, preferably rivers and
the most notable land features, where rivers do not exist.”109
Thus, in 1914, a Spanish-German Commission (the “1914
Commission”) was tasked with demarcating the boundary in accordance with
107 M. DeLancey, “Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Cameroon,” 3rd. Ed., AFRICAN
HISTORICAL DICTIONARIES No. 81 (2000), p. 3 (“The New Kamerun territory remained part of
German Kamerun until 1916. Following the defeat of the Germans in the Kamerun Campaign of
World War I, the territory was returned to France as part of French Equatorial Africa”). MEG, Vol.
VII, Annex 231.
108 Kingdom of Spain, Letter from the Minister of State to the Ambassador of Spain to the German
Empire (4 February 1914), p. 1. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 62. See Vienna Convention on Succession
of States in respect of Treaties, UNITED NATIONS TREATY SERIES, Vol. 1946, p. 3 (23 August 1978),
Art. 11 (“A succession of States does not as such affect: (a) a boundary established by a treaty; or
(b) obligations and rights established by a treaty and relating to the regime or a boundary.”). This
is further evidenced by the fact that both Spain and France consistently affirmed the validity of the
1900 Convention after France succeeded back to the Neukamerun territory from 1919 up to the
critical date. See Letter No. 212 from the French Lieutenant Governor of Gabon to the Governor-
General of Spanish Territories in the Gulf of Guinea (16 August 1927), p. 2 (“Undoubtedly, the
boundaries determined in the Convention concluded between France and Spain on June 29, 1900,
have never been identified on land. But this lack of precision in our borders does not justify the
incursions described above, into villages which clearly are subject to our Government.”). MEG,
Vol. IV, Annex 76.
109 Kingdom of Spain, Letter from the Minister of State to the Ambassador of Spain to the German
Empire (4 February 1914), p. 2. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 62.
48
natural features.110 Its surveys were intended to become the permanent
boundaries “once approved by both the governments of Madrid and Berlin.”111
During the 1914 Commission’s reconnaissance of the area, the
lead German Commissioner, Dr. Olshausen, raised the question of Spanish
control of Asobla and the apparent inconsistency with the boundary described by
the text of Article 4 of the 1900 Convention, but it was ultimately decided to
define the boundary in the Utamboni River Area in the manner employed by the
1901 Commission, that is, along natural boundaries, especially rivers, and by
identifying the nationality of the towns in the area. The Commissioners traversed
the Utamboni River Area and proceeded east. However, when they reached
Acurenam, their work was interrupted by the start of World War I. Although they
were unable to complete their task of delimiting a natural boundary for the entire
territory, the Commission’s findings were sufficient to attribute certain towns in
the area to Spain or Germany. Figure 3.10 (following this page) depicts the towns
in the Utamboni River Area that the 1914 Commission attributed, respectively,
to Spain or Germany.
As can be seen in Figure 3.10, despite knowing that they were
located south of the parallel of 1º North—the boundary described in Article 4 of
the 1900 Convention—the 1914 Commission recognized that Assobla,
N’sogodam, Anguma and Mebé were all located in Spanish territory, and that the
town of Mitombe was in German (formerly French) territory.112 Spain thus
110 The German Empire, Report No. 4, Imperial German Muni Expedition, Dr. Olshausen (16 June
1914). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 63.
111 Kingdom of Spain, Letter from the Minister of State to the Ambassador of Spain to the German
Empire (4 February 1914), p. 3. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 62.
112 Decree Signed by the German Empire and the Kingdom of Spain for the Delimitation Between
Spanish Guinea and the Protectorate of Cameroon (18 August 1914). MEG, Vol. V, Annex 115.

49
continued to administer its territory from Asobla during Germany’s period of
sovereignty in Neukamerun. It completed several construction works in the town,
including a house for the post commander.113 A British Naval Intelligence Report
from 1916 indicated that Spaniards were the only Europeans that resided in
Asobla during this period.114 A United Kingdom Admiralty report covering the
period of September 1914 to May 1916 reported that the Spanish military post in
Asobla housed 1 sergeant and 40-50 soldiers.115 Germany never protested Spain’s
administration of the towns in the Utamboni River Area.
As World War I ended, the territories that constituted
Neukamerum reverted to French administration. This did not affect the areas
under Spanish administration. Spain continued to occupy and administer the
Utamboni River Area, including the towns of Asobla and Anguma and others,
without protest by France. As evidenced by the 1945 photograph below, Asobla
became a town of some significance in this remote region.116
113 V. Rico, Report Presented to the Courts by the Minister of State Concerning the Political and
Economic Situation of the Spanish Possessions in West Africa in the Years 1916-1918 (1919). MEG,
Vol. V, Annex 117.
114 C. Fuller, Naval Intelligence Notes (28 December 1916). MEG, Vol. V, Annex 116.
115 United Kingdom, Cameroon, Final Report: Enclosures Sept 1914 to May 1916 (3 October 1915),
p. 10. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 64.
116 Image of Asobla, 1945. MEG, Vol. II, Annex P1.
50
Annex P1: Image of Asobla (1945)
A 1925 League of Nations report on tuberculosis and sleeping
sickness in Equatorial Africa observed that these diseases were endemic in
Asobla and Mbung. The League of Nations identified both towns as being in
Spanish Continental Guinea and on “Spanish soil.”117 By 1927, the Spanish
Colonial Guard operated a school in Asobla.118 A 1953 criminal law applicable
to indigenous peoples in the Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea confirmed
that under the Spanish Royal Ordinance of 27 July 1905, government delegates
in Asobla had “authority in matters of administration of justice, as municipal
judges acting pursuant to the legal norms of the Colony.”119 Spain also continued
117 A. Balfour et. al, New Report on Tuberculosis and Sleeping Sickness in Equatorial Africa,
League of Nations Health Organization (April 1925). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 224.
118 G. Nerin, Spain's Last Forest Cannibals, Missionaries, and Civil Guards Account of the
Conquest of the Fang in Spanish Guinea 1914-1930 (2010), p. 103. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 236.
119 F. Olesa Munido, “Criminal Law Applicable to Indigenous People in the Spanish Territories of
the Gulf of Guinea”, INSTITUTE OF AFRICAN STUDIES, SUPERIOR COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH, Madrid (1953), note 33. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 226.
51
to administer the town of Anguma which had been assigned Spanish nationality
in 1901 and 1914.
In 1942, Spain conducted a census, including in the Cogo District
of Rio Muni. Among other towns in the district, the census was taken in towns
south of 1º North latitude, including the following in the Cogo District: Akanabor
(Abaiñ), Anguma, Asobla, Echuba, Elon (Yesuk), Michobo (Esembus), Ngabe,
Nniefala, Sugocham (Esembus), Teck and Tom.120 The locations of those towns
are shown in Figure 3.11 (following page 52).
The 1942 census also indicates that there were people under
Spanish Administration living in and around forestry concession called “Miang”.
Those inhabitants were listed under “Miang (Explotación)”, which is indicated
with this label on Figure 3.11 placed at the general location of that forestry
activity.121
Spain’s 1950 census of the same district again lists many towns
south of 1º North, including: Akanabor (Abé), Angume, Asobla, Binguala, Boo,
Echuba, Elon, Enigabe, Michobo (Esembus), Ngambe, Nniefala, Sugocham, Tek
and Tom.122 The locations of those towns are shown at Figure 3.12 (following
Figure 3.11). The census confirms that there were still people under Spanish
administration living in and around the Miang forestry concession, which by
then, had been transferred to the Spanish forestry company, Compania Vasco
120 Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Statistical Summaries: Provinces of Fernando Poo
and Rio Muni 1948-1949, Statistical Office of the General Government (1950), pp. 4-11. MEG,
Vol. V, Annex 127.
121 Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Statistical Summaries: Provinces of Fernando Poo
and Rio Muni 1948-1949, Statistical Office of the General Government (1950), p. 8. MEG, Vol. V,
Annex 127.
122 Ibid., pp. 45-56.
52
Africana S.A.123 Those inhabitants were listed under “Miang (Vasco Africana)”,
which is indicated with a label on Figure 3.12 placed at the general location of
that forestry activity.124 The location of the Vasco Africana concession is also
labelled on a Spanish Army map from 1952 reproduced here at Figure 3.13
(following Figure 3.12).
During the entire period from World War I to Gabon’s
independence in 1960, there is no evidence to indicate that France ever protested
Spain’s assertions of sovereignty and administrative activities in Asobla or the
rest of the Utamboni River Area. Nor did France seek to undertake any sovereign
or administrative activities of its own on the Spanish side of the boundary
proposed by the 1901 Commission.
THE LAND BOUNDARY IN THE NORTHEAST
Just as Spain and France applied the 1900 Convention by
delimiting the boundary in the southwest along natural features, such as the
Utamboni River, and human made features rather than the parallel of latitude
identified in the text, they adopted the same approach in the northeast. In
particular, instead of delimiting the boundary along the meridian 9º East of Paris
specified in the Convention, they followed the natural boundary formed by the
Kie River for a significant portion of the boundary. This modification was
123 Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Statistical Summaries: Provinces of Fernando Poo
and Rio Muni 1958-1959, Statistics Delegation of the General Government (1960), p. 8. MEG, Vol.
V, Annex 137; Figure 3.13 (Geographic Service to the Spanish Army, Topographic and Forestry
Map of Guinea (April 1952)); The Spanish State, Order of January 7, 1957 on Forest Tracts:
Announcing Tender of State Lands for Forestry Exploitation, Official Bulletin of April 15 1957,
Reprinted in A. Fraile Roman, REGIONAL LEGISLATION (7 January 1957), pp. 1-2. MEG, Vol. V,
Annex 130.
124 Figure 3.13 (Geographic Service to the Spanish Army, Topographic and Forestry Map of Guinea
(April 1952)).

53
consistent with Article 8 and Annex 1 of the Convention, which authorized the
Commissioners and local Delegates to agree to propose changes to the boundaries
defined in Article 4, based on their work in the field. The 1901 Commission,
because of technical issues, and the 1914 Commission, due to the outbreak of
World War I, never reached the area of 9º East of Paris. Instead, modification of
the eastern boundary was not accomplished until 1919, in an agreement between
the Governor of French Equatorial Africa and the Governor of Spanish Guinea
(“1919 Governors’ Agreement”).
The process leading to the 1919 Governors’ Agreement began
with an expedition in 1912 by the Governor of Spanish Guinea, Angel Barrera,
to delimit Spanish Guinea’s northern frontier with Kamerun.125 Following this
expedition, Governor Barrera and the German Governor of Kamerun proposed
to their respective governments a “natural northern frontier” at the Campo (Ntem)
River.126 Governor Barrera then turned his attention to the eastern boundary of
Rio Muni. There, in the northeast where it intersected with the boundary with
Kamerun, a boundary along the Kie River would fit seamlessly with the 1908
Franco-German Convention, which established the Kie River as the
southernmost part of the boundary between German Kamerun and French
Congo.127 Germany, upon considering Governor Barrera’s proposal, had
suggested the two States come to a definitive delimitation of the boundary along
125 Letter from Spanish Governor General Regarding the Establishment of the French-German
Demarcation (27 January 1920), pp. 4-5. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 69.
126 Ibid., p. 5.
127 Convention between Germany and France to Define Precisely the Boundary Lines between the
Kamerun and the French Congo Signed at Berlin (signed 18 April 1908, ratified on 28 July 1908),
Art. 1 (“The border between Cameroon and the French Congo shall follow, beginning from Spanish
Guinea (El Muni) (meridian 11° 20' local Greenwich, 9° local Paris): the river Kyé (Kje), from the
inlet of the Mwese (Mwezeu) until it opens into the Ntem (Campo) …”). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 5.
54
the Kie River. But, as he later explained to his French counterpart Governor
Estèbe, Governor Barrera was unable to accept the German proposal because of
concerns that doing so might violate Spain’s neutrality during World War I.128
In November 1917, Governor Barrera wrote to Governor Estèbe,
proposing that the Kie River serve as the provisional boundary between the
Spanish and French territories in the east.129 Understanding that “only a
delineation based on natural borders” would resolve the border issue,130 the
French Ministry of Foreign Affairs authorized Governor Estèbe to accept the
proposal on France’s behalf.131 Governor Estèbe duly relayed France’s approval
on 24 January 1919, stating that “[i]t is now agreed that the new border … shall
be determined by the course of the N’KYE stream from 2° 10’ 20” north latitude
up to the stream’s origin.” 132 In his letter, Governor Estèbe requested that
Governor Barrera communicate to him “whether we are in complete agreement
128 Letter from the Governor-General of Spanish Territories of Africa to the Governor of French
Gabon (22 November 1917), p. 2. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 65.
129 Ibid., pp. 2-3.
130 Letter from French Minister of Colonies to Minister of Foreign Affairs (24 November 1919), p.
2 (“qu’une délimitation basée sur des frontières naturelles”). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 68.
131 Letter from French Minister of Colonies to Minister of Foreign Affairs (24 November 1919), p.
3 (“[U]pon your notice to that effect, on November 21, 1918, I authorized the Governor General of
French Equatorial Africa to accept a provisional arrangement, proposed by the Iberian authorities,
that sets the line of delineation between the two possessions as starting from the 2° 10’ 20” latitude
north of the course of the Kié up to the source of that river.”) (“sur votre avis conforme, j’ai autorisé
le 21 Novembre 1918 le Gouverneur Général de l’Afrique équatoriale française à accepter un
règlement provisoire, proposé par les autorités ibériques qui fixe comme ligne de démarcation entre
les deux possessions à partir du 2° 10’ 20” de latitude nord le cours de la Kié jusqu’à la source de
cette rivière.”). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 68.
132 Letter No. []3 from the Governor-General of French Equatorial Africa to the Governor-General
of the Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea (24 January 1919), p. 1. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 66.
France also hoped that by so modifying the eastern boundary in Spain’s favor, the Spanish
Government would “grant, freely, equitable satisfaction” to the Colonial Exploration Society, a
French private company that France had erroneously granted concessions to in Spanish territory.
Letter from French Minister of Colonies to Minister of Foreign Affairs (24 November 1919), p. 2
(“à accorder, spontanément aussi, des satisfactions équitables”). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 68.
55
regarding the provisional adoption of these new borders and, if so, to transmit
such instructions as you deem necessary to your occupation personnel.”133 In
May 1919, the Spanish Governor affirmed the agreement, writing:
“Regarding your letter no. 63 dated January 24, I
wish to tell you that I am completely in agreement
with Your Excellency regarding the provisional
adoption of considering as part of the eastern border
of Spanish territory the course of the river N’kye
from the parallel 2°-10’-20” north to the source of
said river.”134
Thus, with the approval of their respective Governments, the two
colonial Governors came to an agreement to adopt the Kie River as the boundary
in the east between Spanish Guinea and French Equatorial Africa, as illustrated
in Figure 3.14 (following page 56).
Consistent with the 1919 Governors’ Agreement, Spain
administered the area west of the Kie River, including those areas east of the
meridian 9º East of Paris. Likewise, France administered the area east of the Kie
River, including those areas west of the 9º East line. In particular, Spain’s
administration of this area included the village that is now the Equatoguinean city
of Ebebiyin, which is located, in part, east of the meridian 9º East of Paris, but
west of the Kie River.
In 1920, Governor Barrera took his first tour of the Spanish
territories after World War I, during which he prepared a plan to proceed with
133 Letter No. []3 from the Governor-General of French Equatorial Africa to the Governor-General
of the Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea (24 January 1919). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 66.
134 Letter from Spanish Governor General of Spanish Guinea to His Excellency the French Governor
General of French Equatorial Africa (1 May 1919), p. 7 (emphasis added). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex
67.
56
the definitive settlement of Rio Muni by identifying the localities where military
detachments should be established along the eastern border.135 At the beginning
of 1921, Governor Barrera decided to place a new military post at the extreme
northeast part of the country, at Akonangui.136
Soon thereafter, the French protested the Akonangui military post,
claiming that it was situated to the north in French Cameroon.137 The Akonangui
military post was also east of the meridian 9º East of Paris. France, however, did
not protest that the post was too far east, since it was in the area between the
meridian 9º East of Paris the Kie River that belonged to Spain under the 1919
Governors’ Agreement. Spain did not accept the French protest regarding the
northern location of the post. However, “in the interest of good relations … with
the French authorities of Cameroon”, Spain informed France that it would
relocate the post further south.138 In September 1922, Spain moved the
Akonangui military post to Ebebiyin, which, as stated above, was in part east of
the 9º East of Paris meridian.139 The new military post was officially inaugurated
135 G. Nerin, Spain's Last Forest Cannibals, Missionaries, and Civil Guards Account of the
Conquest of the Fang in Spanish Guinea 1914-1930 (2010), p. 46. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 236.
136 Ibid., p. 47.
137 Letter from French Commissioner Governor of Colonies to the Cameroon Territories to the
French Minister of Colonies (27 July 1921). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 71; Letter from Spanish Minister
of State to the French Ambassador (24 November 1921). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 72.
138 Kingdom of Spain, Letter from the Captain of the Ebolouwa District to the Governor-General
of Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea (23 September 1922). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 74; Letter
from Spanish Minister of State to the French Ambassador (24 November 1921). MEG, Vol. IV,
Annex 72.
139 Kingdom of Spain, Letter from the Captain of the Ebolouwa District to the Governor-General
of Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea (23 September 1922). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 74.
Kingdom of Spain, Letter from the Governor-General of Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea
to the Advising Secretary-General (24 September 1922). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 75; Kingdom of
Spain, Letter No. 884 Attachment from the Governor-General of Santa Isabel to the Office of the
Secretary (20 June 1922). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 73.

57
in October 1922.140 Sixty-two buildings were built at the new site and several
villages were relocated there with no protest from the French authorities.
In December 1920, before the Spanish military post was moved
to Ebebiyin, Governor Barrera instructed the Head Military Officer at Akonangui
to build a road along the eastern boundary of Spanish Guinea, as defined in the
1919 Governors’ Agreement. Governor Barrera’s road instructions included a
detailed list of nearly 70 villages that would lie along the road.141 This list covered
the territory starting in the north with Akonangui and Ebebiyin, located “on the
left [west] bank of the Kye”.142 The route of Governor’s Baerra’s proposed road
and the locations of many of the villages on his list are depicted at Figure 3.15
(following page 58). Work on this road began after the military post was moved
from Akongagui to Ebebiyin in 1922. This effort occurred under the
administration of Governor Nuñez de Prado, Governor-General of the Spanish
possessions in Guinea from 1925-1931, and was led on the ground by Captain
Thomas Buiza.143
In June 1926, Captain Buiza established military detachments at
Alen and Mongomo. The new posts were commanded by soldiers from the
Spanish Colonial Guard.144 Figure 3.16 (following Figure 3.15) shows the
Spanish military posts along the Kie River Road in 1926.
140 G. Nerin, Spain's Last Forest Cannibals, Missionaries, and Civil Guards Account of the
Conquest of the Fang in Spanish Guinea 1914-1930 (2010), p. 61. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 236.
141 Kingdom of Spain, Letter No. 527 from the Spanish Governor-General (8 December 1920).
MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 70.
142 Ibid., p. 3.
143 G. Nerin, Spain’s Last Forest Cannibals, Missionaries, and Civil Guards Account of the
Conquest of the Fang in Spanish Guinea 1914-1930 (2010), p. 96. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 236.
144 Ibid., p. 98.
58
Spain maintained the Kie River road connecting Ebebiyin with
Alen and Mongomo until Equatorial Guinea’s independence in 1968.145 On 27
November 1938, for example, the Spanish Public Works Department published
a report on projects completed since March 1938. The report described several
public works along the eastern boundary, including the maintenance of the Kie
River road and the construction of wooden bridges along the road.146 From 1949
to 1955, Spain made further significant improvements to the road. Figure 3.17
(following Figure 3.16) shows the location of bridges and other large structures
installed during this period and the location of a substantial road straightening
project at kilometre 52.
Due to the construction of the road and other public works,
Ebebiyin steadily grew in size and population. By 1927, the Colonial Guard
administered a school in Ebebiyin.147 In the 1930s, Spain constructed several
public works in Ebebiyin, including a colonial guard encampment, a hospital, and
an indigenous settlement.148 In 1935, Spain constructed a post office in Ebebiyin
which it outfitted with a radio-telegraph station.149
145 Republic of Spain, Order No. 328: Report on the Public Works Service of the Spanish Territories
of the Gulf of Guinea (1933), pp. 91-92, 177-178. MEG, Vol. V, Annex 121.
146 Ibid.
147 G. Nerin, Spain’s Last Forest Cannibals, Missionaries, and Civil Guards Account of the
Conquest of the Fang in Spanish Guinea 1914-1930 (2010), p. 103. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 236.
148 Republic of Spain, Letter from the AT of Ebebiyin to the Governor-General of Spanish
Territories of the Gulf of Guinea (27 November 1938). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 77. On 9 June 1939,
the Lead Engineer to the Spanish Governor General proposed a 100,000 peseta budget for work on
the Ebebiyin-Mongomo road. See The Spanish State, Letter from the Lead Engineer to the
Governor-General of Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea (9 June 1939). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex
78.
149 The French Republic, Synthesis of Information on: Spanish Guinea & German Acts in Cameroon
under British Mandate, Historical Archives of the Ministry of Defense, File R2 (1 August 1937), p.
14. MEG, Vol. V, Annex 123.

59
In 1948, Spain established primary and elementary schools in
Ebebiyin.150 It also built schools in Alen and Mongomo, along the Kie River
road.151 Spain also administered a Leprosy Centre in Ebebiyin, which provided
care for 332 patients in 1948 and admitted 120 new patients in 1949.152 During
this same period, Spain regulated the sale of products obtained at indigenous
farms by administering indigenous markets in Alen and Ebebiyin, including
cacao, coffee, yucca, and other goods.153
In 1942, the Spanish authorities conducted a census, including in
the Ebebiyin District of Rio Muni. Spain collected census information for several
towns east of the meridian 9º East of Paris, along the Kie River, including the
following: Achap (Angok), Alen (Angok), Anongono, Ayabilon, Bibe, Edum,
Ekok, Ete-Ete, Malen (Nkoye), Masama (Esaben), Mban, Mbang (Onvang),
Mbayop (Esatuk), Mbiralem, Mboman, Mibang,), Molo, Nfula, Ngomete,
Nkoete, Nkombe, Ntu, Oveng (Esaben) and San Carlos.154 The locations of those
towns are shown at Figure 3.18 (following page 60).
Spain again took a census in 1950 in the Ebebiyin District as well
as in the newly-created Mongomo District of Rio Muni. The census listed towns
east of the meridian 9º East of Paris along the Kie River, including the following
150 “Territorial Demarcations - School Districts 1949-1959” Official Gazette of the Spanish
Territories in the Gulf of Guinea (15 November 1952), p. 2. MEG, Vol. V, Annex 128.
151 Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Official Gazette of the Gulf of Guinea Territories (15
March 1948), p. 3. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 225.
152 Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Statistical Summaries: Provinces of Fernando Poo
and Rio Muni 1948-1949, Statistical Office of the General Government (1950), pp. 32-33. MEG,
Vol. V, Annex 127.
153 Ibid., pp. 23-30.
154 Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Statistical Summaries: Provinces of Fernando Poo
and Rio Muni 1948-1949, Statistical Office of the General Government (1950), pp. 12-21. MEG,
Vol. V, Annex 127.
60
in the Ebebiyin District: Adyap (Angok), Alen (Angok), Anungon, Ayabilon,
Bibeñ, Etete, Masama (Esabaiñ), Mbiralem, Mbomang, Melo, Nfua, Ngomete,
Nkoekie and Ntu.155 The following towns in the Mongomo District located east
of that meridian were also included in the 1950 census: Edum, Ekok, Mokom,
Malen, Mbam, Mbayop, Mibang (Esaguong), Nvan (Omvang), Oveng and San
Carlos.156 The locations of those towns are shown at Figure 3.19 (following
Figure 3.18)
French military intelligence from the 1930s and 1940s
demonstrates that France was aware of Spain’s administration of these
settlements. In a military report covering 1934-1937, France noted that Spain
administered a military post in Ebebiyin with 1 lieutenant and 8 guards.157 A later
1940 French military report noted that Spain had administered telephone and
radio telegraphic equipment in the villages of Ebebiyin and Alen.158 The military
report also recognized that Spain administered an airfield in Ebebiyin.159
Ebebiyin subsequently experienced more than a decade of active
growth. During this period, Spain granted a series of land concessions in or near
Ebebiyin,160 promoted the establishment of new settlements along the Kie River
155 Ibid., pp. 35-44.
156 Ibid., pp. 45-56.
157 C. Cottez, Spanish Guinea 1934-1937, Historical Archives, Ministry of Arms (October 1934).
MEG, Vol. V, Annex 122.
158 The French Republic, Documentation Plan of the Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea,
Ministry of Arms (19 March 1940), p. 10. MEG, Vol. V, Annex 124.
159 Ibid; see also The French Republic, Summary of Intelligence on: Spanish Guinea & German
Acts in Cameroon under British Mandate, Historical Archives of the Ministry of Defense, File R2
(1 August 1937), p. 14. MEG, Vol. V, Annex 123.
160 Spanish Territories in the Gulf of Guinea, Official Gazette of the Spanish Territories in the Gulf
of Guinea No. 2, Santa Isabel (15 January 1954), p. 1 (including an Edict of the Directorate of
Colonization for the concession of a 30 hectare plot of land, requested under the Law of 12.23.1948,

61
road from Ebebiyin to Mongomo,161 and undertook various infrastructure
projects in this area.162 Today, the centre of Ebebiyin lies on the meridian 9º East
of Paris. The entire eastern half of the city is east of that meridian and is bounded
by the Kie River on the east. This can be observed in the modern satellite image
of the city at Figure 3.30 (following Figure 3.29).
France never protested these Spanish activities east of 9º East of
Paris, but west of—and within—the boundary set out in the 1919 Governor’s
Agreement, which followed the Kie River. Nor did France ever administer any
of the territory west of the Kie River boundary.
by Mr. Antonio Longueira Sánchez in Spanish Continental Guinea in the place called Enigakugu,
51 km from the Bata-Ebebyin road and the Edict of the Directorate of Colonization for the
concession of a 30 hectares land, requested under the Law of 12.23.1948, by Mr. Miguel del Pino
Hernandez in the Spanish Continental Guinea, road from Ebebiyin to Mongomo, at a distance of
approximately 600 to 100 meters between the villages of Abang and Esong, with the following
limits). MEG, Vol. V, Annex 129; The Spanish State, Legal Notices, Official Bulletin of 15
November 1960 (15 November 1960) (including an Edict of the Agronomic Section for the
concession of a land of 4 hectares, requested under Law 05.04.1948, by Mr. Enrique Eyegue,
located in the place of this province called Engong (Efac), of the district of Ebebiyín), p. 1. MEG,
Vol. V, Annex 136; Edict of the Agronomic Service of Rio Muni for the concession of a land of 1-
97-87 hectares, requested under the Law of 05.04.1948, by Mr. Martin Esono Ndongo, located in
the place of this province called San Carlos, of the district of Mongomo de Guadalupe, with the
Ebebyin road constituting part of the outer limits of the concession).
161 Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Summaries of the Years 1942 and 1943, Statistical
Office of the General Government (1945) (General Government of the Spanish Territories of the
Gulf of Guinea. Statistics Office. Report on the transactions of Cocoa, Coffee, Cassava in the
different territorial demarcations between the years 1942 - 1943. Among the localities included in
the territorial demarcation of Ebebiyín are the following: Alen, Billabillan, Ebebiyín and
Mongomo). MEG, Vol. V, Annex 125; Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Summaries of the
Years 1944 and 1945, Statistical Office of the General Government (1947) (Report on the existing
population and buildings built in the localities and settlements of Akurenan and Nsok territorial
districts in 1942. Report on the transactions of Cocoa, Coffee, Cassava and rubber in the different
territorial demarcations between the years 1944 – 1945. Among the localities included in the
territorial demarcation of Ebebiyín are the following: Alen, Biyabiyan, Ebebiyín and Mongomo).
MEG, Vol. V, Annex 126.
162 Spanish Equatorial Provinces of Fernando Póo and Rio Muni, Official Gazette of the Gulf of
Guinea Territories (15 November 1963) (describes a fencing project for the Ebebiyin cemetery
project and a water supply project). MEG, Vol. V, Annex 139.
62
While the 1919 Governors’ Agreement established the Kie River
as a provisional boundary, the agreement and the boundary it established did not
have a date on which they terminated, and they remained in force throughout the
colonial period. As discussed in Chapter 6 below, Spain’s infra legem effectivités
under the Governors’ Agreement and France’s acquiescence in those activities
made the once provisional boundary permanent by the time of Gabon’s
independence in 1960.
III. The Status of the Colonial Powers’ Legal Titles to Islands and
Continental Territory upon Gabon’s Independence in 1960, and Equatorial
Guinea’s Independence in 1968
THE STATUS OF THE ISLANDS IN CORISCO BAY
The historical record shows that, after Gabon became an
independent State on 17 August 1960, and until Equatorial Guinea achieved
independence on 12 October 1968, Spain continued to exercise sovereignty over
Corisco Island and the Corisco Dependencies without any protest from France,
through August 1960, or by Gabon thereafter.
In a Resolution dated 21 October 1961, the Governor General of
Spanish Guinea officially demarcated Corisco to include the island itself as well
as “the islets of Mbanye [Mbañe], Leva, Hoko.”163 In its Basic Law of 1963,
Spain combined the provinces of Fernando Póo and Río Muní to form a single
entity called Equatorial Guinea.164 That law and further revisions to it on 15
163 The Spanish State, Official Bulletin of 15 November 1961 (15 November 1961). MEG, Vol. V,
Annex 138.
164 The Spanish State, Law 191/1963, on Bases on the Autonomous Regime of Equatorial Guinea
(30 December 1963), Base 1. MEG, Vol. V, Annex 140.
63
October 1966 provided that the territory of Rio Muni included the continental
region and “the islands of Corisco, Elobey Grande, Elobey Chico and the adjacent
islets.”165
Internal Spanish memoranda in the years immediately after
Gabon’s independence similarly reflect Spain’s sovereignty over these islands
and islets. On 12 July 1966, the Spanish Ministry of Industry issued a
confidential report relating to the delimitation of the waters of Corisco Bay that
treated Mbañe and Cocoteros as Spanish territories, with no suggestion of any
competing claim from Gabon.166 Figure 3.20 (following page 64) shows the map
attached to the Ministry of Industry report illustrating Spain’s position on the
delimitation of waters of Corisco Bay, including the construction lines emanating
from Spanish basepoints on Conga and Cocoteros and Gabonese basepoints on
the Gabonese mainland.
On 26 July 1966, the Legal Adviser’s Office of the Spanish
Foreign Ministry issued a similar memorandum regarding the maritime boundary
with Gabon. This document recommended that Spain “reserv[e] its rights, not
only on the mainland, islands, islets, and permanent elevations; but on the
corresponding territorial sea, with a breadth of six miles from the low water
165The Spanish State, Law Regarding the Separation and Legal System of Fernando Póo and Rio
Muni (15 October 1966), Art. 1. MEG, Vol. V, Annex 143.
166 The Spanish State, Ministry of Industry, Confidential Report: Delimitation of Gabon’s
Territorial Waters (12 July 1966). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 103.
64
mark”.167 The Spanish Ministry of the Navy issued a similar memorandum on 23
July 1966.168
On 17 October 1967, the Spanish Hydrographic Commission
issued a memorandum on the delimitation of the maritime boundary with Gabon.
Like the prior Spanish Ministry of Industry report, it assessed the boundary on
the understanding that Gabon had no island territory in the area and made no
reference to any Gabonese claims over the Corisco Dependencies. The
memorandum stated:
“The red line roughly represents the division of the
Spanish and Gabonese waters that would result from
applying the median line approach, using as a base:
(1) for Gabon, the low water line derived of its coasts
and the baseline that Gabon established in Mondah
Bay and (2) for Spain, the low water lines of the
continental coasts, islands and islets.”169
None of these internal Spanish memoranda makes any reference
to a dispute with France or Gabon over Mbañe, Conga, or Cocoteros, and Gabon
did not dispute Spain’s Legal Title to the Corisco Dependencies during the last
eight years of Spanish sovereignty.
167 The Spanish State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Gabon's Extension of Mondah Bay Territorial
Waters (26 July 1966), p. 4. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 104.
168 The Spanish State, Letter No. 454 from the Ministry of the Navy to the Undersecretary of the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (23 July 1966). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 105.
169 The Spanish State, Letter No. 159 from the Hydrographic Division, Maritime Department of
Cadiz to the Technical Secretary-General of the General Commissariat of the Republic of Equatorial
Guinea (17 October 1967), para. 1.5. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 108.

65
Gabon’s Constitution upon independence did not include any
reference to the islands in Corisco Bay.170 When the French Representative to the
UN Security Council provided a detailed description of Gabon before the Council
voted to admit it to the United Nations, he made no mention of any Gabonese
islands.171 And when President Léon M’ba proclaimed Gabon’s independence,
he cited only the 1839 Treaty of Alliance between France and King Denis in
reference to the land of Gabon.172 Unlike Spain’s 1843 Declaration of Corisco
and 1846 Record of Annexation with King Orejeck of Corisco, France’s treaty
did not include any islands.173
Gabon’s oil concession activity after independence was also
consistent with Spanish sovereignty and Gabon’s lack of a claim to any islands.174
As illustrated by the map at Figure 3.21 (following page 66), the Libreville
permit area applied for in 1964 by Compagnie Shell de Recherche et
d’Exploitation au Gabon (“Shell” or “COSREG”)175 was bounded on the north
170 The Gabonese Republic, Constitution, “Preamble” (14 November 1960). MEG, Vol. VI, Annex
180.
171 UN Security Council, 890th Meeting held in New York, Security Council Official Records (23
August 1960). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 17.
172 UN Security Council, 890th Meeting held in New York, Security Council Official Records (23
August 1960), para. 178. MEG, Vol. III, Annex 17.
173 Treaty between France and King Denis of Gabon (Senegal), signed in Gabon (9 February 1839).
MEG, Vol. III, Annex 2.
174 The geographic patterns of oil concessions can indicate a State’s understanding of territorial title.
Land and Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon And Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial
Guinea Intervening), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 303, para. 215 (“this common
understanding of the Parties is also reflected by the geographic pattern of the oil concessions granted
by the two Parties ….”).
175 COSREG was the operating company representing Royal Dutch/Shell Group’s exploration
interests in Gabon at the time. Aide-Memoire on “Royal Dutch/Shell Group Exploration Venture in
Gabon” for the Ambassador of the United Kingdom to the Republic of the Congo (16 April 1965).
MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 102.
66
by what is clearly an equidistance line using Spanish base points on the Corisco
Dependencies. The map was attached to an aide-mémoire prepared by the British
Ambassador in Brazzaville in April 1965.176
A year later, on 27 September 1966, Gabon issued a decree
creating the closing line across Mondah Bay—referred to in the Spanish report
noted above—that served as the outer limit of its internal waters and as the base
line from which the breadth of its territorial sea was measured. Significantly,
Gabon did not claim Mbañe, Cocoteros, or Conga as territory that generated
territorial waters. This closing line can be seen here on Figure 3.22 (following
Figure 3.21).
In response to Gabon’s Mondah Bay closing line decree, the
Spanish Embassy in Libreville sent a note to Gabon reserving Spain’s rights and
proposing negotiations.177 There was no evidence of a dispute over Spain’s
islands in Corisco Bay, but rather an understanding that Gabon intended to
delimit its maritime boundary using basepoints on its continental territory on the
mainland and its new Mondah Bay closing line.
An airgram dated 26 February 1967 from the Embassy of the
United States in Libreville to the U.S. Department of State confirmed this,
describing the extent of Gabon’s claims as follows:
“Gabon has apparently decided to declare Mondah
Bay (an arm of the sea north and east of Libreville)
as an interior body of water. In addition, the
176 Aide-Memoire on “Royal Dutch/Shell Group Exploration Venture in Gabon” for the Ambassador
of the United Kingdom to the Republic of the Congo (16 April 1965). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 102.
177 The Spanish State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Informational Note: Delimitation of Gabon and
Equatorial Guinea's Territorial Waters (14 November 1967). MEG, Vol. V, Annex 145.

67
Gabonese Government is submitting a proposal to
the Spanish Government concerning a precise
definition of the line determining the territorial
waters of Gabon and of Equatorial Guinea on
Gabon’s northern border. … Gabonese territorial
waters are defined as all those portions of the ocean
within twelve miles of the Gabonese coast except in
cases where this claim overlaps areas which are
within twelve miles of the coastal or island
possessions of Equatorial Guinea. In the latter case,
lines have been drawn on a detailed map between the
various Spanish-held islands and the closest points
on the adjacent Gabonese mainland. Points midway
along these lines have been connected. The resulting
line constitutes the Gabonese proposed boundary
between the territorial waters of Gabon and
Equatorial Guinea.”178
Gabon’s proposal as described here used the same methodology
as that used by Spain’s Ministry of Industry in its report and would have resulted
in a similar line to the one depicted in the Ministry’s map at Figure 3.20
(following page 64).
Another airgram from the U.S. Embassy in Libreville, dated 28
May 1967, confirmed the understanding of the United States regarding Gabon’s
territorial claims up to that date. That airgram recounted information provided to
the U.S. Embassy by representatives of the Gulf Oil Company, who were told by
Gabonese officials that Gabon might change its position and claim for the first
178 Airgram No. A-93 from the Embassy of the United States of America to the Gabonese Republic
to the US Department of State (26 February 1967). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 106.
68
time “several offshore sand bars, uninhabited reefs and islets as Gabonese
territory”.179 The 28 May 1967 airgram stated in pertinent part:
“On one of their recent trips to Gabon to complete
negotiations for concessions on offshore petroleum
exploration, representatives of Gulf Oil Company,
Manuel RIGO and Norman LEWIS, were informed
by Gabonese officials that Gabon is altering its
earlier liberal considerations concerning the
boundary between the territorial waters of Gabon
and Rio Muni (Equatorial Guinea). Gabon had
earlier considered accepting a boundary connecting
the midpoints on lines drawn from the Spanish-held
islands to points on the Gabonese mainland. (See
reference airgram). The Gabonese Government, the
Gulf representatives were told, is now going to claim
several offshore sand bars, uninhabited reefs and
islets as Gabonese territory and, consequently,
request that the boundary should be determined by
joining the midpoints of lines connecting points on
the islands claimed by Spain with points on the bars,
reefs and islets claimed by Gabon. The Gabonese
officials reportedly confided to the Gulf men that the
earlier proposal had been reconsidered since it
would have brought the boundary of the territorial
waters of Equatorial Guinea far to the south of the
land frontier and, consequently, too far south to the
acceptable by the Gabonese.
COMMENT: The possibility that there may be
offshore petroleum deposits in the border area could
well have been a key factor in influencing Gabon to
seek to expand its claim. Three oil companies, Gulf,
Shell, and the Société des Petroles d’Afrique
(S.P.A.F.E.), are currently actively seeking to obtain
179 Airgram No. A-137 from the Embassy of the United States of America to the Gabonese Republic
to the US Department of State (28 May 1967). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 107.
69
concessions for petroleum exploration in the
offshore areas west and north of Libreville.”180
Although this document indicates that Gabon began
contemplating the assertion of a claim to certain of the Corisco Dependencies as
early as 1967, it had not at the time made any such claim. It did not do so until
1972, four years after Equatorial Guinea’s independence. Until then, Gabon’s
actions reflected an unambiguous and full recognition of Spain’s Legal Title to
these insular features. For example, on 2 August 1967, Gabon issued an oil
concession, the Permis Marin de Libreville (“Libreville Marin”), to Gulf Oil
Company and Shell. Like the area to which COSREG applied in 1964, the
northern limit of the Libreville Marin concession area as issued in 1967
corresponded to a median line between Gabon’s mainland and Spain’s island
possessions, including Mbañe, Cocoteros, and Conga. The area of this concession
is shown on Figure 3.23 (following page 70).181 Gabon maintained the same
northern limit of its Libreville Marin concession when, after a scheduled
relinquishment, it reissued the permit area to Gulf and Shell for a period of five
years starting 2 August 1969.182 Based on the coordinates and surface area
provided in the decree reissuing the 1967 permit, the shape of the reissued
concession area is shown at Figure 3.24 (following Figure 3.23).
180 Ibid.
181 The Gabonese Republic, Official Gazette No. 20, “Mining Property, Forests, Estates and Land
Conservation” (15 September 1967), p. 3. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 181. This interpretation of the
northern limit of the Libreville Marin concession is corroborated by a contemporaneous map
produced by the concessionaire and attached to a subsequent airgram dated 18 June 1968 from the
U.S. Embassy in Libreville analyzing petroleum activities in Gabon. See also Airgram from the
Embassy of the United States to the Gabonese Republic to the US Department of State (18 June
1968). MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 149.
182 The Gabonese Republic, Decree No. 670/PR-MMERH-DMG (24 September 1969). MEG, Vol.
VI, Annex 183.
70
Other oil companies operating in Corisco Bay under license from
Gabon regarded Spain as sovereign over the Corisco Dependencies. On 22 and
28 December 1967, the Director General of the Gulf Oil Company of Gabon sent
letters to the Spanish Ambassador in Libreville requesting permission for the
company Western Geophysical to operate on the “islands of Corisco and the
rocks of Conga”,183 identified as “Spanish Guinea islands”,184 when conducting
a seismic survey of the area. The Spanish authorities granted the request, and
company representatives conducted their work on the islands.185
France, the former colonial sovereign of Gabon’s territory, also
continued to recognize Spain’s sovereignty over the Corisco Dependencies, as
reflected in a 1968 map produced by the French National Geographic Institute
that labelled the islands of Corisco and Mbañe as belonging to Equatorial
Guinea.186 This map is reproduced at Figure 3.25 (following Figure 3.24).
In sum, at the time of Equatorial Guinea’s independence on 12
October 1968, Spain’s Legal Title over Corisco Island and its dependencies was
recognized by Gabon, France and the international community. There was no hint
of a claim by France or Gabon to Mbañe, Cocoteros, or Conga. Nor had Gabon
or France engaged in any sovereign acts on these insular features. Spain, in
contrast, had continuously administered these features since the mid-19th century.
183 Gulf Oil Company of Gabon, Letter from Mr. Rigo de Righi to the Ambassador of Spain (22
December 1967). MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 147.
184 Gulf Oil Company of Gabon, Letter from Mr. Rigo de Righi to the Ambassador of Spain (28
December 1967). MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 148.
185 Kingdom of Spain, Letter No. 408R from the Commissioner General of Equatorial Guinea, Santa
Isabel to the Commissioner-General, Bata (11 May 1968). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 109.
186 Figure 3.25 (France, National Geographic Institute – Paris, Libreville, Gabonese Republic
(1968)).

71
THE STATUS OF THE CONTINENTAL LAND TERRITORY
In the south, Spain continued to administer the Utamboni River
Area after Gabon’s independence in 1960 through Equatorial Guinea’s
independence in 1968. Gabon, like France before it, accepted Spanish
sovereignty within those limits, as reflected in the 1966 Spanish-Gabonese
Agreement regarding Transboundary Circulation and Exchanges between Río
Muni and Gabon (the “1966 Agreement”).187
In December 1963, Gabon invited Spain to negotiate a treaty that
would become the 1966 Agreement.188 In 1964, Spain’s Ambassador to Gabon
reported to the Spanish Minister of Foreign Affairs that the proposed agreement
“represents a recognition of boundaries”.189 The Agreement was signed by Spain
and Gabon on 11 June 1966 but appears not to have entered into force.190
Article 1 of the 1966 Agreement defines, for the purposes of the
treaty, a “border zone” with a width of 10 km on either side of the land boundary
between the parties. Article 1 also provides that each party would provide the
other with a note containing a list of population centres located in its territory
187 The Spanish State Parliament, Agreement Between the Spanish State and The Gabonese Republic
Concerning Circulation and Border Exchange Between Rio Muni and Gabon, Official Gazette No.
931 (4 October 1966) (as presented to Spain’s Parliament for ratification). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 7.
188 Note Verbale from Embassy of Gabon in Spain to Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Spain (10
December 1963). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 97.
189 The Spanish State, Letter No. 109 from the Embassy of the Kingdom of Spain to the Republic of
Gabon to the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (30 May 1964), p. 1. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 98.
190 The Spanish State, Letter No. 303 from the Embassy of the Kingdom of Spain to the Republic of
Gabon to the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (13 June 1966). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 101. See
Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation And Territorial Questions Between Qatar And Bahrain
(Qatar v. Bahrain), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2001, p. 40, para. 89 (“The Court observes that signed
but unratified treaties may constitute an accurate expression of the understanding of the parties at
the time of signature.”).
72
within this border region.191 In the Utamboni River Area, with the exception of
two villages on Gabon’s list, the exchange of notes reflects the territorial situation
existing at the independence of Gabon in 1960 based on the 1900 Convention,
the proposal of the 1901 Commission and the subsequent practice of Spain and
France.192 Equatorial Guinea could find no evidence of actual administration of
these two towns by Gabon (or France before it). Spain and Gabon also agreed on
the locations of border crossings along their entire land boundary.193 The border
crossing points were defined by reference to one town on each side of the border.
Spain proposed two crossings in the Utamboni River Area: one between the
Spanish town of Niefala and the Gabonese town of Avloa, and the other between
the Spanish town of Asobla and an unspecified the Gabonese town.194 Gabon
proposed that there not be any border crossings in the Utamboni River Area due
to a lack of resources to administer them, but it did not object to Spain’s
identification of the towns in Spain’s territory.195 The location of the villages
listed in the Utamboni River Area in the notes exchanged between Gabon and
191 The Spanish State Parliament, Agreement Between the Spanish State and The Gabonese Republic
Concerning Circulation and Border Exchange Between Rio Muni and Gabon, Official Gazette No.
931 (4 October 1966), Art. 1. MEG, Vol. III, Annex 7.
192 See Convention between The Spanish State and The Gabonese Republic Concerning Cross-
Border Exchanges and Movement Between Rio Muni and Gabon, Appendix 2 Concerning the
Towns or Urban Areas to be Included in the 10 KM Zone Referred to in the Convention (1966)
(Spain’s list of towns in border zone). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 8; The Spanish State, Letter No. 223
from the Ambassador of Spain in Rio Muni to the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (6 May 1965)
(attaching letter from Gabon’s Vice President annexing Gabon’s list of towns in border zone). MEG,
Vol. IV, Annex 99.
193 The Spanish State, Letter No. 383 from the Presidency of the Government to the Spanish Ministry
of Foreign Affairs (20 October 1965) (agreeing to Gabon’s list of border crossings). MEG, Vol. IV,
Annex 100.
194 The Spanish State, General Directorate of African Territories and Provinces, Study of the Border
Between Gabon and Rio Muni – Crossing Points (1965). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 6.
195 The Spanish State, Letter No. 223 from the Ambassador of Spain in Rio Muni to the Spanish
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (6 May 1965) (attaching letter from Gabon’s Vice President explaining
its lack of resources and annexing Gabon’s proposed border crossings). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 99.
73
Spain as well as the Spain’s proposed border crossings are depicted in Figure
3.26 (following page 74). The towns in on Spain’s list are shown in orange and
those on the list provided by Gabon are shown in green.
In 1964, Spain established a provisional reserve of land with
bituminous indications in the Rio Muni province, entrusting the Spanish National
Institute of Industry with research work there.196 The reserve area covered the
coastal area of Rio Muni from the Campo (Ntem) River in the north to the border
with Gabon in the south. The eastern limit of the reserve connected a series of
specified points the southernmost of which was the town of Anguma in the
Utamboni River Area. From Anguma, the reserve limit “descend[s] southward
along the meridian until meeting the boundary line with Gabon, continuing along
it westward, until reaching the sea….” 197 The relevant part of the bitumen reserve
is depicted following Figure 3.26 at Figure 3.27. Spain also continued to
administer an elementary school in Asobla as late as in 1967—just one year
before Equatorial Guinea’s independence.198
Gabon did not protest Spain’s exercise of sovereignty at Asobla
or Anguma, or in any other part of the Utamboni River Area that constituted
196 The Spanish State, Order of 7 January 1964 Establishing the Provisional Reserve of Land with
Bituminous Indications in the Río Muni Province, Entrusting the National Institute of Industry with
Research Work, Official Gazette (15 February 1964), p. 1. MEG, Vol. V, Annex 141.
197 The Spanish State, Order of 7 January 1964 Establishing the Provisional Reserve of Land with
Bituminous Indications in the Río Muni Province, Entrusting the National Institute of Industry with
Research Work, Official Gazette (15 February 1964), p. 1. MEG, Vol. V, Annex 141.
198 Equatorial Guinea, Order Approving the Amendment of Remunerations of the Employees of
Equatorial Guinea Employed by the Office of the Commissioner-General (7 February 1967). MEG,
Vol. V, Annex 144; Equatorial Guinea, Government Officials: Assistant Teachers for the
Elementary Teaching Service (“Official Bulletin”) (1 March 1964), p. 162. MEG, Vol. V, Annex
142.
74
Spanish territory in accordance with the proposal of the 1901 Commission and
the practice of the colonial States.
Nor did Gabon challenge Spanish sovereignty in the north and
east, in the areas between the Kie River boundary established in the 1919
Governors’ Agreement and the meridian 9º East of Paris. Spain’s continued
public acts affirming its title continued almost immediately after Gabon’s
independence. In 1961, the year after Gabon’s independence, Spain submitted a
report to the United Nations Committee on Information from Non-Self-
Governing Territories describing its territory in colonial Equatorial Guinea,
stating that the “Kie, forms a natural boundary with Gabon.”199
In implementing the 1966 Agreement described above, Spain and
Gabon exchanged notes identifying their respective population centres within 10
km of the border in the Kie River Area, as they did for the Utamboni River Area.
Among the more than 100 villages located in the Ebebiyin and Mongomo
districts, Spain identified many that were located to the east of the meridian 9º
East of Paris and west of the Kie River boundary established in the 1919
Governor’s Agreement. In the Ebebiyin district, Ebebiyin, Ngong, Adyap, Melo,
Nfua, Alen (Campamento), Masaman, Anuguong, Acoelon and Mbiralen, among
others, were all on Spain’s list of towns within Rio Muni. In the Mongomo
district, Ngomete, Edum, Mban, Melen, Macomo and Mongomo, among others,
were also on this list. This last, important Spanish (and now Equatoguinean) city,
included for reference, is west of the meridian 9º East of Paris because the Kie
River, established as the boundary in the 1919 Governor’s Agreement, flows to
199 UN General Assembly, Report of the Committee on Information from Non-Governing
Territories, Official Records: Sixteenth Session Supplement No. 15 (A/4785), New York (1
September 1961). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 18.

75
the west of that meridian at this point. Spain also proposed nine of these Spanish
localities to be the towns in Spanish territory that defined the location of border
crossing points on the Kie River. Gabon, in its own proposal on border crossings,
which was agreed to by the parties, affirmed that the towns of Ebebiyin, Ngong,
Alen, Anunguong, Ngomete, Mibang and Mongomo were in Spanish territory.200
The locations of these Spanish towns, the border crossings, and the towns on
Gabon’s list of towns in its territory in this area are depicted at Figure 3.28
(following page 76).
After its independence, Equatorial Guinea continued to
administer the Kie River Area. While Gabon’s position had not been consistent
over the years it recently has recognized the colonial boundary using the Kie
River as the limit between the two States. In 2011, Equatorial Guinea completed
the construction of two bridges over the Kie River connecting its cities of
Ebebiyin and Mongomo with Gabon. It installed border posts on its side of the
bridges. The bridges were a part of a series of intended infrastructure projects
along the eastern boundary as formed by the Kie River.201 Not only did Gabon
not object to the construction of these bridges, Gabonese President Ali Bongo
Ondimba officially attended the inauguration. On 4 August 2011, a Gabonese
publication reported that President Ali Bongo of Gabon and President Teodoro
200 Letter from the Director General of African Cities and Provinces (Presidency of the Government
of Spain) to the Director General of African Affairs (Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs), attaching
Annex I to Act No. 3 Concerning the Obligatory Boundary Crossings Proposed by the Commission
on the Common Boundary Between the Republic of Gabon and Equatorial Guinea (19 October
1965). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 9.
201 News Article, “Inauguration of the Friendship Bridges Between Gabon and Equatorial Guinea”,
La Lettre d’Information, Official Bulletin of the Presidency of the Gabonese Republic No. 3
(August 2011). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 239.
76
Obiang Nguema Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea attended the inauguration of “the
bridge over the Kye River, a natural boundary between the two countries.”202
Soon after the inauguration of the bridge, President Bongo was
interviewed for the publication Jeune Afrique. When asked about border
disagreements with Equatorial Guinea, President Bongo stated:
“President Obiang and I were at the end of July at the
border of our countries to inaugurate two bridges
which will increase our trade and facilitate the
movement of people. What better symbol of
agreement than building a bridge?”203
Figure 3.29 (following Figure 3.28) shows the location of these
two bridges on a map of the entire Kie River Area. Figure 3.30 (following Figure
3.29) shows a satellite image of the city of Ebebiyin from 2020, with the meridian
9º East of Paris running down the centre of the city and the international bridge
across the Kie River inaugurated by the Presidents in 2011 on the eastern edge of
the city. Figure 3.31 (following Figure 3.30) is a satellite image of the Equatorial
Guinea city of Mongomo that shows the other international bridge across the Kie
River, also inaugurated by the Presidents in 2011, on the eastern edge of that city.
The Kie River established by Spain and France as the international boundary
between their colonial territories, thus, continues to be the boundary today.
202 News Article, “Ali Bongo in Equatorial Guinea for Bridge Inauguration”, Bongo Must Go (4
August 2011), p. 1 (“Le président gabonais Ali Bongo Ondimba s’est rendu jeudi en Guinée-
Equatoriale pour inauguer, avec son homologue Equato-guinéen Teodoro Obiang Nguema
Mbasogo, le pont sur la rivière Kyé, frontière naturelle entre les deux pays”) (emphasis added).
MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 237; News Article, “Inauguration of Two Bridges”, Office of Press and
Information of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea (6 August 2011). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 238.
203 News Article, Ali Bongo Ondimba: “Not Everyone Has Understood that Gabon has Changed”,
Jeune Afrique (6 September 2011). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 240.

77
CHAPTER 4
THE ORIGIN OF THE PARTIES’ DISPUTE
As the historical record of the colonial period makes clear, at the time
of Gabon’s independence in 1960, there were no sovereignty or territorial disputes
between Spain and France; and at the time of Equatorial Guinea’s independence in
1968, there were no such disputes between Spain and Gabon. At both times, the
States concerned accepted Spanish sovereignty over Corisco Island and its
dependencies in Corisco Bay; and they accepted that the land boundary between
Equatorial Guinea and Gabon in the Utamboni River Area and Kie River Area
followed these two rivers and the location of towns in close proximity to the 1º
North parallel of latitude, rather than along those straight lines themselves,
consistent with the recommendations of the 1901 Commission established under
the 1900 Convention and the 1919 Governors’ Agreement. The territorial
relationship existing at independence can be seen on Figure 1.1 above (following
page 8).
However, beneath the surface, by the late 1960s Gabon’s attitude
following independence was beginning to change, especially in regard to the
islands of Corisco Bay, when it perceived that the offshore area might have rich
hydrocarbon potential and considered expanding the reach of its maritime
jurisdiction. As the United States Embassy in Libreville observed in 1967: “The
possibility that there may be offshore petroleum deposits in the border area could
well have been a key factor in influencing Gabon to seek to expand its claim.”204
204 Airgram No. A-137 from the Embassy of the United States of America to The Gabonese Republic
to the US Department of State (28 May 1967), p. 1. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 107.
78
In 1970, two years after Equatorial Guinea’s independence, Gabon
unilaterally expanded the northern limits of its Libreville Marin concession,
awarded to Shell and Gulf in 1967, beyond the median line between its coast and
the then Spanish-held Corisco Bay islands and islets, by 1,500 square km. This
encroached on Equatorial Guinea’s territorial sea.205 The Gabonese measure
affected Equatorial Guinea’s exploration permits granted to Continental Oil, Gulf
and CEPSA.206 Approximately 50 to 60 percent of the southernmost block of the
Equatorial Guinea permit now fell within maritime space claimed for the first time
by Gabon.207
This act was followed, on 12 August 1970, by a decree issued by
Gabon’s Council of Ministers, extending Gabon’s territorial waters from 12
nautical miles to 25 nautical miles.208 Gabon informed the UN Secretary-General
of its decree a few days later, on 20 August 1970,209 and enacted another
presidential order on 5 October 1970 confirming the extension.210 The US, the UK,
205 The Gabonese Republic, Decree 689/70 (14 May 1970). MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 184.
206 Letter from the Spanish Embassy in Santa Isabel (22 June 1970), p. 1. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex
151; Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Memo No. 26R from the Ministry of Industries and Mines to
the President (12 June 1970), p. 1. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 185.
207 Airgram from the American Embassy in Santa Isabel to the Department of State (16 June 1970),
p. 1. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 150.
208 Telegram from the US Embassy in Libreville to the US Department of State (13 August 1970),
p. 1. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 152; Letter from the Ambassador of Spain in Libreville to the Spanish
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (18 August 1970), p. 1. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 153.
209 Cable from UN to Permanent Missions (14 September 1970), enclosing Communication from
Mr. Manadou D’Niaye, Charge d’Affaires of the Republic of Gabon to the Secretary-General of the
United Nations Announcing the Extension of Gabonese Territorial Waters by Presidential Decree
(20 August 1970), p. 1. MEG, Vol. III, Annex 22; Airgram from the US Department of State
regarding Protest of Gabon’s Extension of Territorial Waters (12 November 1970), p. 1. MEG, Vol.
VI, Annex 156.
210 The Gabonese Republic, Order No. 55-70-PR-MTAC (5 October 1970), p. 1. MEG, Vol. VI,
Annex 187.
79
the Netherlands, the USSR, Equatorial Guinea and other States objected and
refused to recognise Gabon’s purported extension of its territorial sea.211
On 24 September 1970, Equatorial Guinea issued Decree 17/1970,
which established “the jurisdictional waters and the Zone of influence of the Bay
of Corisco and the adjacent islets, in the South of the province of Rio Muni”.212
This decree referred to Equatorial Guinea’s sovereignty over Mbañe, Cocoteros,
and Conga and established the equidistance line as the boundary between these
islands and Gabon, as reflected in the practice of both States prior to 1970 described
in Chapter 3 above.
In 1971, Equatorial Guinea issued oil exploration concessions based
on decree 17/1970 to CONOCO-Gulf and CEPSA.213 Gabon sent a protest note to
Equatorial Guinea on 28 August 1971 challenging Equatorial Guinea’s use of
equidistance to claim “those islands’ maximum possible ocean territory”, since this
“impinge[d] on our continental plateau”.214
211 Telegram from the US Embassy in Libreville to the US Department of State (13 August 1970),
p. 1. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 152; Letter from the Permanent Mission of the Netherlands to the United
Nations to the UN Secretary-General (14 October 1970), p. 1. MEG, Vol. III, Annex 24; Airgram
from US Embassy in Libreville to US Department of State (28 November 1970), p. 1. MEG, Vol.
VI, Annex 157; Permanent Mission of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to the United Nations,
Statement Before the United Nations Security Council by His Excellency Mr. Jesus Alfonso Oyono
Alogo (September 1972), p. 3. MEG, Vol. III, Annex 28.
212 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Presidential Decree No. 17/1970 (24 September 1970), p. 1.
MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 186.
213 Letter No. 002967 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The Gabonese Republic to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea (28 August 1971), p. 1. MEG,
Vol. VI, Annex 154.
214 Ibid.
80
On 5 January 1972, Gabon issued Decree 1/72/PR, further extending
its territorial sea from 25 to 30 nautical miles.215 Gabon’s increasingly aggressive
claims to the waters of Corisco Bay led the Parties to meet in Libreville, between
25 and 29 March 1972, to attempt to reach an accommodation. It was during these
meetings that Gabon first raised a claim to the Corisco Dependencies.
Unexpectedly, and to Equatorial Guinea’s considerable surprise, it asserted a claim
to all the islands in Corisco Bay, other than Corisco, Elobey Grande and Elobey
Chico.216 The meetings ended without agreement on their dispute.217 However, the
Parties did agree that: (1) the 1900 Convention should form the basis of their
boundary negotiations; (2) the Parties would come to an agreement on their
maritime boundary after a bilateral commission of experts drafted technical and
legal reports to guide them in the delimitation of their maritime boundary; and (3)
meanwhile, no Party should take unilateral actions in the disputed area.218
Notwithstanding this agreement, on 16 July 1972 Gabon issued
Ordonnance No. 58/72 unilaterally extending its territorial sea – for the third time
215 Airgram No. A-011 from the Embassy of the United States to the Gabonese Republic to the US
Department of State (8 February 1972), p. 1. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 159; Letter from the Permanent
Representative of The Gabonese Republic to the United Nations to the UN Secretary-General (1
March 1972), p. 3. MEG, Vol. III, Annex 25.
216 Report Prepared by the Gabon-Equatorial Guinea Joint Commission After the Meeting in
Libreville from March 25 to 29, 1972, Libreville (25-29 March 1972), pp. 1, 5-6. MEG, Vol. VII,
Annex 199; Minutes Drawn up by the Gabonese-Equatoguinean Delegation Following the Meeting
in Libreville from March 25-29, 1972, Libreville (29 March 1972), p. 3. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex
197.
217 Minutes of the Joint Gabon-Equatorial Guinea Commission's Meeting in Libreville (25-29
March 1972), p. 1. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 198; Minutes Drawn up by the Gabonese-Equatoguinean
Delegation Following the Meeting in Libreville from March 25-29, 1972, Libreville (29 March
1972), p. 1. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 197; Memorandum of Conversation between Chargé d’Affaires
of the Embassy of The French Republic to The Gabonese Republic and US Embassy Official (5
April 1972), pp. 1-3. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 160.
218 Minutes of the Joint Gabon-Equatorial Guinea Commission's Meeting in Libreville (25-29
March 1972), pp. 3, 8, points 2.1, 8.2. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 198.
81
in less than two years – from 30 nautical miles to 100 nautical miles.219 Equatorial
Guinea protested Gabon’s action,220 as did the United States221 and the Kingdom
of the Netherlands.222
The following month, on or about 26 August 1972, Gabonese military
forces seized and occupied the islet of Mbañe,223 capturing and beating four
soldiers from the Equatoguinean National Guard, and detaining and torturing 24
Equatoguinean fishermen who were present on the islet.224 Gabon then stationed
warships in the Rio Muni estuary and sank several Equatoguinean vessels that
supplied and connected Corisco Island and its dependencies to the Equatorial
219 Letter from the Ambassador of The Gabonese Republic to the United Nations to the UN
Secretary-General (28 August 1972), p. 1. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 161; The Gabonese Republic,
Ordonnance No. 58/72 Extending the Outer Limit of Gabon’s Territorial Waters to 100 Nautical
Miles (16 July 1972), p. 3, art. 1. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 188; Telegram No. 546 from the Embassy
of the United States to The Gabonese Republic to the US Department of State (2 September 1972),
p. 1. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 162.
220 The Gabonese Republic, Ordonnance No. 58/72 Extending the Outer Limit of Gabon's
Territorial Waters to 100 Nautical Miles (16 July 1972), p. 3. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 188; Letter
from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to the United Nations to the
Permanent Missions and Offices of Permanent Observers to the United Nations (5 September 1972).
MEG, Vol. III, Annex 26.
221 Telegram No. 190230 from the US Department of State to the Embassies of the United States of
America to The Gabonese Republic, the United Kingdom, The French Republic, the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, Japan, the United Nations, and The United Republic of Cameroon (18
October 1972), p. 1. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 170.
222 Telegram No. 282 from the Embassy of the United States of America to the Kingdom of the
Netherlands to the US Department of State (26 October 1972). MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 171.
223 Telegram No. 644 from the Embassy of the United States of America to The Gabonese Republic
to the US Department of State (11 September 1972), p. 1. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 165.
224 Permanent Mission of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to the United Nations, Statement Before
the United Nations Security Council by His Excellency Mr. Jesus Alfonso Oyono Alogo (September
1972), p. 9. MEG, Vol. III, Annex 28; Telegram from Equatorial Guinea’s Minister of Foreign
Affairs to the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to the United Nations
(11 September 1972). MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 164.
82
Guinea mainland, killing the crews.225 Gabon maintained its warships in Equatorial
Guinea’s Rio Muni estuary, and continued to sink any vessel that attempted to
approach the islands that were suddenly in dispute.226
On 11 September 1972, Equatorial Guinea complained about
Gabon’s actions to the United Nations Security Council, asserting that Gabon’s
occupation of Mbañe was a violation of Equatorial Guinea’s territorial
sovereignty.227 To avoid Security Council action, Gabon agreed to seek resolution
of the dispute at the regional level under the auspices of the Organisation of African
Unity (“OAU”).228 The first meeting under OAU auspices was hosted by the
Presidents of Congo and Zaire (as it was then known) and was held in Kinshasa on
17 September 1972. Presidents Francisco Macias Nguema of Equatorial Guinea
and Albert Bernard Bongo of Gabon (who later changed his name to Omar Bongo
Ondimba) agreed to “settle their dispute within the African context and by peaceful
means”.229 The four Heads of State further agreed to establish a Commission
225 Telegram from Equatorial Guinea’s Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Permanent Representative
of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to the United Nations (11 September 1972). MEG, Vol. VI,
Annex 164; Memorandum from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Spain summarizing President
Macias’ September 8th Speech to the Diplomatic Corps (15 September 1972), p. 1. MEG, Vol. VI,
Annex 173.
226 Memorandum from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Spain summarizing President Macias’
September 8th Speech to the Diplomatic Corps (15 September 1972). MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 173.
227 Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to the United
Nations to the UN Secretary General (11 September 1972). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 27; Permanent
Mission of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to the United Nations, Statement Before the United
Nations Security Council by His Excellency Mr. Jesus Alfonso Oyono Alogo (September 1972).
MEG, Vol. III, Annex 28.
228 Routine Telegram No. 434 from Kinshasa (15 September 1972). MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 167;
Letter from Gabon to Secretary of the United Nations (13 September 1972). MEG, Vol. VI, Annex
166.
229 Conference of the Heads of State and Government of Central and East Africa, Dar es Salaam, 7-
9 September 1972, Joint Communiqué on the Work of the Conference on Settlement of the Dispute
Between Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, as recorded by the Embassy of the United States to the
Republic of Zaire (18 September 1972). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 200.
83
composed of representatives of their respective governments to consider all aspects
of the problem.230 Following the Kinshasa meeting, the Commission requested
assistance from the Governments of France and Spain in the form of information
relevant to the dispute.231
When President Bongo returned to Libreville, he reported that the
mediators had requested that he withdraw his troops from Mbañe, pending
resolution of the dispute. President Bongo refused, and proclaimed: “I am there and
I am staying there.”232 On 10 October 1972, the Gabonese President visited Mbañe
and declared that if alleged “Equatorial Guinean threats … did not cease, he would
give orders to Gabonese armed forces to occupy all islands facing Gabonese coast”.
In addition, on 3 November 1972, Gabon proclaimed a 50 nautical mile fishing
zone on top of its claimed 100 nautical miles of territorial sea.233
The OAU Commission’s work ended in Brazzaville on 13 November
1972 with the Presidents of Equatorial Guinea and Gabon signing a Joint
Communiqué in which they agreed to “the neutralization of the disputed zone in
the Corisco Bay” and to the delimitation of their maritime boundaries by an ad hoc
230 Ibid.
231 Circular No. 142 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State of Spain to the Ambassadors
of the Spanish State to the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, to The Gabonese Republic, to The
Ethiopian Empire, The French Republic, and the Permanent Representative at the United Nations
(19 September 1972). MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 163.
232 Telegram from US Embassy in Libreville to US Department of State (19 September 1972), p. 2.
MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 168; Letter from the Embassy of Spain in Abidjan to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs in Madrid (30 September 1972). MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 169; News Article, “Dateline Africa:
Gabon Frontier Dispute Settled,” West Africa (29 September 1972). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 229;
“Gabon-Equatorial Guinea: Next Meeting on 30 September,” Fraternité Matin: Le Grand
Quotidien IvoirienNews (20 September 1972). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 228.
233 Telegram from US Embassy in Libreville to US Department of State, “Gabon’s November,” (5
December 1972). MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 172.
84
OAU commission (the “Brazzaville Communiqué”).234 However, Gabon continued
to maintain its occupation of Mbañe,235 and the contemplated delimitation never
occurred. Gabonese troops have remained on Mbañe ever since.
The Parties’ Presidents met again, in Bata, in September 1974. As related
in the following Chapter, it was only in 2003, twenty-nine years after this meeting,
that Gabon claimed for the first time that the 1974 meeting had resulted in an
agreement that fully resolved all disputed issues, including the assignment of
sovereignty over Mbañe to Gabon. Equatorial Guinea rejected Gabon’s claim the
first time it was ever raised, and at all times subsequently. No such document
appears in the archives of Equatorial Guinea and the text provided by Gabon is
contrary to Article 7 of the 1973 Constitution of Equatorial Guinea. The text was
never published or registered with any international organization in the years
following its alleged signature and Gabon never submitted it to the internal
ratification process required by its constitution then in force. As detailed below,
Equatorial Guinea and Gabon acted in the following decades as if there was not
agreement on the matters allegedly addressed in the document presented by Gabon
and continued to negotiate to resolve the dispute.
234 Conference of the Heads of State and Government of Central and East Africa, Second Session,
Final Communiqué Regarding the Dispute Between Equatorial Guinea and Gabon (13 November
1972), p. 2. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 201.
235 Telegram No. 526 from the Embassy of the United States of America to The Gabonese Republic
to the US Department of State (3 June 1973). MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 174.
85
CHAPTER 5
EFFORTS TO RESOLVE THE BOUNDARY AND TERRITORIAL
DISPUTE FROM 1979 TO 2016
Equatorial Guinea’s President Macias was removed from power in
1979. With a new Government in place in Equatorial Guinea, the Parties resumed
negotiations to resolve their post-independence disputes regarding sovereignty
over the Corisco Dependencies and the delimitation of their land and maritime
boundaries.236 These negotiations carried on for nearly four decades and included
a 12-year period of mediation under the auspices of the Secretary-General of the
United Nations. The process ended in 2016 without resolution of the sovereignty
and boundary disputes, but Equatorial Guinea and Gabon were able to conclude the
Special Agreement signed by the Parties’ respective Presidents on 15 November
2016, by which the dispute identified in that Agreement was submitted to the
Court.237
I. 1979-1984: Bilateral Negotiation Efforts to Establish a
Joint Development Zone
Within a month of the change of Government in Equatorial Guinea
in 1979, the Parties began negotiations with the goal of establishing a joint oil and
gas development zone in Corisco Bay, pending the full resolution of their
236 Minutes of the Second Session of the Ad Hoc Commission on the Review of the Oil Cooperation
Agreement Between the Republic of Equatorial Guinea and The Gabonese Republic, Malabo (10–
13 September 1984), pp. 3-5. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 205.
237 Special Agreement Between the Gabonese Republic and the Republic of Equatorial Guinea (15
November 2016).
86
disputes.238 On 13 November 1979, the two Presidents, Teodoro Obiang Nguema
Mbasogo of Equatorial Guinea and Omar Bongo Ondimba of Gabon, concluded a
Petroleum Cooperation Agreement to create such a joint development zone.239
In July 1980, Gabon proposed to extend the Petroleum Cooperation
Agreement, but Equatorial Guinea refused.240 The following year, on 26 September
1981, the Parties formed an ad hoc commission,241 which met in Libreville in
March 1982 to revise the Petroleum Cooperation Agreement,242 but the Parties
disagreed on the area that would be covered by the joint development zone.243
On 13 September 1984, the Parties’ ad hoc commission met again to
attempt to agree on the joint development zone.244 Gabon proposed an area that it
considered the area “best suited for joint development, regardless of any
238 Minutes of the Second Session of the Ad Hoc Commission on the Review of the Oil Cooperation
Agreement Between the Republic of Equatorial Guinea and The Gabonese Republic, Malabo, (10-
13 September 1984), pp. 3-4. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 205.
239 Ibid; Minutes from the Joint Gabon/Equatorial Guinea Grand Commission Meeting (26-30 July
1980), p. 5. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 202.
240 Minutes from the Joint Gabon/Equatorial Guinea Grand Commission Meeting (26-30 July
1980), pp. 3–4. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 202.
241 Minutes of the Joint Commission on the Revision of the Petroleum Cooperation Agreement
Between the Republic of Equatorial Guinea and The Gabonese Republic, Libreville (26 September
1981). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 203; The Gabonese Republic, Spanish Minutes of the Ad Hoc
Commission on the Revision of the Petroleum Cooperation Agreement between the Republic of
Equatorial Guinea and The Gabonese Republic, Libreville (16–18 March 1982). MEG, Vol. VII,
Annex 204.
242 Minutes of the Joint Commission on the Revision of the Petroleum Cooperation Agreement
Between the Republic of Equatorial Guinea and The Gabonese Republic, Libreville (26 September
1981), p. 1. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 203.
243 Ibid., p. 4; see also The Gabonese Republic, Spanish Minutes of the Ad Hoc Commission on the
Revision of the Petroleum Cooperation Agreement between the Republic of Equatorial Guinea and
The Gabonese Republic, Libreville (16–18 March 1982). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 204.
244 Minutes of the Second Session of the Ad Hoc Commission on the Review of the Oil Cooperation
Agreement Between the Republic of Equatorial Guinea and The Gabonese Republic, Malabo (10–
13 September 1984), p. 1. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 205.
87
determination of maritime boundaries between the two countries, which […] will
be made in due time by other competent entities.”245 Gabon also considered that
this area was “best suited for joint development” due to the “overlapping
sovereignty in these waters” resulting from “general principles of law defined by
the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.”246
Equatorial Guinea proposed an area farther to the south that
overlapped in part with Gabon’s proposed area.247 It explained that it “relie[s] on
Article 7 of the Constitution of Equatorial Guinea—which determines that the
National Territory of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea is, with respect to its
maritime portion, comprised of the islands of BIOKO, CORISCO, ANNOBON,
ELOBEY GRANDE, ELOBEY CHICO, and the adjacent islets—and on the recent
1982 Jamaica Convention on the Law of the Sea ….”.248
In response, Gabon, also invoking UNCLOS, rejected the joint
development zone proposed by Equatorial Guinea. Gabon stated that “the general
principles of law defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea and invoked by the Equatoguinean Party to reaffirm its sovereignty over
the zone proposed by the Gabonese Party are the same principles upon which the
245 Ibid.
246 Minutes of the Second Session of the Ad Hoc Commission on the Review of the Oil Cooperation
Agreement Between the Republic of Equatorial Guinea and The Gabonese Republic, Malabo (10–
13 September 1984), pp. 3-5. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 205.
247 Ibid., p. 4.
248 Ibid.
88
Gabonese claims are based, which gives rise to overlapping sovereignty.”249 The
meeting ended without agreement.250
Having failed to agree on a joint development zone, after 1984, the
Parties changed the focus of their negotiations and sought to conclude a treaty
resolving their island sovereignty dispute and the delimitation of their maritime and
land boundaries.
II. 1985-2001: Bilateral Negotiations to Resolve the Sovereignty and
Boundary Disputes
From 10 to 16 November 1985, the Equatorial Guinea-Gabon ad hoc
Commission on the delimitation of the maritime boundary in Corisco Bay met in
Bata. It did so on the basis that the dispute was outstanding, and there was no hint
of a suggestion that it had been resolved. The Equatoguinean delegation stated in
its letter to the Gabonese delegation that one of the goals of the meeting was to
delimit the territorial sea in the Corisco Bay and resolve the dispute over Mbañe,
Conga, Leva, Hoco, and Cocoteros.251 Equatorial Guinea affirmed that it “ha[d]
always understood, and still understands, that the islands of Corisco, Elobey
Grande, Elobey Chico, the islets of Mbañe, Conga, Hoco, Leva, and Cocoteros are
249 Minutes of the Second Session of the Ad Hoc Commission on the Review of the Oil Cooperation
Agreement Between the Republic of Equatorial Guinea and The Gabonese Republic, Malabo (10-
13 September 1984), p. 5. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 205.
250 Ibid.
251 The Delegation of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Opening Address to the Delegation of The
Gabonese Republic During the First Meeting of the Gabonese - Equatoguinean Ad-Hoc
Commission (4 November 1984), p. 1. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 206.
89
an integral part of the Territory of the Equatoguinean State, … [t]aking into
consideration historical reasons dating back to” the 19th Century.252
Gabon rejected Equatorial Guinea’s assertions and argued that
Mbañe and the islets of Leva, Hoco, Conga, and Cocoteros were an integral part of
Gabonese territory.253 It did not assert, however, that Equatorial Guinea had ever
recognised or agreed to its claim.
The Parties agreed on “a series of principles and basic criteria to be
used in the negotiations between the Parties. According to the Act signed on 16
November 1985, these were:
(a) The principle of acceptance of the boundaries inherited
from the former colonial powers, particularly the 1900
Convention;
(b) The principle of applying international treaties regarding
the law of the sea ratified by the Parties, notably UNCLOS;
and
(c) Respect for the sovereignty of each State over its own
national territory.254
252 Ibid., pp. 1-2.
253 Minutes of the Guinean-Gabonese Ad Hoc Commission on the Delimitation of the Maritime
Boundary in Corisco Bay, Bata (10–16 November 1985), p. 5. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 207; Republic
of Equatorial Guinea, French Minutes of the Gabon-Equatorial Guinea Ad Hoc Commission
Responsible for the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Corisco Between the
Republic of Gabon and the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Bata (10–16 November 1985), p. 4.
MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 208.
254 Minutes of the Guinean-Gabonese Ad Hoc Commission on the Delimitation of the Maritime
Boundary in Corisco Bay, Bata (10–16 November 1985), pp. 4-5. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 207;
Republic of Equatorial Guinea, French Minutes of the Gabon-Equatorial Guinea Ad Hoc
Commission Responsible for the Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Corisco
Between the Republic of Gabon and the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Bata (10–16 November
1985), pp. 4–5. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 208.
90
From 17 to 19 January 1993, the ad hoc Equatorial Guinea-Gabon
Boundary Commission met in Libreville.255 Once again they reached no agreement
on their land and maritime boundaries, and the dispute over the islands persisted.256
The maritime boundary negotiations failed because of the ongoing dispute over
Mbañe, Cocoteros and Conga. Equatorial Guinea affirmed that “Mbañe … is part
of Equatoguinean territory,” while “[t]he Gabonese party reaffirmed that Mbañe,
Conga, and Cocoteros belong to Gabon.”257 Nevertheless, Gabon stated that it was
“willing to negotiate towards delimitation of the maritime boundary between the
two countries”,258 and the Parties agreed to continue negotiations.259
As regards the land boundary, the Parties discussed specific
settlements in the Utamboni River Area and the Kie River Area, and whether they
fell within Gabon or Equatorial Guinea.260 In these discussions, they referred to the
1900 Convention and the 1901 Commission’s delimitation of the boundary as the
legal instruments for their respective legal titles.261 However, in regard to the
boundary in the Utamboni River Area, Gabon claimed for the first time that “[t]he
boundary as it appears on the map of Equatorial Guinea does not respect the
delimitation defined by the Franco-Spanish Convention of June 27, 1900 for
delimitation of French and Spanish possessions on the coast of the Gulf of
255 Report of the Border Sub-Commission of the Ad Hoc Commission on the Gabon-Equatorial
Guinea Boundaries (20 January 1993), p. 1. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 210.
256 Ibid., pp. 5-6.
257 Ibid., p. 6.
258 Ibid.,p. 6, Item 2.3.
259 Ibid., p. 6.
260 Ibid., p. 2; French Report of the Border Sub-Commission of the Ad-Hoc Border Commission
Gabon-Equatorial Guinea (20 January 1993). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 209.
261 Report of the Border Sub-Commission of the Ad Hoc Commission on the Gabon-Equatorial
Guinea Boundaries (20 January 1993), pp. 3-4. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 210.
91
Guinea.”262 Equatorial Guinea challenged Gabon’s assertion, by referring to the
maps of both Parties and the work of the 1901 Commission.263
At the conclusion of the January 1993 meetings, the Parties issued a
joint communiqué using terms nearly identical to those of the 1985 joint Act. They
“reaffirmed a certain number of principles and criteria that must
be used as a basis for the delimitation of common borders
between the two countries, which are: [r]espect for the borders
inherited from colonisation in accordance with the provisions of
the Franco-Spanish Convention of 1900; [r]espect for the
international conventions to which they are signatories,
especially the Convention on the Law of the Sea; [and] respect
for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each State.”264
On 6 March 1999, Equatorial Guinea adopted Decree No./1/1999
claiming an equidistance line as the boundary with Gabon. Equatorial Guinea drew
the line using base points on Mbañe, Cocoteros and Conga.265 On 13 September
1999, Gabon protested Decree N/1/1999, claiming, based on its domestic
legislation, that “the Mbañe-Conga-Cocotiers zone belongs to Gabon in accordance
with the base lines as fixed by Decree No. 2066/PR dated December 4, 1992, as
properly communicated to the Equatoguinean Party on the occasion of [the]
meeting of the Ad Hoc Gabon-Equatorial Guinea Boundary Commission in
Libreville on January 17 to 20, 1993.”266
262 Ibid.
263 Ibid.
264 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Report of the Border Sub-Commission Following the Meetings
of the Ad Hoc Border Commission Gabon-Equatorial Guinea (20 January 1993), p. 2. MEG, Vol.
VII, Annex 211.
265 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Decree No. 1/1999 Designating the Median Line as the Maritime
Boundary of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea (6 March 1999). MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 193.
266 Note Verbale from the Embassy of The Gabonese Republic to the Republic of Equatorial Guinea
to the Ministry of External Affairs, International Cooperation, and Francophony of the Republic of
92
On 21 December 2000, the Equatoguinean Minister of Foreign
Affairs sent a diplomatic note to the Gabonese Minister of Foreign Affairs
protesting Gabon’s petroleum exploration and exploitation license to Shell for the
blocks identified as “Mbañe” and “Mbañe West.”267 Equatorial Guinea emphasised
that the “permits encroach upon the maritime area under the state sovereignty of
the Republic of Equatorial Guinea” 268 and that it would not recognise Gabon’s
unilateral acts. It urged Gabon to continue negotiations to resolve the sovereignty
dispute and delimit the maritime boundary.269
The Parties met again in Libreville from 29 to 31 January 2001 under
the auspices of the ad hoc Equatorial Guinea-Gabon Boundary Commission.270 The
head of the Gabonese delegation opened the session by stating that the Parties
should
“work while respecting the texts that govern the legal framework of the
work, namely:
- The French-Spanish Convention of June 27, 1900;
- The United Nations Charter;
Equatorial Guinea (13 September 1999), pp. 1-2 (“la zone Mbanie-Conga-Cocotiers conformément
aux lignes de base tel que fixées par le décret no. 2066/PR du 04 décembre 1992 régulièrement
communiqué à la Partie Equatoguinéenne lors de la Commission ad hoc des Frontières Gabon-
Guinée Equatoriale réunie à Libreville du 17 au 20 janvier 1993.”). MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 178.
267 Note Verbale from the Ministry of External Affairs, International Cooperation, and Francophonie
of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to the Second Vice-Prime Minister of The Gabonese Republic
(21 December 2000), p. 1. MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 179.
268 Ibid.
269 Ibid., p. 2.
270 The Gabonese Republic, Minutes of the Ad Hoc Border Committee, Libreville (31 January 2001).
MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 212.
93
- The Charter of the Organization of African Unity;
- The International Convention on the Law of the Sea.”271
Gabon further affirmed that the two States should follow the principle
of respect for boundaries inherited at the moment of independence.272 The Parties
agreed to continue negotiations on the land boundary at the next bilateral meeting.
As regards the maritime boundary, the Parties also agreed to develop proposals for
their next meeting.273
2003: CONTINUATION OF BILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS AND GABON’S
INTRODUCTION OF AN AGREEMENT ALLEGEDLY REACHED IN 1974
The Equatorial Guinea-Gabon ad hoc Boundary Commission next
met on 23 May 2003.274 The agreed agenda for the meeting was to continue their
work to resolve their dispute, with particular focus on the delimitation of the
maritime boundary and a possible joint development zone. However, at that
meeting, Gabon for the first time invoked what it claimed to be a “Convention
[demarcating] the land and maritime [boundaries] of Equatorial Guinea and Gabon,
271 Ibid., p. 2 (“de travailler dans le respect des textes qui régissent le cadre juridique des travaux, à
savoir: La Convention Franco-Espagnole du 27 juin 1900; La Charte des Nations-Unies ; La Charte
de l’Organisation de l’Unité Africaine ; La Convention Internationale sur le Droit de la Mer.”); see
also E.M. Yolla, Foreign Policy of Gabon, Etudes Africaines (2003), p. 7. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex
233.
272 The Gabonese Republic, Minutes of the Ad Hoc Border Committee, Libreville (31 January 2001),
p. 4. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 212; see also “Gabon/Guinée Équatoriale: Frontières: Litiges Bientôt
Réglés”, La Lettre Afrique Expansion (12 February 2001). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 232.
273 The Gabonese Republic, Minutes of the Ad Hoc Border Committee, Libreville (31 January 2001),
p. 5. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 212.
274 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Minutes of the Ad-hoc Border Commission Equatorial Guinea-
Gabon, Malabo (23 May 2003), p. 5. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 213.
94
signed in Bata on 12 September 1974” (the “Document presented in 2003”).275 In
support of its position, it presented a photocopy of the alleged “Convention”, the
quality of which was so poor that parts of the text were illegible. The document
was entirely unauthenticated. According to Gabon, this was an agreement between
the two Parties that applied to their ongoing sovereignty and boundary dispute.
The members of the Equatorial Guinea delegation—which was
chaired by Mr. Pastor Micha Ondo Bile, Minister of Foreign Affairs and President
of the National Borders Commission—were taken completely by surprise, and
responded that they had never seen or heard of such a document, and had no inkling
of its existence. As previously noted, Gabon had never invoked or relied on it, or
made mention of its existence, at any time since negotiations resumed in 1979, or
at any time earlier. Equatorial Guinea’s representatives pointed this out, leading
them to question Gabon’s good faith.276
The Equatoguinean representatives requested that Gabon produce the
original Spanish and French versions of the alleged “Convention” for
authentication, noting that since the document was allegedly signed in Bata, the
originals should appear on the official stationery of Equatorial Guinea.277 Gabon
responded that it did not have an original of the document it presented.278
Equatorial Guinea questioned the legitimacy of the document, and insisted that
Gabon produce an original, authenticated version of the document. Gabon did not
do so then, and has never done so since. The meeting ended with the Parties
275 Ibid.
276 Ibid., pp. 5-6.
277 Ibid., p. 6.
278 Ibid., p. 6; See also Letter from the President of The Gabonese Republic, HE Albert Bernardo
Bongo to the Embassy of The French Republic to The Gabonese Republic (28 October 1974). MEG,
Vol. VI, Annex 176.
95
agreeing to continue negotiations in Libreville within 30 days. In so doing, they
“reaffirmed their determination to find a solution … to establish a joint exploitation
zone and to continue with the negotiations underway for the delimitation of the
maritime border between the two brother countries.”279 The ad hoc Boundary
Commission, however, did not reconvene again, however.
By July 2003, after three decades of effort, the Parties concluded that
their disputes over the Corisco Bay islands and the maritime and land boundaries
could not be resolved by direct bilateral negotiations. On 11 July 2003, they agreed
to call upon the United Nations Secretary-General help them resolve these disputes
by mediation.280
THE UNITED NATIONS MEDIATION TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES FROM
2003 TO 2016
In accordance with the Parties’ agreement, the Secretary-General
appointed Mr Yves Fortier as Mediator.281 Mediation sessions were held in 2003,
and on January 19, 2004.282 As UN News reported, the Parties “signed a
communiqué outlining several procedural steps to be taken in future talks on
sovereignty over the oil-rich islands of Mbanié, Cocotiers and Congas in the
Corisco Bay.”283
279 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Minutes of the Ad-hoc Border Commission Equatorial Guinea-
Gabon, Malabo (23 May 2003), p. 9. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 213.
280 Letter from the United Nations Secretary-General to His Excellency the President of the Republic
of Equatorial Guinea (6 August 2003). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 29.
281 “Gabon and Equatorial Guinea Set Terms of UN Mediation Over Disputed Islands”, UN News
(20 January 2004). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 30.
282 Ibid.
283 Ibid.
96
In July 2004, Presidents Bongo of Gabon and Obiang of Equatorial
Guinea signed an Agreement in Addis Ababa regarding the settlement of the
sovereignty and maritime boundary disputes that would, according to Secretary-
General Kofi Annan, “lead to joint exploration of the island in dispute, while they
continue the demarcation of their border”.284 The Parties agreed to “negotiate the
creation of a Joint Development Zone in order to share the exploited resources
while continuing to try to resolve the disputed boundary”.285 They also “pledged to
end their often violent dispute over the ownership of an island called Mbanie and
the waters around it. Mr. Bongo said he was optimistic the rival territorial claims
will be settled soon”.286 According to a press article, “[t]he two West African
leaders told journalists afterwards that in a bid to fight poverty in their countries,
they had put aside their simmering disagreement over the Corisco Bay islands.”287
“The leaders said mediation would continue to delimit and then demarcate the
territory.”288
Secretary-General Annan reported that in Addis Ababa he
“hosted a mini-summit at which the Presidents of
Equatorial Guinea and Gabon became the second
set of neighbours to reach agreement through
negotiations rather than the use of the gun. As you
know, they’ve had a border dispute on an island
with oil resources, and they agreed to exploit it
284 “Secretary-General Commends Leaders of Gabon, Equatorial Guinea for Agreement to
Peacefully Resolve Border Dispute”, UN News (6 July 2004). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 35.
285 “Secretary-General's Activities in Ethiopia 3 - 7 July”, UN News (8 July 2004). MEG, Vol. III,
Annex 33.
286 “Border Agreement Creates Model for Other African Nations”, Voice of America (29 October
2009). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 41.
287 “Neighbours to Explore Jointly for Oil in Disputed Waters”, The New Humanitarian (7 July
2004). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 234.
288 Ibid.
97
jointly and continue to work on the border
problem.”289
Despite this agreement between the two Presidents, the Parties were
unable to reach an agreement on the definition of the area for joint development.
Instead, they decided in February 2006 “to embark immediately on negotiating the
final delimitation of their maritime and land borders and settling the issue of
sovereignty over the islands of Mbanié, Cocotier and Conga. For that purpose,
they agreed to draw up a timetable for the purpose of settling the major outstanding
issues before the end of this year.”290
However, in late 2006, this phase of the mediation ended without an
agreement settling any of the disputes. In light of the Parties’ inability to reach an
agreement, they agreed to submit the matter to the Court.291
In June 2008, the Parties began a new phase of mediations in order to
negotiate a compromis submitting their dispute to the Court.292 In July 2008,
Equatorial Guinea and Gabon issued a joint statement indicating that they had made
substantial progress towards referring the dispute to the Court.293 On 17 September
289 “Transcript of Press Conference by Secretary-General Kofi Annan at United Nations
Headquarters, 21 July 2004”, United Nations Information Service (22 July 2004). MEG, Vol. III,
Annex 34.
290 “Summit Communique Congratulates Presidents of Gabon, Equatorial Guinea for Progress
Towards Peaceful Settlement of Border Dispute”, UN News (28 February 2006), p. 2. MEG, Vol.
III, Annex 38; J. Geslin, “The Island of Contention”, Jeune Afrique (7 March 2006). MEG, Vol.
VII, Annex 235.
291 See Note from United Nations Under-Secretary-General L. Pascoe, Background for the Deputy
Secretary-General’s Meeting with Joint Equatorial Guinea and Gabon Senior Delegations, New
York on 18 March 2010 (15 March 2010). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 42.
292 Ibid.
293 “Former UN Legal Chief to Mediate Dispute Between Equatorial Guinea, Gabon”, UN News
(17 September 2008). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 39.
98
2008, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon appointed Nicolas Michel of Switzerland as
his Special Advisor and Mediator to assist in resolving the continuing disputes
between Equatorial Guinea and Gabon.294
Between 2009 and 2016, the Parties continued, within the context of
the mediation, their efforts to reach a special agreement to bring the case before the
Court, but had difficulty agreeing on the definition of subject matter of the dispute
to submit to the Court.295
In 2016, the Parties finally reached agreement to submit their dispute
to the Court. The Special Agreement was signed by their respective Presidents on
15 November 2016.296
294 Ibid.
295 See Note from United Nations Under-Secretary-General L. Pascoe, Background for the Deputy
Secretary-General’s Meeting with Joint Equatorial Guinea and Gabon Senior Delegations, New
York on 18 March 2010 (15 March 2010). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 42.
296 Special Agreement between the Gabonese Republic and the Republic of Equatorial Guinea (15
November 2016).
99
CHAPTER 6
THE LEGAL TITLES THAT HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW BETWEEN
THE PARTIES CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OF MBAÑE,
COCOTEROS AND CONGA AND THE DELIMITATION OF THEIR
COMMON LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARIES
I. The Legal Titles of Equatorial Guinea and of Gabon to Insular and
Continental Territory Were Acquired by Succession to the Legal Titles Held
by Spain and France
Equatorial Guinea holds Legal Titles to its territory as the successor
State to Spain’s Legal Titles existing on the date of Equatorial Guinea’s
independence. Equally, Gabon holds its Legal Titles to its territory as the successor
State to France’s Legal Titles existing on the date of Gabon’s independence.
Acquisition of legal title to territory through succession is not controversial. It is
the basis of the territorial sovereignty of all States that have become independent
from colonial powers as well as other new States that have become territorial
sovereigns by succession under international law.
Succession to legal title to territory by newly independent States is
closely tied to the principle of respect for territorial boundaries existing at
independence. As the ICJ Chamber in Burkina Faso v. Mali emphasized:
“There is no doubt that the obligation to respect preexisting
international frontiers in the event of a State
succession derives from a general rule of
international law, whether or not the rule is
expressed in the formula uti possidetis.”297
“The purpose of this principle is to ensure that the
independence and territorial stability of new States
is not endangered by frontier challenges following
297 Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 554, para. 24.
100
the withdrawal of the colonial State or administering
power.” 298
Respect for the territorial boundaries existing at the moment of
succession has been given specific application in the context of the decolonization
of Africa. As the Chamber in Burkina Faso v. Mali emphasized:
“At first sight this principle conflicts outright with
another one, the right of peoples to selfdetermination.
In fact, however, the maintenance of
the territorial status quo in Africa is often seen as the
wisest course, to preserve what has been achieved by
peoples who have struggled for their independence,
and to avoid a disruption which would deprive the
continent of the gains achieved by much sacrifice.
The essential requirement of stability in order to
survive, to develop and gradually to consolidate their
independence in all fields, has induced African
States judiciously to consent to the respecting of
colonial frontiers, and to take account of it in the
interpretation of the principle of self-determination
of peoples.”299
Thus, African States, in particular, agreed to “a norm that determines
the boundaries between decolonized States on the basis of territorial,
administrative, or international divisions established during colonial rule”.300
298Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 554, para. 20. This is
even true where the respective successor State would not otherwise succeed to the treaties of its
predecessor State. It is also in line with the general interest of the international community in the
stability and inviolability of boundaries. A. Zimmermann & J. Devaney, “State Succession in
Treaties” Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (last updated July 2019), para. 16.
MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 243.
299 Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 554, paras. 25, 63.
300G. Nesi, “Uti Possidetis Doctrine” MAX PLANCK ENCYCLOPEDIAS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW
(February 2018), para. 4. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 241.
101
At the inaugural summit conference of the Organisation of African
Unity (“OAU”) held in Addis Ababa in May 1963, delegates urged a maintenance
of the status quo rather than a readjustment of the borders of the newly formed
African States. As one commentator observed: “the vast majority of delegates to
this conference emphasized that whatever might be the moral and historical
argument for a readjustment of national boundaries, practical attempts to reshape
the map of Africa at the present day might well prove disastrous.”301 As a result, in
the OAU’s constitutive instrument, the OAU Charter, which established the
organisation on 25 May 1963, the 32 signatories (including Gabon) pledged their
“[r]espect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each State and for its
inalienable right to independent existence.”302
A year after the creation of the OAU, the African Heads of State
(including that of Gabon) met in Cairo from 17-21 July 1964 and adopted the
“Border Disputes Among African States” resolution (the “Cairo Resolution”). The
Cairo Resolution defined and stressed the principle of respect for territorial
boundaries as set out in the OAU Charter:
“Recalling further that all Member States have
pledged, under Article IV of the Charter of African
Unity, to respect scrupulously all principles laid
down in paragraph 3 of Article III of the Charter of
the Organization of African Unity:
301See A. Oye Cukwurah, “The Organization of African Unity and African Territorial and Boundary
Problems: 1963-1973”, 13 The Indian Journal of International Law (1973), p. 4, quoting A.C.
McEwan, International Boundaries of East Africa, pp. 23-24. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 230.
302See Organisation of African Unity, Charter (25 May 1963), Art. 3, para. 3. Its successor
organization, the African Union (“AU”), later adopted similar language. See The African Union,
Constitutive Act of the African Union (11 July 2000), Art. 3 (“The objectives of the Union shall be
to … (b) defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its Member States …”).
MEG, Vol. III, Annex 45.
102
(1) Solemnly reaffirms the strict respect of by All
Member States of the Organization for the principles
laid down in paragraph 3 of Article III of the Charter
of the Organization of African Unity;
(2) Solemnly declares that all Member States pledge
themselves to respect the borders existing on their
achievement of national independence.”303
As a Chamber of the Court has underscored, these affirmations did
not seek to “consecrate a new principle” but rather to “recognize and confirm” an
existing one as a rule binding under international law and of general application.304
In accordance with this rule of international law, Equatorial Guinea
and Gabon succeeded to the territories and boundaries of Spain and France,
respectively, upon attaining independence (Gabon on 17 August 1960, Equatorial
Guinea on 12 October 1968).305Further, both Gabon and Equatorial Guinea became
303Organisation of African Unity, Resolutions Adopted by the First Ordinary Session of the
Assembly of Heads of State and Government Held in Cairo, UAR (17-21 July 1964), p. 17 (emphasis
added). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 44.
304Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 554, para. 24 (“Hence
the numerous solemn affirmations of the intangibility of the frontiers existing at the time of the
independence of African States, whether made by senior African statesmen or by organs of the
Organization of African Unity itself, are evidently declaratory rather than constitutive: they
recognize and confirm an existing principle, and do not seek to consecrate a new principle or the
extension to Africa of a rule previously applied only in another continent.”).
305 In the case of Equatorial Guinea, the UN participated in the steps leading to Equatorial Guinea’s
independence and supervised both the referendum that took place in Spanish Guinea on 11 August
1968 and the general elections for president of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea that took place
on 2 October 1968. The UN mission certified that the elections were free and democratic. UN
General Assembly Special Committee on Decolonisation, Report of the Special Committee on the
Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence
to Colonial Countries and Peoples, UN Doc. A/7200/Rev.1, Annexes to Agenda Item 23
(November 1967). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 20. Through Decree No. 2467/1968 of 9 October 1968,
Spain recognised that “[t]he electoral results promulgated by the Electoral Commission of Guinea
on October 2 of the current year” and declared “the territory of Equatorial Guinea … to be
independent as of twelve o’ clock noon on October 12 of the current year.” The Spanish State,
Decree 2467/1968 of October 9, Granting Independence to Equatorial Guinea, Official Gazette
103
Members of the OAU – Gabon joined on 25 March 1963, and Equatorial Guinea
on 12 October 1968. The Parties are thus bound by the principle of respect for
territorial boundaries existing at independence. Both States reaffirmed the legal
force of the principle of respect for borders existing at independence when they
became parties to the Constitutive Act of the African Union, which in Article 4
makes this one of the fundamental principles of the Union, with Equatorial Guinea
becoming a party to that instrument on 26 December 2000 and Gabon on May
2001.
Accordingly, the Legal Titles of Equatorial Guinea and of Gabon that
have the force of law in the relations between them, in so far as they concern the
sovereignty over the islands of Mbañe, Cocoteros, and Conga and the delimitation
of their common maritime and land boundaries, are those Legal Titles existing at
the moments of their respective independence.
II. Legal Title to the Islands and Islets of Corisco Bay at Independence
As the colonial sovereign, Spain acquired and maintained the Legal
Title to the Islands of Corisco Bay, including the Corisco Dependencies of Mbañe,
Cocoteros, and Conga, and Equatorial Guinea succeeded to that Legal Title upon
its independence in 1968. Because France had no Legal Title to these islands at the
time of Gabon’s independence, or at any time previously, Gabon did not and could
not acquire any such title to this territory when it became an independent State. For
reference, Figure 2.4 depicts the Corisco Dependencies.
No. 245 (9 October 1968). MEG, Vol. V, Annex 146. The Decree No. 2467/1968 ordered a formal
ceremony to “transfer powers to the President Elect of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea”. Ibid.
104
SPAIN ACQUIRED LEGAL TITLE TO THE CORISCO DEPENDENCIES IN 1843
AND RETAINED IT UNTIL EQUATORIAL GUINEA’S INDEPENDENCE IN 1968
The “concept of title” encompasses “any evidence which may
establish the existence of a right, and the actual source of that right”.306 The Court
has recognized that in the colonial period, occupation of territory was “an original
means of peaceably acquiring sovereignty over territory otherwise than by cession
or succession”,307 and that “agreements with local rulers, whether or not considered
as an actual ‘cession’ of the territory, were regarded as derivative roots of title”.308
Spain’s Legal Title to the Corisco Dependencies consisted of the
cession of rights from Portugal in the 1778 Treaty of El Pardo and Spain’s original
peaceful occupation of the Corisco Dependencies beginning in 1843. Spain
documented this title by the 1843 Declaration of Corisco, the Record of Annexation
signed with King Orejeck of Corisco in 1846, the Letter of Spanish Citizenship to
the Inhabitants of Corisco, also in 1846, and the 1858 Charter Reaffirming Spanish
Possession of the Island of Corisco, all described in Chapter 3 above.309
Throughout the remainder of the ninetheen century, Spain continued peacefully to
exercise its rights as sovereign over the Corisco Dependencies. In 1886 and 1887,
France – the only other State with a potential interest in Corisco Bay – France,
expressly recognized Spain’s title to Corisco Island and its dependencies, including
the island of Mbañe, based on Spain’s original possession in 1843.310
306Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Mali), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 554, para. 18. See,
similarly, Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua
intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1992, p. 351, para. 45.
307 Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1975, p. 12, para. 79.
308Ibid., para. 80.
309 See, supra, paras. 3.3-3.6, 3.90.
310 Protocol No. 30, Session between The Kingdom of Spain and The French Republic (16
September 1887). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 3.
105
Thus, by the time of the signing of the 1900 Convention, Spain’s Legal Title to the
Corisco Dependencies was unchallenged.
Spain’s sovereignty over the Islands of Corisco Bay was therefore not
in dispute during the negotiations that resulted in the Convention of 1900.311 There
is no indication that France withdrew its recognition of Spanish sovereignty over
the Corisco Dependencies, or that it asserted any new claim of its own to them.
The 1900 Convention thus did not affect Spain’s existing title to the Corisco
Dependencies.
Nor did anything change after the conclusion of the 1900 Convention.
Spain continued to hold title to Corisco Island and the Corisco Dependencies and
to exercise sovereignty based on its original Legal Title without any competing
claim or protest from France, or Germany during the brief period it administered
the territory south of Spain on the coast of Corisco Bay. This is evidenced by
Spain’s uncontested occupation of Mbañe with members of its Colonial Guard for
many years starting in 1908312 and the incident regarding the placement of a
navigation signal on Cocoteros in 1954 and 1955, when Spain ordered French
nationals to cease work and abandon Cocoteros, and the French complied. At this
time, just five years before Gabon’s independence, Spain again sent the Colonial
Guard to Mbañe, without protest from France.313 Spain’s treatment of Mbañe and
the other islets adjacent to Corisco in its territorial legislation in 1958 and 1959, as
well as its issuance of oil and gas exploration licenses during this period, provide
311 The French Republic, Letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the Minister of Colonies (13
March 1900). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 54.
312 See, supra, para. 3.21.
313 See, supra, para. 3.29.
106
further confirmation of its Legal Title on the eve of Gabon’s independence in
1960.314
The situation remained stable after Gabon’s independence. Between
1960 and Equatorial Guinea’s independence in 1968, the territorial legislation of
Spain, the maritime legislation of Gabon, and the oil and gas licencing practices of
Spain and Gabon, all reflected Spain’s 120-year-old undisputed title to the Corisco
Dependencies.315
It is thus well established that Spain held Legal Title to the Corisco
Dependencies from 1843 to 1968.
EQUATORIAL GUINEA SUCCEEDED TO SPAIN’S LEGAL TITLE TO THE
CORISCO DEPENDENCIES
Under the international law rules of State succession, Equatorial
Guinea succeeded to Spain’s Legal Title with respect to all of its colonial territory
as a unified whole, which included Corisco Island and the Corisco Dependencies.
This is reflected in the UN’s supervision of the decolonization
process. As the date of Equatorial Guinea’s independence approached, Spain’s
territorial legislation preserved the specific reference to the Corisco Dependencies,
continuing to use the formulation “the Islands of Corisco, Elobey Grande, Elobey
Chico and the adjacent islets” developed in its 1958 and 1959 legislation.316 This
description of Equatorial Guinea’s future territory as including the “adjacent islets”
of Corisco Bay was incorporated into UN General Assembly Resolution 2230
314 See, supra, paras. 3.34-3.35.
315 See, supra, paras. 3.84-3.100.
316 See, supra, para. 3.34.
107
(1966), in which the General Assembly recalled “the declaration by the
administering Power [Spain] of its intention to grant independence to Equatorial
Guinea as a single entity” and requested Spain:
“to ensure that the Territory accedes to
independence as a single political and territorial
unit and that no step is taken which would
jeopardize the territorial integrity of Equatorial
Guinea.”317
The following year the General Assembly reiterated “its request to
the administering Power [Spain] to ensure that the Territory accedes to
independence as a single political and territorial entity”.318 The UN Special
Committee on Decolonisation also affirmed “that Equatorial Guinea should accede
to independence as a single political and territorial entity”, and declared:
“that any action which shall disrupt the territorial
unity and integrity of the Territory will be contrary
to the provisions of the Declaration contained in
resolution 1514 (XV) and the Charter of the
United Nations”.319
Two months prior to Equatorial Guinea’s independence on 12
October 1968, its Constitution was approved by public referendum. Article 1
317 United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 2230 (XXI) Question of Equatorial Guinea (20
December 1966), p. 2, para. 5. MEG, Vol. III, Annex 19.
318 United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 2355 (XXII) Question of Equatorial Guinea (19
December 1967), para. 4. MEG, Vol. III, Annex 21.
319UN General Assembly Special Committee on Decolonisation, Report of the Special Committee
on the Situation with Regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, UN Doc. A/7200/Rev.1, Annexes to Agenda Item
23, Resolution adopted by the Special Committee at its 594th meeting on 1 April 1968 (1968), p.
189. MEG, Vol. III, Annex 20. See also Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos
Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 2019, p. 95, para. 152
(Resolution 1514 (XV) “has a declaratory character with regard to the right to self-determination as
a customary norm”.).
108
continued to use the phrase “adjacent islets” to refer to the Corisco Dependencies
and provided that:
“The Republic of Equatorial Guinea, comprised of
the provinces of Río Muni and Fernando Póo, is a
sovereign and indivisible social and democratic
State.
The province of Río Muni includes, in addition to the
territory by this name, the islands of Corisco, Elobey
Grande, and Elobey Chico and adjacent islets.”320
In light of Spain’s Legal Title discussed above, reflected in the
consistent references to the adjacent islets of Corisco Bay in the territorial
description of the territory that would become Equatorial Guinea, the indivisible
territory to which Equatorial Guinea succeeded included the islets of Mbañe,
Cocoteros and Conga.
Following independence, Equatorial Guinea acted on and affirmed its
Legal Title. Equatorial Guinea’s Decree No. 17/1970 of 24 September 1970
specifically referred to Mbañe, Cocoteros, and Conga as part of its territory and,
consistent with Gabon’s Libreville Marin Concession at the time, shown at Figures
3.23 and 3.24 (following page 70), claimed the median line as the maritime
boundary between these islands and Gabon.321 Equatorial Guinea sent this decree
to the UN Secretary-General, stating that it set “the limits of the territorial waters
of Guinea surrounding the Elobey Islands, Corisco and the Mbañe, Conga and
320 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Constitution of 1968 (11 August 1968), Art. 1 (emphasis added).
MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 182.
321 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Presidential Decree No. 17/1970 (24 September 1970). MEG,
Vol. VI, Annex 186.
109
Cocoteros Islets, which are an integral part of the national territory of Guinea”.322
The UN circulated this communication to all Permanent Missions, including
Gabon, on 13 October 1970.323 Equatorial Guinea is unaware of any protest made
by Gabon.
In 1971, Equatorial Guinea issued oil exploration concessions based
on Decree No. 17/1970 to CONOCO-Gulf and Compañia Española de Petróleos
S.A.U (“CEPSA”).324 Gabon sent a protest note to Equatorial Guinea on 28 August
1971 regarding this concession, but did not contest Equatorial Guinea’s
sovereignty over the Corisco Dependencies or assert a claim to them. To the
contrary, it noted that the Decree highlights that Mbañe, Cocoteros, and Conga
“belong to the Republic of Equatorial Guinea”, and protested only Equatorial
Guinea’s use of equidistance to benefit from “these islets [generating] the
maximum breadth possible of territorial sea”, since this “encroach[ed] upon our
continental shelf”.325
Seven months later, however, Gabon completely reversed it position.
During bilateral negotiations on a maritime boundary held in Libreville between
25 and 29 March 1972, Gabon, for the first time, asserted a claim to all the islands
322 Cable from the UN to Permanent Missions (13 October 1970), enclosing Letter from Equatorial
Guinea to UN Secretary-General (8 October 1970). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 23.
323 Ibid; The United States, Airgram A-1798 from the US Mission to the United Nations to the US
Department of State (21 October 1970). MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 155.
324 Letter No. 002967 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Gabonese Republic to the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea (28 August 1971). MEG, Vol. VI, Annex
154.
325 Ibid.
110
in Corisco Bay other than Corisco and the Elobeys.326 Five months after that,
Gabon sent its military forces to Mbañe to seize this territory.
GABON’S ACTIONS SINCE THE DISPUTE CRYSTALIZED IN MARCH 1972 DO
NOT AFFECT EQUATORIAL GUINEA’S LEGAL TITLE TO THE CORISCO
DEPENDENCIES
Because the dispute over the Corisco Dependencies crystalized in
March 1972, Gabon’s actions after that date—including the unlawful use of force
to occupy Mbañe in August 1972—have no effect on the Legal Title Equatorial
Guinea acquired by succession at independence. The Court has made clear that
“the date upon which the dispute crystallized is of
significance. Its significance lies in distinguishing
between those acts à titre de souverain occurring
prior to the date when the dispute crystallized, which
should be taken into consideration for the purpose of
establishing or ascertaining sovereignty, and those
acts occurring after that date ….”327
Unilateral acts that occur after the date on which a dispute crystalizes
“are in general meaningless for that purpose, having been carried out by a State
which, already having claims to assert in a legal dispute, could have taken those
actions strictly with the aim of buttressing those claims”.328 Since Gabon’s actions
were “undertaken for the purpose of improving [its] legal position”, none of its
326 Report Prepared by the Gabon-Equatorial Guinea Joint Commission After the Meeting in
Libreville from March 25 to 29, 1972, Libreville (25-29 March 1972), pp. 6-7. MEG, Vol. VII,
Annex 199; Minutes Drawn up by the Gabonese-Equatoguinean Delegation Following the Meeting
in Libreville from March 25-29, 1972, Libreville (29 March 1972). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 197.
327 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p.
624, para. 67.
328 Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea
(Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 659, para. 117.
111
actions since March 1972 can be considered by the Court in determining which
State possesses title to the Corisco Dependencies.329
III. Legal Titles to Continental Land Territory
Upon independence, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea succeeded to the
Legal Titles held by France and Spain, respectively, in regard to their continental
land territory, just as Equatorial Guinea succeeded to Spain’s titles in respect of the
Corisco Bay islands and islets. Regarding both continental and insular territory,
State succession is the principal and direct source of the Legal Titles held by both
Parties to these proceedings.
The question is: to what continental territory did each of the Parties
succeed when they achieved independence? This requires a determination of the
land to which France and Spain held Legal Title at the time Gabon and Equatorial
Guinea became independent.
The Parties agree that the 1900 Convention is a source of their
respective Legal Titles to continental territory. As detailed in Chapter 3, Article 4
of that Convention described the land boundary between the French and Spanish
colonial possessions abutting the Gulf of Guinea as extending east along the
thalweg of the Muni River, and then along the thalweg of the Utamboni River, and
then along the 1º North parallel of latitude, until reaching the 9º East of Paris
329 Sovereignty over Pulau Ligitan and Pulau Sipadan (Indonesia/Malaysia), Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 2002, p. 625, para. 135 (the Court “cannot take into consideration acts having taken place
after the date on which the dispute between the Parties crystallized unless such acts are a normal
continuation of prior acts and are not undertaken for the purpose of improving the legal position of
the Party which relies on them.”).
112
meridian; from there, the boundary was described as proceeding north along the 9º
East of Paris meridian until the border with the German colony of Kamerun.
However, the colonial powers recognized that they had inadequate
knowledge of the land they were delimiting, and provided for modification of the
boundary in Article 8 and Annex 1 of the Convention. To that end, they empowered
a bilateral Commission, established by Annex I to the Convention, and local
Delegates, to demarcate the boundary and recommend changes of a practical
nature, in the “spirit” of the Convention, with reference to the actual physical
geography and human presence in the uncharted interior. As described in Chapter
3, the 1901 Commission (referred to as such because it was created and began
working in that year), upon conducting its work in the field, determined that the
boundary should be delimited primarily along natural and recognizable
geographical features, such as rivers, instead of an abstract parallel of latitude, and
recommended that the boundary be adjusted in conformity with this determination.
The historical record, set out in Chapter 3, demonstrates that both
France and Spain, in practice, accepted the 1901 Commission’s recommendations,
and modified the boundary in the southwest where it followed the Utamboni River
and other rivers instead of strictly following the 1º North parallel of latitude. The
record also demonstrates that France, Germany and Spain accepted the principle
that the boundary should follow the natural and clearly identifiable human-made
features and continued to adjust the lines described in Article 4 of the 1900
Convention on this basis in the Utamboni River Area by reference to specific towns
under the sovereignty of the relevant States. Similarly, in the northeast, the
Delegates of Spain and France—their Colonial Governors—reached an agreement,
in 1919, that the boundary should follow the Kie River, rather than the 9º East of
Paris meridian.
113
Pursuant to these agreements and understandings, Spain regularly and
continuously carried out infra legem effectivités on its side of the modified
boundaries, as sovereign over the Muni River Area of Spanish Guinea, without
protest from France. France, correspondingly, generally limited its exercise of
sovereignty to the land falling on its side of the modified boundaries. This situation
persisted throughout the colonial period, until Gabon’s independence in 1960, and
Equatorial Guinea’s independence in 1968. Accordingly, for Equatorial Guinea,
the Legal Title to which it succeeded from Spain included the land territory that
Spain exclusively administered, as sovereign, as of 1968.
While Article 4 of the 1900 Convention is a source of Spain’s Legal
Title, it is thus not the only source. Other sources of Spain’s title include the
modifications proposed by the 1901 Commission and the adjustments to the
boundary agreed by parties’ colonial Governors, both in accordance with the
provisions of the Convention, which were accepted in practice by the parties, as
well as the infra legem effectivités carried out by Spain, without protest by France,
or by Gabon after 1960, in territory lying south of the 1º North parallel and east of
the 9º East of Paris meridian.
A map showing the agreed modifications in these two areas can be
seen at Figure 3.9 (following page 44).
THE LEGAL TITLES OF SPAIN AND FRANCE TO THE LAND TERRITORY IN THE
UTAMBONI RIVER AREA
As recounted in more detail in Chapter 3, in the Utamboni River Area
the 1901 Commission, after a mission to survey the territory on the ground to
demarcate the boundary, proposed that it follow the Utamboni River, the Mitombe
River and the Miang River, even though their courses deviate from the 1º North
parallel of latitude. East of these rivers, the relevant parties to the 1900 Convention
114
continued to modify the boundary in accordance with the terms of the 1900
Convention. In 1914, local Delegates of Spain and Germany, which had
temporarily replaced France as the sovereign in this area, agreed that certain towns
fell under the sovereignty of each country. In accordance with the proposal of the
1901 Commission and the work of the 1914 Commission, Spain administered this
territory until Equatorial Guinea’s independence in 1968 without protest from
France, until 1960, or from Gabon after that date. Thus for some 67 years, without
interruption or challenge, Spain implemented and gave effect to the 1901
Commission’s proposal and subsequent modifications of the boundary line
described in Article 4 of the 1900 Convention in the Utamboni River Area by
carrying out extensive infra legem effectivités on its side of the modified boundary.
These included, inter alia:
• By 1905, Spain had established an outpost in Asobla and the
Spanish head of the outpost exercised judicial functions.330
• By 1907, Asobla functioned as a Spanish customs post.331 It also had
significant services, infrastructure, and personnel, including a
Government delegation (and housing for delegates), an infirmary
staffed with medical professionals, a treasury administration, and a
330Kingdom of Spain, Royal Order on Justice, Powers of Government Representatives (27 July
1905). MEG, Vol. V, Annex 113.
331A. Barrera, “What They are and What They Should be: the Spanish Possessions in the Gulf of
Guinea” General Marine Review, Conference of the Royal Geographic Society (November 1907),
pp. 6-7. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 57; B. Rodriguez, “Geographical Studies: Morocco and Spanish
Places, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli, Sahara and Spanish Sahara, Spanish Mainland and Island
Guinea, Moroccan Problem” (1908). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 221.
115
postal service.332 Additionally, Spain administered a police force in
Asobla, collected taxes, and gave the town an allocated budget.333
• Asobla also served as the seat of an administrative subdistrict within
the district of Elobey, starting in 1907.334
• In 1925 a League of Nations report on tuberculosis and sleeping
sickness in Equatorial Africa noted that these diseases are endemic in
Asobla and Mbung, identifying both towns as being in Spanish
Continental Guinea and on “Spanish soil”.335
• By 1927, the Spanish Colonial Guard administered a school in
Asobla.336
• In 1953, Spain promulgated a law setting out the legal rights of the
indigenous population of Spanish Guinea, with specific reference to
the town of Asobla.337
332 A. Barrera, “What They are and What They Should be: the Spanish Possessions in the Gulf of
Guinea” General Marine Review, Conference of the Royal Geographic Society (November 1907),
pp. 6, 12, 16. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 57.
333Royal Geographical Society, “Legislation and provisions of the Central Administration”,
Magazine of Colonial and Mercantile Geography, Spain (1907), pp. 2-3. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex
220.
334 Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Decree on Territorial Division, Official Bulletin (1
March 1907). MEG, Vol. V, Annex 114.
335A. Balfour et al, Further Report on Tuberculosis and Sleeping-Sickness in Equatorial Africa,
League of Nations Health Organization (April 1925). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 224.
336 G. Nerin, Spain's Last Forest: Cannibals, Missionaries, and Civil Guards Account of the
Conquest of the Fang in Spanish Guinea 1914-1930 (2010), p. 103. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 236.
337F. Olesa Munido, “Criminal Law Applicable to Indigenous People in the Spanish Territories of
the Gulf of Guinea”, INSTITUTE OF AFRICAN STUDIES, SUPERIOR COUNCIL OF SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH, Madrid (1953). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 226.
116
• In 1966, pursuant to the Spanish-Gabonese Agreement regarding
Transboundary Circulation and Exchanges between Río Muni and
Gabon (the “1966 Agreement”), Spain and Gabon exchanged lists of
towns and villages on their respective sides of the Utamboni River,
which both States recognized as the border in that area.
• During the colonial period France, then Germany (when it became
Spain’s sovereign neighbour in 1911 for a brief period) and then
France again (from World War I to 1960) never objected to Spain’s
administration of the Utamboni River Area in accordance with the
proposal of the 1901 Commission. France, and later Gabon, had full
knowledge of Spain’s administration of the Utamboni River Area, and
neither asserted a claim to that territory prior to Equatorial Guinea’s
independence in 1968.
THE LEGAL TITLES OF SPAIN AND FRANCE TO THE LAND TERRITORY IN THE
KIE RIVER AREA
Spain and France also modified the boundary in the Kie River Area,
as set out in detail in Chapter 3. In 1919, their local Delegates – the Governor of
Spanish Guinea and the Governor General of French Equatorial Africa – concluded
an agreement by which the northern half of the eastern boundary between Spanish
Muni River and France’s colonial territory would provisionally be the Kie River,
rather than the 9º East of Paris meridian specified in Article 4 of the 1900
Convention. Prior to its execution, this Governors’ Agreement was proposed by
117
each Governor to his respective sovereign, and Spain and France both approved
it.338
Spain immediately began to administer the Kie River Area and, again,
Spain carried out extensive infra legem effectivités on its side of the modified
boundary continuously, regularly and without protest by France or Gabon between
1919 and 1968. Among other unchallenged acts of administration:
• In 1922, Spain established a military post in Ebebiyin.339 By 1927, the
Colonial Guard administered a school in Ebebiyin.340 In the 1930s,
Spain constructed several public works in Ebebiyin, including a
colonial guard encampment, a hospital, and maintained an indigenous
settlement.341 And in 1948, Spain established schools in Ebebiyin.342
• Ebebiyin also became an administrative district.343
• The main intersection in Ebebiyin lies on the 9º East of Paris meridian.
Thus, the entire eastern half of the city is east of 9º East of Paris
338 See, supra, paras. 3.67-3.69.
339 G. Nerin, Spain's Last Forest Cannibals, Missionaries, and Civil Guards Account of the
Conquest of the Fang in Spanish Guinea 1914-1930 (2010), p. 61. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 236.
340 Ibid., p. 103.
341 Republic of Spain, Letter from the AT of Ebebeyin to the Governor-General of Spanish
Territories of the Gulf of Guinea (27 November 1938). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 77. On 9 June 1939,
the Lead Engineer to the Spanish Governor General proposed a 100,000 peseta budget for work on
the Ebebiyin-Mongomo road. See The Spanish State, Letter from the Lead Engineer to the
Governor-General of Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea (9 June 1939). MEG, Vol. IV, Annex
78.
342 “Territorial Demarcations - School Districts 1949-1959”, Official Gazette of the Spanish
Territories in the Gulf of Guinea (15 November 1952), p. 2. MEG, Vol. V, Annex 128.
343 See, supra, para. 3.78.
118
meridian and is bounded in the east by the Kie River. (See Figure 3.30,
following Figure 3.29 after page 76).
• From 1926 until Equatorial Guinea’s independence in 1968, Spain
constructed and maintained the Kie River road from Ebebiyin to
Mongomo, most of which was east of the 9º East of Paris meridian,
along the course of the Kie River.
• Spain administered all of the towns along the Kie River road, on its
side of the river, constructing and maintaining military detachments
and schools at Alen and Mongomo.344
Thus, Spain established Legal Title to the Kie River Area in
accordance with the 1900 Convention and its infra legem efectivités from 1901 to
1968. France, by its conduct, as well as the 1919 Governors’ Agreement,
recognized Spain’s title and established its own title on its side of the boundary
defined by the Kie River. The situation did not change after Gabon became
independent in 1960.
Nor did it change after Equatorial Guinea’s independence in 1968.
Since then, Equatorial Guinea has continued to administer the Kie River Area. In
July 2011, for example, Equatorial Guinea completed the construction of the
second of two bridges over the Kie River that connect the cities of Ebebiyin and
Mongomo with Gabon and installed border posts on its side of the bridges (see
Figure 3.29, Figure 3.30 and Figure 3.31, all following page 76). There was no
protest from Gabon. To the contrary, on 4 August 2011, a Gabonese publication
344 Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Official Gazette of the Gulf of Guinea Territories (15
March 1948). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 225.
119
reported that Presidents Bongo and Obiang attended the inauguration of “the bridge
over the Kye River, a natural boundary between the two countries.”345 Soon after
the inauguration of the bridge, President Bongo, in response to a question about
border disagreements with Equatorial Guinea, stated:
“President Obiang and I were at the end of July at the
border of our countries to inaugurate two bridges
which will increase our trade and facilitate the
movement of people. What better symbol of
agreement than building a bridge?”346
The record thus makes clear that the boundary described in Article 4
of the 1900 Convention was modified, in practice, in both the Utamboni River Area
and the Kie River Area on the basis of proposals by Commissioners and local
Delegates (the colonial Governors), who were acting in accordance with Article 8
and Annex 1 of the 1900 Convention, and by Spain’s unchallenged acts of
administration—its infra legem effectivités—on its side of the modified boundary.
As the Court has made clear, a State may obtain title over land territory if it engages
in such effectivités and the other State acquiesces.347 This is particularly the case
when, as here, the underlying conventional title envisaged mutually agreeable
345News Article, “Ali Bongo in Equatorial Guinea for Bridge Inauguration”, Bongo Must Go (4
August 2011), p. 1 (“Le président gabonais Ali Bongo Ondimba s’est rendu jeudi en Guinée-
Equatoriale pour inauguer, avec son homologue Equato-guinéen Teodoro Obiang Nguema
Mbasogo, le pont sur la rivière Kyé, frontière naturelle entre les deux pays”). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex
237; News Article, “Inauguration of Two Bridges”, Office of Press and Information of the Republic
of Equatorial Guinea (6 August 2011). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 238.
346News Article, Ali Bongo Ondimba: “Not Everyone Has Understood that Gabon has Changed”,
Jeune Afrique (6 September 2011), pp. 7-8 (“Le président Obiang et moi-même étions fin juillet à
la frontière de nos pays pour inaugurer deux ponts qui vont augmenter nos échanges commerciaux
et faciliter la circulation des personnes. Existe-t-il meilleur symbole d’entente que la contruction
d’un pont?”). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 240.
347 Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria:
Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, paras. 68-70; Land, Island and
Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras: Nicaragua intervening), Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 1992, p. 351, paras. 67, 80.
120
territorial adjustments on the ground. Thus, the effectivités carried out by Spain
until 1968, and by Equatorial Guinea subsequently, themselves constitute (or
contribute to) sources of Legal Title to the land territory in the Utamboni River
Area and the Kie River Area falling on the Spanish/Equatoguinean side of the
modified boundary. Likewise, the effectivités that France and Gabon carried out,
without protest by Spain or Equatorial Guinea, on the French/Gabonese side of the
modified boundary described in this Memorial constitute sources of Legal Title to
the land territory on that side of the border.
IV. The Legal Titles in the Sea Adjacent to the Parties’ Coasts
The Parties have never agreed on a boundary delimiting their
respective maritime entitlements in the Gulf of Guinea, including Corisco Bay. Nor
did their colonial predecessors. Under well-established principles of international
law, reflected in the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (the “Law of the
Sea Convention” or “UNCLOS”), to which Equatorial Guinea and Gabon are State
Parties, maritime entitlements derive from coastal land territory, including islands.
The sea follows the land. As the Court explained in Territorial and Maritime
Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), in regard to entitlement to an exclusive
economic zone (“EEZ”) and a continental shelf, but which is equally applicable to
a territorial sea:
“It is well established that ‘[t]he title of a State to the
continental shelf and to the exclusive economic zone
is based on the principle that the land dominates the
sea through the projection of the coasts or the coastal
fronts’ (Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea
(Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
2009, p. 89, para. 77). As the Court stated in the
North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of
Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of
Germany/Netherlands) cases, ‘the land is the legal
121
source of the power which a State may exercise over
territorial extensions to seaward’. Similarly, in the
Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya)
case, the Court observed that ‘the coast of the
territory of the State is the decisive factor for title to
submarine areas adjacent to it.’”348
As a consequence, the Legal Titles to maritime areas in Corisco Bay
and the Gulf of Guinea emanate from the titles to insular and continental land
territory identified and described in the previous sections of this Chapter.
Fortunately, the Parties do not appear to be in dispute over titles to the land territory
on the continental coast; their dispute pertains to title to land in the interior and
insular features. Thus, it is agreed that the land boundary terminus on the coast is
as specified in the 1900 Convention between Spain and France, Article 4 of which
provides:
“The boundary between the Spanish and French
possessions on the Gulf of Guinea shall begin at the
point where the thalweg of the Muni River intersects
a straight line traced from the Coco Beach point to
the point Diéké point.”349
The division of maritime space between Equatorial Guinea and
Gabon necessarily begins at that point.
Also undisputed is Equatorial Guinea’s title to the principal islands
of Corisco Bay: Corisco Island, Elobey Grande and Elobey Chico. The 1900
348Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p.
624, para. 140. See also Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahira/Malta), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports
1985, p. 3, para. 49 (“The juridical link between the State’s territorial sovereignty and its rights to
certain adjacent maritime expanses is established by means of its coast.”).
349Special Convention on the Delimitation of Spanish and French Possessions in Western Africa on
Coasts of the Sahara and the Gulf of Guinea, between the Kingdom of Spain and The French
Republic (signed. 27 June 1900, ratified 27 March 1901), Art. IV. MEG, Vol. III, Annex 4.
122
Convention, in Article 7, recognizes Spain’s pre-existing title to these islands.
Neither France nor Gabon has ever claimed them, or challenged Spanish
sovereignty over them, or Equatorial Guinea’s succession to Spain’s title. France
also recognized Spain’s sovereignty over the smaller feature of Leva, which Gabon
does not appear to have claimed; thus it appears that Equatorial Guinea’s
succession to Spanish sovereignty over Leva is also undisputed.
In respect of the three other smaller feature — Mbañe, Cocoteros and
Conga, collectively known as the Corisco Dependencies—the historical record
detailed in Chapter 3 establishes Spain’s Legal Title and Equatorial Guinea’s
succession to that title upon independence.
Four years after Equatorial Guinea’s independence, in 1972, Gabon,
for the first time, asserted a claim to Mbañe, and, later that year, seized it from
Equatorial Guinea by military force. Gabonese forces have remained on Mbañe
ever since, in support of Gabon’s claim. In Equatorial Guinea’s view, neither
France nor Gabon has ever had legal title to any of the insular features in Corisco
Bay, including Mbañe. As indicated, no such claim of title was made prior to
Equatorial Guinea’s independence in 1968, and Gabon’s seizure of Mbañe in 1972
does not constitute a basis for legal title under well-established principles of
international law.
Accordingly, Legal Title to the maritime areas adjacent to the
relevant continental coasts of Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, and the islands of
Corisco Bay, must be based on UNCLOS, and the principle that the land dominates
the sea expressed in the Court’s jurisprudence under that Convention. Title thus
extends from the continental territory of each Party on its side of the land boundary
terminus at the point fixed by the 1900 Convention and from all of the Corisco Bay
islands and islets that are part of Equatorial Guinea.
123
EQUATORIAL GUINEA’S MARITIME ZONE LEGISLATION
Equatorial Guinea ratified the Law of the Sea Convention on 21 July
1997. Even before ratifying UNCLOS, in 1984 it enacted legislation establishing
limits of its maritime zones in accordance with the terms of the Convention. In
particular, Act No. 15/1984 provides for a 12 nautical miles territorial sea and a
200 nautical miles exclusive economic zone measured from Equatorial Guinea’s
normal coastal baselines.350
Equatorial Guinea’s 1984 legislation limits the breadth of the
territorial sea and exclusive economic zone in areas adjacent to, or opposite,
another State to an equidistance line with that other State’s coast.351 On 6 March
1999, Equatorial Guinea promulgated legislation providing the coordinates for
those limits,352 as illustrated in Figure 6.1 (following page 124).353
On 7 May 2009, in accordance with Article 76(8) of the Convention,
Equatorial Guinea submitted, to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental
Shelf, its Preliminary Information indicative of the outer limits of the continental
350Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Act No. 15/1984 on the Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic
Zone of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea (12 November 1984), Arts. 2 & 10. MEG, Vol. VI,
Annex 191. See also United Nations Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (10 December 1982), Art. 5.
351Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Act No. 15/1984 on the Territorial Sea and Exclusive Economic
Zone of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea (12 November 1984), Arts. 2 & 10. MEG, Vol. VI,
Annex 191.
352 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Decree No. 1/1999 Designating the Median Line as the Maritime
Boundary of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea (6 March 1999). MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 193.
353On 26 June 1999, Equatorial Guinea and São Tomé and Príncipe signed an agreement delimiting
their maritime boundary along a median line between opposite coasts and thereby limiting the
seaward extent of Equatorial Guinea’s maritime area off its territory in Corisco Bay and Rio Muni.
See The Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Treaty Regarding the Delimitation of the Maritime
Boundary Between the Republic of Equatorial Guinea and the Democratic Republic of São Tomé
and Príncipe (26 June 1999). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 10.
124
shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.354 This claim pertains only to areas beyond 200
nautical miles from the Island of Annobon and does not overlap with any claim
made by Gabon.
GABON’S MARITIME ZONE LEGISLATION
Gabon ratified UNCLOS on 11 March 1998. Prior to ratification, in
1984, Gabon issued legislation establishing a 200 nautical miles of EEZ.355 In 1992,
it withdrew its claim to a 100 M territorial sea when it promulgated a decree
establishing a 12 M territorial sea, consistent with UNCLOS, and reaffirming its
200 nautical miles of EEZ.356
The 1992 decree also established straight baselines from which
Gabon purports to measure its maritime zones in and beyond Corisco Bay.357 Those
baselines unlawfully use the islet of Mbañe as a base point and are not drawn in
accordance with Article 7 of the Convention. Gabon’s straight baseline claim and
is depicted in Figure 6.2 (following Figure 6.1).
On 10 April 2012, in accordance with Article 76(8) of the
Convention, Gabon submitted its information on the outer limits of the continental
354 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, Preliminary Information Presented by
the Republic of Equatorial Guinea on the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf (7 May 2009), para.
3. MEG, Vol. III, Annex 40.
355 The Gabonese Republic, Act No. 9/84 Establishing an Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 Nautical
Miles (9 July 1984). MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 190.
356 The Gabonese Republic, Decree 002066/PR/MHCUCDM (4 December 1992). MEG, Vol. VI,
Annex 192.
357 Ibid.

125
shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.358 This claim does not overlap with any claim
made by Equatorial Guinea.
To the extent that the Parties’ maritime claims overlap, in the absence
of an agreement, the delimitation of their respective areas is to be carried out in
accordance with the principles set forth in UNCLOS Articles 15, 74 and 83, and
the body of maritime delimitation jurisprudence of the Court in interpreting and
applying those principles. Delimitation is dependent upon a determination of the
legal titles to the relevant continental and insular coasts.
358 The Gabonese Republic, Submission Made by the Gabonese Republic for the Extension of its
Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles Pursuant to Article 76 of the United Nations
Convention on the Law of the Sea (10 April 2012). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 43.
126
[page intentionally left blank]
127
CHAPTER 7
THE ALLEGED 1974 CONVENTION THAT GABON FIRST PRODUCED
AND INVOKED IN 2003 DOES NOT ESTABLISH LEGAL TITLE OR
HAVE THE FORCE OF LAW IN THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE
PARTIES
As described in Chapter 5, on 23 May 2003, unexpectedly and
without prior notice, Gabon presented to Equatorial Guinea for the first time a copy
of a document that it claimed was agreed in 1974 (hereinafter the “Document
presented in 2003”).359 Gabon described the document presented in 2003 as a copy
of a convention signed by Presidents Macias of Equatorial Guinea and Bongo of
Gabon that allegedly resolved the Parties’ disputes over the delimitation of the land
boundary, the delimitation of the maritime boundary, and sovereignty over the islet
of Mbañe. The claim presented on the basis of the document was entirely
inconsistent with the fact that the two States had just spent more than two decades
negotiating these three disputes on the basis that no agreement had previously been
reached as to any of them.
Gabon did not then, and has never, presented the original document.
Indeed, when Gabon suddenly produced the document in 2003, it could only
furnish poor-quality photocopies of French and Spanish versions, and the Spanish
copy was incomplete and materially different in its contents from the French one.
When Equatorial Guinea asked Gabon to present originals, Gabon admitted that it
did not possess them.360
359 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Minutes of the Ad-hoc Commission on Equatorial Guinea-Gabon
Borders, Malabo (23 May 2003), p. 5. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 213.
360 Ibid., pp. 6, 8.
128
The following year, when Gabon presented two photocopies for
registration by the United Nations Treaty Section of the Office of Legal Affairs,
the Treaty Section deemed them illegible and requested clearer copies.361 Gabon
was unable to present better photocopies of the originals, since it did not have them.
Instead, it apparently typed up new and legible versions of the alleged document,
and submitted these.
The photocopy and newly-typed Spanish versions contained material
differences. First, the Spanish photocopy is cut off on the final page and does not
contain the full signatures or the names of the persons signing the text. The retyped
version adds a signature line and the names of the alleged signatories. It also
adds to the Spanish version a nota bene that appears after the signature line on the
French version but does not appear on the first Spanish photocopy.362
Second, the retyped version submitted to the Treaty Section changed
the text of Article 4 regarding the maritime boundary as compared to the
photocopy. For the Elobey Islands, the Article 4 of the Spanish photocopy has the
text “1.3 miles to the west,” while the retyped Spanish version has “1.5 miles to the
361 Letter from the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations to the Permanent
Representative of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to the United Nations (22 March 2004), p. 1.
MEG, Vol. III, Annex 32; see also Letter from the Director of the UN Division for Ocean Affairs
and Law of the Sea to HE the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Guinea Equatorial (13
April 2005), p. 1. MEG, Vol. III, Annex 37.
362 The Republic of Equatorial Guinea and The Gabonese Republic, Convention Delimiting the Land
and Maritime Boundaries of Equatorial Guinea and Gabon (12 September 1974) (Spanishlanguage
photocopy), p. 2. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 217; The Republic of Equatorial Guinea and The
Gabonese Republic, Convention Delimiting the Land and Maritime Boundaries of Equatorial
Guinea and Gabon (12 September 1974) (Retyped Spanish-language version, as published in the
UNTS), p. 3. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 216; The Republic of Equatorial Guinea and The Gabonese
Republic, Convention Delimiting the Land and Maritime Boundaries of Equatorial Guinea and
Gabon (12 September 1974) (French-language photocopy), p. 3. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 215.
129
coast”.363 For Corisco Island, the photocopy has the text “6 miles to the west”,
whereas the re-typed version has “6 miles to the coast”.
Equatorial Guinea has no information as to the circumstances in
which the retyped versions were prepared, by whom or when, or under whose
control. Nevertheless, the indications are that the re-typed versions were created in
2004.364
Neither Equatorial Guinea nor the United Nations has ever been
presented with the original French or Spanish version of this alleged convention.
To the extent that Gabon seeks to rely on the Document presented in 2003 before
the Court, it has the burden, at the outset, to prove its authenticity. As the Court
held in Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay) “in accordance
with the well-established principle of onus probandi incumbit actori, it is the duty
of the party which asserts certain facts to establish the existence of such facts”.365
363 The Republic of Equatorial Guinea and The Gabonese Republic, Convention Delimiting the Land
and Maritime Boundaries of Equatorial Guinea and Gabon (12 September 1974) (Spanishlanguage
photocopy), Art. 4, p. 2. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 217; The Republic of Equatorial Guinea
and The Gabonese Republic, Convention Delimiting the Land and Maritime Boundaries of
Equatorial Guinea and Gabon (12 September 1974) (Retyped Spanish-language version, as
published in the UNTS), Art. 4, p. 3. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 216.
364 Letter from the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations to the Permanent
Representative of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to the United Nations (22 March 2004), p. 1.
MEG, Vol. III, Annex 32.
365 Case Concerning Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 2010, p. 14, para. 162. See also, Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities In
and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p.
392, para. 101 (“it is the litigant seeking to establish a fact who bears the burden of proving it”);
Case Concerning Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p.
43, para. 204 (“On the burden or onus of proof, it is well established in general that the applicant
must establish its case and that a party asserting a fact must establish it.”); Maritime Delimitation
in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 61, para. 68 (“As the
Court has said on a number of occasions, the party asserting a fact as a basis of its claim must
establish it.”); Case Concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic
130
The asserted existence of an international agreement, and the authenticity of any
document proffered as such, are facts that must be proven by Gabon.366
Beyond the question of its authenticity, the evidence indicates that
the Document presented in 2003 does not have, and was never understood or
treated as having, the force of law in the relations between the Parties with regard
to the delimitation of their common maritime and land boundaries or sovereignty
over the islands of Mbañe, Cocoteros and Conga, within the meaning of Article 1
of the Special Agreement.367 This evidence may be summarized as follows.
During decades of negotiations over the matters the Document
presented in 2003 is alleged to have settled, the document was entirely absent from
Republic of the Congo), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 324, para. 15 (“as a general rule, it is for
the party which alleges a fact in support of its claims to prove the existence of that fact”.).
366 Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v.
United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 392, para. 101 (“[A]ny judgment on
the merits in the present case will be limited to upholding such submissions of the Parties as have
been supported by sufficient proof of relevant facts, and are regarded by the Court as sound in law.
… [I]t is the litigant seeking to establish a fact who bears the burden of proving it; and in cases
where evidence may not be forthcoming, a submission may in the judgment be rejected as
unproved.”). See also Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic
Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 168, paras. 91, 123, 128-130.
367 In 2003, when Gabon first presented a photocopy it alleges is a treaty from 1974, Equatorial
Guinea questioned its authenticity and protested that Gabon could not, under established
international law principles, invoke an “agreement”, for the first time, thirty years after its alleged
conclusion, during which time no reference whatsoever was made to it by either party. The conduct
and declarations made by Gabon over thirty years of negotiations clearly and consistently evinced
an acceptance by Gabon that there was no agreement in force between the parties, and that Gabon
did not consider an agreement to be in place. Equatorial Guinea relied on Gabon’s conduct to that
effect, and adopted a position that was based on the positions taken over many decades by Gabon.
An estoppel may be inferred from the conduct of Gabon: See North Sea Continental Shelf Cases
(Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 3, para. 30; Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities In and
Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 392,
para. 51.
131
the relations between the Parties. In this regard, bilateral negotiations to settle the
very same issues that were purportedly settled by that document took place from
1979 through 2003. Throughout this period, Gabon’s Head of State was His
Excellency Omar Bongo Ondimba, the purported signatory of the document on
behalf of Gabon. Yet, Gabon never mentioned the document or the existence of a
convention on the boundary and sovereignty issues that the Parties were
negotiating during this 24-year period.
By its text, the Document provides for future agreements and specific
steps to delimit the land and maritime boundaries, suggesting that, even if
authentic, quod non, it did not purport to reflect a final agreement between the
Parties.
Equatorial Guinea and Gabon never took any of the steps necessary
to complete the alleged convention, to conclude the additional agreements that
were called for, or to implement any of the material terms found in the text of the
Document presented in 2003.
The alleged document has a date of 12 September 1974, at which time
Gabon’s constitution required that treaties affecting territory be submitted to a vote
of the people and approved by the parliament in the form of a law. Between 1974
and 2003, Gabon did not submit the alleged convention to these or any other
constitutional proceedings, contradicting its pretension such a convention had been
concluded.
It is thus clear that the Parties —and Gabon in particular— for nearly
thirty years proceeded on the basis that no agreement having the force of law and
resolving their disputes had been concluded in 1974. Then, in 2003, Gabon
suddenly asserted that all of the disputes that were regarded as unresolved and
under negotiation with Equatorial Guinea were actually fully and finally resolved
132
by a treaty signed three decades earlier. According to Gabon, this newly unearthed
document upended the territorial and boundary relationship existing between
France and Spain, which the parties inherited at independence, by transferring
sovereignty over the island of Mbañe from Equatorial Guinea to Gabon —shortly
after Gabon had illegally occupied it— and delimiting the land and maritime
boundaries in a manner that enshrined Gabon’s new, post-independence claims.
Equatorial Guinea maintains that, due to the grave importance of
establishing boundaries and the central importance of state sovereignty over
territory, international law does not allow such sweeping effects on land and
maritime boundaries, and sovereignty over islands, to be given to an instrument
having the nature of the Document presented in 2003, even assuming, quod non,
that it is authentic. As the Court noted in Territorial and Maritime Dispute between
Nicaragua and Honduras: “[t]he establishment of a permanent [] boundary is a
matter of grave importance and agreement is not easily presumed.”368 Similarly,
the Court has held that “[s]tate sovereignty over territory and [] the stability and
certainty of that sovereignty” are of “central importance in international law and
relations”.369
I. The Document Presented in 2003 by its Terms is Not a Final Treaty
The Document presented in 2003 is not, on its face, a definitive
settlement of the disputes between the Parties. It contains material provisions
requiring the Parties to take further steps to resolve certain outstanding territorial
368 Territorial and Maritime Dispute between Nicaragua and Honduras in the Caribbean Sea
(Nicaragua v. Honduras), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 659, paras. 87, 253.
369 Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge
(Malaysia/Singapore), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2008, p. 12, para. 122.
133
issues and conclusively establish their boundaries.370 None of these steps were ever
taken, as Gabon is bound to recognise.
First, while Article 4 contains a definition of the maritime
boundary,371 the nota bene appearing after the signatures on the French version
provides that the two Heads of State were to “subsequently proceed with a new
drafting of Article 4 in order to bring it into conformity with the 1900
Convention”.372 In the Spanish version, the part of the signature page where the
nota bene appears on the French version has been cut off, so it is not possible to
know what might have been written there.373 There is a partially legible,
handwritten note in the left margin of the Spanish version which seems to refer to
the 1900 Convention, but most of this note is also cut off.374 In any event, whatever
else might have been included on the Spanish text, the reservation on the French
text makes clear that there was no final agreement on the course of the maritime
boundary.
With regard to the land boundary, Article 1 purports to define its
general course in terms that are taken almost word for word from the 1900
Convention, referring to the 1º North parallel and the 9º East of Paris meridian.375
370 The Republic of Equatorial Guinea and The Gabonese Republic, Convention Delimiting the Land
and Maritime Boundaries of Equatorial Guinea and Gabon (12 September 1974) (French-language
photocopy). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 215.
371 Ibid., p. 2, art. 4.
372 Ibid., p. 3.
373 The Republic of Equatorial Guinea and The Gabonese Republic, Convention Delimiting the Land
and Maritime Boundaries of Equatorial Guinea and Gabon (12 September 1974) (Spanishlanguage
photocopy), p. 2. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 217.
374 Ibid.
375 The Republic of Equatorial Guinea and The Gabonese Republic, Convention Delimiting the Land
and Maritime Boundaries of Equatorial Guinea and Gabon (12 September 1974) (French-language
photocopy), p. 1, art. 1. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 215.
134
Article 2 sets out, in general terms, exceptions to the lines referred to in Article 1
by which Equatorial Guinea purportedly “cede[s]” to Gabon the portion of the
district of Medouneu located north of the 1°N line of latitude and Gabon “cedes”
to Equatorial Guinea a part of the territory east of the 9º East line situated around
the Ngong and Alen settlements.376
The precise locations and sizes of the areas “ceded” by each party to
the other, and the means of application of the text are left to be determined by future
agreement. Article 7 provides that “Protocols shall be made … to determine the
surface area and exact limits of land area ceded to the Gabonese Republic and that
ceded to the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, and … to specify the terms and
conditions of the application of the present Convention.”377 The Parties never
completed these necessary steps to determine the territories “ceded” by each party
and the resulting course of the land boundary.
Article 8 similarly requires the precise boundary to be subsequently
defined by representatives of Gabon and Equatorial Guinea. It provides that “the
materialization of the boundaries shall done by a team composed of representatives
of both countries, in equal number, with the aid or participation, as needed, of
technicians and observers from the Organization of African Unity or any other
international body, chosen by mutual agreement”.378 No subsequent definition was
ever effected pursuant to Article 8.
Thus, the Document presented in 2003, on its face, does not constitute
a final treaty. At most, it would appear to be an agreement to continue to seek a
376 Ibid., p. 3, art. 2.
377 Ibid., p. 3, art. 7.
378 Ibid., p. 3, art. 8.
135
final agreement. Therefore, even assuming the Document presented in 2003 is
authentic (quod non), it does not possess the force of law “in so far as [it] concern[s]
the delimitation of their common maritime and land boundaries and sovereignty
over the islands of Mbanié/Mbañe, Cocotiers/Cocoteros and Conga” within the
meaning of Article 1 of the Special Agreement.
II. The Parties Did Not Take the Actions that Would Have Been Necessary
to Implement the Terms of the Document Presented in 2003
After the date that appears in the French and Spanish versions’ text,
12 September 1974, the Parties took none of the steps that would have been
required under its terms. As noted, the note bene at the end of the French photocopy
states that the Heads of State would “proceed with a new drafting of Article 4”,
which addresses the course of the maritime boundary. This never happened.
Similarly, Articles 7 and 8 required further agreement to determine the territories
“ceded” by each party and the course of the land boundary and the formation of a
team with members from both Parties and, as needed, the participation of
technicians and observers from the Organization for African Unity to materialize
the boundary. None of this happened either.
Gabon alleges that the Document is a boundary and territory treaty
that has the force of law between the Parties, but no such treaty was ever submitted
to Gabon’s required constitutional ratification process. Gabon’s constitution in
force when the Document presented in 2003 was allegedly concluded provided that
“no cessation, no exchange, no addition of territory shall be valid without the
consent of the Gabonese people called upon to decide by referendum, after
consultation with the populations concerned” and that “treaties ... that entail
cessation, exchange or addition of territory ... shall take effect only after having
136
been properly ratified” and “may be ratified only by virtue of a law”.379 The Court
has recognized that constitutional provisions of such nature are of fundamental
importance.380Yet, it cannot be disputed that Gabon failed to comply with these
provisions. It took none of the steps necessary to ratify the Document presented
in 2003 that would have been constitutionally required if it had understood it had
entered into an agreement determining or changing national boundaries and
territorial sovereignty.
Nor did Gabon take any of the required steps on the international
level. The UN Charter requires that States register treaties with the UN Secretariat
“as soon as possible”.381 Gabon did not seek to register the document with the
United Nations “as soon as possible”; instead, it waited for thirty years after its
alleged signature before doing so, in 2004. While the failure to register a treaty
does not deprive it of the force of law (assuming, quod non, that it had such force
to begin with), the fact that the Parties never registered a boundary and sovereignty
treaty for three decades after it was allegedly signed offers a clear indication that
the party tendering the document had not previously understood it – assuming that
it even existed – to be in the nature of a treaty that had the force of law between the
Parties.
379 The Gabonese Republic, Constitution of The Gabonese Republic (29 July 1972), p. 3, Art. 52.
MEG, Vol. VI, Annex 189.
380 Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria:
Equatorial Guinea intervening), Judgment, I. C. J. Reports 2002, p. 303, para. 265.
381 Charter of the United Nations, Article 102 (1945).
137
III. The Parties Continued their Efforts to Settle Their Sovereignty and
Boundary Disputes Based on Other Legal Titles and made no Reference to
the Document Presented in 2003
President Macias’ tenure in Equatorial Guinea ended on 3 August
1979, five years after the alleged conclusion of the Document presented in 2003.
As noted, during these five years, the Parties did not undertake any of the steps
indicated in its text to complete or implement its terms. After the new Government
was established in Equatorial Guinea, the Parties continued negotiations to settle
the same boundary and sovereignty disputes that Gabon now alleges were fully and
finally settled in 1974.382 The objective of these negotiations was not to interpret
or apply the Document presented in 2003, which was never brought up by Gabon.
To the contrary, the Parties engaged in intensive bilateral negotiations from 1979
to 2003 on all the issues allegedly addressed by the Document presented in 2003
without ever so much as mentioning it. The objective of the negotiations was to
resolve the Parties’ differences regarding sovereignty over the Corisco
Dependencies and the delimitation of the land and maritime boundaries, which, by
the very fact of these lengthy negotiations, they both understood to remain
unresolved.
Beginning in 1979, the Parties attempted to reach what would have
amounted to a provisional agreement of a practical nature pending the delimitation
of their maritime boundary under UNCLOS Articles 74 and 83.383 They negotiated
for several years in an effort to conclude an oil cooperation agreement with a joint
development zone that included the maritime area adjacent to Mbañe, Cocoteros
382 Minutes of the Second Session of the Ad Hoc Commission on the Review of the Oil Cooperation
Agreement Between the Republic of Equatorial Guinea and The Gabonese Republic, Malabo (10-
13 September 1984), pp. 3-5. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 205.
383 Ibid.
138
and Conga.384 The object of the negotiations later expanded to the dispute over title
to the Corisco Dependencies, and the course of the continental land boundary.385
Gabon and Equatorial Guinea conducted these negotiations bilaterally between
November 1979 and May 2003. They consistently invoked, relied on, and affirmed
the principle of respect for boundaries inherited from their colonial predecessors,
the applicability of the 1900 Convention and subsequent modifications, and
UNCLOS as the legal bases to resolve their disputes and determine their titles.386
Indeed, in 2001, the Parties agreed that they should follow the principle of respect
for pre-existing boundaries and that “the Franco-Spanish Convention of June 27,
1990, the UN Charter, the Charter of the Organization of African Unity, and the
UN Convention on the Law of the Sea” were “all legal and historical instruments
necessary for the equitable delimitation of their border”.387 Not once during this
period of more than 24 years of negotiations did either Party invoke, refer to or hint
at the existence of the Document presented in 2003, let alone assert it as a basis for
its claims of title.
384 Ibid.
385 Report of the Border Sub-Commission of the Ad Hoc Commission on the Gabon-Equatorial
Guinea Boundaries (20 January 1993). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 210.
386 Minutes of the Second Session of the Ad Hoc Commission on the Review of the Oil Cooperation
Agreement Between the Republic of Equatorial Guinea and The Gabonese Republic, Malabo (10-
13 September 1984), pp. 3-5. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 205; The Delegation of the Republic of
Equatorial Guinea, Opening Address to the Delegation of The Gabonese Republic During the First
Meeting of the Gabonese - Equatoguinean Ad-Hoc Commission (4 November 1984), pp. 1-2. MEG,
Vol. VII, Annex 206; Report of the Border Sub-Commission of the Ad Hoc Commission on the
Gabon-Equatorial Guinea Boundaries (20 January 1993), pp. 3-5. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 210.
387 The Gabonese Republic, Minutes of the Ad Hoc Border Committee, Libreville (31 January 2001),
p. 2. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 212.
139
IV. The Document Presented in 2003 Did Not Acquire the Force of Law
between the Parties after 2003
When Gabon presented the Document in 2003 at a meeting of the ad
hoc Boundary Commission, Equatorial Guinea responded that it “refutes and
denies the existence of the hypothetical convention and ... denies the existence of
that convention as well as its validity”.388 Equatorial Guinea emphasized that
during the negotiations between the two States from 1979 to 2003, Gabon never
presented or mentioned such a document.389 Equatorial Guinea demanded that
Gabon produce the original Spanish and French documents for authentication.
Gabon admitted that it did not have originals, in either language.390
In a letter to the UN Secretary-General, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs of Equatorial Guinea protested Gabon’s efforts to have the Document
presented in 2003 registered with the Treaty Section of the United Nations.391 The
protest contested the authenticity of the Document. The UN responded, however,
that authenticity must be determined by a tribunal and reiterated that a certified
copy is the only requirement for registration.392 Without possessing the original
388Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Minutes of the Ad-hoc Commission on Equatorial Guinea-Gabon
Borders, Malabo (23 May 2003), p. 5. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 213.
389 Ibid., pp. 5-6
390Ibid., pp. 6, 8.
391 Letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to the Secretary-
General of the United Nations (10 March 2004). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 31; see also Letter No.
179/05 from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to the United Nations to
the Director of the United Nations Division of Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea (11 March 2005).
MEG, Vol. III, Annex 36.
392 Letter from the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations to the Permanent
Representative of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to the United Nations (22 March 2004), p. 1.
MEG, Vol. III, Annex 32; see also Letter from the Director of the UN Division for Ocean Affairs
and Law of the Sea to H.E. the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Guinea Equatorial (13
April 2005), pp. 3-4. MEG, Vol. III, Annex 37.
140
version or knowing whether it exists, Gabon itself certified that the retyped version
it submitted was a true and accurate copy of the original.393 Moreover, in its
submission to the UN, Gabon incorrectly represented that the parties had no
reservations or objections regarding the Document presented in 2003, despite the
fact that Equatorial Guinea contested its authenticity from the moment Gabon
sought to introduce it.394
On 18 March 2004, the UN formally recorded Equatorial Guinea’s
objection to the registration of the Document presented in 2003.395 Equatorial
Guinea put forth a second objection on 7 April 2004, indicating that the copies
submitted for registration were altered by Gabon as compared with the original
version Gabon had tendered:
“Gabon had submitted to the Secretariat photocopies
certified by the Gabonese Ministry of Foreign
Affairs as being true copies of the originals.
However, no originals exist, and Gabon never
informed the Secretariat that it had anything in its
possession beyond the photocopies it had supplied.
When the Secretariat rejected these photocopies
because they were illegible and because the French
and Spanish texts did not match, Gabon prepared and
393 Letter from the Director of the UN Division for Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea to HE the
Permanent Representative of the Republic of Guinea Equatorial (13 April 2005), p. 4. MEG, Vol.
III, Annex 37; Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Minutes of the Ad-hoc Border Commission
Equatorial Guinea-Gabon, Malabo (23 May 2003), p. 8. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 213.
394 Letter from the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations to the Permanent
Representative of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to the United Nations (22 March 2004), p. 1.
MEG, Vol. III, Annex 32.
395 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Objection to the Authenticity of the Convention Before the United
Nations, on the “Convention Demarcating the Land and Maritime Frontiers of Equatorial Guinea
and Gabon, Bata, 12 September 1974” (18 March 2004). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 218; Letter from
the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations to the Permanent Representative of the
Republic of Equatorial Guinea to the United Nations (22 March 2004), p. 3. MEG, Vol. III, Annex
32.
141
sent to the Secretariat new, typed texts. … Where the
Spanish-language photocopy and the Frenchlanguage
photocopy differed, Gabon changed the
Spanish-language typed text, even adding words
which had not been in the photocopy, to make it
match the French-language text.”396
Notwithstanding these objections, the UN registered the Document
on 25 March 2005.397 However, UN registration “does not confer on the instrument
the status of a treaty or international agreement if it does not already possess that
status”.398 The Document presented in 2003 did not possess that status when
registered and has not subsequently acquired it. The Document presented in 2003,
therefore, does not constitute a valid Legal Title on which either Party may base its
claims.
396 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Second Objection Before the United Nations, on the “Convention
Demarcating the Land and Maritime Frontiers of Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, Bata, 12 September
1974” (7 April 2004), p. 7. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 219.
397 Letter from the Director of the UN Division for Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea to HE the
Permanent Representative of the Republic of Guinea Equatorial (13 April 2005), p. 5. MEG, Vol.
III, Annex 37; The Republic of Equatorial Guinea and The Gabonese Republic, Convention
Delimiting the Land and Maritime Boundaries of Equatorial Guinea and Gabon (12 September
1974) (Retyped Spanish-language version, as published in the UNTS). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 216;
The Republic of Equatorial Guinea and The Gabonese Republic, Convention Delimiting the Land
and Maritime Boundaries of Equatorial Guinea and Gabon (12 September 1974) (Retyped Frenchlanguage
version, as published in the UNTS Vol.2248). MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 214.
398 Letter from the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations to the Permanent
Representative of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to the United Nations (22 March 2004), p. 3
(citing to UN Treaty Handbook Section 5.3.1, p. 27) (emphasis omitted). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 32.
142
[page intentionally left blank]
143
SUBMISSIONS
Reserving its right to supplement or amend its requests, the Republic of
Equatorial Guinea requests the Court to adjudge and declare:
The only legal titles, treaties and international conventions that have the
force of law in the relations between the Gabonese Republic and the Republic of
Equatorial Guinea in so far as they concern the delimitation of their common
maritime and land boundaries and sovereignty over the islands of Mbanié/Mbañe,
Cocotiers/Cocoteros and Conga are:
A. With Respect to the Delimitation of the Land Boundary,
1. by State succession, the special Convention on the delimitation of
French and Spanish possessions in West Africa, on the coasts of the
Sahara and the Gulf of Guinea, signed in Paris on 27 June 1900 (the
“1900 Convention”), as applied by France and Spain until the
independence of Gabon on 17 August 1960 and as continued to be
applied by Gabon and Spain until the independence of Equatorial
Guinea on 12 October 1968,
2. the legal title of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea as the successor
State to Spain to all titles to territory, including territorial limits,
held by Spain based on modifications to the boundary described in
Article 4 of the 1900 Convention in accordance with the terms of
the 1900 Convention and international law prior to 12 October
1968, the date of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea’s independence,
and
3. the legal title of the Gabonese Republic as the successor State to
France to all the titles to territory, including territorial limits, held
by France based on modifications to the boundary described in
144
Article 4 of the 1900 Convention in accordance with the terms of
the 1900 Convention and international law prior to on 17 August
1960, the date of the Gabonese Republic’s independence;
B. With Respect to the Sovereignty over the Islands of Mbanié/Mbañe,
Cocotiers/Cocoteros and Conga,
1. by State succession of Equatorial Guinea to Spain’s Legal Title held
by Spain on 12 October 1968 over Mbanié/Mbañe,
Cocotiers/Cocoteros and Conga founded on 1) the general session
of rights from Portugal in the 1778 Treaty of El Pardo, 2) Spain’s
1843 Declaration of Spanish Sovereignty for Corisco Island, 3)
Spain’s 1846 Record of Annexation signed with King I. Oregek of
Corisco Island, 4) Spain’s 1846 Charter of Spanish Citizenship
Given to the Inhabitants of Corisco, Elobey and their Dependencies,
and 4) Spain’s uncontested effective and public sovereign
occupation of these islands from 1843 until Equatorial Guinea’s
independence in 1968.
C. With Respect to the Entitlement to Maritime Areas, and their Delimitations,
considering the Respective Territories of the Parties as Determined under (A)
and (B),
1. the 1900 Convention in so far as it established the terminus of the
land boundary in Corisco Bay, and recognized Spain’s sovereignty
over Corisco Island, Elobey Grande and Elobey Chico; and
2. the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea signed on 10
December 1982 at Montego Bay, and
3. customary international law in so far as it establishes that a State’s
title and entitlement to maritime areas derives from its title to land
territory.
14􀀘
146
[page intentionally left blank]
14􀀚
148
VOLUME I
FIGURES
All maps are for illustrative purposes only
Figure 1.1 Spain’s Territory as of 12 October 1968 following page 8
Figure 2.1 The Geography of the Republic of Equatorial
Guinea and the Gabonese Republic
following page 10
Figure 2.2 The Geography of the Continental Region of
Equatorial Guinea
following Figure 2.1
Figure 2.3 Corisco Bay Islands following page 12
Figure 2.4 Corisco Island and Its Dependencies following Figure 2.3
Figure 2.5 Corisco Island and Its Dependencies circa
1859
following Figure 2.4
Figure 2.6 The Utamboni River Area and the Kie River
Area
following Figure 2.5
Figure 2.7 The Utamboni River Area following Figure 2.6
Figure 2.8 The Kie River Area following page 16
Figure 3.1 The Geography of the 1778 Treaty following page 18
Figure 3.2 The Positions of Spain and France Pre-1900 following page 22
Figure 3.3 French Source Map Showing the Corisco
Dependencies as Spanish, 1899
following page 24
Figure 3.4 Location of Pierre Loti Shipwreck Near
Mbañe
following page 28
Figure 3.5 Spanish Gulf Oil Company Map Showing the
Corisco Dependencies as Spanish, 1960
following page 36
Figure 3.6 Annex 3 to the 1900 Convention following Figure 3.5
Figure 3.7 1901 Commission’s Proposed Boundary following page 40
Figure 3.8 1901 Commission’s Proposed Boundary
(Utamboni River Area)
following page 42
Figure 3.9 The Parties’ Modifications to the Article 4
Lines in the Utamboni and Kie River Areas
following page 44
Figure 3.10 The 1914 Spanish-German Commission
Identified Spanish Towns
following page 48
Figure 3.11 Towns Surveyed in 1942 Spanish Census
(Utamboni River Area)
following page 52
Figure 3.12 Towns Surveyed in 1950 Spanish Census
(Utamboni River Area)
following Figure 3.11
Figure 3.13 Vasco Africana’s Miang Concession, 1952 following Figure 3.12
Figure 3.14 Boundary Established by 1919 Governors’
Agreement
following page 56
Figure 3.15 The Kie River Road Proposed by Governor
Barrera in 1920
following page 58
Figure 3.16 Spanish Military Posts on Kie River Road,
1926
following Figure 3.15
Figure 3.17 Engineering Structures Installed on Kie River
Road, 1949-1955
following Figure 3.16
Figure 3.18 Towns Surveyed in 1942 Spanish Census (Kie
River Area)
following page 60
Figure 3.19 Towns Surveyed in 1950 Spanish Census (Kie
River Area)
following Figure 3.18
Figure 3.20 Spanish Map Using Corisco Dependencies as
Spanish Basepoints for Median Line, 1966
following page 64
Figure 3.21 Gabon’s Libreville Marin Permit Northern
Limit is a Median Line Using Corisco
Dependencies as Spanish Basepoints, 1964
following page 66
Figure 3.22 Gabon’s 1966 Monday Bay Close Line following Figure 3.21
Figure 3.23 Gabon’s Libreville Marin Permit Northern
Limit is a Median Line Using Corisco
Dependencies as Spanish Basepoints, 1967
following page 70
Figure 3.24 Gabon’s Libreville Marin Permit Northern
Limit is a Median Line Using Corisco
Dependencies as Equatoguinean Basepoints,
1969
following Figure 3.23
Figure 3.25 Official French Map Showing the Corisco
Dependencies as Equatoguinean, 1968
following Figure 3.24
Figure 3.26 Spanish and Gabonese Villages and Border
Crossings, 1966 (Utamboni River Area)
following page 74
Figure 3.27 Bitumen Concession Issued by Spain, 1964 following Figure 3.26
Figure 3.28 Spanish and Gabonese Villages and Border
Crossings, 1966 (Kie River Area)
following page 76
Figure 3.29 International Kie River Bridges, Inaugurated 4
August 2011
following Figure 3.28
Figure 3.30 Ebebiyin, Equatorial Guinea, 2020 following Figure 3.29
Figure 3.31 Mongomo, Equatorial Guinea, 2020 following Figure 3.30
Figure 6.1 Equatorial Guinea’s 1999 Maritime Boundary
Claim
following page 124
Figure 6.2 Gabon’s 1992 Straight Baselines following Figure 6.1
VOLUME II
FIGURES
All maps are for illustrative purposes only
Figure 1.1 Spain’s Territory as of 12 October 1968
Figure 2.1 The Geography of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea and the
Gabonese Republic
Figure 2.2 The Geography of the Continental Region of Equatorial Guinea
Figure 2.3 Corisco Bay Islands
Figure 2.4 Corisco Island and Its Dependencies
Figure 2.5 Corisco Island and Its Dependencies circa 1859
Figure 2.6 The Utamboni River Area and the Kie River Area
Figure 2.7 The Utamboni River Area
Figure 2.8 The Kie River Area
Figure 3.1 The Geography of the 1778 Treaty
Figure 3.2 The Positions of Spain and France Pre-1900
Figure 3.3 French Source Map Showing the Corisco Dependencies as Spanish,
1899
Figure 3.4 Location of Pierre Loti Shipwreck Near Mbañe
Figure 3.5 Spanish Gulf Oil Company Map Showing the Corisco Dependencies
as Spanish, 1960
Figure 3.6 Annex 3 to the 1900 Convention
Figure 3.7 1901 Commission’s Proposed Boundary
Figure 3.8 1901 Commission’s Proposed Boundary (Utamboni River Area)
Figure 3.9 The Parties’ Modifications to the Article 4 Lines in the Utamboni and
Kie River Areas
Figure 3.10 The 1914 Spanish-German Commission Identified Spanish Towns
Figure 3.11 Towns Surveyed in 1942 Spanish Census (Utamboni River Area)
Figure 3.12 Towns Surveyed in 1950 Spanish Census (Utamboni River Area)
Figure 3.13 Vasco Africana’s Miang Concession, 1952
Figure 3.14 Boundary Established by 1919 Governors’ Agreement
Figure 3.15 The Kie River Road Proposed by Governor Barrera in 1920
Figure 3.16 Spanish Military Posts on Kie River Road, 1926
Figure 3.17 Engineering Structures Installed on Kie River Road, 1949-1955
Figure 3.18 Towns Surveyed in 1942 Spanish Census (Kie River Area)
Figure 3.19 Towns Surveyed in 1950 Spanish Census (Kie River Area)
Figure 3.20 Spanish Map Using Corisco Dependencies as Spanish Basepoints for
Median Line, 1966
Figure 3.21 Gabon’s Libreville Marin Permit Northern Limit is a Median Line
Using Corisco Dependencies as Spanish Basepoints, 1964
Figure 3.22 Gabon’s 1966 Monday Bay Close Line
Figure 3.23 Gabon’s Libreville Marin Permit Northern Limit is a Median Line
Using Corisco Dependencies as Spanish Basepoints, 1967
Figure 3.24 Gabon’s Libreville Marin Permit Northern Limit is a Median Line
Using Corisco Dependencies as Equatoguinean Basepoints, 1969
Figure 3.25 Official French Map Showing the Corisco Dependencies as
Equatoguinean, 1968
Figure 3.26 Spanish and Gabonese Villages and Border Crossings, 1966
(Utamboni River Area)
Figure 3.27 Bitumen Concession Issued by Spain, 1964
Figure 3.28 Spanish and Gabonese Villages and Border Crossings, 1966 (Kie
River Area)
Figure 3.29 International Kie River Bridges, Inaugurated 4 August 2011
Figure 3.30 Ebebiyin, Equatorial Guinea, 2020
Figure 3.31 Mongomo, Equatorial Guinea, 2020
Figure 6.1 Equatorial Guinea’s 1999 Maritime Boundary Claim
Figure 6.2 Gabon’s 1992 Straight Baselines
MAPS
Annex M1 Atlas Larousse, French Colonies of Africa, 1900
Annex M2 French Naval Hydrographic Service, Chart 6183, 1960
Annex M3 U.S. National Imagery and Mapping Agency, Bahía de Corisco, 57181
6th ed. (1999)
PHOTOGRAPH
Annex P1 Image of Asobla, 1945
INTERNATIONAL TREATIES & INSTRUMENTS
Annex 1 Treaty of Amity, Guarantee, and Commerce Between Portugal and
Spain, Signed at El Pardo (11 March 1778)
Annex 2 Treaty Between France and King Denis of Gabon of Senegal, signed in
Gabon (9 February 1839)
Annex 3 Protocol No. 30, Session between The Kingdom of Spain and The French
Republic (16 September 1887) (excerpt)
Annex 4 Special Convention on the Delimitation of Spanish and French
Possessions in Western Africa on Coasts of the Sahara and the Gulf
of Guinea, between the Kingdom of Spain and The French Republic
(signed. 27 June 1900, ratified 27 March 1901)
Annex 5 Convention between Germany and France to Define Precisely the
Boundary Lines between the Kamerun and the French Congo Signed at
Berlin (signed 18 April 1908, ratified on 28 July 1908)
Annex 6 The Spanish State, General Directorate of African Territories and
Provinces, Study of the Border Between Gabon and Rio Muni – Crossing
Points (1965)
Annex 7 The Spanish State Parliament, Agreement Between the Spanish State and
The Gabonese Republic Concerning Circulation and Border Exchange
Between Rio Muni and Gabon, Official Gazette No. 931 (4 October
1966)
Annex 8 Convention between The Spanish State and The Gabonese Republic
Concerning Cross-Border Exchanges and Movement Between Rio
Muni and Gabon, Appendix 2 Concerning the Towns or Urban Areas
to be Included in the 10 KM Zone Referred to in the Convention (1966)
(Spain’s list of towns in border zone)
VOLUME III
ANNEXES
Annex 9 Letter from the Director General of African Cities and Provinces
(Presidency of the Government of Spain) to the Director General of
African Affairs (Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs), attaching Annex I
to Act No. 3 Concerning the Obligatory Boundary Crossings Proposed
by the Commission on the Common Boundary Between the Republic of
Gabon and Equatorial Guinea (19 October 1965) (excerpt)
Annex 10 The Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Treaty Regarding the Delimitation
of the Maritime Boundary Between the Republic of Equatorial Guinea
and the Democratic Republic of Sao Tome and Principe (26 June 1999)
DELIMITATION COMMISSION DOCUMENTS
Annex 11 French-Spanish Commission, Conference on the Delimitation in West
Africa, Archives of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Annex to
Protocol No. 17 (24 December 1886) (excerpt)
Annex 12 Itinerary Followed by the Commission for the Delimitation of the Gulf
of Guinea (1901)
Annex 13 Franco-Spanish Delimitation Commission of the Gulf of Guinea, Border
Project: Eastern Border (1 January 1902)
Annex 14 Franco-Spanish Delimitation Commission of the Gulf of Guinea, Border
Project: Southern Border (1 January 1902)
Annex 15 Franco-Spanish Delimitation Commission of the Gulf of Guinea, “Table
of the Villages Recognized by the Delimitation Commission of Spanish
Guinea with Names of Chiefs, Tribes, and Nationality According to the
Border Project (Southern Border)” (2 January 1902)
Annex 16 The Cottes Mission to South Cameroon, Presentation of Scientific
Results, According to Works of Various Members of the French Section
of the Commission for Delimitation Between the French Congo and
Cameroon (Southern Border) and the Documents Studied at the Museum
of Natural History (1911) (excerpt)
UNITED NATIONS DOCUMENTS AND
COMMUNICATIONS
Annex 17 UN Security Council, 890th Meeting held in New York, Security Council
Official Records (23 August 1960) (excerpt)
Annex 18 UN General Assembly,Report of the Committee on Information from
Non-Governing Territories, Official Records: Sixteenth Session
Supplement No. 15 (A/4785), New York (1 September 1961) (excerpt)
Annex 19 United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 2230 (XXI) Question of
Equatorial Guinea (20 December 1966)
Annex 20 UN General Assembly Special Committee on Decolonization,Report
of the Special Committee on the Situation with Regard to the
Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to
Colonial Countries and Peoples, UN Doc. A/7200/Rev.1, Annexes to
Agenda Item 23 (November 1967) (excerpt)
Annex 21 United Nations General Assembly, Resolution 2355 (XXII) Question of
Equatorial Guinea (19 December 1967)
Annex 22 Cable from UN to Permanent Missions (14 September 1970), enclosing
Communication from Mr. Manadou D’Niaye, Charge d’Affaires of the
Republic of Gabon to the Secretary-General of the United Nations
Announcing the Extension of Gabonese Territorial Waters by
Presidential Decree (20 August 1970)
Annex 23 Cable from the UN to Permanent Missions (13 October 1970), enclosing
Letter from Equatorial Guinea to UN Secretary-General (8 October
1970)
Annex 24 Letter from the Permanent Mission of the Netherlands to the United
Nations to the UN Secretary-General (14 October 1970)
Annex 25 Letter from the Permanent Representative of The Gabonese Republic to
the United Nations to the UN Secretary-General (1 March 1972)
Annex 26 Letter from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Equatorial
Guinea to the United Nations to the Permanent Missions and Offices of
Permanent Observers to the United Nations (5 September 1972)
Annex 27 Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Equatorial
Guinea to the United Nations to the UN Secretary General (11 September
1972)
Annex 28 Permanent Mission of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to the United
Nations, Statement Before the United Nations Security Council by His
Excellency Mr. Jesus Alfonso Oyono Alogo (September 1972) (excerpt)
Annex 29 Letter from the United Nations Secretary-General to His Excellency the
President of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea (6 August 2003)
Annex 30 “Gabon and Equatorial Guinea Set Terms of UN Mediation Over
Disputed Islands”, UN News (20 January 2004)
Annex 31 Letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Equatorial
Guinea to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (10 March 2004)
Annex 32 Letter from the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations to the
Permanent Representative of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to the
United Nations (22 March 2004)
Annex 33 “Secretary-General’s Activities in Ethiopia 3 - 7 July”, UN News (8 July
2004)
Annex 34 “Transcript of Press Conference by Secretary-General Kofi Annan at
United Nations Headquarters, 21 July 2004”, United Nations Information
Service (22 July 2004)
Annex 35 “Secretary-General Commends Leaders of Gabon, Equatorial Guinea
for Agreement to Peacefully Resolve Border Dispute”, UN News (6 July
2004)
Annex 36 Letter No. 179/05 from the Permanent Mission of the Republic of
Equatorial Guinea to the United Nations to the Director of the United
Nations Division of Ocean Affairs and Law of the Sea (11 March 2005)
Annex 37 Letter from the Director of the UN Division for Ocean Affairs and Law
of the Sea to HE the Permanent Representative of the Republic of Guinea
Equatorial (13 April 2005)
Annex 38 “Summit Communique Congratulates Presidents of Gabon, Equatorial
Guinea for Progress Towards Peaceful Settlement of Border Dispute”,
UN News (28 February 2006)
Annex 39 “Former UN Legal Chief to Mediate Dispute Between Equatorial
Guinea, Gabon”, UN News (17 September 2008)
Annex 40 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982, Preliminary
Information Presented by the Republic of Equatorial Guinea on the
Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf (7 May 2009)
Annex 41 “Border Agreement Creates Model for Other African Nations”, Voice of
America (29 October 2009)
Annex 42 Note from United Nations Under-Secretary-General L. Pascoe,
Background for the Deputy Secretary-General’s Meeting with Joint
Equatorial Guinea and Gabon Senior Delegations, New York on 18
March 2010 (15 March 2010)
Annex 43 The Gabonese Republic, Submission Made by the Gabonese Republic
for the Extension of its Continental Shelf Beyond 200 Nautical Miles
Pursuant to Article 76 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of
the Sea (10 April 2012)
ORGANISATION OF AFRICAN UNITY & AFRICAN
UNION DOCUMENTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
Annex 44 Organisation of African Unity, Resolutions Adopted by the First
Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government
Held in Cairo, UAR (17-21 July 1964) (excerpt)
Annex 45 The African Union, Constitutive Act of the African Union (11 July 2000)
(excerpt)
Annex 46 African Union, “Report of the Chairperson of the Commission on
Conflict Situations in Africa”, Executive Council, Fifth Ordinary Session
25 June - 3 July 2004, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, EX.CL/106 (V) (3 July
2004)
HISTORICAL CORRESPONDENCE & OFFICIAL
DOCUMENTS OF SPAIN, FRANCE AND THIRD STATES
Annex 47 Kingdom of Spain, Ministry of State, Letter of Spanish Citizenship
Given to the Inhabitants of Corisco, Elobey and their Dependencies (18
February 1846)
Annex 48 The Spanish State, Ministry of State, Letter Reaffirming Spanish
Possession of the Island of Corisco (20 July 1958)
Annex 49 Kingdom of Spain, Letter No. 367 from the Governor-General of
Fernando Póo to the Minister of Overseas Possessions (2[1] November
1895) (excerpt)
Annex 50 Letter No. 368 from the Spanish Governor-General of Fernando Póo to
the Commissioner-General of the French Congo (22 November 1895)
Annex 51 Letter No. 203 from the Commissioner-General of the Colonial
Administration of The French Republic to the Governor-General of
Fernando Póo and Dependencies of The Kingdom of Spain (4 February
1896)
Annex 52 Kingdom of Spain, Ministry of Overseas, Visit from the Governor-
General of Elobey (1897) (excerpt)
Annex 53 Kingdom of Spain, Negotiations with France to Sign a Border Treaty
Between the Spanish and French Possessions on the West Coast of
Africa, 1899-1900 No. 2 Report by the Political Section in Regard to the
Foregoing Royal Order (22 November 1899) (excerpt)
Annex 54 The French Republic, Letter from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the
Minister of Colonies (13 March 1900)
Annex 55 Letter from the French Minister of Colonies to the Administrator of the
Franco-Spanish Delimitation Commission (19 June 1901)
VOLUME IV
ANNEXES
Annex 55 bis The French Republic, Letter from the French Ministry of Colonies to
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1 December 1906)
Annex 56 Kingdom of Spain, Letter from the Colonial Section of the Ministry of
State (20 April 1907)
Annex 57 A. Barrera, “What They are and What They Should be: the Spanish
Possessions in the Gulf of Guinea” General Marine Review, Conference
of the Royal Geographic Society (November 1907) (excerpt)
Annex 58 Kingdom of Spain, Letter from the Minister of State Concerning the
Borders of Congo and Spanish Guinea (20 April 1907)
Annex 59 Letter of the Minister of State of the Kingdom of Spain (18 May 1908)
Annex 60 Letter from the Sub-Governor of Elobey to the Governor of Spanish
Territories of the Gulf of Guinea (12 May 1908)
Annex 61 Report from Spanish Official of the Kingdom of Spain to the Minister of
State (18 November 1911) (excerpt)
Annex 62 Kingdom of Spain, Letter from the Minister of State to the Ambassador
of Spain to the German Empire (4 February 1914)
Annex 63 The German Empire, Report No. 4, Imperial German Muni Expedition,
Dr. Olshausen (16 June 1914)
Annex 64 United Kingdom, Cameroon, Final Report: Enclosures Sept 1914 to
May 1916 (3 October 1915)
Annex 65 Letter from the Governor-General of Spanish Territories of Africa to the
Governor of French Gabon (22 November 1917)
Annex 66 Letter No. []3 from the Governor-General of French Equatorial Africa
to the Governor-General of the Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea
(24 January 1919)
Annex 67 Letter from Spanish Governor General of Spanish Guinea to His
Excellency the French Governor General of French Equatorial Africa
(1 May 1919)
Annex 68 Letter from French Minister of Colonies to Minister of Foreign Affairs
(24 November 1919)
Annex 69 Letter from Spanish Governor General Regarding the Establishment of
the French-German Demarcation (27 January 1920)
Annex 70 Kingdom of Spain, Letter No. 527 from the Spanish Governor-General
(8 December 1920)
Annex 71 Letter from French Commissioner Governor of Colonies to the
Cameroon Territories to the French Minister of Colonies (27 July 1921)
Annex 72 Letter from Spanish Minister of State to the French Ambassador (24
November 1921)
Annex 73 Kingdom of Spain, Letter No. 884 Attachment from the Governor-
General of Santa Isabel to the Office of the Secretary (20 June 1922)
Annex 74 Kingdom of Spain, Letter from the Captain of the Ebolouwa District to
the Governor-General of Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea (23
September 1922)
Annex 75 Kingdom of Spain, Letter from the Governor-General of Spanish
Territories of the Gulf of Guinea to the Advising Secretary-General (24
September 1922)
Annex 76 Letter No. 212 from the French Lieutenant Governor of Gabon to the
Governor-General of Spanish Territories in the Gulf of Guinea (16
August 1927)
Annex 77 Republic of Spain, Letter from the AT of Ebebeyin to the Governor-
General of Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea (27 November
1938)
Annex 78 The Spanish State, Letter from the Lead Engineer to the Governor-
General of Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea (9 June 1939)
Annex 79 Letter No. 223 from the Embassy of the Republic of France to the Spanish
State to the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (7 May 1953)
Annex 80 The United Kingdom, Ministry of War Transport, Report on Libreville
and Port Gentil (22 June 1943)
Annex 81 The Spanish State, Letter No. 87 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to
the Department of Morocco and Colonies (24 February 1954)
Annex 82 The Spanish State, Telegram No. 1001-2 from the Ministry of the Navy to
the General Directorate of Morocco and Colonies (4 September 1954)
Annex 83 The Spanish State, Letter No. 20-R from the Governor General of Santa
Isabel to the General Directorate of Morocco and Colonies (17 February
1955)
Annex 84 The Spanish State, Telegram No. 3 from the Governor of Spanish
Territories of the Gulf of Guinea to the General Directorate of Morocco
and Colonies (19 February 1955)
Annex 85 The Spanish State, Letter from the Governor of Spanish Territories of the
Gulf of Guinea to the General Directorate of Morocco and Colonies (22
February 1955)
Annex 86 The Spanish State, Telegram No. 8 from the Department of Morocco and
Colonies to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (26 February 1955)
Annex 87 The Spanish State, Telegram No. 6 from the Governor of Spanish
Territories of the Gulf of Guinea to the General Directorate of Morocco
and Colonies (28 February 1955)
Annex 88 The Spanish State, Telegram No. [ ]11 from the General Directorate of
Morocco and Colonies to the Governor of Spanish Territories of the
Gulf of Guinea (8 March 1955)
Annex 89 The Spanish State, Letter from the Governor-General of the Spanish
Territories of the Gulf of Guinea to the General Directorate of Morocco
and Colonies (17 March 1955)
Annex 90 The Spanish State, Memo No. 436 to the Department of Morocco and
Colonies (10 March 1955)
Annex 91 The Spanish State, Telegram No. 7 from the Governor of Spanish
Territories of the Gulf of Guinea to the Director-General of Morocco
and Colonies (12 March 1955)
Annex 92 Letter from the High Commissioner for French Equatorial Africa to the
Governor-General of the Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea (14
March 1955)
Annex 93 Letter from the Governor-General of the Spanish Territories of the Gulf
of Guinea to the High Commissioner for French Equatorial Africa (22
March 1955)
Annex 94 The French Republic, Letter from the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the
Minister of Overseas France (6 May 1955)
Annex 95 The Spanish State, File D 474 Secret Document from the General
Directorate of Morocco and African Provinces to the Governor General
of Santa Isabel (7 June 1958)
Annex 96 The United Kingdom, Letter No. 10132/14 from the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs to the British Embassy to The Spanish State (4 August 1959)
Annex 97 Note Verbale from Embassy of Gabon in Spain to Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Spain (10 December 1963)
Annex 98 The Spanish State, Letter No. 109 from the Embassy of the Kingdom
of Spain to the Republic of Gabon to the Spanish Ministry of Foreign
Affairs (30 May 1964)
Annex 99 The Spanish State, Letter No. 223 from the Ambassador of Spain in Rio
Muni to the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (6 May 1965)
Annex 100 The Spanish State, Letter No. 383 from the Presidency of the Government
to the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (20 October 1965) (agreeing
to Gabon’s list of border crossings)
Annex 101 The Spanish State, Letter No. 303 from the Embassy of the Kingdom
of Spain to the Republic of Gabon to the Spanish Ministry of Foreign
Affairs (13 June 1966)
Annex 102 Aide-Memoire on “Royal Dutch/Shell Group Exploration Venture in
Gabon” for the Ambassador of the United Kingdom to the Republic of
the Congo (16 April 1965)
Annex 103 The Spanish State, Ministry of Industry, Confidential Report:
Delimitation of Gabon’s Territorial Waters (12 July 1966)
Annex 104 The Spanish State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Gabon’s Extension of
Mondah Bay Territorial Waters (26 July 1966)
Annex 105 The Spanish State, Letter No. 454 from the Ministry of the Navy to the
Undersecretary of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (23 July 1966)
Annex 106 Airgram No. A-93 from the Embassy of the United States of America
to The Gabonese Republic to the US Department of State (26 February
1967)
Annex 107 Airgram No. A-137 from the Embassy of the United States of America
to The Gabonese Republic to the US Department of State (28 May 1967)
Annex 108 The Spanish State, Letter No. 159 from the Hydrographic Division,
Maritime Department of Cadiz to the Technical Secretary-General of
the General Commissariat of Equatorial Guinea (17 October 1967)
Annex 109 Kingdom of Spain, Letter No. 408R from the Commissioner-General of
Equatorial Guinea, Santa Isabel to the Commissioner-General, Bata (11
May 1968)
COLONIAL LEGISLATION, CENSUS AND OFFICIAL
REPORTS OF SPAIN AND FRANCE
Annex 110 Kingdom of Spain, Royal Commissioner for the Islands Fernando Póo,
Annobón and Corisco on the Coast of Africa, Declaration of Corisco
(16 March 1843)
Annex 111 Kingdom of Spain, Original Documents on the Annexation to Spain of
Corisco, Elobey and their Dependencies (17 March 1843)
Annex 112 Kingdom of Spain, Ministry of State, Record of Annexation (18 February
1846)
Annex 113 Kingdom of Spain, Royal Order on Justice, Powers of Government
Representatives (27 July 1905)
Annex 114 Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Decree on Territorial Division,
Official Bulletin (1 March 1907)
Annex 115 Decree Signed by the German Empire and the Kingdom of Spain for
the Delimitation Between Spanish Guinea and the Protectorate of
Cameroon (18 August 1914)
Annex 116 C. Fuller, Naval Intelligence Notes (28 December 1916)
Annex 117 V. Rico, Report presented to the Courts by the Minister of State
Concerning the Political and Economic Situation of the Spanish
Possessions in West Africa in the Years 1916-1918 (1919)
Annex 118 Kingdom of Spain, Royal Order on Property “Prohibitions regarding
Forestry Exploitation” (1 March 1926)
Annex 119 Kingdom of Spain, Royal Decree on Property “Confirmation of Rights”
(5 May 1926)
Annex 120 [Intentionally Left Blank]
VOLUME V
ANNEXES
Annex 121 Republic of Spain, Order No. 328: Report on the Public Works Service
of the Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea (1933) (excerpt)
Annex 122 C. Cottez, Spanish Guinea 1934-1937, Historical Archives, Ministry of
Arms (October 1934) (excerpt)
Annex 123 The French Republic, Synthesis of Information on: Spanish Guinea &
German Acts in Cameroon under British Mandate, Historical Archives
of the Ministry of Defense, File R2 (1 August 1937) (excerpt)
Annex 124 The French Republic, Documentation Plan of the Spanish Territories of
the Gulf of Guinea, Ministry of Arms (16 February 1940) (excerpt)
Annex 125 Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Summaries of the Years 1942
and 1943, Statistical Office of the General Government (1945) (excerpt)
Annex 126 Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Summaries of the Years 1944
and 1945, Statistical Office of the General Government (1947) (excerpt)
Annex 127 Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Statistical Summaries:
Provinces of Fernando Poo and Rio Muni 1948-1949, Statistical Office
of the General Government (1950) (excerpt)
Annex 128 “Territorial Demarcations - School Districts 1949-1959”, Official Gazette
of the Spanish Territories in the Gulf of Guinea (15 November 1952)
Annex 129 Spanish Territories in the Gulf of Guinea, Official Gazette of the Spanish
Territories in the Gulf of Guinea No. 2, Santa Isabel (15 January 1954)
Annex 130 The Spanish State, Order of 7 January 1957 on Forest Tracts:
Announcing Tender of State Lands for Forestry Exploitation, Official
Bulletin of 15 April 1957, Reprinted in A. Fraile Roman, Regional
Legislation (7 January 1957)
Annex 131 The Spanish State, Bill on Terms for Reorganization of the Spanish
Territories of Guinea (4 March 1958)
Annex 132 The French Republic, Navy Hydrographic Department, Lights and Fog
Signals, English Channel and Eastern Atlantic Ocean, [No. 212] (12
April 1958)
Annex 133 The Spanish State, Bill of Terms for Administration and Governance of
the Provinces of Guinea (22 June 1958)
Annex 134 The Spanish State, Official Journal of the Navy, (No. 65), Decrees 72-73
(12 March 1959)
Annex 135 The Spanish State, Decree 977/1959, of June 12, Approving the
Regulation for Application of the Law on the Legal Regime for the
Exploration and Exploitation of Hydrocarbons (12 June 1959) (excerpt)
Annex 136 The Spanish State, Legal Notices, Official Bulletin of 15 November 1960
(15 November 1960)
Annex 137 Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Statistical Summaries:
Provinces of Fernando Poo and Rio Muni 1958-1959, Statistics
Delegation of the General Government (1960)
Annex 138 The Spanish State, Official Bulletin of 15 November 1961 (15 November
1961)
Annex 139 Spanish Equatorial Provinces of Fernando Póo and Rio Muni, Official
Gazette of the Gulf of Guinea Territories (15 November 1963)
Annex 140 The Spanish State, Law 191/1963, on Bases on the Autonomous Regime
of Equatorial Guinea (30 December 1963)
Annex 141 The Spanish State, Order of 7 January 1964 Establishing the Provisional
Reserve of Land with Bituminous Indications in the Río Muni Province,
Entrusting the National Institute of Industry with Research Work,
Official Gazette (7 January 1964)
Annex 142 Equatorial Guinea, Government Officials: Assistant Teachers for the
Elementary Teaching Service (“Official Bulletin”) (1 March 1964)
Annex 143 The Spanish State, Law Regarding the Separation and Legal System of
Fernando Póo and Rio Muni (15 October 1966)
Annex 144 Equatorial Guinea, Order Approving the Amendment of Remunerations
of the Employees of Equatorial Guinea Employed by the Office of the
Commissioner-General (7 February 1967)
Annex 145 The Spanish State, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Informational Note:
Delimitation of Gabon and Equatorial Guinea’s Territorial Waters (14
November 1967)
Annex 146 The Spanish State, Decree 2467/1968 of October 9, Granting
Independence to Equatorial Guinea, Official Gazette No. 245 (9 October
1968)
CORRESPONDENCE & OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS OF
EQUATORIAL GUINEA, GABON AND THIRD STATES
FOLLOWING THE PARTIES’ INDEPENDENCE
Annex 147 Gulf Oil Company of Gabon, Letter from Mr. Rigo de Righi to the
Ambassador of Spain (22 December 1967)
Annex 148 Gulf Oil Company of Gabon, Letter from Mr. Rigo de Righi to the
Ambassador of Spain (28 December 1967)
Annex 149 Airgram from the Embassy of the United States to the Gabonese Republic
to the US Department of State (18 June 1968)
Annex 150 Airgram from the American Embassy in Santa Isabel to the Department
of State (16 June 1970)
Annex 151 Letter from the Spanish Embassy in Santa Isabel (22 June 1970)
Annex 152 Telegram from the US Embassy in Libreville to the US Department of
State (13 August 1970)
Annex 153 Letter from the Ambassador of Spain in Libreville to the Spanish
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (18 August 1970)
Annex 154 Letter No. 002967 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of The Gabonese
Republic to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Equatorial
Guinea (28 August 1971)
Annex 155 The United States, Airgram A-1798 from the US Mission to the United
Nations to the US Department of State (21 October 1970)
Annex 156 Airgram from the US Department of State regarding Protest of Gabon’s
Extension of Territorial Waters (12 November 1970)
Annex 157 Airgram from US Embassy in Libreville to US Department of State (28
November 1970)
VOLUME VI
ANNEXES
Annex 158 US Department of State, International Boundary Study No. 115,
Cameroon – Gabon Boundary (24 September 1971)
Annex 159 Airgram No. A-011 from the Embassy of the United States to the
Gabonese Republic to the US Department of State (8 February 1972)
Annex 160 Memorandum of Conversation between Chargé d’Affaires of the Embassy
of The French Republic to The Gabonese Republic and US Embassy
official (5 April 1972)
Annex 161 Letter from the Ambassador of The Gabonese Republic to the United
Nations to the UN Secretary-General (28 August 1972)
Annex 162 Telegram No. 546 from the Embassy of the United States to The Gabonese
Republic to the US Department of State (2 September 1972)
Annex 163 Circular No. 142 from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State of
Spain to the Ambassadors of the Spanish State to the Republic of
Equatorial Guinea, to The Gabonese Republic, to The Ethiopian Empire,
The French Republic, and the Permanent Representative at the United
Nations (19 September 1972)
Annex 164 Telegram from Equatorial Guinea’s Minister of Foreign Affairs to the
Permanent Representative of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to the
United Nations (11 September 1972)
Annex 165 Telegram No. 644 from the Embassy of the United States of America to
The Gabonese Republic to the US Department of State (11 September
1972)
Annex 166 Letter from Gabon to Secretary of the United Nations (13 September
1972)
Annex 167 Routine Telegram No. 434 from Kinshasa (15 September 1972)
Annex 168 Telegram from US Embassy in Libreville to US Department of State (19
September 1972)
Annex 169 Letter from the Embassy of Spain in Abidjan to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs in Madrid (30 September 1972)
Annex 170 Telegram No. 190230 from the US Department of State to the Embassies
of the United States of America to The Gabonese Republic, the United
Kingdom, The French Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics,
Japan, the United Nations, and The United Republic of Cameroon (18
October 1972)
Annex 171 Telegram No. 282 from the Embassy of the United States of America
to the Kingdom of the Netherlands to the US Department of State (26
October 1972)
Annex 172 Telegram from US Embassy in Libreville to US Department of State,
“Gabon’s November,” (5 December 1972)
Annex 173 Memorandum from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Spain summarizing
President Macias’ September 8th Speech to the Diplomatic Corps (15
September 1972)
Annex 174 Telegram No. 526 from the Embassy of the United States of America to
The Gabonese Republic to the US Department of State (3 June 1973)
Annex 175 Telegram from Embassy of the United Kingdom to The United Republic
of Cameroon to the British Mission to the United States and Chanceries
of Yauonde, Addis Ababa and Kinshasa (16 July 1974)
Annex 176 Letter from the President of The Gabonese Republic, HE Albert Bernardo
Bongo to the Embassy of The French Republic to The Gabonese Republic
(28 October 1974)
Annex 177 Letter from the Embassy of The Gabonese Republic to the United
Kingdom to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the
Commonwealth, United Kingdom (28 June 1990)
Annex 178 Note Verbale from the Embassy of The Gabonese Republic to the Republic
of Equatorial Guinea to the Ministry of External Affairs, International
Cooperation, and Francophony of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea
(13 September 1999)
Annex 179 Note Verbale from the Ministry of External Affairs, International
Cooperation, and Francophonie of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea
to the Second Vice-Prime Minister of The Gabonese Republic (21
December 2000)
LEGISLATION, CENSUS & OFFICIAL REPORTS OF
EQUATORIAL GUINEA AND GABON FOLLOWING
INDEPENDENCE
Annex 180 The Gabonese Republic, Constitution “Preamble” (14 Novembre 1960)
(excerpt)
Annex 181 The Gabonese Republic, Official Gazette No. 20, “Mining Property,
Forests, Estates and Land Conservation” (15 September 1967)
Annex 182 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Constitution of 1968 (11 August 1968)
(excerpt)
Annex 183 The Gabonese Republic, Decree No. 670/PR-MMERH-DMG (24
September 1969)
Annex 184 The Gabonese Republic, Decree 689/70 (14 May 1970)
Annex 185 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Memo No. 26R from the Ministry of
Industries and Mines to the President (12 June 1970)
Annex 186 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Presidential Decree No. 17/1970 (24
September 1970)
Annex 187 The Gabonese Republic, Order No. 55-70-PR-MTAC (5 October 1970)
Annex 188 The Gabonese Republic, Ordinance No. 58/72 Extending the Outer
Limit of Gabon’s Territorial Waters to 100 Nautical Miles (16 July 1972)
Annex 189 The Gabonese Republic, Constitution of The Gabonese Republic (29
July 1972)
Annex 190 The Gabonese Republic, Act No. 9/84 Establishing an Exclusive
Economic Zone of 200 Nautical Miles (9 July 1984)
Annex 191 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Act No. 15/1984 on the Territorial Sea
and Exclusive Economic Zone of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea (12
November 1984)
Annex 192 The Gabonese Republic, Decree 002066/PR/MHCUCDM (4 December
1992)
Annex 193 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Decree No. 1/1999 Designating the
Median Line as the Maritime Boundary of the Republic of Equatorial
Guinea (6 March 1999)
Annex 194 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Ministry of Planning and Economic
Development, General Census of Population and Housing: General
Status of Population (2002) (excerpt)
Annex 195 Equatorial Guinea National Statistics Institute, Equatorial Guinea in
Figures (2019) (excerpt)
Annex 196 Equatorial Guinea National Statistics Institute, Statistical Yearbook of
Equatorial Guinea (2020) (excerpt)
NEGOTIATION & MEDIATION DOCUMENTS
Annex 197 Minutes Drawn up by the Gabonese-EquatoGuinean Delegation
Following the Meeting in Libreville from March 25-29, 1971[2],
Libreville (29 March 197[2])
Annex 198 Minutes of the Joint Gabon-Equatorial Guinea Commission’s Meeting
in Libreville (25-29 March 1972)
Annex 199 Report Prepared by the Gabon-Equatorial Guinea Joint Commission
After the Meeting in Libreville from March 25 to 29, 1972, Libreville
(25-29 March 1972)
Annex 200 Conference of the Heads of State and Government of Central and East
Africa, Dar es Salaam, 7-9 September 1972, Joint Communiqué on the
Work of the Conference on Settlement of the Dispute Between Equatorial
Guinea and Gabon, as recorded by the Embassy of the United States to
the Republic of Zaire (18 September 1972)
Annex 201 Conference of the Heads of State and Government of Central and East
Africa, Second Session, Final Communiqué Regarding the Dispute
Between Equatorial Guinea and Gabon (13 November 1972)
Annex 202 Minutes from the Joint Gabon/Equatorial Guinea Grand Commission
Meeting (July 26-30 1980)
Annex 203 Minutes of the Joint Commission on the Revision of the Petroleum
Cooperation Agreement Between the Republic of Equatorial Guinea
and The Gabonese Republic, Libreville (26 September 1981)
Annex 204 The Gabonese Republic, Spanish Minutes of the Ad Hoc Commission
on the Revision of the Petroleum Cooperation Agreement between the
Republic of Equatorial Guinea and The Gabonese Republic, Libreville
(16 – 18 March 1982)
VOLUME VII
ANNEXES
Annex 205 Minutes of the Second Session of the Ad Hoc Commission on the Review
of the Oil Cooperation Agreement Between the Republic of Equatorial
Guinea and The Gabonese Republic, Malabo (10-13 September 1984)
Annex 206 The Delegation of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Opening Address
to the Delegation of The Gabonese Republic During the First Meeting
of the Gabonese - Equatoguinean Ad-Hoc Commission (4 November
1984)
Annex 207 Minutes of the Guinean-Gabonese Ad Hoc Commission on the
Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in Corisco Bay, Bata (10-16
November 1985)
Annex 208 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, French Minutes of the Gabon-Equatorial
Guinea Ad Hoc Commission Responsible for the Delimitation of the
Maritime Boundary in the Bay of Corisco Between the Republic of
Gabon and the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Bata (10 – 16 November
1985)
Annex 209 French Report of the Border Sub-Commission of the Ad-Hoc Border
Commission Gabon-Equatorial Guinea (20 January 1993)
Annex 210 Report of the Border Subcommission of the Ad Hoc Commission on the
Gabon-Equatorial Guinea Boundaries (20 January 1993)
Annex 211 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Report of the Border Sub-Commission
Following the Meetings of the Ad hoc Border Commission Gabon-
Equatorial Guinea (20 January 1993)
Annex 212 The Gabonese Republic, Minutes of the Ad Hoc Border Committee,
Libreville (31 January 2001) (excerpt)
Annex 213 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Minutes of the Ad-hoc Commission on
Equatorial Guinea-Gabon Borders, Malabo (23 May 2003)
VERSIONS OF THE DOCUMENT PRESENTED
BY GABON IN 2003 & EQUATORIAL GUINEA’S
OBJECTIONS
Annex 214 The Republic of Equatorial Guinea and The Gabonese Republic,
Convention Delimiting the Land and Maritime Boundaries of Equatorial
Guinea and Gabon (12 September 1974) (Retyped French-language
version, as published in the UNTS Vol.2248)
Annex 215 The Republic of Equatorial Guinea and The Gabonese Republic,
Convention Delimiting the Land and Maritime Boundaries of Equatorial
Guinea and Gabon (12 September 1974) (French-language photocopy)
Annex 216 The Republic of Equatorial Guinea and The Gabonese Republic,
Convention Delimiting the Land and Maritime Boundaries of Equatorial
Guinea and Gabon (12 September 1974) (Retyped Spanish-language
version, as published in the UNTS)
Annex 217 The Republic of Equatorial Guinea and The Gabonese Republic,
Convention Delimiting the Land and Maritime Boundaries of Equatorial
Guinea and Gabon (12 September 1974) (Spanish-language photocopy)
Annex 218 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Objection to the Authenticity of the
Convention Before the United Nations, on the “Convention Demarcating
the Land and Maritime Frontiers of Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, Bata,
12 September 1974” (18 March 2004)
Annex 219 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Second Objection Before the United
Nations, on the “Convention Demarcating the Land and Maritime
Frontiers of Equatorial Guinea and Gabon, Bata, 12 September 1974”
(7 April 2004)
ACADEMIC ARTICLES & PRESS RELEASES
Annex 220 Royal Geographical Society, “Legislation and provisions of the Central
Administration”, Magazine of Colonial and Mercantile Geography,
Spain (1906)
Annex 221 L. Martín y Peinador, “Geographical Studies: Morocco and Spanish
Places, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli, Sahara and Spanish Sahara, Spanish
Mainland and Island Guinea, Moroccan Problem” (1908) (excerpt)
Annex 222 D. Saavedra y Magdalena, Spain in West Africa (Rio de Oro and
Guinea) (1910)
Annex 223 L. Ramos-Izquierdo y Vivar, Geographical Description and
Government, Administration and Colonization of the Spanish
Colonies of the Gulf of Guinea (1912)
Annex 224 A. Balfour et. al, Further Report on Tuberculosis and Sleeping-Sickness
in Equatorial Africa, League of Nations Health Organization (April
1925)
Annex 225 Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Official Gazette of the Gulf
of Guinea Territories (15 March 1948)
Annex 226 F.F. Olesa Munido, “Criminal Law Applicable to Indigenous People in
the Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea”, Institute of African
Studies, Superior Council of Scientific Research, Madrid (1953)
Annex 227 H. D. Hedberg, “Summary of Wildcat Drilling in 1959” Petroleum
Developments in Africa (1959)
Annex 228 “Gabon-Equatorial Guinea: Next Meeting on 30 September,” Fraternité
Matin: Le Grand Quotidien IvoirienNews (20 September 1972)
Annex 229 News Article, “Dateline Africa: Gabon Frontier Dispute Settled,” West
Africa (29 September 1972)
Annex 230 A. Oye Cukwurah, “The Organization of African Unity and African
Territorial and Boundary Problems: 1963-1973”, 13 The Indian Journal
of International Law (1973)
Annex 231 M. DeLancey, “Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Cameroon,”
3rd. Ed., African Historical Dictionaries No. 81 (2000)
Annex 232 “Gabon/Guinée Équatoriale: Frontières: Litiges Bientôt Réglés” La
Lettre Afrique Expansion (12 February 2001)
Annex 233 E.M. Yolla, Foreign Policy of Gabon, Etudes Africaines (2003)
Annex 234 “Neighbours to Explore Jointly for Oil in Disputed Waters”, The New
Humanitarian (7 July 2004)
Annex 235 J. Geslin, “The Island of Contention”, Jeune Afrique (7 March 2006)
Annex 236 G. Nerin, Spain’s Last Forest Cannibals, Missionaries, and Civil
Guards Account of the Conquest of the Fang in Spanish Guinea 1914-
1930 (2010) (excerpt)
Annex 237 News Article, “Ali Bongo in Equatorial Guinea for Bridge Inauguration”,
Bongo Must Go (4 August 2011)
Annex 238 News Article, “Inauguration of Two Bridges”, Office of Press and
Information of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea (6 August 2011)
Annex 239 News Article, “Inauguration of the Friendship Bridges Between Gabon
and Equatorial Guinea”, La Lettre d’Information, Official Bulletin of the
Presidency of the Gabonese Republic No. 3 (August 2011)
Annex 240 News Article, Ali Bongo Ondimba: “Not Everyone Has Understood that
Gabon has Changed”, Jeune Afrique (6 September 2011)
Annex 241 G. Nesi, “Uti Possidetis Doctrine” Max Planck Encyclopedia of
International Law (February 2018)
Annex 242 J.C. Guerra Velasco, “Forest Science, Technical Practices, Timber
Policy and Colonial Context in Equatorial Guinea (1929-1968),”
Scripta Nova, Vol. XXIII. No. 613 (1 May 2019) (excerpt)
Annex 243 A. Zimmermann & J. Devaney, “State Succession in Treaties” Max Planck
Encyclopedia of Public International Law (last updated July 2019)
Annex 244 “Gabon” CIA World Factbook, Central Intelligence Agency available at
www.cia.gov/the-world-factbook/countries/gabon/ (9 September 2021)
(excerpt)