Public sitting held on Monday 30 September 2024, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace, President Salam presiding, in the case concerning Land and Maritime Delimitation and Sovereignty over Islands (Gabon/Equatorial Guinea)

Non corrigé
Uncorrected
CR 2024/30
International Court Cour internationale
of Justice de Justice
THE HAGUE LA HAYE
YEAR 2024
Public sitting
held on Monday 30 September 2024, at 3 p.m., at the Peace Palace,
President Salam presiding,
in the case concerning Land and Maritime Delimitation and Sovereignty over Islands
(Gabon/Equatorial Guinea)
____________________
VERBATIM RECORD
____________________
ANNÉE 2024
Audience publique
tenue le lundi 30 septembre 2024, à 15 heures, au Palais de la Paix,
sous la présidence de M. Salam, président,
en l’affaire de la Délimitation terrestre et maritime et souveraineté sur des îles
(Gabon/Guinée équatoriale)
________________
COMPTE RENDU
________________
- 2 -
Present: President Salam
Vice-President Sebutinde
Judges Tomka
Yusuf
Xue
Iwasawa
Nolte
Charlesworth
Brant
Gómez Robledo
Cleveland
Aurescu
Judges ad hoc Wolfrum
Pinto
Registrar Gautier

- 3 -
Présents : M. Salam, président
Mme Sebutinde, vice-présidente
MM. Tomka
Yusuf
Mme Xue
MM. Iwasawa
Nolte
Mme Charlesworth
MM. Brant
Gómez Robledo
Mme Cleveland
M. Aurescu, juges
M. Wolfrum
Mme Pinto, juges ad hoc
M. Gautier, greffier

- 4 -
The Government of the Gabonese Republic is represented by:
HE Mr Régis Onanga Ndiaye, Minister for Foreign Affairs, in charge of Sub-Regional Integration
and Gabonese Living Abroad;
HE Mr Paul-Marie Gondjout, Minister of Justice, Keeper of the Seals;
HE Ms Marie-Madeleine Mborantsuo, Honorary President of the Constitutional Court,
as Agent;
HE Mr Guy Rossatanga-Rignault, Secretary General of the Office of the President of the Republic,
as Co-Agent, Counsel and Advocate;
HE Mr Serge Mickoto Chavagne, Ambassador of the Gabonese Republic to the Kingdoms of
Belgium and the Netherlands, to the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and to the European Union,
as Co-Agent;
Mr Ben Juratowitch, KC, member of the Bar of England and Wales, member of the Paris Bar, Essex
Court Chambers, London,
Ms Alina Miron, Professor of International Law, University of Angers, member of the Paris Bar,
Founding Partner of FAR Avocats,
Mr Daniel Müller, member of the Paris Bar, Founding Partner of FAR Avocats,
Mr Alain Pellet, Professor Emeritus, University Paris Nanterre, former Chairperson of the
International Law Commission, member and former President of the Institut de droit international,
Ms Isabelle Rouche, member of the Paris Bar, Asafo & Co.,
Ms Camille Strosser, member of the Paris Bar and of the Bar of the State of New York, Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer LLP,
Mr Romain Piéri, member of the Paris Bar, Founding Partner of FAR Avocats,
Ms Élise Ruggeri Abonnat, Senior Lecturer, University of Lille,
Mr Ysam Soualhi, PhD candidate, Faculty of Law, University of Angers,
Mr David Swanson, David Swanson Cartography, LLC,
Mr Samir Moukheiber, trainee lawyer, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP,
as Counsel and Advocates.
- 5 -
Le Gouvernement de la République gabonaise est représenté par :
S. Exc. M. Régis Onanga Ndiaye, ministre des affaires étrangères, chargé de l’intégration sousrégionale
et des Gabonais de l’étranger ;
S. Exc. M. Paul-Marie Gondjout, ministre de la justice, garde des sceaux ;
S. Exc. Mme Marie-Madeleine Mborantsuo, présidente honoraire de la Cour constitutionnelle,
comme agente ;
S. Exc. M. Guy Rossatanga-Rignault, secrétaire général de la présidence de la République,
comme coagent, conseil et avocat ;
S. Exc. M. Serge Mickoto Chavagne, ambassadeur de la République gabonaise près les Royaumes
de Belgique et des Pays-Bas, le Grand-Duché de Luxembourg et auprès de l’Union européenne,
comme coagent ;
M. Ben Juratowitch, KC, membre du barreau d’Angleterre et du pays de Galles et du barreau de
Paris, Essex Court Chambers (Londres),
Mme Alina Miron, professeure de droit international à l’Université d’Angers, membre du barreau de
Paris, associée fondatrice du cabinet FAR Avocats,
M. Daniel Müller, membre du barreau de Paris, associé fondateur du cabinet FAR Avocats,
M. Alain Pellet, professeur émérite de l’Université Paris Nanterre, ancien président de la
Commission du droit international, membre et ancien président de l’Institut de droit international,
Mme Isabelle Rouche, membre du barreau de Paris, cabinet Asafo & Co.,
Mme Camille Strosser, membre des barreaux de Paris et de l’État de New York, cabinet Freshfields
Bruckhaus Deringer LLP,
M. Romain Piéri, avocat au barreau de Paris, associé fondateur du cabinet FAR Avocats,
Mme Élise Ruggeri Abonnat, maîtresse de conférences, Université de Lille,
M. Ysam Soualhi, doctorant à la faculté de droit de l’Université d’Angers,
M. David Swanson, David Swanson Cartography, LLC,
M. Samir Moukheiber, avocat stagiaire, cabinet Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP,
comme conseils et avocats.
- 6 -
The Government of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea is represented by:
HE Mr Domingo Mba Esono, Minister Delegate of Hydrocarbons and Mining Development,
as Agent;
HE Mr Carmelo Nvono Ncá, Ambassador of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to the French
Republic, the Principality of Monaco and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural
Organization,
as Co-Agent;
HE Mr Simeón Oyono Esono Angué, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, International Cooperation
and Diaspora,
HE Mr Pastor Micha Ondó Bile, Adviser to the Presidency of the Government,
HE Mr Juan Olo Mba Nseng, Adviser to the Presidency of the Government,
HE Mr Rafael Boneke Kama, Adviser to the Presidency of the Government,
HE Mr Lamberto Esono Mba, Secretary General of the Ombudsman, Lawyer at the Malabo Bar
Association,
HE Ms Rosalía Nguidang Abeso, Director General of Borders, Lawyer at the Malabo Bar
Association,
HE Mr Pascual Nsue Eyi Asangono, Director General of Consular, Cultural, Legal and Diaspora
Affairs, Lawyer at the Malabo Bar Association,
HE Mr Miguel Oyono Ndong Mifumu, Ambassador of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea to the
Kingdom of Belgium,
Mr Francisco Moro Nve, State Attorney, member of the Malabo Bar Association,
Mr Aquiles Nach Dueso, Lawyer at the Malabo Bar Association,
HE Mr Domingo Esawong Ngua, official in the Ministry of National Defence,
Mr Asensi Buanga Beaka, official in the Ministry of Hydrocarbons and Mining Development,
as Members of the Delegation;
Mr Derek C. Smith, Attorney at Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bar of the District of
Columbia,
HE Mr Anatolio Nzang Nguema Mangue, Attorney General of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea,
Lawyer at the Malabo Bar Association,
Mr Dapo Akande, Chichele Professor of Public International Law, University of Oxford, Barrister,
member of the Bar of England and Wales, Essex Court Chambers,
Mr Pierre d’Argent, Full Professor, Université catholique de Louvain, member of the Institut de droit
international, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bar of Brussels,
- 7 -
Le Gouvernement de la République de Guinée équatoriale est représenté par :
S. Exc. M. Domingo Mba Esono, ministre délégué aux hydrocarbures et au développement minier,
comme agent ;
S. Exc. M. Carmelo Nvono Ncá, ambassadeur de la République de Guinée équatoriale auprès de la
République française, de la Principauté de Monaco et de l’Organisation des Nations Unies pour
l’éducation, la science et la culture,
comme coagent ;
S. Exc. M. Simeón Oyono Esono Angué, ministre d’État chargé des affaires étrangères, de la
coopération internationale et de la diaspora,
S. Exc. M. Pastor Micha Ondó Bile, conseiller auprès de la présidence du Gouvernement,
S. Exc. M. Juan Olo Mba Nseng, conseiller auprès de la présidence du Gouvernement,
S. Exc. M. Rafael Boneke Kama, conseiller auprès de la présidence du Gouvernement,
S. Exc. M. Lamberto Esono Mba, secrétaire général du bureau du défenseur des droits, juriste,
barreau de Malabo,
S. Exc. Mme Rosalía Nguidang Abeso, directrice générale des frontières, juriste, barreau de Malabo,
S. Exc. M. Pascual Nsue Eyi Asangono, directeur général des affaires consulaires, culturelles,
juridiques et de la diaspora, juriste, barreau de Malabo,
S. Exc. M. Miguel Oyono Ndong Mifumu, ambassadeur de la République de Guinée équatoriale
auprès du Royaume de Belgique,
M. Francisco Moro Nve, avocat de l’État, membre du barreau de Malabo,
M. Aquiles Nach Dueso, juriste, barreau de Malabo,
S. Exc. M. Domingo Esawong Ngua, fonctionnaire au ministère de la défense nationale,
M. Asensi Buanga Beaka, fonctionnaire au ministère des hydrocarbures et du développement minier,
comme membres de la délégation ;
M. Derek C. Smith, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre du barreau du district de Columbia,
S. Exc. M. Anatolio Nzang Nguema Mangue, procureur général de la République de Guinée
équatoriale, juriste, barreau de Malabo,
M. Dapo Akande, professeur de droit international public (chaire Chichele) à l’Université d’Oxford,
barrister, membre du barreau d’Angleterre et du pays de Galles, Essex Court Chambers,
M. Pierre d’Argent, professeur titulaire à l’Université catholique de Louvain, membre de l’Institut
de droit international, cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre du barreau de Bruxelles,
- 8 -
Mr Andrew B. Loewenstein, Attorney at Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bar of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
Ms Alison Macdonald, KC, Barrister, Essex Court Chambers, London,
Mr Yuri Parkhomenko, Attorney at Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bar of the District of
Columbia,
Ms Tafadzwa Pasipanodya, Attorney at Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bars of the District
of Columbia and the State of New York,
Mr Paul S. Reichler, Attorney at Law, 11 King’s Bench Walk, member of the Bars of the Supreme
Court of the United States and the District of Columbia,
Mr Philippe Sands, KC, Professor of International Law, University College London, Barrister,
11 King’s Bench Walk,
as Counsel and Advocates;
Mr Diego Cadena, Attorney at Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bar of Ecuador,
Ms Alejandra Torres Camprubí, Adjunct Professor on International Environmental Law, IE Law
School, member of the Madrid and Paris Bars,
Mr Baldomero Casado, Attorney at Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Texas and Madrid Bars,
Mr Coalter G. Lathrop, Sovereign Geographic, member of the Bar of North Carolina,
Mr Remi Reichhold, Barrister, 11 King’s Bench Walk,
Mr Peter Tzeng, Attorney at Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bars of the District of Columbia
and the State of New York,
Ms Elena Sotnikova, Foley Hoag LLP,
Mr M. Arsalan Suleman, Attorney at Law, Foley Hoag LLP, member of the Bars of the District of
Columbia and the State of New York,
as Counsel;
Ms Gretchen Sanchez, Foley Hoag LLP,
Ms Nancy Lopez, Foley Hoag LLP,
as Assistants.
- 9 -
M. Andrew B. Loewenstein, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre du barreau du
Commonwealth du Massachusetts,
Mme Alison Macdonald, KC, barrister, Essex Court Chambers (Londres),
M. Yuri Parkhomenko, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre du barreau du district de
Columbia,
Mme Tafadzwa Pasipanodya, avocate au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre des barreaux du district
de Columbia et de l’État de New York,
M. Paul S. Reichler, avocat au cabinet 11 King’s Bench Walk, membre des barreaux de la Cour
suprême des États-Unis d’Amérique et du district de Columbia,
M. Philippe Sands, KC, professeur de droit international à l’University College London, barrister,
cabinet 11 King’s Bench Walk,
comme conseils et avocats ;
M. Diego Cadena, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre du barreau de l’Équateur,
Mme Alejandra Torres Camprubí, professeure associée en droit international de l’environnement à la
faculté de droit de l’IE, membre des barreaux de Madrid et de Paris,
M. Baldomero Casado, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre des barreaux du Texas et de
Madrid,
M. Coalter G. Lathrop, Sovereign Geographic, membre du barreau de Caroline du Nord,
M. Remi Reichhold, barrister, cabinet 11 King’s Bench Walk,
M. Peter Tzeng, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre des barreaux du district de Columbia
et de l’État de New York,
Mme Elena Sotnikova, cabinet Foley Hoag LLP,
M. M. Arsalan Suleman, avocat au cabinet Foley Hoag LLP, membre des barreaux du district de
Columbia et de l’État de New York,
comme conseils ;
Mme Gretchen Sanchez, cabinet Foley Hoag LLP,
Mme Nancy Lopez, cabinet Foley Hoag LLP,
comme assistantes.
- 10 -
The PRESIDENT: Please be seated. The sitting is open. The Court meets this afternoon for
the continuation of Equatorial Guinea’s first round of oral argument. I shall now give the floor to
Professor Dapo Akande. You have the floor, Sir.
Mr AKANDE:
LEGAL TITLE TO CONTINENTAL TERRITORY AND THE 1900 CONVENTION
1. Good afternoon. Mr President, Members of the Court, it is my honour to appear before you
this afternoon, and to do so on behalf of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea. I will open Equatorial
Guinea’s presentation on the legal titles that are relevant to the land boundary between the Parties.
2. In particular, I will address the titles relating to the mainland or continental territory of
Equatorial Guinea. Over the course of my submissions and those that will follow, we will show that
Equatorial Guinea’s title is succession, and that Equatorial Guinea has title to the entirety of the
territory to which Equatorial Guinea succeeded upon independence from Spain. As we will see, the
spatial extent of Equatorial Guinea’s title is delimited by the boundaries that divided the territory of
Spain from Gabon at the moment of Equatorial Guinea’s independence. Those boundaries are the
ones established in the Convention concluded by Spain and France in 1900 to delimit their respective
territories on the west coast of Africa, including in the area of the Gulf of Guinea, but, importantly,
as subsequently modified by those two colonial powers in accordance with the terms of the same
1900 Convention.
3. Equatorial Guinea’s presentation on its continental territory proceeds in four parts. The first
part, that is my presentation, will focus on the interpretation of the 1900 Convention. I will address
the course of the delimitation set out in the 1900 Convention. I will show that the Convention reflects
the mutual recognition of Spain and France that, due to the limits of their knowledge of the interior
of Africa at the time, significant portions of the boundary were to be delimited  at least for the time
being  by straight lines rather than natural geographical features, the precise locations and contours
of which were unknown at the time. I will then show that Spain and France also recognized that their
geographical knowledge would deepen through missions on the ground conducted by commissioners
designated by both States. As a result, the 1900 treaty includes a provision which permits
modifications of the boundaries. To achieve this objective, the Convention committed Spain and
- 11 -
France to streamlined procedures for modifying the boundaries through the actions of such
commissioners or local delegates. In closing my part, I will address the applicable law governing
Equatorial Guinea and Gabon’s succession to the territories of their respective colonial predecessors.
4. In the second and third parts of our presentations on the title to the land territory,
Ms Pasipanodya and Mr Loewenstein, will show how Spain and France implemented the procedures
set out in the 1900 Convention for modifying the boundaries in the Utamboni and Kie River
areas that is, in the portions of what are now Equatorial Guinea’s southern and eastern boundaries
with Gabon. They will demonstrate that France accepted those modifications prior to Gabon’s
independence in 1960, and that Gabon did so as well in the eight years between its independence and
Equatorial Guinea’s independence.
5. And then in the fourth and concluding part of our presentations on Equatorial Guinea’s title
to its continental territory, His Excellency the Attorney General will describe the post-independence
infra legem effectivités in the Utamboni and Kie River areas. As he will show, those sovereign acts
confirm that the boundaries were, in fact, modified during the colonial period with the effect that the
Parties succeeded to the territories delimited by the modified boundaries upon independence.
I. Historical background leading to the 1900 Convention
6. Mr President, I begin with the events leading to the 1900 Convention. As Mr Reichler
explained this morning, Spain’s title to territory in what is now Equatorial Guinea dates to Portugal’s
1778 cession of the islands of Fernando Póo and Annobón in the Treaty of El Pardo. In the same
instrument, Portugal also ceded to Spain the right to engage in commerce in a large coastal area
which he showed you on a map, between Cape Formozo, located at the mouth of the Niger River,
and Cape López, located south of the Gabon River1.
7. However, for more than a century, European knowledge of the interior’s geography
remained largely confined to the areas close to the coast and to the mouth of the River Muni2. Thus,
when Spain and France recommenced negotiations in 1900 to resolve their competing territorial
1 MEG, para. 3.2. Treaty of Amity, Guarantee, and Commerce Between Portugal and Spain, Signed at El Pardo
(11 March 1778), Art. 13. MEG, Vol. III, Annex 1.
2 MEG, para. 3.37 and fig. 3.6.
- 12 -
claims  following the failure of earlier diplomatic efforts3  the great majority of the continental
territory that was the subject of the negotiations remained unexplored and unknown to them.
II. The land boundary between the Parties established by the 1900 Convention
8. This paucity of geographical information is the context in which Spain and France
concluded the 1900 Convention. That treaty established boundaries not just for the Parties’
overlapping claims in the territories adjacent to the Gulf of Guinea, but in north-west Africa as well,
where they also maintained overlapping claims in the Sahara4.
9. Article IV of the 1900 Convention established the boundary in the territory adjacent to the
Gulf of Guinea. Reflecting the fact that the Parties understood the geography near the coast, they
defined the first two segments of the boundary approximately 30 km in length by geographical
features. Specifically, and as you can now see depicted on the map on your screens, Article IV
provided that “[t]he boundary” in this area “shall begin at the point where the thalweg of the Muni
River intersects a straight line traced from the Coco Beach point to the Dieke point”5. Then, from
that point, the boundary shall “proceed along the thalweg of the Muni River and of the Utamboni”6.
Article IV then stipulated that the boundary was to run along the Utamboni’s thalweg until reaching
the “first point at which the first degree north latitude crosses” that river7.
10. In other words, where the Parties possessed sufficient information about the area’s
geography, they delimited the boundary by means of natural features, namely the thalwegs of the
Muni and Utamboni Rivers. But the Parties’ understanding of the geography was less certain east of
the Utamboni’s intersection with the first degree north latitude. They were therefore constrained to
continue east of that point by means of straight lines. Thus, as you can now see on your screens,
3 MEG, para. 3.18. 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 Nov. 1899), pp. 14-15, Ambassador of France to the President of Council of Ministers, 24 Jan.
1900. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 53; Ibid., pp. 15-16, President of Council of Ministers to Ambassador of France, 29 Jan. 1900.
The two States agreed for the negotiations to take place in Paris. Ibid., p. 17, Ambassador of France to the President of
Council of Ministers, 2 February 1900.
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 Mar. 1901). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 4.
5 Ibid., Art. 4. MEG, para. 3.36.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
- 13 -
Article IV provided that, from that point, the boundary proceeded along the “parallel” formed by the
line of first degree north latitude until it intersected the line of longitude 9 degrees east of Paris. From
there, the boundary was “formed” by the meridian of 9 degrees east of Paris until it met the southern
border of the German colony of Kamerun8.
III. The legal framework established in the 1900 Convention to modify
the land boundary between the parties
11. While Article IV established the boundary following the course we have just reviewed,
Spain and France nonetheless recognized that when further information was obtained about the
interior’s geography, this would enable them to adjust the boundary by reference to natural features.
They therefore included in the 1900 Convention provisions that both facilitated obtaining such
information and empowered them to modify expeditiously the boundaries on the basis of that
information.
12. Article VIII gives effect to this objective. Article VIII begins by noting that the
“boundaries delimited by [the] Convention shall be recorded . . . on the attached maps”9. The map
for the delimitation of the land territory adjacent to the Gulf of Guinea is found in Appendix III to
the Convention. It is that map that you have been viewing on the screen10. As we said, you can see
the boundary follows the thalweg of the Muni and Utamboni and that coincides with the depiction
of natural geographical features. Where the geographic information is absent due to the parties’ lack
of knowledge, the boundary follows straight lines: 1 degree north of latitude and the 9 degree
meridian east of Paris. As you can see, those areas where we have the straight lines, represent much
of the southern limits of the Spanish territory and the entirety of the eastern limits, and on the map
they are literally cartes blanches.
13. Mr President, Members of the Court, Article VIII acknowledged this lacunae of
information and provided a mechanism for redressing it. You have the provision in grey tab 17. The
first paragraph of that provision, Article VIII, incorporates by reference the “reservations made in
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid., Art. 8.
10 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 III. MEG, Vol. III, Annex 4.
- 14 -
appendix no. 1 to the Convention”. In Appendix 1, the parties make the reservation that “[a]lthough
the lines of demarcation traced on the maps” attached to the Convention “are generally assumed to
be accurate”, the “lines” nevertheless “cannot be considered an absolutely correct representation until
confirmed by new maps”11.
14. And, in light of this dearth of accurate geographical information, the parties set out, in
Appendix I, an agreed-upon process for modifying the boundary based on the accumulation of
additional information12. Specifically, the parties “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”13. The Appendix then goes on to provide that: “At the same time, [they, that is the
Commissioners or Delegates] 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”.14 The Appendix then concludes by providing that “[t]he changes or
corrections proposed by mutual agreement by said Commissioners or Delegates shall be submitted
to the respective Governments for approval”15.
15. Mr President, Members of the Court, six points emerge from a contextual reading of the
three provisions of the 1900 Convention that we have looked at Articles IV, VIII and Appendix I.
16. The first point, is that while the delimitation set out in Article IV provided for straight lines
in the interior, the parties accepted that information concerning the relevant geography was wanting
in material respects. That is the only reasonable way to interpret Appendix I’s stipulation that the
boundaries depicted on the maps appended to the Convention “cannot” be “considered . . . absolutely
correct”16.
11 Ibid., Appendix I.
12 MEG, paras. 3.38-3.41.
13 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 I. MEG, Vol. III, Annex 4.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
- 15 -
17. Second, the parties agreed to a process for obtaining geographical information and for
modifying the boundaries to account for that newly acquired information. This, again, is the only
reasonable way of interpreting their agreement that commissioners or local delegates would, as
Appendix 1 provides, (a) be “responsible . . . for delimiting . . . the boundaries on the ground” and
(b) that they could modify the lines of demarcation “to delimit them more accurately” having regard
to the position of “roads”, “rivers”, “cities” and “villages” in other words, the geographical
features of the area17.
18. Third, in regard to the designation of commissioners or local delegates the
1900 Convention contemplates two alternatives. Article VIII provides for the designation of
commissioners within a specified period of time four months from the exchange of ratifications.
As will be explained by Ms Pasipanodya who will follow me, the parties did in fact do this. However,
Appendix I also provides for the possibility that “local Delegates of both Nations” may be charged
with delimiting the boundaries, and in so doing may modify the lines of demarcation. Spain and
France both already maintained robust administrations in their respective west African colonies, each
overseen by a Governor-General. Thus, there was no need to formally appoint local delegates — they
already existed. Mr Loewenstein will explain how the Governor-Generals of the respective colonies
fulfilled this function in relation to the eastern boundary of what is now Equatorial Guinea.
19. The fourth point is that the commissioners and local delegates had significant flexibility in
proposing modifications to the boundary. This is plain from the choice of words used in Appendix I
as well as in Article VIII. Appendix I provided that commissioners and local delegates had to use the
“description of the boundaries as established in the Convention” as “a basis” for their work, but
provided that at the same time they “may modify [the] said lines of demarcation in order to delimit
them more accurately”18. That high degree of flexibility is reinforced by Article VIII, which placed
minimal constraints on the work of the commissioners, who were instructed to act not only in
accordance with the Convention but to follow the “spirit” of its “provisions”19.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid., Art. VIII.
- 16 -
20. Fifth, the fact that the Parties did not intend to impose substantive limits on how the
boundary in the Gulf of Guinea region could be modified is underscored by the absence in the
Convention of any limitations on those modifications, so long as the modifications had a “basis” in
the Convention and followed its provisions’ “spirit”. This contrasts with the Parties’ treatment in the
same treaty of the boundary in the Sahara. The course of that boundary in the Sahara was set out in
Article I20. As you can see on your screens, part of the delimitation there ran through the Cabo Blanco
peninsula. With respect to that portion of the boundary, Article I specified that “the delimitation” to
be done by the Commission as referenced in Article VIII “shall be done so that the western portion
of the peninsula, including Bahia del Oeste/baie de l’Ouest, is allocated to Spain, and that
Cabo Blanco/Cap Blanc and the eastern portion of the peninsula go to France”21. In other words, in
that area the parties limited the scope of how the boundary could be modified. However, they
imposed no similar limitation with respect to modifying any part of the boundary in the territory
adjacent to the Gulf of Guinea.
21. The sixth point is this: while the 1900 Convention provided that modifications proposed
by the commissioners or local delegates required approval, the Convention did not provide for any
specific or formal procedure by which such approval was to be obtained or given. Appendix I of the
Convention, which deals with this issue puts the matter in unmistakable terms. We had it on the
screen earlier and I repeat the words again: “The changes or corrections proposed by mutual
agreement by [such] Commissioners or Delegates shall be submitted to the respective Governments
for approval”22. No particular process for approval is set out or mandated. With respect to this sixth
point, two particular features stand out. The first is that the Convention does not require that in order
to secure approval that the Parties engage in any bilateral process whatsoever. For example, the
provision does not require that the Parties amend the treaty. What is required is that the proposed
changes are submitted by the commissioners or delegates to their respective governments, and
approval is given by those respective governments. In other words approval could be given
individually. The second point here is that just as there is no prescribed process for approval, there
20 Ibid., Art. I.
21 Ibid.
22 Ibid., Appendix I.
- 17 -
is also no prescribed form of approval set out. It could be effectuated by any means. That, of course,
included approval by conduct and implied approval.
22. The point that there is no prescribed process, and that approval need not be given
bilaterally, stands in contrast with the requirements imposed elsewhere in the 1900 Convention with
regard to the giving of consent for other matters dealt with in that Convention. We can contrast what
Appendix 1 provides for with Article X, which required that the Convention itself be ratified and that
instruments of ratification “be exchanged in Paris within six months, or sooner if possible”23. And
then consider Article V. This provision largely concerns navigational and fishing rights in Spanish
and French territorial waters in the areas under consideration, as well as in the Muni and Utamboni
Rivers. Article V contemplates the adoption of a régime in relation to the policing of these issues,
“as well as other matters” concerning “border relations”, “lighting, beacons, water management and
use”. However, it provides that such a régime would be subject to agreements or conventions, or to
be more accurate, “concerted arrangements, between the two Governments”  “arrangements
concertés”24. In other words, it was specifically provided there that a bilateral agreement between the
two Governments was required. This is unlike modifying the land boundary, where a simplified
approval process was available.
23. Mr President, Members of the Court, the summary of what we have just reviewed is that:
(a) Article IV sets out a land boundary between Spanish and French territories; (b) the Parties
provided that this boundary could be modified to take account of their expanding geographical
knowledge of the interior; (c) they provided mechanisms for obtaining such information and
proposing modifications; and (d) they did not require any particular or formal process for approving
such modifications.
IV. Applicable law to the boundary modification procedure established
in the 1900 Convention
24. This brings me to the last part of my presentation, which deals with the applicable law.
Here, I can be brief because the rules are so firmly established. When Gabon and Equatorial Guinea
attained independence, they succeeded to the territories of their respective colonial predecessors.
23 Ibid., Art. X.
24 Ibid., Art. V.
- 18 -
As the Chamber of the Court put it in the Burkina Faso/Mali case: “By becoming independent, a new
State acquires sovereignty with the territorial base and boundaries left to it by the colonial power”25.
This, the Chamber explained, “is part of the ordinary operation of the machinery of State
succession”26. Applying these rules in Cameroon v. Nigeria, the Court determined that when French
Cameroons became independent on 1 January 1960, it “acceded to independence on the basis of the
boundaries inherited from the previous period”; Nigeria did as well when it achieved independence
on 1 October 196027. The Court therefore determined that “on the date of its independence Cameroon
succeeded to title over Bakassi as established by the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913”,
that treaty having been found by the Court to have established the parties’ respective titles during the
colonial period28.
25. African States have emphasized the critical importance of the rules concerning succession
to title as defined on the date of independence. In 1963, all 32 signatories to the Charter of the
Organisation of African Unity, including Gabon, pledged their “[r]espect for the sovereignty and
territorial integrity of each State and for its inalienable right to independent existence”29. And, the
following year, the Cairo Resolution of the African Heads of State on Border Disputes Among
African States “solemnly declare[d] that all Member States pledge themselves to respect the borders
existing on their achievement of national independence”30. The head of State of Gabon was one of
those signatories.
26. In view of these rules of international law, the spatial extent of the titles to which Equatorial
Guinea and Gabon succeeded upon independence were determined by the boundaries in force on
those critical dates. Here, they are the boundaries established by the 1900 Convention, as
subsequently modified in accordance with the terms of that treaty. The manner in which the portions
25 Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 568, para. 30.
26 Ibid.
27 Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea
intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2002, p. 332, para. 35.
28 Ibid., p. 414, para. 220.
29 MEG, para. 6.6; Organisation of African Unity, Charter (25 May 1963), Art. 3, para. 3.
30 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), p. 17 (emphasis added). MEG, Vol. III, Annex 44.
- 19 -
of the boundary were so modified in the Utamboni and Kie River areas will be shown in the
presentations that follow.
27. Mr President, this concludes my presentation. I am grateful to you and the Members of the
Court for your kind attention. I ask that you invite Ms Pasipanodya to the podium to address title in
the Utamboni River area.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Professor Dapo Akande for his statement, and I will now invite
Ms Tafadzwa Pasipanodya to take the floor.
Ms PASIPANODYA:
THE UTAMBONI RIVER AREA
1. Mr President, Madam Vice-President, Members of the Court, it is a privilege to appear
before you to address Equatorial Guinea’s title to the continental territory of the Utamboni River
area.
2. This region is located in the south-western part of Equatorial Guinea. As you can see, it
features rivers such as the Utamboni and the Muni that flow westward before emptying into Corisco
Bay, as well as several tributaries to the Utamboni, including the Mitombe and the Miang Rivers31.
3. You have heard Professor Akande explain how Spain and France initially delimited the
boundary in this area in Article IV of the 1900 Convention. Specifically, where the parties had a
relatively strong sense of the local geography, the boundary proceeded along the thalwegs of the
Muni River and then of the Utamboni River32. But where their geographical knowledge was more
limited  beginning at the Utamboni’s intersection with the 1 degree north line of latitude  the
boundary followed this parallel until reaching the 9 degree line of longitude east of Paris33. To give
effect to Spain and France’s desire to modify the boundary so as to correspond to the area’s
31 MEG, para. 2.13.
32 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 Mar. 1901), Art. IV; MEG, Vol. III, Annex 4; MEG, para. 3.36.
33 Ibid.; MEG, para. 3.37.
- 20 -
geography, Article VIII of the 1900 Convention required the parties to appoint a commission tasked
with exploring the area and proposing boundary modifications to achieve this end34.
4. As I will show, the Commission appointed by Spain and France in 1901 did this. Because
its respective Governments approved its modifications, the modified boundary established the limits
of the title to which Gabon and Equatorial Guinea succeeded upon independence35.
I. The 1901 Commission proposes modifications
to the 1900 Convention boundary
5. I begin with the Commission’s appointment. The importance that the parties attached to the
Commission’s work is evident from the appointment of senior officials to lead it: the Administrateur
des colonies on the French side and a Commandant d’État Major on the Spanish36. Reflecting the
nature of the Commission’s mandate, both contingents included engineering expertise37.
6. The Commission began its expedition at the mouth of the Muni River on 2 August 190138.
In the words of Article VIII, its task was to “trac[e] on the ground the demarcation lines between the
Spanish and French possessions, in accordance with and in the spirit of the provisions of this
Convention”39, and to propose how to “modify said lines”40.
7. That is precisely what the Commission did. The Commission explained in its report that it
“propose[d] as a natural boundary” the line which is “most appropriate” in view of the area’s
geography and that “best reflects the spirit of the treaty”41. This is not contested by Gabon42.
34 Ibid., Art. VIII; MEG, paras. 3.40-3.41; 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.
35 MEG, paras. 3.54-3.66.
36 Franco-Spanish Delimitation Commission of the Gulf of Guinea, Border Project: Southern Border (1 Jan. 1902),
p. 1; MEG, Vol. III, Annex 14; Vilches’ Diary of Operations, The Territory of Biafra, Franco-Spanish Delimitation
Commission (1901) (excerpt), p. 13; REG, Vol. III, Annex 8.
37 Ibid.
38 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.45; Itinerary followed by the Commission for the Delimitation of the Gulf of Guinea, p. 1;
MEG, Vol. III, Annex 12.
39 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 Mar. 1901), Art. VIII; MEG, Vol. III, Annex 4.
40Ibid., App. No. I; MEG, Vol. III, Annex 4.
41 Franco-Spanish Commission for Border Demarcation of the Gulf of Guinea, Border Project (Southern Border)
(1 Jan. 1902), p. 1; MEG, Vol. III, Annex 14.
42 CMG, para. 7.29.
- 21 -
8. The Commission also produced a map, now on your screens. As you can see, the proposed
boundary does not follow the 1 degree north line parallel. It primarily follows watercourses,
including the Muni, the Utamboni and the Mitombe Rivers. Where watercourses were unavailable,
the Commission proposed that the boundary follow existing paths that connected those watercourses.
The result was a boundary formed by physical features that was both easy to identify and allowed
for shared use of routes of commerce, transportation and communication. And, by both taking into
account the area’s geography and following the general direction of the 1 degree north parallel, the
boundary gave effect to the spirit of the Convention.
9. The Commission understood that the proposed boundary had implications for the
settlements in the area. Some villages located in French territory under Article IV of the
1900 Convention would shift to Spanish territory, while other villages located in Spanish territory
would shift to the French43. The Commission therefore identified specific villages that would have
Spanish or French nationality according to whether the village was situated north or south of the
proposed boundary44. For example, the Commission designated the village of Assang as Spanish
even though it was south of the 1 degree north parallel, because it was north of the Utamboni River
which formed the boundary that the Commission was proposing in this area45.
II. Spain’s exercise of sovereignty without protest from France or Germany
10. Spain and France approved the Commission’s boundary modification in the Utamboni
River area where they considered the Commission’s work sufficiently accurate. In areas to the east,
however, the work of the Commission was less accurate. This was primarily because of the
Commission’s inability to maintain the accuracy of its chronometers as it moved further eastward46.
43 MEG, para. 3.47; REG, para. 5.19; 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 Jan. 1902); MEG, Vol. III, Annex 15.
44 Ibid.
45 MEG, para. 3.47.
46 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.51; REG, Vol. I, para. 5.20; Kingdom of Spain, Letter from the Colonial Section of the
Ministry of State (20 Apr. 1907), p. 141; MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 56. See also, The French Republic, Letter from the French
Ministry of Colonies to Ministry of Foreign Affairs (1 Dec. 1906); MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 55bis; Kingdom of Spain, Letter
from the Minister of State Concerning the Borders of Congo and Spanish Guinea (20 Apr. 1907); MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 58.
- 22 -
In these areas, the parties declined to approve the proposed modifications so the boundary there
remained the parallel as described in Article IV of the 1900 Convention47.
11. But Spain and France’s approval of the modification in the Utamboni River area is plain
from their conduct48. For example, the town of Asobla, which was known to be located south of
the 1 degree north parallel shortly after the Commission completed its work, fell to Spain under the
Commission’s modified boundary, because it was north of the Utamboni River. Spain developed the
town into a significant regional centre, serving as the seat of Spain’s administrative subdistrict and a
key military post49. Since at least 1905, Asobla housed Spain’s police force, customs post, judge,
health clinic, treasury administration and postal service50. Spain collected taxes from Asobla and
allocated a budget for the town51. Spain undertook all of these activities with France’s full knowledge
and absence of protest52. And, for its part, France carried out no acts of administration in Asobla or
anywhere else in the area that had shifted to Spain as a result of the Commission’s boundary53.
12. In June 1914, after Germany assumed administration of the French territory, a Spanish-
German Commission convened for the purpose of identifying natural boundaries in what the head of
the German delegation referred to as “the southeast corner of Spanish Muni”, that is, to the east of
the Utamboni River area, where the previous Commission’s proposals had not been accepted due to
inaccuracies of its work54.
13. You can see on your screens the villages identified by the Spanish-German Commission
according to their respective nationalities, in the area where the 1901 Commission’s modifications
47 MEG, Vol. I, paras. 3.52-3.53.
48 Ibid., para. 3.52.
49 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.55; Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Decree on Territorial Division, Official
Bulletin (1 Mar. 1907), p. 256; MEG, Vol. V, Annex 114; 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. 234 and 240; MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 221.
50 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.55; 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 (Nov. 1907), p. 3; MEG, Vol. IV,
Annex 57.
51 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.55; Royal Geographical Society, “Legislation and Provisions of the Central Administration”,
Magazine of Colonial and Mercantile Geography, Spain (1907), p. 506; MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 220.
52 MEG, para. 3.56; 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.
53 Ibid.
54 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.58; The German Empire, Report No. 4, Imperial German Muni Expedition, Dr Olshausen
(16 June 1914), p. 25; MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 63.
- 23 -
have been accepted. The Spanish villages are in orange; the German in purple. The Spanish-German
Commission noted, for example, that Asobla was located in Spanish territory55. In fact, Asobla
became the seat of Spanish regional administration. The Commission also noted that Anguma and
Nsogodam were Spanish56. Each of these towns is located north of the modified boundary and south
of the 1 degree north parallel. Germany, like France, did not protest Spanish administrative activities
in this area57. Nor did Germany carry out any administrative acts of its own.
14. This state of affairs in this area continued in the decades following France’s resumption of
sovereignty after World War I. Spain, without challenge by France, exclusively carried out sovereign
acts of administration on its side of the modified boundary58. Examples of these Spanish acts à titre
de souverain are set out in our written pleadings. They include the censuses that Spain conducted in
the area in 193259, in 194260, and again in 195061. Each of these censuses included Asobla, Midyobo
and Anguma, as well as many other locations south of the 1° north parallel. France protested none of
them62.
15. Indeed, Spain continued to carry out the full range of governmental administration in the
area that had shifted to it, including the operation of schools and courts, the enforcement of criminal
laws, and the authorization and regulation of economic activity63. For instance, Spain granted a major
forestry concession, known as the Miang Concession, to the Spanish logging company Vasco
55 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.60; Decree Signed by the German Empire and the Kingdom of Spain for the Delimitation
Between Spanish Guinea and the Protectorate of Cameroon (18 Aug. 1914); MEG, Vol. V, Annex 115.
56 Ibid.
57 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.60; REG, para. 5.23; 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.
58 MEG, para. 3.61.
59 EGR, para. 5.32; EGR, Figure R5.5; Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Statistical Office of the General
Government, Statistical Summaries: Province of Rio Muni 1932 (1932) (within The Spanish State, Ministry of Labor,
Health and Social Security, Population and Nomenclature of the Spanish Possessions of the Gulf of Guinea (1936)); REG,
Vol. III, Annex 11.
60 MEG, paras. 3.63-64, Figure 3.11; Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Statistical Summaries: Provinces
of Fernando Póo and Rio Muni 1948-1949, Statistical Office of the General Government (1950), pp. 29, 44-61. MEG,
Vol. V, Annex 127.
61 MEG, para. 3.65, Figure 3.12; Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Statistical Summaries: Provinces of
Fernando Póo and Rio Muni 1948-1949, Statistical Office of the General Government (1950), pp. 60-113. MEG, Vol. V,
Annex 127.
62 MEG, para. 3.66.
63 Ibid., paras. 3.61-3.66.
- 24 -
Africana64. The company established its headquarters in Elon, which became a substantial town
located south of 1º north65. According to Spain’s 1950 census, the population directly associated with
the Miang Concession made up the second-largest population centre in Spanish Cogo district66. Spain
administered and regulated the physical infrastructure associated with the Miang Concession,
including 18 km of road located south of the 1° north line67.
16. Spain’s exercise of sovereignty in the Utamboni River area was plain for all to see. For
example, in 1915, the United Kingdom Admiralty reported that Asobla housed a Spanish military
garrison of 40-50 soldiers68. When, in 1925, the League of Nations carried out a health survey in the
area, it observed that Asobla, along with Mbung  another town located south of 1° north  were
on “Spanish soil”69. Moreover in 1937, French military intelligence indicated that Asobla and
associated roads south of 1º north were Spanish70. France’s awareness that Spain was exercising
sovereignty in the Utamboni River area, south of the 1° north line, is thus beyond doubt.
III. Spain’s exercise of sovereignty without protest from Gabon
17. This was the situation that prevailed in the area through Gabon’s independence on
17 August 1960. During the eight years that followed before Equatorial Guinea became independent
on 12 October 1968, Spain continued to act as the sovereign in the Utamboni River area71. It
conducted a census in 1965, for example72. As before, Spain’s census included locations that had
64 MEG, para. 3.64; Spanish Equatorial Provinces of Fernando Póo and Rio Muni, Forestry Section, Forestry
Concession of Miang River (District of Kogo) (28 January 1961), pp. 5, 22. REG, Vol. III, Annex 19; MEG, Vol. II,
Figure 3.13 (Geographic Service of the Spanish Army: Topographic and Forestry Map of Guinea (April 1952) (map
excerpt, annotations added).
65 EGR, para. 5.32; EGR, Vol. II, Annex P. U11.
66 Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Statistical Summaries: Provinces of Fernando Póo and Rio Muni
1948-1949, Statistical Office of the General Government (1950), pp. 80-91. MEG, Vol. V, Annex 127.
67 EGR, Vol. I, para. 5.32; EGR, Vol. II, Figure 5.6.
68 MEG, para. 3.60; United Kingdom, Cameroon, Final Report: Enclosures Sept 1914 to May 1916 (3 October
1915), p. 10. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 64.
69 MEG, para. 3.62; 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.
70 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), p. 13; MEG, Vol. V,
Annex 123.
71 EGR, paras. 5.37-5.47.
72 REG, para. 5.46, Figure R5.10; Government of Equatorial Guinea, Regional Statistics Department, Summary
Demographic of the demarcation (years 1932 to 1965) and catalogue of units and settlements for 1965 (1965). REG,
Vol. IV, Annex 28.
- 25 -
shifted to it under the modified boundary73. And Spain continued to authorize and regulate economic
activity, including awarding additional forestry concessions, such as the Vasco Africana Echam
concession74. Spain also created reserve areas for farming75 and bitumen extraction76. Each of these
sovereign acts occurred south of the 1º north parallel. None elicited protest from Gabon77.
18. In the face of Spain’s continuous and unchallenged conduct on its side of the modified
boundary in the Utamboni River area, from 1901 to Equatorial Guinea’s independence in 1968,
Gabon does not offer any countervailing French, German or Gabonese conduct. Nor does it produce
a single protest against Spain’s acts à titre de souverain in this area. Gabon’s post-1960 conduct was
thus consistent with France’s conduct before it. The only possible conclusion is that the boundary
proposed by the Commission was approved by Spain and France.
19. The map now appearing on your screens is a map of Gabon prepared by the French
Government mapping agency Institut géographique national (“IGN”) in 196178. As you can see, the
boundary in the Utamboni River area does not follow the straight-line delimitation that had been
established in Article IV of the 1900 Convention. Instead, the boundary follows the course of the
Utamboni River, as proposed by the 1901 Commission. While the modified boundary depicted on
the map does not reflect the full extent of the modification to which the parties had agreed in the
eastern part of the Utamboni River area, it demonstrates that a very substantial modification had, in
fact, occurred. The deep bulge labelled “Guinée Espagnole” that extends south of the 1º north parallel
makes it impossible to contend otherwise.
20. Gabon’s acceptance of that modification is evident in its diplomatic exchanges with Spain.
On 10 December 1963, Gabon’s Embassy in Spain sent a Note Verbale to Spain’s Ministry of
Foreign Affairs proposing negotiations “for the purpose of entering into a Convention aiming to
73 Ibid., pp. 37, 55, 69.
74 Ibid.; The Spanish State, Decree 1,505/1961 (20 July 1961), p. 9. REG, Vol. IV, Annex 24.
75 Ibid.; Equatorial Guinea, Forestry Service, Entry Register No. 4040 (16 September 1965), p. 13. REG, Vol. III,
Annex 22.
76 MEG, para. 3.105, Figure 3.27; ERG, para. 5.46. 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.
77 MEG, para. 3.107.
78 MEG, Vol. II, Annex MR2; EGR, Figure 5.8.
- 26 -
define border relations between” Gabon and Spanish Rio Muni79. In that regard, Gabon suggested
that the parties establish a “list of villages on both sides of the border” that would be included in a
“border zone” extending 10-15 km from the border80.
21. Gabon’s proposal is telling. It proceeded on the premise that the parties already had an
agreed border in that area; as a consequence, the proposed treaty need only address “border relations”
not the border’s location.
22. Spain and Gabon ultimately agreed that the border zone should be fixed at 10 km from the
border. On 23 April 1965, after Spain and Gabon had initialled the treaty’s text in January of that
year81, Gabon’s Vice-President, on behalf of the Gabonese President, wrote to Spain’s Ambassador
regarding the “exchange of letters” that would “determine the list of places and settlements included
within the 10 kilometer zone”82. In that connection, Gabon transmitted “the list of Gabonese places
included in the border zone”83. Spain, for its part, assembled its own list of Spanish villages located
within 10 kilometres of the border84.
23. The locations of these villages merit careful attention. You can see them on your screens:
the villages listed by Gabon are in green; the ones listed by Spain are in orange. Spain identified
20 villages south of the 1º north parallel as being Spanish. These included Asobla, Anguma and
Midjobo. None of those 20 villages is included in Gabon’s list. Had Gabon considered them to be
Gabonese, Gabon would surely have listed them. But it did not.
24. What the evidence shows is that, between 1901 and 1968, every instance of affirmative
conduct à titre de souverain in the Utamboni River area, north of the river and south of the 1º north
parallel, was undertaken by Spain. Neither France nor Germany nor Gabon ever exercised any form
79 MEG, para. 3.103; EGR, para. 5.39; Note Verbale from Embassy of Gabon in Spain to Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Spain (10 December 1963). EGM, Vol. I, Annex 97.
80 Note Verbale from Embassy of Gabon in Spain to Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Spain (10 December 1963),
p. 1. MEG, Vol. I, Annex 97.
81 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.
82 Ibid., p. 2.
83 Ibid., pp. 2, 4-6.
84 MEG, para. 3.104, Figure 3.26; 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), Appendix 2.
MEG, Vol. III. Annex 8.
- 27 -
of sovereignty in the area. Unlike many cases before the Court, this case does not present a “battle
of effectivités”. There is no competing conduct. Nor was there protest of Spain’s conduct from
France, Germany or Gabon, despite Spain’s open and continuous exercise of sovereignty in the area.
25. In conclusion, Mr President, Spain’s legal title in the Utamboni River area is found in
Article IV of the 1900 Convention, as modified by the parties in accordance with the procedures
established in that Convention. Thus, when Equatorial Guinea succeeded to Spain’s title upon
independence in 1968, it did so in respect of the territory encompassed by the boundary that had been
proposed by the 1901 Commission and approved by the Parties.
26. Thank you very much, Mr President, Members of the Court. This concludes my remarks.
May I ask that you call to the podium Mr Loewenstein, who will address Equatorial Guinea’s title to
the land territory in the Kie River area.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Ms Pasipanodya. I now invite Mr Loewenstein to take the floor.
Mr LOEWENSTEIN:
THE KIE RIVER AREA
1. Mr President, Madam Vice President, Members of the Court, good afternoon. It is an honour
to appear before you on behalf of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea. I will continue the presentation
on title to Equatorial Guinea’s continental territory by addressing the Kie River area. That area, which
you can see on your screens, covers the northern half of Equatorial Guinea’s eastern boundary with
Gabon. As Professor Akande explained, this boundary was originally delimited in Article IV of the
1900 Convention by means of the 9 degree east of Paris meridian, beginning in the south at its
intersection with the 1 degree north line of latitude, and extending to the north until meeting the
boundary with the German colony of Kamerun.
2. As I will show, in 1919, Spain and France used the mechanisms established in the
1900 Convention to modify this boundary. As a result, for more than a century, its northern half has
followed the north-flowing Kie River from its source in the south to the border with the colony of
Kamerun — now the independent Republic of Cameroon — in the north. As you can see on your
screens, after this agreed-upon modification, certain pockets of territory located east of the 9 degree
- 28 -
meridian shifted from French to Spanish sovereignty. Other areas located west of the meridian shifted
from Spanish to French sovereignty. The territory shifted to Spain encompasses the towns of
Ebebiyin in the north and Alen to the south, as well as a large number of villages.
3. Before addressing the 1919 agreement that modified the boundary, I pause to note that the
desire to replace the 9 degree meridian as the boundary with north-south-oriented natural features
had existed for nearly two decades prior to the Kie River’s formal adoption as the boundary. As
Ms Pasipanodya explained, in 1901 Spain and France appointed the Commissioners required under
Article VIII of the 1900 Convention and dispatched them to obtain in the field geographical
information about the area’s interior and to propose modifications to the boundaries that had been
described in Article IV. The Commission’s resulting proposal for the eastern boundary, in the words
of its report, “used bodies of water as natural land features” and where no bodies of water were
available, “used indigenous paths” that were “permanent” in “nature” and “well-known among the
inhabitants”85. On the basis of such features, the Commission proposed deviations as large as 7 km
from Article IV’s straight-line boundary86. You can see on your screens the Commission’s proposal
for the eastern boundary. It does not follow the meridian but rather the course of geographical
features  mainly rivers  that track the meridian’s general direction.
4. Now, as Ms Pasipanodya explained, due in large measure to the malfunctioning of its
chronometers, the Commission was not, in fact, near the correct meridian. It was considerably to the
west. For that reason, Spain and France declined to accept the Commission’s proposed boundary
modification in this area. But for present purposes, the pertinent point is that Spain and France agreed
that the eastern boundary should be modified to follow rivers and other geographical features. The
only disagreement was with the Commission’s inadvertent westward shift of the proposed
delimitation.
5. The relevant colonial authorities continued to agree that the boundary should follow
geographical features after Germany obtained sovereignty over the territory lying on the eastern side
of the border. As the Spanish Minister of State noted, Spain’s Governor-General and Germany’s
85 Franco-Spanish Delimitation Commission of the Gulf of Guinea, Border Project: Eastern Border (1 Jan. 1902),
pp. 9-10. MEG, Vol. III, Annex 13.
86 Ibid., p. 4.
- 29 -
Imperial Governor had, in 1912, “issued opinions” agreeing that the boundary should be modified to
“allow the borders of both colonies to be established by natural boundaries, preferably rivers and the
most notable land features, where rivers do not exist”87. The respective Spanish and German
authorities agreed that by making the boundary easily identifiable in this way, the modification would
help avoid “friction”, that is, border incidents caused by uncertainty about the boundary’s precise
location88.
6. But for the commencement of the First World War, Spain and Germany would have
formalized that modification, so that the border ran along the Kie River89. However, Spain deferred
doing so because it considered that taking this step during the hostilities could be viewed as
inconsistent with its neutrality90. What matters for present purposes is that the Spanish and German
authorities both agreed that the boundary should be the Kie River, not the 9 degree meridian. That
agreement is unsurprising. Not only would the river provide an easily identifiable boundary, under
the 1908 treaty between France and Germany that set the border between German Kamerun and
French Congo, the Kie River also delimited those colonial possessions immediately to the north91.
You can see that boundary on your screens. And, I should add, even today, the Kie River still delimits
their successors: Cameroon and Gabon.
7. When France supplanted Germany and re-occupied the territory lying to the east, Spain and
France re-engaged on modifying Article IV’s eastern delimitation to take account of newly acquired
information about the area’s geography — exactly as they had contemplated when concluding the
1900 Convention. Specifically, by letter dated 22 November 1917, Spain’s Governor-General
proposed to the Governor of French Equatorial Africa that the eastern boundary be provisionally
delimited by the Kie River92.
87 Kingdom of Spain, Letter from the Minister of State to the Ambassador of Spain to the German Empire (4 Feb.
1914), p. 2. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 62.
88 Ibid.
89 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.68; Letter from the Governor-General of Spanish Territories of Africa to the Governor of
French Gabon (22 Nov. 1917), pp. 1-2. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 65.
90 Ibid.
91 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.68; Convention between Germany and France to Define Precisely the Boundary Lines
between the Kamerun and the French Congo Signed at Berlin (signed 18 Apr. 1908, ratified on 28 July 1908), Art. 1. MEG,
Vol. III, Annex 5.
92 MEG Vol. I, para. 3.69; Letter from the Governor-General of Spanish Territories of Africa to the Governor of
French Gabon (22 No. 1917), pp. 2, 3. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 65.
- 30 -
8. France responded by letter dated 24 January 191993. The Governor-General of French
Equatorial Africa informed Spain’s Governor-General that he had “received approval” for the
boundary’s modification94. Specifically, he conveyed to Spain: “It is now agreed that the new border
provisionally adopted for the eastern part of Spanish territory adjacent to the New Cameroon
occupied territories shall be determined by the course of the N’KYE stream” beginning at the
“stream’s origin” in the south95. The French Governor-General requested that his Spanish counterpart
“communicate to me whether we are in complete agreement regarding the provisional adoption of
these new borders”96. There is no question that this had been approved in Paris. The French Minister
of Colonies wrote that he had given this authorization on 21 November 191897.
9. Spain’s response came by letter dated 1 May 191998. Its Governor-General informed the
Governor-General of French Equatorial Africa 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”99. Thus, by this exchange of notes between the colonies’
respective highest officials, Spain and France agreed to modify the boundary so that, in the relevant
part, it followed the Kie River. To the south, the boundary remained the straight line established in
Article IV of the 1900 Convention.
10. Having reached this agreement on the eastern boundary’s modification, Spain
implemented it without objection from France. The evidence of Spanish effectivités is overwhelming.
They are described in detail in the written pleadings100. To cite but a few examples, in December
1920, Spain’s Governor-General instructed the Spanish colonial authorities to construct a road along
93 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.69; 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 Jan. 1919), p. 1. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 66.
94 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 Jan. 1919), p. 1. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 66.
95 Ibid.
96 Ibid.
97 Letter from French Minister of Colonies to Minister of Foreign Affairs (24 Nov. 1919), p. 3. MEG, Vol. IV,
Annex 68.
98 Letter from Spanish Governor-General of Spanish Guinea to His Excellency the French Governor-General of
French Equatorial Africa (1 May 1919), p. 1. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 67.
99 Ibid, p. 7.
100 MEG, Vol. I, paras. 6.32, 6.37, 6.38, 6.40; REG, Vol. I, paras. 5.51, 5.62.
- 31 -
the eastern boundary as defined in the 1919 agreement101. In accordance with that agreement, the
Spanish road traversed areas east of the 9 degree meridian and connected a large number of towns
and settlements located on the Kie River’s left bank102. You can see their locations on your screens.
France did not protest.
11. Over the next five decades of colonial rule, Spain continued to carry out sovereign acts in
the areas east of the meridian and west of the Kie River. Spain installed and maintained engineering
structures along the Kie River road103. Spain also carried out acts of civil administration104. For
instance, the census that Spain conducted in 1932 involved collecting data from the inhabitants of
more than 20 towns located between the Kie River and the 9 degree meridian105. You can see them
on your screens. Spain conducted additional censuses over the decades, including in 1942106 and
1950107.
101 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.74; Kingdon of Spain, Letter No. 527 from the Spanish Governor-General (8 December
1920), p. 1. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 70.
102 Ibid.
103 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.76; Republic of Spain, Order No. 328: Report on the Public Works Service of the Spanish
Territories of the Gulf of Guinea (1933), pp. 91-93. MEG, Vol. V, Annex 121; MEG, Vol. II, Figure 3.17; REG, Vol. I,
para. 5.62.
104 MEG, Vol. I, paras. 3.77-3.78; 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; The Spanish State, Letter from
the Lead Engineer to the Governor-General of Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea (9 June 1939), p. 1. MEG, Vol. IV,
Annex 78; 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.
“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; 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; 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, 23-30, 32-33. MEG, Vol. V, Annex 127; REG, Vol. I, para. 5.62; The Spanish State, Territories of the
Gulf of Guinea, Ebebiyin Land Administration, Ebebiyin Land Demarcation (27 November 19[3]8). REG, Vol. III,
Annex 13; The Spanish State, Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, N’sork Land Administration, Letter from Military
Administrator (18 November 1938). REG, Vol. III, Annex 12; 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.
105 REG, Vol. I, para. 5.62; Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Statistical Summaries: Province of Rio
Muni 1932 (1932) (within The Spanish State, Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Security, Population and Nomenclature
of the Spanish Possessions of the Gulf of Guinea (1936)), pp. 24, 26, 28, 30, 32. REG, Vol. III, Annex 11.
106 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.79; Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Statistical Summaries: Province of Rio Muni
1948-1949, Statistical Office of the General Government (1950), pp. 3-21. MEG, Vol. V, Annex 127; MEG, Vol. II,
Figure 3.18; REG, Vol. I, para. 5.62.
107 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.80; Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Statistical Summaries: Province of Rio Muni
1948-1949, Statistical Office of the General Government (1950), pp. 60-113. MEG, Vol. V, Annex 127; MEG, Vol. II,
Figure 3.19; REG, Vol. I, para. 5.62.
- 32 -
12. Spain’s many other sovereign acts included, among other things, building schools and
health facilities108; granting land concessions109; regulating indigenous markets and agricultural
production110. Spain also built and operated transportation and communications infrastructure, such
as an airfield, post office and radio station111. These acts of administration occurred in towns and
villages throughout the Kie River area.
13. Spain’s administration of the town of Alen — located east of the 9 degree meridian and
west of the Kie River — is illustrative. You can find in the annexes to the written pleadings extensive
documentary evidence that, in this town, Spain maintained a military garrison112, a school113,
telephone and radio telegraphic equipment114, and transportation infrastructure115; that Spain carried
out censuses116; and that Spain regulated farming117. In other words, Spain’s effectivités covered the
spectrum of sovereign administration.
108 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.78; 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.
109 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.82; 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. MEG, Vol. V, Annex 129; The Spanish State, Legal
Notices, Official Bulletin of 15 November 1960 (15 November 1960), p. 1. MEG, Vol. V, Annex 136.
110 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.78; 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. 23-30. MEG, Vol. V,
Annex 127.
111 MEG, Vol. I, paras. 3.77, 3.81; The French Republic, Documentation Plan of the Spanish Territories of the Gulf
of Guinea, Ministry of Arms (16 February 1940), p. 10. MEG, Vol. V, Annex 124; 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.
112 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.75; 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. 196. MEG, Vol. VII, Annex 236.
113 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.78; 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.
114 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.81; The French Republic, Documentation Plan of the Spanish Territories of the Gulf of
Guinea, Ministry of Arms (16 February 1940), p. 10. MEG Vol. V, Annex 124.
115 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.76; 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; REG, Vol. I, para. 5.62.
116 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.79; MEG, Vol. II, Figure 3.18; Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Statistical
Summaries: Province of Rio Muni 1948-1949, Statistical Office of the General Government (1950), pp. 12-21. MEG,
Vol. V, Annex 127; REG, Vol. I, para. 5.62; Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Statistical Summaries: Province of
Rio Muni 1932 (1932) (within The Spanish State, Ministry of Labor, Health and Social Security, Population and
Nomenclature of the Spanish Possessions of the Gulf of Guinea (1936)), p. 26. REG, Vol. III, Annex 11.
117 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.78; 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. 175-176. MEG, Vol. V,
Annex 127.
- 33 -
14. France protested none of these acts, in Alen or elsewhere, despite being aware of them.
For instance, in August 1937, French intelligence reported in detail on Spain’s road, radio
transmitters, and airfield, all located east of the 9 degree line118.
15. Indeed, France, which made no attempt to carry out any administrative acts of its own in
these areas, fully understood that the 1919 agreement had modified the boundary. Consider this 1940
intelligence report on Spain’s territories in the Gulf of Guinea119. This French report included the
detailed 1:20,000 scale sketch-map of Ebebiyin and environs that you can see on your screens120.
Note the depiction of the Kie River in the east. France labelled the area east of the river as “Gabon”.
And France placed a row of Xs on the Kie’s left bank, indicating the location of the boundary. This
is the same symbol that France used to indicate the boundary with Cameroon, which you can see in
the map’s north-west corner.
16. The map’s accompanying description confirms that France recognized the river, not the
9 degree meridian, as the boundary. In view of possible hostilities with Spain, France studied
Ebebiyin’s military vulnerabilities and recorded that Spain’s military post at Ebebiyin was located
2 km from what French intelligence described as “the boundary”121. The Kie River is, in fact, 2 km
from Ebebiyin.
17. France’s recognition that the Kie River was the boundary is likewise crystal clear in a July
1953 confidential note prepared by France’s Inspector General of the Overseas Geographical
Services122. The Inspector General correctly observed that “having accepted the KYE as a practical
boundary in 1919, we” — that is, France — “cannot consider” Spain’s “occupation of the territory
of the western bank and the construction of a road as an encroachment” into French territory123. In
118 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.81; 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), pp. 8, 9, 12.
MEG, Vol. V, Annex 123.
119 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.81; The French Republic, Documentation Plan of the Spanish Territories of the Gulf of
Guinea, Ministry of Arms (16 February 1940). MEG Vol. V, Annex 124.
120 The French Republic, Documentation Plan of the Spanish Territories of the Gulf of Guinea, Ministry of Arms
(16 February 1940), p. 5. MEG, Vol. V, Annex 124.
121 Ibid., p. 23.
122 Note No. 545 from the National Geographic Institute for the Political Affairs Directorate (8 July 1953). CMG,
Vol. IV, Annex 98.
123 Ibid., p. 3.
- 34 -
placing the matter beyond doubt, the Inspector General described the territory in question as having
been, in his words, “acquired by Spain”124.
18. Gabon, like France before it, also accepted the modified boundary after its independence
in 1960. For instance, Gabon did not protest when Spain carried out a census in 1965 in more than
30 towns east of the 9 degree meridian, the locations of which you can see on your screens125.
19. Particularly revealing of Gabon’s acceptance of the Kie River as the boundary is Gabon’s
actions in 1965 when negotiating its agreement with Spain concerning border crossings and related
matters. As Ms Pasipanodya explained, Spain and Gabon listed villages located within 10 km of the
border. You can see their locations on your screens. Each of the villages is located within 10 km of
the Kie River. Spain listed as Spanish villages situated west of the Kie River and east of the 9 degree
meridian126. And, Gabon listed villages that are also within 10 km of the river. In fact, Gabon listed
as Gabonese two villages — Assok II and Kos — situated west of that meridian and east of the Kie
River127. You can see these villages on your screens highlighted in white.
20. Placing beyond doubt that Gabon considered the river to be the boundary, Gabon included
on its list the villages of Bilossi, Bengoye and Emieng. Each is located within 10 km of the Kie River
and more than 10 km from the 9 degree meridian128. They are highlighted in white on your screens.
The conclusion is inescapable: Gabon accepted the Kie River as the boundary.
21. Gabon’s actions in this regard are unsurprising. They are perfectly consistent with its
endorsement of the Cairo Resolution in 1964129, which required respect for the boundaries in force
at the moment African States achieved independence.
124 Ibid.
125 REG, Vol. I, para. 5.68; Government of Equatorial Guinea, Regional Statistics Department, Summary
Demographic of the Demarcation (Years 1932 to 1965) and Catalogue of Units and Settlements for 1965 (1965), pp. 37,
55, 69, 71. REG, Vol. IV, Annex 28.
126 MEG, Vol. I, para. 3.108; The Spanish State, Letter No. 383 from the Presidency of the Government to the
Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs (20 October 1965), p. 3. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 100.
127 MEG, Vol. II, Figure 3.28; 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 form Gabon’s Vice President annexing Gabon’s list of
towns in border zone), p. 4. MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 99.
128 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 form Gabon’s Vice President annexing Gabon’s list of towns in border zone), pp. 4-6.
MEG, Vol. IV, Annex 99.
129 MEG, Vol. I, para. 6.6; 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), p. 17. MEG, Vol. III, Annex 44.
- 35 -
22. Mr President, as Professor Akande explained, when Equatorial Guinea became
independent, it succeeded to the titles held by Spain at that moment. The evidence establishes that
Spain held title to all the territory east of the Kie River, which Spain and France had agreed upon as
the boundary in that area.
23. Mr President, this concludes my presentation. Thank you for your kind attention. I ask that
you invite the honourable Attorney General of Equatorial Guinea to the podium, who will address
the situation following Equatorial Guinea’s independence.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Mr Loewenstein for his statement. J’appelle maintenant à la barre
S. Exc. Anatolio Nzang Nguema Mangue. Excellence, vous avez la parole.
M. NZANG NGUEMA MANGUE :
LE COMPORTEMENT DES PARTIES SUR LE TERRITOIRE CONTINENTAL DEPUIS
L’INDÉPENDANCE DE LA RÉPUBLIQUE DE GUINÉE ÉQUATORIALE
1. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, c’est un honneur et un privilège
de comparaître devant vous au nom de mon pays, la République de Guinée équatoriale. Il me revient
de conclure la présentation de la Guinée équatoriale concernant les titres juridiques relatifs à son
territoire continental.
2. Comme le professeur Akande l’a mentionné, je me référerai à la manière dont,
conformément à la convention de 1900 et à ses modifications convenues entre l’Espagne et la France,
la Guinée équatoriale a effectivement exercé sa souveraineté depuis son indépendance en 1968,
exercice qui a été continu et pacifique dans les territoires transférés par l’Espagne dans les régions
des rivières Outamboni et Kyé. Ces actes de la Guinée équatoriale constituent le type d’effectivités
infra legem que la Cour a considéré susceptibles de confirmer l’existence d’un titre.
I. La région de la rivière Outamboni
3. Je traiterai, en premier lieu, de la région de l’Outamboni. Comme l’a expliqué
Mme Pasipanodya, dans cette région, les Parties ont utilisé les procédures prévues par la convention
pour modifier la frontière identifiée à l’article 4 de la convention de 1900, afin que celle-ci suive les
- 36 -
caractéristiques naturelles du terrain130. Tout comme l’Espagne a administré à titre souverain la zone
qui lui fut transférée en vertu de cette modification, comme Mes Loewenstein et Pasipanodya l’ont
expliqué, la Guinée équatoriale a continué de le faire depuis son indépendance jusqu’à nos jours131.
4. La ville de Midyobo en est un bon exemple. Mme Pasipanodya a démontré comment
l’Espagne y a exercé toutes les fonctions gouvernementales sans protestation de la part de la France
ni du Gabon après son indépendance en 1960 jusqu’à l’indépendance de la Guinée équatoriale en
1968. Après son indépendance, la Guinée équatoriale a poursuivi l’exercice d’actes de
gouvernement, en assurant par exemple le fonctionnement de l’école et du dispensaire, ainsi que la
présence d’un poste militaire. Aujourd’hui encore, la Guinée équatoriale continue d’exercer les
mêmes fonctions étatiques. Voici une image satellite récente de la ville de Midyobo, contenant des
indications sur l’emplacement du poste militaire équato-guinéen, de l’école et du dispensaire132. Les
effectivités de la Guinée équatoriale comprennent également l’acquisition de données de
recensement de la population et l’organisation des élections133.
5. Depuis son indépendance, jusqu’à présent, la Guinée équatoriale a accompli ces actes à titre
souverain dans toute la région de la rivière Outamboni134. Le Gabon n’a jamais accompli quelque
acte de souveraineté que ce soit dans aucune de ces villes ni aucun de ces villages de cette région.
Cela est le cas de toutes les localités figurant sur cette carte.
II. La région de la rivière Kyé
6. Il en va de même pour la région de la rivière Kyé, qui accueille entre autres la ville
d’Ebebiyin, où j’ai grandi et complété mes études secondaires, alors que je travaillais en aidant les
citoyens gabonais à transporter les produits qu’ils achetaient à Ebebiyin en Guinée équatoriale,
130 Mémoire de la Guinée équatoriale (ci-après, « MGE »), par. 3.43-3.53 ; RGE, par. 5.16-5.21 ; Vilche’s Diary of
Operations, The Territory of Biafra, Franco-Spanish Delimitation Commission (1901), RGE, vol. III, annexe 8 ;
Franco-Spanish Delimitation Commission of the Gulf of Guinea, Border Project: Southern Border (1 January 1902), RGE,
vol. III, annexe 4.
131 RGE, par. 5.38-5.50.
132 RGE, par. 5.48, fig. R5.13.
133 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Declaration of H.E. Domingo Mba Esono, Vice-President of Commerce and
Promotion of Small and Middle Sized Enterprises, and President of the Sub-technical Division of the Special Borders
Commission (25 September 2022), P.U21 & P.U22 (preuve de recensement) et P.U24 & P.U25 (preuve de campagne
électorale), RGE, vol. III, annexe 5 ; voir également, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Minutes of Village Council Elections
in the District of Kogo, Village Council of Midjobo Esenvus, Ngonekieñ, Mebonde-Elón Ngambe and Asobla (Years 1996,
1997, and 1998), RGE, vol. V, annexe 55.
134 RGE, par. 5.37-5.47.
- 37 -
principalement d’origine espagnole, et ramenaient jusqu’à la rive orientale de la rivière Kyé au
Gabon.
7. Comme vous pouvez le voir sur cette image satellite, depuis l’indépendance de la Guinée
équatoriale, la plus grande ville sur la rive de la rivière Kye, Ebebiyin, est devenue une ville
importante de mon pays. Elle se situe entièrement à l’ouest de la rivière Kyé et s’étend des deux côtés
du 9o méridien à l’est de Paris135. La Guinée équatoriale déploie l’ensemble des activités
gouvernementales dans cette ville, de part et d’autre du méridien136.
8. La Guinée équatoriale exerce également sa souveraineté sur toutes les villes et tous les
villages de la région de la rivière Kyé situés à l’est du 9o méridien et à l’ouest de la rivière.
L’emplacement de certains d’entre eux est clairement établi sur cette image satellite. Dans toutes ces
localités, la Guinée équatoriale administre, entre autres, des écoles, des hôpitaux, des postes
militaires, ainsi que des infrastructures de communication et de transport137. L’emplacement de ces
installations est par exemple visible dans la ville d’Alen sur cette image satellite138. Le poste de la
garde coloniale espagnole à Alen a été créé par l’Espagne dans les années 1920. Bien que ce poste
ne soit plus utilisé, l’armée de Guinée équatoriale a établi un nouveau poste dans le village très proche
de Masama, également situé entre le méridien de 9o est de Paris et la rivière Kyé139.
9. En effet, en 2011, les Parties ont concrètement exprimé leur reconnaissance mutuelle de la
rivière Kyé comme frontière, avec l’inauguration de deux ponts sur celle-ci, l’un près d’Ebebiyin et
l’autre près de Mongomo. Cet événement résulte d’un accord conclu entre la Guinée équatoriale et
le Gabon en 2007, que vous pouvez trouver à l’onglet no 18 de vos dossiers de procédure, et dont le
titre est éloquent : « Accord entre le Gabon et la Guinée équatoriale relatif à la construction d’un pont
135 Ibid., par. 5.84.
136 Ibid., par. 5.82.
137 RGE, par. 5.86 ; Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Declaration of H.E. Domingo Mba Esono, Vice-President of
Commerce and Promotion of Small and Middle Sized Enterprises, and President of the Sub-technical Division of the Special
Borders Commission (25 September 2022), annexes P.U1, P.U5-P.U8 (Mibonde), P.U10, P.U12, P.U13 (Elón), RGE,
vol. III, annexe 5.
138 RGE, par. 5.86.
139 Declaration of H.E. Domingo Mba Esono, Vice-President of Commerce and Promotion of Small and Middle
Sized Enterprises, and President of the Sub-technical Division of the Special Borders Commission (25 September 2022),
RGE, vol. III, annexe 5 ; RGE, vol. II, annexe P.K.14.
- 38 -
frontalier et d’un tronçon de route bitumée avec des ouvrages entre les deux pays »140. L’utilisation
de l’expression « pont frontalier » ne peut signifier qu’une reconnaissance du fait que le pont est situé
sur la frontière. En d’autres termes, l’accord est basé sur la reconnaissance commune des Parties que
les ponts traversent la frontière, et les ponts traversent la rivière Kyé141.
10. En outre, l’article 2 de l’accord stipule que la ville d’Ebebiyin se trouve « en Guinée
équatoriale »142. Cela correspond précisément à ce que l’Espagne et la France avaient convenu
en 1919 lorsqu’elles ont établi que la rivière Kyé serait la frontière. Et c’est précisément ce que la
carte française d’Ebebiyin de 1940 rapporte, ainsi que M. Loewenstein l’a montré. Comme la Kyé
est une frontière, la Guinée équatoriale et le Gabon disposent d’installations douanières et
d’immigration de part et d’autre de leurs côtés respectifs de cette rivière. Voici leur emplacement.
Celles de la Guinée équatoriale sont situées à l’est du 9o méridien, sans objection de la part du Gabon.
11. Le Gabon n’a pas protesté lors de la construction des ponts frontaliers sur la rivière Kyé.
Au contraire, le président Ali Bongo du Gabon a assisté à leur inauguration officielle en 2011. En ce
qui concerne le pont de Mongomo, il a déclaré que cet heureux événement « résulte de l’accord signé
entre nos deux pays en 2007 », qui « comporte [la] construction d’un pont frontalier situé sur la
rivière Kyé entre le village de Medzeng en territoire gabonais et la ville de Mongomo en territoire de
Guinée équatoriale »143. Vous avez vu sur vos écrans une image satellite de la zone décrite par le
président du Gabon. Comme vous pouvez le constater, la Guinée équatoriale maintient des contrôles
frontaliers et douaniers de son côté de la rivière Kyé, tout comme le Gabon le fait du sien. En d’autres
termes, la rivière Kyé est la frontière, exactement comme la France et l’Espagne en étaient convenues
et comme le président Ali Bongo du Gabon l’a réaffirmé à la cérémonie d’inauguration des ponts.
140 RGE, par. 5.71-5.73 ; Agreement between Gabon and Equatorial Guinea on the Construction of a Border Bridge
and a Section of Asphalted Road with Works between the Two Countries (3 August 2007), CMG, vol. V, annexe 176.
141 Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Declaration of H.E. Domingo Mba Esono, Vice-President of Commerce and
Promotion of Small and Middle Sized Enterprises, and President of the Sub-technical Division of the Special Borders
Commission (25 September 2022), annexes P.E1 (poste d’immigration), P.E2 (poste douanier), P.E3 (poste de santé), P.E4
(poste de contrôle frontalier du Gabon), P.E5 (signal indiquant la direction de la rivière Kyé), P.E6 (tour de téléphonie
cellulaire de GETESA), P.E7 (route circulaire), RGE, vol. III, annexe 5.
142 Agreement between Gabon and Equatorial Guinea on the Construction of a Border Bridge and a Section of
Asphalted Road with Works between the Two Countries (3 August 2007), CMG, vol. V, annexe 176.
143 RGE, par. 5.72 ; Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Presidential Press, Video “Inauguration of the Ebebiyin and
Mongomo Bridges” (4 August 2011), at 23:28, RGE, vol. II, annexe V3 (transcript at RGE, vol. V, annexe 66).
- 39 -
12. Monsieur le président, Mesdames et Messieurs les juges, pour résumer, dans les régions
de l’Outamboni et de la rivière Kyé, l’Espagne, et par la suite la Guinée équatoriale, a administré à
titre souverain et de manière continue et exclusive les nombreux villes, villages et hameaux de ces
deux régions. Il est donc fondamental pour la stabilité de la région que la Cour reconnaisse que,
même si la convention de 1900 a force de loi entre les Parties, la frontière entre les Parties n’est pas
simplement celle énoncée par son article 4. Le texte de la convention lui-même permettait aux Parties
de modifier cette frontière. Les effectivités infra legem que le professeur Akande, Mme Pasipanodya,
M. Loewenstein et moi-même avons décrites reflètent ces modifications convenues entre Parties.
Selon les termes du compromis, la Cour peut et doit en tenir compte. Ne pas le faire, et considérer
simplement la convention de 1900 comme un titre documentaire contenant des lignes droites
aveugles  ce que les puissances coloniales n’ont elles-mêmes pas fait , permettrait au Gabon de
mettre en danger des décennies de paix et de coexistence établie dans les régions de la rivière
Outamboni et de la rivière Kyé.
13. Monsieur le président. Je vous remercie de votre attention et vous prie d’appeler Me Alison
Macdonald à la barre.
Le PRÉSIDENT: Je remercie S. Exc. le procureur général pour son exposé. I call now on
Ms Alison Macdonald to take the floor. You have the floor, Madam.
Ms MACDONALD:
THE LEGAL TITLES, TREATIES AND INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS
HAVING THE FORCE OF LAW FOR DELIMITING
THE PARTIES’ MARITIME BOUNDARY
1. Mr President, Madam Vice-President, Members of the Court, it is an honour for me to
appear before you on behalf of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea.
2. I will address the legal titles, treaties and international conventions that have the force of
law in the relations between Equatorial Guinea and Gabon in so far as they relate to the delimitation
of the maritime boundary.
3. As you have heard from Professor d’Argent, Article 1 of the Special Agreement determines
the Court’s jurisdiction. As he explained, the Court’s jurisdiction is not limited to “preuves
- 40 -
documentaires”, but extends to identifying all applicable “legal titles, treaties and international
conventions”144.
4. When it comes to the issue of the maritime boundary between the Parties, Gabon argues
that in the document presented in 2003, the Parties “definitively established” the boundary between
the two States145. Gabon asks you to conclude that this document not only has the force of law
between the Parties, but, even more remarkably, that it is the only legal title which has that force with
respect to the delimitation of the maritime boundary. In this way, Gabon seeks to exclude obligations
under general international law, as well as the 1900 Convention and the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea.
5. Equatorial Guinea respectfully submits that Gabon’s case here is wrong in two fundamental
respects.
6. Firstly, Gabon fails to establish that any treaty was adopted or agreed in 1974 that could be
said to belong on the list of applicable legal titles, let alone to the exclusion of all others. You will
recall that Professor Sands showed you the text of the key provisions of this mysterious document,
in at least three different versions. These make clear on their own terms that no definitive maritime
boundary was agreed in September 1974. And such a conclusion, we say, is only strengthened when
one considers that, as you heard from Mr Parkhomenko, the Parties’ conduct between
September 1974 and May 2003 would be inexplicable if the maritime boundary really had been
agreed in 1974. Why, we ask, would the Parties have proceeded, in the years that followed, to
negotiate a maritime boundary which had already been established, let alone by using a different
approach to the one taken in the 2003 document, and let alone with no mention of the alleged treaty
which had supposedly settled the issue years before? Why, we ask, did the document never surface
when the Parties sought to establish a joint development zone  in the same maritime area which
had already, allegedly, been delimited in 1974? Why did Gabon never refer to the document when it
concluded maritime boundary treaties with third States?
7. Far from being the only legal title invoked by the Parties, as you have seen, this alleged
agreement was never invoked at all for nearly three decades after it was supposedly concluded. In
144 Special Agreement between the Gabonese Republic and the Republic of Equatorial Guinea (15 November 2016).
145 See e.g. RG, Vol. I, para. 3.18.
- 41 -
all the circumstances, taking account of the document’s text and the Parties’ 30 years of conduct,
Equatorial Guinea submits that, whichever piece of paper Gabon seeks to rely on, it simply cannot
be regarded as a “legal titl[e], treaty, or convention . . . with the force of law between the Parties”146.
8. I now turn to the second fundamental flaw in Gabon’s case. This is Gabon’s attempt to
exclude from consideration any legal titles other than the agreement that they say — wrongly — was
adopted in 1974.
9. Starting with the 1900 Convention, Gabon does not dispute that this has the force of law
between the Parties147. Mr Parkhomenko has shown you that both Parties repeatedly invoked it during
their maritime boundary negotiations, recognizing it time and time again as one of the fundamental
legal instruments needed to delimit the boundary. Gabon now seeks to sideline this Convention on
the basis that it is “silent with regard to the demarcation of the maritime boundary”148. Inconsistently,
however, Gabon concedes that the Convention “refers to two elements relevant to maritime spaces”,
one of which is “the terminal point of the land boundary”149.
10. Now this, we say, is fundamental. This Court — and other courts and arbitral tribunals —
have stated time and again that a treaty that establishes the land boundary terminus is relevant for the
delimitation of the maritime boundary between the two States150. As Gabon accepts, the 1900
Convention does just that for, as the famous expression records, the land dominates the sea151. It is
impossible to determine the Parties’ maritime boundary without referring to the land boundary
terminus — at the risk of stating the obvious, this is the essential starting-point for any delimitation.
Thus the 1900 Convention, so far as it establishes the land boundary terminus, is an essential legal
146 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.
147 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.
148 CMG, Vol. I, para. 9.9.
149 Ibid.
150 See e.g. Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean (Somalia v. Kenya), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2021,
pp. 241-241, para. 98.
151 See e.g. North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Case (Great Britain, United States), Grounds for the Dissent to the
Award on Question V by Dr Luis M. Drago, Reports of International Arbitral Awards (RIAA) XI, 167, p. 205; Grisbadarna
Case (Norway, Sweden), Arbitral Award of 23 October 1909, RIAA XI, 155, 159; and North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal
Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany/Netherlands), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 51,
para. 96.
- 42 -
instrument in the delimitation exercise, and it falls squarely within the category of legal titles covered
by Article 1 of the Special Agreement.
11. Turning to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, to which both States
have been party since the late 1990s, Gabon fully accepts that it “governs the principles applicable
to maritime delimitation between two States whose coasts face each other or are adjacent”152. But
Gabon then, wrongly, goes on to argue that the UN Convention is not “in itself [a] legal title”. It
argues that the Convention “establish[es] a vocation to a title” instead of constituting title itself153.
As Professor d’Argent recalled by referring to the Gulf of Maine case, a “‘legal title’ . . . is always
and exclusively the effect of a legal operation”154. Because it is therefore absurd to separate the title
from the operation that gives rise to it, the Special Agreement allows the Court to identify treaties
and conventions that, by their legal operation, result in and thereby constitute the title. And, as
Mr Parkhomenko showed, the Parties have consistently invoked the UN Convention during their
negotiations as a treaty essential for equitable delimitation of their maritime boundary. This is hardly
surprising, given that the Convention provides the essential legal framework for the delimitation.
Again, therefore, this Convention falls squarely within the scope of Article 1 of the Special
Agreement.
12. Finally, turning to customary international law, Equatorial Guinea relies on the
well-established principle that the title of a State to adjacent maritime areas “is based on the principle
that the land dominates the sea through the projection of the coasts or the coastal fronts”155. This is
because “the land is the legal source of the power which a State may exercise over territorial
extensions to seaward”156. And land in this context, of course, includes islands.
13. Now here, Gabon seeks to mischaracterize Equatorial Guinea as invoking customary
international law as a legal title to the adjacent waters. But as you will appreciate this is not
152 CMG, Vol. I, para. 9.14.
153 Ibid.
154 Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America), Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 296, para. 103.
155 Maritime Delimitation in the Black Sea (Romania v. Ukraine), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 89, para. 77.
156 Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012 (II), p. 674,
para. 140, citing to North Sea Continental Shelf (Federal Republic of Germany/Denmark; Federal Republic of
Germany/Netherlands), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1969, p. 51, para. 96.
- 43 -
Equatorial Guinea’s position. As this Court has made clear, title to the relevant water — including
the territorial sea — is based on the principle which I just outlined. And again, that principle is
essential to the delimitation of the Parties’ maritime boundary: the legal titles to the maritime area in
Corisco Bay and the Gulf of Guinea emanate from the Parties’ respective titles to insular and
continental land territory. And the principle of customary international law which makes this so must
necessarily “concern” the delimitation of the Parties’ maritime boundary, thus falling again within
Article 1 of the Special Agreement.
14. In conclusion, therefore, Equatorial Guinea respectfully asks the Court to find that
 firstly, the Parties have never reached any agreement delimiting their maritime boundary; and
 secondly, the legal titles, treaties and international agreements that concern the delimitation of
the Parties’ common maritime boundary include
(i) the 1900 Convention in so far as it establishes a land boundary terminus;
(ii) the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; and
(iii) customary international law in so far as it recognizes that a coastal State’s entitlement and
legal title to adjacent maritime areas derive from its title to land territory.
15. Mr President, Members of the Court, I thank you for your attention. This concludes the
first round of the oral argument by Equatorial Guinea.
The PRESIDENT: I thank Ms Alison Macdonald. Her statement brings then to an end the first
round of oral argument of Equatorial Guinea. The hearings in this case will resume on Wednesday
2 October, at 10 a.m., for the opening of Gabon’s first round of oral argument. The sitting is
adjourned.
The Court rose at 4.35 p.m.
___________