Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria; Equatorial Guinea intervening) - The Court ready to consider its Judgment

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF ruSTICE

Peace Palace, 2517 KJ The Hague. Tel: +31 (0)70 302 23 23. Cables: Intercourt,
The Hague. Fax: +31 (0)70 364 99 28. Telex: 32323. E-mail address:
mail@icj-cij .org. Internet address: http://\\W\v.icj-cij .org.

Press Release

ünofficial

No.2002/11
22March 2002

Land and Maritime Boundarv between Cameroon and Nigeria
(Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea intervening)

Conclusion of the public hearings

The Court ready to consider its Judgment

THE HAGUE, 22 March 2002. The public hearings in the case conceming the Land and
Maritime Boundarv between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea
intervening), which started on 18 February 2002 at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), were
concluded yesterday evening, enabling thejudges to start their deliberations.

During the hearings, the delegationsCameroon, Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea were led
respectively by H.E. Mr. Amadou Ali, Minister of State responsible for Justice, Keeper of the
Seals, H.E. the Honourable Musa E. Abdullahi, Minister of State for Justice of the Federal
Government of Nigeria and H.E. Mr. Ricardo Mangue Obama N'Fube, Minister of State for
Labour and Social Security. The Court'sJudgmentwill be delivered at a public sitting on a date to
be announcedin due course.

Parties' submissions

The Agents of Cameroon and Nigeria presented the following submissions to the Court at
the end of the oral proceedings.

For Cameroon:

"The Republic of Cameroon has the honour to request that the International Court of Justice
be pleased to adjudge and declare:

W Thatthe land boundary between Cameroon andNigeria takes the following course:

- from the point designated by the co-ordinates3°05' N and 14°05' E, the boundary
follows a straight line as far as the mouthe Ebeji, situated at the point located at the
co-ordinates 12° 13' 17"N and 14°12' 12"E, as defined within the framework of the

LCBC and constituting an authoritative interpretation of the Milner-Simon Declaration of
10July 1919 and the Thomson-Marchand Declarations of 29 December 1929 and
31January 1930, as confirmed by the Exchange of Letters of 9 January 1931; in the
alternative, the mouthf the Ebeji is situated at the point located at the co-ordinates
12°31' 12" N and 14° 11'48" E; -2-

- from that point it follows the course fixed by those instruments as far as the "very

prominent peak" described in paragraph 60 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration and
called by the usual name of "Mount Kombon";

-from "Mount Kombon" the boundary then runs to "Pillar 64" mentioned in paragraph 12

of the Anglo-German Agreement ofübokum of 12 April1913 and follows, in that sector,
the course described in Section 6 (1) of the British Nigeria (Protectorate and Cameroons)
Order in Council of 2 August 1946;

- from Pillar 64 it follows the course described in paragraphs 13 to 21 of the Obokum
Agreement of 12 April1913 as far as Pillar 114 on the Cross River;

- thence, as far as the intersection of the straight line from Bakassi Point to King Point with
the centre of the navigable channel of the Akwayafe, the boundary is determined by
paragraphs XVI to XXI of the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913.

ill That, in consequence, inter alia, sovereignty over the peninsula of Bakassi and over the
disputed parce! occupied by Nigeria in the area of Lake Chad, in particular over Darak and its
region, is Cameroonian.

~ That the boundary of the maritime areas appertaining respectively to the Republic of
Cameroon and to the Federal Republic ofNigeria takes the following course:

- from the intersection of the straight line from Bakassi Point to King Point with the centre

of the navigable channel of the Akwayafe to point "12", that boundary is confirmed by the
"compromise line" entered on British Admiralty Chart No. 3433 by the Heads of State of
the two countries on 4 April1971 (YaoundéIl Declaration) and, from that point 12 to

point "G", by the Declaration signed at Maroua on 1 June 1975;

-from point G the equitable line follows the direction indicated by points G, H (co-ordinates
go 21' 16" E and 4° 17' N), I (7° 55' 40" E and 3° 46' N), J (7° 12' 08" E and

3° 12' 35" N), K (6° 45' 22" E and 3° 01' 05" N), and continues from K up to the outer
limit of the maritime zones which international law places under the respective jurisdiction
of the two Parties.

@ That in attempting to modify unilaterally and by force the courses of the boundary defmed
above under ,(!) and ~. the Federal Republic of Nigeria has violated and is violating the
fundamental principle of respect for frontiers inherited from colonization (uti possidetis juris),

as well as its legal obligations conceming the land and maritime delimitation.

~ That by using force against the Republic of Cameroon and, in particular, by militarily
occupying parcels of Cameroonian territory in the area of Lake Chad and the Cameroonian

peninsula of Bakassi, and by making repeated incursions throughout the length of the
boundary between the two countries, the Federal Republic of Nigeria has violated and is
violating its obligations under international treaty law and customary law.

ill That the Federal Republic of Nigeria has the express duty of putting an end to its
administrative and military presence in Cameroonian territory and, in particular, of effecting
an immediate and unconditional evacuation of its troops from the occupied area of Lake Chad

and from the Cameroonian peninsula ofBakassi and ofrefraining from such acts in the future .

.(gl That in failing to comply with the Order for the indication of provisional measures rendered

by the Court on 15 March 1996 the Federal Republic of Nigeria has been in breach of its
international obligations. - 3 -

.(hl That the internationally wrongful acts referred to above and described in detail in the written

pleadings and oral argUment of the Republic of Cameroon engage the responsibility of the
Federal Republic ofNigeria.

ill That, consequently, on account of the material and moral injury suffered by the Republic of
Cameroon reparation in a form to be determined by the Court is due from the Federal
Republic ofNigeria to the Republic ofCameroon.

The Republic of Cameroon further has the honour to request the Court to permit it, at a

subsequent stage of the proceedings, to present an assessment of the amount of compensation due
to it as reparation for the injury suffered by it as a result of the intemationally wrongful acts
attributable to the Federal Republic ofNigeria.

The Republic of Cameroon also asks the Court to declare that the counter-claims of the
Federal Republic ofNigeria are unfounded both in fact and in law, and to reject them."

For Nigeria:

"TheFederal Republic of Nigeria respectfully requests that the Court should

1.as to the Bakassi Peninsula, adjudge and declare:

W that sovereignty over the Peninsula is vested in the Federal Republic of Nigeria;

.(hl that Nigeria's sovereignty over Bakassi extends up to the boundary with Cameroon described

in Chapter 11 ofNigeria's Counter-Memorial;

2. as to Lake Chad, adjudge and declare:

W that the proposed delimitation and demarcation under the auspices of the Lake Chad Basin
Commission, not having been acceptedby Nigeria, isnot binding upon it;

.(hl that sovereignty over the areas in Lake Chad defined in paragraph 5.9 ofNigeria's Rejoinder

and depicted in Figs. 5.2 and 5.3 facing page 242 (and including the Nigerian settlements
identified in paragraph 4.1 of Nigeria's Rejoinder) is vested in the Federal Republic of
Nigeria;

!21 that in any event the process which has taken place within the framework of the Lake Chad
Basin Commission, and which was intended to lead to an overall delimitation and
demarcation of boundaries on Lake Chad, is legally without prejudice to the title to particular

areas of the Lake Chad region inhering in Nigeria as a consequence of the historical
consolidation of title and the acquiescence of Cameroon;

3.asto the central sectors of the land boundary, adjudge and declare:

W that the Court's jurisdiction extends to the defmitive specification of the land boundary
betweenLake Chad and the sea;

.(hlthat the mouth of the Ebeji, marking the beginning of the land boundary, is located at the
point where the north-east channel of the Ebeji flows into the feature marked "Pond" on the
Map shown as Figure 7.1 ofNigeria's Rejoinder, which location is at latitude 12°31' 45" N,
longitude 14°13'00" E (Adindan Datum); -4-

.(ç} that subject to the interpretations proposed in Chapter 7 of Nigeria's Rejoinder, the land
boundary between the mouth of the Ebeji and the point on the thalweg of the Akpa Yafe

which is opposite the mid-point of the mouth of Archibong Creek is delimited by the terms of
the relevant boundary instruments, namely:

(i) paragraphs 2-61 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration, confmned by the Exchange of
Letters of9 January 1931;

(ii) the Nigeria (Protectorate and Cameroons) Order in Council of 2 August 1946,
(section 6 (1) and theecond Schedule thereto);

(iii) paragraphs 13-21of the Anglo-German Demarcation Agreement of 12 April1913; and

(iv) ArticlesXV to XVII of the Anglo-German Treaty of 11 March 1913; and

@ that the interpretations proposed in Chapter 7 of Nigeria's Rejoinder, and the associated

action there identified in respect of each of the locations where the delimitation in the relevant
boundary instruments is defective or uncertain, are confirmed;

4. as to the maritime boundarv, adjudge and declare:

.(ru that the Court lacks jurisdiction over Cameroon's maritime claim from the point at which its
claim line enters waters claimed against Cameroon by Equatorial Guinea, or altematively that
Cameroon's claim is inadmissible to that extent;

(!;ù that Cameroon's claim to a maritime boundary based on the global division of maritime zones
in the Gulfof Guinea is inadmissible, and that the parties are under an obligation, pursuant to
Articles 74 and 83 of the United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, to negotiate in good

faith with a view to agreeing on an equitable delimitation their respective maritime zones,
such delimitation to take into account, in particular, the need to respect existing rights to
explore and exploit the mineral resources of the continental shelf, granted by either party
prior to 29 March 1994 without written protest from the other, and the need to respect the

reasonable maritime claims of third states;

.(ç} in the alternative, that Cameroon's claim to a maritime boundary based on the global division
of maritime zones in the Gulf of Guinea is unfounded in law and is rejected;

@ that, to the extent that Cameroon's claim to a maritime boundary may be held admissible in
the present proceedings, Cameroon's claim to a maritime boundary to the west and south of
the area of overlapping licenses, as shown in Figure 10.2ofNigeria's Rejoinder, is rejected;

ûù that the respective territorial waters of the two States are divided by a median line boundary
within the Rio del Rey;

ill that, beyond the Rio del Rey, the respective maritime zones of the parties are to be delimited

by a line drawn in accordance with the principle of equidistance, until the approximate point
where that line meets the median line boundary with Equatorial Guinea, i.e., at approximately
4° 6' N,go30' E; - 5 -

5. as to Cameroon's claims of State responsibility, adjudge and declare:

that, to the extent to which any such claims are still maintained by Cameroon, and are
admissible, those claims are unfounded in factand law; and

6. asto Nigeria's counter-claims as specified in Part VI ofNigeria's Counter-Memorial and
in Chapter 18ofNigeria's Rejoinder, adjudge anddeclare:

- that Cameroon bears responsibility to Nigeria in respect of each of those claims, the amount

of reparation due therefor, if not agreed between the parties within six months of the date of
judgment, to be determined by the Court in a furtherjudgment."

*

Intervention of Equatorial Guinea

Itwill be recalled that, by an Order of 12October 1999, the Court had permitted Equatorial

Guinea to intervene in the case, pursuant to Article 62 of the Statute, to the extent, in the manner
and for the purposes set out in its Application for permission to intervene.

In its Application, Equatorial Guinea statedthat the purpose of its intervention would be "to
protect [its] legal rights in the Gulf of Guinea by all legal means" and "to inform the Court of
Equatorial Guinea's legal rights and interests so that these may remain unaffected as the Court
proceeds to address the question of the maritime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria".

Equatorial Guinea made it clear that it did not seekto intervene in those aspects of the proceedings
that relateto the land boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, nor to become a party to the case.
It further stated that, although it would be open to the three countries to request the Court not only
to determine the Cameroon-Nigeria maritime boundary but also to determine Equatorial Guinea's
maritime boundary with these two States, Equatorial Guinea had made no such request and wished
to continue to seek to determine its maritime boundarywith its neighbours by negotiation.

In consequence, Equatorial Guinea presented its observations to the Court during the
hearingsnow concluded.

*

Interna}Judicial Practice of the Court withrespect to deliberations

The Court will first hold a preliminary discussion, at which the President will outline the
issues which require discussion and decision by the Court. Each judge then prepares a written
Note setting out his views on the case. Each Note is distributed to the other judges. A full
deliberation is then held, at the end of which, on the basis of the views expressed, a drafting

committee will be chosen by secret ballot. That committee will in principle consist of two judges
holding the majority view ofthe Court, together with the President, if he shares that view. -6-

The committee will prepare a draft text, which will first be the subject of written
amendments and will then go through two readings. In the meantime, judges who wish to do so
will prepare a declaration, a separate opinion or a dissenting opinion.

The final vote is taken after adoptionf the final text of the Judgment at the second reading.

*

NOTE FOR THE PRESS

The full transcripts of the hearings of 18 February to 21 March 2002 can be found on the
Court's website (www.icj-cij.org) under "Docket".

Information Office:
Mr. Arthur Witteveen, First Secretary of the Court (tel: +31 70 302 2336)

Mrs. Laurence Blairon and Mr. Boris Heim, Information Officers (tel: +31 70 302 2337)
E-mail address: [email protected]