Order of 21 October 1999

Document Number
094-19991021-ORD-01-00-EN
Document Type
Incidental Proceedings
Date of the Document
Document File
Bilingual Document File

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS

CASE CONCERNING

THE LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY
BETWEEN CAMEROON AND NIGERIA

(CAMEROON vNIGERIA)

APPLICA,TION BY EQUATORIAL GUINEA
FOR PERMISSION TO INTERVENE

ORDER OF 21 OCTOBER 1999

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES

AFFAIRE DE LA FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE
ET MARITIME ENTRE LE CAMEROUN

ET LE NIGÉRIA

(CAMEROUN cNIGÉRIA)

REQUÊTE DE LA GUINÉE ÉQUATORIALE
À FIN D'INTERVENTION

ORDONNANCE DU 21 OCTOBRE 1999 Official citati:n
Lund and Muritime Boundary bettveen Cameroon und Nigeria,
Applicution to Intervene, Order of 21 Octoher 1999,
IC. J.Reports 1999, p. 1029

Mode officiel decitation:

FrontiPre terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria,
requêteÙJin d'intervention, ordonnunce du 21 octobre 1999,
C.I.J. Recueil 1999,p. 1029

Sales number
ISSN 0074-4441 No de vente: 765
ISBN 92-1-070837-7 21 OCTOBER 1999

ORDER

LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY
BETWE.EN CAMEROON AND NIGERIA

(CAMEROON v.NIGERIA)

APPLICP,TION BY EQUATORIAL GUINEA
FOR PERMISSION TO INTERVENE

FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME
ENTRE LE CAMEROUN ET LE NIGÉRIA

(CAMEROUN c. NIGÉRIA)

REQUÊTE DE LA GUINÉE ÉQUATORIALE
À FIN D'INTERVENTION

21 OCTOBRE 1999

ORDONNANCE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTlCE

1999 YEAR 1999
21 October
General List
No.94 21 October1999

CASE CONCERNING

THE LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY
BETWEEN CAMEROON AND NIGERIA

(CAMEROON V.NIGERIA)

APPLICATION BY EQUATORIALGUINEA
FOR PERMISSION TO INTERVENE

ORDER

Presen: PresidentSCHWEBEL ;ice-PresidenWEERAMANTR Judgcs
ODA, BEDJAOUI,GUILLAUMER , ANJEVA,HERCZEGH,SHI,
FLEISCHHAUEK RO, ROMA,VERESHCHETIN H,IGGINS,PARRA-
ARANGURENK , OOIJMANSR,EZEK; Judges ad hoc MBAYE,
AJIBOLA;RegistrarVALENCIA-OSPINA.

The International Court of Justice,
Composed as above,

After deliberation,
Having regard to Articles 48 and 62 of the Statute of the Court and to
Articles 883,84 and 85 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the Application filed bythe Republic of Cameroon in

the Registry of the Court on 29 March 1994 instituting proceedings
against the Federal Republic of Nigeria in respect of a dispute described
as "relat[ing] essentially to the question of sovereignty over the Bakassi
Peninsula", in which the Court was also requested "to determine the1030 LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 21 X 99)

course of the maritime boundary between the two States beyond the line
fixed in 1975",
Having regard to the Additional Application submitted by Cameroon
on 6 June 1994,

Having regard to the Order of 16June 1994,whereby the Court indi-
cated that it had no objection to the Additional Application being treated
as an amendment to the initial Application and fixed the time-limits for
the filing of the Memorial of Cameroon and the Counter-Memorial of
Nigeria, respectively,
Having regard to the Memorial filedby Cameroon and the preliminary
objections submitted by Nigeria within the time-limits thus fixed,

Having regard to the Judgment of 11 June 1998, whereby the Court
ruled on the preliminary objections raised by Nigeria,
Having regard to the Order of 30 June 1998,whereby the Court fixed
a new time-limit for the filing of the Counter-Memorial of Nigeria, and
to the Order of 3 March 1999,whereby it extended that time-limit,

Having regard to the Counter-Memorial filed by Nigeria within the
time-limit thus extended,
Having regard to the Order of 30 June 1999, whereby the Court
decided inter alia that Cameroon should submit a Reply and Nigeria
should submit a Rejoinder, and fixed 4 April 2000 and 4 January 2001
respectively as the time-limits for the filing ofhose pleadings,

Makes the follo~ving Order:
1. Whereas, by a letter dated 27 June 1999,received in the Registry on
30 June 1999,the Prime Minister of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea
submitted to the Court an "Application ... to intervene in the case con-

cerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria
(Cameroon v. Nigeria) pursuant to Article 62 of the Statute of the Court
and Article 81 of the Rules of the Court"; and whereas that same letter
appointed H.E. Mr. Ricardo Mangue Obama N'Fube, Minister of State,
Secretary-General of the Presidency of the Government, as Agent;
2. Whereas, in the introduction to its Application, Equatorial Guinea
refers to the eighth preliminary objection raised by Nigeria in the case
concerning the Land and Maritime Boundury bettveen Camevoon and
Nigeria (Curneroon v. Nigeria) and quotes as follows paragraph 116 of
the Judgment handed down by the Court on 11June 1998on the objec-
tions of Nigeria (I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 324):

"The Court notes that the geographical location of the territories
of the other States bordering the Gulf of Guinea, and in particular
Equatorial Guineaand SaoTomeand Principe, demonstrates that it
is evident that the prolongation of the maritime boundary between
the Parties . . .will eventually run into maritime zones where the
rights and interests of Cameroon and Nigeria will overlap those of third States. It thus appears that rights and interests of third States
will become involved if the Court accedes to Cameroon's request ...
The Court cannot therefore, in the present case, give a decision on
the eighth preliminary objection as a preliminary matter. In order to

determine where a prolonged maritime boundary . . .would run,
where and to what extent it would meet possible claims of other
States, and how itsjudgment would affect the rights and interests of
these States, the Court would of necessity have to deal with the
merits of Cameroon's request. At the same time, the Court cannot
rule out the possibility that the impact of the judgment required by
Cameroon on the rights and interests of third States could be
such that the Court would be prevented from rendering it in the
absence of these States, and that consequently Nigeria's eighth
preliminary objection would have to be upheld at least in part.
Wlzether suclz tlzird Stutes ~vouldclzoose to e.uercise their riglzts to
intervene in these proceedings pursuant to the Statute remuins to he
seen" (emphasis added);

and whereas Equatorial Guinea adds:
"It is in this context that Equatorial Guinea comes before the

Court. Equatorial Guinea wishes to be very clear that it has no
intention of intervening in those aspects of the proceedings that
relate to the land boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, includ-
ing determination of sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula. It is
only the maritime boundary aspects of the case before the Court
with which Equatorial Guinea is concerned; and, as is explained
more fully below, it is the purpose of Equatorial Guinea's interven-
tion to inform the Court of Equatorial Guinea's legal rights and
interests so thatthese may remain unaffected as the Court proceeds
to address the question of the maritime boundary between Cam-
eroon and Nigeria, the parties to the case before it. Equatorial
Guinea does not seek to become a party to the case";

3. Whereas, in its Application, Equatorial Guinea, referring to
Article 81, paragraph 2 (a), of the Rules of Court sets out inter uliain
these terms "the interest of a legal nature which [it] considers may be
affected by the decision in that case":

"in accordance with its national law, Equatorial Guinea claims the
sovereign rights and jurisdiction which pertain to it under inter-
national law up to the median line between Equatorial Guinea and
Nigeria on the one hand, and between Equatorial Guinea and Cam-
eroon on the other hand. It is these legal rights and interests which
EquatorialGuinea seeksto protect .. Equatorial Guinea .. wishes
to emphasize that it does not seek the Court's determination of its
boundaries with Cameroon or Nigeria. Equatorial Guinea does wish
to protect its legal rights and interests, however, and that requires that any Cameroon-Nigeria maritime boundary that may be deter-
mined by the Court should not cross over the median line with
Equatorial Guinea. If the Court were to determine a Cameroon-
Nigeria maritime boundary that extended into Equatorial Guinea
waters, as defined by themedian line, Equatorial Guinea's rights and
interests would be prejudiced . . .It is the purpose of Equatorial
Guinea to present and to demonstrate its legal rights and interests to
the Court and, as appropriate, to state its viewsas to how the mari-
time boundary claims of Cameroon or Nigeria may or may not
affect the legal rights and interests of Equatorial Guinea";

4. Whereas, in its Application, Equatorial Guinea, referring to
Article 81, paragraph 2 (b), of the Rules of Court, sets out "the precise
object of the intervention" as follows:

"First, generally, to protect the legal rights of the Republic of
Equatorial Guinea in the Gulf of Guinea by al1legal means avail-
able, and in this regard, therefore, to make use of the procedure
established by Article 62 of the Statute of the Court.
Second, to inform the Court of the nature of the legal rights and
interests of Equatorial Guinea that could be affected by the Court's
decision in the light of the maritime boundary claims advanced by
the Parties to the case before the Court";

5. Whereas, in its Application, Equatorial Guinea, referring to Ar-
ticle 81, paragraph 2 (c), of the Rules of Court, expresses the following
opinion concerning the "basis of jurisdiction which is claimed to exist as
between [it] and the parties to the case":
"The Republic of Equatorial Guinea does not seek to be a party
to the case before the Court. There is no basis for jurisdictionunder
the Statute and Rules of the Court which arises out of the pre-exist-
ing understandings between Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria and Cam-
eroon. Equatorial Guinea has not made a declaration under Ar-

ticle 36 (2) of the Statute of the Court nor is there an agreement in
force among the three States which confers jurisdiction on the Court
in this regard. It would be open, of course, to the three countries
affirmatively to request the Court not only to determine the Cam-
eroon-Nigeria maritime boundary but also to determine Equatorial
Guinea's maritimeboundaries with these two States. However, Equa-
torial Guinea has made no such request and wishes to continue to
seek to determine its maritime boundaries with its neighbours
through negotiations.

Accordingly, Equatorial Guinea's request to intervene is based
solely upon Article 62 of the Statute of the Court"; 6. Whereas, in ending its Application, Equatorial Guinea formulates
the following conclusion :

"On the basis of the foregoing observations, Equatorial Guinea
respectfully requests permission to intervene in the present proceed-
ings between Cameroon and Nigeria for the object and purpose
specified herein, and to participate in those proceedings in accord-
ance with Article 85 of the Rules of the Court";
7. Whereas, in accordance with Article 83, paragraph 1, of the Rules
of Court, the Deputy-Registrar, by letters dated 30 June 1999,transmit-

ted certified copies of the Application for permission to intervene to the
Government of Cameroon and the Government of Nigeria, which were
informed that the Court had fixed 16 August 1999as the time-limit for
the submission of their written observations on that Application; and
whereas, in accordance with paragraph 2 of that same provision, the
Deputy-Registrar, on 30 June 1999,also transmitted a copy of the Appli-
cation to the Secretary-General of the United Nations;

8. Whereas Cameroon and Nigeria each submitted written observa-
tions within the time-limit thus fixed; and whereas the Registry transmit-
ted to each Party a copy of the other's observations, as well as copies of
the observations of both Parties to Equatorial Guinea;

9. Whereas, in its written observations, Cameroon informs the Court
that it "has no objection in principle to [the intervention of Equatorial
Guinea], limited to the maritime boundary, which could allow the Court
to be bitter informed on the general background to the case and to deter-
mine more completely the dispute submitted to it"; whereas it adds,

referring to the Judgment handed down by the Court on 11 June 1998
(Preliminary Objectioris), that "the Court envisaged the possibility that
third States might intervene, amongst which was clearlythe Republic of
Equatorial Guinea"; and whereas it considers that "the intervention of
Eauatorial Guinea should allow the Court to decide on a delimitation of
thé boundary which will be stable and final in relation to the States
involved" ; and whereas, in those same written observations, Cameroon
moreover
"entirely reservesits position in relation to the validity and possible

consequences of the unilateral delimitation undertaken by Equa-
torial Guinea, whose claims, based solely on the principle of equi-
distance, do not take into account the special geographical features
of the area in dispute";
10. Whereas, in its written observations, Nigeria notes that "Equa-
torial Guinea does not seek to intervene as a party in the proceedings";
and whereas it adds the following:

"Whether or not Equatorial Guinea's Application is accepted, it
will in Nigeria's view make no difference to the legal position of Nigeria to the present proceedings, or to the jurisdiction of the
Court. On that basis, Nigeria leaves it to the Court to judge whether
and to what extent it is appropriate or useful to grant Equatorial
Guinea's Application";

11. Whereas communications were subsequently addressed to the Reg-
istry by the Parties and by Equatorial Guinea, and whereas the Registry
transmitted copies of each of those communications to the other two
States; whereas Equatorial Guinea, by a letter dated 3 September 1999,
noted that neither Cameroon nor Nigeria "ha[d] objected in principle to
the intervention of Equatorial Guinea"; whereas Nigeria, by a letter
dated 13 September 1999, referred to certain passages in the written
observations of Cameroon and maintained that Cameroon "misrepre-
sent[ed] the position" of Equatorial Guinea, in that "[als Nigeria under-

stands the position, Equatorial Guinea did not seek to intervene as a
party, but as a third party"; whereas Cameroon, by a letter dated
11 October 1999, indicated that "it [did] not dispute the right of Equa-
torial Guinea to intervene as a non-party intervener" and expressed the
viewthat "it [was]not for Nigeria to take the place of Equatorial Guinea
in deciding on the latter's entitlement to intervene", it being for the Court
itself to determine the legal effects ofsuch an intervention; and whereas
Equatorial Guinea, in a further communication, dated 11October 1999,
observed that "there [could]be no question of the Court's eventual Judg-
ment determining the maritime boundaries of EquatorialGuinea, whether
with Cameroon or Nigeria" and that it "[sought] the status of a non-
party intervener";

12. Whereas neither of the Parties objects to the Application by Equa-
torial Guinea for permission to intervene being granted;
13. Whereas, in the opinion of the Court, Equatorial Guinea has suf-
ficiently established that it has an interest of a legal nature which could

be affected by any judgment which the Court might hand down for the
purpose of determining the maritime boundary between Cameroon and
Nigeria ;
14. Whereas, moreover, as a Chamber of the Court has already had
occasion to observe,
"[slo far as the object of [a State's] intervention is 'to inform the
Court of the nature of the legal rights [of that State] which are in
issue in the dispute', it cannot be said that this object is not a proper
one: it seems indeed to accord with the function of intervention"

(Lund, Islund and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El SulvudorlHondu-
rus), Applicution by Nicaruguu for Permission to Intervene, Judg-
ment of 13 September 1990, 1.C.J. Reports 1990, p. 130, para. 90);
15. Whereas in addition, as the same Chamber pointed out,

"[ilt. .. follows . . from the juridical nature and from the pur-
poses of intervention that the existence of a valid link ofjurisdiction between the would-be intervener and the parties is not a requirement
for the success of the application. On the contrary, the procedure of
intervention is to ensure that a State with possibly affected interests
may be permitted to intervene even though there is no jurisdictional
link and it therefore cannot become a party" (1.C.J. Reports 1990,
p. 135,para. 100);

16. Whereas, in viewof the position of the Parties and the conclusions
which the Court itself has reached, the Court considers that there is
nothing to prevent the Application by Equatorial Guinea for permission
to intervene from being granted;
17. Whereas copies of the pleadings and documents annexed, as filed
in the case at present, have already been communicated to Equatorial
Guinea pursuant to Article 53, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court; and
whereas a copy of the Reply of Cameroon and of the Rejoinder of
Nigeria, which the Court has directed them to submit pursuant to its
Order of 30June 1999,willalso be so communicated; whereas, in accord-
ance with the provisions of Article 85 of the Rules of Court, it is neces-
sary to fix time-limits for the filing, respectively, of a "written statement"
by Equatorial Guinea and of "written observations" by Cameroon and
by Nigeria on that statement; and whereas those time-limits must "so far

as possible, coincide with those already fixed for the pleadings in the
case", in the present instance by the above-mentioned Order of 30 June
1999 ;
18. For these reasons,

Unanimously,

1. Decides that the Republic of Equatorial Guinea is permitted 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 permis-
sion to intervene;
2. Fi.vesthe following time-limits for the filingof the written statement
and the written observations referred to in Article 85, paragraph 1,of the
Rules of Court :

4 April 2001 for the written statement of the Republic of Equatorial
Guinea;
4 July 2001 for the written observations of the Republic of Cameroon
and of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; and

3. Reserves the subsequent procedure for further decision.

Done in English and in French, the English text being authoritative, at
the Peace Palace, The Hague, this twenty-first day of October, one thou-
sand nine hundred and ninety-nine, in four copies, one of which will be
placed in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to theGovernment of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, the Government of
the Republic of Cameroon and the Government of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria, respectively.

(Signed) Stephen M. SCHWEBEL,
President.

(Signed) Eduardo VALENCIA-OSPINA,
Registrar.

Bilingual Content

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS

CASE CONCERNING

THE LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY
BETWEEN CAMEROON AND NIGERIA

(CAMEROON vNIGERIA)

APPLICA,TION BY EQUATORIAL GUINEA
FOR PERMISSION TO INTERVENE

ORDER OF 21 OCTOBER 1999

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

RECUEIL DES ARRÊTS,
AVIS CONSULTATIFS ET ORDONNANCES

AFFAIRE DE LA FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE
ET MARITIME ENTRE LE CAMEROUN

ET LE NIGÉRIA

(CAMEROUN cNIGÉRIA)

REQUÊTE DE LA GUINÉE ÉQUATORIALE
À FIN D'INTERVENTION

ORDONNANCE DU 21 OCTOBRE 1999 Official citati:n
Lund and Muritime Boundary bettveen Cameroon und Nigeria,
Applicution to Intervene, Order of 21 Octoher 1999,
IC. J.Reports 1999, p. 1029

Mode officiel decitation:

FrontiPre terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria,
requêteÙJin d'intervention, ordonnunce du 21 octobre 1999,
C.I.J. Recueil 1999,p. 1029

Sales number
ISSN 0074-4441 No de vente: 765
ISBN 92-1-070837-7 21 OCTOBER 1999

ORDER

LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY
BETWE.EN CAMEROON AND NIGERIA

(CAMEROON v.NIGERIA)

APPLICP,TION BY EQUATORIAL GUINEA
FOR PERMISSION TO INTERVENE

FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME
ENTRE LE CAMEROUN ET LE NIGÉRIA

(CAMEROUN c. NIGÉRIA)

REQUÊTE DE LA GUINÉE ÉQUATORIALE
À FIN D'INTERVENTION

21 OCTOBRE 1999

ORDONNANCE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTlCE

1999 YEAR 1999
21 October
General List
No.94 21 October1999

CASE CONCERNING

THE LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY
BETWEEN CAMEROON AND NIGERIA

(CAMEROON V.NIGERIA)

APPLICATION BY EQUATORIALGUINEA
FOR PERMISSION TO INTERVENE

ORDER

Presen: PresidentSCHWEBEL ;ice-PresidenWEERAMANTR Judgcs
ODA, BEDJAOUI,GUILLAUMER , ANJEVA,HERCZEGH,SHI,
FLEISCHHAUEK RO, ROMA,VERESHCHETIN H,IGGINS,PARRA-
ARANGURENK , OOIJMANSR,EZEK; Judges ad hoc MBAYE,
AJIBOLA;RegistrarVALENCIA-OSPINA.

The International Court of Justice,
Composed as above,

After deliberation,
Having regard to Articles 48 and 62 of the Statute of the Court and to
Articles 883,84 and 85 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the Application filed bythe Republic of Cameroon in

the Registry of the Court on 29 March 1994 instituting proceedings
against the Federal Republic of Nigeria in respect of a dispute described
as "relat[ing] essentially to the question of sovereignty over the Bakassi
Peninsula", in which the Court was also requested "to determine the COUR !iNTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

ANNÉE 1999 1999
21 octobre
Rôle général
21 octobre1999 no94

AFFAIRE DE LA FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE

ET MARITIME ENTRE LE CAMEROUN

ET LE NIGÉRIA

REQUÊTE DE LA GUINÉE ÉQUATORIALE
À FIN D'INTERVENTION

ORDONNANCE

Présents:M. SCHWEIBE pr,sidentM. WEERAMANTR vi,e-prksident;
MM. ODA.BEDJAOUG I,UILLAUME R,ANJEVAH,ERCZEGHS,HI,
FLEISCHHAIJER K,OROMA,VERESHCHETIN M,me HIGGINS,
MM. PARRA-ARANGUREN, KOOIJMANS,REZEK, juges;
MM. MBAYEA , JIBOLj,gesad hoc; M. VALENCIA-OSPINA,

grej$er.

La Cour internationale de Justice,
Ainsi composée,

Après délibéren chambre du conseil,
Vu lesarticles 48 et 62du Statut de la Cour et les articles 81, 83, 84 et
85 de son Réglement,
Vu la requêteenre,gistréeau Greffe de la Cour le 29 mars 1994, par
laquelle la République du Cameroun a introduit une instance contre la

République fédérale Nigériaau sujet d'un différend précomme
«port[ant] essentiellernent sur la question de la souverainetésur la pres-
qu'île deakassin et a prié laCour de ((bien vouloir déterminerle tracé1030 LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 21 X 99)

course of the maritime boundary between the two States beyond the line
fixed in 1975",
Having regard to the Additional Application submitted by Cameroon
on 6 June 1994,

Having regard to the Order of 16June 1994,whereby the Court indi-
cated that it had no objection to the Additional Application being treated
as an amendment to the initial Application and fixed the time-limits for
the filing of the Memorial of Cameroon and the Counter-Memorial of
Nigeria, respectively,
Having regard to the Memorial filedby Cameroon and the preliminary
objections submitted by Nigeria within the time-limits thus fixed,

Having regard to the Judgment of 11 June 1998, whereby the Court
ruled on the preliminary objections raised by Nigeria,
Having regard to the Order of 30 June 1998,whereby the Court fixed
a new time-limit for the filing of the Counter-Memorial of Nigeria, and
to the Order of 3 March 1999,whereby it extended that time-limit,

Having regard to the Counter-Memorial filed by Nigeria within the
time-limit thus extended,
Having regard to the Order of 30 June 1999, whereby the Court
decided inter alia that Cameroon should submit a Reply and Nigeria
should submit a Rejoinder, and fixed 4 April 2000 and 4 January 2001
respectively as the time-limits for the filing ofhose pleadings,

Makes the follo~ving Order:
1. Whereas, by a letter dated 27 June 1999,received in the Registry on
30 June 1999,the Prime Minister of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea
submitted to the Court an "Application ... to intervene in the case con-

cerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria
(Cameroon v. Nigeria) pursuant to Article 62 of the Statute of the Court
and Article 81 of the Rules of the Court"; and whereas that same letter
appointed H.E. Mr. Ricardo Mangue Obama N'Fube, Minister of State,
Secretary-General of the Presidency of the Government, as Agent;
2. Whereas, in the introduction to its Application, Equatorial Guinea
refers to the eighth preliminary objection raised by Nigeria in the case
concerning the Land and Maritime Boundury bettveen Camevoon and
Nigeria (Curneroon v. Nigeria) and quotes as follows paragraph 116 of
the Judgment handed down by the Court on 11June 1998on the objec-
tions of Nigeria (I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 324):

"The Court notes that the geographical location of the territories
of the other States bordering the Gulf of Guinea, and in particular
Equatorial Guineaand SaoTomeand Principe, demonstrates that it
is evident that the prolongation of the maritime boundary between
the Parties . . .will eventually run into maritime zones where the
rights and interests of Cameroon and Nigeria will overlap those ofde la frontière maritirne entre les deux Etats au-delà de celui qui avait été
fixéen 1975»,
Vu la requêteaddiitionnelle présentéepar le Cameroun le 6juin 1994,

Vu I'ordonnance en date du 16 juin 1994, par laquelle la Cour a
indiquéqu'elle ne voyait pas d'objection a ce que cette requêteaddition-
nelle soit traitée commeun amendement à la requêteinitiale et a fixéles
dates d'expiration des délaispour le dépôt, respectivement, du mémoire
du Cameroun et du contre-mémoire du Nigéria,
Vu lemémoiredép'osé par le Cameroun et les exceptions préliminaires
présentéespar le NigtSriadans les délais ainsifixés,

Vu l'arrêtdu 1Ijuin 1998,par lequel la Cour a statué surlesexceptions
préliminaires soulevéespar le Nigéria,
Vu I'ordonnance du 30 juin 1998, par laquelle la Cour a fixé ladate
d'expiration d'un nouveau délai pour le dépôt du contre-mémoire du
Nigéria, etI'ordonnance du 3 mars 1999,par laquelle elle a reporté cette

date,
Vu lecontre-mémoire déposé par le Nigériadans le délai ainsiprorogé,

Vu l'ordonnance du 30 juin 1999, par laquelle la Cour a notamment
décidéla présentation d'une répliquedu Cameroun et d'une duplique du

Nigéria,et fixérespectivement au 4 avril 2000 et au 4 janvier 2001 les
dates d'expiration der;délaispour le dépôtde ces pièces,
Rend I'ordonnance suivante:

1. Considérant que, par lettre du 27juin 1999,enregistréeau Greffe le
30juin 1999,le premier ministre de la République de Guinéeéquatoriale
a soumis la Cour une ((requête ...aux fins d'intervenir dans l'affaire de
la FrontiGre terrestre c?tmaritimeentre le Cameroun et le Nigéria (Came-
roun c. Nigériu) conformémentaux dispositions de l'article62du Statut de
la Cour et de l'article1 de son Règlement O; et que cette mêmelettre por-
tait désignationde S. Exc. M. Ricardo Mangue Obama N'Fube, ministre
d'Etat, secrétaire général dlea présidencedu gouvernement, comme agent;

2. Considérant que, dans l'introduction à sa requête,la Guinéeéqua-
toriale se réfère la huitièmeexception préliminaire soulevée par le Nigé-
ria dans I'affàire de laFrotztiPre terreslre et maritimeentre le Cameroun
et le Nigériu (Cameroun c. Nigéria) et cite ainsi que suit le para-
graphe 116de l'arrêtirendupar la Cour le 1I juin 1998sur les exceptions
du Nigéria (C.I.J. Recueil 1998, p. 324):
«La Cour note que la situation géographique des territoires des

autres Etats riverains du golfe de Guinée, et en particulier de la
Guinée équatoriale et de Sao Tomé-et-Principe, démontre qu'en
toute probabilité le prolongement de la frontière maritime entre les
Parties ..finira par atteindre les zones maritimes dans lesquelles les
droits et intérêtsdu Cameroun et du Nigéria chevaucheront ceux third States. It thus appears that rights and interests of third States
will become involved if the Court accedes to Cameroon's request ...
The Court cannot therefore, in the present case, give a decision on
the eighth preliminary objection as a preliminary matter. In order to

determine where a prolonged maritime boundary . . .would run,
where and to what extent it would meet possible claims of other
States, and how itsjudgment would affect the rights and interests of
these States, the Court would of necessity have to deal with the
merits of Cameroon's request. At the same time, the Court cannot
rule out the possibility that the impact of the judgment required by
Cameroon on the rights and interests of third States could be
such that the Court would be prevented from rendering it in the
absence of these States, and that consequently Nigeria's eighth
preliminary objection would have to be upheld at least in part.
Wlzether suclz tlzird Stutes ~vouldclzoose to e.uercise their riglzts to
intervene in these proceedings pursuant to the Statute remuins to he
seen" (emphasis added);

and whereas Equatorial Guinea adds:
"It is in this context that Equatorial Guinea comes before the

Court. Equatorial Guinea wishes to be very clear that it has no
intention of intervening in those aspects of the proceedings that
relate to the land boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, includ-
ing determination of sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula. It is
only the maritime boundary aspects of the case before the Court
with which Equatorial Guinea is concerned; and, as is explained
more fully below, it is the purpose of Equatorial Guinea's interven-
tion to inform the Court of Equatorial Guinea's legal rights and
interests so thatthese may remain unaffected as the Court proceeds
to address the question of the maritime boundary between Cam-
eroon and Nigeria, the parties to the case before it. Equatorial
Guinea does not seek to become a party to the case";

3. Whereas, in its Application, Equatorial Guinea, referring to
Article 81, paragraph 2 (a), of the Rules of Court sets out inter uliain
these terms "the interest of a legal nature which [it] considers may be
affected by the decision in that case":

"in accordance with its national law, Equatorial Guinea claims the
sovereign rights and jurisdiction which pertain to it under inter-
national law up to the median line between Equatorial Guinea and
Nigeria on the one hand, and between Equatorial Guinea and Cam-
eroon on the other hand. It is these legal rights and interests which
EquatorialGuinea seeksto protect .. Equatorial Guinea .. wishes
to emphasize that it does not seek the Court's determination of its
boundaries with Cameroon or Nigeria. Equatorial Guinea does wish
to protect its legal rights and interests, however, and that requires d'Etats tiers. Ainsi, les droits et intérd'Etats tiers seront, semble-
t-il, touchéssi la Cour fait droit à la demande du Cameroun ...La
Cour ne saurait donc, en la présenteespèce,prendre sa décisionsur
la huitième exception préliminaire en la considérant simplement
comme une question préliminaire. Pour pouvoir déterminer quel

serait le tracé'une frontière maritime prolongée ...en quel lieu et
dans quelle mesiire elle se heurterait aux revendications éventuelles
d'autres Etats, et comment l'arrêtde la Cour affecterait les droits et
intérêtsde ces E:tats, il serait nécessaireque la Cour examine la
demande du Canieroun au fond. En même temps,la Cour ne saurait
exclure que l'arrêtdemandé par le Cameroun puisse avoir sur les
droits et intérêts deEtats tiers une incidence telle que la Cour serait
empêchkede rendre sa décision en l'absencede ces Etats, auquel cas
la huitikme exception préliminairedu Nigériadevrait êtreretenue,
tout au moins en partie. La question de savoir sices Etats tiers déci-
deront d'esercer leurs droits ù intcrvcntion dans l'instance conforme;-
ment au Statut nrste entière)) (les italiques sont de nous);

et considérant que la Guinée équatorialeajoute:
((C'est dans ce contexte que la Guinée équatoriale se présente

devant la Cour. La Guinée équatorialetient à indiquer très claire-
ment qu'elle n'anullement l'intention d'intervenir dans lesaspects de
la procédurerelatifs à la frontière terrestre entre le Cameroun et le
Nigéria, ycompris la détermination de la souveraineté sur la pres-
qu'île de Bakassi. Seuls l'intéressentles aspects qui, dans l'affaire
dont la Cour est saisie, concernent la frontière maritime et, comme
cela est expliquéde façon plus complète ci-après, l'objetde I'inter-
vention de la Guinée équatorialeest de faire connaître à la Cour les
droits et intérêt,sd'ordrejuridique de la Guinée équatorialeafin qu'il
n'y soit pas porté atteinte lorsque la Cour en viendra à examiner la
question de la frontière maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria,
qui sont les partiesà I'instance dont elle est saisie.La Guinée équa-
toriale necherch,: pas a devenir partie à l'instance));

3. Considérant que, dans sa requête, la Guinée équatoriales,e référant
a l'alinéau) du paragraphe 2 de l'article 81du Règlement,spécifienotam-
ment en ces termes ((l'intérêdt'ordre juridique...pour [elle] encause)):

((conformément à son droit interne, la Guinée équatorialereven-
dique les droits souverains et la compétenceque lui confère le droit
internationaljusqu'à la ligne médianeentre la Guinée équatorialeet
le Nigéria,d'une part, et entre la Guinéeéquatorialeet le Cameroun,
d'autre part. Ce sont ces droits et intérêts d'ordre juridique que la
Guinée équatoriale cherche à protéger ...La Guinée équatoriale
insiste...sur le fait qu'elle nedemande pas à la Cour de déterminer
sesfrontières avecle Cameroun ou le Nigéria.Ellesouhaite toutefois
protéger ses droits et ses intérêtsd'ordre juridique en soulignant that any Cameroon-Nigeria maritime boundary that may be deter-
mined by the Court should not cross over the median line with
Equatorial Guinea. If the Court were to determine a Cameroon-
Nigeria maritime boundary that extended into Equatorial Guinea
waters, as defined by themedian line, Equatorial Guinea's rights and
interests would be prejudiced . . .It is the purpose of Equatorial
Guinea to present and to demonstrate its legal rights and interests to
the Court and, as appropriate, to state its viewsas to how the mari-
time boundary claims of Cameroon or Nigeria may or may not
affect the legal rights and interests of Equatorial Guinea";

4. Whereas, in its Application, Equatorial Guinea, referring to
Article 81, paragraph 2 (b), of the Rules of Court, sets out "the precise
object of the intervention" as follows:

"First, generally, to protect the legal rights of the Republic of
Equatorial Guinea in the Gulf of Guinea by al1legal means avail-
able, and in this regard, therefore, to make use of the procedure
established by Article 62 of the Statute of the Court.
Second, to inform the Court of the nature of the legal rights and
interests of Equatorial Guinea that could be affected by the Court's
decision in the light of the maritime boundary claims advanced by
the Parties to the case before the Court";

5. Whereas, in its Application, Equatorial Guinea, referring to Ar-
ticle 81, paragraph 2 (c), of the Rules of Court, expresses the following
opinion concerning the "basis of jurisdiction which is claimed to exist as
between [it] and the parties to the case":
"The Republic of Equatorial Guinea does not seek to be a party
to the case before the Court. There is no basis for jurisdictionunder
the Statute and Rules of the Court which arises out of the pre-exist-
ing understandings between Equatorial Guinea, Nigeria and Cam-
eroon. Equatorial Guinea has not made a declaration under Ar-

ticle 36 (2) of the Statute of the Court nor is there an agreement in
force among the three States which confers jurisdiction on the Court
in this regard. It would be open, of course, to the three countries
affirmatively to request the Court not only to determine the Cam-
eroon-Nigeria maritime boundary but also to determine Equatorial
Guinea's maritimeboundaries with these two States. However, Equa-
torial Guinea has made no such request and wishes to continue to
seek to determine its maritime boundaries with its neighbours
through negotiations.

Accordingly, Equatorial Guinea's request to intervene is based
solely upon Article 62 of the Statute of the Court"; qu'aucune frontière maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigériaque la

Cour pourrait déterminer ne doit couper la ligne médiane avec la
Guinéeéquatoriale. Si la Cour en venait à déterminer une frontière
maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigériaqui se prolongeait jusque
dans les eaux de la Guinée équatoriale,telles que définiespar la ligne
médiane, il serait porté atteinte aux droits et aux intérêts dela
Guinéeéquatoriale ...La Guinée équatoriale entend fairevaloir et
établir ses droits et intérêts juridiques devantla Cour et, le cas
échéant, faireconnaître ses vues quant a la manière dont les reven-
dications duCameroun et du Nigériaconcernant leur frontière mari-
time pourraient ou non porter atteinte aux droits légitimes etaux
intérêtsd'ordre ;luridique de la Guinéeéquatoriale));

4. Considérant que,dans sa requête,la Guinée équatoriale,se référant
à l'alinéab) du para,graphe 2 de l'article 81 du Règlement, spécifieainsi
«l'objet précisde l'intervention»:

{(En premier lieu, d'une façon générale,protéger les droits de la
République de Guinée équatorialedans le golfe de Guinéepar tous
lesmoyens juridiques dont elledispose et par conséquent, faireusage
a cette fin de la procédure prévueà l'article 62 du Statut de la Cour.
En second lieu, informer la Cour de la nature des droits légitimes
et intérêtd'ordre juridique de la Guinée équatoriale quipourraient
êtretouchéspar la décisionde la Cour, compte tenu de la frontière
maritime revendiquéepar les parties à l'affaire soumiseà la Cour));

5. Considérant qui:, dans sa requête,la Guinée équatoriale,se référant
à l'alinéac) du parCagraphe2 de l'article 81 du Règlement, s'exprime
comme suit au sujet de la «base de compétence qui ...existerait entre
[elle]et les parties)):
«La République de Guinée équatorialene cherche pas à êtrepar-
tieà l'affaire soumiseà la Cour. II n'y a au regard du Statut et du

Règlement de la Cour aucune base de compétence qui découlerait
d'accords préexistants entre la Guinéeéquatoriale, le Nigéria etle
Cameroun. La Guinée équatorialen'a pas fait de déclaration en
vertu du paragraphe 2 de l'article 36 du Statut de la Cour et aucun
accord n'est en vigueur entre ces trois Etats qui donnerait compé-
tence àla Cour ,acet égard.Les trois Etats peuvent certes demander
à la Cour non seulement de déterminer quelle est la frontière mari-
time entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria mais aussiles frontières mari-
times de la Guinéeéquatoriale avec ces deux Etats. Mais la Guinée
équatoriale n'a présentéaucune demande en ce sens et souhaite
continuer à chercher a déterminer ses frontières maritimes avec ses
voisins par la voie de négociations.

En conséquerice, larequête a fin d'intervention présentéepar la
Guinée équatoriale se fonde uniquement sur les dispositions de
l'article 62 du Statut de laour)): 6. Whereas, in ending its Application, Equatorial Guinea formulates
the following conclusion :

"On the basis of the foregoing observations, Equatorial Guinea
respectfully requests permission to intervene in the present proceed-
ings between Cameroon and Nigeria for the object and purpose
specified herein, and to participate in those proceedings in accord-
ance with Article 85 of the Rules of the Court";
7. Whereas, in accordance with Article 83, paragraph 1, of the Rules
of Court, the Deputy-Registrar, by letters dated 30 June 1999,transmit-

ted certified copies of the Application for permission to intervene to the
Government of Cameroon and the Government of Nigeria, which were
informed that the Court had fixed 16 August 1999as the time-limit for
the submission of their written observations on that Application; and
whereas, in accordance with paragraph 2 of that same provision, the
Deputy-Registrar, on 30 June 1999,also transmitted a copy of the Appli-
cation to the Secretary-General of the United Nations;

8. Whereas Cameroon and Nigeria each submitted written observa-
tions within the time-limit thus fixed; and whereas the Registry transmit-
ted to each Party a copy of the other's observations, as well as copies of
the observations of both Parties to Equatorial Guinea;

9. Whereas, in its written observations, Cameroon informs the Court
that it "has no objection in principle to [the intervention of Equatorial
Guinea], limited to the maritime boundary, which could allow the Court
to be bitter informed on the general background to the case and to deter-
mine more completely the dispute submitted to it"; whereas it adds,

referring to the Judgment handed down by the Court on 11 June 1998
(Preliminary Objectioris), that "the Court envisaged the possibility that
third States might intervene, amongst which was clearlythe Republic of
Equatorial Guinea"; and whereas it considers that "the intervention of
Eauatorial Guinea should allow the Court to decide on a delimitation of
thé boundary which will be stable and final in relation to the States
involved" ; and whereas, in those same written observations, Cameroon
moreover
"entirely reservesits position in relation to the validity and possible

consequences of the unilateral delimitation undertaken by Equa-
torial Guinea, whose claims, based solely on the principle of equi-
distance, do not take into account the special geographical features
of the area in dispute";
10. Whereas, in its written observations, Nigeria notes that "Equa-
torial Guinea does not seek to intervene as a party in the proceedings";
and whereas it adds the following:

"Whether or not Equatorial Guinea's Application is accepted, it
will in Nigeria's view make no difference to the legal position of FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ORD. 21 X 99) 1033

6. Considérant qu'au terme de sa requête laGuinée équatoriale for-
mule la conclusion suivante:
((Sur la base des observations qui précèdent,la Guinée équatoriale
demande respectueusement à êtreautorisée à intervenir dans la pré-
sente instance entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria,aux fins et pour objet
énoncés dans la présente requêtee,tparticiperàla procédure confor-

mémentaux dispositions de l'article85 du Réglementde la Cour));
7. Considérant que, conformément au paragraphe 1de l'article 83 du
Règlement,le greffier adjoint, par lettres en date du 30juin 1999,a trans-
mis des copies certifiéesconformes de la requêteà fin d'intervention au
Gouvernement du Cameroun et au Gouvernement du Nigéria, qui ont
étéinformésde ce que la Cour avait fixéau 16août 1999ladate d'expira-
tion du délaipour la présentation de leurs observations écritessur cette

requête;et considérant que, conformément au paragraphe 2 de la même
disposition, le greffier adjoint a également transmis, le 30juin 1999,une
copie de la requête aluSecrétaire généradle l'organisation des Nations
Unies;
8. Considérant que le Cameroun et le Nigériaont chacun présentédes
observations écritesdans le délaiqui leur avait été ainsifixé;et considé-
rant que le Greffe a fait tenirchaque Partie une copie des observations
de l'autre, et a communiqué une copie des observations des deux Parties
à la Guinéeéq~atori~ale;
9. Considérant que, dans ses observations écrites,le Cameroun fait
connaître à la Cour qu'il «n'a pas d'objection de principe a l'encontre de

[l'intervention de la (Guinéeéquatoriale]. limitéela délimitation mari-
time, qui pourrait permettre à la Cour d'êtremieux informée sur le
contexte global de l'affaire et de trancher plus complètement le différend
qui luia étésoumis)); qu'il ajoute, se référaàl'arrêtrendu par la Cour
en l'affaire le1I juin 1998 (exceptions préliminaires), que «la Cour a
envisagé la possibilité d'une intervention de la part d'Etat tiers, au
nombre desquels se trouve à l'évidencela Républiquede Guinée équato-
riale)); et qu'il estime que ((l'intervention de la Guinée équatoriale doit
permettre à la Cour de se prononcer sur une délimitationde la frontière
stable et définitive l'égarddes Etats intéressés)): etconsidérant que,
dans ces mêmes 0bse:rvations écrites,le Cameroun exprime par ailleurs

((toutes réservessur le bien-fondéet les conséquenceséventuellesde
la déliniitation unilatéraleaquelle a procédéla Guinée équatoriale
dont les revendications, fondées exclusivement sur le principe de
l'équidistance, ignorentles circonstances géographiques spécialesde
la zone en litige));

10. Considérant que, dans ses observations écrites,le Nigérianote que
<<laGuinée équatorialene cherche pas à intervenir en qualitéde partià
l'instance)); et qu'il iljoute ce qui suit:

«Que la requêtede la Guinée équatorialesoit acceptéeou non,
cela ne change rien, du point de vue du Nigéria,à la position juri- Nigeria to the present proceedings, or to the jurisdiction of the
Court. On that basis, Nigeria leaves it to the Court to judge whether
and to what extent it is appropriate or useful to grant Equatorial
Guinea's Application";

11. Whereas communications were subsequently addressed to the Reg-
istry by the Parties and by Equatorial Guinea, and whereas the Registry
transmitted copies of each of those communications to the other two
States; whereas Equatorial Guinea, by a letter dated 3 September 1999,
noted that neither Cameroon nor Nigeria "ha[d] objected in principle to
the intervention of Equatorial Guinea"; whereas Nigeria, by a letter
dated 13 September 1999, referred to certain passages in the written
observations of Cameroon and maintained that Cameroon "misrepre-
sent[ed] the position" of Equatorial Guinea, in that "[als Nigeria under-

stands the position, Equatorial Guinea did not seek to intervene as a
party, but as a third party"; whereas Cameroon, by a letter dated
11 October 1999, indicated that "it [did] not dispute the right of Equa-
torial Guinea to intervene as a non-party intervener" and expressed the
viewthat "it [was]not for Nigeria to take the place of Equatorial Guinea
in deciding on the latter's entitlement to intervene", it being for the Court
itself to determine the legal effects ofsuch an intervention; and whereas
Equatorial Guinea, in a further communication, dated 11October 1999,
observed that "there [could]be no question of the Court's eventual Judg-
ment determining the maritime boundaries of EquatorialGuinea, whether
with Cameroon or Nigeria" and that it "[sought] the status of a non-
party intervener";

12. Whereas neither of the Parties objects to the Application by Equa-
torial Guinea for permission to intervene being granted;
13. Whereas, in the opinion of the Court, Equatorial Guinea has suf-
ficiently established that it has an interest of a legal nature which could

be affected by any judgment which the Court might hand down for the
purpose of determining the maritime boundary between Cameroon and
Nigeria ;
14. Whereas, moreover, as a Chamber of the Court has already had
occasion to observe,
"[slo far as the object of [a State's] intervention is 'to inform the
Court of the nature of the legal rights [of that State] which are in
issue in the dispute', it cannot be said that this object is not a proper
one: it seems indeed to accord with the function of intervention"

(Lund, Islund and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El SulvudorlHondu-
rus), Applicution by Nicaruguu for Permission to Intervene, Judg-
ment of 13 September 1990, 1.C.J. Reports 1990, p. 130, para. 90);
15. Whereas in addition, as the same Chamber pointed out,

"[ilt. .. follows . . from the juridical nature and from the pur-
poses of intervention that the existence of a valid link ofjurisdiction dique du Nigéria a la présente instance, ni à la compétence de la
Cour. Cela dit, le Nigéria laisse à la Cour le soin de juger s'il est
opportun ou utile de faire droià la requêtede la Guinée équatoriale
et dans quelle mesure » ;
11. Considérant que des communications ont été ultérieurement

adresséesau Greffe par les Parties et par la Guinéeéquatoriale,et que le
Greffe a transmis des copies de chacune de ces communications aux deux
autres Etats; considérant quela Guinée équatoriale,par lettre du 3 septem-
bre 1999,a pris note de ce que ni le Cameroun ni le Nigéria «n'a[vaient]
soulevéd'objection d'eprincipe a son intervention)); considérant que le
Nigéria,dans une lettre du 13septembre 1999,s'est référé a certains passa-
gesdes observations écritesdu Cameroun et a prétenduque celui-cidonnait
«une idée inexactede la position de la Guinéeéquatoriale))dans la mesure
où, «[p]our autant que le Nigériacomprenne la position de cet Etat, la
Guinée équatorialene désir[ait]pas intervenir en tant que partie, mais en
tant que tierce partie)); considérantque le Cameroun, par lettre du11octo-
bre 1999,a indiqué qu'il «ne contest[ait] pas le droit de la Guinéeéquato-
riale d'intervenir en tant que tiers intervenant)) et a fait valoir qu'«il
n'appart[enait]pas au Nigériade se substituer a la Guinée équatorialepour
apprécier a quel titre celle-ci entend[ait] intervenir)), les effets juridiques
d'une telleinterventioindevant êtredéterminés par la Cour; et considérant

que la Guinée équatoriale, par une nouvelle communication, datée du
11octobre 1999,a fait observer «qu'il ne [pouvait] ...êtrequestion que la
Cour rende un arrêtqui détermineraitlesfrontières maritimesde la Guinée
équatoriale, quece soit avec le Cameroun ou avec le Nigéria)),et qu'elle
«souhait[ait] avoir le statut d'Etat intervenant non-partià l'instance));
12. Considérant qu'aucune des Parties ne s'oppose à ce que la requête
à fin d'intervention de la Guinée équatorialesoit admise;
13. Considérant que, de l'avisde la Cour, la Guinée équatorialea suf-
fisamment établiqu'elle a un intérêd t 'ordre juridique susceptible d'être
affectépar un arrêtque la Cour rendrait aux fins de déterminerla fron-
tièremaritime entre ir Cameroun et le Nigéria;

14. Considérant par ailleurs que, comme une Chambre de la Cour a
déjàeu l'occasion de l'observer,

«[d]ans la mesure où l'intervention [d'unEtat] a pour objet «d7infor-
mer la Cour de Ilanature des droits [de cet Etat] qui sont en cause
dans le litige)),1 ne peut pas dire que cet objet n'est pas approprié:
il semble d'ailleiirs conforme au rôle de l'intervention)) (Différend
frontalier terrestre, insulaire et maritime (El SalvadorlHonduras),
requêtedu Nicaragua à Jin d'intervention, arrêtdu 13 septembre
1990, C.1.J. Recueil 1990, p. 130,par. 90);

15. Considérant en,outre que, comme la mêmeChambre l'a souligné,
«[il1découle ...de la nature juridique et des buts de l'intervention

que l'existence d'un lien juridictionnel entre 1'Etat qui demande a between the would-be intervener and the parties is not a requirement
for the success of the application. On the contrary, the procedure of
intervention is to ensure that a State with possibly affected interests
may be permitted to intervene even though there is no jurisdictional
link and it therefore cannot become a party" (1.C.J. Reports 1990,
p. 135,para. 100);

16. Whereas, in viewof the position of the Parties and the conclusions
which the Court itself has reached, the Court considers that there is
nothing to prevent the Application by Equatorial Guinea for permission
to intervene from being granted;
17. Whereas copies of the pleadings and documents annexed, as filed
in the case at present, have already been communicated to Equatorial
Guinea pursuant to Article 53, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court; and
whereas a copy of the Reply of Cameroon and of the Rejoinder of
Nigeria, which the Court has directed them to submit pursuant to its
Order of 30June 1999,willalso be so communicated; whereas, in accord-
ance with the provisions of Article 85 of the Rules of Court, it is neces-
sary to fix time-limits for the filing, respectively, of a "written statement"
by Equatorial Guinea and of "written observations" by Cameroon and
by Nigeria on that statement; and whereas those time-limits must "so far

as possible, coincide with those already fixed for the pleadings in the
case", in the present instance by the above-mentioned Order of 30 June
1999 ;
18. For these reasons,

Unanimously,

1. Decides that the Republic of Equatorial Guinea is permitted 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 permis-
sion to intervene;
2. Fi.vesthe following time-limits for the filingof the written statement
and the written observations referred to in Article 85, paragraph 1,of the
Rules of Court :

4 April 2001 for the written statement of the Republic of Equatorial
Guinea;
4 July 2001 for the written observations of the Republic of Cameroon
and of the Federal Republic of Nigeria; and

3. Reserves the subsequent procedure for further decision.

Done in English and in French, the English text being authoritative, at
the Peace Palace, The Hague, this twenty-first day of October, one thou-
sand nine hundred and ninety-nine, in four copies, one of which will be
placed in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to the intervenir et les parties en cause n'est pas une condition du succèsde
sa requête.Au contraire, la procédure de l'intervention doit per-
mettre que l'Eta.t dont les intérêts risquent d'êtra effectés puisse
ètre autoriséà intervenir, alors mêmequ'il n'existe pas de lien juri-
dictionnel et qu'il ne peut par conséquent pas devenir partie à
l'instance)) (C.I.Recueil 1990, p. 135,par. 100):

16. Considérant qu'au vu de la position des Parties et des conclusions
auxquelles elleestelle-.mêmpearvenue, la Cour estime que rien nes'oppose
à ce que la requête à fin d'intervention de la Guinée équatorialesoit
admise ;
17. Considérant que copie des pièces de procédure et documents
annexés, déposés à CIEjour en l'instance, a déjà étécommuniquée à la
Guinée équatorialeen application du paragraphe 1 de I'article 53du
Règlement; etque copie de la répliquedu Cameroun et de la duplique du

Nigéria,dont la prési:ntation a étéprescrite par la Cour aux termes de
son ordonnance du .30juin 1999, le sera également; considérant que,
conformément aux dispositions de I'article 85 du Règlement, il échetde
fixer des délaispour le dépôt,respectivement, d'une ((déclarationécrite))
de la Guinée équatoriialeet d'«observations écrites))du Cameroun et du
Nigériasur cette déclaration; et que cesdélaisdoivent«coïncid[er] autant
que possible avec ceuxqui sont déjàfixéspour le dépôtdes piècesde pro-
cédureen l'affaire)), en l'occurrence par l'ordonnance susmentionnéedu
30juin 1999;
18. Par ces motifs,

LACOUR,

A l'unanimité,
1. Dkcide que la liépublique de Guinée équatorialeest autorisée à
intervenir dans l'instance, conformément à I'article 62du Statut, dans les

limites, de la manière et aux fins spécifiésans sa requête a fin d'inter-
vention ;
2. Fixe comme suit:lesdates d'expiration des délaispour le dépôtde la
déclaration écrite etdes observations écritesviséesau paragraphe 1 de
I'article 85 du Règlenient:

Pour la déclarationiécritede la Républiquede Guinée équatoriale,le
4 avril 2001;
Pour les observaticins écritesde la République du Cameroun et de la
Républiquefédéraledu Nigéria,le 4 juillet 2001 ;

3. Réservr~ la suite de la procédure.

Fait en anglais et en français, le texte anglais faisant foi, au Palais de
la Paix, à La Haye, le vingt et un octobre mil neuf cent quatre-vingt-
dix-neuf, en quatre exemplaires, dont l'un restera déposéaux archives
de la Cour et les autres seront transmis respectivement au Gouverne-Government of the Republic of Equatorial Guinea, the Government of
the Republic of Cameroon and the Government of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria, respectively.

(Signed) Stephen M. SCHWEBEL,
President.

(Signed) Eduardo VALENCIA-OSPINA,
Registrar. FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ORD. 21 X 99) 1036

ment de la République de Guinée équatoriale,au Gouvernement de la
République du Cameroun et au Gouvernement de la République fédé-

rale du Nigéria.

Le président,
(Signé) Stephen M. SCHWEBEL.

Le greffier,
(Signé) Eduardo VALENCIA-OSPINA.

ICJ document subtitle

Decision on intervention; fixing of time-limits: Written Statement and Written Observations

Document file FR
Document Long Title

Order of 21 October 1999

Links