Order of 15 March 1996

Document Number
094-19960315-ORD-01-00-EN
Document Type
Incidental Proceedings
Date of the Document
Document File
Bilingual Document File

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 c. NIGÉRIA)

DEMANDE EN INDICATION DE MESURES
CONSERVATOIRES

ORDONNANCEDU 15 MARS 1996

INTERNATIONAL COOF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS

CASE CONCERNING
THE LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY

BETWEEN CAMEROON AND NIGERIA

(CAMEROON v.NIGERIA)

REQUEST FOR THE INDICATION OF PROVISIONAL
MEASURES

ORDER OF 15 MARCH 1996 Mode officiel de citation:
Frontière terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria,
mesures conservatoires,ordonnance du 15 mars 1996,
C.Z.J. Recueil 1996, p. 13

Officia1citatio:
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroonand Nigeria,
Provisional Measures, Order of 15 March 1996,
I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 13

No de vente:
ISSN 0074-4441
Sales number 675
ISBN 92-1-070738-9 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

YEAR 1996 1996
15 March
General List
15 March1996 No.94

CASE CONCERNING

THE LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY

BETWEEN CAMEROON AND NIGERIA

(CAMEROON v.NIGERIA)

REQUEST FOR THE INDICATION OF PROVISIONAL
MEASURES

ORDER

Presen: President BEDJAO;IVice-President SCHWEELJudges ODA,
GUILLAUMS E, AHABUDDEW ENE,ERAMANTR RA,NJEVAHERC-
ZEGH,SHI, FLEISCHHAUEK R, ROMAV,ERESHCHETIF N, RRARI
BRAVOH , IGGINP,ARRA-ARANGUREN;Judges ad hoc MBAYE,
AJIBOLA;Registrar VALENCIA-OSPINA.

The International Court of Justice:

Composed as above,
After deliberation,

Having regard to Articles 41 and 48 ofthe of the Court and to
Articles 73, 74 and 75 of the Rules of Court,
Makes thefollowing Order:

1. Whereas, by an Application filed in the Registry of the Court on
29 March 1994, the Republic of Cameroon (hereinafter referred to as LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15 III 96) 14

"Cameroon") instituted proceedings against the Federal Republic of
Nigeria (hereinafter referred to as "Nigeria") in respect of a dispute
described as "relat[ing] essentially to the question of sovereignty over the
Bakassi Peninsula" ;
2. Whereas in that Application Cameroon refers, as a basis for the
jurisdiction of the Court, to the declarations made by the two States pur-
suant to Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute;

3. Whereas in the aforementioned Application it is stated that "Cam-
eroon's title [to the Bakassi Peninsula] is contested" by Nigeria; that
"since the end of 1993,this contestation has taken the form of an aggres-
sion by .. .Nigeria, whose troops are occupying several Cameroonian
localities in the Bakassi Peninsula"; and that this "has resulted in great
prejudice to ... Cameroon, for which the Court is respectfully requested
to order reparation" ;

4. Whereas in its Application Cameroon further Statesthat the "delimi-
tation [of the maritime boundary between the two States] has remained a
partial one and [that], despite many attempts to complete it, the two
parties have been unable to do so" ; and whereas it accordingly requested

the Court, "in order to avoid further incidents between the two countries,
. . .to determine the course of the maritime boundary between the two
States beyond the line fixed in 1975";
5. Whereas at the close of its Application Cameroon presented the fol-
lowing submissions :

"On the basis of the foregoing statement of facts and legalgrounds,
the Republic of Cameroon, while reserving for itself the right to
complement, amend or modify the present Application in the course
of the proceedings and to submit to the Court a request for the indi-
cation of provisional measures should they prove to be necessary,
asks the Court to adjudge and declare:

(a) that sovereignty over the Peninsula of Bakassi is Cameroon-
ian, b, virtue of international law. and that that Peninsula is
an integral part of the territory of Cameroon;
(b) that the Federal Republic of Nigeria has violated and is
violating the fundamental principle of respect for frontiers
inherited from colonization (uti possidetis juris) ;
(c) that by using force against the Republic of Cameroon, the
Federal Republic of Nigeria has violated and is violating its
obligations under international treaty law and customary law;
that the Federal Republic of Nigeria, by militarily occupying
(d) the Cameroonian Peninsula of Bakassi, has violated and is vio-
lating the obligationsincumbent upon it by virtue of treaty law

and customary law;
(e) that in view of these breaches of legal obligation, mentioned
above, the Federal Republic of Nigeria has the express duty of
putting an end to its military presence in Cameroonian terri- LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15III 96) 15

tory, and effectingan immediate and unconditional withdrawal
of its troops from the Cameroonian Peninsula of Bakassi;
(e') that the internationally unlawful acts referred to under (a),
(b), (c), (d) and (e) above involve the responsibility of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria;
(e") that, consequently, and on account of the material and non-
material damage inflicted upon the Republic of Cameroon,

reparation in an amount to be determined by the Court is due
from the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the Republic of Cam-
eroon, which reserves the introduction before the Court of
[proceedingsfor] a precise assessment of the damage caused by
the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(f) In order to prevent any dispute arising between the two States
concerning their maritime boundary, the Republic of Cam-
eroon requests the Court to proceed to prolong the course of
its maritime boundary with the Federal Republic of Nigeria up
to the limit of the maritime zones which international law
places under their respectivejurisdictions";

6. Whereas the Registrar notified the Government of Nigeria on
29 March 1994, by telex and by letter, of the filing of that Application,
and a certified copy thereof was transmitted to it;
7. Whereas on 6 June 1994 Cameroon filed in the Registry an Addi-
tional Application "for the purpose of extending the subject of the dis-
pute" to a further dispute, described in that Additional Application as
"relat[ing] essentiallyto the question of sovereignty over a part of the ter-
ritory of Cameroon in the area of Lake Chad";
8. Whereas in that Additional Application it is indicated that "Cam-
eroon's title to [that part of the territory] is contested by.. .Nigeria";
and that

"that contestation initially took the form of a massive introduction
of Nigerian nationals into the disputed area, followed by an intro-
duction of Nigerian security forces, effected prior to the officia1
statement of its claim by the Government of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria quite recently, for the first time";

9. Whereas in its Additional Application Cameroon also requested the
Court "to specify definitively" the frontier between the two States from
Lake Chad to the sea, and asked it to join the two Applications and "to
examine the whole in a single case";
10. Whereas at the close of its Additional Application Cameroon
presented the following submissions :

"On the basis of the foregoing statement of facts and legalgrounds,
and subject to the reservations expressed in paragraph 20 of its
Application of 29 March 1994,the Republic of Cameroon asks the
Court to adjudge and declare:
(a) that sovereignty over the disputed parce1 in the area of Lake LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15III 96) 16

Chad is Cameroonian, by virtue of international law, and that
that parce1is an integral part of the territory of Cameroon;

(b) that the Federal Republic of Nigeria has violated and is violat-
ing the fundamental principle of respect for frontiers inherited
from colonization (uti possidetis juuis), and its recent legal
commitments concerning the demarcation of frontiers in Lake

Chad ;
(c) that the Federal Republic of Nigeria, by occupying, with the
support of its security forces, parcels of Cameroonian territory
in the area of Lake Chad, has violated and is violating its obli-
gations under treaty law and customary law;
(d) that in view of these legal obligations, mentioned above, the
Federal Republic of Nigeria has the express duty of effecting
an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of its troops from
Cameroonian territory in the area of Lake Chad;
(e) that the internationally unlawful acts referred to under (a),
(b), (c) and (d) above involve the responsibility of the Fed-
eral Republic of Nigeria;
(e') that consequently, and on account of the material and non-
material damage inflicted upon the Republic of Cameroon,
reparation in an amount to be determined by the Court is due

from the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the Republic of Cam-
eroon, which reserves the introduction before the Court of
[proceedings for] a precise assessment of the damage caused
by the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(f) That in view of the repeated incursions of Nigerian groups and
armed forces into Cameroonian territory, al1along the frontier
between the two countries, the consequent grave and repeated
incidents, and the vacillating and contradictory attitude of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria in regard to the legal instruments
defining the frontier between the two countries and the exact
course of that frontier, the Republic of Cameroon respectfully
asks the Court to specify definitivelythe frontier betweenam-
eroon and the Federal Republic of Nigeria from Lake Chad to
the sea":

11. Whereas on 7 June 1994 the Registrar informed the Agent of
Nigeria of the filingof the Additional Application and transmitted to him
a certified copy thereof;
12. Whereas at a meeting which the President of the Court held with
the representatives of the Parties on 14 June 1994the Agent of Nigeria
stated that he had no objection to the Additional Application being
treated, in accordance with the wish expressed by Cameroon, as an
amendment to the initial Application, so that the Court could deal with
the whole in a single case; and whereas by an Order dated 16June 1994
the Court indicated that it had no objection itself to such a procedure, LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15III 96) 17

and fixed 16March 1995and 18December 1995as the time-limits for the
filing of the Memorial of Cameroon and the Counter-Memorial of
Nigeria, respectively ;

13. Whereas, in accordance with Article 40, paragraph 3, of the Stat-
ute and Article 42 of the Rules of Court, copies of the initial Application
and of the amendment to it were transmitted to the Members of the
United Nations through the Secretary-General, as well as to the other
States entitled to appear before the Court; and whereas the text of the

Order of 16June 1994was communicated to them under the same cover;
14. Whereas within the time-limits fixedby that Order Cameroon filed
itsMemqial and Nigeria filedcertain preliminary objections to the juris-
diction of the Court and the admissibility of the claims of Cameroon;
and whereas by an Order dated 10 January 1996 the President of the
Court, noting that by virtue of Article 79, paragraph 3, of the Rules of
Court the proceedings on the merits were suspended, fixed 15May 1996
as the time-limit within which Cameroon might present a written state-
ment of its observations and submissions on the preliminary objections,
in accordance with that same provision;

15. Whereas, since the Court includes upon the bench no judge of the
nationality of either of the Parties, Cameroon chose Mr. KébaMbaye,
and Nigeria Mr. Bola Ajibola, to sit as judges ad hoc in the case, in
accordance with Article 31, paragraph 3, of the Statute;

16. Whereas on 8 February 1996 the Minister for External Relations
of Cameroon transmitted to the Court the text of a communiquépub-
lished by the Cameroonian Government in the wake of an armed incident
that had occurred on 3 February 1996 in the Bakassi Peninsula; and
whereas, according to that communiqué, thetwo Parties were currently
in contact "to ensure that peace prevail[ed] in this region pending the
judgment of the International Court of Justice";
17. Whereas by a letter dated 10 February 1996 and received in the
Registry hy facsimileon 12February 1996the Agent of Cameroon, refer-
ring to the "grave incidents which have taken place between the . . .
forces [of the two Parties] in the Bakassi Peninsula since . ..3 February
1996",communicated to the Court the text of a request for the indication
of provisional measures based on Article 41 of the Statute and on Ar-
ticle73 of the Rules of Court; and whereas in his letter the Agent of

Cameroon laid stress upon the "urgency and gravity of the situation" and
asked that "the earliest possible date should be fixedfor the hearing";
18. Whereas in its request for the indication of provisional measures
the Cameroonian Government gave, inter alia, the following account:

"On Saturday 3 February 1996, at 12 noon, Nigerian forces
attacked the Cameroonian troops in the Bakassi Peninsula along the
entire cease-fire line of February 1994. Following that attack, as a LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15III 96) 18

result of which there was one death, one person missing and several
wounded on the Cameroonian side, as well as substantial material
damage, the Idabato Sub-Prefecture and the localities of Uzama,
Kombo a Janea and Idabato fell into the hands of the Nigerian
forces.
Sincethen the armed clasheshave continued intermittently. More-

over, the means employed by the Nigerian troops, consisting of sub-
stantial land and naval forces supported by heavy artillery, indicate
clearly the intention of the Nigerian Party to continue the conquest
of the Bakassi Peninsula" ;
19. Whereas in the aforementioned request for the indication of pro-
visionalmeasuresCameroon, referring to theprovisions ofArticle73,para-

graph 2, of the Rules of Court, went on to specifyin the following terms
the consequences which, in its view, would flow from the rejection of its
request :
"the outcome of the armed conflict on the ground would make it
impossible or, at al1events, remarkably difficult for effectto be given
to the future judgment of the Court; the destruction of items of evi-

dence through the pursuit of hostilities would risk distorting the
course of the proceedings; and the continuance of armed clashes
would considerably aggravate the injury caused to the Republic of
Cameroon - for which the latter has requested reparation in its
Application and its Memorial - notably by causing irremediable
loss of life as well as human suffering and substantial material
damage" ;

20. Whereas at the close of its request Cameroon asked the Court to
indicate the following measures :
"(1) the armed forces of the Parties shall withdraw to the position
they wereoccupying before the Nigerian armed attack of 3 Feb-
ruary 1996;
(2) the Parties shall abstain from al1 military activity along the
entire boundary until the judgment of the Court takes place;

(3) the Parties shall abstain from any act or action which might
hamper the gathering of evidence in the present case";

21. Whereas on 12February 1996,immediately upon receivingthe fac-
similecommunication from the Agent of Cameroon, the Registrar sent a
copy thereof to the Agent of Nigeria; and whereas the certified copy of

the request for the indication of provisional measures, referred to in Ar-
ticle 73,paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, was transmitted to the Agent
of Nigeria on 16February 1996,immediately after receipt in the Registry
of the original of the aforementioned request;
22. Whereas on 16 February 1996the Registrar informed the Parties
that the Court had fixed 5 March 1996as the date for the opening of the
oral proceedings contemplated in Article 74, paragraph 3, of the Rules of LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15 11196) 19

Court, during which they could present their observations on the request
for the indication of provisional measures;
23. Whereas on 16 February 1996the Agent of Nigeria addressed to
the Court a communication entitled "Cameroonian Government forces
Nigerians in Bakassi (Disputed Territory) to Register and Vote in Munici-
pal Elections", which reached the Registry on 19February 1996 ;whereas
in that communication the Agent of Nigeria, having recalled the position
of his Government with respect to the proceedings instituted before the

Court by the Cameroonian Government, referred to the municipal elec-
tions organized by the Cameroonian authorities on 21 January 1996and,
in particular, stated in that regard that:
"The Republic of Cameroon as a Sovereign Nation has every
right to fixand conduct elections in her territory. This right however
cannot and should not extend to areas in dispute between the Repub-
lic of Cameroon and the Federal Republic of Nigeria. In flagrant

violation of this cardinal principle, Cameroon delimited parts of
Bakassi Peninsula for the municipal election. Worse still, the Gov-
ernment of Cameroon forced Nigerians resident in those areas to
register and vote for the ruling CPDM Party led by President Paul
Biya. Failure to abide by this directive attracted very severe sanc-
tions from the local police authorities";

and whereas the communication from the Agent of Nigeria concluded in
the following terms :
"The Nigerian Government hereby invites the International Court
of Justice to note thisrotest and cal1the Government of Cameroon
to order.
. .. [Tlhe Government of Cameroon should be warned to desist
from further harassment of Nigerian citizens in the Bakassi Penin-

sula until the final determination of the case pending at the Interna-
tional Court of Justice";
24. Whereas a copy of that communication was immediately trans-
mitted to the Agent of Cameroon, who in a letter dated 29 February
1996,received in the Registry on 1 March by telefax, indicated that his
Government would "reply as appropriate to the allegations contained
in this document at the hearing on 5 March", and stated that:

"by organizing democratic municipal elections in the communes of
the Cameroonian Peninsula of Bakassi which are under its effective
control or which were so before the Nigerian invasion which began
on 3 February, Cameroon has done no more than exercisethe rights
which it has under international law";

25. Whereas by a letter dated 26 February 1996, received in the
Registry on 29 February 1996,the Agent of Cameroon transmitted to the LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15 III 96) 20

Court a number of documents to which his Government intended to refer
in support of its oral pleadings; and whereas a copy of that letter and of
the documents which accompanied it was immediately transmitted to the
Agent of Nigeria ;
26. Whereas oral statements on the request for the indication of pro-
visional measures were presented at the public hearings held on 5, 6 and
8 March 1996 by the following:

orzbehalf of Cameroun:
H.E. Mr. Douala Moutome, Agent,
H.E. Mr. Paul Bamela Engo,
Mr. Alain Pellet, Deputy-Agent,
Mr. Jean-Pierre Cot,

Mr. Maurice Kamto, Co-Agent,
Mr. Peter Ntarmack, Co-Agent;
on behalf of Nigeria :

H.E. Chief Michael A. Ashikedi Agbamuche, SAN, Agent,
Mr. Ian Brownlie, C.B.E., Q.C., F.B.A.,
Sir Arthur Watts, K.C.M.G., Q.C.,
Mr. James Crawford,
Chief Richard Akinjide, SAN, Co-Agent ;
whereas oral replies were given bythe Parties to the questions put during
the hearings by Members of the Court; and whereas Nigeria indicated on

that occasion that its communication of 16 February 1996did not con-
stitute a counter-claim for the indication of provisional measures;
27. Whereas during those hearings various documents were produced
by the Parties; whereas Nigeria was authorized by the Court to present
written observations on certain documents submitted by Cameroon on
8 March 1996; whereas those observations were receivedin the Registry
by facsimile on 11 March 1996; and whereas a copy thereof was trans-
mitted the same day to the Agent of Cameroon;

28. Whereas the two Parties have each made a declaration recognizing
the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with Article 36,
paragraph 2, of the Statute; whereas the declaration of Nigeria was
deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 3 Septem-

ber 1965and that of Cameroon on 3 March 1994;whereas neither of the
two declarations includes any reservation; and whereas Nigeria has made
it clear in its declaration that it was made on the sole condition of reci-
procity ;
29. Whereas Nigeria has raised preliminary objections to the jurisdic-
tion of the Court in the present case, and has claimed inter aliathat there
is no substantive reciprocity in the recognition of the jurisdiction of the
Court by the Parties; and whereas in the course of the present proceed- LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15III 96) 21

ings itsAgent expressed the opinion that the Court does not have even
"prima faciejurisdiction over the substantive issues" ;
30. Whereas on a request for the indication of provisional measures
the Court need not, before deciding whether or not to indicate them,
finally satisfy itselfthat it has jurisdiction on the merits of the case, yet it
may not indicate them unless the provisions invoked by the Applicant
appear, prima facie, to afford a basis on which the jurisdiction of the
Court might be founded;

31. Whereas the Court, which has taken note of the opinion expressed
by the Agent of Nigeria with respect to its prima faciejurisdiction, is of

the view that the preliminary objections raised by that State are not such
as to exclude that jurisdiction; whereas the Court, in fact, considers that
the declarations made by the Parties in accordance with Article 36, para-
graph 2, of the Statute constitute a prima facie basis upon which itsjuris-
diction in the present case might be founded;

32. Whereas Nigeria also raised objections to the admissibility of the
claims of Cameroon, and whereas it contended interalia that the Parties
had a duty to settle al1boundary questions pending between them by
means of the existingbilateral machinery; and whereas during the present
proceedings Nigeria contended that Cameroon's Application as amended
on 6 June 1994describes the dispute between the Parties as concerning
the whole of the frontier, that no such dispute exists, and that conse-
quently that Application "is not even prima facie admissible";

33. Whereas without ruling on the question whether, faced with a
request for the indication of provisional measures, the Court must,
before deciding whether or not to indicate such measures, ensure that the
Application of which it is seised is admissible prima facie, it considers

that, in this case, the consolidated Application of Cameroon does not
appear prima facie to be inadmissible in the light of the preliminary
objections raised by Nigeria;

34. Whereas in the present proceedings Cameroon has requested the
Court to exercisethe power conferred upon it by Articles 41 of the Stat-
ute of the Court and 73 of the Rules of Court to indicate, if it considers
that circumstances so require, any provisional measures which ought to
be taken to preserve the respective rights of either Party;
35. Whereas this power to indicate provisional measures has as its
object to preserve the respective rights of the Parties, pending a decision
of the Court, and presupposes that irreparable prejudice shall not be LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15 III 96) 22

caused to rights which are the subject of dispute in judicial proceedings;
whereas it follows that the Court must be concerned to preserve by such
measures the rights which may subsequently be adjudged by the Court to
belong either to the Applicant or to the Respondent; and whereas such
measures are only justified if there is urgency;

36. Whereas, in the course of the present proceedings, Nigeria has
contended that the circumstances do not require the indication of provi-
sional measures and that, on account of the mediation conducted by the
President of the Republic of Togo, the request of Cameroon has "become
moot" ;
37. Whereas that mediation has been undertaken to bring about a
cease-firebetween the armed forces of the Parties and whereas, following
the discussions between the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Cameroon,
Nigeria and Togo, a communiqué announcing the cessation of al1hos-
tilities was published on 17 February 1996; whereas this circumstance
does not, however, deprive the Court of the rights and duties pertaining
to it in the case brought before it;

38. Whereas the contradictory versions given by the Parties of the
events that took place on 3 February 1996 in the Bakassi Peninsula, as
well as those which recurred on 16 and 17 February 1996, have not
enabled the Court, at this stage, to form any clear and precise idea of
those events; but whereas it is clear from the submissions of both Parties
to the Court that there were military incidents and that they caused suf-
fering, occasioned fatalities- of both military and civilian personnel -
while causing others to be wounded or unaccounted for, as well as caus-
ing major material damage;
39. Whereas the rights at issue in these proceedings are sovereign
rights which the Parties claim over territory, and whereas these rights
also concern persons; and whereas armed actions have regrettably

occurred on territory which is the subject of proceedings before the
Court ;
40. Whereas, in accordance with the principle set forth by the Perma-
nent Court of International Justice in its Order of 3 August 1932in the
case concerning the Legal Status of the South-Eastern Territory of
Greenland, and reiterated by a Chamber of the present Court in its Order
of 10January 1986in the case concerning the Frontier Dispute, incidents
likely to aggravate or extend the dispute

"cannot in any event, or to any degree, affect the existence or value
of the sovereign rights claimed by [either of the Parties] over theer-
ritory in question, were these rights to be duly recognized by the
Court in [a] future judgment on the merits of the dispute (P.C.I.J.,
Series A/B, No. 48, p. 285)" (1.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 9, para. 17);

41. Considering that, independently of the requests for the indication
of provisional measures submitted by the Parties to preserve specific
rights, the Court possesses by virtue of Article 41 of the Statute the
power to indicate provisional measures with a view to preventing the LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15III 96) 23

aggravation or extension of the dispute whenever it considers that cir-
cumstances so require (cf. Frontier Dispute, Provisional Measures, Order
of 10 January 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 9, para. 18);
42. Whereas the events that have given rise to the request, and more
especially the killing of persons, have caused irreparable damage to the
rights that the Parties may have over the Peninsula; whereas persons in
the disputed area and, as a consequence, the rights of the Parties within
that area are exposed to serious risk of further irreparable damage; and
whereas armed actions within the territory in dispute could jeopardize

the existence of evidence relevant to the present case; and whereas, from
the elements of information available to it, the Court takes the view that
there is a risk that events likely to aggravate orextend the dispute may
occur again, thus rendering any settlement of that dispute more difficult;

43. Whereas the Court, in the context of the proceedings concerning
the indication of provisional measures, cannot make definitive findings of
fact or of imputability, and the right of each Party to dispute the facts
alleged against it, to challenge the attribution to it of responsibility for
those facts, and to submit arguments, if appropriate, in respect of the
merits, must remain unaffected by the Court's decision;

44. Whereas the decision given in the present proceedings in no way
prejudges the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the
merits of the case, or any questions relating to the admissibility of the
Application, or relating to the merits themselves and leaves unaffected
the right of the Governments of Cameroon and Nigeria to submit argu-
ments in respect of those questions;

45. Whereas, by letters dated 29 February 1996,the President of the
Security Council, acting at the request of its members, addressed the fol-
lowing call to the Governments of the two Parties:

"The members of the Security Council call upon the parties to
respect thecease-firethey agreed to on 17 February in Kara, Togo,
and to refrain from further violence. They further call upon the
parties to take necessary steps to return their forces to the positions
they occupied before the dispute was referred to the International
Court [of Justice]."

46. Whereas the Secretary-General ofthe United Nations has proposed
to despatch a fact-finding mission into the Bakassi Peninsula; whereas
the Members of the Security Council have expressed their satisfaction at LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15 III 96) 24

the proposa1 made by the Secretary-General; and whereas the President
of the Security Council, by the aforementioned letters likewise informed

the Governments of the two Parties that the members of the Security
Council urged them to CO-operatefully with that fact-finding mission;
47. Whereas in the course of the present proceedings the representa-
tives of the two Parties have, on several occasions, referred to the frater-
na1relations which have always existed between their peoples;
48. Whereas Article 75, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court confers
upon the Court the power to indicate measures that are in whole or in
part other than those requested;

49. For these reasons,

Zndicates,pending a decision in the proceedings instituted as aforesaid,
the following provisional measures :

(1) Unanimously,
Both Parties should ensure that no action of any kind, and particularly
no action by their armed forces, is taken which might prejudice the rights
of the other in respect of whateverjudgment the Court may render in the

case, or which might aggravate or extend the dispute before it;
(2) By sixteen votes to one,

Both Parties should observe the agreement reached between the
Ministers for Foreign Affairs in Kara, Togo, on 17 February 1996, for
the cessation of al1hostilities in the Bakassi Peninsula;

IN FAVOUR President Bedjaoui; Vice-PresidentSchwebel; Judges Oda,
Guillaume,Shahabuddeen,Weeramantry,RanjevaH , erczegh,Shi,Fleisch-
hauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin,Ferrari Bravo, Higgins,Parra-Aranguren;
Judge ad hoc Mbaye;
AGAINS Tudge ad hoc Ajibola;

(3) By twelve votes to five,

Both Parties should ensure that the presence of any armed forces in the
Bakassi Peninsula does not extend beyond the positions in which they
were situated prior to 3 February 1996;
IN FAVOUR P resident Bedjaoui; Vice-PresidentSchwebel; Judges Oda,
Guillaume, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Ferrari Bravo,
Higgins,Parra-Aranguren ;Judge ad hoc Mbaye ;
AGAINST: JzidgesShahabuddeen,Weeramantry,Shi, Vereshchetin; Judge ad
hoc Ajibola; LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15 III 96) 25

(4) By sixteen votes to one,

Both Parties should take al1necessary steps to conserve evidence rele-
vant to the present case within the disputed area;

IN FAVOUR: PresidentBedjaoui; Vice-PresidentSchwebel; Judges Oda,
Guillaume,Shahabuddeen,Weeramantry,RanjevaH , erczegh,Shi,Fleisch-
hauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin,Ferrari Bravo, Higgins,Parra-Aranguren;
Judge ad hoc Mbaye;

AGAINST:Judge ad hoc Ajibola;
(5) By sixteen votes to one,

Both Parties should lend every assistance to the fact-finding mission
which the Secretary-General of the United Nations has proposed to send
to the Bakassi Peninsula.

IN FAVOUR: PresidentBedjaoui; Vice-PresidentSchwebel; Judges Oda,
Guillaume,Shahabuddeen,Weeramantry,RanjevaH , erczegh,Shi,Fleisch-
hauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin,Ferrari Bravo, Higgins,Parra-Aranguren;
Judge ad hoc Mbaye;
AGAINST:Judge ad hocAjibola.

Done in French and in English, the French text being authoritative, at
the Peace Palace, The Hague, this fifteenth day of March, one thousand

nine hundred and ninety-six, in three copies, one of which will be placed
in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to theovern-
ment of the Republic of Cameroon and the Government of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, respectively.

(Signed) Mohammed BEDJAOUI,

President.
(Signed) Eduardo VALENCIA-OSPINA,

Registrar.

Judges ODA,SHAHABUDDEE RA,NJEVa nd KOROMA append declara-
tions to the Order of the Court; Judges WEERAMANTR SH,Iand VERESH-
CHETIN append a joint declaration to the Order of the Court; Judge ad

hocMBAYE appends a declaration to the Order of the Court.

Judge ad hocAJIBOLA appends a separate opinion to the Order of the
Court.

(Initialled) M.B.

(Initialled) E.V.O.

Bilingual Content

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 c. NIGÉRIA)

DEMANDE EN INDICATION DE MESURES
CONSERVATOIRES

ORDONNANCEDU 15 MARS 1996

INTERNATIONAL COOF JUSTICE

REPORTS OF JUDGMENTS,
ADVISORY OPINIONS AND ORDERS

CASE CONCERNING
THE LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY

BETWEEN CAMEROON AND NIGERIA

(CAMEROON v.NIGERIA)

REQUEST FOR THE INDICATION OF PROVISIONAL
MEASURES

ORDER OF 15 MARCH 1996 Mode officiel de citation:
Frontière terrestre et maritime entre le Cameroun et le Nigéria,
mesures conservatoires,ordonnance du 15 mars 1996,
C.Z.J. Recueil 1996, p. 13

Officia1citatio:
Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroonand Nigeria,
Provisional Measures, Order of 15 March 1996,
I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 13

No de vente:
ISSN 0074-4441
Sales number 675
ISBN 92-1-070738-9 COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE

ANNÉE 1996
15mars
Rôle général
no94 15 mars1996

AFFAIRE DE LA FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE
ET MARITIME ENTRE LE CAMEROUN

ET LE NIGÉRIA

(CAMEROUN c. NIGÉRIA)

DEMANDE EN INDICATION DE MESURES
CONSERVATOIRES

ORDONNANCE

Présents: M. BEDJAOU, résident; M. SCHWEBEL, ice-Président;
MM. ODA, GUILLAUMES ,HAHABUDDEEW N,EERAMANTRY,
RANJEVA,HERCZEGH S,HI,FLEISCHHAUKR, ROMA, ERESH-
CHETINF,ERRABIRAVOM, meHIGGIN, . PARRA-ARANGUREN,
juges; MM. MBAYEA, JIBOLj,ges ad hoc; M. VALENCIA-
OSPINA, refJier.

La Cour internationale de Justice,
Ainsi composée,

Après délibérénhambre du conseil,
Vu les articles 41 et 48 du Statut de la Cour et les articles 73, 74 et 75
desoi1Règlement,

Rend l'ordonnance sui:ante
1. Considérant que, par une requête déposéaeu Greffe de la Cour le
29mars 1994,la Républiquedu Cameroun (ci-aprèsdénommélee((Came- INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

YEAR 1996 1996
15 March
General List
15 March1996 No.94

CASE CONCERNING

THE LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY

BETWEEN CAMEROON AND NIGERIA

(CAMEROON v.NIGERIA)

REQUEST FOR THE INDICATION OF PROVISIONAL
MEASURES

ORDER

Presen: President BEDJAO;IVice-President SCHWEELJudges ODA,
GUILLAUMS E, AHABUDDEW ENE,ERAMANTR RA,NJEVAHERC-
ZEGH,SHI, FLEISCHHAUEK R, ROMAV,ERESHCHETIF N, RRARI
BRAVOH , IGGINP,ARRA-ARANGUREN;Judges ad hoc MBAYE,
AJIBOLA;Registrar VALENCIA-OSPINA.

The International Court of Justice:

Composed as above,
After deliberation,

Having regard to Articles 41 and 48 ofthe of the Court and to
Articles 73, 74 and 75 of the Rules of Court,
Makes thefollowing Order:

1. Whereas, by an Application filed in the Registry of the Court on
29 March 1994, the Republic of Cameroon (hereinafter referred to as14 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ORDONNAN1 C5EIII 96)

roun))) a introduit une instance contre la Républiquefédéraledu Nigéria
(ci-après dénomméele «Nigéria») à propos d'un différend présenté
comme «port[ant] essentiellement surla question de la souverainetésur la
presqu'île de Bakassi» ;
2. Considérant que, dans cette requête,le Cameroun se réfère,pour
fonder la compétence de la Cour, aux déclarations faites par les deux
Etats en application du paragraphe 2 de l'article 36 du Statut;
3. Considérant que, dans ladite requête,il est indiqué quele Nigéria
((contestel'appartenance [de la presqu'île de Bakassi au] ...Cameroun » ;
que «cette contestation a pris la forme, depuis la fin de l'année1993,
d'une agression de la part ...du Nigériadont les troupes occupent plu-
sieurs localitéscamerounaises situéesdans la presqu'île de Bakassi)); et

qu'il«en résultede graves préjudicespour l[e] ...Cameroun, dont il est
demandérespectueusement à la Cour de bien vouloir ordonner la répara-
tion));
4. Considérantque, dans sa requête,le Cameroun expose en outre que
la ((délimitation [de la frontière maritime entre les deux Etats] est
demeuréepartielle et [que]les deux Parties n'ont pas pu, malgréde nom-
breuses tentatives, se mettre d'accord pour la compléter));et qu'il prie en
conséquencela Cour, «afin d'éviterde nouveaux incidents entre les deux
pays, ...de bien vouloir déterminerle tracéde la frontière maritime entre
les deux Etats au-delà de celui qui avait étéfixéen 1975));
5. Considérantqu'au terme de sa requêtele Cameroun conclut comme
suit:

«Sur la base de l'exposé desfaits et des moyensjuridiques qui pré-
cèdent,la Républiquedu Cameroun, tout en se réservantle droit de
compléter, d'amenderou de modifier la présente requête pendant la
suite de la procédureet de présenter à la Cour une demande en indi-
cation de mesures conservatoires si celles-ci serévélaient nécessaires,
prie la Cour de dire etjuger:

a) que la souverainetésur la presqu'île de Bakassi est camerou-
naise, en vertu du droit international, et que cette presqu'île fait
partie intégrantedu territoire de la Républiquedu Cameroun;
b) que la Républiquefédérale dc Vigéria avioléet viole leprincipe
fondamental du respect ues rrontieres héritées de la colonisation
(uti possidetis juris) ;
que, en utilisant la force contre la Républiquedu Cameroun, la
c)
République fédéraledu Nigériaa violéet viole ses obligations
en vertu du droit international conventionnel et coutumier;
d) que la République fédéraledu Nigéria,en occupant militaire-
ment la presqu'île camerounaise de Bakassi, a violéet viole les
obligations qui lui incombent en vertu du droit conventionnel et
coutumier;
e) que, vu ces violations des obligations juridiques susvisées,la
Républiquefédéraledu Nigériaa le devoir exprèsde mettre fin
àsa présence militairesur le territoire camerounais, et d'évacuer LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15 III 96) 14

"Cameroon") instituted proceedings against the Federal Republic of
Nigeria (hereinafter referred to as "Nigeria") in respect of a dispute
described as "relat[ing] essentially to the question of sovereignty over the
Bakassi Peninsula" ;
2. Whereas in that Application Cameroon refers, as a basis for the
jurisdiction of the Court, to the declarations made by the two States pur-
suant to Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute;

3. Whereas in the aforementioned Application it is stated that "Cam-
eroon's title [to the Bakassi Peninsula] is contested" by Nigeria; that
"since the end of 1993,this contestation has taken the form of an aggres-
sion by .. .Nigeria, whose troops are occupying several Cameroonian
localities in the Bakassi Peninsula"; and that this "has resulted in great
prejudice to ... Cameroon, for which the Court is respectfully requested
to order reparation" ;

4. Whereas in its Application Cameroon further Statesthat the "delimi-
tation [of the maritime boundary between the two States] has remained a
partial one and [that], despite many attempts to complete it, the two
parties have been unable to do so" ; and whereas it accordingly requested

the Court, "in order to avoid further incidents between the two countries,
. . .to determine the course of the maritime boundary between the two
States beyond the line fixed in 1975";
5. Whereas at the close of its Application Cameroon presented the fol-
lowing submissions :

"On the basis of the foregoing statement of facts and legalgrounds,
the Republic of Cameroon, while reserving for itself the right to
complement, amend or modify the present Application in the course
of the proceedings and to submit to the Court a request for the indi-
cation of provisional measures should they prove to be necessary,
asks the Court to adjudge and declare:

(a) that sovereignty over the Peninsula of Bakassi is Cameroon-
ian, b, virtue of international law. and that that Peninsula is
an integral part of the territory of Cameroon;
(b) that the Federal Republic of Nigeria has violated and is
violating the fundamental principle of respect for frontiers
inherited from colonization (uti possidetis juris) ;
(c) that by using force against the Republic of Cameroon, the
Federal Republic of Nigeria has violated and is violating its
obligations under international treaty law and customary law;
that the Federal Republic of Nigeria, by militarily occupying
(d) the Cameroonian Peninsula of Bakassi, has violated and is vio-
lating the obligationsincumbent upon it by virtue of treaty law

and customary law;
(e) that in view of these breaches of legal obligation, mentioned
above, the Federal Republic of Nigeria has the express duty of
putting an end to its military presence in Cameroonian terri-15 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ORDONNAN1 C5EIII 96)

sans délaiet sans condition ses troupes de la presqu'île came-
rounaise de Bakassi;
e') que la responsabilitéde la République fédéraledu Nigéria est
engagéepar les faits internationalement illicitesexposéssub lit-
terae a), b), c), d) et e) ci-dessus;
e") qu'en conséquence uneréparation d'un montant à déterminer
par la Cour est due par la Républiquefédéraledu Nigéria à la
République du Cameroun pour les préjudices matérielset

moraux subis par celle-ci,la Républiquedu Cameroun se réser-
vant d'introduire devant la Cour une évaluation précise des
dommages provoquéspar la Républiquefédéraledu Nigéria.

f) Afin d'éviterla survenance de tout différendentre lesdeux Etats
relativement à leur frontière maritime, la Républiquedu Came-
roun prie la Cour de procéderau prolongement du tracé desa
frontière maritime avec la République fédéraledu Nigéria jus-
qu'à la limite des zones maritimes que le droit international
place sous leur juridiction respective;

6. Considérant que, le 29 mars 1994,le Greffier a notifié,par télexet
par lettre, le dépôt de cette requêteau Gouvernement du Nigéria, et
qu'une copie certifiéeconforme lui en a été transmise;
7. Considérant que, le 6 juin 1994, le Cameroun a déposéau Greffe
une requêteadditionnelle «aux fins d'élargissementde l'objet du diffé-
rend)) a un autre différend, décrit ans cette requête additionnelle comme
«port[ant] essentiellement sur la question de la souveraineté sur unepar-
tie du territoire camerounais dans la zone du lac Tchad));

8. Considérant que, dans ladite requête additionnelle,il est indiqué
que leNigéria((contestel'appartenance [decette partie deterritoire au] ...
Cameroun » ; et que
«cette contestation a pris la forme d'une introduction massive de
ressortissants nigériansdans la zone litigieuse, suivie par celle des
forces de sécurité nigérianea,vant d'êtreformuléeofficiellementpar

le Gouvernement de la République fédéraledu Nigéria,tout récem-
ment, pour la première fois»;
9. Considérant que, dans sa requête additionnelle, le Cameroun
demande également à la Cour de ((préciser définitivement))la frontière
entre les deux Etats du lac Tchad à la mer, et la prie de joindre les deux
requêtes et((d'examiner l'ensembleen une seule et mêmeinstance));

10. Considérant qu'auterme de sa requête additionnellele Cameroun
conclut ainsi:
«Sur la base de l'exposé desfaits et des moyensjuridiques qui pré-
cèdent et sous toutes les réserves formuléesau paragraphe 20 de sa
requêtedu 29 mars 1994,la Républiquedu Cameroun prie la Cour
de dire et juger:

a) que la souverainetésur la parcelle litigieuse dans la zone du lac LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15III 96) 15

tory, and effectingan immediate and unconditional withdrawal
of its troops from the Cameroonian Peninsula of Bakassi;
(e') that the internationally unlawful acts referred to under (a),
(b), (c), (d) and (e) above involve the responsibility of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria;
(e") that, consequently, and on account of the material and non-
material damage inflicted upon the Republic of Cameroon,

reparation in an amount to be determined by the Court is due
from the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the Republic of Cam-
eroon, which reserves the introduction before the Court of
[proceedingsfor] a precise assessment of the damage caused by
the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(f) In order to prevent any dispute arising between the two States
concerning their maritime boundary, the Republic of Cam-
eroon requests the Court to proceed to prolong the course of
its maritime boundary with the Federal Republic of Nigeria up
to the limit of the maritime zones which international law
places under their respectivejurisdictions";

6. Whereas the Registrar notified the Government of Nigeria on
29 March 1994, by telex and by letter, of the filing of that Application,
and a certified copy thereof was transmitted to it;
7. Whereas on 6 June 1994 Cameroon filed in the Registry an Addi-
tional Application "for the purpose of extending the subject of the dis-
pute" to a further dispute, described in that Additional Application as
"relat[ing] essentiallyto the question of sovereignty over a part of the ter-
ritory of Cameroon in the area of Lake Chad";
8. Whereas in that Additional Application it is indicated that "Cam-
eroon's title to [that part of the territory] is contested by.. .Nigeria";
and that

"that contestation initially took the form of a massive introduction
of Nigerian nationals into the disputed area, followed by an intro-
duction of Nigerian security forces, effected prior to the officia1
statement of its claim by the Government of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria quite recently, for the first time";

9. Whereas in its Additional Application Cameroon also requested the
Court "to specify definitively" the frontier between the two States from
Lake Chad to the sea, and asked it to join the two Applications and "to
examine the whole in a single case";
10. Whereas at the close of its Additional Application Cameroon
presented the following submissions :

"On the basis of the foregoing statement of facts and legalgrounds,
and subject to the reservations expressed in paragraph 20 of its
Application of 29 March 1994,the Republic of Cameroon asks the
Court to adjudge and declare:
(a) that sovereignty over the disputed parce1 in the area of Lake16 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ORDONNAN1 C5EIII 96)

Tchad est camerounaise en vertu du droit international, et que
cette parcelle fait partie intégrantedu territoire de la République
du Cameroun;
b) que la Républiquefédérale du Nigériaa violéet viole le principe
fondamental du respect des frontièreshéritéesde la colonisation
(utipossidetis juris) ainsi que sesengagementsjuridiques récents
relativement àla démarcation des frontières dans le lac Tchad;

c) que la Républiquefédérale du Nigéria,en occupant avec l'appui
de ses forces de sécurité des parcellesdu territoire camerounais
dans la zone du lac Tchad, a violéet viole ses obligations en
vertu du droit conventionnel et coutumier;
rd) que, vu les obligations juridiques susvisées,la Républiquefédé-
rale du Nigériaa le devoir exprès d'évacuersans délai etsans
conditions sestroupes du territoire camerounais dans la zone du
lac Tchad;
e) que la responsabilitéde la République fédéraledu Nigéria est
engagée par les faits internationalement illicites exposés aux
sous-paragraphes a), b), c) et d) ci-dessus;
e') qu'en conséquence uneréparation d'un montant à déterminer
par la Cour est due par la Républiquefédéraledu Nigéria a la
République du Cameroun pour les préjudices matérielset
moraux subis par celle-ci,la Républiquedu Cameroun se réser-
vant d'introduire devant la Cour une évaluation précise des

dommages provoqués par la Républiquefédéraledu Nigéria.

f) Que vu les incursions répétées des populations et des forces
armées nigérianesen territoire camerounais tout le long de la
frontière entre les deux pays, les incidents graves et répésui
s'ensuivent, et l'attitude instable et réversiblede la République
fédéraledu Nigéria relativementaux instruments juridiques défi-
nissant la frontière entre les deux pays et au tracéexact de cette
frontière, la République du Cameroun prie respectueusement la
Cour de bien vouloir préciser définitivement lafrontière entre
elleet la République fédéraleu Nigériadu lacTchad àla mer» ;

11. Considérant que, le 7 juin 1994, le Greffier a informél'agent du

Nigériadu dépôt dela requête additionnelle, et luia communiqué une
copie certifiéeconforme de celle-ci;
12. Considérant que,lors d'une réunionque le Présidentde la Cour a
tenue avec les représentantsdes Parties le 14juin 1994,l'agent du Nigéria
a déclaréne pas voir d'objection à ce que la requête additionnelle soit
traitée, ainsique le Cameroun en avait expriméle souhait, comme un
amendement à la requête initiale,de sorte que la Cour puisse examiner
l'ensemble en une seule et mêmeinstance; et considérant que, par une
ordonnance en date du 16juin 1994,la Cour a indiquéqu'elle ne voyait LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15III 96) 16

Chad is Cameroonian, by virtue of international law, and that
that parce1is an integral part of the territory of Cameroon;

(b) that the Federal Republic of Nigeria has violated and is violat-
ing the fundamental principle of respect for frontiers inherited
from colonization (uti possidetis juuis), and its recent legal
commitments concerning the demarcation of frontiers in Lake

Chad ;
(c) that the Federal Republic of Nigeria, by occupying, with the
support of its security forces, parcels of Cameroonian territory
in the area of Lake Chad, has violated and is violating its obli-
gations under treaty law and customary law;
(d) that in view of these legal obligations, mentioned above, the
Federal Republic of Nigeria has the express duty of effecting
an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of its troops from
Cameroonian territory in the area of Lake Chad;
(e) that the internationally unlawful acts referred to under (a),
(b), (c) and (d) above involve the responsibility of the Fed-
eral Republic of Nigeria;
(e') that consequently, and on account of the material and non-
material damage inflicted upon the Republic of Cameroon,
reparation in an amount to be determined by the Court is due

from the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the Republic of Cam-
eroon, which reserves the introduction before the Court of
[proceedings for] a precise assessment of the damage caused
by the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
(f) That in view of the repeated incursions of Nigerian groups and
armed forces into Cameroonian territory, al1along the frontier
between the two countries, the consequent grave and repeated
incidents, and the vacillating and contradictory attitude of the
Federal Republic of Nigeria in regard to the legal instruments
defining the frontier between the two countries and the exact
course of that frontier, the Republic of Cameroon respectfully
asks the Court to specify definitivelythe frontier betweenam-
eroon and the Federal Republic of Nigeria from Lake Chad to
the sea":

11. Whereas on 7 June 1994 the Registrar informed the Agent of
Nigeria of the filingof the Additional Application and transmitted to him
a certified copy thereof;
12. Whereas at a meeting which the President of the Court held with
the representatives of the Parties on 14 June 1994the Agent of Nigeria
stated that he had no objection to the Additional Application being
treated, in accordance with the wish expressed by Cameroon, as an
amendment to the initial Application, so that the Court could deal with
the whole in a single case; and whereas by an Order dated 16June 1994
the Court indicated that it had no objection itself to such a procedure,17 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ORDONNAN1 C5EIII 96)

pas elle-mêmed'objection à ce qu'il soit ainsi procédé,et a fixéau
16 mars 1995 et au 18 décembre 1995 les dates d'expiration des délais
pour le dépôtdu mémoiredu Cameroun et du contre-mémoiredu Nigé-
ria, respectivement;

13. Considérantque, conformémentau paragraphe 3 de l'article 40du
Statut età l'article 42 du Règlementde la Cour, des copies de la requête
initiale et de son amendement ont ététransmises aux Membres des
Nations Unies, par l'entremise du Secrétairegénéral, ainsqi u'aux autres
Etats admis à ester devant la Cour; et que le texte de l'ordonnance du
16juin 1994leur a été communiqué soulse mêmepli;
14. Considérant que, dans les délais fixéspar cette ordonnance, le
Cameroun a déposé son mémoire et le Nigériaa déposé certainesexcep-
tions préliminairesà la compétencede la Cour et à la recevabilité des
demandes du Cameroun; et considérantque, par une ordonnance en date
du 10janvier 1996,le Président dela Cour, constatant qu'en vertu du
paragraphe 3 de l'article 79 du Règlement la procéduresur le fond était

suspendue, a fixéau 15mai 1996la date d'expiration du délaidans lequel
le Cameroun pourrait présenterun exposéécritcontenant ses observa-
tions et ses conclusions sur les exceptions préliminaires,conformémentà
cette mêmedisposition;
15. Considérantque, la Cour ne comptant pas sur le siègedejuge de la
nationalité des Parties, le Cameroun a désigné M. Kéba Mbaye, et le
Nigéria, M. Bola Ajibola, pour siéger enqualité dejuges ad hoc en
l'affaire, conformémentau paragraphe 3 de l'article 31du Statut;
16. Considérant que, le 8 février1996, le ministre des relations exté-
rieures du Cameroun a fait tenir à la Cour le texte d'un communiqué
publiépar le Gouvernement camerounais à la suite d'un incident armé
survenu le 3 février1996dans la presqu'île de Bakassi; et que, selon ce

communiqué,des contacts étaienten cours entre les deux Parties «pour
que prévalela paix dans cette région, enattendant le verdict de la Cour
internationale de Justice;
17. Considérantque, par une lettredatéedu 10 février1996et reçue au
Greffe le 12février1996par télécopie, l'agend tu Cameroun, se référant
aux ((gravesincidents qui oppos[aient] les forces [des deux Parties] dans
la péninsulede Bakassi depuis le ... 3 février1996», a communiqué à la
Cour le texte d'une demande en indication de mesures conservatoires
fondéesur les articles 41 du Statut et 73du Règlement dela Cour; et que,
dans sa lettre, l'agent du Cameroun a souligné((l'urgenceet la gravité de
la situation))et demandéqu'une audience soit fixée à une date aussi rap-
prochéeque possible »;

18. Considérant que, dans cette demande en indication de mesures
conservatoires, le Gouvernement camerounais expose notamment ce qui
suit:

«Dans la journéedu samedi 3 février1996 à 12 heures les forces
nigérianesont attaqué les troupes camerounaises dans la péninsule
de Bakassi, tout le long de la lignede cessez-le-feude février 1994.A LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15III 96) 17

and fixed 16March 1995and 18December 1995as the time-limits for the
filing of the Memorial of Cameroon and the Counter-Memorial of
Nigeria, respectively ;

13. Whereas, in accordance with Article 40, paragraph 3, of the Stat-
ute and Article 42 of the Rules of Court, copies of the initial Application
and of the amendment to it were transmitted to the Members of the
United Nations through the Secretary-General, as well as to the other
States entitled to appear before the Court; and whereas the text of the

Order of 16June 1994was communicated to them under the same cover;
14. Whereas within the time-limits fixedby that Order Cameroon filed
itsMemqial and Nigeria filedcertain preliminary objections to the juris-
diction of the Court and the admissibility of the claims of Cameroon;
and whereas by an Order dated 10 January 1996 the President of the
Court, noting that by virtue of Article 79, paragraph 3, of the Rules of
Court the proceedings on the merits were suspended, fixed 15May 1996
as the time-limit within which Cameroon might present a written state-
ment of its observations and submissions on the preliminary objections,
in accordance with that same provision;

15. Whereas, since the Court includes upon the bench no judge of the
nationality of either of the Parties, Cameroon chose Mr. KébaMbaye,
and Nigeria Mr. Bola Ajibola, to sit as judges ad hoc in the case, in
accordance with Article 31, paragraph 3, of the Statute;

16. Whereas on 8 February 1996 the Minister for External Relations
of Cameroon transmitted to the Court the text of a communiquépub-
lished by the Cameroonian Government in the wake of an armed incident
that had occurred on 3 February 1996 in the Bakassi Peninsula; and
whereas, according to that communiqué, thetwo Parties were currently
in contact "to ensure that peace prevail[ed] in this region pending the
judgment of the International Court of Justice";
17. Whereas by a letter dated 10 February 1996 and received in the
Registry hy facsimileon 12February 1996the Agent of Cameroon, refer-
ring to the "grave incidents which have taken place between the . . .
forces [of the two Parties] in the Bakassi Peninsula since . ..3 February
1996",communicated to the Court the text of a request for the indication
of provisional measures based on Article 41 of the Statute and on Ar-
ticle73 of the Rules of Court; and whereas in his letter the Agent of

Cameroon laid stress upon the "urgency and gravity of the situation" and
asked that "the earliest possible date should be fixedfor the hearing";
18. Whereas in its request for the indication of provisional measures
the Cameroonian Government gave, inter alia, the following account:

"On Saturday 3 February 1996, at 12 noon, Nigerian forces
attacked the Cameroonian troops in the Bakassi Peninsula along the
entire cease-fire line of February 1994. Following that attack, as a18 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ORDONNAN1 C5EIII 96)

la suite de cette attaque qui a fait un mort, un disparu et plusieurs
blessésdu côté camerounais et qui a causé desdégâts matériels
importants, la sous-préfectured'Idabato et les localitésd'Uzama, de
Kombo a Janea et d71dabato sont tombées aux mains des forces
nigérianes.
Les affrontements militaires se poursuivent depuis lors par inter-
mittence. Au surplus les moyens utiliséspar les troupes nigérianes,
constituées de forces terrestres et navales importantes appuyéespar

l'artillerie lourde, dénotent clairement l'intention de la Partie nigé-
riane de poursuivre la conquêtede la péninsulede Bakassi));
19. Considérant que, dans ladite demande en indication de mesures
conservatoires, le Cameroun, se référantaux dispositions du para-
graphe 2 de l'article 73du Règlementde la Cour, précisepar ailleurs ainsi
les conséquencesqui découleraientselon lui du rejet de cette demande:

((l'issuedu conflit armé surle terrain rendrait impossible ou, en tout
cas, compliquerait singulièrement l'exécutiondu futur arrêt de la
Cour; la destruction d'élémentsde preuve lors de la poursuite des
hostilitésrisquerait de fausser le déroulement dela procédure; et la
poursuite des affrontements armés aggraverait considérablementles
dommages causés à la République du Cameroun et dont celle-ci a

demandé réparationdans sa requêteet dans son mémoirenotam-
ment en causant des pertes irrémédiablesen vies et en souffrances
humaines et d'importants dommages matériels));

20. Considérant qu'au terme de sa demande le Cameroun prie la Cour
de bien vouloir indiquer les mesures suivantes:

((1) les forces armées desParties se retireront à l'emplacement
qu'ellesoccupaient avant l'attaque arméenigérianedu 3 février
1996;
2) les Parties s'abstiendront de toute activitémilitaire le long de la
frontièrejusqu'à l'intervention de l'arrêt dela Cour;
3) les Parties s'abstiendront de tout acte ou action qui pourrait
entraver la réuniondes éléments de preuve dans la présenteins-

tance );
21. Considérant quele 12février1996,dès réceptionde la communica-
tion télécopiéd ee l'agent du Cameroun, le Greffier en a adressé copie à
l'agent du Nigéria; et que la copie certifiéeconforme, viséeau para-
graphe 2 de l'article 73 du Règlement, de la demande en indication de
mesures conservatoires a été transmise à ce dernier le 16février1996,dès
réceptionau Greffe de l'exemplaire original de ladite demande;

22. Considérantque, le 16février1996,leGreffier a informélesParties
que la Cour avait fixéau 5 mars 1996la date d'ouverture dela procédure
orale prévueau paragraphe 3 de l'article 74 du Règlement, au cours de LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15III 96) 18

result of which there was one death, one person missing and several
wounded on the Cameroonian side, as well as substantial material
damage, the Idabato Sub-Prefecture and the localities of Uzama,
Kombo a Janea and Idabato fell into the hands of the Nigerian
forces.
Sincethen the armed clasheshave continued intermittently. More-

over, the means employed by the Nigerian troops, consisting of sub-
stantial land and naval forces supported by heavy artillery, indicate
clearly the intention of the Nigerian Party to continue the conquest
of the Bakassi Peninsula" ;
19. Whereas in the aforementioned request for the indication of pro-
visionalmeasuresCameroon, referring to theprovisions ofArticle73,para-

graph 2, of the Rules of Court, went on to specifyin the following terms
the consequences which, in its view, would flow from the rejection of its
request :
"the outcome of the armed conflict on the ground would make it
impossible or, at al1events, remarkably difficult for effectto be given
to the future judgment of the Court; the destruction of items of evi-

dence through the pursuit of hostilities would risk distorting the
course of the proceedings; and the continuance of armed clashes
would considerably aggravate the injury caused to the Republic of
Cameroon - for which the latter has requested reparation in its
Application and its Memorial - notably by causing irremediable
loss of life as well as human suffering and substantial material
damage" ;

20. Whereas at the close of its request Cameroon asked the Court to
indicate the following measures :
"(1) the armed forces of the Parties shall withdraw to the position
they wereoccupying before the Nigerian armed attack of 3 Feb-
ruary 1996;
(2) the Parties shall abstain from al1 military activity along the
entire boundary until the judgment of the Court takes place;

(3) the Parties shall abstain from any act or action which might
hamper the gathering of evidence in the present case";

21. Whereas on 12February 1996,immediately upon receivingthe fac-
similecommunication from the Agent of Cameroon, the Registrar sent a
copy thereof to the Agent of Nigeria; and whereas the certified copy of

the request for the indication of provisional measures, referred to in Ar-
ticle 73,paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, was transmitted to the Agent
of Nigeria on 16February 1996,immediately after receipt in the Registry
of the original of the aforementioned request;
22. Whereas on 16 February 1996the Registrar informed the Parties
that the Court had fixed 5 March 1996as the date for the opening of the
oral proceedings contemplated in Article 74, paragraph 3, of the Rules of19 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ORDONNAN1 C5EIII 96)

laquelle elles pourraient présenterleurs observations sur la demande en
indication de mesures conservatoires;
23. Considérantque, le 16février1996,l'agent du Nigériaa adressé à
la Cour une communication intitulée «Le Gouvernement du Cameroun
oblige les Nigérians deBakassi (territoire contesté)s'inscrireetà voter
aux élections municipales»,qui est parvenue au Greffe le 19février1996;
considérant que, dans cette communication, l'agent du Nigéria, après

avoir rappelé la position de son gouvernement quant à la procédure
engagéedevant la Cour par le Gouvernement camerounais, s'est référé
aux élections municipales organisées par les autorités camerounaises le
21janvier 1996,et a déclarénotamment à ce sujet:
«En tant qu'Etat souverain, la République du Cameroun a le

droit de tenir des électionssur son territoire. Cependant, ce droit ne
peut pas et ne doit pas s'étendreaux régionsqui font l'objet d'un
différendentre la Républiquedu Cameroun et la Républiquefédé-
rale du Nigéria. En violation flagrante de ce principe primordial, le
Cameroun a délimité des régiond se la péninsulede Bakassi aux fins
d'élections municipales. Pisencore, le Gouvernement du Cameroun
a contraint les Nigériansqui résidentdans ces régionsà s'inscrire et
à voter pour le RDPC, le parti au pouvoir dirigépar le président
Paul Biya.Lesautoritéspolicières localesont imposédessanctions très
sévèresaux personnes quine se sont pas conformées àces directives));

et considérantque la communication de l'agent du Nigéria s'achève ains:

«Le Gouvernement du Nigéria invitepar la présente la Cour
internationale de Justiceà prendre acte de cette protestation et à
rappelerà l'ordre le Gouvernement du Cameroun.
..[LJeGouvernement du Cameroun devrait êtremis en demeure
de cesser de harceler les citoyens nigérians dans la péninsule de
Bakassi jusqu'à ce que l'affaire en instance soit tranchée définitive-
ment par la Cour internationale de Justice));

24. Considérant que copie de cette communication a immédiatement
été transmise à l'agent du Cameroun qui, dans une lettre en date du
29 février1996,parvenue au Greffe le le' mars par télécopie,a indiqué
que son gouvernement «apportera[it] aux allégations contenues dans ce
document les réponses qu'ellesappellent lors de l'audience du5 mars)) et
a précisé

((qu'en organisant des élections municipalesdémocratiquesdans les
communes de la péninsulecamerounaise de Bakassi qui sont sous
son contrôle effectif ou qui l'étaientavant l'invasion nigérianequi a
commencéle 3 février,le Cameroun n'a faitqu'exercer les droits qui
lui appartiennent en vertu du droit international));

25. Considérant que, par une lettre en date du 26 février1996,reçue
au Greffe le 29 février1996,l'agent du Cameroun a fait tenià la Cour LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15 11196) 19

Court, during which they could present their observations on the request
for the indication of provisional measures;
23. Whereas on 16 February 1996the Agent of Nigeria addressed to
the Court a communication entitled "Cameroonian Government forces
Nigerians in Bakassi (Disputed Territory) to Register and Vote in Munici-
pal Elections", which reached the Registry on 19February 1996 ;whereas
in that communication the Agent of Nigeria, having recalled the position
of his Government with respect to the proceedings instituted before the

Court by the Cameroonian Government, referred to the municipal elec-
tions organized by the Cameroonian authorities on 21 January 1996and,
in particular, stated in that regard that:
"The Republic of Cameroon as a Sovereign Nation has every
right to fixand conduct elections in her territory. This right however
cannot and should not extend to areas in dispute between the Repub-
lic of Cameroon and the Federal Republic of Nigeria. In flagrant

violation of this cardinal principle, Cameroon delimited parts of
Bakassi Peninsula for the municipal election. Worse still, the Gov-
ernment of Cameroon forced Nigerians resident in those areas to
register and vote for the ruling CPDM Party led by President Paul
Biya. Failure to abide by this directive attracted very severe sanc-
tions from the local police authorities";

and whereas the communication from the Agent of Nigeria concluded in
the following terms :
"The Nigerian Government hereby invites the International Court
of Justice to note thisrotest and cal1the Government of Cameroon
to order.
. .. [Tlhe Government of Cameroon should be warned to desist
from further harassment of Nigerian citizens in the Bakassi Penin-

sula until the final determination of the case pending at the Interna-
tional Court of Justice";
24. Whereas a copy of that communication was immediately trans-
mitted to the Agent of Cameroon, who in a letter dated 29 February
1996,received in the Registry on 1 March by telefax, indicated that his
Government would "reply as appropriate to the allegations contained
in this document at the hearing on 5 March", and stated that:

"by organizing democratic municipal elections in the communes of
the Cameroonian Peninsula of Bakassi which are under its effective
control or which were so before the Nigerian invasion which began
on 3 February, Cameroon has done no more than exercisethe rights
which it has under international law";

25. Whereas by a letter dated 26 February 1996, received in the
Registry on 29 February 1996,the Agent of Cameroon transmitted to the20 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ORDONNAN1 C5E11196)

un certain nombre de piècesauxquelles son gouvernement avait l'inten-
tion de se référea l'appui de sesplaidoiries; et que copie de cette lettre et
des documents qui l'accompagnaient a immédiatementététransmise à
l'agent du Nigéria;
26. Considérant qu'auxaudiences publiques tenues les 5, 6 et 8 mars
1996 des observations orales sur la demande en indication de mesures
conservatoires ont été présentées

au nom du Cameroun
par S. Exc. M. Douala Moutome, agent,
S. Exc. M. Paul Bamela Engo,
M. Alain Pellet, agent adjoint,

M. Jean-Pierre Cot,
M. Maurice Kamto, coagent,
M. Peter Ntarmarck, coagent;
au nom duNigéria:

par S. Exc. Chief Michael A. Ashikedi Agbamuche, SAN, agent,
M. Ian Brownlie, C.B.E., Q.C., F.B.A.,
sir Arthur Watts, K.C.M.G., Q.C.,
M. James Crawford,
Chief Richard Akinjide, SAN, coagent;

considérantque les Parties ont répondu oralement aux questions posées
par des membres de la Cour à l'audience; et que le Nigériaa indiquéa
cette occasion que sa communication du 16février1996ne constituait pas
une demande reconventionnelle en indication de mesures conservatoires;
27. Considérant qu'au cours desdites audiences divers documents ont
étéproduits par les Parties; que la Cour a autoriséle Nigéria présenter
des observations écritessur certains documents soumis par le Cameroun
le 8 mars 1996; que ces observations sont parvenues au Greffe par télé-
copie le 11 mars 1996; et que copie en a ététransmise le mêmejour à
l'agent du Cameroun;

28. Considérant que chacune des deux Parties a fait une déclaration
reconnaissant lajuridiction obligatoire de la Cour conformémentau para-
graphe 2 de l'article 36 du Statut de la Cour; que la déclarationdu Nigé-
ria a été déposéaeuprès du Secrétaire généralde l'organisation des
Nations Unies le 3 septembre 1965,et celledu Cameroun le 3 mars 1994;
qu'aucune des deux déclarationsne comporte de réserve; etque le Nigé-
ria a précisdans sa déclaration quecelle-ciétaitfaite sous la seulecondi-
tion de réciprocité;
29. Considérantque le Nigériaa présentédes exceptions préliminaires
à la compétence dela Cour dans la présenteaffaire, et qu'il a notamment
allégué le défautde réciprocitésubstantielle dans la reconnaissance de la
juridiction de la Cour par les Parties; et considérant qu'au cours de la LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15 III 96) 20

Court a number of documents to which his Government intended to refer
in support of its oral pleadings; and whereas a copy of that letter and of
the documents which accompanied it was immediately transmitted to the
Agent of Nigeria ;
26. Whereas oral statements on the request for the indication of pro-
visional measures were presented at the public hearings held on 5, 6 and
8 March 1996 by the following:

orzbehalf of Cameroun:
H.E. Mr. Douala Moutome, Agent,
H.E. Mr. Paul Bamela Engo,
Mr. Alain Pellet, Deputy-Agent,
Mr. Jean-Pierre Cot,

Mr. Maurice Kamto, Co-Agent,
Mr. Peter Ntarmack, Co-Agent;
on behalf of Nigeria :

H.E. Chief Michael A. Ashikedi Agbamuche, SAN, Agent,
Mr. Ian Brownlie, C.B.E., Q.C., F.B.A.,
Sir Arthur Watts, K.C.M.G., Q.C.,
Mr. James Crawford,
Chief Richard Akinjide, SAN, Co-Agent ;
whereas oral replies were given bythe Parties to the questions put during
the hearings by Members of the Court; and whereas Nigeria indicated on

that occasion that its communication of 16 February 1996did not con-
stitute a counter-claim for the indication of provisional measures;
27. Whereas during those hearings various documents were produced
by the Parties; whereas Nigeria was authorized by the Court to present
written observations on certain documents submitted by Cameroon on
8 March 1996; whereas those observations were receivedin the Registry
by facsimile on 11 March 1996; and whereas a copy thereof was trans-
mitted the same day to the Agent of Cameroon;

28. Whereas the two Parties have each made a declaration recognizing
the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with Article 36,
paragraph 2, of the Statute; whereas the declaration of Nigeria was
deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 3 Septem-

ber 1965and that of Cameroon on 3 March 1994;whereas neither of the
two declarations includes any reservation; and whereas Nigeria has made
it clear in its declaration that it was made on the sole condition of reci-
procity ;
29. Whereas Nigeria has raised preliminary objections to the jurisdic-
tion of the Court in the present case, and has claimed inter aliathat there
is no substantive reciprocity in the recognition of the jurisdiction of the
Court by the Parties; and whereas in the course of the present proceed- 21 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ORDONNAN1 CE11196)

présente procédure son agent aexprimél'opinion «que la Cour n'a pas,
mêmeprima facie, compétencepour connaître des questions de fond»;
30. Considérant qu'en présenced'une demande en indication de me-
sures conservatoires la Cour n'a pas besoin, avant de déciderd'indiquer
ou non de telles mesures, de s'assurer d'une manièredéfinitive qu'ellea
compétencequant au fond de l'affaire, mais qu'elle ne peut cependant
indiquer ces mesures que si les dispositions invoquées par le demandeur
semblent prima facie constituer une base sur laquelle la compétence dela
Cour pourrait êtrefondée;
31. Considérant que la Cour, qui a pris note de l'opinion émisepar

l'agent du Nigéria quant à sa compétenceprima facie, est d'avis que les
exceptions préliminaires présentées par cet Etat ne sont pas de nature
telle qu'elles puissent exclure cette compétence; que la Cour estime en
effet que les déclarations faites par les Parties conformément au para-
graphe 2 de l'article 36 de son Statut constituent primafacie une base sur
laquelle sa compétencepourrait être fondée en l'espèce;

32. Considérant quele Nigériaa également soulevé des exceptions à la
recevabilité desdemandes du Cameroun, et qu'il a notamment fait valoir
que les Parties avaient l'obligation de réglertoutes les questions de fron-
tière pendantes entre elles en ayant recours aux mécanismesbilatéraux
existants; et considérant qu'au cours de la présente procédurele Nigéria
a soutenu que la requêtedu Cameroun telle qu'amendéele 6 juin 1994
décritle différendentre les Parties comme portant sur l'ensemble de la
frontière, qu'un tel différend n'existepas et que par suite ladite requête

«n'est pas, mêmeprima facie, recevable» ;
33. Considérant que, sans se prononcer sur la question de savoir si, en
présenced'une demande en indication de mesures conservatoires, la Cour
doit, avant de déciderd'indiquer ou non de telles mesures, s'assurer que
la requêtedont elle est saisie est prima facie recevable, elle est d'avis
qu'en l'espèce larequêteconsolidéedu Cameroun n'apparaît pas prima
facie irrecevable au regard des exceptions préliminaires soulevéespar le
Nigéria ;

34. Considérant que, dans la présente procédure, le Cameroun a
demandé à la Cour d'exercer lepouvoir qu'elle tient des articles41 de son
Statut et 73 de son Règlement d'indiquer, si elle estime que les circons-
tances l'exigent, quelles mesures conservatoires du droit de chacun doi-
vent êtreprises à titre provisoire;
35. Considérant que ce pouvoir d'indiquer des mesures conservatoires

a pour objet de sauvegarder le droit de chacune des Parties en attendant
que la Cour rende sa décision, etprésupposequ'un préjudiceirréparable LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15III 96) 21

ings itsAgent expressed the opinion that the Court does not have even
"prima faciejurisdiction over the substantive issues" ;
30. Whereas on a request for the indication of provisional measures
the Court need not, before deciding whether or not to indicate them,
finally satisfy itselfthat it has jurisdiction on the merits of the case, yet it
may not indicate them unless the provisions invoked by the Applicant
appear, prima facie, to afford a basis on which the jurisdiction of the
Court might be founded;

31. Whereas the Court, which has taken note of the opinion expressed
by the Agent of Nigeria with respect to its prima faciejurisdiction, is of

the view that the preliminary objections raised by that State are not such
as to exclude that jurisdiction; whereas the Court, in fact, considers that
the declarations made by the Parties in accordance with Article 36, para-
graph 2, of the Statute constitute a prima facie basis upon which itsjuris-
diction in the present case might be founded;

32. Whereas Nigeria also raised objections to the admissibility of the
claims of Cameroon, and whereas it contended interalia that the Parties
had a duty to settle al1boundary questions pending between them by
means of the existingbilateral machinery; and whereas during the present
proceedings Nigeria contended that Cameroon's Application as amended
on 6 June 1994describes the dispute between the Parties as concerning
the whole of the frontier, that no such dispute exists, and that conse-
quently that Application "is not even prima facie admissible";

33. Whereas without ruling on the question whether, faced with a
request for the indication of provisional measures, the Court must,
before deciding whether or not to indicate such measures, ensure that the
Application of which it is seised is admissible prima facie, it considers

that, in this case, the consolidated Application of Cameroon does not
appear prima facie to be inadmissible in the light of the preliminary
objections raised by Nigeria;

34. Whereas in the present proceedings Cameroon has requested the
Court to exercisethe power conferred upon it by Articles 41 of the Stat-
ute of the Court and 73 of the Rules of Court to indicate, if it considers
that circumstances so require, any provisional measures which ought to
be taken to preserve the respective rights of either Party;
35. Whereas this power to indicate provisional measures has as its
object to preserve the respective rights of the Parties, pending a decision
of the Court, and presupposes that irreparable prejudice shall not be22 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ORDONNAN1 C5EIII 96)

ne doit pas être causéaux droits en litige dans une procédure judiciaire;
qu'il s'ensuitque la Cour doit se préoccuper de sauvegarderpar de telles
mesures les droits que l'arrêtqu'elle aura ultérieurementà rendre pour-
rait éventuellementreconnaître, soit au demandeur, soit au défendeur; et
considérant que de telles mesures ne sont justifiéesque s'ily a urgence;
36. Considérantqu'au cours de la présente procédurele Nigériaa sou-
tenu que les circonstances n'exigent point l'indication de mesures conser-
vatoires et qu'en raison de la médiation menéepar le président de la

Républiquedu Togo la demande du Cameroun «est devenue sans objet »;

37. Considérant que cette médiation a étéengagéepour un cessez-
le-feu entre les forces armées desParties et qu'à l'issue des discussions
tenues entre les ministres des affaires étrangèresdu Cameroun, du Nigé-
ria et du Togo un communiquéannonçant l'arrêtde toutes leshostilitésa
étépubliéle 17 février 1996;considérant que cette circonstance ne prive
cependant pas la Cour des droits et devoirs qui sont les siens dans
l'affaire portée devant elle;
38. Considérant que les versions contradictoires que les Parties ont
présentées des événemenstu srvenus le 3 février1996dans la presqu'île de

Bakassi, ainsi que de ceux qui s'y sont à nouveau produits les 16 et
17 février1996, n'ont pas permis à la Cour de se faire a ce stade une
image claire et précisede ces événements; maisqu'il ressort à suffisance
des déclarationsfaites par les deux Parties devant la Cour qu'il y a eu des
incidents militaires et que ceux-ciont causédes souffrances, des pertes en
vies humaines - tant militaires que civiles-, des blesséset des disparus,
ainsi que des dommages matérielsimportants;
39. Considérant que les droits en litige dans la présente instancesont
des droits souverains que les Parties prétendent avoir sur des territoires,
et que ces droits concernent aussi des personnes; et considérantqu'il est
à regretter que des actions arméesse soient produites sur un territoire qui

est l'objet d'une procéduredevant la Cour;
40. Considérant que, conformément au principe énoncépar la Cour
permanente de Justice internationale dans son ordonnance du 3 août
1932 en l'affaire relativeau Statut juridique du territoire du sud-est du
Groënland, et réitérépar une chambre de la présente Cour dans son
ordonnance du 10janvier 1986 en l'affaire du Différend frontalier, des
incidents susceptibles d'aggraver ou d'étendrele différend

«ne peuvent en aucun cas et en aucune mesure préjugerl'existenceou
la valeur des droits souverains revendiquéspar [l'une ou l'autre des
Parties] sur le territoire dont il s'agit,oser que ces droits soient
dûment reconnus par la Cour dans [un]arrêtfutur sur lefond du litige
(C.P.J.I. sérieA/B no48, p. 285)»(C.I.J. Recueil 1986,p. 9, par. 17);

41. Considérantque, indépendamment des demandes en indication de
mesures conservatoires présentéespar les parties à l'effetde sauvegarder
des droits déterminésl,a Cour dispose, en vertu de l'article de son Sta-
tut, du pouvoir d'indiquer des mesures conservatoires en vue d'empêcher LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15 III 96) 22

caused to rights which are the subject of dispute in judicial proceedings;
whereas it follows that the Court must be concerned to preserve by such
measures the rights which may subsequently be adjudged by the Court to
belong either to the Applicant or to the Respondent; and whereas such
measures are only justified if there is urgency;

36. Whereas, in the course of the present proceedings, Nigeria has
contended that the circumstances do not require the indication of provi-
sional measures and that, on account of the mediation conducted by the
President of the Republic of Togo, the request of Cameroon has "become
moot" ;
37. Whereas that mediation has been undertaken to bring about a
cease-firebetween the armed forces of the Parties and whereas, following
the discussions between the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of Cameroon,
Nigeria and Togo, a communiqué announcing the cessation of al1hos-
tilities was published on 17 February 1996; whereas this circumstance
does not, however, deprive the Court of the rights and duties pertaining
to it in the case brought before it;

38. Whereas the contradictory versions given by the Parties of the
events that took place on 3 February 1996 in the Bakassi Peninsula, as
well as those which recurred on 16 and 17 February 1996, have not
enabled the Court, at this stage, to form any clear and precise idea of
those events; but whereas it is clear from the submissions of both Parties
to the Court that there were military incidents and that they caused suf-
fering, occasioned fatalities- of both military and civilian personnel -
while causing others to be wounded or unaccounted for, as well as caus-
ing major material damage;
39. Whereas the rights at issue in these proceedings are sovereign
rights which the Parties claim over territory, and whereas these rights
also concern persons; and whereas armed actions have regrettably

occurred on territory which is the subject of proceedings before the
Court ;
40. Whereas, in accordance with the principle set forth by the Perma-
nent Court of International Justice in its Order of 3 August 1932in the
case concerning the Legal Status of the South-Eastern Territory of
Greenland, and reiterated by a Chamber of the present Court in its Order
of 10January 1986in the case concerning the Frontier Dispute, incidents
likely to aggravate or extend the dispute

"cannot in any event, or to any degree, affect the existence or value
of the sovereign rights claimed by [either of the Parties] over theer-
ritory in question, were these rights to be duly recognized by the
Court in [a] future judgment on the merits of the dispute (P.C.I.J.,
Series A/B, No. 48, p. 285)" (1.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 9, para. 17);

41. Considering that, independently of the requests for the indication
of provisional measures submitted by the Parties to preserve specific
rights, the Court possesses by virtue of Article 41 of the Statute the
power to indicate provisional measures with a view to preventing the23 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ORDONNAN1 C5EIII 96)

l'aggravation ou l'extension du différend quand elle estime que les cir-
constances l'exigent (cf. Différend frontalier, mesures conservatoires,
ordonnance du 10janvier 1986, C.I.J. Recueil 1986, p. 9, par. 18);
42. Considérant que lesévénementsqui sont à l'origine de la demande,
et tout spécialementle fait que des personnes aient été tuéesans la pres-
qu'île de Bakassi, ont porté un préjudiceirréparable aux droits que les
Parties peuvent avoir sur la presqu'île; que lespersonnes setrouvantdans
la zone litigieuse, et par voie de conséquence les droits que les Parties
peuvent y avoir, sont exposésau risque sérieuxd'un nouveau préjudice

irréparable; et que des actions arméessur le territoire en litige pourraient
mettre en péril l'existence d'élémentdse preuve pertinents aux fins de la
rése enteinstance: et considérant au'au vu des élémentsd'information a
sa disposition la Cour est d'avis qu'il existeun risque que des événements
de nature à aggraver ou à étendrele différend puissentse reproduire, ren-
dant ainsi toute solution de ce différend plus difficile;
43. Considérant que la Cour, dans le cadre de la présente procédure
concernant l'indication de mesures conservatoires, n'est pas habilitée à
conclure définitivementsur les faits ou leur imputabilité et que sa déci-
sion doit laisser intact le droit de chacune des Parties de contester les faits
allégués contre elle, ainsi que la responsabilité quilui est imputéequant
ces faits, et de faire valoir, le cas échéant,ses moyens sur le fond;

44. Considérant qu'une décisionrendue en la présente procédurene
préjuge en rien lacompétence de la Cour pour connaître du fond de

l'affaire, niaucune question relativeàla recevabilitéde la requêteou au
fond lui-même,et qu'elle laisse intact le droit des Gouvernements du
Cameroun et du Nigéria de faire valoir leurs moyens en ces matières;

45. Considérant que, par des lettres en date du 29 février1996,le Pré-
sident du Conseil de sécurité,agissant sur requêtedes membres du
Conseil, a adresséaux gouvernements des deux Parties l'appel suivant:
((Les membres du Conseil demandent aux Parties de respecter le

cessez-le-feudont elles ont convenu le17févrierà Kara (Togo) et de
s'abstenir de tous nouveaux actes de violence. Ils leur demandent
égalementde prendre lesmesures nécessairespour retirer leurs forces
jusqu'aux positions qu'elles occupaient avant que la Cour interna-
tionale [de Justice] ne soit saisie du différend));

46. Considérant que le Secrétairegénéral desNations Unies a proposé
de dépêcher unemission d'enquêtedans la presqu'île de Bakassi; que les
membres du Conseil de sécuritése sont félicitésde la proposition du LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15III 96) 23

aggravation or extension of the dispute whenever it considers that cir-
cumstances so require (cf. Frontier Dispute, Provisional Measures, Order
of 10 January 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 9, para. 18);
42. Whereas the events that have given rise to the request, and more
especially the killing of persons, have caused irreparable damage to the
rights that the Parties may have over the Peninsula; whereas persons in
the disputed area and, as a consequence, the rights of the Parties within
that area are exposed to serious risk of further irreparable damage; and
whereas armed actions within the territory in dispute could jeopardize

the existence of evidence relevant to the present case; and whereas, from
the elements of information available to it, the Court takes the view that
there is a risk that events likely to aggravate orextend the dispute may
occur again, thus rendering any settlement of that dispute more difficult;

43. Whereas the Court, in the context of the proceedings concerning
the indication of provisional measures, cannot make definitive findings of
fact or of imputability, and the right of each Party to dispute the facts
alleged against it, to challenge the attribution to it of responsibility for
those facts, and to submit arguments, if appropriate, in respect of the
merits, must remain unaffected by the Court's decision;

44. Whereas the decision given in the present proceedings in no way
prejudges the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the
merits of the case, or any questions relating to the admissibility of the
Application, or relating to the merits themselves and leaves unaffected
the right of the Governments of Cameroon and Nigeria to submit argu-
ments in respect of those questions;

45. Whereas, by letters dated 29 February 1996,the President of the
Security Council, acting at the request of its members, addressed the fol-
lowing call to the Governments of the two Parties:

"The members of the Security Council call upon the parties to
respect thecease-firethey agreed to on 17 February in Kara, Togo,
and to refrain from further violence. They further call upon the
parties to take necessary steps to return their forces to the positions
they occupied before the dispute was referred to the International
Court [of Justice]."

46. Whereas the Secretary-General ofthe United Nations has proposed
to despatch a fact-finding mission into the Bakassi Peninsula; whereas
the Members of the Security Council have expressed their satisfaction at24 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ORDONNANC 15EIII 96)

Secrétairegénérale ;t que le Présidentdu Conseil, par les lettressus-indi-
quées,a égalementfait savoir aux gouvernements des deux Parties que les
membres du Conseil les priaient de coopérer pleinement avec cette mis-
sion d'enquête;
47. Considérant qu'au cours de la présente procédureles représentants

des deux Parties ont à plusieurs reprises rappeléles relations fraternelles
qui ont toujours existéentre leurs peuples;
48. Considérant que la Cour tient du paragraphe 2 de l'article 75 de
son Règlement le pouvoir d'indiquer des mesures totalement ou partiel-
lement différentesde celles qui sont sollicitées;

49. Par ces motifs,

Indique a titre provisoire, en attendant sa décisiondans l'instance intro-

duite comme il est dit ci-dessus, les mesures conservatoires suivantes:
1) A l'unanimité,

Les deux Parties veillent àévitertout acte, et en particulier tout acte de
leurs forces armées,qui risquerait de porter atteinte aux droits de l'autre
Partie au regard de tout arrêt que laCour pourrait rendre en l'affaire, ou
qui risquerait d'aggraver ou d'étendrele différendportédevant elle;

2) Par seize voix contre une,

Les deux Parties seconforment aux termes de l'accord auquel sont par-
venus les ministres des affaires étrangères à Kara (Togo), le 17 février
1996, aux fins de l'arrêtde toutes les hostilités dans la presqu'île de
Bakassi ;

POUR : M. Bedjaoui, Président; M. Schwebel, Vice-Président; MM. Oda,
Guillaume, Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi,
Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Ferrari Bravo, Mme Higgins,
M. Parra-Aranguren, juges; M. Mbaye, juge ad hoc;
CONTRE: M. Ajibola,juge ad hoc;

3) Par douze voix contre cinq,

Les deux Parties veillent a ce que la présencede toutes forces armées
dans la presqu'île de Bakassi ne s'étendepas au-delà des positions où
elles se trouvaient avant le3 février1996;
POUR : M. Bedjaoui, Président; M. Schwebel, Vice-Président; MM. Oda,
Guillaume, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Ferrari Bravo,
MmeHiggins,M. Parra-Aranguren, juges; M. Mbaye, juge ad hoc;
CONTREM : M. Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry, Shi, Vereshchetin, juges;
M. Ajibola, juge ad hoc; LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15 III 96) 24

the proposa1 made by the Secretary-General; and whereas the President
of the Security Council, by the aforementioned letters likewise informed

the Governments of the two Parties that the members of the Security
Council urged them to CO-operatefully with that fact-finding mission;
47. Whereas in the course of the present proceedings the representa-
tives of the two Parties have, on several occasions, referred to the frater-
na1relations which have always existed between their peoples;
48. Whereas Article 75, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court confers
upon the Court the power to indicate measures that are in whole or in
part other than those requested;

49. For these reasons,

Zndicates,pending a decision in the proceedings instituted as aforesaid,
the following provisional measures :

(1) Unanimously,
Both Parties should ensure that no action of any kind, and particularly
no action by their armed forces, is taken which might prejudice the rights
of the other in respect of whateverjudgment the Court may render in the

case, or which might aggravate or extend the dispute before it;
(2) By sixteen votes to one,

Both Parties should observe the agreement reached between the
Ministers for Foreign Affairs in Kara, Togo, on 17 February 1996, for
the cessation of al1hostilities in the Bakassi Peninsula;

IN FAVOUR President Bedjaoui; Vice-PresidentSchwebel; Judges Oda,
Guillaume,Shahabuddeen,Weeramantry,RanjevaH , erczegh,Shi,Fleisch-
hauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin,Ferrari Bravo, Higgins,Parra-Aranguren;
Judge ad hoc Mbaye;
AGAINS Tudge ad hoc Ajibola;

(3) By twelve votes to five,

Both Parties should ensure that the presence of any armed forces in the
Bakassi Peninsula does not extend beyond the positions in which they
were situated prior to 3 February 1996;
IN FAVOUR P resident Bedjaoui; Vice-PresidentSchwebel; Judges Oda,
Guillaume, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Ferrari Bravo,
Higgins,Parra-Aranguren ;Judge ad hoc Mbaye ;
AGAINST: JzidgesShahabuddeen,Weeramantry,Shi, Vereshchetin; Judge ad
hoc Ajibola;25 FRONTIÈRE TERRESTRE ET MARITIME (ORDONNAN1 C5EIII 96)

4) Par seize voix contre une,
Les deux Parties prennent toutes lesmesures nécessairespour préserver
les élémentsde preuve pertinents aux fins de la présente instance dans la
zone en litige;

POURM : . Bedjaoui,Président; M.Schwebel,Vice-PrésidentMM. Oda,
Guillaume, Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi,
Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Ferrari Bravo, Mme Higgins,
M. Parra-Aranguren,juges; M.Mbaye, jugead hoc;
CONTRE: M. Ajibolajugead hoc;

5) Par seize voix contre une,
Lesdeux Parties prêtenttoute l'assistance vouàula mission d'enquête
que le Secrétaire générale l'organisation des Nations Unies a proposé
de dépêcher dans la presqu'île de Bakassi.

POURM : . Bedjaoui,PrésidentM. Schwebel, Vice-présidentMM. Oda,
Guillaume, Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi,
Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Ferrari Bravo, Mme Higgins,
M. Parra-Aranguren,juges; M.Mbaye,juge ad hoc;
CONTRM E:. Ajiboljugead hoc.

Fait en français et en anglais, le texte français faisant foi, au Palais de

la Paix,à La Haye, le quinze mars mil neuf cent quatre-vingt-seize, en
trois exemplaires, dont l'un restera déposé auxarchives de la Cour et les
autres seront transmis respectivement au Gouvernement de la Répu-
blique du Cameroun et au Gouvernement de la République fédéraledu
Nigéria.

Le Président,
(Signé) Mohammed BEDJAOUI.

Le Greffier,

(Signé) Eduardo VALENCIA-OSPINA.

MM. ODA,SHAHABUDDEE RNA,NJEVAet KOROMA j, ges, joignent des
déclarationsà l'ordonnance; MM. WEERAMANTSR HYI, et VERESHCHETIN,
juges, joignentUriedéclaration commune à l'ordonnance; M. MBAYE,
juge ad hoc,joint une déclaratioà l'ordonnance.

M. AJIBOLA j,ge ad hoc,jointà l'ordonnance l'exposéde son opinion
individuelle.

(Paraphé) M.B.
(Paraphé) E.V.O. LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY (ORDER 15 III 96) 25

(4) By sixteen votes to one,

Both Parties should take al1necessary steps to conserve evidence rele-
vant to the present case within the disputed area;

IN FAVOUR: PresidentBedjaoui; Vice-PresidentSchwebel; Judges Oda,
Guillaume,Shahabuddeen,Weeramantry,RanjevaH , erczegh,Shi,Fleisch-
hauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin,Ferrari Bravo, Higgins,Parra-Aranguren;
Judge ad hoc Mbaye;

AGAINST:Judge ad hoc Ajibola;
(5) By sixteen votes to one,

Both Parties should lend every assistance to the fact-finding mission
which the Secretary-General of the United Nations has proposed to send
to the Bakassi Peninsula.

IN FAVOUR: PresidentBedjaoui; Vice-PresidentSchwebel; Judges Oda,
Guillaume,Shahabuddeen,Weeramantry,RanjevaH , erczegh,Shi,Fleisch-
hauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin,Ferrari Bravo, Higgins,Parra-Aranguren;
Judge ad hoc Mbaye;
AGAINST:Judge ad hocAjibola.

Done in French and in English, the French text being authoritative, at
the Peace Palace, The Hague, this fifteenth day of March, one thousand

nine hundred and ninety-six, in three copies, one of which will be placed
in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to theovern-
ment of the Republic of Cameroon and the Government of the Federal
Republic of Nigeria, respectively.

(Signed) Mohammed BEDJAOUI,

President.
(Signed) Eduardo VALENCIA-OSPINA,

Registrar.

Judges ODA,SHAHABUDDEE RA,NJEVa nd KOROMA append declara-
tions to the Order of the Court; Judges WEERAMANTR SH,Iand VERESH-
CHETIN append a joint declaration to the Order of the Court; Judge ad

hocMBAYE appends a declaration to the Order of the Court.

Judge ad hocAJIBOLA appends a separate opinion to the Order of the
Court.

(Initialled) M.B.

(Initialled) E.V.O.

ICJ document subtitle

Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures

Document file FR
Document Long Title

Order of 15 March 1996

Links