Summaries of Judgments, AdNot an official documentrs of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
CASE CONCERNING TH:E LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY BETWEEN
CAMEROON AND NIGERIA (CA.MEROON v. NIGERIA) (PROVISIONAL
MEASURES;)
lOrder of l!i March 1996
Inthe case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary Both Parties shouldtake all necessary stepsto con-
between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v.Nigeria), the serve evidence relevantto the present case within the
Collrtissued an Order indicating thefo1lowprovisional disputed area;
meiasures: IN FAVOUR: President Bedjaoui; Vice-President
Schwebel; Judges Oda, Guillaume, Shahabuddeen,
"(1) Unanimously, Weeramantry, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer,
BothParties should ensurethatnoaction ofany kind, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Ferrari Bravo, Higgins,
and particularly no action by their armed forces, is Parra-Aranguren;Judge ad hoc Mbaye;
taken which mightprejudice the rights of the other in AGAINST J:udgead hoc Ajibola;
respect of whateverjudgment the Court may render in
thecase,orwhich might aggravateor extendthedispute (5) By sixteenvotesto one,
before it; Both Parties should lendevery assistanceto thet-
finding mission which the Secretary-General of the
(2) By sixteen votes'to one, United Nations has proposedto send to the Bakassi
Both Parties should observe the agreement reached Peninsula.
betweentheMinistersforForeignAffairs in Kara,Togo, IN FAVOUR: President Bedjaoui; Vice-President
on 17 February 1996,:Forthe cessationof all hostilities Schwebel; Judges Oda, Guillaume, Shahabuddeen,
inthe Bakassi Peninsu'la; Weeramantry, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer,
IN FAVOUR: President Bedjaoui; Vice-President Koroma, Vereshchetin, Ferrari Bravo, Higgins,
Schwebel; Judges O~da,Guillaume, Shahabuddeen, Parra-Aranguren;Judge ad hoc Mbaye;
Weeramantry, Ranjev.a, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer, AGAINSTJ:udge ad hoc Ajibola."
Koroma, Vereshchetin, Ferrari Bravo, Higgins,
F'arra-Aranguren;udge ad hoc Mbaye;
AGAINSTJ:udge ad hoc Ajibola;
(3) Bytwelve votes to five, Judges Oda, Shahabuddeen, Ranjeva andKoroma ap-
Both Parties should ensure that the presence of anypended declarationsto the Order of the Court; Judges
armed forces in the Ba~kassiPeninsuladoes not extend Weeramantry, Shi and Vereshchetin appendedajoint dec-
bleyondthe positions in which they weresituated priorlarationto the Orderof the Court.
to 3 February 1996;
IN FAVOUR: President Bedjaoui; Vilce-President JudgeadhocMbayeappendeda declarationtothe Order
Schwebel;JudgesOda,,Guillaume, Ranjeva, Herczegh, of the Court.
F'leischhauer, Koronna, Ferrari Bravo, Higgins, Judge adhocAjibola appendeda separate opinionto the
P'arra-Aranguren;Judgead hoc Mbaye; Orderof the Court.
AGAINSTJ:udges Shahabuddeen,Weeramantry,Shi,
Vereshchetin;Judge aclhoc Ajibola;
(4) By sixteenvotes to one,
Continued on next page The Court was composedas follows: President Bedjaoui; (e"') thatconsequently,and on accountof thematerial
Vice-president Schwebel; Judges Oda, Guillaume, and non-material damage inflictedupon the Republic of
Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Cameroon, reparation in an amountto be determined by
Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Ferrari Bravo, the C:ourtis due fromthe Federal Republicof Nigeria to
Higgins, Parra-Aranguren; Judgesad hoc Mbaye, Ajibola; the Republic of Cameroon, which reserves theintroduc-
Registrar Valencia-Ospina. tion before the Court of [proceedings for] a precise
assessment ofthe damage caused bythe Federal Repub-
* lic of Nigeria.
* * the two States concerning theirdmaritime boundary, the
Republic of Cameroon requests the Courtto proceed to
Camerooninstitutedproceedingsagainst Nigeria in respect4, prolong the its maritime with the
Federal Republic of Nigeria up to the limit of the mari-
of a dispute describedas "relat[ing] essentiallyto the ques- time zones which international law places under their
tion of sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula". respective jurisdictions".
In the Application, Cameroon, basingthejurisdiction of
the Court on the declarations madeby the two States pur- On tiJune 1994,Cameroon filed an Additional Applica-
want to Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, states that tion "fbr the purpose of extending the subjectof the dis-
"Cameroon's title[to the BakassiPeninsula] is contested" pute,. to a further dispute, described in that Additional
by Nigeria; that "since the end of 1993,this contestation Application as "relat[ing] essentially to the question of
has taken the form of an aggressionby . ..Nigeria, whose sovereignty over a pan of the territory of Cameroonin the
troops are occupying several Cameroonian localities in the area of'LakeChad".
Bakassi Peninsula"; and that this "has resulted in great In that Additional Application, it is indicated that
prejudice to ...Cameroon, for whichthe Court is respect- "Cameroon's title to [that part ofthe territory] is contested
fully requested to order reparation". Cameroon further by ... Nigeria"; and that
states that thedelimitation [ofthe maritime boundarybe-
tween the two States]has remainedapartial one and [that], ,,that contestation initially took the form of a massive
introduction ofNigerian nationalsintothe disputed area,
been unable to do so9';and it accordingly requests theave followed by an introduction of Nigerian security forces,
Court, "in order to avoid further incidents between the effectedprior to the official statementof its claimby the
two countries, ... to determine the course ofthe maritime Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria quite
boundary between the twoStates beyond the line fixed in recently, for the first timev.
1975". In its Additional Application, Cameroon also requested
the Court "to specify definitively" the frontier betweenthe
At the close of its Application, Cameroon Presents the two States from Lake Chadto the sea, and asked it tojoin
following submissions: the two Applications and "to examine the wholein a single
"On the basis of the foregoing statement of facts and case".
lega'grounds, the of reserv- At the close of its Additional Application, Cameroon
ing for itself the right to complement, amendor modify
the present Application in the courseof the proceedings presented the submissions:
and to submitto the Court a request forthe indication of "On the basis of the foregoing statement of facts and
provisional measures should they proveto be necessary, legal grounds, and subject tothe reservations expressed
asks the Court to adjudge and declare: in paragraph 20 of itsApplication of 29 March 1994,the
(a) that sovereignty over the Peninsulaof Bakassi is Republic of Cameroon asks the Court to adjudge and
Cameroonian, by virtue of international law, and that declare:
that Peninsula is an integral part of the territory of
Cameroon; area of Lake Chad is Cameroonian, by virtue of interna-
tional law, and that that parcel is an integral part of the
and is violating the fundamentalprinciple of respect for territory of Cameroon;
frontiersinheritedfromcolonization(utipossidetisjuris);
(li) that the Federal Republic of Nigeriahasviolated
(c) that by using force against the Republic of and isviolating the fundamental principle of respect for
Cameroon, the Federal Republicof Nigeria has violated frontiersinherited fromcolonization (uripossiderisjuris),
and is violatingitsobligations under internationaltreaty and its recent legalcommitments concerningthe demar-
law and customary law; cation of frontiers in Lake Chad;
(d) that the FederalRepublicofNigeria,by militarily (c) that the Federal Republic of Nigeria,by occupy-
occupying the Cameroonian Peninsula of Bakassi, has ing, with the support of its security forces, parcels of
violated andis violatingthe obligationsincumbent upon Cameroonian territory in the area of LakeChad, has
it by virtue of treaty law and customary law; violated and is violating its obligations under treaty law
(e) that in viewofthese breachesof legal obligation, and customary law;
mentioned above, the Federal Republic of Nigeria has (4 that inviewofthese legalobligations,mentioned
theexpressdutyofputting anendto itsmilitary presence above, the Federal Republic of Nigeria has the express
in Cameroonian territory, and effecting an immediate duty of effecting an immediate and unconditional with-
and unconditional withdrawal of its troops from the drawal of its troops from Cameroonian territory in the
Cameroonian Peninsula of Bakassi; area of Lake Chad;
(e') that the internationally unlawfulacts referred to (a?) that the internationally unlawfulacts referred to
undei (a), (b), (c), (4 and (e) above involvethe respon- under (a), (b), (c) and (4 above involvethe responsibil-
sibility of the Federal Republicof Nigeria; ity of the Federal Republic of Nigeria;
86 (e') that consequently,and on accountof the material The Court begins by considering that the two Parties
and non-material damage inflicted upon the Republic of have each made a declaration recognizing the compulsory
Cameroon,reparation ina.namountto bedetenninedbythe jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with Article 36,
Court is due from the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the paragraph 2, of the Statute neither of which includes any
Republic of Cameroon, .whichreserves the introduction reservation and that those declarations constitute a prima
before the Courtof [proceedingsfor]aprecise assessment facie basis upon which theCourt'sjurisdiction in the pres-
of the damage causedby the Federal RepublicofNigeria; ent case mightbe founded.The Court further considersthat
(j) that inview of the:repeatedincursionsof Nigerian the consolidated Application of Cameroon does not appear
groups and armed forcesinto Cameroonian ~:erritory,all prima facie to be inadmissible in the light of the prelimi-
along the frontier between the two countries;,the conse- nary objections raised by Nigeria.
quent grave and repeated incidents, and the:vacillating The Court goes on to observe that the power conferred
and contradictory attitude of the Federal liepublic of uponitby Article41 ofthe Statuteofthe CourtandArticle 73
Nigeria in regard to the legal instruments defining the of the Rules of Court to indicate provisional measures has
frontier between the two countries and the exact course as its object to preservethe respective rights of the Parties,
of that frontier, the Republic of Cameroon respectfully pending a decision of the Court, and presupposes that
asksthe Courtto specifydefinitivelythe frontierbetween
Ca!meroonand the Federal Republic of Nigeria from irreparable prejudice shall not be caused to rights which
Lake Chad to the sea". are the subject of dispute in judicial proceedings; that it
The Court recalls that at a meeting which the President follows that the Court must be concerned to preserve by
of the Court held with the representatives of the Parties on such measures the rights which may subsequently be ad-
14 June 1994,the Agent of Nigeria stated that he had no judged by the Court to belong either to the Applicant or to
objection to the Additional Application being treated, in the Respondent; and that such measures are only justified
accordance with the wish exvressed bv Came:roon,as an if therers urgency.
amendment to the initial ~~;~lication,so that the'Court The Court finds that the mediation conducted by the
coulti deal with the whole in a single case; and that by an President of the Republic of Togo and the ensuing commu-
Order dated 16 June 1994 the Court indicated that it had niqut announcing the cessation of all hostilities published
no 01)jectionitself to such a procedure. on 17February 1996do not deprive the Court of the rights
and duties pertaining to it in the case brought before it. It
Iti'urtherreferstothe factthat CameroonfileditsMemorial is clear from the submissions of both Parties to the Court
on the merits and that Nigeria filed certain preliminary ob- that there were military incidents and that they caused suf-
jections to thejurisdictionof the Court and the admissibility fering and occasioned fatalities--of both military and ci-
of the claims of Cameroon. vilian personnel-while causing others to be wounded or
TheOrderthen recounts thaton 12February 1996the Agent unaccounted for, as well as causing major material dam-
of Cameroon, referring to the "grave incidents which have
takenplacebetweenthe ... forces [ofthe two Parties]in the age. The rights at issue in these proceedings are sovereign
BakassiPeninsulasince ...3 February1996",communicated rights which the Parties claim over territory, and these
to the Court a request for the indication of provisional rights also concernpersons; and armedactions have regret-
measuresbasedon Article 41of the Statuteandon Article 73 tably occurred on territory which is the subject of proceed-
of the Rules of Court. at the close of which Cameroon ings before the Court.
asked the Court to indicate the following mea.;<ures: Independentlyof the requests for the indicationof provi-
sional measures submittedby the Partiesto preserve specific
"1. the armed forces of the Parties shall withdraw to rights, the Court possesses by virtue of Article 41 of the
the position they were occupying before tlie Nigerian Statute the power to indicate provisional measures with a
anned attack of 3 February 1996; view to preventing the aggravation or extension of the dis-
2. the Parties shall abstain from all military activity pute whenever it considers that circumstances so require.
alongthe entireboundary until thejudgment oftheCourt
takes place; The Court finds that the events that have given rise to
3. the Parties shall abstain from any act or action the request, and more especially the killing of persons,
which might hamper the gathering of evidence in the have caused irreparable damageto the rights that the Parties
present case". may have over the Peninsula; that persons in the disputed
The Court then refers to a communication of 16 Febru- area and, as a consequence, the rights of the Parties within
ary 1996 by the Agent of Nigeria entitled "Cameroonian that area are exposed to serious risk of further irreparable
Government forces Nigerians to register and vote in mu- damage; and that armed actions within the territory in dis-
nicipal elections", which cc~ncludedinthe followingterms: pute couldjeopardize the existence of evidence relevant to
the present case. From the elements of information avail-
"The Nigerian Government hereby invites .theInterna- able to it, the Court takes the view that there is a risk that
tional Court of Justice to note this protest and call the events likely to aggravate or extend the dispute may occur
Government of Cameroon to order. again, thus rendering any settlement of that dispute more
... [Tlhe Government of Cameroon should be warned difficult.
to desist from further harassment of Nigeria11citizens in
the Bakassi Peninsula until the final determin.ationof the The Court here observes that, in the context of the pro-
case pending at the International Court of Justice." ceedings concerning the indication of provisional meas-
The Court finally recalls that hearings were held on 5,6 ures, it cannot make definitive findings of fact or of impu-
and ElMarch 1996. tability, and that the right of each Party to dispute the facts
alleged against it, to challenge the attribution to it of re-
sponsibility for those facts, and to submit arguments, if
appropriate, inrespectof the merits must remain unaffected
by the Court's decision. The Court then draws attention to the fact that the deci- military character, according to ajurisprudence already de-
sion given in the present proceedings in no way prejudges fined in the case concerning the Frontier Dispute(Burkina
the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with Faso/Republicof Mali). When ordering those provisional
the merits of the case, or any questions relating to the measures, the Court is not acting as an authority invested
admissibility of the Application or relating to the merits with any general police power but as the principaljudicial
themselves, and leaves unaffected the right of the Govern- organ participating in the objectives of the maintenance of
ments of Cameroon and Nigeria to submit arguments in international peace and security which come within the
respect of those questions. remit of the United Nations.
After mentioning letters of the President of the Security
Council, dated 29 February 1996, which call upon the Declarationof Judge Koroma
two Parties: In his declaration, Judge Koroma pointed outthat he had
"to respect the cease-fire they agreed to on 17 February voted.in favour of the Order on the clear understandingthat
in Kara, Togo, ... to refrain from further violence ... it does not prejudge the issues before the Court, but rather
[and] and totake necessary stepsto return their forcesto aims to preserve the respective rights of either Party.
the positions they occupied before the dispute was re-
ferred to the International Court [of Justice]", He was of the view that, on the basis of the material
and also the proposal of the Secretary-General of the before the Court,the possibility of a furthermilitary engage-
United Nations to dispatch a fact-finding mission into the ment between the armed forcesof both countries, resulting
Bakassi Peninsula, the Court indicates the provisional in irreparable damage including further loss of human life,
measures cited above. of itself provides the Court with sufficient reason to grant
the Order.
It is hoped that the Order will discourage either Party
Declaration ofJudge Oda from taking any measures which might cause irreparable
In his declaration, Judge Oda points out, first, that in his damage to the millions of each of the Parties' nationals
view the date given in the passage reading "the presence residing in the other's temtory, and will help reduce ten-
of any armed forces in the Bakassi Peninsula does not sion between the two States and restore the fraternal rela-
extend beyond the position in which they were situated tions which have alwaysexisted betweenthe two countries,
prior to 3 February 1996" should have been 29 March pending the decision of the Court.
1994,that is, the date on which Cameroon filed the Appli-
cation instituting proceedings in this case and the date Joint declaration of Judges WeeramantrS y,hiand
which seems to be indicated in the mediation proposed by Vereshchetin
- -
the President of Togo. .Judges Weeramantry, Shi and Vereshchetin voted with
Secondly, he signals his concern about the use of the the majority of the Court in regard to items 1, 2, 4 and 5
term "irreparable damage" in paragraph 42 of the Order in in the dispositif;but were unable to support the majority of
view of the fact that the damage the Court finds to have the Court in relation to item 3.
been caused may not concern the real subject of the case, The reason for their inability to support this clause was
while, in addition, the Court has not been able to form any that the Parties had given the Court two entirely different
clear and precise idea of events.
versions in regard to the incidents of 3 February 1996.
DeclarationofJudgeShahabuddeen These different versions involve entirely different posi-
tions in regard to the location of their respective armed
In his declaration, Judge Shahabuddeenaffirmedthat the forces on that date.
Court's Order should help to maintain friendly relations The Court Order, requiring the Parties to ensure that the
between two fraternal and neighbouring countries. He had presence of any armed forces in the Bakassi Peninsula
voted for four of the five elements of the dispositif;but did should not extend beyond the positions in which they were
not think that there was a satisfactoryjuridical basis forthe situated prior to 3 February 1996, in effect leaves it to each
remaining element. It was essential that a provisional Party to determine what that position was and to act upon
measure limiting the movement of troops should incorpo- that determination. These positions may well be contradic-
rate a clear physical benchmark with reference to which it tory, thus leaving open the possibility of confusion upon
could be determined whether the limitation was observed. the ground. The Order may thus be interpreted as contain-
In this case, the evidence did not permit the Court to ing an internal contradiction.
specify such a benchmark. This being so, the particular For these reasons, these Judges were unable to support
provisional measure could lead to new dispute, instead of item 3 of the dispositif:
serving the intended purpose of avoiding conflict.
DeclarationofJudge Mbaye
Declaration of JudgeRanjeva Havingstressed the "striking similarities" betweetnhe case
Judge Ranjeva, in his declaration appended tothe Order, concerning the Frontier Dispute(BurkinaFaso/Republic
points to the developmentof a new "given" in international of Mali), Provisional Measuresa ,nd the present proceed-
judicial relations, i.e., the appearance of a step in the pro- ings relating to the request forthe indication of provisional
cedure consisting of a request for the indication of provi- measures (case concerning the LandandMaritimeBound-
sional measures on account of the occurrence of an armed ary between Cameroonand Nigeria), Judge Mbaye, while
conflict grafted on to a legal dispute. In that hypothesis, accepting that cases are rarely identical, welcomed the fact
and when the circumstances of the case so require (expo- that the Court had consolidated the jurisprudence of the
sure of the rights of the Parties to a risk of irreparable dam- Chamber in the former of the above-mentioned cases, by
age, urgency ... ), the Court may indicate measures of a indicating that "both Parties should ensure that the pres-ence of any armedforces in the Bakassi Peninsuladoes not consonance withthejurisprudence ofthe Court. The Court
extend beyond the positions in which they we:resituated on similar matters likewise involving armed incidentshas
prior1:o3February 1996". Heconsiders thatthis provision, not in the recent past hesitatedto indicate such provisional
taken .togetherwiththe indicationinthe Orderthat the Parties measures, as can be seen in such cases as United Statesof
"shou.ldensure that no action of any kind ... is taken... America v. hricaragua, Frontier Dispute(BurkinaFaso/
which might aggravate or extend the dispute" or impede Republic ofMali)andtheBosniacase relatingto the Geno-
the collection of evidence, constitutes a set of indications cide Convention. The Order is in line with many of the
indispensable in the case of events of the sarne kind as Court's recent indications that bothparties should avoid
those forming the basis of tlie present request for the indi- any acts or actions that might aggravateor extend the dis-
cation of provisional measures. pute. The Court has the power and duty to so indicate.
Separate opinion of Judge Ajibola However, I regret to say that I am unable to vote with
the rest of the Membersof the Court on the remaining pro-
I voted along with the other Members of the Court with visional measures which the Court has indicated because
regardtothefirstofthe provisional measuresindicatedinthis they are unnecessary, non-legal and "counter-productive".
Order because I believethat such a measure,wh~:ch accords It is my belief that it is not the dutyof the Courtto indicate
with the Statuteand Rulesof Court (Article41 of'theStatute such measures when it has referredto the circumstances in
of the Court and Article 7:s (2) of the Rules), is also in the recital which, in my view, is enough.
Summary of the Order of 15 March 1996