Summaries of Judgments, AdNot an official documentrs of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
REQUEST FOR.INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF 11 JUNE 1998 IN
THE CASE COIYCERNING TI3E LAND ,ANDMARITIME BOUNDARY BETWEEN
CAMEROON AND NIGERIA (CAMEROlON V.NIGERIA), PRELIMINARY
OBJECTIONS (NIGERIA v. CAMEROON)
Judgment of 25; March 1999
In its Judgment,the Coutl:by thirteenvotes againstthree Declures inadmissible the request for interpretation
declared inadmissibleNigeria's request for interpretationofof the Judgment of11June 1998 in the case concerning
the Judgment delivered by the Court1oI June:I99in the the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon
case concerning the Landn,dMaritime Boundaiy between and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliniinary
Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections,presentedby Nigeriaon28October 1998;
Object-ions. IN FAVOUR: President Schwebel; Judges Oda,
Bedjaoui, Guillaume, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi,
This was the firstime that the Court had been called
upon to rule on a request for .interpretationofat on Fleischhauer, Vereslichetin. Higgins,Parra-Aranguren.
preliminaryobjections. Kooijmans;Judge adhoc Mbaye;
In its Judgment, the Court further rejected ur~animously AGAINST: Vice-President Weeraniantry; Judge
Canieroon's request that Nigeria bear theadditional costs Koroma;Judgead hocAjibola.
causedto Cameroonby the request forinterpretation. (2)Unanimously,
The Court was composed as follows: President Rejects Canieroon's request that Nigeria bear the
Schwe'bel; Vice-President Weeramantry; Jud.ges Oda, additional costs caused to Cameroon by the above-
Bedjaoui, Guillaume,Ranjeva,Herczegh,Shi, Fleischhauer, mentioned requestfor interpretation."
Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren,
Kooijnians; Judges ad hoc Mbaye, Ajibola; Registrar
Valencia-Ospina.
* Vice-PresidentWeeramantry,Judge Koroma, and Judge
* * ad hoc Ajibola appended dissenti~ig opinions to the
Judgmentof theCourt.
Tht:full text of theoperativeparagraph ofthe Judgment:
reads as follows: *
* *
"19. For these reasons.
THE COURT,
(I) by thirteenvoteslthree,
Continued on next pageHistory qf tftlpi.oceecliilgsailti .subini.ssioitsof'tlie To dcclare the request by the Federal Republic of
Parties Nigeria inadmissible;to adjudge and declare that there is
(paras. 1-7) no reason to interpretthe Judgmentof 11June 1998;
The Court begins by recalling that, on 28 October 1998, - AItei.izative!y:
To adjudge and declare that the Republic of
Nigeria instituted proceedings whereby, referring to Article Cameroon is entitled to rely on all facts, irrespcctive of
98 of tlie Rules of Court, it requested tlie Court to interpret
the Judgiile~itdelivered by the Court on 11June 1998 in tlie their date, tliat go to establish the continuing violation by
case conceiniiig the Lnnd a~dMnritime Bolmda~ybetween Nigeria of its internationalobligations;that the Republic
Cai~lerooilmildNigericr(Cuinerooi~v. Nigeria) (Prelinziircriy ol Ca~neroonmay also rely on such facts to enable an
Objectioirs). Nigeria's request was comniunicated to assessmentto be made of the damage it has suffered and
Cameroon, which filed written observations on the request the adequatereparationthat isdue to it."
within tlie ti~ile li~ilitfixed therefor. In the light of tlie
dossier thus'subinitted to it, the Court, considering tliat it The #Courtbjurisdictio~i overNigeria b i.eqnest,foi-
had sufficient i~iformationon the positions of the Parties, iitterpretation
did not deein it necessary to invitethem "to furnish further (paras. 8-11)
written or oral explanations", as Article 98, paragraph 4, of
the Rules allows it to do. The Court first addresses the question of itsjurisdiction
over the request for interpretation submitted by Nigeria.
Nigeria chose Mr. Bola Ajibola and Cameroon Mr. KCba Nigeria states that, in the case -concerning the Lalzclnnd
Mbayeto sit asjudges ad hoc in the case. Maritit~re Borritdnry betweeir. Cni11eroor.rcrrzd Nigeria
The Parties presentedthe followingsubmissions: (Ca~iierooizv. Nigeriu), Cameroon alleged that Nigeria bore
On beha!fqf'Nigeria: international responsibility "for certain incidents said to
in the Application: have occurred at various places at Bakassi and Lake Chad
"On the basis of the foregoing considerations, and along the length of the frontier between those two
Nigeria requests the Court to adjudge and declare that regions". Nigeria contends that the Court's Judgment of 11
June 1998 does not specify "which of these allegcd
tlie Court's Judgment of 11 June 1998 is to be incidentsare to be considered further as part of the merits of
interpreted as meaningthat: the case". Thus Nigeria maintains tliat the Judgment "is
so far as concerns the international responsibility which
Nigeria issaid to bear forcertain alleged incidents: unclear [as to] whether Cameroon was entitled at various
timer;,after the submission of its Amended Application, to
(a) tlie dispute before the Court does not includeany bring before the Court new incidents". Nigeria further
alleged incidents other than (at most) those specified in emphasizes "the inadmissibility of treating as part of the
Cameroon's Application of 29 March 1994 and dispute brought before the Court by the Applications of
Additional Application of 6 June 1994; March and June 1994 alleged incidents occurring
(b) Cameroon's freedom to present additional facts
subsequently to June 1994". The Judgment of 11June 1998
and legal considerations relates (at most) only to those was accordinglyto be interpreted as meaning "tliat so far as
specified in Canieroon's Application of 29 March 1994 concerns the international responsibility [of] Nigeria...the
and AdditionalApplicationof 6 June 1994;and dispute before the Court does not include any alleged
(c) the question whether facts alleged by Cameroon incidents other than (at most) those specified in [the]
are established or not relates (at most) only to those Application ...andAdditional Application".
specified in Cameroon's Application of 29 March 1994
Cameroon, for its part, recalls in its written observatio~is
and AdditionalApplicationof 6 June 1994." that, in its Judgment of 11 June 1998, the Court rejected
011helralfof Cai?teroon: seven of Nigeria's preliminary objectionsand stated that tlie
in tlie writtenobservations: eighth objection was not of an exclusively preliminary
character; the Court further recognized that it had
"On thesegrounds, jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute and found that
Having regard to the Request for Interpretation
submitted by the Federal Republic of Nigeria dated 21 the Application of Cameroon of 29 Marcli 1994, as
October 1998, the Republic of Cameroon makes the amended by the Additional Applicationof 6 June 1994,was
followingsubmissions: admissible. Cameroon declares that the Parties "do not have
to 'apply' such a judgment; they only have to take note of
1. The Republic of Ca~ileroonleaves it to the Court it". While leaving the question to the appreciation of the
to decide whether it hasjurisdiction to rule on a request Court, it states that "there are very serious doubts about the
jbr interpretation of a decision handed down following possibility of bringing a request for interpretation of a
incidental proceedings and, in particular, with regard to
ajudgment concerning tlie preliminay objections raised judgment concerningpreliminary objections".
The Court observes tliat Article 60 of the Statute
by the defendingParty; provides: "The judgnient is final and without appeal. In the
2. The Republicof Cameroon requeststhe Court: event of dispute as to the meaning or scope of thejudgment,
the Court sl~allconstrue it upon the request of ally party."
By virtue of the secondsentenceof Article 60, tlieCourt hasjurisdiction to entertain rec~iiestsfor interpretation of any frontierareas or after the date of the Additional Application.
judgment rendered by it. This provision makes no To these sub~nissions.Nigeria raised its sixthobjection to
distinction as to the type ofudgment conceined. It ibllows, adn~issibility.It consideredthat Camcroonmust "essentially
therefore, that ajudgment on preliminary objec~:ionsj,ust as confinc itself to the facts ..presented in its Application";
well as a judgment on the merits. can be the object of a and concluded that any subsequent attempt to enlarge the
request for interpretation.However,"the second.sentenceof scope of the case was inadmissible and that "additions"
Article 60 was inserted inorder, if necessary, to enable the presentedsubsequentlywith a viewto establishingNigeria's
Courl:to make quite clear the points which had been settled responsibilitymustbe disregarded.
with binding force in ajudgment, ..a request which has not The Court points out that by its Judgment of II June
thatobject doesnot come within theternls of this provision" 1998, it rejected Nigeria's sixth preliminary objection,and
(Ii~terpretatiorrof Judgmeirts Nos. 7 crirtl8 (Fuctoi:~ at explained that"[t]he decision on Nigeria's sixthpreliminary
Cl~or;zb~v J)l,rdgineirtNo. 11, 1927,P.C.I.J., SerresA,No.13,
objection hinges upon the question of whether the
p. 11). In consequence any request for interpr1:tationmust requiremcntswhich an applicationmust meet and which are
relate to the operative part of the judgment and cannot set out in Article38, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court are
concern the reasons for thejudgment except insofar as thcse met", adding that the term "succinct" used in Article 38,
are inseparablefromthe ope:rativepart. paragraph 2, of the Rules does not mean "conlplcte" and
The Court then recalls that in the case coi~cemiugthe does not preclude lateradditionsto the statenlentof the facts
Land ar~d Mnriti~ne Bollxldaiy betweeil Ca~~~erooim ~~d and grounds on which the claim is based. The Court
Nigeria, Nigeria had put forward a sixth preliminary reiterates that the question of the conditions for the
objection "to the effect that there is no basisfix a judicial admissibilityof an applicationat the time of its introduction,
determination that Nigeria bearsinternationalresponsibility and the question of the admissibility of the presentation of
for alleged frontier incursions"; and that in tlie operative additional facts and legal grounds, are two different things.
part of itsudgment of 11June 1998,the Court [rlejects the In its Judgmentof 11June 1998,the Court indicated that the
sixth preliminary objection. The reasons for this are set out limit of the freedom to present additional facts and legal
in paragraphs 98 to 101 .of the Judgment. These deal in considerationsis that there must be no transl'orinationof the
detail with Cameroon's rights as regards the prc:sentationof dispute brought before the Court by the application into
"facts and legal considerat:ions"that it might wish to put another dispute which is different in character. With regard
fonva.rd in support of its submissions seeking a ruling to Nigeria's sixthpreliminary objection, the Judg~nentof 11
against Nigeria. These reasons are inseparable from the June 1998 has concludedthat "[i]n this case. Cameroonhas
operativepart of theJudgment and in this regard the request not so transfonned the dispute" and that Ca~neroon's
therefore meets the conditions laid down by A.rticle60 of Applicationmet the requirementsof Article 38 of the Rulcs
the Statute in order for the Court to have jurisdiction to (ibid., p. 319, para. 100). Thus, the Court made 110
entertaina request for interpretationof ajudgment. distinction between "incidents" and "facts"; it found that
additionalincidentsconstituteadditionalfacts, and that their
The udinissibilit~~of Nigerja S re-eqzlest introduction in proceedings before the Court isgoverned by
the samerules. In this respect there is no need forthe Court
(paras. 12-16) to stress that it has and will strictly applythe principlc of
The Court then examines the admissibility ,afNigeria's
request. It observes that the question of the adi~iissibilityof audi alteram purteilr. It follows froin the foregoing that the
Court has already clearly dealt with and rejected, in its
requests for interpretation of the Court's judgments needs Judglllentof I IJune 1998, the firsof the thrce sublnissions
particular attention because of the need to avoid impairing [submission (N)] presented by Nigeria at the end of its
the finality, and delaying the implementation, of these requestfor interpretation.
judgments. It is not without reason that Article 60 of the The Court would therefore be unable to eatertain this
Statute lays down, in the first place, that jutlgments are
"final and without appeal". The language and structure of firstsubn~issionwithout calling into question the effect of
Article 60 reflect the pri-macyof the principle of res the Judgment concerned as res judicatrr. The two other
submissions, [(b) and (c)] endeavour to reniovc from the
jzrdicata. Thatprinciplemustbe maintained. Court's considerationelementsoflaw and fact which it has,
The Court then recalls that in the case concerning the in its Judgment of 1I June 1998, already authorized
Lmrd and McrritinzeBo~~i~daiy betweeit Cailreroo~rand Cameroon to present, or which Cameroon has not yet put
Nigeria, Cameroon, in its Application as anlended by its
Additional Application, con~plainedin 1994 "of grave and forward. In either case, the Court would be imable to
repeated incursions of Nigerian groups and anned forces entertain these submissions. It follows from thc foregoing
thatNigeria's requestfor inte~pretationis inadmissible.
into Cameroonianterritory a.llalongthe frontier between the
two countries".It further recluestedthe Court to adjudgethat
the "internationally unlawful acts" allegedto have occurred
in the Bakassi and Lake Chad regions involve the The Court, in view of the coi~clusioilsreached abovc,
responsibility of Nigeria. Cameroon developed these finds that there is noneed for it to exainiilewhcther thcre is,
subnlissions in its Memorial of 1995and its observationsof betweentheParties, a "dispute as to the lneailiilgor scopeof
1996, n~entioningsome incidents having occur:ed in otherthe judgment" of 11 June 1998,as contemplated by Article In his view, the real purpose of an interpretation is for
60 of the Statute. the Court to give precision and clrrzj?catioilof the meaning
and scope of tlie Judgiiient in question and when the Court
Cost of theproceedings stated that it had not distinguished between "incidents" and
(para. 18) "facts" in itsJudg~nentof 11June 1998 and had found that
"additioilulincidents" constituted "arlrlitioi~aflacts", there
With regard to Cameroon's request that Nigeria be was room forclarification.
charged with the additional costs caused to Cameroon by
Nigeria's request, the Court sees no reason to depart in the Jutlge Koroma also stated that tlie request should have
present case from the general rule set forth in Article 64 of been declared admissible, as the Applicant had e.~tahlislted
its interests, both in law and in fact, which were worthy of
the Statute, which confirms the "basic principle regarding legal protectioii and would ensure that the other Party
tlie question of costs in contentious proceedings before observed tlie obligations imposed by the Statute and Rules
international tribunals, to the effect that each party shall of Court.
bear its own" (Applicatioizfor Review ofJz~dgeiitei~Nto. 158
of the United Natioizs Adinii~istrativeTribunal, Advisoly
Opinion,I.C.J.Reports 1973,p. 212. para. 98). Dissentiilg opii~ionof Jtrdge Ajibola
Jutlge Ajibola, in his dissenting opinion, first explained
Dissenting opinion of Uce-President Weeintnantiy why he is of the opinioii that the Coust, in view of the
clearly contentious nature of Nigeria's Application, should
Vice-President Weeramantry expressed agreement with have a.llowedfor a second round of pleadings.
the Court that the Application of Nigeria met the conditions
laid down in Article 60 of the Statute giving the Court He:then stated that he agreed with the Court's Judgment
jurisdiction to entertain Nigeria's request for interpretation insofar as the questions of jurisdiction and of costs were
of the Court's Judgment of 11 June 1998. However, he concerned; but that hewas of the view that the Court should
stated that he disagreed with the Court's conclusion that have consideredthe NigerianApplicationadmissible.
The Court should have interpreted its Judgment of 11
Nigeria's request for interpretationwas inadmissible. June 1998 because in the two paragraphs that Nigeria is
He points out that there is a distinction between
subsequentfacts and subsequentincidents. Subsequentfacts requesting the Court to interpret, the Court has decided on
relating to an incidentalreadypleaded would be'admissible, the issue of the procedural right of Cameroon to:
but not subsequent facts in the sense of subsequent (a) develop what is "said" in its "Application" and
(b)present "additional facts". But quite clearly the Court
incidents. Nigeria was therefore elititled to seek a has not determined tlie issue of additionul incidentsor new
clarificationof this aspect. incidents.
The critical date for determining what incidents may be
pleaded is the date of filing of the application. If later The Court should therefore, in Judge Ajibola's view,
incidents could be brought in, this would pose major have clarified the category of incidents alleged by
obstaclesto the proper presentation and conductofthe case. Cameroon to be relevant: are they pre-1994 incidents only,
or pre- and post-1994 incidents? The issue of what
additional facts are required from Cameroonshould equally
Dissenting opii~ionof Jtrdge Koroiiza have been spelt out very clearly by the Court: are these
In his dissenting opinion, Judge Koronla regretted that additional facts in relation to the incidents before the
he could not support the Judgment, as in his view the Court Applications of Cameroon in 1994 or do they include
should have acceded to the request and found it admissible additional facts concerning incidents subsequentto the year
since it met all the criteria and conditions necessary for the 1994?If the Court agrees that Cameroon may file additional
interpretationof ajudgment. .facts, is the Court also saying that Cameroon can file
particillarsof additioi~aliizcideiztsafter 1994?
He maintained that the Court's Judgment of 11 June
1998had laid itself open to possible misconstruction by the Judge Ajibola finally pointed out that, in his view, the
Parties leadingto confusion,which, if not clarified,couldbe word "dispute" in Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Court's
at variance with the provisions of the Statute aiid Rules of Statuterelates only to pre-existing disputes or incidents that
Court. occurred before the filing of an application, but definitely
not to a futuredispute.
Summary of the Judgment of 25 March 1999