Summaries of Judgments, AdviNot an official document of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY BETWEIENCAMEROON AND NIGERIA
(CAMEROON v. NIGERIA) (Permission to intervene by Equatorial Guinea)
Order of 21 October 1999
By its Order the Court authorized Equatorial Guineato Having regard to the Counter-Memorial filed by
intervene in the case concerning the Land and Maritime Nigeria withinthe time limitthus extended,
Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Elaving regard to the Order of 30 June 1999,
Nigeria) "to the extent, in the manner and for the purposes whereby the Court decided inter alia that Cameroon
set outin its Applicationforpermissionto intervene". should submit a Reply and Nigeria should submit a
The Courttook the decisionunanimously. Rejoinder, and fixed 4 April 2000 and 4 January 2001
The 'Court was composed as follows: President respectively as the time limits for the filing of those
Schwebel; .Vice-President Weerainantry; Judges Oda, pleaclings,
Bedjaoui, Guillauine, Ranjeva,Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer, hlakes 111e.followingrder:
Koroma, Vereshchetin, Higgins, Parra-Aranguren, 1. Whereas,by a letter dated 27 June 1999,received
Kooijmans,Rezek; Judgesad hoc Mbaye,Ajibola;Registrar
in the Registry on 30 June 1999,the Prime Minister of
Valencia-Ospina. the :Republic of Equatorial Guinea submitted to the
Court an 'Application ...to intervene in the case
concerning tlie Land and Mrn-itimeBozmduiy betweeit
CaiiteroonandNigeria (Cameroonv. Nigeria) pursuant
to Article62 of the Statuteof the Courtand Article 81of
The completetext of the Order is as follows: the lhles of the Court'; and whereas that same letter
"The InternationalCourtof Justice,
Composedas above, appointed H.E. Mr. Ricardo Mangue Obama N'Fube,
Ministerof State, Secretary-Generalof the Presidencyof
Afterdeliberation, the Government,as Agent;
Havingregard to Articles 48 and 62 of the Statute of 2. Whereas, in the introductioii to its Application,
the Court and to Articles 81, 83, 84 and 85 of the Rules Equatorial Guinea refers to the eighth preliminary
of Court, objection raised by Nigeria in the case concerning the
Having regard to the Application filed by the Land and Murdti~neBozmdaqj between Cameroon r~nd
Republicof Cameroon inthe Registryof the Courton 29 Nigeria (C(ziizeroonv. Nigeria) and quotes as follows
March 1994 instituting proceedings against the Federal paragraph 116 of the Judgment handed down by the
Republic of Nigeria in respect of a dispute described as Court on 11 June 1998 on the objections of Nigeria
'relat[ing]essentiallyto the questionof sovereigntyover (I.C.J. Repoi-ts1998,p. 324):
the Bakassi Peninsula', in which the Court was also 'The Court notesthat the geographicallocationof
requested 'to determine the course of the maritime
the territories of the other States bordering the Gulf
boundary between the two States beyond the line fixed of Guinea, and in particular Equatorial Guinea and
in1975', Sao Tome and Principe, demonstrates that it is
Having regard to the Additional Application evident that the prolongation of the maritime
submittedby Cameroonon 6 June 1994, boundary betweenthe Parties ...will eventuallyrun
into maritime zones where the rights and interests of
Having regard to the Order of 16 June 1994, Cameroon and Nigeria will overlap those of third
whereby the Court indicated that it had no objection to
the Additional Application being treated as an States. It thus appears that rights and interests of
amendment to the initial Application and fixed the time third States will become involved if tlie Court
limits for the filing of the Memorial of Cameroon and accedes to Cameroon's request ...The Court cannot
the Counter-Memorial ofNigeria,respectively, therefore, in the present case, give a decision on the
eighth preliminary objection as a preliminary matter.
Having regard to the Memorial filed by Cameroon It1order to determine where a prolonged maritime
and the preliminary objections submitted by Nigeria boundary ...would run, where and to what extent it
withinthe time limitsthus fixed,
Having regard to the Judgment of 11 June 1998, would meet possible claims of other States, and how
whereby the Court ruled on the preliminary objections its judgment would affectthe rights and interests of
raised by Nigeria, these States, the Court would of necessity have to
deal with the merits of Cameroon's request. At the
Having regard to the Order of 30 June 1998, same time, the Court cannot rule out the possibility
whereby the Court fixed a new time limit for the filing that the inipact of the judgment required by
of the Counter-Memorialof Nigeria, and to the Order of Cameroon on the rights and interests of third States
3 March 1999,whereby itextendedthat time limit, could be such that the Court would be prevented from rendering it in the absence of these States, and Court, sets out 'the precise object of the intervention' as
that consequently Nigeria's eighth preliminary follows:
objection would have to be upheld at least in part. 'First, generally, to protect the legal rights of the
Whetherslrck third States ~vo~rlcdlzooseto e-xercise Republic of EquatorialGuinea in the Gulf of Guinea
their rights to intervene it) these proceedings
by all legal niealis available, and in this regard,
plrcruant to the Statute reittcrins to be seen. therefore, to make use of the procedure established
(Emphasisadded)'; by Article 62 of the Statuteof the Court.
andwhereasEquatorialGuineaadds: Second, to inform the Court of the nature of the
'Itis in this contextthat Equatorial Guineacomes legal rights and interests of Equatorial Guinea that
could be affected by the Court's decisionin the light
before the Court. Equatorial Guinea wishes to be
very clear that it has no intention of intervening in of the inaritime boundary claims advanced by the
those aspects of t:heproceedings that relate to the Partiesto the casebeforethe Court';
land boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, 5. Whereas, in its Application, Equatorial Guinea,
including determination of sovereignty over the referring to Article 81, paragraph 2 (c) of tlie Rules of
Bakassi Peninsula. It is only the inaritime boundary Court, expresses the following opinion conceming the
aspects of the case before the Court with which
Equatorial Guinea is concerned; and, as is explained 'basis of jurisdiction which is claimed to exist as
between [it]and the partiesto the case':
more fully below, it is the purpose of Equatorial 'The Republic of Equatorial Guinea does not
Guinea's intervention to inform the Court of seek to be a party to the casebefore the Court. There
Equatorial Guinea's legal rights and interests sothat is no basis for jurisdiction under the Statute and
these may remain unaffected as the Court proceeds Rules of tlie Court which arises out of the pre-
to address the question of the maritime boundary
between Camerooii and Nigeria, the parties to the existing understandings between Equatorial Guinea,
case before it. Equatorial Guinea does not seek to Nigeria and Cameroon. Equatorial Guinea has not
made a declaration underArticle 36.2 of tlie Statute
becomea party to the case.'; of the Court nor is there an agreement in force
3. Whereas, in its Application, Equa;:orialGuinea, among the three States which confersjurisdiction on
:referringto Article 81, paragraph 2 (a), o:Fthe Rules of the Court in this regard.It would be open, of course,
court sets out inter alia in these terms 'tht:interest of a to the three countries affirn~ativelyto request the
legal nature which [it] considersmay be aFfectedby the Court not only to determine the Cameroon-Nigeria
decisionin that case':
maritime boundary but also to determine Equatorial
'in accordance with its national law, Equatorial Guinea's maritime boundaries with these two States.
Guinea claims the sovereign rights and jurisdiction However, Equatorial Guinea has made no such
which pertain to it under international law up to the request and wishes to continue to seek to determine
median line between Equatorial Guinea and Nigeria its maritime boundaries with its neighbours through
on the one hand, and betweenEquatorialGuinea and negotiations.
Cameroon on the other hand. It is these legal rights
Accordingly, Equatorial Guinea's request to
and interests which Equatorial Guinea seeks to intervene is based solely upon Article 62 of the
protect...Equatorial Guinea ..wishes to emphasize Statuteof the Court';
that it does not seek the Court's determinationof its 6. Whereas, in ending its Application, Equatorial
boundaries with Cameroon or Nigeria. Equatorial Guineaformulatesthe followingconclusion:
Guinea does wish to protect its legal rights and
interests, however, and that requires that any 'On the basis of the foregoing obsenlations,
Cameroon-Nigeria maritime boundary that may be Equatorial Guinea respectfully requests permission
determined by the Court should not cross over the to intervene in the present proceedings between
Cameroon and Nigeria for the object and purpose
median line with Equatorial Guinea. If the Court specified herein, and to participate in those
were to determine a Cameroon-Nige:riamaritime proceedings in accordance with Article 85 of the
boundary that extended into Equatorial Guinea Rules of the Court';
waters, as defined by the median line, Equatorial
Guinea's rightsanclinterests would be prejudiced ... 7. Whereas, in accordance with Article 83,
It is the purpose of Equatorial Guinea to present and paragraph 1,of the Rulesof Court,the Deputy-Registrar,
to demonstrate its legal rights and interests to the by letters dated 30 June 1999, transmitted certified
copies of the Application for permission to interveneto
Court and, as appropriate,to state its vit:wsas to how the Government of Camerooii and the Government of
the maritime boundary claims of Cameroon or Nigeria, which were informed that the Court had fixed
Nigeria may or may not affect the legal rights and
interestsof EquatorialGuinea'; 16 August 1999 as the time limit for the submission of
4. Whereas, in its Application, Equatorial Guinea, their written observations on that Application; and
referring to Article 81, paragraph2 (b) of the Rules of whereas, in accordance with paragraph 2 of that same
provision, the Deputy-Registrar, on 30 June 1999, alsotransmitted a copy of the Application to the Secretary- Guinea in deciding on the latter's entitlement to
Generalof the UnitedNations; intervene', it being for the Court itself determine the
8. Whereas Cameroon and Nigeria each submitted legal effects of such an intervention; and whereas
written observationswithin the time limitthus fixed;and EquatorialGuinea, in a further communication,dated 11
whereas the Registry transmittedto each Party a copy of October 1999, observed that 'there [could] be no
the other's observations, as well as copies of the question of the Court's eventual Judgment determining
the maritime boundaries of Equatorial Guinea, whether
observationsof both Partiesto EquatorialGuinea; wit11Cameroon or Nigeria' and that it '[sought] the
9. Whereas, in its written observations, Cameroon
informsthe Court that it 'has noobjectionin principleto status of a non-party intervener';
[the intervention of Equatorial Guinea], limited to the 12.Whereas neither of the Parties objects to the
maritime boundary, which could allow the Court to be Application by Equatorial Guinea for permissioil to
better informed on the general background to the case intervenebeing granted;
and to'determinemore completelythe dispute submitted 13.Whereas, in the opinion of the Court, Equatorial
to itY;whereas it adds, referring to the Judgmenthanded Guinea has sufficiently establishedthat it has an interest
down by the Court on 11 June 1998 (Preliminary of a legal nature which could be affected by any
Objections), that 'the Court envisaged the possibility judgment which the Court might hand down for the
that third States might intervene, among which was purpose of determining the maritime boundary between
clearly the Republic of EquatorialGuinea'; and whereas Cameroonand Nigeria;
it considers that 'the intervention of Equatorial Guinea
14.Whereas, moreover, as a Chamber of the Court
should allow the Court to decide on a delimitationof the has alreadyhad occasionto observe,
boundary which willbe stable and final in relation to the '[s]ofar as the object of [a State's] interventionis 'to
States involved'; and whereas, in those same written inform the Court of the nature of the legal rights [of
observations,Cameroonmoreover that State] which are in issue in the dispute', it
'entirely reserves its position in relation to the cannot be said that this object is not a proper one: it
validity and possible consequences of the unilateral
delimitationundertakenby EquatorialGuinea,whose seems indeed to accord with the function of
intervention' (Land, Island and Mariiin~eFrontier
claims, based solely on the principle of equidistance, Dispute (El Salvdor/Hondlrrrrs), Application by
do not take into account the special geographical Nicarag~ra for permission to intervene,Judgineiztof
featuresof the area in dispute'; 13 Septei~lbei.1990, I.C.J. Reports 1990, p. 130,
10.Whereas, in its written observations, Nigeria para. 90);
notes that 'Equatorial Guinea doesnot seek to intervene
15.Whereas in addition, as the same Chamber
as a party in the proceedings'; and whereas it adds the pointed out,
following: '[il...follows ..from the juridical nature and from
'Whetheror not Equatorial Guinea's Application the purposes of intervention that the existence of a
is accepted, it will in Nigeria's view make no valid link of jurisdiction between the would-be
difference to the legal position of Nigeria to the intervenerand theparties is not a requirementfor the
present proceedings, or to the jurisdiction of the
success of the application. On the contrary, the
Court. On that basis, Nigeria leaves it to the Court to procedure of intervention is to ensure that a State
judge whether and to what extent it is appropriate or with possibly affected interests may be peimitted to
useful to grant EquatorialGuinea's Application'; intervene even though there is nojurisdictional link
11.Whereas comn~unications were subsequently and it therefore cannotbecome a party' (ibid.,p. 135,
addressed to the Registry by the Parties and by para. 100);
EquatorialGuinea, and whereas the Registrytransmitted
16.Whereas, in view of the positioil of the Parties
copies of each of those communicationsto the other two and the conclusions which the Court itself has reached,
States; whereas Equatorial Guinea, by a letter dated 3 the Court considers that there is nothing to prevent the
September 1999, noted that neither Cameroon nor Application by Equatorial Guinea for permission to
Nigeria 'ha[d]objectedinprincipleto the interventionof intervenefrombeing granted;
EquatorialGuinea'; whereasNigeria,by a letterdated 13 17.Whereas copies of the pleadings and docun~ents
September 1999, referred to certain passages in the
written observations of Cameroon and maintained that annexed, as filed in the case at present, have already
Cameroon 'misrepresent[ed]the position' of Equatorial been communicated to Equatorial Guinea pursuant to
Article 53, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court; and
Guinea, in that '[als Nigeria understands the position, whereas a copy of the Reply of Cameroon and of the
Equatorial Guinea did not seek to intervene as a party, Reioinder of Nigeria, which the Court has directed them
but as a third party'; whereas Cameroon, by a letter to submitpursuantto its Order of 30June 1999,will also
dated 11 October 1999, indicated that 'it [did] not be so communicated; whereas, in accordance with the
dispute the right of Equatorial Guinea to intervene as a
non-party intervener' and expressed the view that 'it provisions of Article 85 of the Rules of Court, it is
necessaryto fix time limits for the filing,respectively,of
[was] not for Nigeria to take the place of Equatorial a 'written statement' by Equatorial Guinea and of 'written observations'by Cameroon and by Nigeria on boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria". Equatorial
that statement; and whereas those time limits must 'so Guinea made it clear that it did not seek to intervene in
far as possible, coinciclewith those already fixed for the those aspects of the proceedings that relate to the land
pleadings in the case", in the present instance by the boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria, nor to become a
above-mentionedOrder of 30June 1999; party to the case. It further stated that, although it would be
18.For thesereasons, open to the three countries to request the Court not only to
The Court, determine the ~amerooni~i~eria maritime boundary but
Unanimously, also to determine Equatorial Guinea's maritime boundary
with these two States,Equatorial Guinea had made no such
1. Decides that the Republicof EquatclrialGuinea is request and wished to continue to seek to determine its
permittedto intervenein the case, pursuan to Article 62 maritimeboundary with itsneighboursby negotiation.
of the Statute, to the extent, in the manner and for the
purposes set out in its Application for permission to In supportof its Application,EquatorialGuinea stressed
intervene; that one of the claims presented by Cameroon in its
Memorial of 16 March 1995 "ignored the legal rights of
2. Fixes the follolwingtiine limits for the filing of Equatorial Guinea in the most flagrant way" because it
the written statement and the written observations disregarded the median line (the line dividing maritime
referred to in Article 85, paragraph 1, of' the Rules of zones between two States of which every point is
,Coui?:
4 April 2001 foi: the written state:ment of the equidistantfrom the coasts of each of those States)and that,
moreover, "in the bilateral diplomacy between Cameroon
Republicof EquatorialGuinea; and Equatorial Guinea, Cameroon ...never once hinted that
4 July 2001 for the written observations of the it did not accept the median line as the maritime boundary
Republic of Cameroon and of the Federal Republic between itself and Equatorial Guinea". Observing that "the
0.FNigeria; general maritime area where the interests of Equatorial
Guinea, Nigeria and Camerooncome together is an area of
3. Reseives the subsequent procedure for further active oil and gas exploration and exploitation", Equatorial
.decision."
Guinea maintained that "any judgment extending the
boundary between Cameroonand Nigeria acrossthe median
line with Equatorial Guinea [would] be relied upon by
concessionaires who would likely ignore Equatorial
Guinea's protests and proceed to explore and exploit
resources to the legal and economic detriment" of that
'On30 June 1999Equatorial Guinea filed an Application
for permission to intervene in the above-mentionedcase. It country.
Under Article 83 of the Rules of Court, Equatorial
stated that the purpose o:Fits intervention was "to protect Guinea's Application was immediately communicated to
[its] legal rights in thelf of Guinea by all legal means" Cameroonand Nigeria, and the Court fixed 16August 1999
and "to inform the Court of EquatorialGuinea's legal rights as the time limit for the filing of written observations by
and interests so that these inay reinain unaffected as the those States.
Co~ut proceeds to address the. question of the maritime
Summary of the Order of 21 October 1999