INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CASE CONCERNING LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY
(CAMEROON V.NIGERIA)
Observations ofthe Republic of Cameroon on the responses by the Federal Republic of
Nigeria to the questions put to it byMembers of the Court
JUDGE FLEISCHHAUER'S QUESTIONS
1.Judge Fleischhauer put the following questions to the two Parties:
"How was the land boundary in those specified areas in which Nigeria contests
the correctness of the delimitation in practice handled both before and after
independence?
In particular, where has the courseof the boundary in those areas been treated
as running?"
Cameroon submitted its written responses to these questions to the Registry of the Court on
11 March 2002.
1.General comments
2. First, Cameroon notes that Nigeria is seizing what it believes to be the occasion provided
by the questions put by Judge Fleischhauer in order to elaborate further its argument conceming the
boundary delimitation, which it believes defective or inappropriate, made by the relevant
instruments. The Republic of Cameroon considers it neither correct nor in keeping with the letter
and spirit of Article 61 of the Rules of Court to proceed in this way and at this stage to reopen the
oral argument on points which have been debated at length. It is therefore apparent to it that the
Court should take account only ofthose aspects ofNigeria's answer which are strictly required to
respond to Judge Fleischhauer's questions.
3. Second, Cameroon observes that, while Nigeria's legal team apparently visited several of
the disputed locations, the information gathered at that time conceming the manner in which the
border problems are handled in practice at the locallevel is incredibly vague and approximate (with
regard to this subject, see point (iv)f the introductory section, p. 3, or the discussion conceming
the area ofJimbare, pp. 10-11).
4. Third, Cameroon points out that the points raised in dispute by Nigeria and the resulting
attempts to alter the boundary are motivated by a desire for territorial conquest based on the claim
that the areas in question areheavily populated by Nigerians", as shown by the following passages
from its response to the Judge's question: -2-
- Paragraph 5 (ii), page 2: "At the time of the 1931 Declaration, pressure on land was not
great ... ". In other words, because such pressure on land bas purportedly become great,
Nigeria seeks a change in the boundary to take that into account.
The Kirawa River: "By way of general comment, this is an area inhabited by a large Nigerian
farming community ... " (3 (i), p. 6).
- Jimbare: "By way of general comment, this area is relatively well-populated by Nigerians"
(3 (i), p. 10).
- Sapeo: "By way of general comment, this area includes a substantial population living in a
number of substantial Nigerian villages ... " (9 (i) p. 11).
Mount Kombon: "Despite being a relatively remote area, the region nonetheless contains a
large Nigerian farming population ... "; and "[t]he local population, essentially comprising
Nigerians from the Mambila tribe ... " (11 (i) and (iii), p. 14).
- Maduguva: "By way of general comment, this area is heavily populated and farmed by
Nigerians" (16 (i) p. 18).
Even assuming these allegations to be true - which Cameroon denies- the movement of
people from one State onto the territory of a neighbouring State cannot serve as the basis for
territorial claimsin violation of a boundary defmed by treaty.
5. On severa} occasions, Nigeria advances the argument that the Nigerian inhabitants have
conducted activities "without protest from Cameroon and without attempt by Cameroon to regulate
or tax them" in one or another boundary area which Nigeria claims (1 (iv), p. 5). This is asserted to
be the case notably àithe mouth o:fihe Ebeji and ln Kotcha (I(oja). Camerool1 will point out that
the ethnie mixing of the inhabitants of the border areas encourages the groups to cross, and even to
settle on the other side of, the boundary. So long as this remains mere population movements, i.e.,
purely private acts, the question is handled at the local level, generally by the traditional chiefs.
The Cameroon Govemment intervenes only when these population movements are accompanied or
followed by support from or the presence of Nigerian civilian and/or military authorities, leading to
prejudice to national sovereignty and the resulting desire to cali the boundary into question.
6. In the lightfthese observations, Cameroon wishes to make two sets of general comments
on Nigeria's responses.
(a) The treatment and resolution of boundary conjlicts at the local leve/
7. Between 1919 and 1930, the two administrating Powers, Britain and France, bad boundary
work undertaken with a view to clarifying certain provisions of the 1919 Agreement and
facilitating the future work of the "Delimitation Commission".
8. The Thomson-Marchand Declaration incorporated within its provisions the earlier work
that was relevant. In referring to local handling of boundary conflicts, Nigeria attempts to gain
acceptance ofthat earlier work which was not confirmed by the Thomson-Marchand Declaration. -3-
9. The "Cameroons" under Frenchand Britishadministration were mandated, and then Trust,
territories and, consequently, no modification of their territory could be decided at the locallevel
without prior approval bythe League ofNations or the United Nations.
(b) The earlier boundary work not adoptedin the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
10. Sorne work done prior to the Thomson-Marchand Declaration was not ratified by the
provisions of the Declaration but, accordingto Nigeria, was introduced into the maps representing
the Declaration provisions. Through this manoeuvre, Nigeria seeks to give the same force to the
description of the boundaries in the Thomson-Marchand Declaration and the provisions'
cartographie representations which were not annexed to the Declaration. This would enable it to
reopen discussion of the earlier work which was not con:frrmed in the provisions of the
Thomson-Marchand Declaration.
11. The Republic of Cameroon has set out its argument at length onthis subject in its written
pleadings (see MC, pp. 97-101, paras.2.119-2.125) and during the oral argument(CR 2002/2,
pp. 21-22, paras. 14-15).
12. Sorne provisions of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration permitted the Parties to make
limited adjustments to the course of the boundary. However, these limited arrangements or
interpretations were not to distort the provisions of the Declaration and that is what the claims of
Nigeria, attempting to make improper use of this latitude in order to serve its territorial ambitions,
do. The discussion in Nigeria's responses conceming the area lying between Mount Ngossi and
Roumsiki or the area ofKoja (Kotcha) are striking examples of this propensity.
13. Cameroon, which adheres fully to the responses it gave to Judge Fleischhauer's
questions, will nevertheless briefly reply to Nigeria's responses to them- pointing out that a
careful reading of them dispels the impression, if any such dispelling is needed, of precision and
solidity which a superficial hearing ofNigeria's oral argument might have created.
II. The locations in dispute
14. The Republic ofCameroon does not think it appropriate to interpret the questions put by
Judge Fleischhauer to include the locations where Cameroon's maps are allegedly in conflict with
the applicable texts and itwill focus the major part of its (brief) replies on the frrst part ofNigeria's
responses (a). It will howevermake sornevery briefremarks on the secondpart (b).
(a) The first part of Nigeria's responses. Locations where Nigeria considers the boundary
delimitation to be defective.
(i) The mouth oHhe Ebeji
15. Nigeria's response to JudgeFleischhauer contradicts its written pleadings and oral
argument. Nigeria argued at length comparing the physical characteristics of the western and
eastern channels, citing in support of its thesis the arbitral award rendered in theAndes Frontier
case and refusing to take account of thedecision inthe Kasikili/Sedudu Island case.
16. Having been unable to prove the merit of its hydrological argument, Nigeria now falls
back on an effectiviténot based on any document and never previously discussed. For its part, -4-
Cameroon notes that Cameroonian farmers have their livestock graze without any problem in the
area now disputed by Nigeria, notably in the area of the confluence, as shown during the oral
argument. Moreover, peaceful use ofthese territories in no way establishes an animus dominandi.
As the Court pointed out in the Kasikili/Sedudu Island case:
''the peaceful and public use of Kasikili/Sedudu Island, over a period of many years,
by Masubia tribesmen from the Eastern Caprivi does not constitute 'subsequent
practice in the application of the [1890] treaty' within the meaning of Article 31,
paragraph 3 (b), of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties" (LC.J. Reports
1999, p. 1095, para. 75).
17. Cameroon notes that Nigeria admits that the respective locations of the two channels of
the Ebeji have not changed since 1931. The Court should therefore either consider that the Parties
accepted an authoritative interpretation of the Milner-Simon Declaration in the context of the
LCBC or should interpret Article 1 of the Declaration in order to determine where the mouth of the
Ebeji was in 1919 and in 1931 under the criteria applied by the international jurisprudence and put
forward by one or the other Party.
(ü) Narki
18. Cameroon maintains that there is no water course at the location where Nigeria places
the boundary line on map 23 in its Atlas and that the line claimed by Nigeria therefore does not
comply with the clear wording of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration.
19. The course of a "provisional boundary" on the 1921 sketch-map, reproduced in
Annex-NR 151, does not correspondto the-alleged boundary line on map 23 ofthe Atlas. While
the boundary line on that latter map starts at point GPS 5, running practically from the south-east to
the north-west, the 1921 sketch-map shows the boundary line passing frrst from a point north-east
of Narki for a distance of nearly one kilometre in a northerly direction, before then turning to the
west. If that cartographie representation is correctly applied to Nigeria's own modern map, we
observe that Narki lies in Cameroonian territory. It is therefore not surprising that Nigeria did not
rely on this sketch-rnap during the oral arguments, given that the map does not support Nigeria's
territorial claims in this area.
20. The sketch-map signed by the two District Officers never took on legal status. Nigeria
has not shown that it was to play a role in the authoritative interpretation of the Milner-Simon
Declaration. Even if the Court ascribes legal value to this sketch-map, Cameroon maintains that
the map supports its own legal position, i.e., that Narki belongs to Cameroon.
21. The 1921 sketch-map does not show any locality called Narki (and/or Tarmoa).
Accordingly, Nigeria is completely wrong in maintaining that the boundary shown on it "passes
sorne 300 metres north ofLimani and south ofNarki", given that the latter locality probably did not
exist at the time. This is confirmed by the map annexed to the Thomson-Marchand Declaration of
1931, which - once again- shows only "Limanti" but no other village to the north of that
locality. The most likely reason why Nigeria does not refer to any pre-independence administrative
practice concerning this locality, which it now claims as its own, is therefore that these villages did
not exist at the time. They were only founded later when several groups of Nigerians migrated into
Cameroonian territory. Accordingly, Cameroon categorically denies Nigeria's assertion, as
expressed in its response to Judge Fleischhauer's question, that Tarmoa and Narki "remained"
Nigerian after independence, since Nigeria has been unable even to show that these villages existed -5-
before independence. The available evidence points rather to the contrary. Cameroon agrees that
the inhabitants of Limani and Narki coexist in peace, but they do so on Cameroonian territory. If
Narki were in fact administered by the Barna Local Government Area, within Borno State in
Nigeria, an allegation which Cameroon denies once again, that would represent a further example
ofNigeria's violation ofCameroon's territorial integrity.
(iii)The Kirawa River
22. Cameroon stands bythe detailed, specifiewritten response provided to the Court.
23. According to Nigeria, the local residents give names to the rivers lying in the immediate
vicinity of their villages and this practice can lead to the existence of different names for different
parts of their course. This is strong evidence that Cameroon's interpretation of the boundary
instrument js correct. According to Nigeria's own map, the "Kohum clan" inhabits the area
immediately to the south of the river which Cameroon considers to be the true Kohum River
referred to in Article19of the Thomson-MarchandDeclaration.
24. Nigeria also maintains that its representatives spoke with the village chief of Uledda, a
locality in fact awarded to Great Britain onder Article 19 of the Thomson-Marchand Declaration
and which, as a result, is now in Nigeria. However, Cameroon vigorously denies that the locality
showri on Nigeria's map (p. 27 of the Atlas and Fig. 7.8 of the Rejoinder) under the name "Roua"
isthe place referred to by the drafters of the 1931Declaration. When applied to the "modern map"
used by Nigeria (see p. 27 of the Atlas; the physical characteristics unfortunately are not shown on
the extract from this map reproduced as Fig. 7.8 in the Rejoinder), the contour lines of the
mountains to the north of the Kohom River represented on the 1926 sketch-map to which Nigeria
refers, and which is also shown in Figure 7.9 of the Rejoinder- see in particular the location of
Johoda and the hills immediately north of the "real" Kohom River- also support Cameroon's
interpretation of the relevant Treaty provision: at the time the Treaty was drafted, the locality of
Uledda was north of the boundary line claimed by Cameroon. Cameroon is not aware that the
population of that village in the meantime moved several kilometres to the south to a place shown
on the map onder the name "Roua". Although that is possible, such an event is highly improbable
in fact, because the practice in this part of the world is rather that villagers transpose the name of
their original village to their new settlement. The names "Roua" and "Uledda" are however in no
way alike. Accordingly, Cameroon considers that the locality of Uledda still is north of the water
course which it considersto be the real KohomRiver.
(iv) From Mount Kuli to Bourha
25. Nigeria states that both before and after independence the boundary in this area was
handled at the local level and that there is no significant dispute concerning the limits of the
respective administrative spheres.
But Nigeria relies in its understanding of the course of the boundary as supposedly agreed
"in practice" on a wholly incorrect reading of a procès-verbal from 1920 (see Ann. RN 152).
Nigeria states:
"The resultingprocès-verbalstatedthat the boundary should follow the centre of
a track from Muti towards Bourha, and that Bourha lies 1.5 kilometres to the east of
the frontier" (p. 8ofNigeria's response, emphasis added).
The original text (in French)reads howeveras follows (see Ann. NR 152): -6-
"... la ligne frontière est jalonnéepar les villages ou les monts ci-après du nord au
sud... Mukta (F. etA.), Muti (F. et A.), Mouhoum (F. etA.), à mi-chemin entre Muti et
Burha, Burha (2km. est frontière, F.)..." [''theboundazy line is marked out by the
following villages or hills from north to south ... Mukta (F. andE.), Muti (F. andE.),
Mouhoum (F. andE.), midway between Muti and Burha, Burha (2 km east boundazy,
F.) ... "] [translation by the Registry] (emphasis added).
Accordingly, this document states that Bourha was considered to be situated 2 km, not
1.5km, to the east of the boundary. Above ail, it indicates that the boundary was not to "follow the
centreof a track between Muti and Bourha", but rather was to pass by a village called Mouhoum,
located "midway between Muti and Bourha". Cameroon hopes that this clearly erroneous
translation, which has- at least potentially- serious consequences, was not a deliberate attempt
to mislead the Court.
26. Cameroon has no intention of reopening a discussion on the interpretation of the border
instruments at this stage. However, it cannot ignore this erroneous reading of the relevant
documents produced by Nigeria itself, and then translated into representations on maps of the
alleged boundary line, and finally, now, used as evidence showing the alleged administrative
practice on the ground.
(v) Koja
27. Cameroon explained its position on this point in detail in its oral response to
Judge Fleischhauer's question (CR 2002/15, para. 45 (c)). Cameroon is well aware that in the Koja
area there has been a proliferation in the last few years of villages inhabited by Nigerians beyond
the international boundary defmed in the Thomson-Marchand Declaration and far into
··-Cameroonianterritory;- -Remaining-true ·to-its tradition--ofhospitality, ··cameroorr-has··noctaken
measures against these purely private activities. However, it has never acquiesced in
administrative activities by Nigeriaon its territory.
(vi) The source ofthe Tsikakiri River
28. According to Nigeria, the area in question is remote and a long distance from the road
network and ali other public infrastructure. That is true on Nigeria's side but not on Cameroon's,
where this area is accessible from the Cameroonian village ofDumo.
29. It is wholly incorrect- contrary to what is suggested in Nigeria's response (p. 10)
that in the summer of 1920 the District Officers Vereker and Pition carried out in the immediate
vicinity of the source of the Tsikakiri River a boundary line demarcation which "[a]fter
independence, the local people on both sides have recognised ... as the boundary" (p. 10 of the
Response).
30. According to Nigeria, "they [the district officers] traced the course of the Tsikakiri and
carefully fix[ed] the local boundary" (p. 10 of the Response). Rather, the document on which
Nigeria relies in this connection(Ann. NR 152 C 1)reads as follows: "Starting from the right bank
of the river Benue, following up the Rivers Tiel and Tsikakiri, thence carefully fixing the local
boundaries of Dumo (French) and Bade (British) on the spot . .. " (emphasis added). There is no
evidence that the course of the Tsikakiri River was determined, let alone the source of that water
course. In fact, such an operation was never undertaken. -7-
(vil) Jimbare
31. Cameroon has never denied that the course of the boundary line in the "Jimbare" area
raises difficulties which have to be resolved at the time of demarcation. Nigeria's response to
Judge Fleischhauer's question provides no substantive information on the place where current
practice considers the boundary to run, confining itself to general comments such as: "This line
[e.g.the 'Logan-LeBrun' line] was shown to the local population on the ground and has since been
passed on from generation to generation" (Response, p. 10 (j));and "local resident farmers showed
[Nigeria's legal] team where the boundary runs. This accorded almost precisely with the
Logan-Le Brun procès-verbal."
32. Where exactly did Nigeria's legal team question "local resident farmers"? What does
"almost precisely" mean? What is the source of the information that "this line was shown to the
local population" and that this information was "passed on from generation to generation"?
Clearly, Nigeria's assertions are too vague to be taken as cogent proof of the practice observed on
the ground.
(viii) Sapeo
33. On this point, Cameroon stands bythe written response it provided to the Court.
(ix) Namberu-Banglang
34. On this point Cameroon stands by the defmition of the boundary set out in Articles37
and 38 ofthe Thomson-Marchand Declaration of 1931.
(x) The position of Mount Kombon
35. According to Nigeria, the boundary in this area is a ''tribal boundary between the
Mambila tribe on the high Mambila Plateau and the Cameroonians from the lowlands" (Nigeria's
Response, p. 14).
36. Not only does this notion of a ''tribalboundary" have no legal meaning, but the Mambila
tribe is found on both sides of the boundary.
37. For the rest, Cameroon stands by itswritten response on this point provided to the Court.
(xi) The boundary westwards from Tonn Hill to the Mburi River
38. According to Nigeria, it is impossible to apply the provisions of the 1946 Order in
Council onthe ground.
Cameroon maintains that the boundary line in this area is determined by the relevant
provisions ofthe 1946 Order in Council, as confrrmed by the Northern Region, Western Region,
Eastern Region (Definition ofBoundaries) Proclamation of 1954. -8-
(xii)The Sama River
39. According to Nigeria, the course of the boundary has been treated by the local Nigerian
population, initially without protest, as following the course of the southem tributary of the Sama
River.
40. On this point, Nigeria's response provides no further information than that appearing in
its written pleadings and oral argument. Accordingly, Cameroon reiterates the terms of its written
response provided to the Court.
(b) The second part of Nigeria's responses. The locations where Nigeria considers Cameroon 's
maps to be in conjlict with the relevant instruments.
41. As already pointed out, Cameroon:
does not believe that the questions put by Judge Fleischhauer, which relate solely to areas in
which "Nigeria contests the correctness of the delimitation", extend to the nine additional
locations referred to, in a wholly artificialway, by Nigeria; and
reaffrrms that, in any event, the text of the relevant instruments must prevail over any map
drawn up by the Parties.
42. It also believes that it has responded in advance to the arguments which Nigeria sees fit
to repeat in this regard (see RC, pp. 323-337). Itshall therefore confme itself to a few very brief
remarks as examples.
Cameroon categorically denies Nigeria's assertion that in the Maduguva area, ''Nigerianshave
been subjected to intimidation, extortion and violence by Cameroonian officiais" and "the
Cameroonian local chief of Bourha ... threatens Nigerian farmers in the area of Maduguva,
extorts money from them, steals their property and destroys crops" (pp. 18-19 of the
Response). Not only is this statement untrue, but it bears no relationship with
Judge Fleischhauer's question.
Cameroon is not aware that, in the area of pillar 6-Wamni, the boundary "has always been
treated as running from the point on the Maio Hesso, north of Beka, which is shown on
Figure 7.30 of Nigeria's Rejoinder and which used to be marked by a boundary pillar"
(Nigeria's Response, 17(iv), p. 20). -9-
JUDGE KOOIJMANS' QUESTIONS
1.Judge Kooijmans askedNigeria to respond to the following questions:
"1. Can the Respondent indicate how often and on what kind of occasions the
Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar as a separate entity had formai contacts with the
Protecting Power after the conclusionof the 1884Treaty on Protection?
2. Were the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar consulted when the Protecting
Power in 1885 incorporated their territory in the British Protectorate of the Niger
Districts (see Counter-Memorial ofNigeria, para. 6.66) which in turn had become part
of the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria when the 1913 Anglo-German Treaty was
concluded? If the answer is no, why were they not consulted? If the answer is yes,
what was their reaction and is their reaction contained in a formai document?
3. Did that incorporation bring to an end the purported international personality
of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar as a separate entity? If not, when did it cease
to exist?"
2. Cameroon will point out that, in its Response to these questions, Nigeria uses, in flagrant
violation of the Rules of Court, a series of records which were not produced before the end of the
written proceedings. Those arethe following Foreign Office documents:
FO 881/5161
FO 881/5260
FO 881/5588
FO 881/6351
FO 881/6471
FO 8411740
Accordingly, Cameroon considers that no account should be taken of the assertions based on
these documents.
(a) Thefirst question
3. Nigeria's response to this question is curiously confused and largely conjecture. Yet the
questions put by Judge Kooijmans bear on points which lie at the very heart ofNigeria's assertions
concerning the continuous international legal personality, accompanied by international territorial
sovereignty, of the entity called the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar. Nigeria begins with two
preliminary comrnents: the frrst concerns the lack of records supporting its argument, which
consists of claiming that the Kings and Chiefs.of Olji Calabar had a continuing international legal
personality. It would appear that this is to be ascribed, for exampie, to the time having eiapsed
since then, to a lackof organization and to the fact that those Kings and Chiefs were "unlikeiy to
have been as bureaucratically-minded as the British officiais were" (p. 29, para. 6)
notwithstanding the fact that supporting British records have not been found. Whatever may be the
excuses put forward (pp. 28-29, paras. 3-6), what is obvious is that Nigeria itseif admits that there
is no record providing evidence for its assertions conceming the legal status and scope of the
authority of the Kings and Chiefs ofüld Calabar.
Moreover, it may be asked why Nigeria, which found documents dating from 1884-1885, is
unable to produce any documentary evidence whatsoever concerning the "formai contacts"
between Great Britain and the Kings and Chiefs of Old Caiabar. - 10-
4. Nigeria's second comment is that the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar were "a loose
federation" (p. 29, para. 7). After undertaking "further research" and, in particular, consulting with
the current Obong of Calabar (p. 30, para. 8), Nigeria attempts to elaborate on its response during
the oral proceedings to Judge Kooijmans' question, without however explaining the legal meaning
of the concept of an acephalous federation, which it now calls a "loose federation". If the
information provided by the Obong of Calabar is evidence, it is new evidence, in violation of the
provisions of the Rules of Court.
5. In any event, the oral statements of the current Obong of Calabar, an official of the
Nigerian administration, are without any evidentiary value; this is especially so since the
·individual in question was present at the Court's hearings and attended the oral argument on the
case, which disqualifies him as a witness.
6. Further, one might ask why, if the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar remained a distinct
international legal person separate from Great Britain and enjoyed territorial sovereignty under
international law, these Kings and Chiefs believed it necessary until 1960 to change the title of the
suzerain to exclude the notion of "Majesty" on the grounds that such a title would be in conflict
with the accepted title ofBritannic "Majesty" (p. 33, para. 18).
7. Aside from the fact that Nigeria does not provide evidence of "formai contacts" between
Great Britain and the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar, any such contacts could not demonstrate
the existence or acceptance of an international legal title to any territory (let alone to the Bakassi
Peninsula).
8. On sorne occasions, the Kings and Chiefs ofOld Calabar were considered by-theBritish
authorities to be appropriate intermediariesto implement their decisions. MajorMacDonald makes
very clear the spiritof British rule in this regard: "I informed the Chiefs that, when I sent them a
message, implicit obedience was what I expected, and what I, as representative of Her Majesty,
would have" (Ann. 1, p. 41, emphasis added).
(b) The second question
9. Cameroon will point out that Nigeria concedes its inability to answer Judge Kooijmans'
second question. Nigeria states: "The records which would enable the question to be answered
simply no longer exist, either in London, or in Calabar or Lagos, or Abuja. It seems likelythat it
will prove impossible to say with any certainty, supported by documentary evidence, that theKings
and Chiefs were not consulted and why, or that they were consulted and their answer was such and
such" (Nigeria's Response, p. 38, para. 30).
(c) The third question
10.In respect of the response to Judge Kooijmans' third question concerning the termination
of the purported international legal personality of the Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar, Cameroon
will point out that Nigeria is also incapable of responding to this question, which is the èornerstone
of its claim to the Bakassi Peninsula. Indeed,Nigeria admits (yet again) that: "It is not possible to
say with clarity and certainty what happened to the international legal personality of the Kings and
Chiefs ofûld Calabar after 1885"(para. 40). - 11-
11.Nigeria's reference to the Western Sahara case provides no help on this point. That case
simply shows that where a colonial power acquired a title to territory based on treaties of cession
entered into with specifie entities having a social and political organization, the concept of terra
nullius does not apply (LC.J. Reports 1975, p. 39). It does not establish that such entities were, or
if they were, that they continued to be, international legal persons holding an international legal
title like States under contemporary international law. - 12-
JUDGE ELARABY'S QUESTION
1.Judge Elaraby put the following questionto Nigeria:
"In the course of the oral pleadings, reference was made to the legal régime
established bythe League's Mandate andthe United Nations Trusteeship. Would it be
possible to elaborate further and provide the Court with additional comments on the
relevance of the boundaries that existed duringthat period?"
2.In answering that question, Nigeria makes sorne general comments which do not respond
to the specifie point raised by Judge Elaraby. Cameroon does not fmd it necessary to address once
again the historical questions raised here (see Nigeria's Response to Judge Elaraby's question,
paras. 2-20 and see MC, pp. 185-258,paras. 3.111-3.276).
3. However, it should be noted that Nigeria agrees with the following arguments made by
Cameroon (CR 2002/4, pp. 18 etseq.):
(i) the mandatory governments (and later the Trust governments) did not have sovereignty
overthe mandated (and laterTrust) territories (pp. 53and 57-58, paras. 22, 30 and 32);
(ii)ali territorial changes required approval by the Leagueof Nations (ibid.);
(iii) the League of Nations paid close attention to questions conceming the extent of the
mandated territories (ibid);
(iv) the mandatory govemments did not have theright to deal unilaterally with a mandated
territory orto acquire additional territoryto include itwithin the mandate (ibid.);
(v) a mandatory govemment was required to refer any present or future territorial change to
the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations or the Trusteeship
Council of the United Nations (ibid.);
(vi) "Nigeria clearly inherited a boundary determined by the Thomson-Marchand
Declaration" (p. 55, para. 25, emphasis inthe original);
(vii) "the territorial limits of the Trust Territory therefore formally remained throughout the
Trusteeship period as prescribed in Article 1 [of the Trusteeship Agreements]" (p. 55,
para. 26);
(viii) those limits were in conformity with those laid dawn inthe Mandates (p. 55, para. 27);
(ix) the boundary of southem Cameroons including Bakassi remained what it was at the
beginning of the mandate period, giventhat no territorial change was made or referred to
the relevant international supervisory bodies (p. 58,para. 33);
(x) the 1922 boundary was the same as in 1914, because Great Britain was without authority,
as a belligerent occupying power during the First World War or as the transitional
administering authority from 1918 to 1922, to modify unilaterally the boundaries of
Kamerun (pp. 58-59, para. 35).
Finally, Nigeria also agrees with Cameroon that "the only possible change in its
[Bakassi's] territorial status before then [1914] would have been that which resulted from
the Anglo-German Treaty of 11 March 1913" (para. 36). - 13-
Thus, the two Parties agree that the relevant boundaries of southern Cameroons, including
Bakassi, in 1960-1961were those of 1914.
4. Nigeria is careful to avoid referring at ali to the relevant practice during the mandate and
trusteeship periods showing that Bakassi was part of Cameroon under mandate and then under
British trusteeship. The relevant international supervisory bodies were fully aware of this practice
and raised no objection whatsoever to it. It was therefore recognized that Bakassi belonged to
British Cameroons.
5. Cameroon has provided a detailed description of the relevant practice in this area, both in
its written pleadings (see MC, pp. 185-258, paras. 3.111-3.276) and its oral argument (see
CR 2002/4, p. 33 and pp. 58 etseq.; CR 2002116,pp. 31-32).
6. To summarize, the Bakassi Peninsula was part of British Cameroons during the entire
mandate and trusteeship periods. This was accepted by the British authorities, the League of
Nations and the United Nations. The Bakassi Peninsula was attachedto the Republic of Cameroon
as a part of southem Cameroons further to the plebiscite organized under United Nations
supervision on 11February 1961. Cameroon's title to Bakassi istherefore free of ali doubt.,11
Cameroon's observations on Nigeria's written responses to the questions put by Members of the Court