Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T11:46:44.002Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections, Judgment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Bernard H. Oxman  and
Peter H. F. Bekker
Peter H. F. Bekker
Affiliation:
McDermott, Will & Emery, New York
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria) , Preliminary Objections, Judgment.

International Court of Justice, June 11, 1998.

On March 29, 1994, Cameroon filed an Application requesting that the Court determine the question of sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula and a disputed parcel of land in the area of Lake Chad (principally Darak and its region) and to specify the course of the land and maritime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria. It also asked the Court to order an immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Nigerian troops from alleged Cameroonian territory in the disputed areas. As the basis of the Court's jurisdiction, Cameroon relied on the declarations made by the parties under Article 36, paragraph 2 of the ICJ Statute.

Type
International Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 92 , Issue 4 , October 1998 , pp. 751 - 755
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Amended without objection on June 6, 1994. 1994 ICJ Rep. 105 (Order of June 16).

2 See also the Court's Order of March 15, 1996, by which it indicated certain provisional measures. 1996 ICJ Rep. 13.

3 See Judgment, paras. 26–27 [hereinafter slip op.] (citing Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Port. v. India), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 1957 ICJ Rep. 125, 146–47 (Nov. 26); Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia v. Thail.), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 1961 ICJ Rep. 17, 31 (May 26); Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicar. v. U.S.), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, 1984 ICJ Rep. 392, 412 (Nov. 26) [hereinafter Nicaragua]).

4 Id., paras. 25–27.

5 Opened for signature May 23, 1969, 1155 UNTS 331 (entered into force Jan. 27, 1980). See slip op., para. 30.

6 Slip op., paras. 41–45 (quoting Nicaragua, 1984 ICJ Rep. at 419 (emphasis added)).

7 Id., para. 34.

8 Id., para. 39.

9 Id., para. 40. The Court's vote rejecting the first objection was 14–3.

10 Id., para. 56.

11 Id., para. 57. The Court's vote rejecting the second objection was 16–1.

12 Id., paras. 67–68. The Court's vote rejecting the third objection was 15–2.

13 Id., paras. 79–81. The Court's vote rejecting the fourth objection was 13–4.

14 Id., para. 91. The Court's vote rejecting the fifth objection was 13–4. During the oral proceedings, Judge Guillaume asked whether, apart from the parties' conflicting claims over the Bakassi Peninsula and the Darak region, there is agreement between Nigeria and Cameroon on the geographical coordinates of the boundary as presented by Cameroon. In reply to this question, Nigeria did not indicate whether or not it agreed with Cameroon on the course of the boundary or on its legal basis.

15 Id., paras. 98, 101. The Court's vote rejecting the sixth objection was 15–2.

16 Id., para. 109. The vote rejecting the seventh objection was 12–5.

17 Id., paras. 116–17. The vote rejecting the eighth objection was 12–5.

18 Aegean Sea Continental Shelf (Greece v. Turk.), Jurisdiction, 1978 ICJ Rep. 3 (Dec. 10).

19 East Timor (Port. v. Austl.), Judgment, 1995 ICJ Rep. 90 (June 30), summarized in 90 AJIL 94 (1996). In that case, Australia's objections were heard and determined within the framework of the merits.

20 Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Sal./Hond.), Application to Intervene, Judgment, 1990 ICJ Rep. 92 (Sept. 13).

21 Slip op., para. 87.

22 Id., para. 110.

23 Id., para. 16 (emphasis added).

24 Slip op., Separate Opinion of Judge Kooijmans, para. 10.

25 Slip op., para. 93.

26 Id., para. 110.