Bakassi: Or the Politics of Exclusion and Occupation?

Judgment

413 International Court Of Justice Year 2002 10 October 2002 General List No. 94 Case Concerning The Land And Maritime Boundary Between Cameroon And Nigeria (Cameroon V V. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea Intervening) Territories’ changing Historical background Geographical context Principal relevant instruments for determination of the land and status maritime boundary. * * Lake Chad area. Relevant instruments (Milner-Simon Declaration, Boundary delimitation 1919; Thomson-Marchand Declaration, 1929-1930; Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Boundary delimited and approved by Great Britain and France Notes, 1931) Confirmation provided by demarcation work of Lake Chad Basin Commission, 1983 to Co-ordinates of Cameroon-Nigeria-Chad tripoint and Ebeji mouth.1991 Nigerian claims based on its presence in certain Lake Chad areas Controversial Nigerian argument based on historical consolidation of title theory which cannot replace modes of acquisition of title recognized by Nigerian argument that peaceful possession, international law coupled Cameroon with acts of administration, represents manifestation of sovereignty Test the holder of a preexisting title over the lake areas in question whether or not Cameroon manifestly acquiesced in transfer of its title to No acquiescence by Cameroon to relinquishment of its title over the Nigeria Sovereignty over settlements situated to the east of area in favour of Nigeria the boundary continues to lie with Cameroon. * * Land boundary from Lake Chad to the Bakassi Peninsula. Relevant instruments of delimitation (Thomson-Marchand Declaration, Henderson-Fleuriau Exchange of Notes; British Order in Council, 1946; AngloGerman Agreements of 11 March and Court’s task not 12 April 1913) to delimit the boundary de novo nor to demarcate it, but to “specify definitively” the course of the boundary as fixed by the Dispute over interpretation or application of certain relevant instruments Examination of each disputed sector. Provisions of those instruments * * Bakassi Peninsula. 414 Nigeria’s arguments that Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913 Agreement defective: Preamble to General Act of Berlin Conference, 1885; no approval by German Parliament; Article 289 of Versailles Treaty, 1919 Arguments rejected. Whether Great Britain entitled to transfer title over Bakassi under the 1884 Treaty of Protection between Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913 Legal status of such Great Britain and Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar Great Britain in a position in 1913 to determine its treaties of protection boundary in Nigeria with Germany, including in the southern part. Bakassi covered by terms of British mandate over territory of Cameroons Separate status of mandated territory preserved by British Order in mandate Territorial situation unchanged under trusteeship arrangements Council of 1923 Boundary between Bakassi and Nigeria remained an international boundary. Nigeria had accepted at the time that Negotiations on maritime matters it was bound by Articles XVIII to XXII of the Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913 and had recognized Cameroonian sovereignty over Bakassi Peninsula Parties’ common position also reflected in geographic pattern of their oil Anglo-German Agreement valid and applicable in its concessions up to 1991 entirety. Restatement of Court’s Other bases of Nigeria’s claim to Bakassi Historical findings regarding the theory of historical consolidation of title consolidation cannot in any event give Nigeria title over Bakassi where its “occupation” of the peninsula is adverse to Cameroon’s prior conventional title Nigeria unable to act à titre de souverain before late 1970s, as it did No sufficient evidence after not then regard itself as having title to Bakassi late 1970s that Cameroon acquiesced in relinquishment of its title in favour of Boundary delimited by Articles XVIII to XX of Anglo-German Agreement Nigeria Sovereignty over Bakassi lies with Cameroon. Of 11 March 1913 * * Maritime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria. Nigeria’s argument that Court must refuse to carry out in whole or part the delimitation requested by Cameroon because it affects areas claimed by third Nigeria’s eighth States and requirement of prior negotiation not satisfied Protection afforded by Article 59 of the Statute may not preliminary objection always be sufficient, in particular in respect of maritime delimitations Court unable to rule on Cameroon’s claims in so far involving several States Mere as they may affect rights of Equatorial Guinea and Sao Tome and Principe presence of those two States in Gulf of Guinea does not in itself preclude the Court’s Court’s jurisdiction over maritime delimitation between the Parties finding in its Judgment of 11 June 1998 415 that negotiations between Cameroon and Nigeria concerning the entire maritime delimitation had been conducted in the Articles 74...