I do not want to engage in polemic, and I must confess at the outset to
having been one of Cameroon's counsel. But I hope that my account of the
land boundary aspects of the case in 75 British Year Book of International
Law (2004), 223-47 is an impartial account (and even some of my opponents
have been kind enough to say that it is). It is quite detailed, and is
confined to what the parties argued and what the International Court of
Justice decided. In brief, Cameroon won on Bakassi and the Lake Chad area,
and also on some of the disputed points on the intervening boundary, though
Nigeria won on more of those. So far as the maritime boundary is concerned,
Cameroon defeated Nigeria's attempt to argue that a agreed (in 2 treaties)
boundary line which continued to a little beyond the 12 mile limit was
invalid. Cameroon's success on sovereignty over Bakassi is also relevant
to the offshore boundary and maritime resources, which DOES include
hydrocarbons. It also succeeded in establishing that the boundary beyond
the treaty line should start at a point of equidistance. On the other
hand, Nigeria was successful (some might say inevitably, in view of the
offshore geography) in establishing that the maritime boundary beyond the
agreed limit would be determined by equidistance. For the sake of
completeness, it should be added that Cameroon failed in its attempt to
recover damages for wrongful damage during the Nigerian occupation of
Bakassi etc., essentially because it had not discharged its evidentiary
burden, in the Court's view. Nigeria's counter-claim on the same point
also failed.
Best wishes,
Maurice Mendelson
At 21:08 31/01/07, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>Dear colleagues,
>Perhaps some enduring myths about the Cameroon Nigeria ICJ Judgment and
>the implications of this have to be dispelled at some point. In this
>little piece of press report kindly shared with us by Andi lies many of
>the myths (particularly in the last paragraph). I will quote the pertinent
>parts.
>"The Hague had handed down a binding ruling in 2002 to settle a
>territorial dispute in which Nigerian troops and police often clashed with
>their Cameroonian" The dispute as submitted by Cameroon to the court is
>not essentially a territorial dispute but as the name of the case on the
>ICJ list suggests it involved a Land and maritime dispute with
>territorial and boundary aspects. Indeed only a small Peninsula at the
>southernmost part of the territory of both states constituted a
>territorial dispute. The boundary relations between the two states has
>traditionally been impressively cordial as far as countries that share
>about a 1800 kilometer long boundary can go. The affected population on
>both sides were at relative peace and largely lived as friendly neighbours
>sometimes even in absolute disregard for the colonial era imposed
>artificial borders. The few flash points nearly all related to the
>territorial question over Bakassi peninsula.
>
>"especially around the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula":
>That the Bakassi Peninsula is 'oil rich' is one of the greatest urban
>myths of the last century and survives well on the pages of the newspapers
>of written by half informed journalists. Nigeria, which until a few months
>ago had absolute control over this piece of territory has over 30 years
>experience in the exploitation of oil resources in its territories and is
>one of the top ten highest producers of hydrocarbons. It is highly
>unlikely that it would have an oil rich Peninsula that it has not been
>investigated and never exploited. The area in question is simply not 'oil
>rich'. At any rate the Nigerian state has always maintained that its
>interest in the Bakassi territory is based on its important responsibility
>to protect its citizens and their ancestral rights. It was always
>maintained that mineral rights if any was of no importance to the dispute
>but rather it saw its duty to continue maintaining the administration of
>the people and providing for their basic needs. As a consequence of this
>the so called Green Tree agreement which provides for the handover of
>Bakassi to Cameroon contains a limited period of continuing administration
>by Nigeria.
>
>"The ruling was in favour of Cameroon ...".
>The ruling of the ICJ was perhaps in favour of Cameroon only in respect of
>the Bakassi Peninsular by consequence of which Cameroon has apparently
>gained an estimated population of 200000 Nigerians who are apparently not
>happy with the judgment. Whether this is a modern day Phyrric victory is
>something only time can disclose. It can only be said that the judgment
>appears to be a pure expression of victory of formalism over ancestral
>connections, generational rights and the evidence of continuous
>administration. At any event it gives little or no respect to the common
>sense and sound legal principle which dates back into immemorial time and
>definitely found in Roman thinking that "possession is nine tenth of the
>law". At any rate the courts delineation of the boundary along the1800
>kilometres land boundary, from Lake Chad in the north to the Sea in the
>South is eminently considered to have gone in favour of Nigeria's
>positions maintained at the Court. Thereupon there has been increases to
>the country's territory and this part of the Courts work has removed some
>long standing uncertainties along the boundary a fact which can only be in
>favour of both states. Perhaps most significantly if the suspicions that
>the Cameroonian strategy was to substantially increase its maritime
>territory through the Courts judgment are true then it can be demonstrated
>that the strategy failed spectacularly and the maritime delimitation taken
>on the whole also went largely in favour of Nigerian interests.
>Having said all these it appears that the really good news is that two
>mature African sates have approached their boundary problems in the true
>traditions of mutual respect and in accordance with international law and
>they have been accomplishing their demarcation activities successfully in
>an impressive manner. Both countries indeed have the next millenia to look
>forward to in terms of mutual coexistence as neighbours in an area that by
>virtue of the Gulf of Guinea oil finds will represent the new Eldorado of
>our times.
>Regards
>Gbenga
>----- Original Message -----
>From: I Made Andi Arsana <[log in to unmask]>
>Date: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 1:21 am
>Subject: [INT-BOUNDARIES] Cameroon: Nigeria Boundary Demarcation Continues
>Mid-February
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
> > Dear Coleagues,
> >
> > This news might be interesting to some of you.
> > Happy reading!
> >
> > Cheers
> > Andi
> >
> > Cameroon: Nigeria Boundary Demarcation Continues Mid-February
> >
> > The Post (Buea)
> >
> > January 30, 2007
> > Posted to the web January 30, 2007
> >
> > Leocadia Bongben
> >
> >
> > Phase 2 of the demarcation of the maritime boundary between Cameroon
> > and Nigeria will begin in mid-February.
> >
> > This was the top-most item on the agenda of the 17th session of the
> > Nigeria-Cameroon Mixed Commission meeting in Yaounde on January 24.The
> > demarcation of additional 275 km of border will stretch along rivers
> > and watersheds. Already, 470 km of the 1700 km borderline have already
> > been demarcated.
> >
> >
> > According to a press release issued by the UN Office for West Africa
> > in Dakar on January 23, the working group made up of surveyors and
> > cartographers of the two countries and the UN, after visits
> > along the
> > maritime boundary is to finalise the geo-referencing of the British
> > Admiralty chart that formed the basis of the judgment of October 10,
> > 2002 into a known datum.
> >
> > The report of the Mixed Commission after regular visits of the UN
> > Observer Mission from 9-14 December, the release states,
> > presents a
> > satisfactory situation concerning the rights of the affected
> > population being respected after the withdrawal and transfer of
> > authority in August 2006.
> >
> > Meanwhile, the European Union, EU, has donated an additional 3.95
> > million euros (FCFA 2,567,500,000) to support the implementation of
> > the Nigeria-Cameroon boundary demarcation project.
> >
> > It will go toward the placement of boundary pillars and the provision
> > of final maps and records substantiating the implementation of the
> > demarcation.
> >
> > The International Court of Justice, ICJ, at The Hague had handed down
> > a binding ruling in 2002 to settle a territorial dispute in which
> > Nigerian troops and police often clashed with their Cameroonian
> > counterparts, especially around the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula.
> >
> > The ruling was in favour of Cameroon and in August 2006, Nigeria
> > formally handed over the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ========================
> > I Made Andi Arsana
> > E : [log in to unmask]
> > http://madeandi.staff.ugm.ac.id/
> > Yahoo, GTalk, Skype : madeandi
> > ========================
> >
>
>
>Dr. Gbenga Oduntan
>Lecturer in International Commercial Law,
>Kent Law School,
>Eliot College,
>University of Kent,
>Canterbury,
>Kent CT2 7NS, UK.
>
>Phone:
>Switchboard 0044 (0)1227 764000 (ext 4817)
>Direct Line 0044 (0)1227 824817
>Fax: 0044 (0) 1227 827831
>
>Email: [log in to unmask]
>http://www.kent.ac.uk/law/people/index.htm
>
>
>
>This message has been scanned for viruses by Mailcontroller
Maurice Mendelson, Q.C.
Blackstone Chambers Barristers
Blackstone House
Temple, London EC4Y 9BW,
England.
Tel. +44 20 7583 1770; fax +4420 7822 7350; email
[log in to unmask]
website www.blackstonechambers.com
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may be confidential and legally
privileged. This e-mail is intended to be read only by the addressee. If you
are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any review,
dissemination or copying of this e-mail is prohibited and that privilege has
not been waived. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify
the sender by replying by email or by telephone and
then delete the e-mail.
|
