Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-tsvsl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-25T16:48:01.570Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Land and Maritime Boundary Case (Cameroon V. Nigeria), Order of 15 March 19961

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Malcolm D. Evans  and
J. G. Merrills
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Court of Justice: Recent Cases
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 46 , Issue 3 , July 1997 , pp. 676 - 681
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 1997

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

2. See Sholanke, O. O., “Delimiting the Territorial Sea between Nigeria and Cameroon: A Rational Approach” (1993) 42 I.C.L.Q. 398.Google Scholar

3. Dissatisfaction with this result led to an unsuccessful attempt by Cameroon to bring proceedings against the UK in the ICJ. See the Northern Cameroons case, I.C.J. Rep. 1963, 15.Google Scholar

4. See Sholanke, op. cit. supra n.2, at p.402.Google Scholar

5. I.C.J. Rep. 1996, para.15.Google Scholar

6. Idem, para.20.

7. Idem, para.36.

8. Idem, paras.45 and 46.

9. See Merrills, J. G., “Interim Measures of Protection in the Recent Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice” (1995) 44 I.C.L.Q. 90.Google Scholar

10. I.C.J. Rep. 1991, 12.Google Scholar See also Merrills, idem, pp.114–116.

11. I.C.J. Rep. 1996, para.33.Google Scholar

12. idem, para.37.

13. See Merrills, , op. cit. supra n.9, at pp.122–125.Google Scholar

14. I.C.J. Rep. 1996, para.49.Google Scholar

15. See the declaration of Judge Shahabuddeen and the joint declaration of Judges Weeramantry, Shi and Vereschetin.

16. I.C.J. Rep. 1986, 3.Google Scholar

17. The Accord de Non-Agression et d'Assistance en Matière de Défense (ANAD); see Merrills, , op. cit. supra n.9, at pp.125–126.Google Scholar

18. See I.C.J. Rep. 1986, 12, para.32.I.D.Google Scholar

19. I.C.J. Rep. 1996, 35.Google Scholar It is interesting to note that when he was a regular member of the Court Judge Ajibola reviewed the scope of the power to indicate provisional measures in his dissenting opinion in the Lockerbie cases, I.C.J. Rep. 1992, 3 and 114.Google Scholar

20. According to Judge Ajibola (idem, pp.43–44), Nigeria relies on the fact that Cameroon deposited its acceptance of Art.36(2) in Mar. 1994, shortly before initiating proceedings in the present case. However, the argument that this demonstrates a lack of good faith, disentitling Cameroon from relying on its declaration, seems untenable in view of the Court's rejection of a similar argument in the Right of Passage case, I. C. J. Rep. 1957, 125.Google Scholar

21. As well as those mentioned, short declarations on various points were also made by Judges Oda, Ranjeva and Koroma.

22. The Frontier Dispute case was referred to the Court by a special agreement and so jurisdiction was not a matter of dispute.

23. See the Nicaragua case, I.C.J. Rep. 1984, 169Google Scholar and the Genocide Convention case, I.C.J. Rep. 1993, 3 and 325.Google Scholar Also Merrills, , op. cit. supra n.9, at pp.107–110Google Scholar, and Evans, M. D., “Provisional Measures, the Arbitral Award of 31 07 1989 (Guinea Bissau v Senegal) and Mari time Delimitation” (1993) 46 Revue Hellenique de Droit International 9, 24–25.Google Scholar

24. See Merrills, idem, pp.125–132.