CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY
Over the years, the link between neigbouring Nigeria and Cameroon have been stressed and affected bychallenging issues that have a link to 1,600 kilometer boundary, dragging out from the Lake Chad to the Bakassi piece of land surrounded by water, and maritime boundary into the Gulf of Guinea. Some of the issues if not major issues are full rights over the land enriched with oil and sea reserves and the future of local populations. For example, the dehydration of the Lake Chad due to desertification and mismanagement, local populations depending on the Lake for their survival have followed the diminished waters thereby making the boundary linesunclear. The disagreement between the two countries accelerated and spread into military challenge and conflicttowards the end of 1993 with the deployment of Nigeria military to the 1,000 square kilometer Bakassi.
The conflict between the two countries is unpredictable, specifically in post-colonial Africa where their historical origin and geographical location includes or builds up the problem.Considering the penetration of diverse new sovereign states in current Africa, this was proven.
Their history begins over again. They resurfaced today in the sad evening of the world of nation-states; so far their own tradition, one may point was not often one of slender nationality. Their great natural ability or their gift was for integration- integration by conquest as the times prescribed, but also by an ever pratfallmangling and migration. They were never patient of undividedborders …Nineteenth century imperialism cut across boundaries and peoples and left; for a later Africa, the challenge of redrawing borders on a rational plan. As independence broadens across these years ahead, will this plan stop short with the making of nation-states aping European example?...It’s yet to be seen.
The danger that the Organization of African Unity (OAU) did not relent in remitting the 1964 resolution is a known fact. By this act of finding an answer, the members swore to respect as hallowed colonial boundaries as rightfully inherited at independence in accordance with the rule of “Utipossidetisjuris”. Notwithstanding, even with the consensus, there has been no such unionism on the exact location of many inter-state frontiers in Africa specificallybetween Nigeria and Cameroon.
The delineation of Nigeria’s international borders, according to Asobie (1998), was best by unknown. The eastern boundary was sketched in bits over a long period and includesdiverse colonial powers, the United Kingdom and Germany and the United Kingdom and France at diverse times. And the British that inherited the Nigerian side of the boundary never looked in a rush to properly show limits or mark them on the ground. Aside from the challenge of the unknown, the sheer length of the boundaries presentedits own challenge, with a total land border of 4,234kilometers.
By coming into levels of bilateral co-operation unionisms in 1963, Nigeria and Cameroon openlyaddressed towards a more melodious existence as neighbours with a point to settling the border disagreements but that were not successfulhencespeeding up the occasional disagreement that happened along Nigeria Cameroon border. In 1994, Cameroon took the dispute to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Hague.
The International Court of Justice is the chief judicial organ of the United Nations to which all the member states are parties. It was widely opened and known in 1946 by the United Nations (statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ statute)), June 26, 1945. ICJ stood in place of the former Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), which had functioned within The Hague,Netherland since 1922.Like its antecedent; the headquarters of ICJ is also located in Hague.
In addition, the activities of the ICJ are to settledisagreements between powerful states. Disagreements may be positioned before the court by parties upon conditions given by the UN Security Council. No state, howbeit, may be under control to the jurisdiction of the court without the state’s approval. Approval may be given by express agreement at the time the disagreement is introduced to the court, by prior agreement to welcome the jurisdiction of the court in specific categories of cases, or by treaty provisions with respect to disagreementscoming up from matters covered by the treaty.Article36{2} of the court statute, known as the Optional Clause, permits states to make a one-sided announcement acknowledging “as mandatory ipso facto and without special agreement, together with any other state embracing the same responsibility, the jurisdiction of the court in all legal disputes”.
According to the Report of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) (document A/59/4) showed at fifty-ninth General Assembly Plenary in 2008, 191 states were now cohorts to the statute of the court, while 65 of them had deposited with the secretary General a pronunciation of acceptance of the court is mandatory jurisdiction in agreement with its statute. In addition, some 300 bilateral or multilateral treaties provide for the court to have jurisdiction in the resolution of disagreements coming out of their application or interpretation.
A good number of states have welcomed the court’s jurisdiction under the optional clause. They have done so with certain constraints. According to (Ogbu2008 ), the United Nation for example has invoked the self-judging reservation. This reservation permits states to stay away from the court’s jurisdiction previously accepted under the optional clause if they conclude on not to respond to a specific suit. If a state invokes self- judging reservation, another state may also invoke this reservation against that state, and therefore a suit against the second state would be rejected. This is known as the rule ofreciprocity, and portrays the principle that a state has to answer to a suit brought against it before the ICJ only if the state bringing the suit has also agreed to the court’s jurisdiction. Under the ICJ statute, the ICJ in decisive cases mustapply:
i. Any international conventions andtreaties;
ii. Internationalcustom;
iii. General rules acknowledged as law by civilized nations;and
iv. Judicial decisions and the teachings of highly qualified publicists of the variousnations.
The judgment of the ICJ is binding and (technically) cannot be appealed (Arts. 59,60) once the parties have agreed to its jurisdiction and the court has passed a decision. Thus, a state’sinability to agree with the judgment violates U.N Charter, article 94(2). Inability to agree can be presented to the U.N Security Council, which may either make recommendations or authorize other means by which the judgment shall be compelled. A decision by the Security Council to carry out compliance with a judgment given by the court is under control to the veto power of permanent members, and thereforerelies on the members‟ willingness not only to resort to enforcement measures but also to reinforce the originaldocument.
On October 10,,2002, the ICJ quoting agreements between United Kingdom and Germany on March 11th1913, gave its unaltered judgment on the entire land and maritime frontier between Cameroon and Nigeria. The decision ruled marked or signifiedpower over portions of the boundaries in question to Cameroon and clearly showed or indicated the border. Inorder to take care of or charge of the handing over of the area to Cameroon, the “Green Tree Agreement” was signed in 2006 by president Obasanjo of Nigeria and Paul Biya of Cameroon.
Two sets of principles implied in the boundarydisagreement between Nigeria and Cameroon. The first set comprises of international rightful principles that support the reason of state. They are such traditional principles as:
- Utipossidetis(as you possess, so will continue topossess)
- Pactasuntservanda(agreement/obligation reached must beobeyed)
- Rebus sic stantibus.(agreement is valid only if the same conditions prevailing at time of contracting continue to exist at the time ofperformance)
The second set of principles includes human sight norms which relates to the value and dignity of the human person. The second set of principles is major for it is affirmed on the presumption that “the foundation of freedom, peace and justice in the world” can only be laid with the acknowledgement of the dignity, [and also] the impartial and inalienable rights of all members of the human family” Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948: Preamble1. Putting these two sets of principles together is the doctrine of self-determination. It is at the same time a legal principle and a human rights doctrine.
1.2. STATEMENT OF THE GENERAL PROBLEM
African countries do not embrace a common past and a common culture; they are indeed the arbitrary creations of colonialist. The manner, in which European nations descended on Africa during the closing years of the 19thcentury in their scramble for territory, was bound to leave a heritage of artificially controlled border lines, which now demarcate the emergent African states2. The battle over Bakassi peninsula was majorly propelled by external powers, whereby France tried to protect the interest of Cameroonians and Britain seeking to protect the interest of Nigerians. Also, the dynamics of the internal politics in both countries (Nigeria and Cameroon) with regards to Bakassi dispute fanned the embers of the crisis. A record has it those most military regimes in Nigeria especially that of Babangida, Abacha and Buhari (to some extent) aggressively expanded Nigeria‟s frontiers in the Bakassi region.3
In 1992-1993, the Cameroonian government openly killed some Nigerian civilians in Cameroon, stemming from multiparty democratic government and growing militarism for Anglophone autonomy. Other Nigerians were forced out of Cameroon during harassing tax-drives. This was in reaction to a Cameroonian national radio news report which states that a Nigerian military patrol army among other things violated Cameroon‟s territory by infiltrating the peninsula (as for as the Rio del Ray) and opened fire on the Cameroon army. 4
The Bakassi dispute intensified with two or more serious incidents that provoked more shooting, casualties and deaths of soldiers in both countries. In 1994 and from January- May 1996, there were border clashes between Cameroon and Nigeria among military personnel. As of May 6, 1996, diplomats reported that over fifty Nigerian soldiers had been killed and a number taken as prisoners5. There was no information available for Cameroonian causalities.
Consequent upon the above scenarios, the then Secretary General, Kofi Annan led the United Nations efforts to help resolve the stalements over the peninsula that has been the subject of intense disputes between the two countries for years. Despite this effort, the dispute was still claiming victims. On 5thSeptember 2002, Mr Anan met in Paris with the
two Presidents (Obasanjo and Biya) who both promised to respect and implement whatever decision the ICJ might give on the case. Barely a week later, had the court essentially awarded Cameroon rights to the oil rich peninsula.
After about ten (10) years of this ruling, many issues have remained unresolved; the implementation of the Green Tree Agreement; the living conditions of several Nigerian villages who have been residing in Bakassi and even have a local government; their human right of self-determination among others. Hence, we pose these questions:
· Does ICJ adjudication on the Bakassi Peninsula constitute the denial of the human right of Bakassicitizens?
· Is the difficulty in the implementation of the ICJ ruling on Nigeria-Cameroon boundary dispute resolved by the provisions of the Green TreeAgreement?
· Did interests of external powers affect the adjudication and implementation of the ICJ ruling on the Nigeria-Cameroon boundarydispute?
1.3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The broad objective of this study is to examine the role of International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Nigeria-Cameroon boundary disputes. Specifically, the study aims to demonstrate that:
· The adjudication of ICJ on the Bakassi Peninsula constituted the denial of human rights of Bakassicitizens.
· The difficulty in the implementation of the ICJ ruling on Nigeria-Cameroon boundary dispute is resolved by the provisions of the Green TreeAgreement.
· The interests of external powers affected the adjudication and implementation of the ICJruling.
1.4. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
This study will be of enormous theoretical and practical significance. Practically, it will add to extant literature which serves as a framework for understanding the politics of the International Court of Justice ruling over the Nigeria-Cameroon boundary disputes. Drawing from international judicial precedence (ratio decidendi), this study is significant in that it presents an accurate picture of the character of international politics, and how it impinges on the international legal principles, especially on the principles pertaining the raison d‟etre of a state; dealing with matters of territorial integrity. It will also, stimulate more scholarly research on the subject of this study.
Also, it will serve as a guide to both statesmen and international diplomats interested in dispute resolution, especially territorial based one. It will also provide foreign policy guideline to the Nigerian government since it critique the roles played by both civilian and military governments.
Theoretically, the study ascertained the role of ICJ in the Nigeria-Cameroon boundary dispute, with specific focus on the Bakassi Peninsula. Thus, it found out that the adjudication of ICJ constitutes denial of human rights to Bakassi citizens; that the Green Tree Agreement provisions resolved the difficulties in the implementation of ICJ ruling and that interests of external powers affect the adjudication and implementation of the ICJruling.
Can't find what you are looking for? Hire A Researchproject Writer To Work On Your Topic or Call 0806-703-7559.
Proceed to Hire a Writer »