ANNEX

Offshore Delimitation of Resource Deposits Situated across National Boundaries

The ICJ Decision in Cameroon v. Nigeria�Lending Clarity or Compromise?

Adaeze IFESI�

I. INTR()I�UI'.TI(>N

On 10 Octobcr 2002, the International Court ofJustice (Icj) delivered judgment on the lingering Cameroon v. Niqeria dispute.1 Cameroon conunenced this action before the Icj in 1994, challenging the maritime boundaries in the areas surrounding the Bakassi feninsula and its adjoining waters within the Gulf of Guinea.= Subsequently, Cameroon cnlarged the scope of its application to include delimitation of the largely non-contentious land territory and Lake Chad in the northern sector of the boundary.

Central to the dispute were the far-reaching implications for Nigeria and Cameroonian oil exploration and production and the ownership of the Bakassi Yeninsula, a 1,OOU-square-kilometre (600-square-mile) area believed to contain significant reserves of oil.' Nigeria is one of the world's largest oil exporters, with an economy heavily dependent on oil, which accounts for up to 80 percent of government revenues.4 Cameroon is also a significant oil producer, currently ranked the fifth largest producer in sub-Saharan Africa.5 Cameroon is, howcver, facing declining crude oil production. The confirmation of the right of one of these countries to sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula would enable it to permit the necessary exploration for oil in the area. Further, the delirnitation of the maritime boundary of the two States could also affect petroleum licences already granted by Nigeria.

Historically, the Bakassi Peninsula vicinity is home to the Efiks and Ibibios, who have for centuries fished the Cross River Estuary and the adjoining coastal waters of the Atlantic Ocean and who have their origins in the pre-colonial "Kingdom of Calabar", which embraced the Peninsula.6 The boundary between Nigeria and Cameroon is, like most boundaries in Africa, the direct result of

* LL.B. (Hons.), B.L., LL.M.; and a recent graduate of the Centre for Energy Petroleum Mineral Law and Policy, University of Dundee, Scotland. The author may be contacted at: «[email protected]». 1 Nigeria and Cameroon are States situated in West Africa with adjacent coastlines. 2 Thc Gulf of Guinea is a large concavc �,tilf of about 590,000 squirc miles in area, ranked the ninth largest sea in thc world. This area is located to the south of both countrics. See Facts pleaded before the Icj, Public setting field on Tuesday 3 March 1998, at 10 a.m., at the Place Palace, President Schwebel presiding in the case conceriiiiig the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria. (Cameroon v. Nigeria) lpreliinieiary Objectioiisl, Verbatim Record; available at: «http://w\v\v.icj-cij.org/icj\v\vw/idockct/icn/icncr/cn_icr9802.htm)�, last visited 12 January 2003. 3 See Energy Information Administration (Em), Cameroon Corrrrtry Analysis Brief, October 2002, available at: uhttp://www.eia.doe.gov/erncu/cabs/cameroon.html�r, last visited 12 January 2003. 4 See EJA, Nigerian Cotititry Analysis Bn'ef: January 2002, available at: ��http://www.eia.doe.gov/el11eu/cabs/ nigcria.html», last visited 12 January 2003. 5 EIA, snpra, footnotc 3. ° See A.I. Asiwaju, Tlre Bakassi Peninsula Crisis: An Alternative to War and Litigation, in G.H. Blakc, M.A. Pratt, and C.H. Schofield (eds.), Boundaries and Energy: Problems and Prospects, International Boundaries Kesearch Unit, Kluwer International, The Nethcrlands, 1998, p. 252. 19th and 20th century colonial arrangements.7 In the post-colonial era, the boundary delimitation between these coastline States has been the subject of negotiations and agreements. In 1970, Nigeria and Cameroon decided to delimit and demarcate boundaries and, as a result, reached an agreement in the Yaounde 11 Declaration of 1971. The 1971 Declaration deliniited only the estuarine waters and islands of Cross River and the associated territorial sea.aR

Prompted by further problems, such as clashes involving fishermen along the border, and the discovery of oil in the area,9 the State parties in 1975 signed the Maroua Declaration, which extended the line drawn seaward from Point 12 to Point G.111 The impasse in this region began with the Nigerian repudiation of the Maroua Declaration in 1976 because it had not been ratified as is required by Nigerian legal procedure." This impasse continued until 1987, when Nigeria created the National Boundary Commission (Ni3(�), with the intention of solving boundary disputes. The Ntsc began a progranune of confidence-building missions and, in 1991, held a meeting with Cameroon. This opened up a new era of dialogue after a 17-year period and led to inauguration of a newly created Nigcria-Cameroon Joint Committee of Experts on Boundary Matters and an agreement to reactivate the Nigeria-Cameroon Joint Commission

The pace of the trans-border co-operation between Nigeria and Cameroon was not maintained, however, and in 1994, after clashes within the Bakassi I'eninsula area, Cameroon instituted an action before the lcj to deteniiiiie the maritime boundary beyond the 1975 delimitation point (which in itself is a subject of contention). The delimitation will affect the entire lengnh encompassing the disputed Bakassi Peninsula up to the Northern border, which is the tri-point to Lake Chad to the sea. This is also to take cognisance of prior claims of "exclusive economic zone" (EEZ) and continental shelf by both countries." Nigeria and Cameroon have both ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) 1982.''l5

It is against this background that this article seeks to review the Judgment of the [cj as it relates to two key issues:

- sovereignty over the Bakassi Peninsula; and - delimitation of the maritime boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria.

The aim is to contrast the Decision in respect of these issues with emerging principles of international law developed in this area ofjurisprudence, taking into consideration the two earlier cases on maritime delimitation decided under UNCLOS 1982:

- the 1999 Eritrea /Yemen Ar6itration (Phase 1I{;I" and - the 2001 Qatar v. Bahrain case.17

For more detail on the transition from colony to independence, sec Buc, Story �)1',Ifrita, 11 December 2001, available at: �,http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/iiidex.shtnil», last visited 12January 2003. See also Asiwaju, ibid., at p. 254. 1 Fixing the Boundary in tlve Aktvayqf� Fs1l�aryjrOlIl Point 1 tn Point 12, in J.I. Charney and L.M. Alcxandcr (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. I, Asn./Martinus NijhoffPublishers, Dordrecht, Boston, and London, 1993, p. 842. '' Spccifically in the estuary of Rio del Rey. 10 See snpra, footnote 8, at 841-842 and 846-847. At thc time of signature, Cameroon claimed a 50-milc territorial sea and Nigeria a 30-mile territorial sea. 1 O.O. Sholanke, Deliinitit�Ztlie Territorial Sea hetween Nigeria and Cameroon: A RationalApproac6, 42 IcacZ 39R, 1993. 12 See Asiwaju, suyra, footnote 6, at pp. 259-266. '3 J.I. Charney and L.M. Alexander (eds.), International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. m, AsiL/Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1)ordrecht, Boston, and London, 1993, p. 2249. 14 Nigeria claims a 200-milc EEZ; Exclusive Economic Zone Act, Chapter 110 of the Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990; sec supra, footnote 8, at 844. 15 UNCLOS was ratified by Nigeria and Cameroon on 14 August 1986 and 19 November 1985, respectively. "' Permanent Court of Arbitration Award, available at: «http://pca-cpa.org/RPC/#Eritrea». 17 Case coruerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar atid Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Icc Reps., 2001. Neither Bahrain nor Qatar is party to the Geneva Convention on the Law ofthe Sea of 29 April 1958; Bahrain has ratified UNCLOS, but Qatar is only a signatory to it. The Court indicated that customary international law, therefore, was the applicable law. Both Parties, however, agrccd that most of the provisions of the 1982 Convention, which are relevant for the present casc, rcflect customary law.