EFFECTS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND STATE’S SOVEREIGNTY ON THE RESOLUTION OF THE NIGERIA CAMEROUN BOUNDARY DISPUTE

ABSTRACT

The discovery of oil reserves in the water surrounding Bakassi peninsula subjected it to claims and counter-claims for sovereignty, military occupation and recourse to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on March 1999. Then on October 2002 ICJ delivered its judgment that sovereignty over Bakassi did rest with Cameroun. The growth of the nation of sovereignty and the independent nation state require an acceptable method whereby interstate relations could be conducted in accordance with commonly acceptable standard of behavour, and international law. Subsequent to the resolution of the dispute over land maritime boundary between Nigeria and cameroun, Nigeria Government was faced with the problem of resettling Nigeria in the Bakassi peninsula. Therefore the aim of this study is to
examine the present legal right and sovereignty of Nigeria in the affected area. This research will examine the resolution of the International Court of Justice on the Nigeria-cameroun boundary dispute with a view to pointing out the effects of international law and state sovereignty on the said resolution. This work therefore is a product of the study of the role of ICJ in the Nigeria-Cameroon boundary dispute. To this effect, we ascertained how the implementation of ICJ adjudication on the Bakassi peninsula undermined the human right of Bakassi citizens. How economic interest of Nigeria and Cameroon undermined the peaceful settlement of the Bakassi Peninsula border conflict. We employed the David Easton systems theory as our analytical framework to provide a conceptual foundation for the study. Our method of data collection and analysis are qualitative and qualitative descriptive method
respectively. In the final analysis, we posited facts presented by both parties the conduct of plebiscite that will take into cognizance the human right of the Bakassi, citizen would have been more effective in the settlement of the dispute. Moreso ICJ taken into congnize of all treaties as concerned Bakassi Peninsula issue would have guranted fair hearing which is the cardinal principle of law. Thus the ICJ ignored all these treaties and only relied on 1913 Treaty and Hendersoon Flenrian exchange of notes in 1931 on Bakassi judgment.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
1.2 Statement of the Problem
1.3 Objectives of the Study
1.4 Significance of the Study
1.5 Scope of the Study
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction
2.1 International Law
2.2 State Sovereignty
2.3 Nigerian and Cameroon Boundary Dispute
REFERENCES
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 Theoretical Framework
3.2 Hypotheses
3.3 Research Design
3.4 Methods of Data Collection
3.5 Methods of Data Analysis
3.6 Operational Definitions
3.6.1 International Law
3.6.2 Law and Politics in International Community
3.6.3 The International System
3.5.4 The Function of Politics
3.6.5 The Concept of Territory in International Law
3.6.6 New States and Title to Territory
3.6.7 The acquisition of additional territory
3.6.8 Boundary Treaties and Boundary Awards
3.6.9 Accretion
3.6.10 Cession
3.6.11 Conquest and the Use of Force
3.6.12 The Exercise of Effective Control
3.6.13 Conclusions
REFERENCES
CHAPTER FOUR: FUNDAMENTAL QUESTIONS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW AND STATE SOVEREIGNTY
4.1 Sovereignty and International Law
4.2 Historical Roots of Sovereignty
4.3 Contemporary Notion of Sovereignty
4.4 Trends to Restrain Sovereignty
4.5 Trends to Re-Assert Sovereignty
4.5.1Sovereign Activities (Effectivités
4.6 The Role of Subsequent Conduct: Recognition, Acquiescence and Estoppel
REFERENCES
CHAPTER FIVE: INTERNATIONAL LAW, STATE’S
SOVEREIGNTY AND THE NIGERIA -
CAMEROON DISPUTE
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Critique of the Evolution of Modern African States and Boundaries
5.3 Archival Search on the Traditional, Geographic and Political Features of the Bakassi Peninsular
5.4 The Bakassi Peninsular and the Cameroun-Nigeria
Question
REFERENCES
CHAPTER SIX: ALTERNATIVE LEGAL AND POLITICAL
INTERPRETATIONS FOR THE RESOLUTION OF
THE NIGERIA CAMEROON BORDER DISPUTE
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Brief Background and the Problem
6.3 An Analysis of the ICJ Judgment
6.3.1The Background
6.4 Concluding Remarks and Suggestions
REFERENCES
CHAPTER SEVEN: SUMMARY, CONCLUS1ON AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1 Conclusions
7.2 Recommendations
REFERENCES
Bibliography
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Political map showing Nigeria and Cameroun
Appendix 2: Map showing the disputed Bakassi Peninsula
Appendix 3: Map showing the overview of oil boundaries shared by
Nigeria, Cameroun and Equatorial Guinea
Appendix 4: The map showing Nigeria oil concentration, production and distribution
Appendix 5: The map showing oil wells in Nigeria
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1    Background to the Study
Nigeria and Cameroon have disputed the possession of Bakassi for some years, leading to considerable tension between the two countries. In 1981 the two countries went to the brink of war over Bakassi and another area around Lake Chad, at the other end of the two countries common border. More armed clashes broke out in the early 1999s. In response, Cameroon took the matter to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 29th March 1994.
On 6th June, 1994, Cameroon filed an additional application “for the purpose of extending the subject of the dispute “to a further dispute described as “relating essentially to the question of sovereignty over the territory of Cameroon in the area of lake Chad” and requested the court to join the two applications and to examine the whole as a single case.
On 30th June, 1999, the republic of Equatorial Guinea field an application for permission to intervene in the case stating that the object of the intervention was to protect the legal rights of the Rep. in the Gulf of Guinea by all legal means available and to inform the court of the nation of the legal rights and interests of Equatorial Guinea that could be affected by the court’s decision in the light of the maritime boundary claims advanced by the parties to the case before the court. The application was granted. Historical background shows that the dispute between the parties as regards their land boundary falls within an historical framework marked initially in the 19th or early 20th centuries by the actions of the European powers with a view to the partitioning of Africa. The history is reflected in a number of conventions and treaties, diplomatic acts, maps of the period and documents which were supplied to the court by parties.
Nigeria’s claim on its presence in certain areas of Lake Chad rested on three bases:
long occupation by Nigeria and by Nigerian nationals constituting a historical consolidation of title.
effective administration by Nigeria acting as sovereign and an absence of protect;

and manifestation of sovereignty by Nigeria together with acquiescence by Cameroon in Nigeria sovereignty over Darak and associated Lake Chad villages.
Cameroon contended that, as a holder of conventional territorial title to the disputed area, it does not have to demonstrate the effective exercise of its sovereignty over those areas, since a valid conventional title prevails over any effectiveness to the country.
The court pointed out that the theory of historical consolidation is highly controversial and cannot replace the established modes of acquisition of title under int’l law. Moreover, the facts and circumstances put forward by Nigeria concerned a period of over 20 years which is in any event for too short even according to the theory relies on by it. The court observed that some of Nigeria’s activities-the organization of public health and education facilities, policing, administration of justice could as agreed by it, normally be considered to be acts of sovereignty. However, as there was a pre-existing title held by Cameroon in this area of the lake, the pertinent legal test is whether there was thus evidence of acquiescence’s by Cameroon in the passing of title to Nigeria. The court further observed that “where the act of affectivities does not correspond to the law, where the territory which is the subject of the dispute is effectively administrated by a state other than the one possessing legal title, preference should be given to the holder of the title. Thus, Cameroon hold the legal title to the territory in question. The court further found that the evidence presented to it as reflected in the case file shows that there was no acquiescence by Cameroon in the abandonment of its title in the area in favour of Nigeria. Therefore, these affectivities adduced by Nigeria did not correspond to the law. Accordingly, sovereignty lies with Cameroon.
The ICJ delivered its judgment on 10th October 2002, finding (based principally on the Anglo-agreements) that sovereignty over Bakassi did indeed rest with Cameroon. It instructed Nigeria to transfer possession of the peninsula, but did not require the inhabitants to move or to change their nationality. Cameroon was thus given a substantial Nigeria population and was required to protect their rights, infrastructure and welfare.
The verdict caused consternation in Nigeria. It aroused vitriolic comments from Nigeria officials and the Nigerian media alike. Chief Richard Akinjide, a former Nigerian Attorney-General and Minister of Justice who had been a leading member of Nigeria’s legal team, describes the decision as “50% international law and 50% international politics”, “blatantly biased and unfair”, “a total disaster”, and a “complete fraud”. The Nigerian newspaper The Guardian went further, declaring that the judgment was “a rape and unforeseen potential international conspiracy against Nigerian territorial integrity and sovereignty” and “part of a Western ploy to foment and perpetuate trouble n Africa”. The outcome of the controversy was a de facto Nigerian refusal to withdraw its troops from Bakassi and transfer sovereignty. The Nigerian government did not, however, openly reject the judgment but instead called for an agreement that would provide “peace with honour, with the interest and welfare of our people”.
The ICJ judgment was backed up by the United Nations, whose charter potentially allowed sanctions on the use of force to enforce the court’s ruling. Secretary-General Kofi Annan stepped in as a mediator and chaired a tripartite with the two countries’ presidents on 15th November 2002, which established a commission to facilities the peaceful implementation of the ICJ’s judgment. A further summit was held on 31st January 2004. This made significant progress, but the process had been complicated by the opposition of Bakassi’ inhabitants to being transferred to Cameroon.
Baskassi leaders threatened to seek independence if Nigeria renounced sovereignty. This secession was announced on 9th July 2006, as the “Democratic Republic of Bakassi”. The decision was reportedly made at a meeting on 2nd July 2006 and The Vanguard newspaper of Nigeria reported the decision to secede. The decision was reportedly made by groups of militants including Southern Cameroon under the aegis of Southern Cameroon Peoples Organization (SCAPO), Bakassi Movement for Self-Determination (BAMOSD), and the Movement for the Emancipation of the Nigeria Delta (MEND).
On 13th June 2006, President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria and President Paul Biya of Cameroon resolved the dispute in talks led by the UN Secretary General Kofi Anna in New York City. Obasanjo agreed to withdraw Nigeria troops within 60 days and to leave the territory completely in Cameroonian control within the next two years. Annan said, “With today’s agreement on the Bakassi peninsula, a comprehensive resolution of the dispute in within our grasp. The momentum achieved must be sustained”.
Nigeria began to withdraw its forces, comprising some, 3,000 troops, beginning 1st August 2006, and a ceremony on 14th August marked the formal handover of the northern part of the peninsula. The remainder stayed under Nigeria civil authority for two more years.
However, based on Nigeria’s image as a regional power and its precedents as peacekeeper in Africa, Nigeria decided to abide by the rule of law and thus to the ruling of the ICJ demanding the unconditional and immediate handover of Bakassi to the Cameroonians. This was evidently a difficult decision for the Nigeria people based on the national interest as regards the lucrative crude oil reserves in the peninsula and national allegiance of a large proportion of the Bakassi populace that still relate to Nigeria. Irrespective of competing state interests between Nigeria and Cameroon, a peaceful resolution was still found for the Bakassi peninsula
dispute between both nations. Nigeria obedience to constitutionalism and the rule of law prevented which could lead to the catastrophic war that would
have affected not only the sub-region but Africa.
 It is  against this  backdrop that we  examine  the  provision of international law as regard to ICJ (International Court of Justice) settlement of dispute strictly adhered to in resolution of Nigeria Cameroon boundary conflict?
1.2    Statement of the Problem
It is pertinent to note that inter-state boundary disputes such as the one
between Cameroon and Nigeria, endangers global peace and security, and are therefore, taken more seriously by the international community (Goldstein and Pevehouse, 2011: 181-182). The world, perhaps in realization of this fact after the devastating 1st and 2nd World Wars; through the Charter of the United Nations in Article I and the statute of the World Court;…obliges state party in such disputes to bring by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and inter-national law, adjustment or settlement of disputes or situation, (which) might lead to the breach of the (world) peace”.
The fact is incontrovertible that Nigeria and Cameroon were in dispute over ownership of certain land and maritime area of their common border, especially, that of the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsular. At the instance of the border dispute, Cameroon resorted to the World Court to seek justice under the principles of international law, probably, with the aim to reach peaceful settlement of the dispute between the two countries The World Court was able to reach a judgment on the dispute, and perhaps, the goal of peace was achieved. However, the attainment of perpetual peace in the region, and the world; largely depends on the consent of Nigeria towards full implementation of the Court’s judgment which particularly bordered on her communities in which their ancestral homes were adjudged to be in Cameroon territory but which are expected to maintain cultural and religious ties or affiliations with the kith and kin in Nigeria, and on the other hand, she being the defendant or debtor state in the dispute. But Nigerian soon after the World Court judgment, issued an official statement which appeared to accept parts of the decision it considered fair or favourable, and rejected other parts she found unfavourable, (Vanguard [Lagos] 30 October, 2002). The reasons given for the non-compliance was that her constitution’s principles of federation requires that “all land territory comprising the nations of Nigeria is specified in the constitution’, the Federal Government could not give up Bakassi until the requisite National and State Assemblies amend the Constitution” (Weekly Trust [Kaduna] 13 December, 2002). Former President Olusegun Obasanjo explained this position more explicitly in these words; “we want peace, but the interest of Nigeria will not be scarified…” [what] may be legally right may not be politically expedient,” (Vanguard [Lagos] 30 October, 2002). Nigeria’s position seems to agree with what Rosenne, (1997:249) asserted as follows:
[That]… non-compliance may give rise to new political tensions suggested that [since] the efficacy of the post-adjudicatory phase [can] not [be] determined by another judicial examination…it [has] to be [settled] by immediate political action…
The international community became very disturbed especially, when both countries have earlier agreed to respect whatever decision that would emanate from the Court. Thus it became interested in ensuring that Nigeria complies with the Court’s judgment in order to ensure peace and stability in the region. And in line with Article 94 (1) of the United Nations Charter to enforce the Court’s decisions: three members of the Security Council, namely; the United State. France and United Kingdom put substantial diplomatic pressure on Nigeria to accept the ruling. The United Kingdom  took the lead to convince Nigeria through the British High Commission to Nigeria as aptly captured in the Statement; “[the] World Court judgments are binding and not subject to appeal, Nigerian has an obligation under the United Nations Charter to comply with the judgment”, (Paulson, Agence France-Presses, Doc. FBIS-AFR-2002-1025,25 October, 2002).
It is on the basis of the above implication that the study become imperative to assess the provision of international law as regards to ICJ settlement of dispute strictly adhered to in resolution of Nigeria Cameroon boundary conflict in the case whose issues involved the rights over the oil rich land and sea reserves and the fate of local populations and other factors of any. The study is therefore design to inquires into the under listed research questions that would come thereafter as thus.
Was the provision of international law as regards International Court of Justice (ICJ) settlement of dispute strictly adhered to in the resolution of Nigeria-Cameroon boundary conflict?
Did the doctrine of sate sovereignty account for the cession of Bakassi peninsula for Cameroon by Nigeria?
Were the interests of the people of Bakassi peninsula taken into consideration in the resolution of Nigeria Cameroon boundary dispute?
Hypotheses
The provision of international law as regards International Court of Justice (ICJ) settlement of disputes was not strictly adhered to in the resolution of Nigeria-Cameroon boundary dispute.
The doctrine of state sovereignty did not account for the cession of Bakassi peninsula to Cameroon by Nigeria.
The interests of the people of Bakassi peninsula were not taken into consideration in the resolution of Nigeria-Cameroon boundary dispute.
1.3    Objectives of the Study
Broadly, the study aims at discovery the effect of the application of international law state sovereignty on the resolution of the Nigeria Cameroon boundary dispute.
Specifically, the study sets to:
Ascertain whether the provision of international law as regards ICJ (International Court of Justice) settlement of disputes was strictly adhered to in the resolution of Nigeria Cameroon boundary dispute.
Determine whether the doctrine of state sovereignty accounted for the cession of Bakassi peninsula to Cameroon by Nigeria.
Determine whether the interests of the people of Bakassi peninsula were taken into consideration in the resolution on Nigeria Cameroon boundary dispute.
1.4 Significance of the Study
Nigeria, being member of the United Nation is bound by the judgment of the International Court of Justice. In view of the substantial compliance with the judgment of the ICJ, it has become necessary that this study be made. The significance of this work will therefore be theoretical and practical.
Theoretically, this study will make its contribution to the growth of scholarship, especially whether the judgment of the ICJ is the best option for the people of Bakassi regions who are left no option but to comply with the judgment of the Court. Emphasis will be on the effects of International Law and State sovereignty on resolution of Nigeria Cameroon boundary dispute.
However, on the practical side, this study will let the people of Bakassi region know that in spite of the said judgment, they have rights to be protected by parties to the dispute and that such rights should be safeguarded. This work will also let the international community as well as the governments of Nigerian and Cameroon know that the infringement of such rights will militate against human well-being and the overall development of the society. Also, this study will make the security organs and law enforcement agencies of the contending state to know that the judgment of the ICJ can be enforced without tampering with justice since “justice was the basis of rights, formulated by authority. (Onyeocha, 1994. 41).
This study will overlap the development of system theory which is applied in this work to further elucidate the effects of International Law and state sovereignty on the resolution of the Nigeria-Cameroon boundary.
1.5    Scope of the Study
This work is not meant to grapple with the whole issue of the effects of international law and state sovereignty on the resolution of the Nigeria-Cameroon boundary dispute.
It is however limited to the immediate effects on the displaced people of Bakassi region. Views of right thinkers and international law and politics experts will ideally be discussed especially the significance of international law and state sovereignty on Nigeria polity.