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.

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.

ls The author is gratefül to Adeoye Adcfulu for his assistance in this aspect of the Ic) Judgment summary. The text of the Cameroon v. Nigeria Judgment is availablc on the Icj Website at: «http://www.icj-cij.org». 'y In relation to the Treaty of Versailles, Nigeria indicated that Article 289 provided for "the revival of pre- war bilateral treaties concluded by Gerniany on notification to Germany by the other party". 2° The Court was of the opinion that, since Gerniany no longer cxcrciscd territorial authority in Cameroon and, under Articles 118 and 119 of the Versailles Treaty, had rclinquished its title to overseas possessions, Great Britain had no reason to revive such a treaty. See Cameroon v. Nigeria Judgmcnt, supra, footnotc 18, paras. 198-199. 21 See the summary of Nigrria's argument, ibid., para. 201. z2 Ibid., para. 202.

2.\ The Court was of the opinion that "in sub-Saharan Africa, however, treaties terned, 'treaties of protcrtion' were entered into not by States but rather with important indigenous rulcr� cxrrcisin� local rule ovcr identifiable areas oftcrritory"; ibid., para. 205. z'* This is, at best, a controversial approach. 2' Nigeria's claim were hasrd on three distinct but intcr-rclated bascs of titlr: (1) long occupation by Nigeria and by Nigerian nationals constituting an historical consolidation ot tide and confirming thc original tidc of thc Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar, which title vested in Nigeria at then time of indepcndence in 19G(); (2) peaccful possession by Nigeria, acting as sovereign, and an abseiicc of protest by Cameroon; and (3) manifcstations of sovereignty by Nigeria, together with acquicsccncc by Camcroon in Nigerian sovcrcigiity ovcr thc t3akassi Pcninsula. In response, Cameroon asserted that legal treaty title could not be displaced by what amounts to a number of alleged effectivites. Furthcnnorc. it denied the existence of historical consolidation as a separate basis of legal title and stated that Nigeria's claims amounted to no mole than "thc cstablishnient of tide by adverse possession, which has traditionally been labelled as 'acquisitive prescriptioil"'. 2(1 With reference to thc other two bases oftitlc advance by Nigeria, tltr Court was of thr opinion that, whcre tliere was a conflict between title and effectivith, preference would be given to the former. 27 In line with nbitcr in Western Silhilra, Advisory Opinion, Ic) Reps., 1975, p. 39, para. 80. 2" Sce thr tüsscntin� opinion ofjudge Koroma and the separate opinion ofjudge Al-Khasawneh, Cameroon v. N(�eriilJudgml'l1t, suprn, footnotc 18. 21 As regards the distinction between colonirs and protectorates, the 1884 Treaty provides as follows: "Article 1. Her Mijesty, The (�ucrn ofC:rcat Britain and Ircland, &c, in compliancc with the requrst ofthc Kings, Chiefs and peoplus of Old Calabar, thereby extend to them, and to the territory under their autltority and jurisdiction, her gracious favour and protection. Article 2. The Kings and Ghicrs of0)d Calabar agree and promise to refrain from entering into any correspondcnce, agreement or treaty with any foreign nation or power cxcept with the knowlrdgc and sanction of hcr tiritannic Majcsty's govcrnrnrnt." See the Coullter-Memorial of Nigeria, Vol. 1, p. 109, reproduccd in the dissenting opinion of Judge Koroma, ibid.

.1<> See SlIpra, footnote 16. This case was instituted in 1991 by Qatar, secking sovereignty over the Hawar Islands, sovereign rights over the shoals of Dibal and (2it'at Jaradah and the delimitation of the maritime areas of the two States,. 1'aragraphs 39-69 discuss tor historical context. In its Judgment, at para. 207, the Icj distiuguishret the Cameroon v. Nigeria case trom the Qatar v. Bahrain case by stating that "the court notes that a charactcristic of an international protectorate is that of ongoing tticetings and discussions betwccn thr protccting power and the rttler of the protectorate. In ... Qatar v. Bahrain the court was presented with substantial dokumentation of this chanctcr ..." 31 The Court took the vicw that the fact that a delegatiotr was sent to London by the Kings and Chiefs of Calabar in 1913 to discuss matters of land tenure did not imply international personality but simply contirmed British administration by indirect rule; sec Cameroon v. 7\/tf<'n�judgmcnt, stipra, footnote 18, para. 207. 32 An examination of the Treaty would disclose that in 1913 neither original root of title nor derivative root of title lay with Grat Britain. Could title then have been transferred? .1.1 Article 74(1) states that the delimitation of the exclusive economic zone between States with opposite or adjacent costs shall be effected by agreement on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 ofthe Statute ofthc International Court ofjustice, in order to achirvr an cyuitable solution. Article 83(1) states that the dclimitation ot the continental shelf between States with opposite or adjacent coasts shall be effected by agreement, on the basis of international law, as referred to in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court ofjnstic-e. in order to achieve an equitable solution.

.\, The implication of this Declaration was to place the Bakassi Pcninsula on the Camrroonian si<1e. 1:1 Where the C;ourt found the Maroua Declaration, valid, this would imply the validity ofYaounde u as well, as tor Drclaration adopted the compromise Elle agrccd upon in thc earlier agreement. See Camerool1 r. Nlteria Judgmcnt, supra, footnote 18, para. 268. 31, Icj Reps., 1969, p. 49, para. 91. " That is, a singlc median or cquidistance line (and thrn considerations to discover if there are any relevant factors that may lead to alter that line). 3' This dispute was examined before a tribttnal under the auspices of thc Permanent Court of Arbitration (Pca); sec supra, footnote 16.

3y See R. Volterra, Recent Ueveloyments in Maritime Boundary Delimitation: Brief oil Certain Aspects of the trvo 1 Cases (Eritrea v. Yelllell and Qatar, v. B(ilir�iiii), paper presented at the 2001 Advisory Board on thc Law of the Sea (Arnos) Conference on "Accuracies and Uncertainties in Maritime and Outer Limits", International Hydrog·raphic Bureau, Principality of Monaco, 18-19 October 2001; available at: «http://www.gmat.unsw.edu.au/ ablos/ablos01_papers.htm». r" Phase II Award, available at: <<http://pca-cpa.org/Rpe/#Eritrea>>, para. 83. 41 Phases 1 Aiiard, available at: <<http://pca-cpa.org/RI'C/#Eritrea>>, para. 438. �- Ici Rcps., 1969, p. 52. 41 Judge Jessup, in his separate opinion in tlurt case, rcfcrrcd to a scminal article by William T. Wnorato, Ayyortiorrrnerrt n(an Irrternatiorral Petroleum Depnsit, 17 Ic\.(� 85, 1968, and cited examples of such co-operatiou. In the last 30 years, there has grown up a significant body of co-operative State practice in the exploitation of resources that straddle maritime boundaries. The papers in a volumr published by The British liistitute of International and Comparative Law sumnarize and analysc this practice: Hazel Fox (rd.), /oint Development of Offshore Oil and Gas, 1990, containing contributions by R.R. Churchill, Kamall tIossrin, Isa Huneidi, Masahiro Miyoshi, lan Townsend- Gault, Anastasia Strati, H. Burmester, Clive R. Symmons, Thomas H. Walde, Brenda Barrett, P. Birnie and A.D. Rcad. See also a morc rcccnt study by Masahiro Miyoshi, The Joint Dcveloplllcllr of Oil aiid Gas in Relatinn ro tlre Maritime Boundary Deliiiiitiztiopis, International Boundaries Research, Unit, Maritime Bricfmg, Vol. 2, No. 5, 1�)99. See also, LF.I. Shihata and W.T. Onorato, Johlt Development of International Petroleum Resollr[es ill Ulldefilled and Disyrrted Areas, International Conference of the LAwAs[A Energy Centre, Kuala Lumpur, 1992. Sec Phases rt Award., suyra, footnote 40, para. 84. 44 Plrase n Award, ibid., para. 85. .β This is referred to as a joint developments zone. Whcn a joint development zone is created, an agrerment is made between two States to develop the offshore oil and gas as a dcsignated zone ofthe seabed and subsoil of the continental shelf to which both or either is entitled in international law so as to share jointly in agreed proportion by inter-State co-operation and measures. See the drfinition in H. Fox et al. (cds.). /[MMf Ueveloyrnertt (?f0ffsliore Oil and C:as-A Model Agreement frr States for Joint Development with E\]'I{J1/(/lory C:urnrneruary, Vol. 1, Biici., London, 1989, p. 45.

;r�Qatarv.Hahmill,supra, footnotc 17, para. 230. This linr is the equidistance line which thc Court notes is the line, every point of which is equidistant frorn the nearest points on the baselines from which the breadth of then territorial scas of cach of the two States is measured; sec para. 177. a� Ibid., para. 173. 18 Including low-tide elevatious, islands and archipelagic status; see R. Volterra, supra, footnote 39. 1'1 The Court took note ofthr fact that the pearling industry effcctivcly ceased to exist a considerable time ago. 5" See, generally, Qatar v. Bahrain, supra, footnote 17, paras. 224-249. SI See snpra, footnote 33. 32 Federal Republic of Gennany v. Dcrmrark and Federa! Republit �?1'Gerina�iy v. Netherlands, Icj Rcps., 1969, p. 4, para. 62. In essence, the cascs involved a situation where Germany was in dispute with Denmark and the Nethrrlautls over their shared shelf. The Court took the view that the equidistance formula under the 1958 Geneva, Contincntal Shclf Convention was at best lex ferenda (cxpcrinrcntal law) and concluded that thc prcvailing intcrnational Standard was one of equitable agreement giving effect to the natural proloiigatioii of thc shclf .1.1 Cace aweerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia 11. Libyall Arab Jamahiriya), Ici Reps., 1982, p. 3. Although the Court re-stated that cquity controls, it admitted that this applied only to an equitabie dclimitation of thr shelf and not the division of thc resources of the shelf. 54 This mcans that the parties involved had an Obligation to dcliiiiit thc shclfby agreement, and thc agreement had to rcHcct the reality that the shelf was a natural prolongation of the land. " ,Snyra, footnote 16. 5fl Snpra, footnote 17.

" See Pha;e u AIi""d, supra, footnote 40. This principle was notably adopted in thc Jan Mapen case (Maritime Delimitation in the area between Greetlland andJan Mayen (Denmark v. Norway), Icj Reps., 1993, p. 61, para. 51). 51 See extensive analysis of this example in LF.I. Shihata and W.T. Onorato,Joil1t Development oflnternational L'etrolenm Resources in lIl1dctil1Cd and Disputed Areas, in Blake et al. (eds.), supra, footnote 6, pp. 436-437. �" The Icj decided that, although these may constitute special circumstances, none of these were applicable to the cxisting casc. 61) See supra, footnote 53. "� Thc Tribunals declined to take into account an oil concession granted by Portugal; 25 LL.M. 252, 1986. Also sec R J. Zedalis, International Energy Law, Aldershot, Ashgate and Dartiiiotitli, 2000, "Offshorc Delimitation", pp.49-79.

(,2l:onriliatinnCommissiol1 (111theCOl1filli'lIfal S/ic!f Ari'abetweenIrelandt1l1dJillli\It1}'ClI: R.c]'()rfandRCCOl1llnClIdlltiol1StotheC"pmlllll'lIts 0( lrclallda",1N"nJ'ay. reprinted in 23 I.L.M. 797, 1981. 1,3 In then opinion ofthe Conunission, it was relevant that Iccland was hcavily dcpendent on outside sources for oil supplics; sec ibid., at 8055-825. See also Eritrea i� ''<'1111'11, Phase n Award., snpra, footnotc 40, citing the separate judgment of Judgc Jcssup in thc North Sea cases. ',4 The Court rejected such reference in thc LihyalMalta case (Case roncerning the Continental She f (Libyan Arab /amahiriya f. Malta), Ici Reps., 1985. p. 68), where Malta had complained of a relatively poor economic Situation. See also the Gnlf of Maine case between Canada and the United States of Anterica, Iq Reps., 1984, pp. 310-311. 1. 6' The C:ourt failcd to menthon or entertain the possibility of a trans-boundary resource being developed jointly. It stated: "... only iftlicy (oil concession and oil wcllsl arc based on express or tacit agrecment between parties may they be taken into account." See separate opinion ofjudge Jessup in the !\lort/i Sea cases, .eupra, footnote 52. h7 An official from the office of the Nigerian President is quoted as saying that, "taken in totality, it is actually a no-winncr, lw-loser situation"; sec M. I'ccl aiid A. Goldman, Nigeria Sees Material Gain ill 1 TN DeIeal, Financial Times, 17 October 2002, p. 13. 1,8 The Governments of Nigeria and Equatorial Guinea signed an agreement in late September 2000 conceding sole ownership of thc Zafiro offshore fields operated by Exxon-Mobil to Equatorial Guinea and, in return, granting to Nigeria a large share of the Elf-Acquitaine-operated fields which lie fitrther south. The Governments of San Tome and Principc and Nigeria have also decided to jointly develop resources off the island of Principe. A joint commission will oversee the zonc ofjoint exploitation, which was established by agreement signed 21 February 2001, with Nigeria holding a 60-percent stake. See EIA, supra, footnote 4. 6') Cameroon-N(�eria Commission to bo Hstablished over βakassi, UN Integrated Regional Information Nctworks (IRIN) News, 18 November 2002, available at: «http://www.irinnews.org/report. asp?RcportID=30967&Select kegioii�West Afiica», last visited 15 January 2003. Imtv News also reported, on 4 December 2002, that this Commission would visit the Peninsula.