THE GHOST OF BERLIN STILL HAUNTS AFRICA! THE ICJ JUDGMENT ON THE LAND AND MARITIME BOUNDARY DISPUTE BETWEEN CAMEROON AND NIGERIA

Abstract

The Author undertakes a post-mortem analysis of the ICJ's landmark decision in the Cameroon v. Nigeria dispute over the Bakassi Peninsula. He examines the background to the case, the facts before the ICJ, the decisions and the impact it could make in resolving the boundary dispute between the parties. The author submits that the Cameroon case, though valid, flies in the face of good sense and logic. The Authos, however, advises the Parties to comply with the Court's Decision and its consequential orders, given that they voluntarily submitted to the Court's compulsory jurisdiction. He argues that failure to comply could complicate efforts at conflict prevention, management and resolution in Africa. At the macro-level, the Author interrogates the contribution of the ICJ decision to the resolution of boundary disputes in Africa, in particular, and the development of international law in general. He reviews the problem of frontier disputes in Africa, which, inter alia, resultis from the uti possidetis doctrine - that disastrous sword of Damocles that enshrines the inviolability of the frontiers inherited from colonialism. He questions the continued relevance of this doctrine in contemporary Africa, given that one of the visions of the new African Union (AU) is to create a borderless political and economic integration. The Author concludes by asserting: Africa will truly not be free until an atmosphere of lasting peace and stability prevails and Africans can live in harmony with each other. This requires that the frontier problems be confronted, in an attitude of mutual understanding and compromise on fundamental issues.