Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c4f8m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T23:12:38.022Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recent Cases: The Land and Maritime Boundary Case (Cameroon v. Nigeria)—The Intervention By Equatorial Guinea1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

J. G. Merrills  and
Malcolm D. Evans
Malcolm D. Evans
Affiliation:
The aim of this annual section is to provide a guide to the current work of the ICJ by summarising the essential aspects of recent cases and highlighting points of particular significance.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Decisions of International Tribunals: The International Court of Justice
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , July 2000 , pp. 720 - 723
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2. See the Court's order of 15 Mar. 1996, I.C.J. Rep. 1996, 13 and the author's case-note in (1997) 46 I.C.L.Q. 676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

3. See the Court's judgment of 11 June 1998, I.C.J. Rep. 1998, 275 and the author's case-note in (1999) 48 I.C.L.Q. 651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. See the Court's judgment of 25 Mar. 1999, I.C.J. Rep. 1999 and the above case-note at 657–658.

5. Judgment of 11 June 1998, note 3 above, para.116.

6. Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras), Application to Intervene, Judgment, I.C.J. Rep. 1990, 92, and the editor's case-note in (1992) 41 I.C.L.Q. 896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Order, para.3.

8. Idem, para.4.

9. Idem, para.5.

10. Idem, para.9.

11. Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Application for Permission to Intervene, Judgment, I.C.J. Rep. 1981, 3.

12. Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Application for Permission to Intervene, Judgment, I.C.J. Rep. 1984, 3.

13. For discussion and analysis of the previous case-law see Rosenne, S., Intervention before the International Court of Justice (1993)Google Scholar and Ruda, J. M.. “Intervention before the International Court of Justice”, in Lowe, V. and Fitzmaurice, M., Fifty Years of the International Court of Justice, (1996) p.487.Google Scholar

14. Order, para.13.

15. Order, para.14, quoting para.90 of the 1990 judgment.

16. Order, para.15, quoting para.100 of the 1990 judgment.

17. See on this point Lauterpacht, E., Aspects of the Administration of International Justice (1991) pp.29–30.Google Scholar

18. On Nicaragua's participation in the Land, Island and Maritime Frontier case and the value of intervention generally see Merrills, J. G., “Reflections on the incidental jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice”, in Evans, M. D. (ed.), Remedies in International Law: The Institutional Dilemma (1998) p.51 at pp.58–64.Google Scholar

19. Case concerning the Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria). Order of 30 June 1999, I.C.J. Rep. 1999.

20. Counter-claims have been admitted in both the Genocide Convention case and the Oil Platforms case; see the Court's orders of 17 Dec. 1997 I.C.J. Rep. 1997,243, and 10 Mar. 1998, I.C.J. Rep. 1998,190, respectively and the case-note by Bekker, P. H. F. in (1998) 92 A J.I.L. 508.Google Scholar

21. For example the extensive use of discovery in the Heathrow Airport arbitration, 102 I.L.R. 216. For discussion of this and other aspects of the case see Witten, S. M., “The US–UK arbitration concerning Heathrow Airport user charges”, (1995) 89 A.J.I.L. 174.Google Scholar