The Demarcation of Straddling Villages in Accordance with the International Court of Justice Jurisprudence: The Cameroon-Nigeria Experience

Bi a ba ran eniyan ni ise eru ologbon afi ti omo je (Where instructionsare insensitive and befitting of a slave, a reasonable fellowamends it sensitively and delivers it in a manner befittingthe free).¹

The existence of straddling settlements between Cameroon andNigeria is one of the features of their geographical locationas neighbouring West African States. Although the existenceof these settlements did not constitute a central part of theboundary dispute between both States, implementation of therecent World Court judgment presents crucial dilemmas as tothe treatment of straddling communities in particular and, tosome extent, boundary villages as well. This article exploresthe alternatives that may be adopted in attaining a fair andjust implementation of the Court's judgment in relation to straddlingvillages and boundary communities. The delimitation and demarcationof straddling villages and villages that fall into another State'sterritory are bound to be an increasingly common feature ofthe work of international courts and demarcation commissionsas populations increase and the need to definitively specifyborders increases. It is, therefore, necessary that a specializedjurisprudence is developed for this area of law. This article,therefore, attempts to highlight difficulties in the jurisprudenceof the International Court of Justice in its work in this areaand suggests a typology of factors that may be adopted in varyingdelimitation lines by adjudicators and demarcators. It alsoattempts a digest of what may represent good practice in thelaw of boundary delimitation and demarcation by examining similarcases around the world. The argument presented is that thereis enough within the corpus of international law and internationalrelations for courts to avoid splitting communities needlesslyor subjecting populations to the whims and caprice of hostileStates' territorial jurisdiction, particularly in relation toa continent such as Africa, which has suffered a long and unfairhistory of balkanization of its peoples and civilizations. Thearticle makes the case that the World Court needs more law elaborationif not judicial activism in its delimitation work to avoid inadvertentcomplicity in the abuse of peoples' rights and to attain a morerobust resolution of boundary disputes. The view advanced isthat where aspects of the Court's delimitation may be unsatisfactoryand contrary to the mutual interests of disputants, those chargedwith the task of implementing the Court's judgment must notbe slavish in their appreciation of the spirit of judicial resolution.Where there is the danger that human and generational rightswould be needlessly compromised, nothing apart from an unimaginativeand unco-operative approach prevents demarcators from independentlyadopting a more holistic resolution of the dispute in the interestof human justice, such as by (within very strict limits) varyingdelimitation lines suggested by the Court in particular sectors.