Page 184 - Law of Peace, Volume ,

Pam 27-161-1

were consolidated by the Court) concerning the status of that while a dispute capable of adjudication might have
the League of Nations mandate for South West Africa and been present when the proceedings were commenced
whether South Afiica had breached certain limitations of (May 196 I), the dispute had been overcome by interven-
the mandate (e.g., alleged "military training of the na- ing events, i.e., Northern Cameroons had ceased to exist
tives," alleged erection of military installations in the ter- when it became part of the Republic of Nigeria in June
ritory, etc.), as well as certain responsibilities. After con- 1961, thus terminating the trusteeship under the order of
sidering many arguments by Ethiopia and Liberia with the United Nations General Assembly (April 1961). A
regard to their standing to raise issues concerning the ex- declaratory judgment to the effect that prior to the ter-
istence of the mandate and South Africa's conduct mination of the trusteeship of Northern Cameroons the
thereunder, the Court declined to decide the case on the United Kingdom had breached its obligations would, the
merits fmding that (notwithstanding the nonexistence of a Court declared, be without purpose. At a result, the Court
body, e.g., the Council of the League of Nations, that determined that it would not decide the merits of the
could properly bring into question the conduct of a man- claims of the Republic of Cameroon. 91
datory) the applicants had not established any right to The North Sea Continental Shelf Case (Federal Republic
raise the issues in question to the Court. As a result, the of Germany v. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany
Court rejected the claims. 89 v. Netherlands) (1967-1969). 92 In 1967 Denmark, the
The Northern Cameroons Case (Cameroon v. United Netherlands, and the Federal Republic of Germany
Kingdom) (1961-1963). 90 This dispute concerned the (FRG) submitted by agreement to the Court the issue of
Cameroons which were part of the territory renounced by how a portion of the North Sea Shelf should be divided
Germany in the Treaty of Versailles and which were among the three countries. (The claims of the United
placed under two League of Nations mandat-ne Kingdom to a portion of the North Sea Shelf had been
under France and one under the United Kingdom. The resolved prior to these proceedings by agreement of the
United Kingdom further divided its mandate into North- four parties.) Since the North Sea is relatively shallow, it
ern Cameroons (administered as a part of Nigeria) and lends itself to exploration for hydrocarbon deposits. Den-
Southern Cameroons (administered separately from mark and the Netherlands argued for a division of the dis-
Nigeria). Upon the creation of the United Nations, the puted Shelf area on the "equidistance principle" which
Cameroons mandates were included in the trusteeship would give to each country those portions of the Shelf that
system of the United Nations. In 1960, French-ad- were nearer to its coast than to any point on the coast of
ministered Cameroons gained its independence and any other country. Because of the nature of the
became the Republic of Cameroon. On the recommenda- Danish/Netherlands Coasts (protruding in the North Sea)
tion of the United Nations General Assembly, the United and the German Coast (recessing inland), such a theory
Kingdom held plebiscites to determine the wishes of the could have worked to the disadvantage of the FRG. The
inhabitants of its mandated territory. In early 1961, FRG argued that a "just and equitable share" (based on
Southern Cameroons voted to join the Republic of sea frontage) approach should be adopted. Article 6 of the
Cameroon, and Northern Cameroons voted to join the 1958 Geneva Convention on the Continental Shelf, the
Federation of Nigeria. The United Nations General As- Court observed, adopts the "equidistance rule" unless
sembly approved these results (the Republic of Cameroon the parties agreed otherwise or "special circumstances"
voting against the approving resolution) in April 1961 and existed. The FRG argued that "special circumstances"
ordered the trusteeships of the United Kingdom be termi- did exist in the casei.e., the peculiar formation of the Ger-
nated upon Northern Cameroons joining Nigeria and man Coast. The Court refused to apply either principle ad-
Southern Cameroons joining Cameroon. In May 196 1, vanced by the parties. The "equidistance rule," the Court
the Republic of Cameroon instituted proceedings before found, was not binding under the 1958 Geneva Conven-
the Court claiming that the United Kingdom had tion because the FRG, although a signatory, had never
breached the provisions of its trusteeship with respect to formally ratified it and the FRG had not operated under it
Northern Cameroons (e.g:, alleged irregularities in hold- in a way that could give rise to an estoppel argument by
ing the plebiscites). Southern Cameroon joined the Re- Denmark or the Netherlands. Additionally, since the
public of Cameroon in October 1961, and Northern Convention allowed reservations with respect to Article 6,
Cameroons became a part of the Federation of Nigeria in the "equidistance rule" could not be regarded as an
1961. The opinion of the Court was handed down in emerging principle of customary international law.
December 1963. The Court stated that it was not required Likewise, the Court discarded the German proposal (the
to hear every case in which it has jurisdiction, as a decision "equitable share" principle) by fmding that it would be
of the Court must have some practical impact and con- inconsistent to the fundamental rule that "a coastal state's
tinuing applicability. In the caseat hand, the Court found rights in respect of the continental shelf constituting a

89. See [1965-19661I.C.J.Y.B. 83. 9'. See [1963-19641I.C.J.Y.B. 95.
90. (19631I.C.J. Rep. 15;reported in 58Am J. Int'lL. 488 (1964). 92. [I9691I.C.J. Rep. 3;reported in 63Am.J. Int? L. 591 (1969).