Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law Logo Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law

You are here: Publications Archive World Court Digest

World Court Digest

III. The International Court of Justice
3.10. Provisional Measures
3.10.4. Binding Effect / Compliance

¤ Case Concerning the Land and Maritime
Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria
(Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea Intervening)
Judgment of 10 October 2002

[pp. ] 321. In its Judgment of 27 June 2001 in the LaGrand case (Germany v. United States of America), the Court reached “the conclusion that orders on provisional measures under Article 41 [of the Statute] have binding effect” (I.C.J. Reports 2001, para. 109). However, it is “the litigant seeking to establish a fact who bears the burden of proving it; and in cases where evidence may not be forthcoming, a submission may in the judgment be rejected as unproved” (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 437, para. 101). Thus in the present case it is for Cameroon to show that Nigeria acted in violation of the provisional measures indicated in the Order of 15 March 1996.

322. In this case, the Court had already noted in the above Order that it was unable to form any “clear and precise” picture of the events taking place in Bakassi in February 1996 (I.C.J. Reports 2001, para. 38). The same is true in respect of events in the peninsula after the Order of 15 March 1996 was handed down. Cameroon has not established the facts which it bears the burden of proving, and its submissions on this point must accordingly be rejected.