Sources of International Law
Cameroon v Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea Intervening (para. 247-268)
o Cameroon’s claim on binding international agreement:
o Statement in Joint Communiqué (signed by Heads of State): “signatories have
reached full agreement on exact course of maritime boundary.” = BINDING
definition of the boundary – Agreement + publication expresses consent of both
states to be bound by the treaty – signing = intention to be bound, no reservations,
no ratification
o Publication: Secretariat of UN was notified of the Agreement + agreement was
published widely
o Nigeria: Denies existence of maritime delimitation = must be undertaken de novo
o Yaoundé Declaration not binding = “matter was subject to further discussions”
o Maroua Declaration: Not legally valid = not ratified by Supreme Military Council after
being signed by Nigerian Head of State
Nigerian constitution at the time: Executive acts to be carried out by
Supreme Military Council or subject to its approval = States expected to
follow the constitutional developments in neighboring states that have an
impact upon their inter-State relations.
Cameroon should have known that the Head of State of Nigeria did not have
authority to legally bind the State without permission from the Supreme
Military council = ‘objectively evident’ under VCLT
No ratification = not binding
o Cameroon countered: Nigeria did not oppose until nearly 4 years later
Intl Law: Head of State is always consider as a representative for the
purpose of expressing consent to be bound to a treaty
Any violation of Nigerian domestic law was not MANIFEST and did not
concern a domestic rule of fundamental importance
o Outcome: There are 2 steps of agreement to enforce a treaty (signature and
ratification) = up to States to decide whether they want to utilize both (CIL + VCLT)
Declaration came into force upon signing
Head of State did have authority to legally bind his/her State: “in virtue of
their functions and without having to produce full powers” are considered
as reps for their State (VCLT)
No general legal obligation for States to keep themselves involved of
legislative and constitutional developments in other States which are or may
become important for the international relations of these States.
Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of SA in Namibia (para. 1-22)
Under a claim of right to annex Namibia, South Africa occupied its territory in violation of a United
Nations (U.N.) Security Council Mandate which though later terminated due to South Africa’s
breach, empowered the Security Council to enforce its terms.
,Rule of Law: Member States of the United Nations are bounded by its mandates and violations or
breaches results in a legal obligation on the part of the violator to rectify the violation and upon the
other Member States to recognize the conduct as a violation and to refuse to aid in such violation.
Facts: Under a claim of right to annex the Namibian territory and under the claim that Namibia’s
nationals desired South Africa’s (D) rule, South Africa (D) began the occupation of Namibia. South
Africa was subject to a U.N. Mandate prohibiting Member States from taking physical control of
other territories because it was a Member State of the United Nations.
The Resolution 2145 (XXI) terminating the Mandate of South Africa (D) was adopted by the U.N and
the Security Council adopted Resolution 276 (1970) which declared the continuous presence of
South Africa (D) in Namibia as illegal and called upon other Member States to act accordingly. An
advisory opinion was however demanded from the International Court of Justice.
Issue: Are mandates adopted by the United Nations binding upon all Member States so as to make
breaches or violations thereof result in a legal obligation on the part of the violator to rectify the
violation and upon other Member States to recognize the conduct as a violation and to refuse to aid
in such violations?
Held: Yes. Member States of the United Nations are bounded by its mandates and violations or
breaches results in a legal obligation on the part of the violator to rectify the violation and upon the
other Member States to recognize the conduct as a violation and to refuse to aid in such violation.
As Member States, the obligation to keep intact and preserve the rights of other States and the
people in them has been assumed.
So when a Member State does not toll this line, that State cannot be recognized as retaining the
rights that it claims to derive from the relationship. In this particular case, the General Assembly
discovered that South Africa (D) contravened the Mandate because of its deliberate actions and
persistent violations of occupying Namibia.
Hence, it is within the power of the Assembly to terminate the Mandate with respect to a violating
Member State, which was accomplished by resolution 2145 (XXI) in this case. The resolutions and
decisions of the Security Council in enforcing termination of this nature are binding on the Member
States, regardless of how they voted on the measure when adopted. South Africa (D) is therefore
bound to obey the dictates of the Mandate, the resolution terminating it as to South Africa (D), and
the enforcement procedures of the Security Council.
Once the Mandate has been adopted by the United Nations, it becomes binding upon all Member
States and the violations or breaches of this Mandate result in legal obligations on the part of the
violator to rectify the violation, and upon the other Member States to recognize the conduct as a
violation and to refuse to aid in such violation.
, Discussion: Despite agreeing to restore independence to Namibia with the United Nations, South
Africa (D) did not. A number of mandatory sanctions for enforcement were now adopted by the
General Assembly and the action of South Africa (D) was “strongly condemned”.
Reservations to the Convention on Genocide (p.15,21-30)
Reservations to various provisions to the U.N. Conventions on Genocide were effected by several
signatories’ states to it.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A reservation to the U.N. Convention on Genocide may be effected by a
state and still be considered a signatory thereto.
Facts. The convention on Genocide was unanimously adopted by the United Nations in 1951. Several
states made reservations to one or more of its provisions. An opinion as to whether a party could
express reservations and still be considered a signatory was laid before the International Court of
Justice.
Cameroon v Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea Intervening (para. 247-268)
o Cameroon’s claim on binding international agreement:
o Statement in Joint Communiqué (signed by Heads of State): “signatories have
reached full agreement on exact course of maritime boundary.” = BINDING
definition of the boundary – Agreement + publication expresses consent of both
states to be bound by the treaty – signing = intention to be bound, no reservations,
no ratification
o Publication: Secretariat of UN was notified of the Agreement + agreement was
published widely
o Nigeria: Denies existence of maritime delimitation = must be undertaken de novo
o Yaoundé Declaration not binding = “matter was subject to further discussions”
o Maroua Declaration: Not legally valid = not ratified by Supreme Military Council after
being signed by Nigerian Head of State
Nigerian constitution at the time: Executive acts to be carried out by
Supreme Military Council or subject to its approval = States expected to
follow the constitutional developments in neighboring states that have an
impact upon their inter-State relations.
Cameroon should have known that the Head of State of Nigeria did not have
authority to legally bind the State without permission from the Supreme
Military council = ‘objectively evident’ under VCLT
No ratification = not binding
o Cameroon countered: Nigeria did not oppose until nearly 4 years later
Intl Law: Head of State is always consider as a representative for the
purpose of expressing consent to be bound to a treaty
Any violation of Nigerian domestic law was not MANIFEST and did not
concern a domestic rule of fundamental importance
o Outcome: There are 2 steps of agreement to enforce a treaty (signature and
ratification) = up to States to decide whether they want to utilize both (CIL + VCLT)
Declaration came into force upon signing
Head of State did have authority to legally bind his/her State: “in virtue of
their functions and without having to produce full powers” are considered
as reps for their State (VCLT)
No general legal obligation for States to keep themselves involved of
legislative and constitutional developments in other States which are or may
become important for the international relations of these States.
Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of SA in Namibia (para. 1-22)
Under a claim of right to annex Namibia, South Africa occupied its territory in violation of a United
Nations (U.N.) Security Council Mandate which though later terminated due to South Africa’s
breach, empowered the Security Council to enforce its terms.
,Rule of Law: Member States of the United Nations are bounded by its mandates and violations or
breaches results in a legal obligation on the part of the violator to rectify the violation and upon the
other Member States to recognize the conduct as a violation and to refuse to aid in such violation.
Facts: Under a claim of right to annex the Namibian territory and under the claim that Namibia’s
nationals desired South Africa’s (D) rule, South Africa (D) began the occupation of Namibia. South
Africa was subject to a U.N. Mandate prohibiting Member States from taking physical control of
other territories because it was a Member State of the United Nations.
The Resolution 2145 (XXI) terminating the Mandate of South Africa (D) was adopted by the U.N and
the Security Council adopted Resolution 276 (1970) which declared the continuous presence of
South Africa (D) in Namibia as illegal and called upon other Member States to act accordingly. An
advisory opinion was however demanded from the International Court of Justice.
Issue: Are mandates adopted by the United Nations binding upon all Member States so as to make
breaches or violations thereof result in a legal obligation on the part of the violator to rectify the
violation and upon other Member States to recognize the conduct as a violation and to refuse to aid
in such violations?
Held: Yes. Member States of the United Nations are bounded by its mandates and violations or
breaches results in a legal obligation on the part of the violator to rectify the violation and upon the
other Member States to recognize the conduct as a violation and to refuse to aid in such violation.
As Member States, the obligation to keep intact and preserve the rights of other States and the
people in them has been assumed.
So when a Member State does not toll this line, that State cannot be recognized as retaining the
rights that it claims to derive from the relationship. In this particular case, the General Assembly
discovered that South Africa (D) contravened the Mandate because of its deliberate actions and
persistent violations of occupying Namibia.
Hence, it is within the power of the Assembly to terminate the Mandate with respect to a violating
Member State, which was accomplished by resolution 2145 (XXI) in this case. The resolutions and
decisions of the Security Council in enforcing termination of this nature are binding on the Member
States, regardless of how they voted on the measure when adopted. South Africa (D) is therefore
bound to obey the dictates of the Mandate, the resolution terminating it as to South Africa (D), and
the enforcement procedures of the Security Council.
Once the Mandate has been adopted by the United Nations, it becomes binding upon all Member
States and the violations or breaches of this Mandate result in legal obligations on the part of the
violator to rectify the violation, and upon the other Member States to recognize the conduct as a
violation and to refuse to aid in such violation.
, Discussion: Despite agreeing to restore independence to Namibia with the United Nations, South
Africa (D) did not. A number of mandatory sanctions for enforcement were now adopted by the
General Assembly and the action of South Africa (D) was “strongly condemned”.
Reservations to the Convention on Genocide (p.15,21-30)
Reservations to various provisions to the U.N. Conventions on Genocide were effected by several
signatories’ states to it.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. A reservation to the U.N. Convention on Genocide may be effected by a
state and still be considered a signatory thereto.
Facts. The convention on Genocide was unanimously adopted by the United Nations in 1951. Several
states made reservations to one or more of its provisions. An opinion as to whether a party could
express reservations and still be considered a signatory was laid before the International Court of
Justice.
