Southern Cameroons: Another Winnable Case Against La Republique du Cameroun: Rejoinder
Tumasang Martin
Barrister at law, International Arbitrator, Chartered Surveyor, Property Valuer, Claims Quantum Consultant.
MRICS [London], MCIArb [London], ABIFM [UK], ADIAC[Dubai], Barrister [Inner Temple London], PhD [Sheffield H University], LLM with merit (Oil and Gas Law) [Robert Gordon University Aberdeen], MSc (Construction Law and Dispute Resolution) [Leeds Metropolitan University], MSc (Prop Valuation) [Sheffield H University], Bar Professional (BPTC) [BPP University College London], PGDip [Sheffield H University], Graduate Diploma Law [Hertfordshire University], BSc (Hons) Quantity Surveying [University of Ife]
Introduction
As previously stated, at the 849th meeting of the Fourth Committee of the UN, Mr. Ahidjo took the floor and gave the UN the solemn assurance that Republique du Cameroun is not annexationist. He declared: "We are not annexationists. … If our brothers of the British zone wish to unite with independent Cameroun, we are ready to discuss the matter with them, but we will do so on a footing of equality."
In June 1960 he told the 'Agence Presse Camerounaise': "I have said and repeated, in the name of the Government [of Republique du Cameroun], that we do not have any annexationist design."
In July the same year he again reassured the international community through the same press: "For us, there can be no question of annexation of the Southern Cameroons. We have envisaged a flexible form of union, a federal form."
Nature of Obligation
In the previous posting, I posited that Ahidjo's statement as Head of State of La Republique du Cameroon at the UN and other international fora is a unilaterally declared international obligation that cannot be breached without engaging La Republique du Cameroun's state responsibility.
The question some perceptive legal minds will ask is what type of obligation is his declaration and did he not fulfil his obligation by not annexing Southern Cameroons but instead allowing the UN supervised plebiscite and a joining as recommended by the UN?.
In order to answer the above question, it is necessary to describe the above unilateral obligation by Ahidjo at the UN.
The obligation is an Obligation of Result. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in
Request for Interpretation of the Judgment of 31 March 2004 in the Case concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico v. United States of America), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2009, p. 3, describes an obligation of result as an obligation which requires a specific outcome.
The choice of means to come about the outcome was left with La Republique du Cameroun. Ahidjo did not state on behalf of La Republique du Cameroon that it will not annex Southern Cameroons unless the people of Southern Cameroons agree to be annexed hence the so called 1972 Referendum cannot be called as a defence against the annexation of Southern Cameroons.
La Republique du Cameroon did not state at the UN that it will follow the UN proceedure only to cancel it later and annex the territory to La Republique du Cameroun after dissolving all the institutions of Southern Cameroons.
The obligation is an obligation of results. This means that at any time, irrespective of the means taken, if Southern Cameroons found itself annexed to La Republique du Cameroun, then La Republique du Cameroon has breached the actionable international obligation deriving from the statement of Ahidjo at the UN and other international fora.
The breach of the obligation is not depended on whether there was a joining or not. It is an obligation of results. Even if there was a joining (which is strenuously denied), the fact that Southern Cameroons today has no institutions of its own and is being considered an appendage of La Republique du Cameroun is an actionable breach of an international obligation that engages the state responsibility of La Republique du Cameroun.
Conclusion
The above is a case La Republique du Cameroun cannot run from. It cannot say the Present state of Southern Cameroons with no remaining institutions of its own is not annexation of Southern Cameroons by La Republique du Cameroun irrespective of the route taken to obtain the result. The obligation in international law is one of result and not of means. La Repbulique du Cameroun had the choice to use any means possible to avoid annexing Southern Cameroons. It's state responsibility is fully engaged on this breach.
No comments:
Post a Comment