Explore the vast range of titles available.

In recent years various new international courts and tribunals have been set up and several systems of compulsory jurisdiction established. As a result, litigation, which used to be quite rare in international affairs, is now increasingly common, prompting questions about both the relation between adjudication and more traditional methods of handling disputes, and the interrelation of different courts and tribunals. Using the evidence provided by recent cases, this article examines legal disputes and the current role of adjudication. Three specific matters are considered: the relation between adjudication and negotiation; situations of overlapping and competing jurisdiction and their consequences; and how adjudication relates to the work of political organisations. The author's conclusion is that to ask whether the present assortment of dispute settlement procedures should be thought of as complementary or contradictory is to oversimplify the question. Diplomatic and legal processes sometimes work in harmony and sometimes in opposition and the same is true of different judicial institutions. If international law continues to develop and eventually becomes an integrated legal system, many of these uncertainties will disappear. Until then, however, the mosaic of dispute settlement procedures will keep their contrarious character.

On 10 October 2002 the International Court of Justice gave its decision on the merits in the case brought by the Republic of Cameroon against the Federal Republic of Nigeria over their land and maritime boundary. The judgment, which addresses a number of issues of general international law concerning maritime boundaries and territorial sovereignty, as well as providing a detailed treatment of the particular facts, concludes a case that began in 1994 and has had an unusual history. As this background had a significant bearing on the eventual outcome, a brief recapitulation may be useful.

On 17 December 2002 the International Court gave its judgment in a dispute over two small islands in the Celebes Sea claimed by both Indonesia and Malaysia. The islands in question, Ligitan and Sipadan, are located off the north-east coast of Borneo and lie approximately 15.5 nautical miles apart. Both are very small and Ligitan is uninhabited; Sipadan, on the other hand, was developed by Malaysia into a tourist resort for scuba diving in the 1980s. In 1998 Indonesia and Malaysia referred the dispute to the Court by means of a Special Agreement, asking for a decision 'on the basis of the treaties, agreements and any other evidence furnished by the Parties' on whether sovereignty over the islands belonged to Indonesia or to Malaysia.

On 10 October 2002 the International Court of Justice gave its decision on the merits in the case brought by the Republic of Cameroon against the Federal Republic of Nigeria over their land and maritime boundary. The judgment, which addresses a number of issues of general international law concerning maritime boundaries and territorial sovereignty, as well as providing a detailed treatment of the particular facts, concludes a case that began in 1994 and has had an unusual history. As this background had a significant bearing on the eventual outcome, a brief recapitulation may be useful.

ON 21 October 1999 the International Court made an order in which it accepted an Application by Equatorial Guinea to intervene in the case brought by the Republic of Cameroon against the Federal Republic of Nigeria over their land and maritime boundary. The proceedings in this case, which began as long ago as March 1994, are developing into something of a saga. In February 1996 Cameroon submitted a request for the indication of provisional measures of protection under Article 41 of the Statute, and by an order in the following month the Court indicated certain measures. Meanwhile, Nigeria had filed certain preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and to the admissibility of the case which were dealt with in a judgment in June 1998. Four months after the Court's decision Nigeria requested an interpretation of the judgment under Article 60 of the Statute, but in a further judgment in March 1999 the request was held inadmissible.

On 21 September 1999 Pakistan filed an application instituting proceedings against India in respect of a dispute relating to the destruction in the previous month of a Pakistani military aircraft. According to Pakistan the aircraft, which was unarmed, was shot down by Indian fighter aircraft while in Pakistan air space and without warning. The 16 people aboard the aircraft, who were mostly naval trainees, were all killed. India denied all responsibility for the incident and rejected Pakistan's suggestion that a United Nations fact-finding mission should be sent to the area. Having unsuccessfully demanded some 60 million dollars compensation for India's allegedly illegal action, Pakistan then referred the matter to the Court.

On 17 December 2002 the International Court gave its judgment in a dispute over two small islands in the Celebes Sea claimed by both Indonesia and Malaysia. The islands in question, Ligitan and Sipadan, are located off the north-east coast of Borneo and lie approximately 15.5 nautical miles apart. Both are very small and Ligitan is uninhabited; Sipadan, on the other hand, was developed by Malaysia into a tourist resort for scuba diving in the 1980s. In 1998 Indonesia and Malaysia referred the dispute to the Court by means of a Special Agreement, asking for a decision ‘on the basis of the treaties, agreements and any other evidence furnished by the Parties’ on whether sovereignty over the islands belonged to Indonesia or to Malaysia.

In March 1994 the Republic of Cameroon instituted proceedings in the International Court of Justice against the Federal Republic of Nigeria in respect of a disputed area known as the Bakassi Peninsula and most of their common maritime boundary. In an additional application in June 1994 Cameroon asked the Court to specify definitively the whole of the frontier from Lake Chad to the sea, and, as in the original application, sought reparation for alleged damage. Nigeria then filed certain preliminary objections to the jurisdiction of the Court and to the admissibility of the case. In February 1996 Cameroon submitted a request for the indication of provisional measures under article 41 of the Statute and by an order in the following month the Court indicated certain provisional measures. The parties then presented their arguments on the issues of jurisdiction and admissibility and these were dealt with by the Court in its judgment of 11 June 1998, to which the present article relates.