Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute

(Benin/Niger)
I.C.J. Reports 2005

Facts
a. Filed in the International Court of Justice on 3 May 2002.

b. Benin and Niger, upon gaining independence, immediately had difficultly deciding where

the boundaries separating their two states where in both the Niger and Mekrou rivers, as

well as several islands in the Niger river (particularly Lété Island). After decades of

negotiations, the two states formed a joint commission to create a peaceful solution. After

six unsuccessful meetings, the commission decided to present the case to the ICJ by

Special Agreement.

c. Niger requests that the ICJ determine the part of the bridges over the river the boundaries

lay, stating that since the bridges were funded equally, the borders should lie at the

halfway point. They accept the uti possidetis juris principle, and state that at the time

colonization their territory included the island of Lété on the Niger, and the Mekrou

boundary should flow along their desired path due to a 1907 French colonial document

that set such a boundary.

d. Benin argues that the ICJ does not have the jurisdiction to rule on the bridges’ boundaries

since it was not mentioned in the special agreement; however, it does submit that the

boundaries should be directly vertical of the boundaries of the rivers themselves. They

too accept the uti possidetis juris principle, but argue that the Niger River border is drawn

in a way that gives them sovereignty over Lété, and that the Mekrou River border should
 flow along the median of the river, stating that the 1907 document had been overruled by

a later one.

Questions
a. Does the ICJ have jurisdiction over this case?

b. Does the ICJ have jurisdiction over the bridges on the river?

c. Where do the boundaries on the bridges lie?

d. Where does the boundary on the Niger River lie, and as a consequence, which state

has sovereignty over the islands on the River?

e. Does the 1907 document favoring Niger still apply?

f. If not, what is the course of the boundary on the Mekrou River?

Decisions
a. The ICJ does have temporal jurisdiction due to its existing at the time of the dispute,

and territorial and subject matter jurisdiction due to the disagreement being an

international one between states.

b. The ICJ ruled that since the bridges were within the disputed territories the states had

asked them to settle in the Special Agreement, they did indeed have jurisdiction to

draw the border there.

c. The Court rejects Niger’s argument that since both states funded the bridges equally,

the halfway point across should be the border. The Court rules that, in the absence of

an agreement between the states, the line should be at the same point it is on the river

below.
 d. The Court determined that a study by a highly renowned independent research group,

NEDECO, had effectively mapped out the line of deepest soundings on the main

navigable channel of the Niger River. The Court determined that this line of deepest

sounds was an acceptable place to place the boundary, and ruled to do just that.

e. The Court stated that while Benin was incorrect in stating that the 1907 document had

been overruled by a later one, it must be taken into account that the French colonizers

did in fact establish borders different from the ones laid down in 1907 and received

no legal admonishment for their actions. Due to this application of the law, the 1907

boundaries must be discarded.

f. The Court stated that since the boundaries set forth in 1907 no longer applied; the

best place to set the border was the median of the river, and ruled as such.

Principles
a. The principles in this case include borders between successor states of colonies and

extent of jurisdiction of special agreements.

b. This case continued the precedent of uti possidetis juris, which states that the borders

of colonies stay the same for the successor states when they gain independence,

regardless of who has de facto control of a disputed area in the future.

c. This case also demonstrated that in a special agreement such as this, an issue does not

need to be explicitly mentioned in the agreement in order to fall under the Court’s

jurisdiction. This is proven when the Court declares that because the bridges fall

within the disputed area, they have jurisdiction to declare a border, regardless of the
 fact that it was not mentioned in the original Special Agreement between Benin and

Niger.

Conclusion
The ruling of the Court in this case strengthened a precedent which makes a potentially

highly confusing and messy area of border disputes much simpler. Were it not for

this principle, newly freed colonies could claim more land than they were entitled to,

as they did in this instance. Furthermore, the rulings expand the ICJ’s powers of

jurisdiction by effectively stating there are implied issues in a Special Agreement

as well as the explicitly stated ones.

Bibliography
Case Concerning the Frontier Dispute, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2005

Submitted
Kyle Tognan, September 17, 2009