International Court of Justice — Jurisdiction — Whether Cameroon’s Application fulfilling requirements of Statute of Court — Cameroon invoking declarations made by two States under Article 36(2) of Statute of Court as basis for jurisdiction — Nigeria raising eight preliminary objections to jurisdiction of Court — Whether Court having jurisdiction to adjudicate on merits of dispute — Whether Parties bound to settle all boundary disputes through existing bilateral machinery — Whether settlement of boundaries within Lake Chad region within exclusive competence of Lake Chad Basin Commission — Whether Court should determine boundary in Lake Chad to extent that boundary constituted or was constituted by the tripoint in the Lake — Whether any dispute concerning boundary delimitation as such throughout whole length of boundary from tripoint in Lake Chad to sea — Whether any basis for judicial determination that Nigeria bearing international responsibility for alleged frontier incursions — Whether any legal dispute concerning delimitation of maritime boundary between two Parties appropriate for resolution by Court — Whether question of maritime delimitation inadmissible where necessarily involving rights and interests of third States — Admissibility of Cameroon’s Application — Judgment on Preliminary Objections

International Court of Justice — Judgment — Res judicata — Request for Interpretation — Nigeria requesting Court to interpret Judgment on Preliminary Objections — Whether Court having jurisdiction to entertain Nigeria’s request — Article 60 of Statute of Court — Admissibility of Nigeria’s request — Article 60 of Statute of Court

International Court of Justice — Intervention — Equatorial Guinea requesting permission to intervene in maritime aspects of case — Whether Equatorial Guinea sufficiently establishing interest of legal nature which could be affected by Court judgment — Admissibility of Equatorial Guinea’s request — Article 62 of Statute of Court

International Court of Justice — Merits — Boundary dispute — Delimitation of land and maritime boundaries between Parties — Title to territory — Cameroon claiming legal title — Nigeria’s submissions based on historical consolidation and effectivités — Long-standing land boundary dispute — Sector of land boundary in Lake Chad area — Sector of land boundary from Lake Chad to Bakassi Peninsula — Sector of land boundary in Bakassi and sovereignty over Bakassi Peninsula — Boundary of maritime areas — Issues of State responsibility

Territory — Sovereignty — Delimitation of land boundary between Parties — Land boundary sector in Lake Chad area — 1919 Milner — Simon Declaration — 1929-30 Thomson — Marchand Declaration — 1931 Henderson — Fleuriau Exchange of Notes — Whether instruments having international agreement status — Whether delimiting boundary in Lake Chad area — Role of work of Lake Chad Basin Commission — Theory of historical consolidation of title — Whether valid mode of acquisition of title under international law — Role of effectivités — Whether Cameroon acquiescing

Territory — Sovereignty — Delimitation of land boundary between Parties — Land boundary sector from Lake Chad to Bakassi Peninsula — Delimited by 1929-30 Thomson — Marchand Declaration as incorporated in 1931 Henderson — Fleuriau Exchange of Notes — 1946 British Order in Council — Anglo-German Agreements of 11 March and 12 April 1913 — Court’s task — Whether instruments binding and applicable — Interpretation and application of provisions

Territory — Sovereignty — Delimitation of land boundary between Parties — Sector of land boundary in Bakassi and sovereignty over Bakassi Peninsula — Colonial history — League of Nations Mandate — United Nations Trusteeship — Independence — Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913 — Whether defective — Whether effective — Whether Great Britain having legal capacity to transfer sovereignty over Bakassi Peninsula under Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913 — 1884 “Treaty of Protection” between Great Britain and Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar — Status — Agreements with local rulers — Inter-temporal law principle — Pacta sunt servanda rule — Whether Nigeria recognizing Cameroonian sovereignty

Sea — Delimitation of maritime boundary between Parties — Whether Court having jurisdiction over maritime delimitation — Whether Cameroon’s claims admissible — Rights and interests of third States — Whether rights of Equatorial Guinea and São Tomé and Principe affected — Role of negotiations — Articles 74 and 83 of

United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, 1982 — Applicability of Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913 — Whether Maroua Declaration 1975 a treaty — Whether Yaounde II Declaration 1971 binding upon Parties — Cameroon and Nigeria both parties to United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, 1982 — Articles 74(1) and 83(1) — Applicable law — Delimitation of continental shelf and exclusive economic zone between States with adjacent coasts — Whether equidistance line achieving equitable result

Treaties — Land boundary delimitation — 1919 Milner — Simon Declaration — 1929-30 Thomson — Marchand Declaration — 1931 Henderson — Fleuriau Exchange of Notes — Whether instruments having international agreement status — Whether instruments delimiting boundary in Lake Chad area

Treaties — Land boundary delimitation — 1929-30 Thomson — Marchand Declaration — 1946 British Order in Council — Anglo-German Agreements of 11 March and 12 April 1913 — Whether instruments binding and applicable in delimitation of land boundary sector from Lake Chad to Bakassi Peninsula — Interpretation and application of provisions

Treaties — Land boundary delimitation — Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913 — Whether defective — Whether effective — Whether Great Britain having legal capacity to transfer sovereignty over Bakassi Peninsula under Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913 — 1884 “Treaty of Protection” between Great Britain and Kings and Chiefs of Old Calabar — Status — Agreements with local rulers — Inter-temporal law principle — Pacta sunt servanda rule

Treaties — Maritime boundary delimitation — Articles 74 and 83 of Law of the Sea Convention, 1982 — Applicability of Anglo-German Agreement of 11 March 1913 — Whether Maroua Declaration 1975 constituting a treaty under Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969 — Whether Yaounde II Declaration 1971 binding upon Parties — Cameroon and Nigeria both parties to United Nations Law of the Sea Convention, 1982 — Articles 74(1) and 83(1) — Applicable law

State responsibility — Cameroon accusing Nigeria of invading and occupying its territory — Whether Nigeria violating obligations under conventional and customary international law — Principle of non-use of force — Principle of non-intervention — Territorial sovereignty — Whether guarantees of non-repetition necessary — Whether necessary to ascertain whether and to what extent Nigeria’s international responsibility engaged by its occupation — Whether reparation due for material and moral injury — Compliance with Provisional Measures Order — Whether Nigeria responsible for repeated incursions along boundary length 1970-2001

War and armed conflict — Cameroon’s Application accusing Nigeria of acts of aggression — Allegations that Nigerian forces occupying Cameroonian territory since 1993 — Armed clashes in Bakassi Peninsula between Cameroonian and Nigerian forces in 1996 — Court indicating provisional measures of protection in 1996 at Cameroon’s request

Extradition — Extradition Treaty between Federal Republic of Germany and United States, 1978 — Applicant extradited from Germany to United States — Applicant detained in United States — United States assurance to German authorities that applicant would not be detained in facility outside United States — Whether binding — Whether applicant’s extradition violating Articles 3, 5(1), 6(1) and 34 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether applicant’s application admissible

Human rights — Prohibition of torture — Absolute right — Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether substantial grounds for believing applicant facing real risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 if extradited to United States — Assurance obtained from United States by German authorities — Effectiveness of assurance to avert risk of applicant being ill-treated

Human rights — Right to liberty and security of person — Article 5 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether applicant’s detention pending extradition unlawful — Whether compatible with German law — Whether arrest and detention of applicant in Germany giving rise to problem under Article 5

Human rights — Right to a fair trial — Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Applicability to applicant’s complaint of unfair trial in German courts — Whether applicant at risk of suffering flagrant denial of fair trial in United States — Assurance — Terms of 1978 Extradition Treaty — Importance of right to fair trial in criminal proceedings in democratic society

Human rights — Right not to be hindered in exercise of right of application — Article 34 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 — Whether German authorities breaching Article 34 — Request for interim measure — Court Rule 39

Terrorism — Applicant suspected terrorist — Reports of ill-treatment of suspected terrorists during interrogation in facilities outside United States — Whether applicant at risk of treatment contrary to Article 3 of European Convention on Human Rights, 1950 if extradited to United States — German authorities obtaining assurance from United States that applicant would not be detained in facility outside United States — Effectiveness of assurance — Human rights in democratic society in context of international terrorism

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Torture — Alleged acts of torture committed by officials of the People’s Republic of China against Falun Gong practitioner — Whether State immunity applicable in cases of alleged torture — Whether immunity applicable to individual officials — Whether officials of the Communist Party of China entitled to same immunity as government officials — Proof of official status — The law of Australia

Relationship of international law and municipal law — Conduct of foreign relations — Treaty-making power — Federal Republic of Germany — Constitutional review of the exercise of treaty-making power — Treaty on European Union (Treaty of Lisbon) — Compatibility with Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany

Treaties — Conclusion and operation — Constitutional limitations — Extension of powers of European Union — Compatibility with Basic Law of the Federal Republic following enactment of Act amending Basic Law of 8 October 2008 — Accompanying laws — Right to vote as concretization of principle of democracy — Whether providing satisfactory constitutional basis for ratification of Federal Republic of Treaty of Lisbon — Whether membership in EU violating Articles 20, 23, 38 and 79(1) of Basic Law — Scope of permissible transfer of sovereignty to community institutions — Requirement that Member States must retain sufficient space for the political formation of the economic, cultural and social living conditions — Condition that national parliaments should retain substantial level of authority — Openness to integration in EU — Responsibility for integration

Jurisdiction — Whether Acts of community institutions are subject to national constitutional review to ensure that their powers are not exceeded — Ultra vires review — Review of core of identity of national constitution — No absolute primacy of application of EU law — Application by virtue of national empowerment

International organizations — European Union — Powers — Extension of powers by Treaty — Lisbon Treaty — Whether European Union developing into federal State — Loss of statehood of Federal Republic — Member States as masters of the treaties — Principle of conferral — Whether Treaty of Lisbon granting Union competence to determine or extend its own powers — Principle of subsidiarity — Association of sovereign national States — Whether membership in EU irreversible

Treaties — Simplified revision procedure — Bridging clauses — Flexibility clause — Requirement of Act by German legislative bodies — Democratic responsibility — Responsibility of integration — Principles for the exercise of some newly transferred competences — Criminal law and the military — Democratically especially sensitive areas

International organizations — European Community — Institutions — European Parliament — Council — Commission — Whether fundamental principle of democratic legitimacy in Federal Republic undermined by Treaty of Lisbon — Democratic legitimacy of community institutions — Method of election by citizens of Member State — The law of the Federal Republic of Germany

State immunity — Jurisdictional immunity — Torture — Whether State immunity applicable in cases of alleged torture — Convention against Torture, 1984 — United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities, 2004 — Whether any torture or jus cogens exception to State immunity

Sources of international law — Domestic law — Principles of development and evolution of international legal norms — State immunity — Whether national courts free to develop new exception to State immunity — The law of New Zealand

Jurisdiction — Universal jurisdiction — Subsidiarity — Courts of Spain possessing jurisdiction only if courts of the State where alleged offences took place and International Criminal Court do not act — Genocide — Crimes against humanity

International criminal law — Universal jurisdiction — Genocide — Crimes against humanity — The law of Spain

Claims — Diplomatic protection — Whether United Kingdom under a duty to bring proceedings against foreign State for alleged human rights violation against United Kingdom national

Consular relations — Protection of nationals — Limitations — Whether United Kingdom consul under a duty to provide consular assistance to United Kingdom national awaiting trial in foreign State — Limits of what consul can be expected to do

Diplomatic relations — Protection of nationals — Limitations — Whether Foreign and Commonwealth Office under a duty to afford protection to United Kingdom national awaiting trial in foreign State — Whether enforceable — Scope of discretion in conduct of diplomatic relations — Whether requirement that Foreign and Commonwealth Office demand release of national rather than request clemency

Human rights — Due process — United Kingdom national convicted of criminal offence in foreign State — Whether Foreign and Commonwealth Office under a duty to ensure that trial fairly conducted — Diplomatic protection — Whether United Kingdom under a duty to bring proceedings against foreign State for alleged human rights violation against United Kingdom national — The law of England