The Role of International Courts in Resolving Nigeria’s Boundary Disputes: Lessons from the Bakassi Peninsula Case

International courts and arbitral tribunals have played an increasingly significant role in resolving territorial and boundary disputes between states, offering a rules-based alternative to diplomatic negotiation or coercive resolution. The International Court of Justice ruling in the Cameroon v. Nigeria case, which adjudicated sovereignty over the oil-rich Bakassi Peninsula, stands as one of the most consequential applications of international law to an African territorial dispute in the contemporary era. This study, situated within the academic context of Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, examines the legal reasoning, political implications, and post-ruling implementation challenges of the Bakassi judgment, with attention to its broader lessons for Nigeria's engagement with international dispute settlement mechanisms. A qualitative doctrinal and empirical methodology is employed, combining legal analysis of the ICJ judgment and relevant international law precedents with interviews of Nigerian international law scholars and retired diplomats involved in the Bakassi negotiations. International legal theory and state compliance literature provide the theoretical grounding. Findings reveal that Nigeria's eventual compliance with the ICJ ruling, despite significant domestic political resistance, demonstrates the constraining power of international legal obligations; however, the human security implications for displaced Nigerian communities from Bakassi have been inadequately addressed in post-transfer arrangements. The study examines how this experience shapes Nigerian attitudes toward international adjudication and argues for strengthening Nigeria's international law litigation capacity within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Keywords: international courts, Bakassi Peninsula, boundary disputes, Nigeria-Cameroon, international law