Introduction
Cameroon, a Central African nation with a unique bilingual and bijural legal tradition, operates within a complex framework of constitutional law and international obligations when engaging in treaty-making. As a country that straddles both civil law (influenced by French legal traditions) and common law (influenced by British legal traditions), its approach to international agreements is shaped by its historical, political, and legal contexts. This article examines Cameroon’s treaty-making process, focusing on the constitutional foundations that govern this activity, the nature of its international obligations, and the mechanisms through which treaties are incorporated into national law. Additionally, it explores whether Cameroon adheres to a monist or dualist approach to international law, its status with respect to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) of 1969, and the implications of this status for other nations seeking to enter into treaties with Cameroon.
The treaty-making process is a critical aspect of a state’s sovereignty and its ability to engage with the international community. Treaties serve as formal instruments of international law, facilitating cooperation on issues ranging from trade and security to environmental protection and human rights. In Cameroon, treaty-making is not merely a matter of diplomatic engagement but is deeply rooted in constitutional provisions that define the roles of various state organs in this process. This article seeks to provide a comprehensive analysis of these constitutional foundations, drawing on specific provisions of the 1996 Constitution of Cameroon, as amended, and relevant legal scholarship. It also evaluates how Cameroon navigates its international obligations, particularly in light of its historical ties to both Western and African legal systems.
Constitutional Foundations of Treaty-Making in Cameroon
The legal framework for treaty-making in Cameroon is enshrined in the Constitution of the Republic of Cameroon, adopted on 18 January 1996 and subsequently amended, notably in 2008. This constitution establishes the separation of powers and delineates the responsibilities of the executive and legislative branches in the process of entering into international agreements. The relevant provisions are found primarily in Part II, which addresses the executive power, and Part III, which deals with legislative power, reflecting Cameroon’s commitment to checks and balances in matters of international relations.
Article 43 of the 1996 Constitution is the cornerstone of Cameroon’s treaty-making authority. It states that “the President of the Republic shall negotiate and ratify treaties and international agreements. Treaties and agreements concerning the establishment of international organizations or the modification of national legislation shall be submitted to Parliament for authorization to ratify” (Constitution of Cameroon, 1996, Art. 43). This provision underscores the central role of the President as the primary actor in treaty negotiation and ratification, reflecting the executive dominance typical of many presidential systems. However, it also introduces a parliamentary oversight mechanism for certain types of treaties, ensuring that agreements with significant domestic implications are subject to legislative scrutiny.
The requirement for parliamentary authorization under Article 43 is particularly significant for treaties that establish international organizations or necessitate changes to national laws. This ensures that international commitments do not unilaterally override domestic legal structures without the input of elected representatives. Additionally, Article 44 of the Constitution specifies that “where the Constitutional Council finds that an international commitment contains a clause contrary to the Constitution, authorization to ratify or approve the commitment may only be granted after the revision of the Constitution” (Constitution of Cameroon, 1996, Art. 44). This provision introduces a safeguard mechanism, ensuring that international agreements align with the supreme law of the land, thereby protecting national sovereignty and constitutional integrity.
Furthermore, the Constitution recognizes the importance of international law within Cameroon’s legal order. Article 45 stipulates that “duly approved or ratified treaties and international agreements shall, following their publication, override national laws, provided the other party implements the said treaty or agreement” (Constitution of Cameroon, 1996, Art. 45). This provision is critical in understanding the hierarchical relationship between international treaties and domestic legislation, as it elevates ratified treaties above national laws, subject to the condition of reciprocity. It reflects a deliberate constitutional design to harmonize Cameroon’s international obligations with its domestic legal framework, ensuring that the country can effectively participate in the global legal order while maintaining internal coherence.
The constitutional framework also acknowledges the unique historical context of Cameroon as a federated state that unified the former French Cameroon and British Southern Cameroons. While the federal structure was replaced by a unitary state in 1972, the bijural nature of the legal system persists, with civil law dominating in the Francophone regions and common law in the Anglophone regions. This duality sometimes complicates the uniform application of international treaties across the country, as differing legal traditions may interpret treaty obligations in varied ways. However, the Constitution centralizes treaty-making power at the national level, ensuring that regional legal differences do not impede the state’s capacity to engage internationally (Fombad, 2012).
Monist or Dualist Approach: Cameroon’s Position on International Law
A critical aspect of understanding Cameroon’s treaty-making process is determining whether it follows a monist or dualist approach to the relationship between international and domestic law. Monism posits that international law and domestic law form a single legal system, with international law automatically becoming part of domestic law upon ratification. In contrast, dualism views international and domestic law as separate systems, requiring specific legislative action to incorporate international obligations into national law (Cassese, 2005).
Cameroon’s constitutional framework, as articulated in Article 45, suggests a predominantly monist approach. By stating that duly ratified treaties override national laws upon publication, the Constitution implies that treaties become directly applicable within the domestic legal order without the need for additional legislative enactment (Constitution of Cameroon, 1996, Art. 45). This direct effect of treaties is a hallmark of monist systems, where international law is integrated into the national legal hierarchy and can be invoked directly in domestic courts, provided the treaty is self-executing or sufficiently precise in its terms (Starke, 1989).
However, elements of dualism are also evident in Cameroon’s practice, particularly for treaties that require changes to national legislation. As per Article 43, such treaties must receive parliamentary authorization before ratification, and in some cases, implementing legislation may be necessary to give full effect to treaty provisions at the domestic level (Constitution of Cameroon, 1996, Art. 43). This requirement for legislative involvement indicates that, in certain contexts, Cameroon does not fully embrace the automatic incorporation of international law, thus exhibiting dualist tendencies. Legal scholars have described this hybrid approach as a pragmatic response to the complexities of Cameroon’s legal system, which must balance international commitments with domestic political and legal realities (Enonchong, 2014).
In practice, the application of treaties in Cameroon’s domestic courts often depends on whether the treaty has been published in the Official Gazette, a prerequisite for its legal effect as stipulated in Article 45. This publication requirement ensures transparency and public awareness of international obligations but can delay or complicate the direct enforcement of treaties if administrative processes are slow. Moreover, judges in Cameroon, particularly in the common law regions, may require additional interpretive guidance to apply international treaties, especially in the absence of domestic implementing legislation (Fombad, 2012). This interplay between monist principles and dualist practices reflects the pragmatic and adaptive nature of Cameroon’s engagement with international law.
Incorporation of Treaties into National Law
The process of incorporating treaties into national law in Cameroon is governed by the constitutional provisions outlined earlier, particularly Articles 43 and 45. Once a treaty is negotiated and signed by the President, it must be ratified to become binding under international law. Ratification, as per Article 43, may require parliamentary authorization if the treaty pertains to the establishment of international organizations or necessitates amendments to national legislation (Constitution of Cameroon, 1996, Art. 43). Following ratification, the treaty must be published in the Official Gazette to acquire legal force within the domestic legal order, as mandated by Article 45.
The publication step is crucial in Cameroon’s treaty incorporation process, as it serves as the formal notification to both the public and the judiciary of the state’s international commitments. Once published, a treaty takes precedence over conflicting national laws, provided the other party to the treaty reciprocally implements its obligations. This hierarchical superiority of treaties over national legislation, as enshrined in Article 45, ensures that Cameroon fulfills its international commitments while maintaining a degree of flexibility through the reciprocity clause (Constitution of Cameroon, 1996, Art. 45).
However, the practical implementation of treaties in Cameroon is not without challenges. The bilingual nature of the country means that treaties must be translated and published in both English and French, the two official languages. Discrepancies in translation can lead to differing interpretations of treaty obligations, particularly in a bijural context where civil law and common law judges may approach legal texts differently. Additionally, the administrative capacity to publish treaties promptly in the Official Gazette can be constrained, leading to delays in their domestic enforceability (Enonchong, 2014).
For non-self-executing treaties—those that require specific domestic legislation to be fully operational—Cameroon’s Parliament plays a vital role in enacting implementing laws. This process ensures that the content of the treaty is adapted to the national legal framework, addressing any inconsistencies or gaps between international obligations and existing laws. For instance, treaties on human rights or environmental protection often require detailed domestic legislation to establish enforcement mechanisms and allocate resources for compliance. This legislative step, while necessary, can introduce delays and political considerations into the treaty implementation process (Cassese, 2005).
Cameroon and the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969)
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) of 1969 is widely regarded as the cornerstone of international treaty law, codifying customary international law on the formation, interpretation, and termination of treaties. Often referred to as the “treaty on treaties,” the VCLT provides a comprehensive framework for states to engage in treaty-making, ensuring clarity and consistency in international agreements (United Nations, 1969). As of the latest available data, Cameroon has signed but not ratified the VCLT. According to the United Nations Treaty Collection, Cameroon signed the Convention on 23 October 1969, shortly after its adoption, but has not taken the subsequent step of ratification to become a full party to the treaty (United Nations Treaty Collection, n.d.).
Cameroon’s status as a signatory but not a party to the VCLT means that it is not formally bound by the entirety of the Convention’s provisions. However, under international law, signatories are obligated to refrain from acts that would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty they have signed, as per Article 18 of the VCLT itself (United Nations, 1969). Moreover, many of the VCLT’s provisions are considered reflective of customary international law, which is binding on all states, including non-parties. Therefore, even in the absence of ratification, Cameroon is expected to adhere to fundamental principles such as pacta sunt servanda (treaties must be performed in good faith) and rules on treaty interpretation, as articulated in Articles 26 and 31-33 of the VCLT.
Cameroon’s non-ratification of the VCLT may stem from various factors, including domestic political considerations, administrative delays, or a preference for flexibility in treaty-making practices. While the country has a robust constitutional framework for engaging in international agreements, formal accession to the VCLT might be perceived as unnecessary given that many of its principles are already part of customary international law. Nonetheless, this status has implications for how other countries approach treaty negotiations with Cameroon. States that are parties to the VCLT may need to ensure that treaty texts explicitly incorporate key VCLT principles, such as those related to interpretation and dispute resolution, to avoid ambiguities arising from Cameroon’s non-ratification (Sinclair, 1984).
For international partners, Cameroon’s non-party status to the VCLT suggests the importance of clear communication and detailed treaty drafting. Other nations should be aware that while Cameroon generally respects customary international law, specific VCLT procedures—such as those for treaty amendment or termination—may not be automatically recognized by Cameroon as binding unless explicitly agreed upon in the treaty text. Additionally, partners should consider Cameroon’s monist-leaning legal system, where ratified and published treaties have domestic legal effect, and ensure that treaties are designed to be self-executing where possible to facilitate implementation (Starke, 1989).
Implications for International Treaty-Making with Cameroon
Cameroon’s treaty-making process, rooted in its constitutional framework and influenced by its hybrid monist-dualist approach, offers both opportunities and challenges for international partners. The centralization of treaty negotiation and ratification power in the hands of the President, as per Article 43, streamlines the process at the executive level, enabling swift decision-making in international engagements. However, the requirement for parliamentary authorization for certain treaties introduces a layer of domestic political scrutiny that may delay or complicate ratification (Constitution of Cameroon, 1996, Art. 43).
The constitutional elevation of treaties above national laws, as stipulated in Article 45, provides reassurance to international partners that Cameroon is committed to honoring its obligations, subject to reciprocity. This provision ensures that once a treaty is ratified and published, it can be enforced within Cameroon’s legal system, making it a reliable partner in areas such as trade, security, and human rights cooperation. However, partners must be mindful of the publication requirement and potential delays in administrative processes, which could affect the timely implementation of treaty obligations (Fombad, 2012).
Cameroon’s non-ratification of the VCLT, while not a significant barrier given the customary nature of many of its provisions, underscores the need for explicit treaty provisions tailored to Cameroon’s legal context. States negotiating with Cameroon should prioritize clarity in treaty language, anticipate potential interpretive challenges arising from its bijural system, and ensure mechanisms for mutual understanding and dispute resolution are embedded in agreements. Furthermore, engaging with both the executive and parliamentary stakeholders in Cameroon can help build domestic support for treaties, especially those requiring legislative authorization or implementation laws (Sinclair, 1984).
Cameroon’s historical and cultural ties to both French and British legal traditions also offer a unique perspective for international treaty-making. Partners from civil law jurisdictions may find familiarity with the processes in Francophone Cameroon, while those from common law backgrounds may resonate with the legal approaches in Anglophone regions. This duality, while challenging, can be leveraged to foster innovative and inclusive treaty frameworks that accommodate Cameroon’s diverse legal landscape.
Conclusion
Cameroon’s treaty-making process is a multifaceted interplay of constitutional law, international obligations, and domestic legal traditions. Anchored in the 1996 Constitution, particularly Articles 43, 44, and 45, the process reflects a balance between executive authority and legislative oversight, ensuring that international agreements align with national interests while respecting global commitments. The country’s predominantly monist approach, tempered by dualist practices for certain treaties, facilitates the integration of international law into the domestic legal order, though challenges such as publication delays and bijural complexities persist.
Cameroon’s status as a signatory but not a party to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969) does not significantly undermine its treaty-making capacity, as customary international law governs many aspects of its international engagements. However, it highlights the importance of tailored treaty drafting and clear communication for international partners. By understanding Cameroon’s constitutional foundations, hybrid legal approach, and practical challenges, other nations can navigate treaty negotiations more effectively, fostering robust and mutually beneficial international agreements.
Ultimately, Cameroon’s treaty-making framework embodies its commitment to sovereignty, international cooperation, and legal pluralism. As the global landscape of international law continues to evolve, Cameroon’s unique position offers valuable lessons on balancing national identity with global interconnectedness, providing a model for other states navigating the complexities of treaty-making in diverse legal contexts.
References
- Cassese, A. (2005). International Law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
- Constitution of the Republic of Cameroon. (1996, as amended in 2008). Official Gazette of the Republic of Cameroon.
- Enonchong, N. (2014). The Harmonization of Law in Africa: Is There a Role for Cameroon’s Bijural System? African Journal of International and Comparative Law, 22(2), 234-256.
- Fombad, C. M. (2012). Constitutional Law in Cameroon. Kluwer Law International.
- Sinclair, I. (1984). The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (2nd ed.). Manchester University Press.
- Starke, J. G. (1989). Introduction to International Law (10th ed.). Butterworths.
- United Nations. (1969). Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. United Nations Treaty Series, 1155, 331.
- United Nations Treaty Collection. (n.d.). Status of Treaties: Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Retrieved from the United Nations website.
