DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE CHARLESWORTH
Explanation of the negative vote  Distinction between maritime entitlements and maritime delimitation  Factors pertinent for the determination of maritime entitlements  The first question as a question of maritime entitlement.
Interpretation of customary international law  Methodological approach.
Extended continental shelf  Interpretation of UNCLOS.
Relationship between exclusive economic zone and continental shelf  The Court’s Judgment in Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta)  Bay of Bengal cases.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE NOLTE
1. I wish to explain why I voted against the Court’s rejection of Nicaragua’s third submission (I) and to make a remark regarding the reasoning which underlies the Court’s decisions on Nicaragua’s first and second submissions (II).
I. Nicaragua’s third submission

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE IWASAWA

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ROBINSON
GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS

DECLARATION OF JUDGE BHANDARI
Notion of a “single continental shelf” — Statement by the Court concerning single continental shelf — Unnecessary to include statement.
1. I agree with the Court’s Judgment and its reasoning. In particular, I agree with the Court’s conclusion that “under customary international law, a State’s entitlement to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of its territorial sea is measured may not extend within 200 nautical miles from the baselines of another State” (Judgment, para. 79).

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE XUE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraphs
I. PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS FOR THE GOOD ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE 2-9
II. SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES IN THE PRESENT CASE 10-49
A. Continental shelf under customary international law as reflected in
Article 76 11-19
B. Relationship between the régimes of the continental shelf and of the
exclusive economic zone 20-36
C. State practice with regard to CLCS submissions 37-49
III. NICARAGUA’S SUBMISSIONS ON AN EXTENDED CONTINENTAL SHELF 50-60

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE TOMKA
Serious misgivings about Judgment’s conclusion that under customary international law a State’s entitlement to a continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles from the baselines from which the breadth of its territorial sea is measured may not extend within 200 nautical miles from the baselines of another State  Court arrives at a conclusion it could have arrived at in 2012 had it believed that such a rule existed  Bifurcated procedure  No opportunity for the Applicant to present its case in full.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraphs
CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROCEDURE 1-20
I. GENERAL BACKGROUND 21-26
II. OVERVIEW OF THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS 27-34
III. FIRST QUESTION FORMULATED IN THE ORDER OF 4 OCTOBER 2022 35-79
A. The preliminary character of the first question 37-45
B. The customary international law applicable to the maritime areas at issue 46-53