INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean
(Somalia v Kenya)
REJOINDER OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA
VOLUME II
FIGURES AND ANNEXES
18 DECEMBER 2018
1
LIST OF ANNEXES
FIGURES
Figure KR 1-1 Delimitation of the EEZ contrasting the use of equidistance and
parallels of latitude
Figure KR 1-2 Kenya Territorial Sea and Economic Zone, Survey of Kenya, SK-90
Edition 2, 1983
Figure KR 1-3a Official UNSOA AMISOM Map showing no maritime zones (June
2015)

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
VOLUME II
FIGURES AND ANNEXES
18 JUNE 2018
CASE CONCERNING
MARITIME DELIMITATION IN THE INDIAN OCEAN
REPLY OF SOMALIA
SOMALIA
v.
KENYA

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean
(Somalia v Kenya)
COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA
VOLUME IV
18 DECEMBER 2017
Annex 135
Post-1992 maritime delimitations between States with adjacent coasts
(other than those enumerated in the text of the Counter-Memorial).
Treaty Series
Treaties and international agreements
registered
or filed and recorded
with the Secretariat of the United Nations
VOLUME 1709
Recueil des Traitis

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean
(Somalia v Kenya)
COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA
VOLUME III
18 DECEMBER 2017
Annex 77
United Nations General Assembly draft resolutions sponsored by Somalia, 1991
UNJTED
NATJONS
General Assembly
Dish.
LIMITED
A1461L.Q
14 October 1991
ENGLISH
ORIGINAL: FRENCH
Forty-sixth session
Agenda item 28
QUESTION OF THE COMORXAN ISLAND OF MAYOTTE

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Maritime Delimitation in the Indian Ocean
(Somalia v Kenya)
COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF KENYA
VOLUME II
18 DECEMBER 2017
1
LIST OF ANNEXES
FIGURES
All figures are for illustrative purposes only
Figure 1-1 The Regional Geographic Context
Figure 1-2 The 3 Nautical Mile Territorial Sea Boundary established by the 1933
Exchange of Notes compared to Somalia’s Equidistance Claim (MS, Vol II,
Fig 5.1)
Figure 1-3 Map of “Greater Somalia” including Kenya’s NFD Territory

183 116 DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC DAUDET [Translation] Qatar’s efforts towards a judicial settlement — Second preliminary objection not examined by the Court — Article 22 of CERD — Role of the CERD Committee — Agreement with the Court’s reasoning and decision on the first preliminary objection — Distinction between “national origin” and “nationality” — Lack of jurisdiction ratione materiae — Importance of the binding nature of orders indicating provisional measures — Exclusively preliminary character of the first objection — Conciliation procedure — Diplomatic settlement of the dispute.

157
90
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE IWASAWA
Non‑citizens are entitled to human rights under international law — The
jurisdiction of the Court is limited to disputes with respect to the interpretation or
application of CERD — For the Court to have jurisdiction, the measures of which
the Applicant complains must be capable of constituting racial discrimination
within the meaning of CERD — The term “national origin” in Article 1,
paragraph 1, of CERD does not encompass current nationality — If differentiation

146
79
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ROBINSON
1. I disagree with the finding in paragraph 115 of the Judgment upholding
the first preliminary objection of the United Arab Emirates (“UAE”)
and the finding that the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Application
filed by Qatar.
2. It is settled that for the Court to have jurisdiction to entertain the
Application, the violations of which Qatar complains must fall within the
provisions of the International Convention on the Elimination of All

133
66
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BHANDARI
The subject-matter
of the dispute — Article 22 of CERD and the Court’s
jurisdiction ratione materiae — Interpreting the term “national origin” contained
in Article 1, paragraph 1, of CERD pursuant to the customary rules on treaty
interpretation — The term “national origin” under Article 1, paragraph 1, of
CERD encompasses current nationality — The provisions which form the context
of Article 1, paragraph 1, of CERD in light of the object and purpose of CERD —

117
50
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SEBUTINDE
The first preliminary objection of the UAE does not, in the circumstances of the
present case, have an exclusively preliminary character and should be joined to the
merits, pursuant to the provisions of Article 79ter, paragraph 4, of the Rules of
Court — In particular, the question of whether or not the measures taken by the
UAE against Qatar and Qataris on 5 June 2017 had “the purpose or effect of
racial discrimination” within the meaning of Article 1, paragraph 1, of the CERD,