INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF 23MAY 2008 IN THE CASE
CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PEDRA BRANCA/PULAU BATU PUTEH,MIDDLE
ROCKS AND SOUTH LEDGE (MALAYSIA/SINGAPORE) (MALAYSIA V. SINGAPORE)
WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS OF
THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
VOLUME 4
( Annexes 53 to 58 )
30 OCTOBER 2017
This page is intentionally left blank.
LIST OF ANNEXES
(VOLUME 4)
Number Description Annexes
Page No.
Annex 53 Seventh Sub-Committee Meeting on the Joint Survey

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF 23MAY 2008 IN THE CASE
CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PEDRA BRANCA/PULAU BATU PUTEH,MIDDLE
ROCKS AND SOUTH LEDGE (MALAYSIA/SINGAPORE) (MALAYSIA V. SINGAPORE)
WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS OF
THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
VOLUME 3
( Annexes 27 to 52 )
30 OCTOBER 2017
This page is intentionally left blank.
LIST OF ANNEXES
(VOLUME 3)
Number Description Annexes
Page No.
Annex 27 Letter from Singapore’s Permanent Secretary,

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF 23MAY 2008 IN THE CASE
CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PEDRA BRANCA/PULAU BATU PUTEH,MIDDLE
ROCKS AND SOUTH LEDGE (MALAYSIA/SINGAPORE) (MALAYSIA V. SINGAPORE)
WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS OF
THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
VOLUME 2
( Annexes 1 to 26 )
30 OCTOBER 2017
This page is intentionally left blank.
LIST OF ANNEXES
(VOLUME 2)
Number Description Annexes
Page No.
Annex 1 Meeting between Malaysia and Singapore on Pedra

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF 23MAY 2008 IN THE CASE
CONCERNING SOVEREIGNTY OVER PEDRA BRANCA/PULAU BATU PUTEH,MIDDLE
ROCKS AND SOUTH LEDGE (MALAYSIA/SINGAPORE) (MALAYSIA V. SINGAPORE)
WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS OF
THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
30 OCTOBER 2017
This page is intentionally left blank.
i
WRITTEN OBSERVATIONS OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION ................................................................. 1

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC COT
[Translation]
Vote against the operative part  Prejudgment of the question on the merits  Identity between the request for the indication of provisional measures and the claims on the merits  Existence of irreparable prejudice  Imminent risk  Unnecessary Order  Presumption of good faith at the provisional measures stage  Length of time between this Order and the next phase of the proceedings.
INTRODUCTION

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SALAM
[Translation]
1. I regret that I am unable to support the conclusions reached by the majority on the prima facie jurisdiction of the Court to indicate the provisional measures requested by Qatar, which seeks to found the Court’s jurisdiction in this case on Article 22 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (hereinafter “CERD”).

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE CRAWFORD
Insufficient evidence of real and imminent risk of irreparable prejudice  Statement by the
UAE on 5 July 2018  Qatari citizens resident in the UAE officially permitted to continue to
reside in the UAE  Hotline to receive applications by Qataris for entry clearance into the
UAE  Evidence that Qataris have been entering the UAE and are being granted permits to do
so  Risk of prejudice to rights flowed from the fact that Qataris were outside the UAE 

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BHANDARI
1. On a close and careful examination of the pleadings, documents and submissions, I came
to the conclusion that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the Court should not have
indicated provisional measures.
2. The case of Qatar is based on the UAE’s declaration of 5 June 2017, which is reproduced
in relevant part as under:
“UAE affirms its complete commitment and support to the Gulf Cooperation
Council and to the security and stability of the GCC States. Within this framework,

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE CANÇADO TRINDADE
Table of Contents
Paragraphs
I. Prolegomena .............................................................................................................. 1
II. A New Era of International Adjudication of Human Rights Cases by the ICJ .......... 7
III. The Relevance of the Fundamental Principle of Equality and
Non-Discrimination ................................................................................................... 9

JOINT DECLARATION OF JUDGES TOMKA, GAJA AND GEVORGIAN
Dispute should prima facie fall within the scope of the treaty containing the compromissory
clause  Factors to be taken into account for the purposes of the prohibition of racial
discrimination  “National origin” not identical to “nationality”  Discrimination based on
nationality does not prima facie fall within the scope of CERD.
We have not been able to support the Court’s Order for the reasons explained below. Our