DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC CARON
Disagreement with holding of inadmissibility by the Court of Colombia’s first and second counter-claims  Direct connection in fact or in law of Colombia’s first and second counter-claims.
Direct connection in fact  Subject-matter of the claim  Colombia’s Integral Contiguous Zone established by Presidential Decree 1946 of 9 September 2013 is a core part of the factual complex underlying Nicaragua’s claim  Factual complex underlying Colombia’s first and second counter-claims are the same facts that led to issue of the Decree.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE DONOGHUE
Article 80, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court — Jurisdiction over counter-claims — Termination of the title of jurisdiction taking effect after the filing of the Application but before the submission of counter-claims — Consequence of such termination on the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction.
1. Article 80, paragraph 1, of the Rules of the Court provides:
“The Court may entertain a counter-claim only if it comes within the jurisdiction of the Court and is directly connected with the subject-matter of the claim of the other party.”

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE GREENWOOD
1. I have voted against the decision that the fourth counter-claim submitted by Colombia is
admissible and, while I have voted with the majority in respect of the third counter-claim, my
reasoning differs in certain respects from that in the Order. In this opinion, I shall endeavour briefly
to explain the reasons for those differences.
2. According to Article 80, paragraph 1 of the Rules of Court, “the Court may entertain a

DECLARATION OF JUDGE CANÇADO TRINDADE
1. I have voted in favour of the adoption of the present Order (of 15 November 2017) in the
case concerning Alleged Violations of Sovereign Rights and Maritime Spaces in the Caribbean Sea
(Nicaragua versus Colombia), whereby the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has taken the proper
course in respect of the four counter-claims, namely, finding the first and second inadmissible, and
the third and fourth admissible. Having supported the present Order, yet there is one particular

JOINT OPINION OF JUDGES TOMKA, GAJA, SEBUTINDE,
GEVORGIAN AND JUDGE AD HOC DAUDET
Requirements for the admissibility of counter-claims  Jurisdiction over counter-claims and direct
connection with claim of the applicant  Discretion of the Court to entertain counter-claim 
Juridical nature of counter-claim  Counter-claim as independent claim  Sequence of
consideration of the requirements for counter-claim  Lapse of title of jurisdiction prior to the
submission of counter-claim  Judgment in Nottebohm not relevant for counter-claims 

DECLARATION OF VICE-PRESIDENT YUSUF
1. Under Article 80, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, two requirements must be met for the Court to be able to entertain a counter-claim at the same time as the principal claim, namely, that the counter-claim “comes within the jurisdiction of the Court” and, that it “is directly connected with the subject-matter of the claim of the other party”.