VOLUME II ANNEXES 1 - 45 3 FEBRUARY 2015 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE DISPUTE CONCERNING MARITIME DELIMITATION IN THE CARIBBEAN SEA AND THE PACIFIC OCEAN COSTA RICA v. NICARAGUA MEMORIAL OF COSTA RICA iii LIST OF ANNEXES VOLUME II Annex No. Document Page No. Treaties 1 Costa Rica and Nicaragua Treaty of Limits (Cañas-Jerez), 15 April 1858. English translation and Spanish original. 3 2 Treaty concerning the Delimitation of Marine Areas and Maritime Cooperation between the Republic of Costa Rica and the Republic of Panama, 2 February 1980 (entry into force on 11 February 1982).

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE DISPUTE CONCERNING MARITIME DELIMITATION IN THE CARIBBEAN SEA AND THE PACIFIC OCEAN COSTA RICA v. NICARAGUA MEMORIAL OF COSTA RICA VOLUME I 3 FEBRUARY 2015 iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 A The Disputes Submitted to the Court . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 B. The Court’s Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 C. Summary of Costa Rica’s Position . . . . . . . . . . . . .

D ECLARATION OF JUDGE BHANDARI

1. I am in agreement with the Court’s decision to indicate provisional measures in the

present case. However, I wish to place on record my views concerning India’s request for
provisional measures in more detail.

T HE FACTS

2. On 8 May 2017, India filed with the Court a case against Pakistan concerning the alleged
violation of India’s rights under the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (“VCCR”) . 1

C ONCURRING O PINION OF J UDGE C ANÇADO TRINDADE

Table of Contents

Paragraphs

I. Prolegomena .............................................................................................................................. 1

II. Rights of States and of Individuals as Subjects of International Law........................................ 3

ANNEX 1

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC SKOTNIKOV

1. I concur with the Court’s conclusion that the conditions required by its Statute for the
indication of provisional measures in respect of the rights alleged by Ukraine under the
International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (“ICSFT”) are not met.
Ukraine has indeed failed to show that the rights it seeks to protect under the ICSFT are at least
plausible. It has not demonstrated that either of the crucial elements set out in Article 2,

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC POCAR
1. I have voted with the majority in favour of the indication of all provisional measures
concerning the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (CERD), as well as of the provisional measure asking both Parties to refrain from
any action which might aggravate or extend the dispute. I must however put on record that I would
have seen it necessary and appropriate to indicate provisional measures also with regard to the