D ISSENTING OPINION OF V ICE-PRESIDENT Y USUF

Judgment fails to distinguish three cases brought by the Marshall Islands  Different facts
and arguments relevant to each case  Existence of a dispute  Matter for objective

D ECLARATION OF PRESIDENT ABRAHAM

D ISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE C RAWFORD

Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36 (2) of Statute  Existence of a dispute 
Awareness or objective awareness not a legal requirement  No prior negotiations or notice
necessary before seising the Court  Dispute in principle to exist at the time of Application 

Flexible approach  Finding of dispute may be based on post-Application conduct or evidence 
Mavrommatis principle  Existence of multilateral dispute  Existence of dispute between
Marshall Islands and Pakistan.

D ISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE R OBINSON

I disagree with the Majority’s conclusion that there is no dispute in this case  Role of the
Court as envisaged by the United Nations Charter  Linear development of the Court’s case law

S EPARATE OPINION OF J UDGE BHANDARI

Concur with the conclusions of the majority  Existence of a dispute is central to the
exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction  On the basis of documents and pleadings of the Parties, no
dispute existed  ICJ lacks jurisdiction  Greater emphasis ought to have been given that no

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE S EBUTINDE

Object and purpose of the United Nations Charter  Maintenance of international peace

and security  Role of the Court in the peaceful settlement of disputes  The Court’s compulsory
jurisdiction derives from the optional clause declarations pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 2, of
the Court’s Statute and not from the existence of a dispute  The existence of a dispute is merely
the precondition for the exercise of that jurisdiction  Article 38 of the Statute of the Court  The

D ECLARATION OF JUDGE G AJA

In the three Judgments concerning the cases filed by the Republic of the Marshall Islands the
Court finds for the first time that it cannot entertain a case because there was no dispute between
the Parties on the date when the Application was filed. Having reached this conclusion, the Court
decides that it does not need to examine the other objections raised by the respondent States. This

DECLARATION OF J UDGE DONOGHUE

1. In contentious cases, the Court settles disputes between States (Article 36, paragraph 2,
and Article 38, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court). When the Court finds the absence of a
dispute in respect of a claim contained in an application, the consequence is dismissal of the claim.
However, the Statute of the Court does not define the term “dispute”. Instead, the meaning of that
term has been developed in the jurisprudence of this Court and its predecessor. Thus, the sound

D ECLARATION OF JUDGE X UE

1. I have voted in favour of the Judgment because I agree with the decision of the Court to
dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Notwithstanding my vote, I wish to make two points on
the Judgment.

2. My first point relates to the approach taken by the Court. In the Judgment, the Court finds