D ISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE C ANÇADO T RINDADE

Table of Contents

Paragraphs

I. Prolegomena................................................................................................................................1-4

II. The Existence of a Dispute before the Hague Court ..................................................................... 5

D ISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE B ENNOUNA

Exercise in pure formalism  Introduction of a subjective criterion in determining the
existence of the dispute  Sound administration of justice  Realism and flexibility of the case
law of the Court  The existence of the dispute, a question to be objectively decided.

SEPARATE OPINION OF J UDGE T OMKA

Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36 (2) of Statute  Existence of a dispute  No prior

negotiations or notice necessary before seising Court  Existence of a dispute a condition for
exercise of jurisdiction  Dispute in principle to exist at date of Application  Court has applied
condition flexibly and taken into account subsequent events  Proceedings clarified that a dispute
between the Marshall Islands and Pakistan exists  Court should have considered other

arguments against jurisdiction.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE O WADA

1. I concur with the conclusions of the Judgment as contained in its operative part (dispositif)
(Judgment, paragraph 56). Yet I am particularly sensitive to the tragic history of the Republic of
the Marshall Islands (hereinafter the “RMI”), which as a nation suffered as a consequence of the
extensive nuclear testing that took place on its territory. As recognized in the present Judgment,
this experience has created reasons for special concern about nuclear disarmament on the part of

DECLARATION OF V ICE-PRESIDENT YUSUF

Existence of a dispute  Matter for objective determination  Positively opposed juridical
views required  Subjective criterion of “awareness” not a condition  “Awareness” has no
basis in jurisprudence of Court  It also undermines sound administration of justice  Court

D ECLARATION OF P RESIDENT A BRAHAM

527
276
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC BEDJAOUI
[Translation]
Traditionally less formalistic jurisprudence — Reversal of jurisprudence —
Excessive formalism — Lack of flexibility — Loss of clarity —
Notification/“awareness” — Date of the existence of a dispute — Procedural
defects — Silence of the Respondent — Exchanges before the Court — Sui generis
nature of nuclear disputes — Obligation to negotiate and to achieve nuclear
disarmament — Objection not of an exclusively preliminary character —

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 India.

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 JUDGE B HANDARI

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