DECLARATION OF JUDGE CHARLESWORTH Concurrence with the Court’s findings in relation to two submissions — Disagreement with the Court’s conclusion that the remaining claims and counter-claims no longer have any object — Complexity and uncertainty introduced by the Judgment in relation to the legal consequences of the disappearance of a dispute — Distinction between the disappearance of a claim’s object and the convergence of the parties’ positions.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE TOMKA Power of the Court to interpret the submissions of the parties — Ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the submissions — Decisive weight of the final submissions. 1. Today’s Judgment of the Court most likely comes as a surprise to the Parties, in particular the Applicant. In fact, it decides almost nothing. Four of the final submissions of Chile are found to no longer have any object, and the last one is rejected. Of the three counter-claims made by Bolivia, the first two are found to no longer have any object, and the last one is rejected. 2.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
APPLICATION
INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS
filed in the Registry of the Court
on 16 November 2022
THE SAPODILLA CAYES
(BELIZE v. HONDURAS)
1
APPLICATION INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS
I. SUBJECT MATTER OF THE DISPUTE
1. This Application submits to the Court for final and binding resolution in
accordance with international law the dispute between Belize and Honduras
concerning sovereignty over the Sapodilla Cayes.
II. JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE CASE CONCERNING ARBITRAL AWARD OF 3 OCTOBER 1899 CO-OPERATIVE REPUBLIC OF GUYANA v. BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA GUYANA’S MEMORIAL ON THE MERITS VOLUME IV 8 March 2022

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE CASE CONCERNING ARBITRAL AWARD OF 3 OCTOBER 1899 CO-OPERATIVE REPUBLIC OF GUYANA v. BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA GUYANA’S MEMORIAL ON THE MERITS VOLUME III 8 March 2022

VOLUME II
MAPS AND FIGURES
All maps are for illustrative purposes only
Figure 2.1
Figure 2.2
Figure 2.3
Figure 2.4
Figure 2.5
Figure 3.1
Figure 3.2
Figure 3.3
Figure 3.4
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5
Figure 4.6
Figure 4.7
Figure 4.8
Figure 4.9
Figure 4.10

DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC DAUDET
[Translation]

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ROBINSON Scope of the Court’s provisional measures Order of 7 December 2021 — Temporal limitation in the Court’s Order of the 2020 Conflict — Effect of hostilities ensuing between the Parties subsequent to the 2020 Conflict — Outbreak of hostilities on 12 September 2022 qualifies as a “change in the situation”. 1.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BHANDARI Modification of an order indicating provisional measures — Requirement under Article 76 of the Rules of Court for “some change in the situation” — September 2022 hostilities created a “change in the situation” — Change in the situation would have justified modification of the 2021 Order — Risk of setting too high a bar for modification — Court’s interpretation of paragraph 98 (1) (a) of the 2021 Order is unfounded. 1. I regret that I am unable to vote in favour of this Order. 2.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SEBUTINDE The provisional measure contained in paragraph 98 (1) (a) of the Court’s Order of 7 December 2021 has a particular temporal scope and extends protection to particular individuals  In its current form, the said provisional measure does not extend to Armenian nationals captured and detained by Azerbaijan after the 2020 Conflict or in the future  The renewed hostilities of September 2022 resulting in the capture and detention of additional Armenian prisoners constitute a change in the situation within the meaning of Article 76 (1) of the Rules of Court, th