DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE GEVORGIAN

DECLARATION OF JUDGE ROBINSON
1. I am in agreement with the finding in the dispositif of the Judgment. I wish however to make some brief comments on the case.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE GAJA
Obligation under a treaty to settle a dispute according to one of the means stipulated in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations ⎯ Referral to a decision of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on the choice of means of settlement ⎯ Decision implying an obligation for the Parties to resort to judicial settlement ⎯ Whether it confers jurisdiction on the Court ⎯ Need for the consent of both Parties ⎯ Object and purpose of the treaty.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BENNOUNA
Jurisdiction of the Court — Consent of the Parties in the light of the Statute and the Court’s consistent jurisprudence — Interpretation of Article IV, paragraph 2, of the Geneva Agreement ⎯ Two alternatives provided for in Article IV, paragraph 2 — Subject-matter of the dispute — Power delegated by the Parties to the Secretary-General under Article IV, paragraph 2.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ABRAHAM
[Translation]
1. To my great regret, I am unable to subscribe to the conclusion reached by the majority of my colleagues in the present case, namely that there is a jurisdictional basis allowing the Court to entertain the dispute between Guyana and Venezuela, which is essentially a territorial dispute, of which it has been seised by the unilateral Application of Guyana.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE TOMKA Geneva Agreement as agreement for the peaceful settlement of the dispute — Authority of the Secretary-General of the United Nations — Jurisdiction ratione materiae concerns the frontier dispute — Issue of the validity of the 1899 Arbitral Award ripe for judicial determination — Effet utile of Article IV, paragraph 2, of the Geneva Agreement.
Having voted in favour of the conclusions reached by the Court, I nevertheless wish to offer a few remarks on this case, which is rather unusual.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC KATEKA
Disagreement with the operative part of the Judgment ⎯ Disagreement with the reasoning
on procedural and substantive grounds ⎯ Preliminary issues ⎯ The VCDR preamble alone
cannot be basis of consent condition ⎯ Circumstances for a property to acquire status of
“premises of the mission” ⎯ Judgment ignores “use” condition and prefers “consent”
condition ⎯ Interpretation of Article 1 (i) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations ⎯

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ROBINSON

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BHANDARI

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SEBUTINDE