155

SEPARATE OPINION OF PRESIDENT TOMKA

Temporal scope of the Court’s jurisdictio— Issues left open by the Court’s

S EPARATE OPINION OF J UDGE AD HOC D UGARD

Table of Contents

Paragraphs

I. Separate opinion.....................................................................1-2.............................

II. Territorial integrity................................................................3................................

DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC GUILLAUME
[Translation]
I. Case concerning Certain Activities carried out by Nicaragua in the Border Area  New submissions presented by Costa Rica at the close of the hearings seeking recognition of its sovereignty over the disputed territory  Submissions belated and hence inadmissible  Nicaragua’s compliance with the Order of 8 March 2011  Freedom of navigation on the San Juan River  Régime applicable to transboundary harm caused by river dredging.

D ECLARATION OF JUDGE G EVORGIAN

Paragraph 1 of the dispositif  The Court’s finding that Costa Rica has sovereignty over
the “disputed territory” is unnecessary  The limits of that territory are not clear  The
geography of the area is unstable  Possible source of future disagreement  Article II of the

Treaty of Limits of 1858  First, second and third Alexander Awards  “First channel met”.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE R OBINSON

Failure of the Court to rule on the merits of the claim that Nicaragua breached the

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE BHANDARI

INTRODUCTION

1. In the instant case, the Court has been presented with two separate but related disputes that
have arisen between Costa Rica and Nicaragua pertaining to the San Juan River, which serves as
the international boundary between these two nation States.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE D ONOGHUE

Obligation under customary international law to exercise due diligence in preventing
significant transboundary environmental harm — Environmental Impact Assessment —
Notification — Consultation.

1. In each of these joined cases, the Applicant contends that the Respondent violated general

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE C ANÇADO T RINDADE

Table of Contents

Paragraphs

I. Prolegomena........................................................................1-3...............................

II. Manifestations of the Preventive Dimension in Contemporary International Law 4-5

III. The Autonomous Legal Regime of Provisional Measures of Protection............... 6

JOINT DECLARATION OF JUDGES T OMKA , GREENWOOD , EBUTINDE
AND JUDGE AD HOC D UGARD

Costs – Article 64 of the Statute of the Court  Provisional measures  Obligation of a
State to comply with Order indicating provisional measures  Obligations imposed by 2011 Order

S EPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE O WADA

1. I have voted in favour of the conclusions reached by the Court in the operative part
(dispositif) of the present Judgment, as I have no disagreement with these conclusions as such. It is
my view, however, that certain specific aspects of the reasoning (ratio decidendi) of the Judgment
that have led the Court to these conclusions have not been developed with sufficient clarity in the
reasoning part (motifs) of the Judgment. For this reason, I wish to attach this opinion of mine, with