301
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE OWADA
1. To my greatest regret, I cannot associate myself with the present
Judgment in terms of the conclusions stated in paragraphs 2, 3, 5 and 7 of
its operative part, as well as the reasoning stated in the reasoning parét.
My disagreement lies with the understanding of the Judgment on the
768
DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC COT
[Translation]
Specific circumstances of the western Caribbean — Multilateral management
through a network of bilateral treaties — Rights of third States affected by the
Judgment — Overly complicated nature of the course of the delimitation — Status
of States not parties to the 1982 Convention with respect to the delimitation of the
continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.
762
DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC MENSAH
Agrees with decision not to uphold Nicaragua’s final submission I (3) —
751
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE DONOGHUE
Agrees with decision not to uphold Nicaragua’s claim to continental s▯helf beyond
200 nautical miles of its coast — Nicaragua did not adduce sufficient evidence to
746
DECLARATION OF JUDGE XUE
The aim of achieving an equitable result — Delimitation methodology cannot be
pre‑determined — Adjustment on the basis of a provisional median line is superficial▯
and inappropriate given the geographic features and relevant circumstanc▯es of the
present case — Concurrent use of different methods in the northern and southern
sections is justified as long as an equitable solution can be achieved.
740
DECLARATION OF JUDGE KEITH
730
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ABRAHAM
[Translation]
721
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE OWADA
1. I have voted in favour of all the conclusions of the Court relating to
the merits of the dispute as contained in the operative paragraph of thex
Judgment (paragraph 251, subparagraph (1) and subparagraphs (3)
953
OPINION INDIVIDUELLE DE M. LE JUGE KREC uA
[Traduction]
TABLE DES MATIÈRES
Paragraphes
I. LOCUS STANDI DE LA SERBIE-ET-M ONTÉNÉGRO
934
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ELARABY
The issue of FRY membership in the United Nations — Access to the Court
under Article 35, paragrap h 1 — Scope of reference in Article 35, paragraph 2,
to “treaties in force” — The Vienna Convention on Succession of States in
respect of Treaties — The Genocide Convention.
I. INTRODUCTORY R EMARKS
In addition to the joint declaration, which reflects my disagreement
with the grounds which led the Court to conclude that it had no jurisdic-