Separate opinion of Judge Owada

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

Declaration of Vice-President Yusuf

D ECLARATION OF VICE -PRESIDENT Y USUF

Territorial integrity  Territorial sovereignty  Parties’ claims of violation of territorial
integrity not adequately addressed  Inviolability of boundaries as a basic element of territorial
integrity  Inviolability not conditional on the use or threat of force  Territorial integrity

breached by incursions  Lack of emphasis on territorial integrity inconsistent with Court’s case
law.

Separate opinion of Judge ad hoc Mampuya

625

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC MAMPUYA

[Translation]

Subject and underlying cause of the dispute: ambiguity and conflation of mis-
treatment of a Guinean national and debts owed to Congolese companies —
Need to go to the “heart of the dispute” — Protection of the rights of Congolese
companies and protection of a national by way of substitution for the compa-
nies — Requirement of the existence of a dispute between States; novelty of

Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Kreca

In spite of my respect for the Court, 1am cornpelled,with deep regret,
Io avail myself of the right io express a disseniing opinion.
As each objection appears ta be designed as a separate whole, 1shall
treat the objections raised by Yugoslavia separately, in such a way as to
ensure that the conclusions drawn therefrom will serveas a proper basis
for my general conclusion concerning the jurisdiction of the Court and
the admissibility of Bosnia and Herzegovina'sclaim.

Links