DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGEODA

Interpretution q/"'intervention" under Article 62 of the Stutute -- Jurispru-
tkc~ncuef the Court :four previous rulings on upplicu fionsfor pcwnission to inter-
vene urzu'rrArticle 62, in 1981. 1984, 1990 crnd 1999 - Drvelopnzrnt of' the

934

DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC GAJA

While I fully agree with the operative part of the Judgment, I do not
share the view that there is no “extant dispute” between the Parties on
the question of sovereignty over the islands of San Andrés, Providencia
and Santa Catalina and that therefore the Court does not have jurisdic-
tion on the basis of the declarations made by the Parties according to

923

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BENNOUNA

[Translation]

The not exclusively preliminary character (Rules of Court, Art. 79, para. 2)
of the objection raised by Colombia on the basis of Article VI of the Pact of
Bogotá, excluding matters governed by agreements or treaties in force — The
validity of the 1928 Treaty between Colombia and Nicaragua — Consideration
of the issue of the invalidity of the 1928 Treaty, allegedly signed under coercion,

921

DECLARATION OF JUDGE KEITH

1. I agree with the decision of the Court and in essence with the rea-
sons it gives. My principal purpose in preparing this declaration is to

903

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ABRAHAM

[Translation]

Agreement with the part of the Judgment dealing with the various aspects of
the dispute other than sovereignty over the three islands — Disagreement as to
this last aspect — Main difficulty in the case: drawing the line between those
issues appertaining to the preliminary phase and those which cannot be decided
until after the proceedings on the merits — Unusualness, in this regard, of the

898

DECLARATION OF JUDGE TOMKA

Two bases of jurisdiction of the Court.
Objection to the jurisdiction under the Pact of Bogotá — Was the 1928
Treaty in force when the Pact of Bogotá was concluded? — Alleged manifest
violation of the Constitution as a ground for invalidating the Treaty — Impact
of the subsequent conduct of the Party on its right to invoke the alleged manifest

violation of the Constitution as a ground for invalidating the Treaty.

893

DECLARATION OF JUDGE SIMMA

Jurisdiction of the Court within the system of the Pact of Bogotá: difference
between Nicaragua not being allowed anymore to assert the invalidity of its
1928 Treaty with Colombia due to its past behaviour and the Treaty being
“valid and in force” in 1948 — The provisions of the Pact and the declarations
made under the optional clause representing two distinct bases of the Court’s

892

DECLARATION OF JUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN

1. Notwithstanding my vote in favour of the operative clause of the
Judgment, I feel it necessary to make the following point.
2. Paragraph 136 of the Judgment states: “the Court considers that
the provisions of the Pact of Bogotá and the declarations made under the
optional clause represent two distinct bases of the Court’s jurisdiction

886

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE RANJEVA

[Translation]

Correspondence between Nicaragua’s requests and the subject-matter of the
Judgment — Interim decision on the merits or judgment on a preliminary objec-
tion — Declaration of the validity of the 1928 Treaty — Status of the three
islands and ending of the dispute — Closeness of links between the merits and
the procedural law — Nicaragua’s dual claim: possessory and petitory — Com-

878

DISSENTING OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT
AL-KHASAWNEH

Colombian preliminary objection not of exclusively preliminary nature —
Where decision on preliminary objection also determinative of important aspect
of the merits of the dispute — Where decision on alleged invalidity of 1928