Annexes

Annex 1
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
APPLICATION FOR REVISION
OF THE JUDGMENT OF 23 MAY 2008
IN THE CASE CONCERNING
SOVEREIGNTY OVER PEDRA BRANCAJPULA U BA TU PUTEH,
M/DDLEROCKSANDSOUTHLEDGE
(MALA YSIAI SINGAPORE)
(MALAYSIA v. SINGAPORE)
Colony of Singapore Confidential Telegram No 52 from Govemor of
Singapore to Secretary of State for the Colonies dated 7 February 1958
regarding Tenitorial Waters.
I
\
'\
·I I
FROM
RUTD. TO

Dissenting opinion of Judge Robinson

D ISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE R OBINSON

1. I do not agree with the decision of the majority in paragraph 134 of the Judgment rejecting

the first basis advanced by Kenya for its first preliminary objection on the ground that the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) does not fall within the scope of the reservation to
Kenya’s optional clause declaration.

2. I also do not agree with the decision of the majority in the same paragraph rejecting the

Joint declaration of Judges Gaja and Crawford

J OINT DECLARATION OF J UDGES G AJA AND CRAWFORD

Jurisdiction  Article 36 (2) of Statute  Paragraph 6 of the MOU not affecting the
Court’s jurisdiction  Kenya’s reservation requires method of settlement that will resolve
dispute  Negotiation in good faith may not result in settlement  Paragraph 6 not caught by
Kenya’s reservation as neither pactum de contrahendo nor providing for an exclusive method.

Dissenting opinion of Judge Bennouna

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE B ENNOUNA

Optional clause declaration  Reservation for disputes subject to another method of
settlement  Interpretation of paragraph 6 of the MOU  Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on
the Law of Treaties  Reversal of order of the general rule of interpretation  Ordinary meaning

of the terms as starting point  Erroneous analogy with Article 83 of UNCLOS  Existence of a
procedure for the settlement of the maritime dispute in paragraph 6.

Subscribe to
Links