DECLARATION OF JUDGE KOROMA

My decision to vote in favour of the Order granting the interim meas-
ures of protection in this matter was reached only after careful considera-
tion and in the light of the urgency and exceptional circumstances of this
case. Torn as 1 was between the need to observe the requirements for
granting provisional measures of protection under Article 41 of the Stat-
ute of the Court, thereby ensuring that whatever decision the Court
might reach should not be devoid of object, and the need for the Court to

DECLARATION OF JUDGE ODA

1. 1 voted in favour of the Court's Order with great hesitation as
1believed and 1 still believe that the request for the indication of provi-
sional measures of protection submitted by Paraguay to the Court should

DECLARATION OF PRESIDENT SCHWEBEL

1 have voted for the Order, but with disquiet. The sensitive issues it
poses have been hastily, if ably, argued. The evidenceintroduced is bare.

SEPARATE OPINION OF PRESIDENT SCHWEBEL

DECLARATION OF JUDGE ODA

1. 1voted in favour of the Court's Order with great hesitation as 1con-
sidered that the request for the indication of provisional measures of pro-

tection submitted by Germany to the Court should have been dismissed.
However, in the limited time - only several hours - given to the Court
to deal with this matter, 1have regrettably found it impossible to develop
my points sufficiently to persuade my colleagues to alter their position.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AJIBOLA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Puge
1. INTRODUCTION 36
II.FACTS-IN-ISSUE 37

III. LEGALONDITION ASD GROUND OR THEINDICATIOOFNPROVISIONAL
MEASURES
A. Prima faciejurisdiction

B. Urgency
IV. THEREQUEST OF CAMEROO NND THE LEGALBASIS FOR ANINDI-
CATIONOFPROVISION MAEASURES

DECLARATION OF JUDGE MBAYE

[Translation]

It rarely happens that two cases are exactly alike. However, the case
concerning the Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso/Republic of Mali), Pro-
visional Measures (1.C.J. Reports 1986, pp. 3 et seq.) and the present
proceedings do display some striking similarities.In both cases,there is a
dispute between two neighbouring African States. It relates to the delimi-
tation of their boundary and has been referred to the Court. Further to

JOINT DECLARATION OF JUDGES WEERAMANTRY, SHI
AND VERESHCHETIN

DECLARATION OF JUDGE KOROMA

1 have voted in favour of the Order and it is my clear understanding

DECLARATION OF JUDGE RANJEVA

(Translation]

The present Order confirms - if any confirmation was needed - the
jurisprudence of the Chamber in the case concerning the Frontier Dispute
(Provisional Measures, Order of 10 January 1986, I.C.J. Reports 1986,
pp. 3 et seq.). The operative part does not confine itself to the indication
of measures preserving rights in the traditional sense; it directly invites