SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE C ANÇADO T RINDADE

Table of Contents

Paragraphs

I. Prolegomena........................................................................1-3...............................

II. Manifestations of the Preventive Dimension in Contemporary International Law 4-5

III. The Autonomous Legal Regime of Provisional Measures of Protection............... 6

JOINT DECLARATION OF JUDGES T OMKA , GREENWOOD , EBUTINDE
AND JUDGE AD HOC D UGARD

Costs – Article 64 of the Statute of the Court  Provisional measures  Obligation of a
State to comply with Order indicating provisional measures  Obligations imposed by 2011 Order

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

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.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AJIBOLA

Introduction: Why the case concerning Right of Passageover Indian Terri-
tory should be revisited.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KOROMA

DISSENTING OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT WEERAMANTRY

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOOIJMANS

Whether there is a dispute between the Parties as to the continuation of the
maritime boundary beyondpoint G - No speciJicclaim raised by Applicant at
date of filing of Application which waspositively opposed by Respondent -
Seventh preliminary objectionshould have beenpartially upheld - Eighth pre-
liminary objection consequently withoutobject - Judicial propriety, unilateral
application and rights and interests of third States in cases of delimitation

maritime boundary.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE HIGGINS

Discretionary power of the Court concerningsequence in which it settles
issues before i- Sufficiently precise characterof a disput- Whether exist-
ence of a dispute under Article 38 of the Statute - Court'spowers proprio
motu regarding objectionstojurisdiction.

As is recalled in the first paragraph of the Court's Judgment, Cam-
eroon on 29 March 1994instituted proceedings against Nigeria in respect