SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE VERESHCHETIN

Argument of Cameroon that a dispute exists concerning the whole of the
boundaryfrom the tripoint in Lake Chad to the sea - Objection of Nigeria as
to the existence of such a disput- Non-exclusively preliminary characterof
this objection.

1voted with the majority of the judges on al1the points of the opera-
tive part of the Judgment, except point 1 (e). 1 am unable to vote "in
favour" of that part of the Judgment because of my beliefthat the finding

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ODA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraphs

1-4

II. CAMEROON A'SPLICATION AWHOLE 5-15
1. The structure of Cameroon's 1994Application 6-11
2. The submissionscontained in Cameroon's 1995Memorial 12-15

III.REQUES TORDELIMITATI ONA BOUNDAR LINE

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE RIGAUX

[Translation]

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SIMMA

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE OWADA

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ELARABY

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE BUERGENTHAL

Agreement with Court's rejection of Iran's claim against the United States
under Article X, paragraph 1, of the 1955 Treaty - Agreement, mutatis

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AL-KHASAWNEH

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOOIJMANS

Factual context - Political relations between Parties before and during Iran-
Iraq war (1980-1988) - Tanker War and neutral shipping - Attacks against

platforms - United States embargo - 1955 Treaty not mentioned at the time.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN

Partial disagreement with paragraph 125 (1) - According to 1996 Judg-
ment, Court's jurisdiction is based solely on Article X, paragraph I, of the 1955
Treaty - Iran's main submission was that the military actions of the United
States breached that Article - Task of the Court was to adjudge Iran's submis-
sion before deciding, zj"necessary, whether the military actions were justzjîed