D ECLARATION OF JUDGE G AJA

1. In its Application (para. 32) and in the submissions included in its Memorial Bolivia
requested the Court to adjudge and declare that “Chile has the obligation to negotiate with Bolivia
in order to reach an agreement granting Bolivia a fully sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean”, that
this obligation has been breached and that it must be complied with. Thus, although the request put
the stress on negotiations, these are only a means for enabling Bolivia to acquire a sovereign access

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE C ANÇADO T RINDADE

Table of Contents

Paragraphs

I. Prolegomena...........................................................................1-5.................................

II. Preliminary Objections and Merits: Reasoning in Search of Justice....................6-11.

III. Jurisdictional Basis and the Merits: Case-Law of the PCIJ and ICJ

D ECLARATION OF JUDGE B ENNOUNA

Options available under Article 79, paragraph 9, of the Rules — Approach to be adopted by
the Court with a view to the sound administration of justice — Exclusively preliminary character of
the objection.

I have felt it necessary, in this case, at the stage of the preliminary objection to jurisdiction
raised by Chile, to clarify the approach and role which the Court should adopt.

Under Article 79, paragraph 9, of the Rules of Court:

1394

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KREC uA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraphs
I. LOCUS STANDI IN JUDICIO SERBIA AND M ONTENEGRO

1. Locus standi and its relationship to jurisdiction ratione per-
sonae 1-2
2. Issue of United Nations membership and locus standi of Ser-
bia and Montenegro 3-6

1375

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ELARABY

The issue of FRY membership in the United Nations — Access to the Court
under Article 35, paragrap h 1 — Scope of reference in Article 35, paragraph 2,
to “treaties in force” — The Vienna Convention on Succession of States in
respect of Treaties — The Genocide Convention.

I. INTRODUCTORY R EMARKS

In addition to the joint declaration, which reflects my disagreement
with the grounds which led the Court to conclude that it had no jurisdic-

1366

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOOIJMANS

Reason for adding separate opinion to joint declaration — Issue of prima
facie jurisdiction in 1999 Orders on provisional measures — Position of Yugo-
slavia in period 1992-2000 not substantiated in Judgment — Implication for
other pending cases in which Applicant is party — Consistency with earlier case
law ignored by the Court.

1359

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE HIGGINS

Removal from the List other than for reasons of discontinuance — Inherent
powers of the Court — Inherent powers not limited to two existing examples —
Reasons why this case should have been removed from the List — Inappropriate
for Judgment to have pronounced on Article 35, paragraph 2, of Statute.

1358

DECLARATION OF JUDGE KOROMA

While I concur with the Court’s findings in the operative paragraph of
the Judgment, I nevertheless consider it important to stress the following.
What the Court was asked to determine and has, in fact, ruled on
during this phase of the proceedings is the issue of jurisdiction.

1353

JOINT DECLARATION OF VICE-PRESIDENT RANJEVA,

JUDGES GUILLAUME, HIGGINS, KOOIJMANS,
AL-KHASAWNEH, BUERGENTHAL AND ELARABY

[English Original Text]

Various objections to the jurisdiction of the Court — Freedom of choice of
the Court — Guiding criteria: consistency; certitude; implications for the other
pending cases — Judgment of the Court inappropriately based on its lack of
jurisdiction ratione personae — Judgment incompatible with previous decisions
of the Court.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE THIERRY

[Translation]

To my deep regret 1 am unable to associate myself with the Court's
decision in the present caseconcerningthe ArbitralAwardof31July1989.
1hereby give the reasons for my dissent, which essentially relate to the
legalconsequences ofthe fact,explicitlyrecognizedby theCourt,thatthat
Award: "has not brought about a complete delimitation of the maritime
areas appertaining respectively to Guinea-Bissau and Senegal" (para-
graph 66of the Judgment of the Court).