SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOROMA

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ODA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraphs
1-2
1.~NTRODUCT~ON

II. THDISPUT ERESENTETD THECOURT

III. Exc~usrFROM THECOURT' JURISDICTI ON"DISPUTE SRISING
OUT OFOR CONCERNINCONSERVAT INNMANAGEMEM NTASURES
TAKEN BYCANADA" 8-16

470

SEPARATE OPINION OF PRESIDENT SCHWEBEL

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE FRANCK

Intervention under Article 62 of'the Stututr of the Inferriutionul Court of Jus-
tice - Interest of'u legul nuturr ~t,hirlzmuy bc [iffected bj the decision in the
case - Scope of Court's role in determining tlie "legul nature" of flic interest
adi~ancedby the Applicunt - Whether Philippine claint of historic title oiler
North Borneo aniount.s to a "legul" interest - In7puc.tof'.reif-determinufion q/

the people of'North Borneo on Izistoric title.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE WEERAMANTRY

Dcurth of ju~lic.ial uuthority relating to internationul intervention pro-
cedure - Groiving inzportunce (!finterivntion in eru of'increuscd interrelation-
ship qf'internutionul concerns - Necessitj for c.uuminution qf'principles under-
ljing esercisr of Court's )vidediscretion under Article 62 - Iizteruction hetrtwn

"the Philippines may not introduce a new case before the Court nor
make comprehensive pleadings thereon, but must explain with suj$-
cient clurity its o1c.nclaimof sovereignty in North Borneo and the
legal instruments on which it is said to rest" (emphasis added).

This requirement is in conformity with the objects of the intervention

DECLARATION OF JUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN

Article 62 (Q'tlze Statute r.qfi,rs to the dispositif, tortlze ,findirlg.sor
rc~nsoningsupporting tlir,future Jud'qrnentc!ftlze Court in tlzecu.scJ.

Notwithstanding my vote for the operative part of the Judgment, 1

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOROMA

Doiiht ubo~if Court's interpretationof'"clc~c~i.sioinn" Article 62 to irrc.luc/~>
"reasoning". S1ic.hhrou(1crintcrprctcition nluy prclvcnt Cour,fio/per:firrning
jzidiciul filnctioti \vit11respclc,tto pur~icruse h<fii.rit- No cornpc~lling
reuson to trciopf)vider intcrpt.rtution (?/'Art62.e

1. Although 1 have voted in favour of the Judgment, 1 cannot, how-
ever, express unqualified adherence to some of the positions taken in the

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGEODA

Interpretution q/"'intervention" under Article 62 of the Stutute -- Jurispru-
tkc~ncuef the Court :four previous rulings on upplicu fionsfor pcwnission to inter-
vene urzu'rrArticle 62, in 1981. 1984, 1990 crnd 1999 - Drvelopnzrnt of' the

934

DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC GAJA

While I fully agree with the operative part of the Judgment, I do not
share the view that there is no “extant dispute” between the Parties on
the question of sovereignty over the islands of San Andrés, Providencia
and Santa Catalina and that therefore the Court does not have jurisdic-
tion on the basis of the declarations made by the Parties according to