DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ODA
Purugrrrplls
1. INTROD~CTION 1
II. A UNILAT~RAAPPLICATIORNJNOT A UNILATERA NOTIFICATI ON
ASPECIAALGREEMENT 2-5
III. NEITIIETHE "1987 AGREEMENT NOR THE "1990 AGREEMENT''
CONFER JLKISIIICTILPON THECOURT TO ENTERTAI THE Q.4TARl
APPLICATION 6-17
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE VALTICOS
Without dissociating myself from the Judgment, 1 would like to be
more specific about rny own thinking. The Court has been dealing with a
case that is confused in several respects and which is, if 1may say so, not
al1that it might be from a legal standpoint. When the jurisdiction of the
Court is being consi.dered, one needs to be quite certain that the two
States concerned have indeed agreed to refer their dispute to the Court
SEPARATE OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT SCHWEBEL
1 have voted for the operative paragraphs of the Judgment because
their content is unobjectionable. At the same time, as a judgment on
jurisdiction and admissibility, the Judgment is novel - and disquieting.
The Judgment lacks an essential quality of ajudgment of this Court or
of any court: it does not adjudge the principal issue submitted to it.
Unlike the characteristic judgments of this Court, it does not respond to
DECLARATION OF JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN
My preference would have been for the issue ofurisdiction to be fully
decided at this stage. 1 have, however. voted for the Judgment, under-
standing the intent to be to offer to the Parties an opportunity, which
merits acceptance, to submit the whole of the dispute to the Court. The
reasons for the preference are accordingly not set out.
iSign~.d)Mohamed SHAHABIJDDEEN.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SETTE-CAMARA
1regret that 1have been unable to agree with the Court's majority in
the present Judgment in its appraisal of the facts, in its reasoning and in
its conclusions, and therefore feel under the obligation to explain why 1
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AJIBOLA
(i)Delimitution or Attribution
1. 1am generally in agreement with the Judgment of the Court, espe-
cially with its finding that the Treaty of Friendship and Good Neigh-
bourliness between the French Republic and the United Kingdom of
Libya of 10 August 1955 in effect determines the boundary dispute
between the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (herein-
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN
The case at bar recalls a world now left behind. In telling flashes, it
illuminates an age when international law tended to develop as a legal
construct supportive of the global projection of the power of a single
DECLARATION OF JUDGE AG0
My own view is siill the conviction that, at the time of the indepen-
dence of the new State of Libya, the southern frontier of that country
with the French possessions of West Africa and Equatorial Africa,
between Toummoand the frontier of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, had not
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE FISCHER
To myregret 1am unable to concurin the decision ofthe Court for the
reasonswhich 1shallbriefly setforth below.Myremarkswillconcentrate
on the principal divergenceof views.
Onthe otherhand, 1amin agreement with someofthe reasoning ofthe
Court.
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AJIBOLA