SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE O WADA

1. I concur with the conclusions of the Judgment as contained in its operative part (dispositif)
(Judgment, paragraph 56). Yet I am particularly sensitive to the tragic history of the Republic of
the Marshall Islands (hereinafter the “RMI”), which as a nation suffered as a consequence of the
extensive nuclear testing that took place on its territory. As recognized in the present Judgment,
this experience has created reasons for special concern about nuclear disarmament on the part of

DECLARATION OF V ICE-PRESIDENT YUSUF

Existence of a dispute  Matter for objective determination  Positively opposed juridical
views required  Subjective criterion of “awareness” not a condition  “Awareness” has no
basis in jurisprudence of Court  It also undermines sound administration of justice  Court

D ECLARATION OF P RESIDENT A BRAHAM

527
276
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC BEDJAOUI
[Translation]
Traditionally less formalistic jurisprudence — Reversal of jurisprudence —
Excessive formalism — Lack of flexibility — Loss of clarity —
Notification/“awareness” — Date of the existence of a dispute — Procedural
defects — Silence of the Respondent — Exchanges before the Court — Sui generis
nature of nuclear disputes — Obligation to negotiate and to achieve nuclear
disarmament — Objection not of an exclusively preliminary character —

D ISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE C RAWFORD

Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36 (2) of Statute  Existence of a dispute 
Awareness or objective awareness not a legal requirement  No prior negotiations or notice
necessary before seising the Court  Dispute in principle to exist at the time of Application 

Flexible approach  Finding of dispute may be based on post-Application conduct or evidence 
Mavrommatis principle  Existence of multilateral dispute  Existence of dispute between
Marshall Islands and India.

D ISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE R OBINSON

I disagree with the Majority’s conclusion that there is no dispute in this case  Role of the
Court as envisaged by the United Nations Charter  Linear development of the Court’s case law

S EPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE B HANDARI

Concur with the conclusions of the majority  Existence of a dispute is central to the
exercise of the Court’s jurisdiction  On the basis of documents and pleadings of the Parties, no
dispute existed  ICJ lacks jurisdiction  Greater emphasis ought to have been given that no

S EPARATE OPINION OF J UDGE SEBUTINDE

Object and purpose of the United Nations Charter  Maintenance of international peace

and security  Role of the Court in the peaceful settlement of disputes  The Court’s compulsory
jurisdiction derives from the optional clause declarations pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 2, of
the Court’s Statute and not from the existence of a dispute  The existence of a dispute is merely
the precondition for the exercise of that jurisdiction  Article 38 of the Statute of the Court  The

D ECLARATION OF JUDGE G AJA

In the three Judgments concerning the cases filed by the Republic of the Marshall Islands the
Court finds for the first time that it cannot entertain a case because there was no dispute between
the Parties on the date when the Application was filed. Having reached this conclusion, the Court
decides that it does not need to examine the other objections raised by the respondent States. This

DECLARATION OF J UDGE DONOGHUE

1. In contentious cases, the Court settles disputes between States (Article 36, paragraph 2,
and Article 38, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court). When the Court finds the absence of a
dispute in respect of a claim contained in an application, the consequence is dismissal of the claim.
However, the Statute of the Court does not define the term “dispute”. Instead, the meaning of that