D ECLARATION OF JUDGE X UE

1. I have voted in favour of the Judgment because I agree with the decision of the Court to
dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Notwithstanding my vote, I wish to make two points on
the Judgment.

2. My first point relates to the approach taken by the Court. In the Judgment, the Court finds

D ISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE C ANÇADO T RINDADE

Table of Contents

Paragraphs

I. Prolegomena................................................................................................................................1-4

II. The Existence of a Dispute before the Hague Court ..................................................................... 5

D ISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE B ENNOUNA

Exercise in pure formalism  Introduction of a subjective criterion in determining the
existence of the dispute  Sound administration of justice  Realism and flexibility of the case
law of the Court  The existence of the dispute, a question to be objectively decided.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE TOMKA

Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 36 (2) of Statute  Existence of a dispute  No prior

negotiations or notice necessary before seising Court  Existence of a dispute a condition for
exercise of jurisdiction  Dispute in principle to exist at date of Application  Court has applied
condition flexibly and taken into account subsequent events  Proceedings clarified that a dispute
between the Marshall Islands and India exists  Court should have considered other arguments

against jurisdiction.

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-P RESIDENT Y USUF

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

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
5 FEBRUARY 2016
CASE CONCERNING
MARITIME DELIMITATION IN THE INDIAN OCEAN
SOMALIA
v.
KENYA
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF SOMALIA
CONCERNING THE PRELIMINARY
OBJECTIONS OF KENYA
VOLUME II
ANNEXES

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
5 FEBRUARY 2016
CASE CONCERNING
MARITIME DELIMITATION IN THE INDIAN OCEAN
SOMALIA
v.
KENYA
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF SOMALIA
CONCERNING THE PRELIMINARY
OBJECTIONS OF KENYA
VOLUME I

VOLUME II

LIST OF ANNEXES

Annex 1 Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the
Republic of Kenya and the Transitional Federal Government of the Somali ▯
Republic to Grant Each Other No-Objection in Respect of Submissions on t▯he
Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles to the
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (7 Apr. 2009, entered▯ into

force 7 Apr. 2009)