DISSENTING OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT

WEERAMANTRY

Article 31 of Vienna Conventionon the Law of Treaties - Meaning of terms
"subsequent practice" and "agreement" in Article 31, paragraph 3 (b) -
Silence and non-protest as indicia of assent - "Common understanding" -
Ambivalence of scientijc criteria - Navigability as a criterion - The thalweg
concept - Cartographic evidence - Equitable navigationaluse of boundary

1145 KASIKILI~SEDUDU ISLAND (SEP.OP.KOOIJMANS)

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ODA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

II. THECASEPRESENTE TO THE COURT BYMEANS OF A COMPROMIS 9-21

(1) Lack of clarity in the compromis 9-10
(2) The background to the filing of the case at the Cour11-17
(3) Further comments on the lack of clarity in theis 18-21

III. "ON THEBASISOF THE1890ANGLO-GERMA TREATY" 22-33

DECLARATION OF JUDGE HIGGINS

The task of the Court - Temporal issues - Relevanceof mistake as regards
navigability - Realism in application of treaty terms - Importance of visible
physical features.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE KOROMA

Decision by Numihia and Botsivana to hring dispute to Court by Speciul
Agreement.
Possible interpretations of1890 Anglo-German Agreement -- Clloiceof one
such interpretatiorlby the Court - Recognition and applicationof principle qf
uti possidetisas part of the African legalorder.
Kasane Comnzuniquéas basis of shared use qf'river also in accordunceirith

contemporary legalprinciples of internutionul watercourses.

Legul effrct of Judgment 012boundary und stutus of Islund

DECLPLRATION OF JUDGE RANJEVA

First, 1should like to explain how 1interpret the reply to Article 1 of

152

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC BENNOUNA

[Translation]

Determination of legal title and effectivité at critical date in August 1960 —
Effectivité can supplement imprecise title — Legal title places boundary on left
bank of River Niger — Raynier letter of 27 August 1954 referred back to Daho-
mey’s title established in 1900 — Effectivités of Benin take precedence at criti-
cal date over those of Niger and confirm location of boundary on left bank of

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BUERGENTHAL

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOROMA

Issue qf procedirrtrldefu~lltin relution to hrea-h Court'sjlndings - Mis-
givings - Orders,forprovi.sionr1ntJusuresunderthe Court'sStututr hinding -
Need,fOrcautionnot to c.ustdouht or1previousordc,r.s i.s.sued.

1. Although 1 support the Court's findings in this case, there are one
or two conclusions about which 1 have some misgivings, inparticular to
the extent that they are also embodied in the operative paragraph of the