DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE VERESHCHETIN
Principal points of the dissent (para. 1).
1.Subject-matter of the main dispute between the Parties (paras. 2-9)
Spain'sposition on the subject-matter of the dispute (paras. 2, 5) - Cana-
da'sposition on this issue (paras. 3, 6) - Article 40,paragraph l, of the Stat-
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE RANJEVA
[Translation]
Summary - Risk of jeopardizing the optional clausesystem - Distortion of
the subject-matter of the main dispute.
Subject-matter of the dispute - Judicial restatement of the subject of the dis-
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BEDJAOUI
[Translation]
Subject-matter of the dispute - Tripartite determination by Applicant,
Respondent andthe Court - Dijferent role of each "actor" - Inviolability of
Applicant's status - Applicant's right to have the Courtrule on the subject of
DISSENTING OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT WEERAMANTRY
Validity of Canadianreservation - Znterpretationof reservation - Zmpor-
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOOlJMANS
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