898
DECLARATION OF JUDGE TOMKA
Two bases of jurisdiction of the Court.
Objection to the jurisdiction under the Pact of Bogotá — Was the 1928
Treaty in force when the Pact of Bogotá was concluded? — Alleged manifest
violation of the Constitution as a ground for invalidating the Treaty — Impact
of the subsequent conduct of the Party on its right to invoke the alleged manifest
violation of the Constitution as a ground for invalidating the Treaty.
893
DECLARATION OF JUDGE SIMMA
Jurisdiction of the Court within the system of the Pact of Bogotá: difference
between Nicaragua not being allowed anymore to assert the invalidity of its
1928 Treaty with Colombia due to its past behaviour and the Treaty being
“valid and in force” in 1948 — The provisions of the Pact and the declarations
made under the optional clause representing two distinct bases of the Court’s
892
DECLARATION OF JUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN
1. Notwithstanding my vote in favour of the operative clause of the
Judgment, I feel it necessary to make the following point.
2. Paragraph 136 of the Judgment states: “the Court considers that
the provisions of the Pact of Bogotá and the declarations made under the
optional clause represent two distinct bases of the Court’s jurisdiction
886
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE RANJEVA
[Translation]
Correspondence between Nicaragua’s requests and the subject-matter of the
Judgment — Interim decision on the merits or judgment on a preliminary objec-
tion — Declaration of the validity of the 1928 Treaty — Status of the three
islands and ending of the dispute — Closeness of links between the merits and
the procedural law — Nicaragua’s dual claim: possessory and petitory — Com-
878
DISSENTING OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT
AL-KHASAWNEH
Colombian preliminary objection not of exclusively preliminary nature —
Where decision on preliminary objection also determinative of important aspect
of the merits of the dispute — Where decision on alleged invalidity of 1928
827
DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC GAJA
While I am in agreement with the rest of the operative part of the Judg-
ment and with most of the reasons given, I do not share the view that
maritime areas lying south of the 14°59.8′N parallel should be attributed
to Honduras as part of its territorial sea.
According to Article 3 of the United Nations Convention on the Law
782
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC TORRES
BERNÁRDEZ
[Translation]
780
DECLARATION OF JUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN
1. The Note of 19 March 1912 sent by the Minister for Foreign Affairs
of Nicaragua to the Foreign Minister of Honduras recalls the failure of
the Mixed Commission created by the 1894 Treaty to agree on one sector
of the boundary line and states:
774
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOROMA
Employment of bisector consistent with jurisprudence on maritime delimita-
tion — Geographical features of area at heart of delimitation — Choice of
method depends upon particular circumstances of the area to be delimited —
Equidistance method when appropriate but not obligatory — Bisector also a
geometric method and its relation to coastal geography — Articles 15, 74, para-
765
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE RANJEVA
[Translation]
Special circumstances and delimitation of the territorial sea — Rule-making
or corrective function — Geomorphology and course of the provisional equidis-
tance line — Notion of necessity and alternative course of the provisional line —
Bisector and equidistance line — History of Article 15 of the 1982 United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea — Development of jurisprudence —
A largely settled debate — Reversal of jurisprudence — “Particular circum-
stances”.