DECLARATION OF JUDGE HERCZEGH

[Translation]

JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES BEDJAOUI,

RANJEVA AND KOROMA

(Translation]

Long-standing dispute - Recurrence - Purticular difJiculties of case -

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ODA

Territoriul issues - Muritinzc>delirnitutior~.
Zuhuruli - Iriclu.sion(?f'que.stionvf'titlc to Zuhurrrli iii 1994 Application c?f

IIISSENTING OPINIOX OF JUDGE ITRRI-TIAI HOLGIIIX

[Translation!
1regret that 1 am unable to concur in the Judgment of the Court.
1 must state my persona1 conclusions on:

1. The legal doctrines involved.
II. The different concepts in America and in Europe as to the
exercise of the right of States to contest arbitral aulards.

SEPARATE OPINION OF SIR PERCY SPEXDEK

1 agree that the Award is valid and that Nicaragua is under an
obligation to give effect to it.nce however my approach to certain
of the issues involved in these proceedings varies in some respects
from that which the Court has adopted, 1desire tostate in summary
form my views on the main issues.

ture of the frontier line from the junction of the Poteca or Bodega
with the Guineo or Namasli up to the Portillo de Teotecacinte,which
was the point to which the Mixed Commission had brought the
frontier line from its western boundary point. An examination of
the Award fails to reveal that there is in fact any gap with regard
to the drawing of the frontier line between the junction of the
Poteca or Bodega with the Guineo or Namasli and the Pnvtilln de
Teotecacinte.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ODA

DISSENTING OPINION
OF VICE-PRESIDENT SCHWEBEL

While there is much with which 1agree in the Court's Judgrnent, 1am
unable to accept its dispositive decision that it has jurisdiction to enter-
tain the claims made by the Islamic Republic of Iran under Article X,
paragraph 1, of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular
Rights of 1955.
In interpretingthe scope of a compromissory clause of a treaty accord-

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE RIGAUX

[Translation]

1voted with the majority on the two points in the operative part and
1did so without reservation as regards point 1. As far as point 2 is con-
cerned, 1agree with the decision on jurisdiction therein, but regret that it
implicitly limits the jurisdiction of the Court to paragraph 1 of Article X
of the Amity Treaty.

II. OBSERVATIOR NESLATING TO THE GROUNDS

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN

1. Notwithstanding my agreement with the operative paragraphs of
the Judgment 1 consider it necessary to explain that, in my opinion, the
Court also has jurisdiction to entertain the claims made by Iran under
Article IV, paragraph 1, of the Treaty of 1955,which provides: