DISSENTING OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT SCHWEBEL

1regret that 1have been unable to join in supporting the Judgment of
the Court.
In the law of treaties, "the primary object of interpretation, namely,
the revealing of the intention of the parties", is, in the words of that late,
great Judge and authority on the law of treaties, Sir Hersch Lauterpacht,
paramount :

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SKUBISZEWSKI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraphs

Introduction:dissent and concurrence 1-2

Historical background 4
Portuguese constitutional law and policies relating to its colo-

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE WEERAMANTRY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pages

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE VERESHCHETIN

While 1 am in agreement with the Judgment delivered by the Court,

1 feel obliged to deal in this opinion with one important issue which, in
my view,although not addressed in the reasoning of the Judgment, also
bars the Court from adjudicating upon the submissions in the Applica-
tion of the Portuguese Republic.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE RANJEVA

[Translation]

While the Court is to be applauded for recalling that the right of

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN

The case touches on important principles of contemporary interna-
tional law - principles which have changed the shape of the interna-
tional community, altered the composition of its leading institutions,
affected their orientation, and influencedtheir outlook. But, the mandate
of the Court being limited by the consensual nature of its jurisdiction, its
decision has turned on the preliminary question how far it may adjudi-

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ODA

1. 1voted in favour of the Judgrnent because 1agreed with the Court
that the Application brought by Portugal against Australia on 22 Febru-
ary 1991should be dismissed, as the Court lacksjurisdiction to entertain

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ODA

Purugrrrplls

1. INTROD~CTION 1
II. A UNILAT~RAAPPLICATIORNJNOT A UNILATERA NOTIFICATI ON
ASPECIAALGREEMENT 2-5

III. NEITIIETHE "1987 AGREEMENT NOR THE "1990 AGREEMENT''
CONFER JLKISIIICTILPON THECOURT TO ENTERTAI THE Q.4TARl
APPLICATION 6-17

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE VALTICOS

Without dissociating myself from the Judgment, 1 would like to be
more specific about rny own thinking. The Court has been dealing with a
case that is confused in several respects and which is, if 1may say so, not
al1that it might be from a legal standpoint. When the jurisdiction of the
Court is being consi.dered, one needs to be quite certain that the two
States concerned have indeed agreed to refer their dispute to the Court

SEPARATE OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT SCHWEBEL

1 have voted for the operative paragraphs of the Judgment because
their content is unobjectionable. At the same time, as a judgment on
jurisdiction and admissibility, the Judgment is novel - and disquieting.

The Judgment lacks an essential quality of ajudgment of this Court or
of any court: it does not adjudge the principal issue submitted to it.
Unlike the characteristic judgments of this Court, it does not respond to