DECLARATION OF JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN
My preference would have been for the issue ofurisdiction to be fully
decided at this stage. 1 have, however. voted for the Judgment, under-
standing the intent to be to offer to the Parties an opportunity, which
merits acceptance, to submit the whole of the dispute to the Court. The
reasons for the preference are accordingly not set out.
iSign~.d)Mohamed SHAHABIJDDEEN.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SETTE-CAMARA
1regret that 1have been unable to agree with the Court's majority in
the present Judgment in its appraisal of the facts, in its reasoning and in
its conclusions, and therefore feel under the obligation to explain why 1
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AJIBOLA
(i)Delimitution or Attribution
1. 1am generally in agreement with the Judgment of the Court, espe-
cially with its finding that the Treaty of Friendship and Good Neigh-
bourliness between the French Republic and the United Kingdom of
Libya of 10 August 1955 in effect determines the boundary dispute
between the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (herein-
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN
The case at bar recalls a world now left behind. In telling flashes, it
illuminates an age when international law tended to develop as a legal
construct supportive of the global projection of the power of a single
DECLARATION OF JUDGE AG0
My own view is siill the conviction that, at the time of the indepen-
dence of the new State of Libya, the southern frontier of that country
with the French possessions of West Africa and Equatorial Africa,
between Toummoand the frontier of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, had not
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE FISCHER
To myregret 1am unable to concurin the decision ofthe Court for the
reasonswhich 1shallbriefly setforth below.Myremarkswillconcentrate
on the principal divergenceof views.
Onthe otherhand, 1amin agreement with someofthe reasoning ofthe
Court.
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AJIBOLA
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE WEERAMANTRY
TABLEOFCONTENTS
Paragraphs
1-11
Specialrole played by equityin this case 5-11
12-165
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SCHWEBEL
1am in substantial but not full agreement with the Court's Judgment.
There is no need to specify the several holdings of the Court with which
1agree. The questions whose treatment by the Court is in my view ques-
tionable arethe following.
1. SHOULD THE LAW OF MARITIM DEELIMITATIO BNEREVISED TO
INTRODUC END APPLY DISTRIBUTIV JUESTICE?