SEPARATEOPINIONOFVICE-PRESIDENTODA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraphs
1-3
PART1. DENMARK' SISUNDERSTAND IF CERTAIN CONCEPT SF
THE LAW OF THE SEAAS REFLECTE DITSSUBMISSIONS 4-46
DECLAUATION OF JUDGE RANJEVA
flranslation]
1 have voted in favour of the operative part of the Judgment and sub-
scribe to the arguments on which it isbased. In myopinion, the solution
adopted by the Court constitutes an equitable result, which pays due
regard to the interests at stake. 1 would nevertheless have wished the
DECLARATION OF JUDGE AGUILAR MAWDSLEY
1have voted for the Judgment because 1 concur with its reasoning.
However, 1am not persuadëd that the delimitation line as drawn by the
Court orovidesforaneauitableresult.Inmvooinion. the dimerenceinthe
GngthSofthe coasts of~reenland and ~an~a~en issuch that Greenland
(Denmark) should have receiveda largerproportion ofthe disputed area.
Given the importance attached to this factor in the Judgment, it would
have beenlogicalat leastto makean equal distribution ofzones I,3.and
DECLARATION OF JUDGE EVENSEN
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea signed at
Montego Bay,Jamaica, on 10December 1982endeavoun to formulate in
its text of 320Articles,9Annexes and a Final Actthe prevailing(to some
extent emerging) principles of the modem law of the sea. Article 308,
paragraph 1,of the Convention provides:
"ThisConvention shallenterinto force 12months afterthe date of
deposit ofthe sixtiethinstrument of ratification or accession."
DECLARATION OF VICE-PRESIDENT ODA
Myview,asappears inmyseparate opinion,isthat the DanishApplica-
SEPARATEOPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC SEPULVEDA
Thzrdcase before the Court clarmzngbreaches rn the applicatronand inter-
pretatlon of VzennaConventionon ConsularRelations - Basrcagreement with
thefindrngsof the Court, butreservatronsabout certurnconclusrons - Untimely
objections onjurzsdzctronand adrnrsszbzhty - Restrzcted interpretatronof the
responszbzlityof States
SEPARATEOPINION OF JUDGE TOMKA
Diplomatic protection - Distinciiun between rights of the Srare and indi-
vlrdu righ~s - Invocafion ofindil~iduurlights h&re un iniurnutionnl court by
Stare of nutimalily - Objection based on nun-exhau.rtir~onj'lr~cnlrunedies.
SEPARATEOPINION OF JUDGE PARKA-ARANGUREN
The CO~.WII[of lhe Unilud Stales nol to ruise prel~rnirtaryobjeclion-
Mextcn did not discharge ilYburdenof proving theMP-Y~CU nHiionnlity oj~hc
52 persons illdicated In it.$ e~norial- Mul~rple r~uiii~ttulcases - Tlte
exhaustion 14 1r)culretnpdiasrul- Ohl~goliilto rcj11ytoull thcquestlnnsrrs
slated hy Mesicu in its$nrrlcubnlissions- Final consideroions.
SEPARATEOPINlON OF JUDGE VERESHCHETIN
TWOheud~ uqflhr Mexican claims- Trwtmenf by heCourt of the ruleof
exh~u.stionoflocal remedies - "Mixed" claims in the jurisprudeirceof he
Cvurt nnd in the ILU Drajt A~r6icde .n DiplornoticProtection- Rea.~onsfor
the applicationof')rrpnndernnce" srundurdandfor non-applicationnj'ihelocrii
remediesreguir~menrin rhespeciul uircurnslnncesof t11ecase.
DECLARATION OF VICE-PRESIDENT RANJEVA