SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE C ANÇADO T RINDADE
Table of Contents
Paragraphs
I. Prolegomena ...........................................................................1.....................................
II. Conceptual Development of Provisional Measures of Protection ..........................3.....
D ECLARATION OF J UDGE T OMKA
Order on provisional measures Scope of the first measure ordered Insufficient
attention paid to reasons underlying decisions of the Supreme Court of Crimea and the Supreme
Court of the Russian Federation Lack of urgency.
SEPARATE OPINION OF J UDGE O WADA
1. I have voted in favour of the Order in support of all points contained in its operative
paragraph 106. I also agree with the Court’s decision not to grant Ukraine’s request for provisional
measures concerning the International Conven tion for the Suppression of the Financing of
Annex 1
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
APPLICATION FOR REVISION
OF THE JUDGMENT OF 23 MAY 2008
IN THE CASE CONCERNING
SOVEREIGNTY OVER PEDRA BRANCAJPULA U BA TU PUTEH,
M/DDLEROCKSANDSOUTHLEDGE
(MALA YSIAI SINGAPORE)
(MALAYSIA v. SINGAPORE)
Colony of Singapore Confidential Telegram No 52 from Govemor of
Singapore to Secretary of State for the Colonies dated 7 February 1958
regarding Tenitorial Waters.
I
\
'\
·I I
FROM
RUTD. TO
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC GUILLAUME
[Translation]
D ISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE R OBINSON
1. I do not agree with the decision of the majority in paragraph 134 of the Judgment rejecting
the first basis advanced by Kenya for its first preliminary objection on the ground that the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) does not fall within the scope of the reservation to
Kenya’s optional clause declaration.
2. I also do not agree with the decision of the majority in the same paragraph rejecting the