DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KOROMA

DISSENTING OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT WEERAMANTRY

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOOIJMANS

Whether there is a dispute between the Parties as to the continuation of the
maritime boundary beyondpoint G - No speciJicclaim raised by Applicant at
date of filing of Application which waspositively opposed by Respondent -
Seventh preliminary objectionshould have beenpartially upheld - Eighth pre-
liminary objection consequently withoutobject - Judicial propriety, unilateral
application and rights and interests of third States in cases of delimitation

maritime boundary.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE HIGGINS

Discretionary power of the Court concerningsequence in which it settles
issues before i- Sufficiently precise characterof a disput- Whether exist-
ence of a dispute under Article 38 of the Statute - Court'spowers proprio
motu regarding objectionstojurisdiction.

As is recalled in the first paragraph of the Court's Judgment, Cam-
eroon on 29 March 1994instituted proceedings against Nigeria in respect

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE VERESHCHETIN

Argument of Cameroon that a dispute exists concerning the whole of the
boundaryfrom the tripoint in Lake Chad to the sea - Objection of Nigeria as
to the existence of such a disput- Non-exclusively preliminary characterof
this objection.

1voted with the majority of the judges on al1the points of the opera-
tive part of the Judgment, except point 1 (e). 1 am unable to vote "in
favour" of that part of the Judgment because of my beliefthat the finding

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ODA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraphs

1-4

II. CAMEROON A'SPLICATION AWHOLE 5-15
1. The structure of Cameroon's 1994Application 6-11
2. The submissionscontained in Cameroon's 1995Memorial 12-15

III.REQUES TORDELIMITATI ONA BOUNDAR LINE

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE RIGAUX

[Translation]

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SIMMA

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE OWADA