762

DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC MENSAH

Agrees with decision not to uphold Nicaragua’s final submission I (3) —

751

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE DONOGHUE

Agrees with decision not to uphold Nicaragua’s claim to continental s▯helf beyond
200 nautical miles of its coast — Nicaragua did not adduce sufficient evidence to

746

DECLARATION OF JUDGE XUE

The aim of achieving an equitable result — Delimitation methodology cannot be

pre‑determined — Adjustment on the basis of a provisional median line is superficial▯
and inappropriate given the geographic features and relevant circumstanc▯es of the
present case — Concurrent use of different methods in the northern and southern
sections is justified as long as an equitable solution can be achieved.

740

DECLARATION OF JUDGE KEITH

730

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ABRAHAM

[Translation]

721

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE OWADA

1. I have voted in favour of all the conclusions of the Court relating to
the merits of the dispute as contained in the operative paragraph of thex
Judgment (paragraph 251, subparagraph (1) and subparagraphs (3)

953

OPINION INDIVIDUELLE DE M. LE JUGE KREC uA

[Traduction]

TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Paragraphes
I. LOCUS STANDI DE LA SERBIE-ET-M ONTÉNÉGRO

934

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ELARABY

The issue of FRY membership in the United Nations — Access to the Court
under Article 35, paragrap h 1 — Scope of reference in Article 35, paragraph 2,
to “treaties in force” — The Vienna Convention on Succession of States in
respect of Treaties — The Genocide Convention.

I. INTRODUCTORY R EMARKS

In addition to the joint declaration, which reflects my disagreement
with the grounds which led the Court to conclude that it had no jurisdic-

925

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOOIJMANS

Reason for adding separate opinion to joint declaration — Issue of prima
facie jurisdiction in 1999 Orders on provisional measures — Position of Yugo-
slavia in period 1992-2000 not substantiated in Judgment — Implication for
other pending cases in which Applicant is party — Consistency with earlier case
law ignored by the Court.

918

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE HIGGINS

Removal from the List other than for reasons of discontinuance — Inherent
powers of the Court — Inherent powers not limited to two existing examples —
Reasons why this case should have been removed from the List — Inappropriate
for Judgment to have pronounced on Article 35, paragraph 2, of Statute.