DECLARATION OF JUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN
Article 62 (Q'tlze Statute r.qfi,rs to the dispositif, tortlze ,findirlg.sor
rc~nsoningsupporting tlir,future Jud'qrnentc!ftlze Court in tlzecu.scJ.
Notwithstanding my vote for the operative part of the Judgment, 1
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOROMA
Doiiht ubo~if Court's interpretationof'"clc~c~i.sioinn" Article 62 to irrc.luc/~>
"reasoning". S1ic.hhrou(1crintcrprctcition nluy prclvcnt Cour,fio/per:firrning
jzidiciul filnctioti \vit11respclc,tto pur~icruse h<fii.rit- No cornpc~lling
reuson to trciopf)vider intcrpt.rtution (?/'Art62.e
1. Although 1 have voted in favour of the Judgment, 1 cannot, how-
ever, express unqualified adherence to some of the positions taken in the
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGEODA
Interpretution q/"'intervention" under Article 62 of the Stutute -- Jurispru-
tkc~ncuef the Court :four previous rulings on upplicu fionsfor pcwnission to inter-
vene urzu'rrArticle 62, in 1981. 1984, 1990 crnd 1999 - Drvelopnzrnt of' the
934
DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC GAJA
While I fully agree with the operative part of the Judgment, I do not
share the view that there is no “extant dispute” between the Parties on
the question of sovereignty over the islands of San Andrés, Providencia
and Santa Catalina and that therefore the Court does not have jurisdic-
tion on the basis of the declarations made by the Parties according to
923
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BENNOUNA
[Translation]
The not exclusively preliminary character (Rules of Court, Art. 79, para. 2)
of the objection raised by Colombia on the basis of Article VI of the Pact of
Bogotá, excluding matters governed by agreements or treaties in force — The
validity of the 1928 Treaty between Colombia and Nicaragua — Consideration
of the issue of the invalidity of the 1928 Treaty, allegedly signed under coercion,
921
DECLARATION OF JUDGE KEITH
1. I agree with the decision of the Court and in essence with the rea-
sons it gives. My principal purpose in preparing this declaration is to
903
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ABRAHAM
[Translation]
Agreement with the part of the Judgment dealing with the various aspects of
the dispute other than sovereignty over the three islands — Disagreement as to
this last aspect — Main difficulty in the case: drawing the line between those
issues appertaining to the preliminary phase and those which cannot be decided
until after the proceedings on the merits — Unusualness, in this regard, of the
898
DECLARATION OF JUDGE TOMKA
Two bases of jurisdiction of the Court.
Objection to the jurisdiction under the Pact of Bogotá — Was the 1928
Treaty in force when the Pact of Bogotá was concluded? — Alleged manifest
violation of the Constitution as a ground for invalidating the Treaty — Impact
of the subsequent conduct of the Party on its right to invoke the alleged manifest
violation of the Constitution as a ground for invalidating the Treaty.
893
DECLARATION OF JUDGE SIMMA
Jurisdiction of the Court within the system of the Pact of Bogotá: difference
between Nicaragua not being allowed anymore to assert the invalidity of its
1928 Treaty with Colombia due to its past behaviour and the Treaty being
“valid and in force” in 1948 — The provisions of the Pact and the declarations
made under the optional clause representing two distinct bases of the Court’s
892
DECLARATION OF JUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN
1. Notwithstanding my vote in favour of the operative clause of the
Judgment, I feel it necessary to make the following point.
2. Paragraph 136 of the Judgment states: “the Court considers that
the provisions of the Pact of Bogotá and the declarations made under the
optional clause represent two distinct bases of the Court’s jurisdiction