SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE VERESHCHETIN
While 1 am in agreement with the Judgment delivered by the Court,
1 feel obliged to deal in this opinion with one important issue which, in
my view,although not addressed in the reasoning of the Judgment, also
bars the Court from adjudicating upon the submissions in the Applica-
tion of the Portuguese Republic.
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE RANJEVA
[Translation]
While the Court is to be applauded for recalling that the right of
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN
The case touches on important principles of contemporary interna-
tional law - principles which have changed the shape of the interna-
tional community, altered the composition of its leading institutions,
affected their orientation, and influencedtheir outlook. But, the mandate
of the Court being limited by the consensual nature of its jurisdiction, its
decision has turned on the preliminary question how far it may adjudi-
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ODA
1. 1voted in favour of the Judgrnent because 1agreed with the Court
that the Application brought by Portugal against Australia on 22 Febru-
ary 1991should be dismissed, as the Court lacksjurisdiction to entertain
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ODA
Purugrrrplls
1. INTROD~CTION 1
II. A UNILAT~RAAPPLICATIORNJNOT A UNILATERA NOTIFICATI ON
ASPECIAALGREEMENT 2-5
III. NEITIIETHE "1987 AGREEMENT NOR THE "1990 AGREEMENT''
CONFER JLKISIIICTILPON THECOURT TO ENTERTAI THE Q.4TARl
APPLICATION 6-17
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE VALTICOS
Without dissociating myself from the Judgment, 1 would like to be
more specific about rny own thinking. The Court has been dealing with a
case that is confused in several respects and which is, if 1may say so, not
al1that it might be from a legal standpoint. When the jurisdiction of the
Court is being consi.dered, one needs to be quite certain that the two
States concerned have indeed agreed to refer their dispute to the Court
SEPARATE OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT SCHWEBEL
1 have voted for the operative paragraphs of the Judgment because
their content is unobjectionable. At the same time, as a judgment on
jurisdiction and admissibility, the Judgment is novel - and disquieting.
The Judgment lacks an essential quality of ajudgment of this Court or
of any court: it does not adjudge the principal issue submitted to it.
Unlike the characteristic judgments of this Court, it does not respond to
DECLARATION OF JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN
My preference would have been for the issue ofurisdiction to be fully
decided at this stage. 1 have, however. voted for the Judgment, under-
standing the intent to be to offer to the Parties an opportunity, which
merits acceptance, to submit the whole of the dispute to the Court. The
reasons for the preference are accordingly not set out.
iSign~.d)Mohamed SHAHABIJDDEEN.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SETTE-CAMARA
1regret that 1have been unable to agree with the Court's majority in
the present Judgment in its appraisal of the facts, in its reasoning and in
its conclusions, and therefore feel under the obligation to explain why 1
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AJIBOLA
(i)Delimitution or Attribution
1. 1am generally in agreement with the Judgment of the Court, espe-
cially with its finding that the Treaty of Friendship and Good Neigh-
bourliness between the French Republic and the United Kingdom of
Libya of 10 August 1955 in effect determines the boundary dispute
between the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (herein-