SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN
The case at bar recalls a world now left behind. In telling flashes, it
illuminates an age when international law tended to develop as a legal
construct supportive of the global projection of the power of a single
DECLARATION OF JUDGE AG0
My own view is siill the conviction that, at the time of the indepen-
dence of the new State of Libya, the southern frontier of that country
with the French possessions of West Africa and Equatorial Africa,
between Toummoand the frontier of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, had not
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE FISCHER
To myregret 1am unable to concurin the decision ofthe Court for the
reasonswhich 1shallbriefly setforth below.Myremarkswillconcentrate
on the principal divergenceof views.
Onthe otherhand, 1amin agreement with someofthe reasoning ofthe
Court.
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AJIBOLA
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE WEERAMANTRY
TABLEOFCONTENTS
Paragraphs
1-11
Specialrole played by equityin this case 5-11
12-165
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SCHWEBEL
1am in substantial but not full agreement with the Court's Judgment.
There is no need to specify the several holdings of the Court with which
1agree. The questions whose treatment by the Court is in my view ques-
tionable arethe following.
1. SHOULD THE LAW OF MARITIM DEELIMITATIO BNEREVISED TO
INTRODUC END APPLY DISTRIBUTIV JUESTICE?
SEPARATEOPINIONOFVICE-PRESIDENTODA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraphs
1-3
PART1. DENMARK' SISUNDERSTAND IF CERTAIN CONCEPT SF
THE LAW OF THE SEAAS REFLECTE DITSSUBMISSIONS 4-46
DECLAUATION OF JUDGE RANJEVA
flranslation]
1 have voted in favour of the operative part of the Judgment and sub-
scribe to the arguments on which it isbased. In myopinion, the solution
adopted by the Court constitutes an equitable result, which pays due
regard to the interests at stake. 1 would nevertheless have wished the
DECLARATION OF JUDGE AGUILAR MAWDSLEY
1have voted for the Judgment because 1 concur with its reasoning.
However, 1am not persuadëd that the delimitation line as drawn by the
Court orovidesforaneauitableresult.Inmvooinion. the dimerenceinthe
GngthSofthe coasts of~reenland and ~an~a~en issuch that Greenland
(Denmark) should have receiveda largerproportion ofthe disputed area.
Given the importance attached to this factor in the Judgment, it would
have beenlogicalat leastto makean equal distribution ofzones I,3.and