The judges of the I.C.J. regarding the application of the Marshall Islands v. the United Kingdom seeking to issue a ruling requiring the respondent to implement Article 6 of the Treaty on the NPT, were faced with a rare disagreement: disagreement in establishing the existence of a dispute. Eight of the sixteen members of the court in the said case, including the President of the Court, expressed their opinion that there was no dispute by inventing the criterion of requiring the existence of a conflict with the awareness of the respondent or his denial of ignorance of it before the date of filing the application, while the other eight members, in their opposition to such a criterion, rejected the opinion of their colleagues and ruled that there was a conflict. Finally, pursuant to Article 55 of the Statute of the Court, due to the President’s casting vote, the lack of conflict was established and the final judgment of October 5, 2016 was based on the inability of the panel of judges to exercise substantive jurisdiction in this case. The question of the present research is whether the logical argument in the area of thought of the judges who agreed with the aforementioned opinion was taken into account? In this article, the author, using a library-analytical method, concludes that the concurring judges did not consider logical argument in their conclusions in this verdict.