Dissenting opinion of Judge Bhandari

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BHANDARI Modification of an order indicating provisional measures — Requirement under Article 76 of the Rules of Court for “some change in the situation” — September 2022 hostilities created a “change in the situation” — Change in the situation would have justified modification of the 2021 Order — Risk of setting too high a bar for modification — Court’s interpretation of paragraph 98 (1) (a) of the 2021 Order is unfounded. 1. I regret that I am unable to vote in favour of this Order. 2.

Separate opinion of Judge Sebutinde

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SEBUTINDE The provisional measure contained in paragraph 98 (1) (a) of the Court’s Order of 7 December 2021 has a particular temporal scope and extends protection to particular individuals  In its current form, the said provisional measure does not extend to Armenian nationals captured and detained by Azerbaijan after the 2020 Conflict or in the future  The renewed hostilities of September 2022 resulting in the capture and detention of additional Armenian prisoners constitute a change in the situation within the meaning of Article 76 (1) of the Rules of Court, th

Declaration of Judge Tomka

DECLARATION OF JUDGE TOMKA 1. The Court has been requested by Armenia to modify the Order of 7 December 2021, in particular the first measure indicated therein, according to which Azerbaijan shall “[p]rotect from violence and bodily harm all persons captured in relation to the 2020 Conflict who remain in detention, and ensure their security and equality before the law” (Order of 7 December 2021, para. 98 (1) (a)). 2.

Declaration of Judge Abraham

DECLARATION OF JUDGE ABRAHAM 1. I fully agree with the present Order, and with the Court’s request that the Parties, at the forthcoming hearings, confine their arguments to the two questions outlined in the operative part of the Order. 2. However, given that the reasoning of the Order is particularly concise  not to say rather elliptical  I consider it necessary to further explain the reasons which, in my view, justify the present decision. 3. In its Application, Nicaragua requests the Court to determine “[t]he . . .

Joint declaration of Judges Tomka, Xue, Robinson, Nolte and Judge ad hoc Skotnikov

JOINT DECLARATION OF JUDGES TOMKA, XUE, ROBINSON, NOLTE AND JUDGE AD HOC SKOTNIKOV The Court’s power under Article 48 of the Statute  Question whether the Court should divide the hearing on the merits into two separate parts  No precedent for such a procedure in the annals of the Court  No judicial economy  The Court’s function to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it  The Court to rule on final submissions of the Parties, not on legal arguments advanced by each Party in support of its submissions. 1.

Subscribe to
Links