242
35
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ROBINSON
1. I voted in favour of the provisional measures ordered by the Court.
In this opinion, I explain why I have supported the orders granted by the
Court, and in particular the order requiring Russia to suspend its military
operation in Ukraine.
2. The purpose of an indication of provisional measures is to preserve
the respective rights claimed by the parties, pending the Court’s decision
on the merits of the claim. The Court’s Order is wholly consistent with

239
32
DECLARATION OF JUDGE XUE
1. While I fully endorse the call that the military operations in Ukraine
should immediately be brought to an end so as to restore peace in the
country as well as in the region, I reserve my position on the first two
provisional measures indicated in this Order. Contrary to the established
practice of the Court, these measures are, in fact, not linked with the
rights that Ukraine may plausibly claim under the Convention on
the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter the

236
29
DECLARATION OF JUDGE BENNOUNA
[Original English Text]
1. I voted in favour of the Order indicating provisional measures in
this case because I felt compelled by this tragic situation, in which terrible
suffering is being inflicted on the Ukrainian people, to join the call by the
World Court to bring an end to the war.
2. However, I am not convinced that the Convention on the Prevention
and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (hereinafter the “Genocide
Convention” or the “1948 Convention”) was conceived, and

232
25
DECLARATION OF VICE-PRESIDENT
GEVORGIAN
Disagreement with the Court’s finding on prima facie jurisdiction — Consent as
a fundamental principle underlying the Court’s jurisdiction — The acts invoked by
Ukraine do not fall under the scope of the Genocide Convention — The actual
dispute relates to the use of force which is not covered by the Genocide
Convention — Importance for the Court to maintain its settled jurisprudence —
Support for adoption of the non-aggravation
clause.

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CASE CONCERNING
APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON
THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF
THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
THE GAMBIA
v.
MYANMAR
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF
THE REPUBLIC OF THE UNION OF MYANMAR
REPLACEMENT
Annex 1
20 JANUARY 2021

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CASE CONCERNING
APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON
THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF
THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
THE GAMBIA
v.
MYANMAR
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF
THE REPUBLIC OF THE UNION OF MYANMAR
Annexes 90-174
20 JANUARY 2021

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CASE CONCERNING
APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON
THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF
THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
THE GAMBIA
v.
MYANMAR
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF
THE REPUBLIC OF THE UNION OF MYANMAR
Annexes 33-89
20 JANUARY 2021

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CASE CONCERNING
APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON
THE PREVENTION AND PUNISHMENT OF
THE CRIME OF GENOCIDE
THE GAMBIA
v.
MYANMAR
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF
THE REPUBLIC OF THE UNION OF MYANMAR
Annexes 1-32
20 JANUARY 2021

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC DAUDET [Translation] 1. This case is exceptional on account of the explosion of violent, inhuman and sometimes barbarous acts that accompanied this war, one of Africa’s most brutal.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE IWASAWA Where it is impossible to quantify the damage precisely, international courts and tribunals have applied equity infra legem in determining the amount of compensation  In the present case, the Court adopts this line of reasoning and awards compensation “in the form of a global sum, within the range of possibilities indicated by the evidence and taking into account equitable considerations”  The Court decides this case in accordance with international law and not ex aequo et bono  Under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, criminal inv