Separate opinion by Judge Oda

SEPARATEOPINION OF JUDGE ODA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Pai

II. THESTATU SF THEFEDERAR LEPUBLIOF YUGOSLAV IAA PRELI-

MINARY ISSUE
III. LACKOFTHE COURT'S JURISDICTIOUNDER ARTICLE 36, PARA-
GRAPH 2,OF THESTATUT AND ARTICLE 38, PARAGRAP 5,OF THE

RULES OFCOURT
(1) No "legal dispute" within the meaning of Article 36,

Declaration by Judge Koroma

DECLARATION OF JUDGE KOROMA

These are perhaps the most serious cases to come before the Court for
injunctive relief.nder Article 41 of the Statute of the Court, a request
for provisional measures should have as its purpose the preservation of
the respective rights of either party to a dispute pending the Court'seci-
sion. Jurisprudentially, the granting of such relief isdesigned to prevent

Declaration of Vice-President Weeramantry

DECLARATION OF VICE-PRESIDENT WEERAMANTRY

1 make this declaration having regard to the human tragedy and the
acute suffering caused throughout Yugoslavia by the present conflict.
The Court has observed that its decision in no way prejudges the ques-
tion of the jurisdiction of the Court to deal with the merits of the case
under Article IX of the GenocideConvention or any questions relating to
the admissibility of the Application or relating to the merits themselves

Dissenting opinion by Judge Shi

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SHI

To my regret, 1am unable to concur with the findings of the Court
that, given the limitation ratione temporis contained in the declaration of
acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction made by the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (hereinafter Yugoslavia), the Court lacked prima facie juris-

Subscribe to
Links