DECLARATION OF JUDGE NI

DECLARATION OF ACTING PRESIDENT ODA

1concurwiththe Court'sOrder inthat 1believetherequestfor the indi-
cation of provisional measures should be declined. 1wish, however, to
add that 1am not in agreement with the Court's taking United Nations
Security Council resolution 748(1992)as its sole ground in this matter.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE RIGAUX

[Translation]

A. DELIMITATION OF THE QUESTION SUBMITTED TO THE COURT

On 23 June 1997, the United States of America filed its Counter-
Memorial in the main action and appended to it a counter-claim.
On 18 November 1997, the Islamic Republic of Iran filed a "Request
for Hearing in Relation to the United States Counter-Claim Pursuant
to Article 80 (3) of the Rules of Court". On 18 December 1997, the
United States submitted a statement on that request to the Court.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE HIGGINS

1agree with the Court's finding that the counter-claim presented by the
United States in its Counter-Memorial is admissible and now forms part
of the current proceedings.
There is, however, one point which the Court has not at al1addressed,
while nevertheless apparently making a negative finding on it; and there

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ODA

1.1 voted in favour - albeit reluctantl- of the Order which was

very nearly unanimously adopted.
However, 1 find it incorrect that the Court has decided, at this stage
and in the form of a Court Order, that "the counter-claim presented by
the United States in its Counter-Memorial is admissible as such and
forms part of the current proceedings" (Order, p. 206, para. 46 (A)).

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE BROMS

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN

1have voted for the Order of the Court but would like to explain my
approach and reasoning with respect to the point of law whether a State

requesting interim measures must establish a prima facie case as to the
existence of the right sought to be preserved by the requested measures.

SEPARATE OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT ODA

DECLARATION OF JUDGE TARASSOV

1have voted for the present Order, albeit not without some hesitation.
Asitseemsto me,the continuation ofthe construction work on the East
Channel Bridgeover the Great Belteven now constitutes a serious threat
to the continued, unimpeded passage of international shipping through
this international strait. The present bridgeroject has been conceivedin
such a way that not only after its final realization, but even during the
construction process, it would impose serious physical limitations upon

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SCHWEBEL