546

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SKOTNIKOV

1. In my view, the Court should have upheld the first preliminary
objection submitted by Serbia in so far as it relates to the capacity of the
Respondent to participate in the proceedings instituted by Croatia. There-
fore, I voted against paragraph 1 of the operative clause.

I disagree with the Court’s reasoning and its conclusion that Serbia’s
lack of jus standi at the time of institution of the proceedings has been
cured by its subsequent admission to the United Nations.

543

DECLARATION OF JUDGE BENNOUNA

[Translation]

I have voted in favour of the operative part of the Judgment and, sub-
ject to the limits expressed therein, I am of the opinion that the Court has
jurisdiction to entertain Croatia’s Application on the merits. However, I
do not agree with all of the reasoning on which the Court bases its deci-

524

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ABRAHAM

[Translation]

515

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE TOMKA

495

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE OWADA

482

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE RANJEVA

[Translation]

472

JOINT DECLARATION OF JUDGES RANJEVA, SHI, KOROMA
AND PARRA-ARANGUREN

468

SEPARATE OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT
AL-KHASAWNEH

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BUERGENTHAL

1. 1 have voted against the instant Order because 1 believe that the
Court's decision is wrong as a matter of legal principle.
2. Israel challenges Judge Elaraby's participation in these proceedings
on the ground that his previous professional involvement and persona1
statements on matters which go to the substance of the question before
the Court in this advisory opinion request require that he not participate

450

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC KREĆA

table of contents

Paragraphs

I. Legal Background 1-27
1. Constitutional concept of the Yugoslav State and of Croatia