Dissenting opinion of Judge ad hoc Vukas
445
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC VUKAS
As I shared the Court’s conclusion in its Judgment of 18 Novem-
445
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC VUKAS
As I shared the Court’s conclusion in its Judgment of 18 Novem-
409
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE BHANDARI
Introduction
1. I have voted with the majority on all three operative clauses of the
present Judgment. However, with respect to the second operative clause, h
i.e., the rejection of Croatia’s principal claim, I wish to qualify ahnd expand
400
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SEBUTINDE
Jurisdiction ratione temporis under Article IX of the Genocide Convention —
Disagreement with paragraph (1) of the operative clause — The FRY (Serbia)
cannot be bound by the Genocide Convention prior to 27 April 1992, the date when
394
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE GAJA
1. The Judgment rendered in 2007 on the Application of the Convention
390
DECLARATION OF JUDGE DONOGHUE
1. I have voted in favour of all operative paragraphs of the Judgment
and I agree in most respects with the Court’s reasoning. In this declhara -
tion, I offer observations about the parts of the Judgment that discuss thhe
actus reus of genocide, both with respect to Croatia’s claim and with
respect to Serbia’s counter-claim.
381
DECLARATION OF JUDGE XUE
1. Much to my regret, I have voted against the operative paragraph 1
202
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE CANÇADO TRINDADE
table of contents
Paragraphs
I. RoleGomena 1-5
II. The Regrettable Delays ihn the Adjudication of theh
Present Case 6-18
194
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SKOTNIKOV
Jurisdiction
1. According to paragraph 129 of the 2008 Judgment (Application of
178
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KEITH
1. As my votes indicate, I agree with the conclusions the Court has
reached. My purpose in preparing this opinion is to give further reasonsh
in support of those the Court gives in rejecting Croatia’s claim and Ser-
bia’s counter-claim. The issue I address is the failure of each Party to
168
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE OWADA
1. I voted in favour of the Judgment as a whole, including subpara -
graphs (2) and (3) of the operative paragraph (para. 524), which con -