SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SIMMA

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE OWADA

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ELARABY

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE BUERGENTHAL

Agreement with Court's rejection of Iran's claim against the United States
under Article X, paragraph 1, of the 1955 Treaty - Agreement, mutatis

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AL-KHASAWNEH

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOOIJMANS

Factual context - Political relations between Parties before and during Iran-
Iraq war (1980-1988) - Tanker War and neutral shipping - Attacks against

platforms - United States embargo - 1955 Treaty not mentioned at the time.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN

Partial disagreement with paragraph 125 (1) - According to 1996 Judg-
ment, Court's jurisdiction is based solely on Article X, paragraph I, of the 1955
Treaty - Iran's main submission was that the military actions of the United
States breached that Article - Task of the Court was to adjudge Iran's submis-
sion before deciding, zj"necessary, whether the military actions were justzjîed

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE HIGGINS

DECLARATION OF JUDGE KOROMA

Article XX, paragraph I (d), of the 1955 Treaty and principles of interna-
tional latv- Non ultra petita - Order in which issues addressed - The burden
of proof and facts - Finding on law.

Although 1 have voted in favour of the Judgment, 1 consider it neces-

DECLARATION OF VICE-PRESIDENT RANJEVA

[Translation]

Violation of freedom of commerce and non-violation of freedom of commerce
between the territories of the two Parties - Court's discretionary power and
structure of its reasoning - Piercing the veil of the dispute - Constituent ele-
ments of the claim: subject-matter and "cause", Article 38, paragraph 2, of the
Rules - Jura novit curia - Importance of notion of "cause" of claim.