INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
APPEAL RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE ICAO
COUNCIL UNDER ARTICLE 84 OF THE CONVENTION ON
INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION
THE KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN, THE ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT,
THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA
AND THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
v.
THE STATE OF QATAR
COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF THE STATE OF QATAR
VOLUME III
25 FEBRUARY 2019

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
APPEAL RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE ICAO
COUNCIL UNDER ARTICLE 84 OF THE CONVENTION ON
INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION
THE KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN, THE ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT,
THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA
AND THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
v.
THE STATE OF QATAR
COUNTER-MEMORIAL OF THE STATE OF QATAR
VOLUME II
25 FEBRUARY 2019

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
APPEAL RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION OF
THE ICAO COUNCIL UNDER ARTICLE 84 OF
THE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION
(BAHRAIN, EGYPT, SAUDI ARABIA AND UNITED ARAB EMIRATES v. QATAR)
MEMORIAL OF THE KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN,
THE ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT,
THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA,
AND THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Volume VII of VII
Annexes 129 – 137
27 DECEMBER 2018

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
APPEAL RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION OF
THE ICAO COUNCIL UNDER ARTICLE 84 OF
THE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION
(BAHRAIN, EGYPT, SAUDI ARABIA AND UNITED ARAB EMIRATES v. QATAR)
MEMORIAL OF THE KINGDOM OF BAHRAIN,
THE ARAB REPUBLIC OF EGYPT,
THE KINGDOM OF SAUDI ARABIA,
AND THE UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Volume IV of VII
Annexes 25 – 26
27 DECEMBER 2018

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC SKOTNIKOV Regrettably, I cannot support the Court’s decision that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate the present case. 1. The Court, in its Order of 19 April 2017 on provisional measures, came to the conclusion that the rights Ukraine sought to protect under the ICSFT were not plausible. Since rights, as such, as provided in a given treaty are always plausible, the Court’s task was to examine, on a prima facie basis, the acts alleged by Ukraine in support of its claims. In paragraphs 74 and 75 of that Order, the Court stated: “74. . . .

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC POCAR Jurisdiction ratione materiae of the Court on the basis of the ICSFT  Interpretation of Article 2 of the ICSFT  State responsibility under the ICSFT for not having taken appropriate measures to prevent and suppress the offence described in Article 2  Agreement with the interpretation of the term “any person” of Article 2  Inclusive interpretation of the term “any person” supported by the object and purpose of the ICSFT and the international practice in the conclusion of similar treaties  Different reasoning to conclude that the interpretation of t