SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE NI

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE LACHS

SEPARATE OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT ODA

1. 1 concur with the Court's decision to reject the submissions pre-
sented by Guinea-Bissau, but my reasons for rejection are much simpler
than those expounded by the Court at some length. In myview, Guinea-

DECLARATION OF JUDGE MBAYE

[Translation]

DECLARATION OF JUDGE TARASSOV

1102

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KREC uA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraphs
I. LOCUS STANDI IN JUDICIO SERBIA AND M ONTENEGRO

1. Locus standi and its relationship to jurisdiction ratione per-
sonae 1-2
2. Issue of United Nations membership and locus standi of Ser-
bia and Montenegro 3-6

1083

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ELARABY

The issue of FRY membership in the United Nations — Access to the Court
under Article 35, paragrap h 1 — Scope of reference in Article 35, paragraph 2,
to “treaties in force” — The Vienna Convention on Succession of States in
respect of Treaties — The Genocide Convention.

I. INTRODUCTORY R EMARKS

In addition to the joint declaration, which reflects my disagreement
with the grounds which led the Court to conclude that it had no jurisdic-

1074

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOOIJMANS

Reason for adding separate opinion to joint declaration — Issue of prima
facie jurisdiction in 1999 Orders on provisional measures — Position of Yugo-
slavia in period 1992-2000 not substantiated in Judgment — Implication for
other pending cases in which Applicant is party — Consistency with earlier case
law ignored by the Court.

1067

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE HIGGINS

Removal from the List other than for reasons of discontinuance — Inherent
powers of the Court — Inherent powers not limited to two existing examples —
Reasons why this case should have been removed from the List — Inappropriate
for Judgment to have pronounced on Article 35, paragraph 2, of Statute.

1066

DECLARATION OF JUDGE KOROMA

While I concur with the Court’s findings in the operative paragraph of

the Judgment, I nevertheless consider it important to stress the following.
What the Court was asked to determine and has, in fact, ruled on
during this phase of the proceedings is the issue of jurisdiction.

The Applicant, the Government of Serbia and Montenegro, requested