482
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.
481
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.
476
JOINT DECLARATION OF VICE-PRESIDENT RANJEVA,
JUDGES GUILLAUME, HIGGINS, KOOIJMANS,
AL-KHASAWNEH, BUERGENTHAL AND ELARABY
[English Original Text]
Various objections to the jurisdiction of the Court — Freedom of choice of
the Court — Guiding criteria: consistency; certitude; implications for the other
pending cases — Judgment of the Court inappropriately based on its lack of
jurisdiction ratione personae — Judgment incompatible with previous decisions
of the Court.
371
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
352
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-
343
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.
336
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.
335
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.
330
JOINT DECLARATION OF VICE-PRESIDENT RANJEVA,
JUDGES GUILLAUME, HIGGINS, KOOIJMANS,
AL-KHASAWNEH, BUERGENTHAL AND ELARABY
[English Original Text]
Various objections to the jurisdiction of the Court — Freedom of choice of
the Court — Guiding criteria: consistency; certitude; implications for the other
pending cases — Judgment of the Court inappropriately based on its lack of
jurisdiction ratione personae — Judgment incompatible with previous decisions
of the Court.
662
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