310
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE TOMKA
The Court’s jurisdiction — Court informed FRY in 2003 that it could present
further argument on jurisdiction at merits stage — Court Statute and Rules do
not prohibit objections to jurisdiction at merits stage and Court must examine
such issues proprio motu if necessary — Principle of res judicata does not bar
Court’s reconsideration of its jurisdiction — Court’s Judgment of 11 July 1996
285
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE OWADA
279
JOINT DECLARATION OF JUDGES SHI AND KOROMA
Serious doubts regarding interpretation of the Genocide Convention “by
implication” that a State could be held directly to have committed crime of
genocide — Convention envisages the trial and punishment of individuals for the
276
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE RANJEVA
[Translation]
T HE D UTY TO P REVENT
Duty to prevent — Erga omnes obligation based on international solidarity
— Enduring duty of vigilance and co-operation applying to all States parties —
International responsibility of States for omission — Concerted diplomatic
action.
1. In law, international responsibility for omission is recognized in
order to safeguard the fundamental interests of the international commu-
266
JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES RANJEVA, SHI
AND KOROMA
Serious misgivings about Judgment’s application of res judicata of 1996 Judg-
ment on Preliminary Objections to include by “necessary implication” jurisdic-
tion ratione personae — Membership in the United Nations as a criterion for
241
DISSENTING OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT
AL-KHASAWNEH
The Court’s jurisdiction is established — Serious doubts that already settled
question of jurisdiction should have been re-examined — SFRY’s United Nations
membership could only have been suspended or terminated pursuant to Articles
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE FRANCK
The 1891 Convention determined the allocation of territorial sovereignty
between the Parties - Pulau Ligitan and PulaiiSipadan clearly locatedsouth
of 4'10' allocational line therein establislled - Presumption that 4"10' line
DECLARATION OF JUDGE ODA
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AJIBOLA
Introduction - Procedural issue - Parties and theneed to allowfor second
round of pleadings - Agreement with the CourtSJudgment onjzrrisdictionand
costs - Need for the Court to interpret - Distinction betweenfacts and inci-
dents - Court should have granted Nigeria's request - Article 36 (2) of the
Statute and meaning of "dispute".
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KOROMA
Inadmissibility of request seemingly casuistic - Interpreting while not inter-
preting the Judgment - Nigeria's submissions - Cameroon'ssubmissions -
Existence of dispute - Acknowledgment of Court'sjurisdiction - Relevant