DISSENTING OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT
WEERAMANTRY

Judgment on preliminary objections - Applicability of Article 60 - Inter-
pretation may not be sought to seek revisionor reopenmatter ivhichis resjudi-
cata, orfor gaining time - Substantial nature of Nigeria's request - Need to

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC KATEKA
Disagreement with the Judgment on its key findings — Treatment of evidence
not even-handed — Decision on Respondent’s defences of consent and selfdefence
mistaken — Kisangani events — Serious accusations of violations
of human rights and international humanitarian law need higher standard of
proof — Reliance on United Nations reports concerning alleged exploitation
of DRC’s natural resources — Ruling on violation of provisional measures
unnecessary — Unjustified treatment of Uganda’s counter-claims.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC VERHOEVEN
[Translation]
“Declaratory” judgment : legality, limits — “Declaratory” judgment : Order
indicating provisional measures, obligation of cessation, assurances and guarantees
of non-repetition — Illegal use of force : consequences.
1. As witnessed by my votes on the various elements of the dispositif
of the Judgment, I essentially concur in the conclusions reached by the
Court. Nevertheless, it is easily understandable in a complex case, where

351

DECLARATION OF JUDGE TOMKA

[English Original Text]

Duty of vigilance — Toleration by Zaire on its territory of activities of rebel
groups against Uganda in 1994-1997 period — Duty of Uganda to prosecute
those who have committed grave breaches of international humanitarian law —
Self-defence and the prohibition of the use of force: order of their consideration.

334

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SIMMA

The Court should have called the Ugandan invasion of a large part of the
DRC’s territory an act of aggression — The Court should not have avoided

327

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ELARABY

Agreement with the findings of the Court — Treatment by the Court of the
prohibition of the use of force — Failure to address the Democratic Republic of
the Congo’s claim of aggression — Centrality of this claim to the Democratic
Republic of the Congo’s case — Prohibition of aggression in international law
— General Assembly resolution 3314 (XXIX) — Authority of the Court to

306

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOOIJMANS

General context of the dispute — Chronic instability in the region — Inter-
connection between bilateral dispute and overall crisis — Function of judicial
dispute settlement — Importance of balanced appraisal of concerns and inter-
ests of litigants — Judgment insufficiently reflects complexity of situation.

292

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN

Time-limits on Uganda’s violation of international law by its military actions
in DRC territory — Sudan’s role — Uganda’s assistance to former irregular
forces — Uganda not an occupying Power in Kibali-Ituri district — Articles 42
and 43 of the Hague Regulations of 1907 not applicable to Uganda’s military
presence in Kibali-Ituri district.

284

DECLARATION OF JUDGE KOROMA

The Court has found Uganda in violation of a wide range of legal instruments
to which it is a party — Rejection of claim of self-defence — Article 3 (g)ofthe
Definition of Aggression of 1974 (XXIX) — Non-attributability of attacks by
rebel groups reaffirms the Court’s earlier jurisprudence and is consistent with
Article 51 of the Charter — Customary law character of General Assembly

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SIR ROBERT JENNINGS

1 very much regret that 1 have to dissent from the decision of the
majority of the Court in this case.
There are two main issues: the question of jurisdiction; and the ques-
tion of admissibility. As 1 differ from the majority on both questions,
1 should briefly say why; dealing first with jurisdiction.