DISSENTING OPlNION OF VICE-PRESIDENT
WEERAMANTRY
The jurisprudence of the Court in regard to counter-claims is not well
developed. There is no definition of the term "counter-claim" in the
Rules, nor in the Court's decisions and,as has been noted in this connec-
tion :
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE LAUTERPACHT
1. This opinion is written in implementation of my statement made at
the provisional measures stage of this case regarding the role of an ad hoc
judge:
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOROMA
It is not without considerable misgivings that 1have voted in favour of
the Court's Order, not least because of my concern regarding its effect
and perceived effect on the sound administration ofjustice particularly in
a case where allegations of grave breaches of the Genocide Convention
and other massive violation of human rights have been made.
Although 1voted in favour of the operative parts of the Court's Order,
1 shall also make some observations on and amplifications to some aspects
of the concept of a counter-claim and its application to this particular case.
1. The Order essentially qualifies a counter-claim as "independent",
"an autonomous legal act" (para. 27) though, it seems to me, this is with
a certain amount of caution (reservutio mentulis). That is to Say, the
Court states that the "counter-claim is independent of the principal claim
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE EL-KOSHERI
1. Toany human being,what happened over Lockerbiewas a horrible
eventwhichrequires that those responsibleforitbe punished and justice
dulyrendered in conformitywiththe applicable legalrules.Withthatend
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AJIBOLA
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE RANJEVA
[Translation]
1. Thepresentrequestforthe indication of provisional measures is,in
many respects, an unprecedented case in international adjudication.
Whilethe Court cannot rejectthe request (1),itcannotpassupon it owing
to the fundamental change of circumstances following the adoption of
SecurityCouncilresolution 748(1992)(II),withoutfor al1that refraining,
in principle,fromthe propriomotuexerciseofitspowers under Article41
ofthe Statute (III).
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE WEERAMANTRY
This application for provisional measures was, as required by
Article 74 (1) of theRules of Court, given priority over al1other cases
pending before the Court. The oral submissions were concluded on
28 March 1992. Three days later, when the case was at the stage of deli-
berations, resolution 748 (1992) was adopted by the Security Council.
Resolution 748 (1992)covered matters of importance which were sub
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BEDJAOUI
[Translation]
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN
The Court's Order is based solely on SecurityCouncil resolution 748
(1992).Thatalsoistheground ofmyconcurrencewithit. Butforthat reso-
lution, 1should have thought that Libyahad presented an arguable case
for an indication of interim measures. The resolution now makes itun-
necessaryto explore the legal elements of Libya'srequest for such mea-
sures.Inviewoftheturn ofeventsoccasionedbytheresolution, 1propose,