Separate opinion of Judge ad hoc Vukas

549

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC VUKAS

Capacity of the Respondent — Application of the Genocide Convention —
Jurisdiction of the Court ratione temporis — Existence of Serbia as a State —
Nature of the acts of genocide —Missing Croatian citizens.

While fully subscribing to the Court’s conclusions in the operative
clause (Judgment, para. 146), I would like to make clear my own reason-
ing that led me to those conclusions.

1. THE CAPACITY OF THE REPUBLIC OF SERBIA TOPARTICIPATE IN THE

Dissenting opinion of Judge Skotnikov

546

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SKOTNIKOV

1. In my view, the Court should have upheld the first preliminary
objection submitted by Serbia in so far as it relates to the capacity of the
Respondent to participate in the proceedings instituted by Croatia. There-
fore, I voted against paragraph 1 of the operative clause.

I disagree with the Court’s reasoning and its conclusion that Serbia’s
lack of jus standi at the time of institution of the proceedings has been
cured by its subsequent admission to the United Nations.

Declaration of Judge Bennouna

543

DECLARATION OF JUDGE BENNOUNA

[Translation]

I have voted in favour of the operative part of the Judgment and, sub-
ject to the limits expressed therein, I am of the opinion that the Court has
jurisdiction to entertain Croatia’s Application on the merits. However, I
do not agree with all of the reasoning on which the Court bases its deci-

Subscribe to
Links