Separate opinion of Judge ad hoc Mampuya

625

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC MAMPUYA

[Translation]

Subject and underlying cause of the dispute: ambiguity and conflation of mis-
treatment of a Guinean national and debts owed to Congolese companies —
Need to go to the “heart of the dispute” — Protection of the rights of Congolese
companies and protection of a national by way of substitution for the compa-
nies — Requirement of the existence of a dispute between States; novelty of

Dissenting Opinion of Judge ad hoc Kreca

In spite of my respect for the Court, 1am cornpelled,with deep regret,
Io avail myself of the right io express a disseniing opinion.
As each objection appears ta be designed as a separate whole, 1shall
treat the objections raised by Yugoslavia separately, in such a way as to
ensure that the conclusions drawn therefrom will serveas a proper basis
for my general conclusion concerning the jurisdiction of the Court and
the admissibility of Bosnia and Herzegovina'sclaim.

Separate Opinion of Judge Parra-Aranguren

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN

While endorsing the operative paragraphs in the Judgment, 1 have
decided to append this separate opinion to emphasize the following
points that 1consider of great importance:

1. The fact that Bosnia and Herzegovina became a party to the Geno-
cide Convention was expressly admitted by Yugoslavia on 10 August
1993 when requesting the Court to indicate the following provisional
measures :

Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN

1would like to explain my support for the judgment of the Court on
two points, namely, treaty succession and forum prorogatum.

The course taken by the Court in itsjudgment makes it unnecessary to
consider whether Bosnia and Herzegovina was a party to the Genocide
Convention as from the date of its independence. However, as this point
was closelyargued and is the subject of some attention, 1propose to say

Declaration of Judge ad hoc Lauterpacht

DECLARATION OF JUDGE LAUTERPACHT

1 respectfully concur in operative paragraphs 1, 2 (a) and 3 of the
Judgment of the Court, but regret that 1 am unable to vote in favour of
paragraph 2 (b) in so far as it reflects (as stated in paragraph 40 of the
Judgment) a decisionof the Court that the conduct of the Federal Repub-
lic of Yugoslavia does not "confer upon [the Court] a jurisdiction
exceeding that which it has already acknowledged to have been conferred
upon it by Article IX of the Genocide Convention" (emphasis added).

Subscribe to
Links