Separate Opinion of Judge Koroma

774

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOROMA

Employment of bisector consistent with jurisprudence on maritime delimita-
tion — Geographical features of area at heart of delimitation — Choice of
method depends upon particular circumstances of the area to be delimited —
Equidistance method when appropriate but not obligatory — Bisector also a
geometric method and its relation to coastal geography — Articles 15, 74, para-

Separate Opinion of Judge Ranjeva

765

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE RANJEVA

[Translation]

Special circumstances and delimitation of the territorial sea — Rule-making
or corrective function — Geomorphology and course of the provisional equidis-
tance line — Notion of necessity and alternative course of the provisional line —
Bisector and equidistance line — History of Article 15 of the 1982 United
Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea — Development of jurisprudence —

A largely settled debate — Reversal of jurisprudence — “Particular circum-
stances”.

Declaration of Judge Bennouna

359

DECLARATION OF JUDGE BENNOUNA

[Translation]

FRY’s continued presence within the United Nations — Effects of Serbia and
Montenegro’s admission to the United Nations on 1 November 2000 — Serbia’s
complicity in genocide — Accomplice’s mens rea as opposed to principal perpe-
trator’s — Relationship between individual criminal liability and State respon-
sibility — Definition of complicity — “Scorpions”, a paramilitary force under

Serbian control.

Declaration of Judge Keith

352

DECLARATION OF JUDGE KEITH

Explanation of vote on complicity — Knowledge of principal’s genocidal
intent necessary as a matter of law, but not shared intent — Evidence of aid and
assistance established — Evidence of knowledge of the facts underlying the
genocidal intent established — Finding of complicity in the genocide committed
at Srebrenica.

Separate opinion of Judge Tomka

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

Links