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.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ODA

1.1regret that 1am unable to agree with any of the three points in the
operative part of the Judgment as 1 see the whole case from a different
viewpoint to that of the Court.

2. The crux of the case before usis simplein that, to use the expression
used by Libya in its Application, the United Kingdom "continues to
adopt a posture of pressuring Libya into surrendering the accused" and
"is rather intent on compelling the surrender of the accused".

DISSENTING OPINION OF PRESIDENT SCHWEBEL

1regret that 1am unable to agree with the Judgment of the Court. It is
arguable that the challenge of the Respondent to the jurisdiction of the
Court should not carry. But the reasons so terselystated by the Court are
conclusory rather than elucidatory, and, at most, are barely persuasive in
a subsidiary respect. In my view, the Court's conclusions on the admis-
sibilityof Libya'sApplication, and as to whether it has become moot, are
unpersuasive.