Volume 3 - Annexes 40-76

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
DISPUTE OVER THE STATUS AND USE OF THE
WATERS OF THE SILALA
(CHILE v. BOLIVIA)
MEMORIAL OF THE
REPUBLIC OF CHILE
MEMORIAL AND EXPERT REPORTS
1 ANNEXES 40 - 76 TO THE MEMORIAL
VOLUME 3 OF 6
3 JULY 2017
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
DISPUTE OVER THE STATUS AND USE OF THE
WATERS OF THE SILALA
(CHILE v. BOLIVIA)
MEMORIAL OF THE
REPUBLIC OF CHILE
ANNEXES 40 - 76 TO THE MEMORIAL
VOLUME 3 OF 6
3 JULY 2017

Declaration of Judge ad hoc Daudet

256
49
DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC DAUDET
[Original English Text]
1. I deeply regret that operative paragraph 3 of the Order, concerning
the obligation to refrain from any act that might aggravate or extend the
dispute, is addressed to Ukraine as well as to the Russian Federation. In
my view, this measure of non-aggravation
of the dispute should have
been directed solely at the Russian Federation, which I recall was designated
by the United Nations General Assembly 1 as the perpetrator of
aggression against Ukraine.

Declaration of Judge Nolte

254
47
DECLARATION OF JUDGE NOLTE
Jurisdiction prima facie under Article IX of the Genocide Convention —
Difference between the present case and the Legality of Use of Force cases —
Subject-matter
of the Application of Ukraine does not pertain to the question
whether the military operation by Russia amounts to genocide — Subject-matter
of the Application concerns the question whether a military operation undertaken
to prevent and punish an alleged genocide is in conformity with the Genocide
Convention.

Separate opinion of Judge Robinson

242
35
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ROBINSON
1. I voted in favour of the provisional measures ordered by the Court.
In this opinion, I explain why I have supported the orders granted by the
Court, and in particular the order requiring Russia to suspend its military
operation in Ukraine.
2. The purpose of an indication of provisional measures is to preserve
the respective rights claimed by the parties, pending the Court’s decision
on the merits of the claim. The Court’s Order is wholly consistent with

Subscribe to
Links