DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC SKOTNIKOV Regrettably, I cannot support the Court’s decision that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate the present case. 1. The Court, in its Order of 19 April 2017 on provisional measures, came to the conclusion that the rights Ukraine sought to protect under the ICSFT were not plausible. Since rights, as such, as provided in a given treaty are always plausible, the Court’s task was to examine, on a prima facie basis, the acts alleged by Ukraine in support of its claims. In paragraphs 74 and 75 of that Order, the Court stated: “74. . . .

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC POCAR Jurisdiction ratione materiae of the Court on the basis of the ICSFT  Interpretation of Article 2 of the ICSFT  State responsibility under the ICSFT for not having taken appropriate measures to prevent and suppress the offence described in Article 2  Agreement with the interpretation of the term “any person” of Article 2  Inclusive interpretation of the term “any person” supported by the object and purpose of the ICSFT and the international practice in the conclusion of similar treaties  Different reasoning to conclude that the interpretation of t

DECLARATION OF JUDGE ROBINSON
1. Although I have voted in favour of the operative paragraphs of the Judgment, I wish to comment on two aspects of the decision.
State responsibility
2. The first seven sentences of paragraph 59 of the Judgment read as follows:

DECLARATION OF JUDGE DONOGHUE 1. In this declaration, I offer some observations with respect to the Court’s decision to reject the Respondent’s preliminary objections to the Court’s jurisdiction ratione materiae, with which I agree. 2.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE CANÇADO TRINDADE
Table of Contents
Paragraph
I. Prolegomena ................................................................................................................. 1
II. Basis of Jurisdiction: Its Importance for the Protection of the Vulnerable under U.N. Human Rights Conventions. ................................................................................ 4

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE TOMKA
Jurisdiction ratione materiae of Court under ICSFT  Criminal law nature of ICSFT  Ukraine’s claims related to support in internal armed conflict  Rights Ukraine seeks to protect implausible at provisional measures stage  Court should have analysed whether Ukraine’s claims within scope of ICSFT  Supply of arms outside scope of “funds”  Ukraine’s claims outside Court’s jurisdiction.

DISSENTING OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT XUE
1. With much regret, I departed from the majority and voted against the decision on the jurisdiction of the Court with regard to the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (hereinafter the “ICSFT”). I firmly believe that the Court does not have jurisdiction under Article 24, paragraph 1, of the ICSFT in this case.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC JILLANI

DECLARATION OF JUDGE IWASAWA
Applicability of the clean hands doctrine to the present case  Anti-terrorism conventions also require consular access to be granted without delay  Relationship between the Vienna Convention and subsequent agreements  If the 2008 Agreement was intended to allow limitation of consular access in cases of espionage, Article 36 of the Vienna Convention would prevail over the 2008 Agreement.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE ROBINSON
Jurisdiction of the Court  Relationship between Article 14 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 36 (1) (c) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations  Systemic Integration and Article 31 (3) (c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties  Interpretation of Subsequent Agreements under Article 73 (2) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations  Relationship between Article 73 (2) of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the 2008 Agreement between India and Pakistan on Consular Access.