172

SEPARATE OPINION
OF JUDGE CANÇADO TRINDADE

table of contents

Paragraphs

I. Introduction 1-3

II. “Implied” and “Inherefnt Powers” Revisited : Some Preci -

sions 4-6

637

DECLARATION OF JUDGE CANçADO TRINDADE

1. The situation which the Court has just faced before delivering the
present Order is far from satisfactory, and the Order itself can hardly fbe
seen as entirely satisfactory either : although it amounts to a step condu -

531

dECLARATION OF JUdgE AD HOC gAJA

505

SEpARATE OpINION
OF JUdgE CANçAdO TRINdAdE

table of contents

Paragraphs

I. Introduction 1-2

II. greece’s Application ffor permission to Intervenfe 3-5

398

DECLARATION OF JUDGE AD HOC GAJA

In deciding on the admissibility of Italy’s counter-claim the Court is
applying for the first time Article 80 of the Rules of Court as amended
with effect from 1 February 2001. Unlike the previous provision, the new
text requires the Court to take a decision “after hearing the parties” also
on an objection raised by the claimant State with regard to the Court’s

329

DISSENTING OPINION

OF JUDGE CANÇADO TRINDADE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraphs

I. P ROLEGOMENA 1-3

II. THE EMERGENCE OF COUNTER-CLAIMS ININTERNATIONALL EGAL
PROCEDURE 4-9

III. HE RATIONALE OFC OUNTER-CLAIMS ININTERNATIONALL EGAL
PROCEDURE 10-19

323

JOINT DECLARATION
OF JUDGES KEITH AND GREENWOOD

1. This case has its origins in atrocities and other inhumane acts com-

mitted by German armed forces and other parts of the Nazi Government
against Italian nationals, both civilian and military, between 3 September
1943, when Italy concluded an armistice with the Allied Powers, and the
unconditional surrender of Germany on 8 May 1945. The illegality of
those acts is beyond doubt and is not contested in these proceedings. The

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC SUR

[Translation]

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE CANÇADO TRINDADE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraphs

I. RELIMINARYO BSERVATIONS 2-4

II. ROVISIONALM EASURES:THEIR TRANSPOSITION ONTO THNTER-
NATIONALL EGALPROCEDURE 5-7

III. THEJURIDICALN ATURE ANDEFFECTS OFPROVISIONALMEASURES

OF THEICJ 8-14

JOINT SEPARATE OPINION
OF JUDGES AL-KHASAWNEH AND SKOTNIKOV

1. We have voted in favour of the Court’s decision not to indicate the
provisional measures requested by Belgium. Regrettably, however, we
cannot concur with the Court’s finding to the effect that the conditions
required for the purposes of the indication of provisional measures, in
terms of establishing prima facie jurisdiction or assessing whether the
Application has become moot, have been met.