SEPARATEOPINION OF JUDGE ODA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraphs

1.INTRODUCTION 1-2

II. THESTATUSOF THEFEDERARLEPUBLI CFYUGOSLAV -IAA PRELI-
MINARY ISSUE 3-4
III. LACOF THE COURT'S JURISDICTIOUNDER ARTICLE 36, PARA-

DECLARATION OF JUDGE KOROMA

These are perhaps the most serious cases to come before the Court for
injunctive relief.nder Article 41 of the Statute of the Court, a request
for provisional measures should have as its purpose the preservation of
the respective rights of either party to a dispute pending the Court'sdeci-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

II. APPKAISOFLTHESPANISHRESERVATI ONARTICLEIX OF THE
GENOCIDCEONVENTION 5
III. OTHERRELEVAN ITSLIES 6-9 1. COMPOSITIO OF THE COURT IN THISPARTICULAC RASE

1.In the context of the conceptual difference between the interna-
tional magistrature and the interna1 judicial system within a State, the

institution of judge (rd/roc has two basic functions:
"(a) to equalize the situation when the Bench already includes a

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOOIJMANS

1. 1 have voted in favour of the Court's decision that the request for
the indication of provisional measures submitted by the Federal Republic
of Yugoslavia must be rejected. 1also agree with the Court's finding that
Article IX of the GenocideConvention can not constitute a basis ofjuris-
diction, even prima facie.
2. 1 do not agree, however, with the Court's view that Yugoslavia's

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN

1. Notwithstanding my vote for the operative part of the Order, with
the exception of paragraph 2, 1 consider it necessary to make the follow-
ing observations.
2. Preliminary objections are regulated by Subsection 2 of Section D
within Part III of the Rules of Court. Article 79, paragraph 1,provides as

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE HIGGlNS

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ODA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

II. THESTATU OF:THEFEDERAR LEPUBLIOF YUG~SLAV -IAA PRELI-
MINARY ISSI~E

III. LACKOF THF COURT'SJURISDICTIOUNNDER ARTICLE36, PARA-
GRAPH 2,OF THESTATUT END ARTICLE38, PARAGRAP 5,OF THE
RULES OF COURT

DECLARATION OF JUDGE VERESHCHETlN

The extraordinary circumstances in which Yugoslavia made its request
for interim measures of protection imposed a need to react immediately.
TheCourt should have promptly expressed its profound concern over the
unfolding human misery, loss of life and serious violations of interna-
tional law which by the time of the request were already a matter of pub-

DECLARATION OF JUDGE KOROMA

These are perhaps the most serious cases to come before the Court for
injunctive relief. Under Article 41 of the Statute of the Court, a request
for provisional measures should have as its purpose the preservation of
the respective rights of either party to a dispute pending the Court's deci-

DECLARATION OF JUDGE SHI

1am in agreement with the majority of the Court that, in the present
case, no basis of prima facie jurisdiction can be found for the indication