DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KRECA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragruphs

1. COMPOSITIO ONTHE COURT INTHISPARTICULA CRASE 1-4
II. HUMANITARIC ANNCER N THISPARTICULA CRASE 5-7

III. JURISDICTIONASLUES 8-14
Jurisdiction of the Court iatione personae 8-10
Jurisdiction of the Court ratione materirie 11-13
Jurisdictiofthe Court ratione temporis 14

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE VERESHCHETIN

The extraordinary circumstances in which Yugoslavia made its request
for interim measures of protection imposed a need to react immediately.
The Court should have promptly expressed itsprofound 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-
lic knowledge. It is unbecoming for the principal judicial organ of the

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SHI

To my regret, 1 am unable to concur with the findings of the Court
that, given the limitation ratione temporis contained in the declaration of

DISSENTING OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT
WEERAMANTRY

My opinion in this case is the same, mutatis mutandis, as that which
1 have delivered in Yuguslavia v. Belgium.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOOIJMANS

1. 1 have voted in favour of the Court's decision that the request for

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN

1. Notwithstanding my agreement with the operative part ofthe Order,
1consider it necessary to make the following observations.
2. Article IX of the Genocide Convention is in force between the
Parties. It prescribes:

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE HIGGINS

SEPARATEOPINION OF JUDGE ODA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraphs

II. THESTATU SF THEFEDERAR LEPUBLIOF YUGOSLAV IAA PRELI-

MINARY ISSUE 3-4
III. LACKOF THECOURT'S SURISDICTIOUNDER ARTICLE 36, PARA-
GRAPH 2,OF THESTATUT ENDARTICLE 38, PARAGRAP 5,OF THE

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'sdeci-

TABLE OFCONTENTS

Paragraphs

1. COMPOSITI OFTHE COURT INTHISPARTICULC ARSE 1-4
II. HUMANITARICANNCERN INTHISPARTICULC ARSE 5-7

III. JURISD[CTONTHE COURT R~nont MATERIAE 8-10
IV. OTHERRELEVANITSSUES 11-14 1. In the context of the conceptual difference between the interna-
tional magistrature and the interna1 judicial system within a State, the
institution of judgeud hoc has two basic functions: