TABLE OF CONTENTS

Purugruphs

1-4
5-7

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE VERESHCHETIN

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SHI

To my regret, 1am unable to concur with the findings of the Court
that, given the limitation ratione temporis contained in the declaration of
acceptance of compulsory jurisdiction made by the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia (hereinafter Yugoslavia), the Court lacked prima facie juris-

DISSENTING OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT
WEERAMANTRY

Unlike the majority of the Court 1 take the view that the Court has
prima facie jurisdiction in this case. As for the issue of provisional
measures, it is a case where "circumstances so require" (Article 41 of the

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOOIJMANS

1. 1have voted in favour of the Court's decision that the request for
the indication of provisional measures submitted by the Federal Republic

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN

1. Notwithstanding my agreement with the operative part of the Order,
1 consider 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

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ODA

TABLEOF CONTENTS

Pur

II. THESTATU SF THEFEDERARLEPUBLI CFYUCOSLAV -IAA PRELI-
MINARY ISSUE

III.ACK OF THE COURT'S JURISDICTIOUNDER ARTICLE36, PARA-
GRAPH 2,OF THESTATUT AND ARTICLE38, PARAGRAP S,OF THE
RULES OFCOURT

DECLARATION OF JUDGE KOROMA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Puragraphs

1-4
II. HUMANITARI AONCER INTHISPARTICULA CRSE 5-7

III. JURISDICTIOISLUES 8-14
Jurisdiction of the Court ratione personae 8-10
Jurisdiction of the Court ratione materiae 11-13
Jurisdiction of the Court ratione temporis 14