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 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-
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SHI
To my regret, 1 am unable to concur with the findings of the Court
DISSENTING OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT
WEERAMANTRY
My opinion in this case is theame, mutatis mutandis, as that which
1 have delivered in Yugoslavia v. Belgium.
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
of Yugoslavia must be rejected. 1 also agree with the Court's finding that
Article IX of the Genocide Convention does not constitute a basis of
jurisdiction, 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 agreement with the operativepart ofthe Order,
1 consider it necessary to make the following observations.
2. Article IX of the Genocide Convention is in force between the
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE HIGGINS
1. 1entirely support the decision of the Court in dismissing the requests
for the indication of provisional measures submitted on 29 April 1999
by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia against ten respondent States -
Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal,
Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States.
While favouring subparagraph (2) of the operative paragraph in which
DECLARATION OF JUDGE KOROMA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Purugruphs
1. COMPOSIT IFTHECOURT INTHISPAKTICULCAARSE 1-4
II. HUMANITARCIANNCER NTHISPARTICULC ARSE 5-7
III. JURISDICOIFNHECOURT RATIONMEATERIAE 8-10
IV. OTHERRELEVAN ITSUES 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 judge ud hoc has two basic functions:
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: