DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE WEERAMANTRY

This application for provisional measures was, as required by
Article 74 (1) of the Rules of Court, given priority over al1other cases

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BEDJAOUI

[Translation]

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN

The Court's Order is based solely on Security Council resolution 748
(1992).That also is the ground of my concurrence with it. But for that
resolution,1should have thought that Libya had presented an arguable
case for an indication of interim measures. The resolution now makes it
unnecessaryto explorethe legalelementsof Libya'srequestfor suchmea-
sures.Inviewoftheturn ofeventsoccasionedbythe resolution,1propose,
however, to say something on (i) the legal basis of the Court's Order;

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE LACHS

Whileconcurring inthe Court's decision 1consider it mydutyto place
on recordcertain considerationsin respect ofthe circumstances in which
itfelltobe taken.Cloudedasthe circumstancesmayhavebeen, somelegal
implications maybe ascertained.

JOINT DECLARATION OF JUDGES EVENSEN, TARASSOV,
GUILLAUME AND AGUILAR MAWDSLEY

[Translation]

We agreefully with the decision of the Court,but wish to make some
additional comments on it.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE NI

DECLARATION OF ACTING PRESIDENT ODA

1concurwiththe Court'sOrder inthat 1believetherequestfor the indi-
cation of provisional measures should be declined. 1wish, however, to
add that 1am not in agreement with the Court's taking United Nations
Security Council resolution 748(1992)as its sole ground in this matter.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE RIGAUX

[Translation]

A. DELIMITATION OF THE QUESTION SUBMITTED TO THE COURT

On 23 June 1997, the United States of America filed its Counter-
Memorial in the main action and appended to it a counter-claim.
On 18 November 1997, the Islamic Republic of Iran filed a "Request
for Hearing in Relation to the United States Counter-Claim Pursuant
to Article 80 (3) of the Rules of Court". On 18 December 1997, the
United States submitted a statement on that request to the Court.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE HIGGINS

1agree with the Court's finding that the counter-claim presented by the
United States in its Counter-Memorial is admissible and now forms part
of the current proceedings.
There is, however, one point which the Court has not at al1addressed,
while nevertheless apparently making a negative finding on it; and there

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ODA

1.1 voted in favour - albeit reluctantl- of the Order which was

very nearly unanimously adopted.
However, 1 find it incorrect that the Court has decided, at this stage
and in the form of a Court Order, that "the counter-claim presented by
the United States in its Counter-Memorial is admissible as such and
forms part of the current proceedings" (Order, p. 206, para. 46 (A)).