19
DECLARATION OF JUDGE KOROMA
Article 41 of the Statute — Requirements for the indication of provisional
measures — Prima facie jurisdiction established — Threat of imminent irrepa-
rable harm or prejudice to rights not demonstrated — Judicial role of the Court
in encouraging the peaceful and lawful settlement of disputes — Position
reached by the Court consistent with its judicial role.
147
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC VINUESA
Partial agreement with certain of Court’s considerations and findings — The
dispute does not concern a confrontation between environmental protection of
shared natural resources and the right of sustainable development — Objective
and purpose of the 1975 Statute of the River Uruguay — Requirements for the
indication of provisional measures — Rights claimed to be preserved —
142
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE BENNOUNA
[Translation]
Relationship between the principal proceedings and the request for the indica-
tion of provisional measures — Safeguard of rights and preservation of status
quo — Violation of rights and risk of irreparable prejudice — Parties’ agree-
ment to a prima facie examination by the Court of the existence of the rights
at issue — Circumstances authorizing the Court to rule prima facie on the
existence of the rights at issue — The Court avoided a debate on the rights.
137
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ABRAHAM
[Translation]
Agreement with the dispositif of the Order — Reasoning insufficiently explicit
on one point — Relationship between the merit of the requesting party’s claims
and the ordering of the provisional measures — Writers’ view as to a clear sepa-
ration between issues regarding the existence and extent of the disputed rights
and issues concerning the need for provisional measures — Misguided nature of
136
DECLARATION OF JUDGE RANJEVA
[Translation]
I agree with the conclusion of the Court that there is no reason to
indicate the provisional measures requested by the Applicant. However,
I am not entirely satisfied with the approach adopted by the Court,
which emphasizes the limits of the Applicant’s arguments and criticizes
it for not providing sufficient supporting evidence. While such an observa-
SEPARA'TE OPINION OF JUDGE MAVUNGU
[Translation]
1. The Court's findings on the request for the indication of provisional
measures submitted by the Democratic Republic of the Congo show - if
that were needed - how complex this case is. There are those who may
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE DUGARD
Circumstcincesto he cor7sirlered in decidingivhento ren?oilecasejrom the List
- Manij2st luck ofjurisdiction wurrunting reniovuljrom List tchenno reason-
ablepossibility thutjurisdiction muy be estublishedinsuh.sequentproceedings -
Groundsuadvunced,for juriscliction iripresent proceedings marzij2stlyunfiunciecl
- Need to renzoi,eApplicutionjrorn List - E.xpressionqf'concernthut Court's
even-hurzu'ed coniments on situution rnight he irnproperlyinterpreted.
DECLARATION OF JUDGE ELARABY
1. 1have voted against the rejection of the request for the indication of
provisional measures submitted by the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, mainly because, in accordance with its Statute and its present
jurisprudence, the Court should, in principle grant a request for provi-
sional measures once the requirements of urgency on the one hand and
DECLARATION OF JUDGE BUERGENTHAL
Language of'paragraphs 54 through 56 and 93 inappropriate - Absence of
jurisdiction to address subject-matter- Text gives credence, whether intended
or not, to c1aim.sof'one Party - Court's poi.t3erslimited to exercise of judicial
functions - "Feel-good" provisions not ivithin scope of,jurisdiction.
1. 1agree with the Court's decision rejecting the Democratic Republic
DECLARATION OF JUDGE HIGGINS