DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AJIBOLA
After due and careful reflection, 1have decided to write a dissenting
opinion on the issue of Libya'srequest for the Court to indicate provi-
sional measures under Article 41 ofthe Statute. 1think it is necessaryfor
me to write this dissentingopinion on some of the issues that are of pri-
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE RANJEVA
[Translation]
In generalterms,
the reasons set out in the opinionhave appended to the Order on the
request for the indication ofprovisionalmeasuresmade by Libyaagainst
the United Kingdom alsoapply to the present Order, withthe resemation
that the United States has not characterized the Applicant's rights as
"illusory".
(Signed)Raymond RANJEVA.
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.