Declaration of Judge Skotnikov

235

dECLARATION OF JUdgE SKOTNIKOv

I have voted in favour of the Court’s overall conclusion that it has p
no jurisdiction to entertain the Application filed by georgia on
12 August 2008. I fully concur with the Court’s decision to uphold the
second preliminary objection raised by the Russian Federation. However, p
for the reasons given below, I am unable to support the Court’s decispion

to reject the first preliminary objection raised by Russia.

Separate opinion of Judge Abraham

224

SEpARATE OpINION OF JUdgE ABRAHAm

[Translation]

Agreement with the operative part of the Judgment in its rejection of th▯e first
preliminary objection — Disagreement with the Court’s reasoning in finding the
existence of a dispute between the Parties — Conception of “dispute” alien to that
accepted in the Court’s prior jurisprudence — Mistaken failure to be at all realistic
in identifying a dispute — Failure to determine whether dispute exists as of the

Separate opinion of Judge Koroma

183

SEpARATE OpINION OF JUdgE KOROmA

Compliance with terms and conditions in compromissory clause mandatory i▯n
order for Court to be able to exercise jurisdiction — Need for a link between
dispute and substantive provisions of treaty invoked — Importance of the
Convention against Racial Discrimination — Inter-State dispute resolution
mechanism for alleged breach — Second preliminary objection by Respondent —
Article 31 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties — CERD compromissory

Separate opinion of President Owada

170

SEpARATE OpINION OF pRESIdENT OWAdA

Task of the Court at the preliminary objections proceedings — Existence of a
“dispute” for jurisdictional purposes — Existence of a dispute relating to the
interpretation or application of CERD at the time of filing — Essential nature of
the dispute brought by Georgia.

general Observations

1. I have voted against the final conclusion of the Judgment that it

Subscribe to
Links