SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE PARRA-ARANGUREN

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOROMA

Issue qf procedirrtrldefu~lltin relution to hrea-h Court'sjlndings - Mis-
givings - Orders,forprovi.sionr1ntJusuresunderthe Court'sStututr hinding -
Need,fOrcautionnot to c.ustdouht or1previousordc,r.s i.s.sued.

1. Although 1 support the Court's findings in this case, there are one
or two conclusions about which 1 have some misgivings, inparticular to
the extent that they are also embodied in the operative paragraph of the

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGEODA

Errors in the pre.rent (use.

Gertnany - Inzproper ba.si.v,forinstitutirzgproceedings - Absence qf'cc"dis-
pute" rirising out of'the interprrtrrtiorlor upplicrition of the VierznuConvention
on Consular Re/trtiori.s - Di.stinctionfiom c,u.scc ,wncerning FisheriesJurisdic-
tion (Federal Republicof Germany v. Iceland) -- Fuilure to raise dispute ivith
United States prior tu suhrnitting Application -- Utzilnterul uliylication -

SEPARATE OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT SHI

of the Court and the others transmitted to the Government of the Fed-
eral Republic of Germany and the Government of the United States of
America, respectively.

(Signed) Gilbert GUILLAUME,
President.

(Signed) Philippe COUVREUR:

Registrar.

President GUILLAUME makes the following declaration :

Court and its conclusion. 1 am, however, in full agreement with para-

graphs 51 to 55 thereof.

Allegarions hy Pukistun

1. Pakistan in its Application of 21 September 1999 claims:

"On the 10th day of August 1999 an unarmed Atlantique aircraft
of the Pakistan navy was on a routine training mission with sixteen

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AL-KHASAWNEH

Luck ofjurisdiction does not relieile Purties of duty to settle dispute through
peaceful rneuns - Jurisdiction cannot he inisoked on tlze basis of the United
Natiorrs Clfurter in the absence qf'con.rent - Effect of Indiun conzmunicution of

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE REDDY

United Notions Charter - Artic1r.s2, puragrajdi 2, und 33- Simlu Agrre-
ment, 1972, und the Luliorr Declurution, 1999- Ohligution upon the Purtirs to
settle thrir difji2rerbyepeuc~ful rileunshy cjntering into hiiuterul negotiutions
- Elelnent oJgood,fuith rindthe necrssit~~to crrute un utniosphrre conduciile to
such negotiutions rmphasized

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOROMA

Agrer irith dispositif- But need to n~ukodistinction betit.een,justiciubilityof
u di.sputeund jurisdiction of the Court - Courtforbidden to rxrrcisr juri.sdic-

tion icjherepurtirs no/ given consent- Judgrnrnt rzotun abdication but u rejet-
tiorl of systern iïitliin iz,hirliCourt ccrlkedupon to renderju.s-icJudirious to
retnind purtie.~of obligation to .vrttlr disputes hl, pcac<Julmeans.

37 AERIAL INCIDENT (SEP. OP. ODA)

1 take issue with the reasoning adopted by the Court in ruling that

Article 17 of the General Act of 1928 cannot constitute a basis of
the Court's jurisdiction.
Itis pertinent in this respect to take a brief look at how and in what
circumstances the General Act, which Pakistan cites as grounds for the
Court's jurisdiction, was drafted in 1928and the related issue of the man-
ner in which the concept of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Permanent

Court has developed.