SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE HIGGINS

1. In thisjurisdictional phase the Court has had to decide whether the
1955Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between
Iran and the United States affords a basis ofjurisdiction in respect of any
of the claims advanced by Iran.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE RANJEVA

[Translation]

1voted in favour of the Judgment for two reasons:

- on the legal basis of the proceedings: the solution adopted by the
Court is the only possible one. It was necessary and sufficient that
one of the grounds relied upon by the Respondent in its preliminary
objection should be dismissed to ensure that the jurisdiction of the

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN

The question before the Court is whether the Applicant has a right to
have its claim adjudicated. The Respondent says there is not such a right.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SCHWEBEL

1 have voted in favour of the Judgment of the Court despite the con-
siderable case made out by Malta in support of its Application for per-
mission to intervene. 1 have done so for one essential and dispositive
reason.
The Court may reasonably interpret the institution of intervention,
whose scopeneither the Statute nor the practice of the Court makes clear,
so as todebar what might be called "non-party intervention", or, perhaps,

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ODA

1. 1 have voted in favour of the Judgment in deference to the compe-
tence conferred upon the Court by thesecond paragraph of Article 62 of its
Statute. That paragraph expressly entrusts the Court with the authority to

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE MOROZOV

1. 1voted for the operative part of the decision because from my point
of view no application to intervene under Article 62 of the Statute can be
entertained by the Court unless jurisdictional links(within the meaning of
Articles 36 and 37 of the Statute) exist between the State presenting the

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE VALTICOS

[Tvanslation]

1. While fully recognizing the qualities of the preceding Judgment, to
which 1 shall return later, 1am not able to associate myself with it.

2. For 1 do not consider that the Court is competent to consider the

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KOROMA

1regret that 1am unable to agree or to support the present Judgment
of the Court. Al1the more so when much of the reasoning deployed to
reach the findings onjurisdiction and admissibilityshould have led to the
opposite conclusions.
Although the Court in its Judgment of 1 July 1994did not expressly
state it lackedjurisdiction in this case, it was equallyable to declare it
had jurisdiction to entertain the dispute on the basis of the Application

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ODA

1. To my regret 1am unable to concur with the Court's Judgment. My
position has already been clearly stated in the dissenting opinion which
1 attached to the Judgment of 1 July 1994.1 shall now give my reasons

for having to disagree with the present Judgment and shall be unable to
avoid a certain amount of repetition of what was said in my previous
opinion.