SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC DAUDET
1. I agree with all the Court’s responses to the objections to jurisdiction and admissibility raised by Russia, and I fully support the reasoning underlying them. Nonetheless, I would like to add a few thoughts of my own.
DECLARATION OF JUDGE BRANT
[Translation]
1. I voted to reject the fifth preliminary objection of the Russian Federation, founded on the inadmissibility of the request for a declaration that the Applicant did not breach its obligations under the Convention (paragraph 151, subparagraph 6, of the operative clause of the Judgment). While I broadly agree with the reasoning that led the Court to this decision, I think it would be useful to clarify one particular aspect of it which, in my opinion, could have been addressed in more detail by the Court.
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE CHARLESWORTH
Subject of the dispute Indivisibility of the two “aspects” of the dispute.
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE IWASAWA
It is ill-advised to describe Ukraine’s submission (b) as a “non-violation complaint” because this term has a special meaning in WTO law The practices of the WTO provide no assistance to the Court because they are based on particular provisions of the DSU.
There are three elements required for the application of the principle of res judicata, namely identity of the “parties”, the “object” and the “ground” Some tribunals have focused on “the question at issue”, without distinguishing “object” and “ground” as two separate elements.
JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES SEBUTINDE AND ROBINSON
No basis for the finding of a lack of jurisdiction over submissions (c) and (d) in paragraph 178 of Ukraine’s Memorial — Failure to take account of the principle of good faith in determining jurisdiction ratione materiae — Incorporation of the principle of good faith into the Genocide Convention.
DECLARATION OF JUDGE BENNOUNA
[Original English Text]
PARTIALLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ABRAHAM
DECLARATION OF JUDGE TOMKA
Declaratory judgment — Request for a declaration that the Applicant did not breach its obligations under the Genocide Convention — Burden of proof.
1. In its submission (b), as formulated in its Memorial, Ukraine requests the Court to
“[a]djudge and declare that there is no credible evidence that Ukraine is responsible for committing genocide in violation of the Genocide Convention in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine” (Memorial of Ukraine, para. 178, quoted in Judgment, para. 25)
DISSENTING OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT GEVORGIAN
Agreement with the Court’s decision to dismiss the second aspect of Ukraine’s claim for lack of ratione materiae jurisdiction — The Court’s assessment of the existence and scope of the dispute at the time of the Application is problematic “Reverse compliance” complaints are not compatible with the Court’s judicial function and undermine the object and purpose of the Genocide Convention The Court fails to engage in a substantive analysis of the Russian Federation’s abuse of process argument.
I. Introduction
SEPARATE OPINION OF PRESIDENT DONOGHUE
Second aspect of the dispute Ukraine transformed subject of the dispute originally brought before the Court Inadmissibility of claims as formulated in the Memorial Court should have accepted jurisdiction ratione materiae over the claims as formulated in the Application.
1. I submit this separate opinion to explain my votes in relation to subparagraphs (2) and (4) of the operative paragraph of today’s Judgment.