DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE CLEVELAND
Jurisdiction ratione temporis — Admissibility — Standing — Obligations erga omnes partes — Non-retroactivity — Reciprocity — State responsibility — Inter-State complaint process.
Armenia’s objection raises question of admissibility and standing — Court has jurisdiction to hear the claims — CERD compromissory clause contains no limitation ratione temporis — No issue of retroactivity was presented.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE CHARLESWORTH
Jurisdiction ratione temporis  Distinction between jurisdiction and admissibility  Qualification of the first preliminary objection as one of legal standing.
The applicability of CERD to pre-existing disputes  The need for explicit limitations in order to rule out pre-existing disputes from a treaty’s temporal scope  The general rule on pre-existing disputes otherwise being covered by a treaty’s temporal scope.

JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES NOLTE, CHARLESWORTH, CLEVELAND AND TLADI

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE IWASAWA

DECLARATION OF JUDGE YUSUF
Disagreement with the approach and conclusion of the Court on jurisdiction ratione temporis  It is neither about (non-)retroactivity of treaty obligations nor about erga omnes partes obligations  Article 22 of CERD contains no limit to the scope of jurisdiction ratione temporis  Obligations arise for Armenia from the date it became bound by CERD  Any alleged breach after such date attributable to Armenia would fall within CERD  As a State party Azerbaijan is entitled to invoke CERD for any such breach by Armenia.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE TOMKA
First preliminary objection of the Respondent  Reasons for vote in favour of subparagraph 1 of the operative clause of the Judgment  Absence of limitation ratione temporis in Article 22 of the Convention  Principle of non-retroactivity irrelevant in the present case  Standing of the Applicant real crux of the matter  Applicant has no standing to invoke the responsibility of the Respondent for acts alleged to have occurred in the 1993-1996 period  Therefore, claims based on those acts are inadmissible.
I. INTRODUCTION

12 NOVEMBRE 2024
ARRÊT
APPLICATION DE LA CONVENTION INTERNATIONALE SUR L’ÉLIMINATION
DE TOUTES LES FORMES DE DISCRIMINATION RACIALE
(AZERBAÏDJAN c. ARMÉNIE)
___________
APPLICATION OF THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTION ON THE ELIMINATION
OF ALL FORMS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
(AZERBAIJAN v. ARMENIA)
12 NOVEMBER 2024
JUDGMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraphs
CHRONOLOGY OF THE PROCEDURE 1-21
I. INTRODUCTION 22-28
II. FIRST PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: JURISDICTION RATIONE TEMPORIS 29-64
III. SECOND PRELIMINARY OBJECTION: JURISDICTION RATIONE MATERIAE IN

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE AD HOC KOROMA

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE IWASAWA

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE YUSUF