DECLARATION OF JUDGE VERESHCHETIN

DECLARATION OF JUDGE SHI

1 have voted in favour of the operative paragraphs of the Advisory
Opinion of the Court, because 1 am generally in agreement with its
reasoning and conclusions.
However, 1 have reservations with regard to the role which the Court
assigns to the policy of deterrence in determining lex lataon the use of

DECLARATION OF JUDGE HERCZEGH

[Translation]

DECLARATION OF PRESIDENT BEDJAOUI

[ Translation]

1. 1have never been much in favour of declarations and other separate
or dissenting opinions. 1 have therefore very rarely had recourse to
them. However, the adoption by the Court of operative paragraph 2 E

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE YUSUF

The Court overly restricted the scope of the question put to it by the Gen-

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE CANÇADO TRINDADE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraphs

I. PROLEGOMENA 1-3

II. CONSIDERATIONS OPRELIMINARYQUESTIONS OJURISDICTION AND

JUDICIALPROPRIETY 4-34

1. The Court’s jurisdiction, with attention on the preponderant

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SKOTNIKOV

1. The Court, in my view, should have used its discretion to refrain

from exercising its advisory jurisdiction in the rather peculiar circum-
stances of the present case. Never before has the Court been confronted
with a question posed by one organ of the United Nations, to which an
answer is entirely dependent on the interpretation of a decision taken by
another United Nations organ. What makes this case even more anoma-
lous is the fact that the latter is the Security Council, acting under Chap-

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BENNOUNA

[Translation]

Propriety of the Court giving an advisory opinion — Respect for the integrity
of the Court’s judicial function — Frivolous requests for advisory opinions —
Substitution of the Court for the Security Council in exercising its political

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SEPÚLVEDA-AMOR

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KEITH

1. The Court, in my view, should have exercised its discretion to refuse

to answer the question which the General Assembly submitted to it on
8 October 2008 in resolution 63/3. In this opinion I give my reasons for
that conclusion.
2. While the terms of the French text of Article 14 of the Covenant of
the League of Nations may have been read as denying the Permanent
Court of International Justice a discretion to refuse (the Court “donnera