DECLARATION OF JUDGE SIMMA
The Court’s interpretation of the General Assembly’s request is unnecessarily
limited and potentially misguiding — The Court’s approach reflects an outdated
view of international law — The request deserves a more comprehensive answer,
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KOROMA
The unilateral declaration of independence of 17 February 2008 unlawful for
failure to comply with laid down legal principles — In exercising its advisory
jurisdiction, the Court may only reformulate the question posed so as to make it
DECLARATION OF VICE-PRESIDENT TOMKA
The Court should have exercised its discretion and declined to respond to the
General Assembly’s request — The Security Council’s silence cannot be inter-
preted as implying any tacit approval of the declaration — The General Assem-
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KOROMA
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE REZEK
[Translation]
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ODA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraphs
1-2
5. EXEMPTIOFNOMTAXED COSTS 18-19
20-22
6.DECISIO N IMMUNIT BY THEMALAYSIA COURTINLIMINE LITIS
SEPARATE OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT WEERAMANTRY
Importance of protection of United Nations personnel - Immunities of
United Nations functionaries distinguishedfrom those of State representatives
- Conclusivenessof Secretary-General's determination - Need for uniform
internationaljurisprudence on thismatter - Duty of rapporteursto ensure that
they act bvithinthe terms of their mandate.
1 agree with the conclusions of the Court as set out in the Court's
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SCHWEBEL
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE EL-KHAN1
[Translation]
To my great regret 1find myself obliged to dissociate myself from the
Advisory Opinion which the Court has seenfit to givein the present case,
because 1consider that, for reasons of principle bound up with the very
nature of the Court's jurisdiction, and having regard to the procedural
irregularities committed by the body which referred the case to it, the
Court, inthisinstance, ought tohaverefusedtocomplywith therequest for
an advisory opinion.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MOROZOV
1voted against the reasoning and the operative part (Nos. 1,2 A and 2
B) of the Advisory Opinion given by the Court at the request of the
Committee on Applications for Review of Administrative Tribunal
Judgements, relating to Tribunal Judgement No. 273 of 15May 1981,for
the following reasons.