1. I was unable to concur in the Tribunal’s decision in paragraph 90(1)(a) of its Order to prescribe, as a provisional measure, that the parties “shall each ensure that no action is taken which might aggravate or extend the disputes submitted to the arbitral tribunal”.

2. I did so not because I disagree with the general proposition that parties to a dispute should take measures to avoid aggravating the dispute pending its settlement by judicial means. Indeed, this should be recognized as a general policy guiding States in their international relations. Rather, I oppose laying down a measure, binding in international law, with the consequential remedies for its breach, which is of so general a nature that a party cannot be entirely clear when contemplating any given action whether or not it falls within its scope. I would have preferred that the Tribunal confine itself to prescribing measures which have clear and specific objectives, such as those prescribed in paragraph 90(1)(c) to (f), with which I agree.