4 would have thought, however, that any concerns would have been allayed by Bolivia’s immediate and complete acceptance of its international responsibility, based on admission of the facts alleged, leaving only measures of reparation in dispute. Hence I am constrained to present the issue, believing as I do that invocation by the Court in this case of the principle of forum prorogatum, in addition to the basis on which it (quite properly, in my view) does rely, would have rendered the Court’s assertion of jurisdiction over the entire case even more unassailable. Moreover, it would have set an important precedent further clarifying for States Parties to the Convention the foundations of the Court’s jurisdiction. As it is, however, these observations must serve simply as an invitation to future discussion. Charles N. Brower Judge ad hoc Manuel E. Ventura-Robles Secretary The possibility of grave political consequences may indicate the need for restraint on the expansionist tendencies inseparable from the very notion of forum prorogatum. Further (pp. 724 – 725): …[T]he Court has created an imposing doctrine which seems to be at some variance with the political attitude of certain States towards what ought to be the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction. * * * …[H]esitation over the practical wisdom of the Court’s attitude is necessarily strong and, so far, unresolved.