Judge WINIARSK Ihile voting in favour of the Opinion of the
Court, makes the following declaration :
1 regret that 1 am unable to accept the whole of the reasoning
on which the Court has based its reply. In particular 1think that
as the Opinion of 1950 was not based on the idea of the United
Nations as a successor in title of the League of Nations, the question
of a devolution of the powers of the Council of the League of
Nations to the General Assembly does not arise.1am in agreement

DISSENTING OPINION OF M. ALVAREZ

1
[Translationj

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES GUERRERO,

SIR ARNOLD McNAIR, READ, HSU MO

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MORENO QUINTANA
[Translation]
To my great regret 1 am unable to agree in this case, either with

LIISSENTING OPINION OF PRESIDENT KLAESTAD

1 am to my regret unable to agree with the Court and shall state
my different view as briefly as possible.
1. The task of the Court is to interpret the IMCO Convention,

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE LAUTERPACHT

In the present case the General Assembly has asked the Court
for an Advisory Opinion on the questionwhether the special Rule F,
which, 011 II October, 1954, the Assembly adopted with regard
to the voting procedure to be followed by it in taking decisions on
questions relating to reports and petitions concerning the Terntory
of South-West Africa is a correct interpretation of the Opinion

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KLAESTAD

1 have arrived at the same final conclusion as the Court ; but as
my approach to the matter is entirely different, 1 consider it my
duty to state as briefly as possible the reasons upon which 1 base

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE BASDEVANT

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KRYLOV
[Translation.]

1share the Court's Opinion on the General Question and on Ques-
tions (a) and (c) put by the Assembly. 1 would observe, however,
that the analysis of Article 79, as given by the Court, does not
exhaust al1 the questions which may be raised in this connexion.

But 1 cannot concur in the second part of the reply given by the
Court to Question (b). My reasons are as follows:

LlISSENTIKG OPINIOX OF Mr. DE VISSCHEX

1 regret that 1 am unable to concur in the second part oi the
Court's ansurer to the question iin(ler-letter (5). 1 concede that the
provisions of Chapter XII of the Charter do not iniposc on thr
Union of South Africa a legal obligation to conclude a Tr.iisteeship
Agreement, in the sense that the Union is free to accept or to refuse
the particular terins of a draft agreement. On the other liarid, I