DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ONYEAMA

As 1 stated in my dissenting opinion in the case between the United
Kingdom and Iceland, while 1 concur in the findings in subparagraphs

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PETRÉN

[Translationj

DISSENTLNG OPLNION OF JUDGE GROS

Translation j

1. The two Judgments, as wii~be evident on reading them, are modelled
on each other, and the cases have been dealt with together throughout the

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE WALDOCK

1. Iam in general agreement with both the operative part and the
reasoning of theJudgment of the Court. Ihave one reservation, however,
regarding subparagraph 5 of the operative partand there are some aspects
of the case which 1consider should have received more prominence in

the Judgment, and which 1 feel it incumbent on me to mention in this
separate opinion.

2.The Judgment refers to the Exchange of Notes of 19July 1961 and

SEPARATE OPMION OF JUDGE DE CASTRO

[Translation]

1voted with the majority, and I have explained the reasons for my vote
in my separate opinion in the case of Fisheries Jurisdiction (United
Kingdom v. Iceland), and these reasons apply mutatis mutandis to the
present case. 1would like however to add the following observations.

During the oral proceedings, the Government of the Federal Republic

JOINT SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGES FORSTER,
BENGZON, JIMÉNEZ DE ARÉCHAGA,
NAGENDRA SINGH AND RUDA

1. What has made it possible for us to concur in the reasoning of the
Courtand to subscribe to its decision is that, while the Judgment declares

hence 1 consider them of such importance as to be appropriately em-
phasized to convey the true significance of the Judgment-its extent as
well as its depth. These reasons, as well as those aspects of the Judgment

which have that importance from my viewpoint are briefiy stated as
follows :

They were committed pendente lite despite the obligations assumed by
Iceland in the Exchange of Notes of 1961which the Court had declared

Judge DILLARDmakes the following declaration:

Iconcur in the findings of the Court indicated inthe first four subpara-
graphs of the dispositif. My reasons for concurrence are set out in my
separate opinion in the companion case of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland v. Iceland. 1consider these reasons applicable
mutatis mutandis to the present case.
While 1concurred in the finding in the fifth subparagraph that the Court

206 FISHERIESJURISDICTION (JUDGMENT)

the fisheriesin theeas around her coasts for their livelihood and
economic development ;
(6) that by reason of its fishingactivities in the areas specifiedin sub-
paragraph 2, the Federal Republic of Germany also has estab-