DISSENTING OPINION
OF PRESIDENT SIR ROBERT JENNINGS

1very much regret that 1am unable to agree with the decision of the
Court rejecting Australia's preliminary objection based on the circum-
stancethat New Zealand and the United Kingdom are not alsoparties to

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN

DISSENTING OPINION BY SIR ARNOLD IlcNAIR,
PRESIDENT, AND JUDGES BASDEVAPU'T,KLAESTAD
AND READ

To Our great regret we are unable to concur in the Judgment
of the Court. We must therefore indicate the way in which we
understand the task of the Court in the present case, the meaning
of the question submitted to it, the answer which should be ,@\.en,
and the grounds on which we base Ouropinion.

ISDIVIDcLSL OPISIOI; OF JVDGE LET7 C-IRSEIRO
/Srn~zslatio.ujz
Havii~g voted in favour of the operative clause of the Judgineilt
and accepted al1the reasons in support thereof, I x-enture to add a
fexv obserx-ationç which hax-e decisively iilfhenced mg- personal
vote. These observations relate to circumstances of a general
character xvhich, in my view, explain. confirm, CO-ordinate and
lend value to the acts of occupation which occurred at irregular

INDIVIDVAL OPIKIO': OF JCDGE BASDEVANT
fTranslation]
While concurring in the operative part of the Judgment, 1 am
bound to Say that the reasons for which 1 do so are to a great
extent different from those stated by the Court. 1 therefore think
that 1 should indicate in outline, but without exhaustive consi-
deration of each separate point, the means by which 1 arrive at
agreement with the operative part. 1 do not propose, in doing

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PADILLA NERVO

to the other Party, even if Iceland has chosen not to appoint an Agent,
file a Counter-Memorial or submit preliminary objections to the Court's
jurisdiction; and Article 53 of theStatute both entitles the Court and, in

the present proceedings, requires it to pronounce upon the question of its
jurisdiction. This it has now done with binding force.

46. For these reasons,

by fourteen votes to one,

DISSENTING OPINION OF JCDGE VAN WYK

The jurisdiction of this Court is provided for in Articles36 and
37 of its Statute. It is common cause that paragraphs 2-5 of Arti-
cle36 do not apply in this case, and it is therefore only necessary
to refer to the first paragraph of Article, which reads as follows:

"1. The jurisdiction of the Court comprises al1cases which the
Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions ine
force."

DISSENTING OPINIOX OF JUDGE MORELLI

[Translation]
1 voted against the decision upholding the Court's jurisdiction
because 1 am of the opinion that, if a dispute really existed betureen
Ethiopia and Liberia on the one hand and South Africa on the other
with the subject set forth in the Applications, such a dispute would
not be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. 1think however that,
before taking up the question of jurisdiction, the Court should have
sought to establish whether a dispute existed between the Parties.