(1) the general configuration of the coasts of the Parties, as well as the
presence of any special or unusual features;
(2) so far as known or readily ascertainable, the physical and geological
structure, and natural resources, of the continental shelfreas in-
volved ;
(3) the element of a reasonable degree of proportionality, which a delimi-
tation carried out in accordance with equitable principles ought to
bring about between the extent of the continental shelf areas apper-

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ONYEAMA

1. Although 1 agree that the Regulations concerning the Fishery
Limits off Iceland (Reglugeri3 urnJiskveii3ilandhelgiIslands) promulgated

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PETRÉN
[Translation]

To my regret, 1 have felt obliged to vote against the Judgment and to
append this dissenting opinion.
The main reason why L felt unable to vote for the Judgment lay in the

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE GROS

[Translation]

1consider that Iceland's claim to establish an exclusive fishing zone
over the superjacent waters of the continental shelf is contrary to the
rules of international law, but the reasoning which leads me to that
opinion, and my analysis of the dispute itself, are different from what is
contained in the Judlgment, from both the reasoning and the decision of
the Court; a judgment of the Court comprises the reasoning part and the

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SIR HUMPHREY WALDOCK

1. 1am in general agreement with both the operative part and the rea-

soning of theJudgment of the Court. As, however, there are some aspects
of the case which 1consider should have received more prominence in the
Judgment, 1 feel it incumbent on me to deal with them in this separate
opinion.

SEPARA'TE OPINION OF JUDGE DE CASTRO

[Translation]

1have voted witlhthe majority, but do not consider that I can wholly

subscribe to the reasoning in the Judgment. 1 therefore venture, in
exercise of the right conferred on me by the Statute, to set out in detail
the reasons for my vote.

1. The 1961Agreement

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE DILLARD

1concur in the Judgment of the Court. 1am moved to write a separate
opinion first to elaborate on a few possibly controversial aspects of the

Judgment and second to put it in a broader perspective.

The present controversy centres on the familiar problem of conflicting

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

particular for the benefit of the developing countries. But since 1 am
above al1 faithful to judicial practice, 1 continue fervently to urge the
need for the Court to confine itself to its obligation to state the law as
it is at present in relation to the facts of the case brought before it.
1consider it entirely proper that, in international law as in every other
system of law, the existing law should be questioned from time to time
-this is the surest way of furthering its progressive development-but

vation and development, and equitable exploitation, of those
resources, making use of the machinery established by the
North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention or such other means
as may be agreed upon as a result of international negotiations.