Separate Opinion of Judge Bustamante (translation)

SEPARATE OPIXION OF JUDGE BUST-\MANTE

This opinion expresses -certain views wkich differ from those of the
Court on the first Preliminary Objection. It also contains an expres-
sion of individual views on the third Objection, although the conclusion
reached is that of the majority.

Although 1 share the views of the Court so far as concerns certain
doctrinal aspects relating to the first Preliminary Objection, the same
does not apply to the facts and conclusions. This leads me to state

Separate Opinion of Judge Tanaka

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE TANAKA

The followingobservations are limited to the Court's opinion on the
second principal Preliminary Objection raised by the Respondent
Government .

1 can completely agree with the conclusion of the Court in rejecting
this objection. Furthermore, 1 cannot deny the well-foundedness of
the reasons by which the Court reached this conclusion. Nor do 1
hesitate to Say that these reasons in general are in themselves suffi-
cient to oveGule this Prelirninary objection.

Separate Opinion of Vice-President Wellington Koo

SEPARATE OPINION OF

VICE-PRESIDENT WELLINGTON KOO

I. 1 am in complete agreement with the Court's findings on the
first, second and fourth Preliminary Objections and with the general
line of reasoning which has led up to them, except on one point in
connection with the second Objection which calls for some elucidation
on my part. As regards the third Prelirninary Objection, 1 regret to

Declaration by Judge Koretsky (as appended immediately after the judgment)

Judge SPI~~OPOULm OaSkes the following declaration

1 regret that1 am unable to share the view of the Court in regard
to the second, third and fourth Preliminary Objections.

As to the second Preliminary Objection, my position is determined
by the Court's Judgment in the case concerning the Aerial Incident
(Israelv. Bulgaria). Starting from the concept that the purpose of
Article 37 of the Statute of the Court is the same as that of Articl36,

Declaration by Judge Spiropoulos (as appended immediately after the judgment)

Judge SPI~~OPOULm OaSkes the following declaration

1 regret that1 am unable to share the view of the Court in regard
to the second, third and fourth Preliminary Objections.

As to the second Preliminary Objection, my position is determined
by the Court's Judgment in the case concerning the Aerial Incident
(Israelv. Bulgaria). Starting from the concept that the purpose of
Article 37 of the Statute of the Court is the same as that of Articl36,

Declaration of President Sir Percy Spender (as appended immediately after the judgment)

For these reasons,

by twelve votes to four,
rejects the first Preliminary Objection ;

by ten votes to six,

rejects the second Preliminary Objection ;

by nine votes to seven,
joins the third Preliminary Objection to the merits ;

by ten votes to six,

joins the fourth Preliminary Objection to the merits.

Done in English and French, the English text being authoritative,
at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this twenty-fourth day of July, one

Links