Declaration of President Lachs (as appended immediately after the judgment)

Document Number
055-19740725-JUD-01-01-EN
Parent Document Number
055-19740725-JUD-01-00-EN
Document File
Bilingual Document File

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.

Done in English, and in French, the English text being authoritative,
at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this twenty-fifth day of July, one
thousand nine hundred and seventy-four, in three copies, of which one
will be placed in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to
the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland and to the Government of the Republic of Iceland respectively.

(Sigt~ed) Manfred LACHS,

President.
(Signe4 S. AQUARONE,

Registrar.

President LACHSmakes the following declaration:

1am in agreement with the reasoning and conclusions of the Court, and

since the Judgment speaks for and stands by itself, 1 would not feel it
appropriate to make any gloss upon it.

Judge IGNACIO-PINTm Oakes the followingdeclaration

To my regret, 1have been obliged to vote against the Court's Judgment.
However, to my mind my negative vote does not, strictly speaking, signify
opposition, since in a different context 1 would certainly have voted in
favour of the process which the Court considered it should follow to
arrive at its decision. In my view that decision is devoted to tixing the
conditions for exercise of preferential rights, for conservation of fish

species, and historic rights, rather than to responding to the primary
clain~of the Applicant, which is for a statement of the law on a specific
point.
1would have al1the more willingly endorsed the concept of preferential
rights inasmuch as the Court has merely followed its own decision in the
Fishcrics case.

It should be observed that the Applicant has nowhere sought a decision
from the Court on a dispute between itself and lceland on the subject of
the preferential rights of the coastal State, the conservation of fish
species, or historic rights-tl-iisis apparent throughout the elaborate

36

Bilingual Content

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.

Done in English, and in French, the English text being authoritative,
at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this twenty-fifth day of July, one
thousand nine hundred and seventy-four, in three copies, of which one
will be placed in the archives of the Court and the others transmitted to
the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern

Ireland and to the Government of the Republic of Iceland respectively.

(Sigt~ed) Manfred LACHS,

President.
(Signe4 S. AQUARONE,

Registrar.

President LACHSmakes the following declaration:

1am in agreement with the reasoning and conclusions of the Court, and

since the Judgment speaks for and stands by itself, 1 would not feel it
appropriate to make any gloss upon it.

Judge IGNACIO-PINTm Oakes the followingdeclaration

To my regret, 1have been obliged to vote against the Court's Judgment.
However, to my mind my negative vote does not, strictly speaking, signify
opposition, since in a different context 1 would certainly have voted in
favour of the process which the Court considered it should follow to
arrive at its decision. In my view that decision is devoted to tixing the
conditions for exercise of preferential rights, for conservation of fish

species, and historic rights, rather than to responding to the primary
clain~of the Applicant, which is for a statement of the law on a specific
point.
1would have al1the more willingly endorsed the concept of preferential
rights inasmuch as the Court has merely followed its own decision in the
Fishcrics case.

It should be observed that the Applicant has nowhere sought a decision
from the Court on a dispute between itself and lceland on the subject of
the preferential rights of the coastal State, the conservation of fish
species, or historic rights-tl-iisis apparent throughout the elaborate

36 tion, le dévelol?pementet l'exploitation équitablede ces ressources,
en utilisant le inécanismeétablipar la Convention sur les pêcheries
de l'Atlantique du nord-est ou tout autre moyen qui pourrait être

acceptéà l'issue de négociations internationales.

Fait en anglais et en francais, le texte anglais faisant foi, au palais de
la Paix,à La Haye, le vingt-cinq juillet mil neuf cent soixante-quatorze,
en trois exemplaires, dont l'un restera déposéaux archives de la Cour et

dont les autres seront transmis respectivement au Gouvernement du
Royaume-Uni de Gr.ande-Bretagne et d'Irlande du Nord et au Gouverne-
ment de la République d'Islande.

Le Président,

(Signé) Manfred LACHS.

Le Greffier,
(SignéS ). AQUARONE.

M. LACHSP , résident, fait la déclaration suivante:

Je souscris aux motifs et aux conclusions de la Cour et, comme l'arrêt
n'appelle pas d'explications et se suffit à lui-même,je n'estimerais pas
approprié de présenter des commentaires à son sujet.

M. IGNACIO-PINTO ju,ge, fait la déclaration suivante:

J'ai dû voter à regret contre l'arrêtde la Cour. Toutefois dans mon
esprit mon vote négatif netraduit pas à proprement parler une opposition
car, dans un autre contexte, j'aurais sans doute voté pour le processus que

la Cour a cru devoir suivre pour aboutirà sa décision.A mon sens celle-ci
fixe plutôt les conditions d'exercice des droits préférentiels,de la con-
servation des espèces halieutiques et des droits historiques qu'elle ne
répond à ia demande principale du demandeur qui est de dire le droit sur
un point précis.

J'aurais d'autant plus volontiers souscrit à la conception des droits
préférentielsque la Cour ne fait que se conformer à sa propre décision
dans l'affaire des P&cheric.s.
II ya lieu de noter que le demandeur n'a nulle part sollicité laCour de
trancher entre I'lslande et lui un différendqui aurait pour objet les droits
préférentielsdu riverain, la conservation des espèces halieutiques ou les

droits historiques-- cela ressort tout au long du très élaboréexposédes
36

Document file FR
Document Long Title

Declaration of President Lachs (as appended immediately after the judgment)

Links