trative acts should have been performed there in the ordinary
course of affairs. However, the fact that local conditions have
necessitated the normal and unchallenged exercise of Netherlands
administrative activity provides an additional reason why, in the
absence of clear provisions of a treaty, there is no necessity to
disturbthe existing state of affairs and to perpetuate a geographical
anomaly.
-Ju-ge SPIROPOULOm Sakes the following Declaration
The international legal status of the disputed plots seems to me
to be extremely doubtful.
The facts and circumstances (decisions of the Mixed Boundary
Commission, letters, etc.) at the basis of the Belgian hypothesis
that the copy, which has not been produced before the Court, of
the Communal Minute of 1841 attributed the disputed plots to
Belgium or that the Boundary Commissioners had corrected it to
that effect-which facts go back more than a century-do not, in
my opinion, make it possible to conclude with sufficient certainty
that the Belgian hypothesis corresponds with the facts.
On the other hand, the thesis of the Netherlands to the effect
that an error crept into the Minute attached to Article go of the
Descriptive Minute of 1843 is also merely based on a hypothesis,
i.e. on the mere fact that the text of the Communal Minute of
1841 departs from the text of the Minute attached to Article go of
the Descriptive Minute of 1843.
Faced as 1 am with a choice between two hypotheses which lead
to opposite results with regard to the question to whom sovereignty
over the disputed plots belongs, 1 consider that preference ought
to be given to the hypothesis which seems to me to be the less
speculative and that, in my view, is the hypothesis of the Nether-
lands. For this reason1 have hesitated to concur in the Judgment
of the Court.
Judges ARMAND-UCOa Nnd MOREXO QUINTANAa,vailing them-
selves of the right conferred upon them by Article7of the Statute,
append tothe Judgment of the Court statements of their Dissenting
Opinions.
(Initialled) H. K.
(Initialled) G.-C.
trative acts should have been performed there in the ordinary
course of affairs. However, the fact that local conditions have
necessitated the normal and unchallenged exercise of Netherlands
administrative activity provides an additional reason why, in the
absence of clear provisions of a treaty, there is no necessity to
disturbthe existing state of affairs and to perpetuate a geographical
anomaly.
-Ju-ge SPIROPOULOm Sakes the following Declaration
The international legal status of the disputed plots seems to me
to be extremely doubtful.
The facts and circumstances (decisions of the Mixed Boundary
Commission, letters, etc.) at the basis of the Belgian hypothesis
that the copy, which has not been produced before the Court, of
the Communal Minute of 1841 attributed the disputed plots to
Belgium or that the Boundary Commissioners had corrected it to
that effect-which facts go back more than a century-do not, in
my opinion, make it possible to conclude with sufficient certainty
that the Belgian hypothesis corresponds with the facts.
On the other hand, the thesis of the Netherlands to the effect
that an error crept into the Minute attached to Article go of the
Descriptive Minute of 1843 is also merely based on a hypothesis,
i.e. on the mere fact that the text of the Communal Minute of
1841 departs from the text of the Minute attached to Article go of
the Descriptive Minute of 1843.
Faced as 1 am with a choice between two hypotheses which lead
to opposite results with regard to the question to whom sovereignty
over the disputed plots belongs, 1 consider that preference ought
to be given to the hypothesis which seems to me to be the less
speculative and that, in my view, is the hypothesis of the Nether-
lands. For this reason1 have hesitated to concur in the Judgment
of the Court.
Judges ARMAND-UCOa Nnd MOREXO QUINTANAa,vailing them-
selves of the right conferred upon them by Article7of the Statute,
append tothe Judgment of the Court statements of their Dissenting
Opinions.
(Initialled) H. K.
(Initialled) G.-C.l'intérieur du territoire néerlandais et que, par conséquent, il était
naturel que des actes administratifs y aient été accomplis par
les Pays-Bas, dans le cours normal des affaires. Cependant, le
fait que les conditions locales aient nécessitél'exercice normal et
non contesté d'activités administratives de la part des Pays-Bas
apporte une raison supplémentaire pour décider qu'en l'absence de
claires stipulationsd'un traité, il n'y a aucune nécessitédeperturber
la situation actuelle et de perpétuer une anomalie géographique.
M. SPIROPOULOjS u,ge, fait la déclaration suivante:
Le statut juridique international des parcelles litigieuses nous
paraît extrêmement douteux. -
Les faits et circonstances (décisionsde la Commission mixte de
délimitation, lettres, etc.)à la base de l'hypothèse belge selon
laquelle l'exemplaire, non présenté à la Cour, du Procès-verbal
communal de 1841 attribuait les parcelles litigieusesà la Belgique
ou que les commissaires-démarcateurs l'avaient rectifié dans ce
sens, faits qui remontent à plus d'un siècle, ne permettent pas, à
notre avis, de conclure avec une certitude suffisanteque l'hypothèse
belge correspond aux faits.
D'autre part, la thèse des Pays-Bas selon laquelle une erreur se
serait glisséedans le procès-verbal attaché l'article go du Procès-
verbal descriptif de 1843 n'est basée,elle aussi, que sur une hypo-
thèse, c'est-à-dire sur le simple fait que le texte du Procès-verbal
communal de 1841 s'écarte du texte du procès-verbal attaché à
l'article go du Procès-verbal descriptif de 1843.
Nous trouvant ainsi devant l'alternative de devoir choisir entre
deux hypothèses conduisant à des résultats opposés quant à la
question de savoirà qui appartient la souveraineté sur les parcelles
litigieuses, nous croyons devoir donnerla préférenceà l'hypothèse
qui nous paraît être la moins spéculative et c'est, à notre avis,
celle des Pays-Bas. C'est la raison pour laquelle nous avons hésité
à nous associer au jugement de la Cour.
MM. ARMAND-UGO et MORENO QUINTANA ,ges, se prévalant du
droit que leur confère l'article7 du Statut, joignent à l'arrêtles
exposésde leur opinion dissidente.
.(Paraphé)H. K.
(Paraphé)G.-C.
Declaration by Judge Spiropoulos (as appended immediately after the judgment)