78 SAHARA OCCIDENTAL (DÉCL. IGNACIO-PINTO)

M. IGNACIO-PINTO ju,ge, fait la déclarationsuivante:

Je n'ai pusouscrire qu'en partie a l'avisde la Cour internationalede Justice
en datedu 16octobre 1975etseulementparceque, en son dernier considérant
(par. 162),la Cour

WESTERNSAHARA(DECL.IGNACIO-PINTO) 78

Judge IGNACIO-PINTO makes the followingdeclaration:

[Translation]

1 have been able to subscribe only in part to the Opinion of the
InternationalCourt of Justice dated 16 October 1975 and only because in the
final paragraph of its reasoning, paragraph162, the Court's

WESTERN SAHARA (ADVISORY OPINION) 69

that Western Sahara (Rio de Oro and Sakiet El Hamra) at the time of
colonization by Spain wasnota territorybelonging to no-one (terranulliu;)

with regard to Question II,

by 14votesto 2,
that there werelegalties betweenthisterritory and the Kingdom of Morocco
of the kinds indicated in paragraph 162of this Opinion;

by 15votesto 1,

that there werelegal tiesbetweenthisterritory and the Mauritanian entity of
the kinds indicated in paragraph 162of this Opinion.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE EVENSEN

1. In its request of 28 August 1984the Committee on Applications for
Review requested an advisory opinion of the Court on two questions
relating to Judgement No. 333of the United Nations Administrative Tri-

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SIR ROBERT JENNINGS

1regret that 1have been unable to agree with the Court on the second

question putto theCourt for itsadvisory opinion, and therefore am under
some obligation to explain why 1see this case differently. Before turning
to the substance ofthe matter, however, 1wishto makesomeobservations
upon the form in which questions are put to the Court, not only in the
present case but also generally in this kind of review case.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SCHWEBEL

Whilejoining my colleagues in voting in favour of the Court's render-
ing an Advisory Opinionin this case, and infavour ofthe Court's reply to
question 1,1regret to be obliged to dissent from theOpinion as awhole in
viewof my disagreement with the Court's reply to the essential question,
question 2.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AG0

[Translation]

1. 1 cannot begin these few brief comments which 1 am appending
to the Advisory Opinion rendered by the Court in the present case
without first stating that1 did not, in perusing Judgement No. 333 of

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ODA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraphs

Opening Remarks 1

A. Issue of legalimpediment 2-7
B. Ambivalent provenance of the drafting of the question in the
Committee on Applications 8-13

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ELIAS

1agreewiththe majority AdvisoryOpinion inanswering inthe negative
the two questions put to the Court but 1wish to add some three or four

points of difference of emphasis and interpretation on a number of im-
portant issues raised in dealing with the answers.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE LACHS

The present case provides me with an occasion to return to the issue
which 1 raised in the declaration which, as President of this Court, 1
appended to the Advisory Opinion of 12July 1973on the Applicationfor