SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGERUDA

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE MOROZOV

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE LACHS

1 write this separate opinion, firstly,because1am unable to agree with
the Court's treatment of the issueofjurisdiction (para. 44).Not only was
the Court's jurisdiction contested by Turkey but the Court was in my
view under an obligation to consider the issue proprio motu and make
clear its provisional viewsthereon, notwithstanding the negative answer
it feltbound to givethe requestfor interim measures.

SEPARATE OPINION OF
VICE-PRESIDENT NAGENDRA SINGH

SEPARATE OPINION OF
PRESIDENT JIMÉNEZ DE ARÉCHAGA

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE LGNACIO-PINTO

[Translation]

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PETRÉN

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE GROS

[Translation]

In my view, the documents by which New Zealand and Australia
instituted proceedings in theNuclear Tests cases are drawn up in similar
terms, the same considerations of fact and law are relied on therein, and
the submissions are directed to an identical object. In his openingaddress
on 24 May 1973,couiisel for New Zealand stated that:

"New Zealand's case arises out of the same set of circumstances as
that of Australia, and has comparable objectives."

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE FORSTER

[Translation]

The Order made today in the case between New Zealand and France
is related to the onemade also today in the case of Australia v. France.

prima facie confers jurisdiction upon the Court and which incor-
porates no reservations obviously excluding its jurisdiction."
(Separate opinion of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht in Interhandel case,
I.C.J. Reports 1957,p. 118.)