Judge NAGENDR SINGHmakes the following declaration:

While fullysupportingthe reasoning leading to the verdict of theCourt,
and therefore voting with the majority for the grant of interim measures
of protection in this case, 1wish to lend emphasis, by this declaration, to
the requirement that the Court must be satisfied of its own competence,
even though prima facie, before taking action under Article 41 of the
Statute and Rule 61 (New Rule 66) of the Rules of Court.

question cannot be prejudged now; it is not possible to exclude a priori,
that the further pleadings and other relevant information may change
viewsor convictions presently held.

The question described in the Order as that of the existence of "a legal
interest in respect of these claims entitling the Court to admit the Applica-

thousand nine hundred and seventy-three, in four copies, one of which
will be placed in the archives of the Court, and the others transmitted
respectively to the French Government, to the Government of New

Zealand, and to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for trans-
mission to the Security Council.

(Signed) F. AMMOUN,
Vice-President.

Judge GROSmakes the following declaration:

1have voted against the deferment of the consideration of thedocument
filed on18 May; the question could and should have been settled imme-
diately, and independently of the problem of the Court's jurisdiction in
the case referred to in the operative paragraph of the presentder, by a
finding to the effectthat the document in questiondoes not comply with
the provisions of Article62 of the Statute of the Court, concerning inter-
vention.

Judge PETRÉN makes the following declaration:

Judge GROSmakes the following declaration:

1have voted against the deferment of the consideration of thedocument
filed on18 May; the question could and should have been settled imme-
diately, and independently of the problem of the Court's jurisdiction in
the case referred to in the operative paragraph of the presentder, by a
finding to the effectthat the document in questiondoes not comply with
the provisions of Article62 of the Statute of the Court, concerning inter-
vention.

Judge PETRÉN makes the following declaration:

Judge GROSmakes the following declaration:

1have voted against the deferment of the consideration of thedocument
filed on18 May; the question could and should have been settled imme-
diately, and independently of the problem of the Court's jurisdiction in
the case referred to in the operative paragraph of the presentder, by a
finding to the effectthat the document in questiondoes not comply with
the provisions of Article62 of the Statute of the Court, concerning inter-
vention.

Judge PETRÉN makes the following declaration:

Judge GROSmakes the following declaration:

1have voted against the deferment of the consideration of thedocument
filed on18 May; the question could and should have been settled imme-
diately, and independently of the problem of the Court's jurisdiction in
the case referred to in the operative paragraph of the presentder, by a
finding to the effectthat the document in questiondoes not comply with
the provisions of Article62 of the Statute of the Court, concerning inter-
vention.

Judge PETRÉN makes the following declaration:

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MOROZOV

1 voted in favour of a judge ad hoc appointed by the Kingdom of
Morocco Sittingin the present case, and 1voted, for the same reason, in
favour ofajudge adhocappointed by the Islamic Republic of Mauritania,

M. LACHS P,résident, faitla déclaration suivante:

The Court maywishto commentfurther on the question of the appoint-
ment of judges ad hocin the present proceedingswhenpronounciiig upon
the request for advisory opinion. Individual Members of the Court will

of course be entitled, in exercise of the right conferred on them by
Article57 of the Statute, also to express their. views on the subject at
that time.

M. Mo~ozov, juge, joint à l'ordonnance l'exposéde son opinion
dissidente.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PETRÉN

[Translation]

Having voted againstthe Order, 1append this dissentingopinion.

In my view,the first question to which the Court should have attended
was that of its own jurisdiction on the merits of the case, a question to
which the Order does not advert until the last paragraph of the recitals.