consuming and therefore comes into conflictwith the urgency of the
matter coupled with the prospect of irreparable damage to the
rights of the parties. It is this situation which furnishes the "raison

d'être"of interim relief.
If, therefore, the Court, in this case, has granted interim measures of
protection itis without prejudice to the substance whether jurisdictional
or othenvise which cannot be prejudged at this stage and will have to be
gone into further in the next phase.

Gerald Fitzmaurice in I.C.J. Reports 1963, pages 102-103,as follows:

"...the real distinction and test would seem to be whether or not the
objection is based on, or arises from, the jurisdictional clause or
clauses under which the jurisdiction of the tribunal is said to exist.
If so, the objectionis basically one ofjurisdiction."

Gerald Fitzmaurice in I.C.J. Reports 1963, pages 102-103,as follows:

"...the real distinction and test would seem to be whether or not the
objection is based on, or arises from, the jurisdictional clause or
clauses under which the jurisdiction of the tribunal is said to exist.
If so, the objectionis basically one ofjurisdiction."

Accordingly,
THECOURT

Indicates, by 8 votes to 6, pending its final decision in the proceedings
instituted on 9 May 1973 by Australia against France, the following
provisional measures :

DISSENTI-NG OPINION OF JUDGE PETRÉN

[Translationj

Having voted against the Order, 1 append this dissenting opinion
thereto.
There is an obviou!;parallelism between the present case and that also
concerning Fisheries .Jurisdictionbrought against Iceland by the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a case in which the
Court has similarly indicated interim measures of protection. To the

DISSENlrING OPINION OF JUDGE GROS

[Translation]

As the Court's Order in the case of the Federal Republicof Germanyv.
Icelandis virtually a replica of the Order of the same date in UnitedKing-
dom v. Iceland,1 feel it would be gratuitous for me to repeat the reasons,
for my dissent, which are the same.

1would only add thiat,inthe case of the Federal Republic of Germany,

315 FISHERIES JURISDICTION(ORDER 12VI173)

indication of provisional measures, the rights which may subsequently be
adjudged by the Court to belong respectivelyto the Parties;

Accordingly,

by 11votes to 3,

Confirms that the provisional measures indicated in operative para-
graph (1) of the Order of 17August 1972should, subject to the power of
revocation or modification conferred on the Court by paragraph 7 of
Article 61 of the 1946Rules, remain operative until the Court has given
finaljudgment in the case.

Judge GROS makes the followingdeclaration :

1have voted against the deferment ofthe consideration ofthe document
filed on 16 May; the question could and should have been settled im-
mediately, and independently of the problem of the Court's jurisdiction
in the casereferred to in the operative paragraph of the present Order, by
a findingto the effectthat the document in questionoes not complywith
the provisions of Article2 of the Statute of the Court, concerning inter-
vention.

Judge PETRÉN makes the followingdeclaration :

Judge GROS makes the followingdeclaration :

1have voted against the deferment ofthe consideration ofthe document
filed on 16 May; the question could and should have been settled im-
mediately, and independently of the problem of the Court's jurisdiction
in the casereferred to in the operative paragraph of the present Order, by
a findingto the effectthat the document in questionoes not complywith
the provisions of Article2 of the Statute of the Court, concerning inter-
vention.

Judge PETRÉN makes the followingdeclaration :

Judge GROS makes the followingdeclaration :

1have voted against the deferment ofthe consideration ofthe document
filed on 16 May; the question could and should have been settled im-
mediately, and independently of the problem of the Court's jurisdiction
in the casereferred to in the operative paragraph of the present Order, by
a findingto the effectthat the document in questionoes not complywith
the provisions of Article2 of the Statute of the Court, concerning inter-
vention.

Judge PETRÉN makes the followingdeclaration :