SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AG0

[Translation]

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SIR GARFIELD BARWICK

1 have already expressed my reasons for being unable to join in the
Judgment of the Court in the case of Australia v. France.Al1those reasons
apply with equal force in this case and need not be repeated.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGEDE CASTRO

[Translation]

To my regret, 1 have not been able to vote with the majority of the
Court. In view of the practically identical nature of the present case and
the case concerning Nuclear Tests (Australia v.France), at this stage of
the proceedings, 1 feel justified in referring the reader to the reasoning
set forth in the dissenting opinion 1 have appended to the Judgment
delivered in thatparallel case.

(Signed) F. DE CASTRO.

JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES ONYEAMA,
DILLARD, JIMGNEZ DE ARÉCHAGA AND
SIR HUMPHREY WALDOCK

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE IGNACIO-PINTO

[Translation]

1 have voted in favour of the Judgment which the Court has given

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE PETRÉN

[Translation j

For the reasons which 1have already expressed in the dissenting opinion
which Iappended to the Order of 22 June 1973,l have always been of the
view that the present proceedings should have been joined to those in the
case concerning Nzrclear Tests (Australia v. France). The Court having
rejected this proposal, it only remains for me to append to the present

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE GROS

[Translation]

As is shown by the texts of the two Judgments, one in the Australian
and the other in the New Zealand case, one is modelled on the other, the
cases were examined, pleaded and deliberated upon together; the Appli-
cations instituting proceedings were filed on theame day and the steps

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE FORSTER

[Translation]

1 have voted in favour of the Judgment which has brought to an end
the proceedings instituted against France by New Zealand, just as 1voted
for the Judgment which likewise terminated the proceedings brought at
the same time by Australia on account of France's nuclear tests at
Mururoa, a French possession in the Pacific.
To the Judgment in the case brought by Australia against France 1
appended a separate opinion which is also applicablemutatis mutandis,

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ONYEAMA

As 1 stated in my dissenting opinion in the case between the United
Kingdom and Iceland, while 1 concur in the findings in subparagraphs

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PETRÉN

[Translationj