DISSENTJNG OPINION OF JUDGE LACHS
A disagreement has arisen concerning the delimitation of the continen-
tal shelf in the North Sea as between the Federal Republic of Germany
and the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The two States have succeeded in
reaching agreement only on the delimitation of the coastal continental
shelf and concluded on I December 1964 a convention to this effect.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MORELLI
1. The two Special Agreements asked the Court to indicate "what
principles and rules of international law are applicable to the delimita-
tion as between the Parties of the areas of the continental shelf in the
North Sea which appertain to each of them .. .".It is quite clear that
the principles and rules that the Court was called upon to establish could
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE TANAKA
In spite of my great respect for the Court, 1 am unable, to iny deep
regret, to share the views of the Court concerning some important points
in the operative part as well as in the reasons of the Judgment.
What is requested of the International Court of Justice by virtue of the
two Special Agreements (Article 1, paragraph 1)is to givea decisioii on
the question :
DISSENTING OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT KORETSKY
To my great regret,1am unable to concur in the Court's Judgment, for
the reasons which 1 state below.
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE FOUAD AMMOUN
jTranslat ion,.
1. The Legal Basis iind the Definition of the Continental Shelf.
Since the Court wa.scalled upon, under the Special Agreements by
the notification of which it was seised, to state the principles and rules
applicable to the disputes between the Fedeial Republic of Germany
and the Kingdoms of Denmark and the Netherlands as to the delimita-
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE PADILLA NERVO
SEPARATE OPINION OF
PRESIDENT J. L. BUSTAMANTE Y RIVER0
1. 1share the opinions expressed in the text of the Judgment and the
conclusions in its operative provisions, except so far as concerns para-
graph 59, with regard to which 1must express the reservation that will
be found below. Nevertheless, 1 believe it to be possible to state some
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE JESSUP
1concur in the Judgment of the Court and especially in its conclusion
that the equidistance method or priiiciple is not established as obligatory
in international law. It would be possible to emphasize by more detailed
quotations how crystal clear it is that neither the International Law
Commission nor its Committee of Experts considered that "equidistance"
56 CONTINENTAL SHELF (DECL.BENGZON)
between 1945 and 1958 and that in State practice prior to 1958 it was
wholly lacking in any definition of crucial elements as it was also of the
legal régimeapplicable to the coastal State with respect to the continental
shelf,then it would seem to follow conclusively that the principle of
equidistance was not inherent in the concept of the continental shelf.
(1) the general configuration of the coasts of the Parties, as well as the
presence of any special or unusual features;
(2) so far as known or readily ascertainable, the physical and geological
structure, and natural resources, of the continental shelfreas in-
volved ;
(3) the element of a reasonable degree of proportionality, which a delimi-
tation carried out in accordance with equitable principles ought to
bring about between the extent of the continental shelf areas apper-