DISSENTING OPINIOK OF JCDGE MORES0 QUINTANA
[Translation]
To my great regret, 1 am unable to concur in this case in the
opinion of the majority of my colleagues of the Court, nor in the
decision which the Judgment gives, nor in the reasons on which
that Judgment is based. 1 base my own position on considerations
of fact and of law, which have led me to take a dissenting view.

These considerations are as follows.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ARMAND-UGON
[Translation]

trative acts should have been performed there in the ordinary

course of affairs. However, the fact that local conditions have
necessitated the normal and unchallenged exercise of Netherlands
administrative activity provides an additional reason why, in the
absence of clear provisions of a treaty, there is no necessity to
disturbthe existing state of affairs and to perpetuate a geographical
anomaly.

230 SOTrEREIGNTY OVER FRONTIER LAND (JUDGX~ENT 20 T71 59)
1892 and subsequently specifically covered by a separate Decla-

ration of December of that year. The Netherlands did not in 1892,
or at any time thereafter untilthe dispute arose between the two
States in 1922, repudiate the Belgian assertion of sovereignty.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE STASSINOPOULOS

[Translation]

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE DE CASTRO

[Translation]

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE TARAZI

[Translation]

DECLARATION BYJUDGE MOROZOV

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE LACHS

DECLARATION BY JUDGE GROS

[Translation]