DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MORELLI
[Translation]
It is my opinion that of the four objections presented by the Spanish
Government as preliminary objections, it is solely on the second that
it was open to the Court to take a decision at the present stage of the
SEPARATE OPIXION OF JUDGE BUST-\MANTE
This opinion expresses -certain views wkich differ from those of the
Court on the first Preliminary Objection. It also contains an expres-
sion of individual views on the third Objection, although the conclusion
reached is that of the majority.
Although 1 share the views of the Court so far as concerns certain
doctrinal aspects relating to the first Preliminary Objection, the same
does not apply to the facts and conclusions. This leads me to state
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE TANAKA
The followingobservations are limited to the Court's opinion on the
second principal Preliminary Objection raised by the Respondent
Government .
1 can completely agree with the conclusion of the Court in rejecting
this objection. Furthermore, 1 cannot deny the well-foundedness of
the reasons by which the Court reached this conclusion. Nor do 1
hesitate to Say that these reasons in general are in themselves suffi-
cient to oveGule this Prelirninary objection.
SEPARATE OPINION OF
VICE-PRESIDENT WELLINGTON KOO
I. 1 am in complete agreement with the Court's findings on the
first, second and fourth Preliminary Objections and with the general
line of reasoning which has led up to them, except on one point in
connection with the second Objection which calls for some elucidation
on my part. As regards the third Prelirninary Objection, 1 regret to
Documents concerning the Organization of the Court, Third Addendum
to No. 2, pp. 313et seq.) said that he "wished to change the heading
Judge SPI~~OPOULm OaSkes the following declaration
1 regret that1 am unable to share the view of the Court in regard
to the second, third and fourth Preliminary Objections.
As to the second Preliminary Objection, my position is determined
by the Court's Judgment in the case concerning the Aerial Incident
(Israelv. Bulgaria). Starting from the concept that the purpose of
Article 37 of the Statute of the Court is the same as that of Articl36,
Judge SPI~~OPOULm OaSkes the following declaration
1 regret that1 am unable to share the view of the Court in regard
to the second, third and fourth Preliminary Objections.
As to the second Preliminary Objection, my position is determined
by the Court's Judgment in the case concerning the Aerial Incident
(Israelv. Bulgaria). Starting from the concept that the purpose of
Article 37 of the Statute of the Court is the same as that of Articl36,
For these reasons,
by twelve votes to four,
rejects the first Preliminary Objection ;
by ten votes to six,
rejects the second Preliminary Objection ;
by nine votes to seven,
joins the third Preliminary Objection to the merits ;
by ten votes to six,
joins the fourth Preliminary Objection to the merits.
Done in English and French, the English text being authoritative,
at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this twenty-fourth day of July, one
DISSENTING OPINION OF JCDGE VAN WYK
The jurisdiction of this Court is provided for in Articles36 and
37 of its Statute. It is common cause that paragraphs 2-5 of Arti-
cle36 do not apply in this case, and it is therefore only necessary
to refer to the first paragraph of Article, which reads as follows:
"1. The jurisdiction of the Court comprises al1cases which the
Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions ine
force."
DISSENTING OPINIOX OF JUDGE MORELLI
[Translation]
1 voted against the decision upholding the Court's jurisdiction
because 1 am of the opinion that, if a dispute really existed betureen
Ethiopia and Liberia on the one hand and South Africa on the other
with the subject set forth in the Applications, such a dispute would
not be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. 1think however that,
before taking up the question of jurisdiction, the Court should have
sought to establish whether a dispute existed between the Parties.