SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE DILLARD

While 1 am in agreement with the Opinion and the approach taken by

the Court, my reasons do not altogether coincide with those set out in the
Opinion. Furthermore it seems to me desirable to make a few comments
touching the operative clauses of the Opinion and especiallythe significance
which, in my view,attaches to the response to Question II. This furnishes my
excuse for appending aseparate opinion.

[Translation]

Although 1found it unnecessary, hence inappropriate, for the Court to
reply to Question 1, 1voted on this question like my colleagues, since
abstention isnot allowed.Asfor Question II, 1 findmyself inagreementwith
what 1 regard as the essential content of the answer given in the Advisory
Opinion, though unable to subscribe to certain parts of that answer.
Accordingly,while 1 wasthus able to votewiththemajorityon Question II, 1
append this statement of my separate opinion to the Court's decision.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE FORSTER

[Translation]

1subscribe to the AdvisoryOpinion of the International Court ofJustice of

16October 1975,inasmuch as it:
States:"that Western Sahara (Riode Oro and Sakiet El Hamra) at the time
of colonization by Spain was not a territory belonging to no one (terra
nullius)",
finds that the materials and information presented to the Court:

SEPARATE OPINION OF VICE-PRESIDENT AMMOUN

[Translation]

While subscribing to the Opinion arrived at by the Court, 1feel obliged to
deal in thisopinion with certain questions to which theCourt did not address
itself, and with certain others that need to be developed at greater length, or
which received a solution or treatment that 1am unable to agree with.

78 SAHARA OCCIDENTAL (DÉCL. IGNACIO-PINTO)

M. IGNACIO-PINTO ju,ge, fait la déclarationsuivante:

Je n'ai pusouscrire qu'en partie a l'avisde la Cour internationalede Justice
en datedu 16octobre 1975etseulementparceque, en son dernier considérant
(par. 162),la Cour

WESTERNSAHARA(DECL.IGNACIO-PINTO) 78

Judge IGNACIO-PINTO makes the followingdeclaration:

[Translation]

1 have been able to subscribe only in part to the Opinion of the
InternationalCourt of Justice dated 16 October 1975 and only because in the
final paragraph of its reasoning, paragraph162, the Court's

WESTERN SAHARA (ADVISORY OPINION) 69

that Western Sahara (Rio de Oro and Sakiet El Hamra) at the time of
colonization by Spain wasnota territorybelonging to no-one (terranulliu;)

with regard to Question II,

by 14votesto 2,
that there werelegalties betweenthisterritory and the Kingdom of Morocco
of the kinds indicated in paragraph 162of this Opinion;

by 15votesto 1,

that there werelegal tiesbetweenthisterritory and the Mauritanian entity of
the kinds indicated in paragraph 162of this Opinion.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE EVENSEN

1. In its request of 28 August 1984the Committee on Applications for
Review requested an advisory opinion of the Court on two questions
relating to Judgement No. 333of the United Nations Administrative Tri-

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SIR ROBERT JENNINGS

1regret that 1have been unable to agree with the Court on the second

question putto theCourt for itsadvisory opinion, and therefore am under
some obligation to explain why 1see this case differently. Before turning
to the substance ofthe matter, however, 1wishto makesomeobservations
upon the form in which questions are put to the Court, not only in the
present case but also generally in this kind of review case.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SCHWEBEL

Whilejoining my colleagues in voting in favour of the Court's render-
ing an Advisory Opinionin this case, and infavour ofthe Court's reply to
question 1,1regret to be obliged to dissent from theOpinion as awhole in
viewof my disagreement with the Court's reply to the essential question,
question 2.