DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MOROZOV
1 voted in favour of a judge ad hoc appointed by the Kingdom of
Morocco Sittingin the present case, and 1voted, for the same reason, in
favour ofajudge adhocappointed by the Islamic Republic of Mauritania,
M. LACHS P,résident, faitla déclaration suivante:
The Court maywishto commentfurther on the question of the appoint-
ment of judges ad hocin the present proceedingswhenpronounciiig upon
the request for advisory opinion. Individual Members of the Court will
of course be entitled, in exercise of the right conferred on them by
Article57 of the Statute, also to express their. views on the subject at
that time.
M. Mo~ozov, juge, joint à l'ordonnance l'exposéde son opinion
dissidente.
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PETRÉN
[Translation]
Having voted againstthe Order, 1append this dissentingopinion.
In my view,the first question to which the Court should have attended
was that of its own jurisdiction on the merits of the case, a question to
which the Order does not advert until the last paragraph of the recitals.
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE NAGENDRA SINGH
While voting with the majority for what in legaleffectnow constitutes a
clear withdrawal by the Applicant of its request for interim measures
sought under Article 41 of the Statute of the Court, 1have al1along felt
that inthis case, irrespective of the competence of the Court in relation to
the Applicant (Pakistan) and the absent non-applicant (India), which
aspect will beexamined in the second phase, it ispatently obvious that the
Court has nojurisdiction in relation to Bangla-Desh.
533 NUCLEAR TESTS(ORDER 20 XII 74)
has she invoked any basis of jurisdiction vis-à-vis France in her request
to intervene.
The Court should have decided upon this request itself as required by
Article 62 of the Statute of the Court and should, in my view, have
rejected iton the ground that the condition of reciprocity of an obligation
to accept the Court's jurisdiction was wholly absent between Fiji and
France.
Judges DILLARa Dnd Sir Humphrey WALDOCm Kake the followingjoint
declaration:
has she invoked any basis of jurisdiction vis-à-vis France in her request
to intervene.
The Court should have decided upon this request itself as required by
Article 62 of the Statute of the Court and should, in my view, have
rejected iton the ground that the condition of reciprocity of an obligation
to accept the Court's jurisdiction was wholly absent between Fiji and
France.
Judges DILLARa Dnd Sir Humphrey WALDOCm Kake the followingjoint
declaration:
Unanimously,
Finds that the Application of the Government of Fiji for permission to
intervene in the proceedingsinstituted by Australia against France lapses,
and that no further action thereon is called for on the part of the Court.
Done in English and in French, the English text being aüthoritative,
at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this twentieth day of December, one
thousand nine hundred and seventy-four, in four copies, one of which
wili be deposited in the archives of the Court, and the others transmitted
Unanimously,
Finds that the Application of the Government of Fiji for permission to
intervene in the proceedingsinstituted by Australia against France lapses,
and that no further action thereon is called for on the part of the Court.
Done in English and in French, the English text being aüthoritative,
at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this twentieth day of December, one
thousand nine hundred and seventy-four, in four copies, one of which
wili be deposited in the archives of the Court, and the others transmitted
DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE IGNACTO-PINTO
[Translation]
To my regret, 1am unable to supportthe Order of theCourt upholding
Australia's request fi3rthe indication of interim measures of protection
pending the settlement on the merits of the dispute between that State
and France with regard to the nuclear tests which the French Govern-
ment wishes to carry out in the South Pacific.