SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE LUCHAIRE

[TranslationJ

1have voted for the operative provisions of the Judgment because they
are founded upon reasoning the logic of which is unquestionable even if
one does not entirely approve of some of its elements or some of its
consequences.
At the same time 1feel it necessary to make two series of observations,
the first on the applicable legalprinciples andthe second on their concrete
application to the present case.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE GOITEIN

It is with diffidence that 1 dissent from the judgment of the
majority of the Court. 1 am strengthened in the decision 1 have
come to by the views of my learned colleagues who have dissented.
These appear to me to give a less strained interpretation of the
Statute that binds us than that adopted by the majority, and their
reading of the law enables this Court to fulfil and not deny the
purpose for which it was founded.

JOINT DISSENTING OPINION
BY JUDGES SIR HERSCH LAUTERPACHT,
WELLINGTON KOO AND SIR PERCY SPENDER

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ARMAND-UGON
[Translation]
Whilst concurring inthe Judgment of the Court, 1 feel bound to
statethe grounds which impel me to do so by a different reasoning.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE BADAWI
jl'rn nslation]

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE NAGENDRA SINGH

1. 1do hold and affirm that this Court has thejurisdiction to entertain
the appeal filed by India, challenging the competence of the ICA0
Council.
2. 1 am further of the considered opinion that there could not be a
more legally justifiable case than the one now before the Court for being
remitted or reverted to the Council for examination of its own jurisdic-

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MOROZOV

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE JIMÉNEZ DE ARÉCHAGA

1. While 1have voted for the operative part of the Judgment and am
in general agreement with the reasoning by which it is justified, I am,
however. unable to concur in one of the conclusions reached bv the
Court: that it is competent to pronounce on appeal on the third decision

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE DE CASTRO '

Exercisirig the right conferred upon me by Article 57 of the Statute,

1venture to set out in detail a few of the reasons which determined my
vote.
Dissenting and separate opinions are criticized, especially in countries
which follow the Latin system, because they weaken the authority of
judgments: it is not the Court. it is said, but only a tiny majority which

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE DILLARD '

1 an1 in fundamental agreeinent with the conclusioiis reached by the
Court and the reasons supporting them. In this separate opinion 1wish,
first, merely to inake certain gerieral observations in further support of