SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE TANAKA

Although 1 subscribe to the Court's conclusion in dismissing the
Belgianclaimthat Spainviolated an international obligation and incurred
responsibility vis-à-vis Belgium, 1 regret to have to say that my view
differs from that of the Court in its reasoning. The majority opinion

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SIR GERALD FITZMAURICE

SEPARATE OPINION
OF PRESIDENT BUSTAMANTE Y RIVER0

[Translation]

1 subscribe to the reasons on which the Court has based its Judgment
in the BarcelonaTraction case. Nevertheless, certain very special aspects
ofthis casehave prompted meto certain additional reflectionsconcerning
the question of the law applicable, and1feel it right that 1should com-
municate them as concerning matters of doctrine. 1consider, moreover,

Judge PETRÉN and Judge ONYEAMm Aake the following Joint Declara-
tion :

Judge PETRÉN and Judge ONYEAMm Aake the following Joint Declara-
tion :

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SIR GARFIELD BARWICK

The Court, by its Order of 22 June 1973, separated two questions, that
of itsjurisdiction to hear and determine the Application, and that of the
admissibility of the Application from al1 other questions in the case. It
directed that "the written proceedings shall first be addressed" to those
questions. These were therefore the only questions to which the Parties

DISSENTIING OPlNION OF JUDGE DE CASTRO

[Translation]

Inits Order of22.June 1973the Court decided that thewrittenpleadings
should first be addressed to the questions of the jurisdiction of the Court
to entertain the dispute and of the admissibility of the Application. The
Court ought therefore to give a decision on these two preliminary ques-
tions.
Nevertheless, the majority of the Court has now decided not to broach

JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES ONYEAMA,
DILLARD, JIMÉNEZ DE ARECHAGA
AND SIR HUMPHREY WALDOCK

1.In its Judgment the Court decides, ex proprio motu, that the claim
of the Applicant no longer has any object. We respectfully, but vigor-
ously dissent. In registering the reasons for our dissent we propose first

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE IGNACIO-PINTO

[Translation]

1concur in the Judgment delivered by the Courtin the second phase of
this case, but without entirely sharingthe grounds on which it has relied
to reach the conclusion that the Australian claim "no longer has any

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE PETRÉN

[Translation j

If 1have been able to vote for the Judgment, it is because its operative
paragraph finds that the claim is without object and that the Court is not