DISSENTING OPINION BY JUDGE BADAWI PASHA.
[Translatio~z.]
1 agree with the Court's findings on the facts, as stated in the
Judgment (pp. 12-15), and with its rejection of the contention that
Albania herself laid the mines.
DISSENTING OPINION BY JUDGE \VINIARÇKI.
[Translation.]
INDIVIDUAL OPINION BY JUDGE ALVAREZ.
[Translation.]
1 am in agreement with the Judgment delivered by the Court,
but 1feel that it is desirable to give prominence to certain consider.
ations of a legal character in support of that Judgment.
The cataclysm through which we have just passed opens a new
ern in the history of civilization;it is of greater importance than
al1those that preceded it : more important than that of the Renais-
sance, than that of the French Revolution of 1789 or than that
DISSENTING OPINION BY Dr. IGOR DAXNER.
1am unable to concur in the present judgment on the Prelimin-
ary Objection submitted by the Govemment of the People's Repub-
lic of Albania in the Corfu Channel case.
Of the many different points in the judgment upon which 1
differ from the Court, 1shall confme myself to referring to certain
of the more important in the opinion which follows :
SEPARATE OPINION BY JUDGES BASDEVANT, ALVAREZ,
WINIARSKI, ZORICIC, DE VISSCHER, BADAWI PASHA
AND KRYLOV.
DISSENTING OPINION RY Dr. ECER, JUDGE "-4D HOC"
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE MORELLI
[Translation]
1 consider that it would have been preferable to concentrate the
grounds for the Judgment on the essential point in the contention of
Thailand as presented in the Preliminary Objections.
I. That contention was that the declaration of 20 May 1950,
purporting to renew for a fui-ther period of îen years the declaration
SEPARATE 0P1NIOS OF ÇJX PERCY SPZNDER
I agree with the conclusion of the Court.
Since I do not find it necessary, having regard to the approach
I make to the first preliminary objection, to consider a number of
matters to which the Judgment of the Court directs its attention,
1 desire to state briefly the reaçons why I think this objection is
unfounded.
it is my opinion that the conclusions of the Court in the Israel v.
Bulgaria case concerning the scope and effect of paragraph 5 of
Article 36 of theStatute are not applicable to the case now decided,
for the abundant reasons stated in the present Judgment.
Judge WELLINGTOK NOO makes the following Declaration:
it is my opinion that the conclusions of the Court in the Israel v.
Bulgaria case concerning the scope and effect of paragraph 5 of
Article 36 of theStatute are not applicable to the case now decided,
for the abundant reasons stated in the present Judgment.
Judge WELLINGTOK NOO makes the following Declaration: