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.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE AG0

[Translation]

1. 1 cannot begin these few brief comments which 1 am appending
to the Advisory Opinion rendered by the Court in the present case
without first stating that1 did not, in perusing Judgement No. 333 of

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ODA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraphs

Opening Remarks 1

A. Issue of legalimpediment 2-7
B. Ambivalent provenance of the drafting of the question in the
Committee on Applications 8-13

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ELIAS

1agreewiththe majority AdvisoryOpinion inanswering inthe negative
the two questions put to the Court but 1wish to add some three or four

points of difference of emphasis and interpretation on a number of im-
portant issues raised in dealing with the answers.

DECLARATION OF JUDGE LACHS

The present case provides me with an occasion to return to the issue
which 1 raised in the declaration which, as President of this Court, 1
appended to the Advisory Opinion of 12July 1973on the Applicationfor

57

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SHAHABUDDEEN

1agreewiththe Court'sdecisionbut propose to recordsomeadditional
viewsdirected to matters of approach and perspective in respect of two
points.The firstrelatestothe stageatwhichthe dispute materialized. The
secondrelates to the questionwhether the dispute wasoneconcerningthe

interpretation or application ofthe Headquarters Agreement.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE SCHWEBEL

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ODA

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MOROZOV

1. 1voted against the Advisory Opinion because in substance it is an

attempt to involve the Court to a greater or less extent in the handling of
the serious political conflict existing in the MiddleEast between a number
of States, and particularly States Members of the World Health Organi-
zation, relating to the question of the transfer of its Regional Office
for the Eastern Mediterranean from the terntory of Egypt for political
reasons.