Separate Opinion of Judge Lauterpacht

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE LAUTERPACHT

In the present case the General Assembly has asked the Court
for an Advisory Opinion on the questionwhether the special Rule F,
which, 011 II October, 1954, the Assembly adopted with regard
to the voting procedure to be followed by it in taking decisions on
questions relating to reports and petitions concerning the Terntory
of South-West Africa is a correct interpretation of the Opinion

Dissenting Opinion by Judge Krylov (translation)

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KRYLOV
[Translation.]

1share the Court's Opinion on the General Question and on Ques-
tions (a) and (c) put by the Assembly. 1 would observe, however,
that the analysis of Article 79, as given by the Court, does not
exhaust al1 the questions which may be raised in this connexion.

But 1 cannot concur in the second part of the reply given by the
Court to Question (b). My reasons are as follows:

Dissenting Opinion of Mr. de Visscher (translation)

LlISSENTIKG OPINIOX OF Mr. DE VISSCHEX

1 regret that 1 am unable to concur in the second part oi the
Court's ansurer to the question iin(ler-letter (5). 1 concede that the
provisions of Chapter XII of the Charter do not iniposc on thr
Union of South Africa a legal obligation to conclude a Tr.iisteeship
Agreement, in the sense that the Union is free to accept or to refuse
the particular terins of a draft agreement. On the other liarid, I

Subscribe to
Links