Dissenting Opinion of Judge Gros (translation)

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE GROS

[Translation]

In my view, the documents by which New Zealand and Australia
instituted proceedings in theNuclear Tests cases are drawn up in similar
terms, the same considerations of fact and law are relied on therein, and
the submissions are directed to an identical object. In his openingaddress
on 24 May 1973,couiisel for New Zealand stated that:

"New Zealand's case arises out of the same set of circumstances as
that of Australia, and has comparable objectives."

Declaration by Judge Nagendra Singh (as appended immediately after the order)

Judge NAGENDR SINGHmakes the following declaration:

While fullysupportingthe reasoning leading to the verdict of theCourt,
and therefore voting with the majority for the grant of interim measures
of protection in this case, 1wish to lend emphasis, by this declaration, to
the requirement that the Court must be satisfied of its own competence,
even though prima facie, before taking action under Article 41 of the
Statute and Rule 61 (New Rule 66) of the Rules of Court.

Declaration by Judge Sir Humphrey Waldock (as appended immediately after the order)

question cannot be prejudged now; it is not possible to exclude a priori,
that the further pleadings and other relevant information may change
viewsor convictions presently held.

The question described in the Order as that of the existence of "a legal
interest in respect of these claims entitling the Court to admit the Applica-

Declaration by Judge Jiménez de Aréchaga (as appended immediately after the order)

thousand nine hundred and seventy-three, in four copies, one of which
will be placed in the archives of the Court, and the others transmitted
respectively to the French Government, to the Government of New

Zealand, and to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for trans-
mission to the Security Council.

(Signed) F. AMMOUN,
Vice-President.

Declaration by Judge Ignacio-Pinto (as appended immediately after the order)

Judge GROSmakes the following declaration:

1have voted against the deferment of the consideration of thedocument
filed on18 May; the question could and should have been settled imme-
diately, and independently of the problem of the Court's jurisdiction in
the case referred to in the operative paragraph of the presentder, by a
finding to the effectthat the document in questiondoes not comply with
the provisions of Article62 of the Statute of the Court, concerning inter-
vention.

Judge PETRÉN makes the following declaration:

Declaration by Judge Onyeama (as appended immediately after the order)

Judge GROSmakes the following declaration:

1have voted against the deferment of the consideration of thedocument
filed on18 May; the question could and should have been settled imme-
diately, and independently of the problem of the Court's jurisdiction in
the case referred to in the operative paragraph of the presentder, by a
finding to the effectthat the document in questiondoes not comply with
the provisions of Article62 of the Statute of the Court, concerning inter-
vention.

Judge PETRÉN makes the following declaration:

Subscribe to
Links