Unanimously,

Finds that the Application of the Government of Fiji for permission to
intervene in the proceedingsinstituted by Australia against France lapses,
and that no further action thereon is called for on the part of the Court.

Done in English and in French, the English text being aüthoritative,
at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this twentieth day of December, one
thousand nine hundred and seventy-four, in four copies, one of which
wili be deposited in the archives of the Court, and the others transmitted

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE IGNACTO-PINTO

[Translation]

To my regret, 1am unable to supportthe Order of theCourt upholding
Australia's request fi3rthe indication of interim measures of protection
pending the settlement on the merits of the dispute between that State
and France with regard to the nuclear tests which the French Govern-
ment wishes to carry out in the South Pacific.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PETRÉN

[Translation]

As, to my regret, 1am unable to concur in the opinion of the majority
either with regard to the deferment, to a later stage in the proceedings,
of the questions of the Court's jurisdiction and the admissibility of the

DlSSENTlNG OPINION OF JUDGE GROS

[Translationj

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE FORSTER

[Translation]

consuming and therefore comes into conflictwith the urgency of the
matter coupled with the prospect of irreparable damage to the
rights of the parties. It is this situation which furnishes the "raison

d'être"of interim relief.
If, therefore, the Court, in this case, has granted interim measures of
protection itis without prejudice to the substance whether jurisdictional
or othenvise which cannot be prejudged at this stage and will have to be
gone into further in the next phase.

Gerald Fitzmaurice in I.C.J. Reports 1963, pages 102-103,as follows:

"...the real distinction and test would seem to be whether or not the
objection is based on, or arises from, the jurisdictional clause or
clauses under which the jurisdiction of the tribunal is said to exist.
If so, the objectionis basically one ofjurisdiction."

Gerald Fitzmaurice in I.C.J. Reports 1963, pages 102-103,as follows:

"...the real distinction and test would seem to be whether or not the
objection is based on, or arises from, the jurisdictional clause or
clauses under which the jurisdiction of the tribunal is said to exist.
If so, the objectionis basically one ofjurisdiction."

Accordingly,
THECOURT

Indicates, by 8 votes to 6, pending its final decision in the proceedings
instituted on 9 May 1973 by Australia against France, the following
provisional measures :

DISSENTI-NG OPINION OF JUDGE PETRÉN

[Translationj

Having voted against the Order, 1 append this dissenting opinion
thereto.
There is an obviou!;parallelism between the present case and that also
concerning Fisheries .Jurisdictionbrought against Iceland by the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a case in which the
Court has similarly indicated interim measures of protection. To the