304 FlSHERlES JURISDICTION(ORDER 12VI1 73)

adjudged by the Court to belong respectivelyto the Parties;

Accordingly,

by 11votes to 3,

Confirms that the provisional measures indicated in operative para-
graph (1) of the Order of 17August 1972should, subject to the power of
revocation or modification conferred on the Court by paragraph 7 of
Article 61 of the 1946Rules, remain operative until the Court has given
finaljudgment in the case.

DTSSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PADILLA NERVO

1an1 unable to concur in the Order of the Court and therefore 1 voted
against its adoption.
In my view, the Court should not have indicated measures of protec-
tion. Notwithstanding contrary opinion, the special features of this case
do not justify such measures against a State which denies the jurisdiction
of the Court, which is not a party to these proceedings and whose rights

(f) the United Kingdom Governrnent should furnish the Govern-
ment of Iceland and the Registry of the Court with al1 relevant
information, orders issued and arrangements made concerning
the control and regulation of fish catches in the area.

JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUUCiES BENGZON AND
JIMÉNEZ DE ARÉCHAGA

1. We voted against the first operative paragraph of the Order in
which the Court decides that the Mernorial and Counter-Mernorial shall
be addressed to the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain
the dispute.
In our view, the Court should have followed its normal procedure

JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES BENGZON AND
JIMÉNEZ DE ARÉCHAGA

1. We voted against the first operative paragraph of the Order in
which the Court decides that the Memorial and Counter-Mernorial shall
be addressed to the question of the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain
the dispute.
In our view, the Court should have followed its normal procedure

SEPARATE OPINIOX OF JGDGE
SIR HERSCH LAUTERPACHT

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KLAESTAD

1 share the view that the request for the indication of provisional
measures must be declined, but for different reasons, which 1 shall
briefly outliné in a general way without mentioning details.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SEPU uLVEDA-AMOR

Agreement with most of the reasoning and most of the decisions — Regret
that Court did not settle issues incontrovertibly characterized by a degree of
opacity — Implicit recognition by the Court that a dispute exists — Interpre-

DECLARATION OF JUDGE ABRAHAM

[Translation]

I have voted in favour of all but one of the points in the operative

clause of the present Judgment.
The point in question is the third one, on which, much to my regret, I
have had to stand apart from all my colleagues.
I believe it necessary to explain why in a few lines.
In point (3) of the operative clause the Court

DECLARATION OF JUDGE KOROMA

Article 60 of the Statute — Existence of a dispute concerning whether review
and reconsideration must be effective — Existence of a dispute as to whether
obligation imposed by Avena paragraph 153 (9) is subject to domestic imple-

mentation — Court’s Judgment should be interpreted to mean that the subject-
matter of these disputes is not addressed in Avena paragraph 153 (9) — Avena
Judgment remains binding under Article 94 of the Charter.