SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE PETRÉN

[Translation j

For the reasons which 1have already expressed in the dissenting opinion
which Iappended to the Order of 22 June 1973,l have always been of the
view that the present proceedings should have been joined to those in the
case concerning Nzrclear Tests (Australia v. France). The Court having
rejected this proposal, it only remains for me to append to the present

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE GROS

[Translation]

As is shown by the texts of the two Judgments, one in the Australian
and the other in the New Zealand case, one is modelled on the other, the
cases were examined, pleaded and deliberated upon together; the Appli-
cations instituting proceedings were filed on theame day and the steps

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE FORSTER

[Translation]

1 have voted in favour of the Judgment which has brought to an end
the proceedings instituted against France by New Zealand, just as 1voted
for the Judgment which likewise terminated the proceedings brought at
the same time by Australia on account of France's nuclear tests at
Mururoa, a French possession in the Pacific.
To the Judgment in the case brought by Australia against France 1
appended a separate opinion which is also applicablemutatis mutandis,

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ONYEAMA

As 1 stated in my dissenting opinion in the case between the United
Kingdom and Iceland, while 1 concur in the findings in subparagraphs

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE PETRÉN

[Translationj

DISSENTLNG OPLNION OF JUDGE GROS

Translation j

1. The two Judgments, as wii~be evident on reading them, are modelled
on each other, and the cases have been dealt with together throughout the

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE WALDOCK

1. Iam in general agreement with both the operative part and the
reasoning of theJudgment of the Court. Ihave one reservation, however,
regarding subparagraph 5 of the operative partand there are some aspects
of the case which 1consider should have received more prominence in

the Judgment, and which 1 feel it incumbent on me to mention in this
separate opinion.

2.The Judgment refers to the Exchange of Notes of 19July 1961 and

SEPARATE OPMION OF JUDGE DE CASTRO

[Translation]

1voted with the majority, and I have explained the reasons for my vote
in my separate opinion in the case of Fisheries Jurisdiction (United
Kingdom v. Iceland), and these reasons apply mutatis mutandis to the
present case. 1would like however to add the following observations.

During the oral proceedings, the Government of the Federal Republic

JOINT SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGES FORSTER,
BENGZON, JIMÉNEZ DE ARÉCHAGA,
NAGENDRA SINGH AND RUDA

1. What has made it possible for us to concur in the reasoning of the
Courtand to subscribe to its decision is that, while the Judgment declares

hence 1 consider them of such importance as to be appropriately em-
phasized to convey the true significance of the Judgment-its extent as
well as its depth. These reasons, as well as those aspects of the Judgment

which have that importance from my viewpoint are briefiy stated as
follows :