They were committed pendente lite despite the obligations assumed by
Iceland in the Exchange of Notes of 1961which the Court had declared

Judge DILLARDmakes the following declaration:

Iconcur in the findings of the Court indicated inthe first four subpara-
graphs of the dispositif. My reasons for concurrence are set out in my
separate opinion in the companion case of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland v. Iceland. 1consider these reasons applicable
mutatis mutandis to the present case.
While 1concurred in the finding in the fifth subparagraph that the Court

206 FISHERIESJURISDICTION (JUDGMENT)

the fisheriesin theeas around her coasts for their livelihood and
economic development ;
(6) that by reason of its fishingactivities in the areas specifiedin sub-
paragraph 2, the Federal Republic of Germany also has estab-

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ODA

1.1regret that 1am unable to agree with any of the three points in the
operative part of the Judgrnent as 1 see the whole case from a different
viewpoint to that of the Court.

2. The crux of the case before us is simplein that, to use the expression
used by Libya in its Application, the United States "continues to adopt a
posture of pressuringLibya into surrenderingthe accused" and "is rather
intent on compelling the surrender of the accused".

DISSENTING OPINION OF PRESIDENT SCHWEBEL

1regret that 1am unable to agree with the Judgment of the Court. It is
arguable that the challenge of the Respondent to the jurisdiction of the
Court should not carry. But the reasons so terselystated by the Court are
conclusory rather than elucidatory, and, at most, are barely persuasive in
a subsidiary respect. In my view, the Court's conclusions on the admis-
sibilityof Libya'sApplication, and as to whether it has become moot, are
unpersuasive.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE REZEK

[Translation]

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE KOOIJMANS

DECLARATION OF JUDGE HERCZEGH

[Translation]

1voted against paragraphs 2 (a) and (b), and 3 of the operative part,
for reasons similar tohose which werethe subject-matter of the declara-
tion which 1appended to the Judgment delivered today in the case con-
cerning Questionsof Interpretation and Application of the 1971Montreal
Conventionarisingfrom the Aerial Incident ut Lockerbie (Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya v. UnitedKingdom).
1therefore request the reader to refer to the text of that declaration.

JOINT DECLARATION OF JUDGES GUILLAUME AND
FLEISCHHAUER

[English Original Text]

Article 79, paragraph 7, of the Rules of Court - Objection of mootness
havingan exclusively preliminary character.
Actions ofthe UnitedStates in order to obtainthe surrenderof the suspects
- Last substantivesubmissionof Libya directed againsttheseactions - Juris-
diction ofthe Courtinthis respect onlyto theextent that theactionsinquestion
would becontrary tothe Montreal Convention.

JOINT DECLARATION OF JUDGES BEDJAOUI, RANJEVA
AND KOROMA

[Translation]