SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE PADILLA NERVO

SEPARATE OPINION OF

PRESIDENT J. L. BUSTAMANTE Y RIVER0

1. 1share the opinions expressed in the text of the Judgment and the
conclusions in its operative provisions, except so far as concerns para-
graph 59, with regard to which 1must express the reservation that will
be found below. Nevertheless, 1 believe it to be possible to state some

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE JESSUP

1concur in the Judgment of the Court and especially in its conclusion
that the equidistance method or priiiciple is not established as obligatory
in international law. It would be possible to emphasize by more detailed
quotations how crystal clear it is that neither the International Law
Commission nor its Committee of Experts considered that "equidistance"

56 CONTINENTAL SHELF (DECL.BENGZON)

between 1945 and 1958 and that in State practice prior to 1958 it was
wholly lacking in any definition of crucial elements as it was also of the
legal régimeapplicable to the coastal State with respect to the continental
shelf,then it would seem to follow conclusively that the principle of
equidistance was not inherent in the concept of the continental shelf.

(1) the general configuration of the coasts of the Parties, as well as the
presence of any special or unusual features;
(2) so far as known or readily ascertainable, the physical and geological
structure, and natural resources, of the continental shelfreas in-
volved ;
(3) the element of a reasonable degree of proportionality, which a delimi-
tation carried out in accordance with equitable principles ought to
bring about between the extent of the continental shelf areas apper-

DISSENTING OPINION OF M. GUGGENHEIM,

JUDGE "AD HOC"
[Translation]

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE READ

1 am unable to concur in the Judgment of the Court, which

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE KLAESTAD

1 consider that the case should have been adjourned for the
following reasons :

DISSENTING OPINION OF JTJDGE SPIROPOULOS
[Tvanslation]
1regret that, for the reasons given below,1am unable to concur
in the view of the Court in regard to the Third Preliminary Objec-
tion of the United States of America.

DISsENTII\;G OPINIOS OF SIR HERSCH L-AL-TERPACHT