Declaration of President Sir Muhammad Zafrulla Khan (as appended immediately after the judgment)

to the other Party, even if Iceland has chosen not to appoint an Agent,
file a Counter-Memorial or submit preliminary objections to the Court's
jurisdiction; and Article 53 of theStatute both entitles the Court and, in

the present proceedings, requires it to pronounce upon the question of its
jurisdiction. This it has now done with binding force.

46. For these reasons,

by fourteen votes to one,

Dissenting Opinion of Judge van Wyk

DISSENTING OPINION OF JCDGE VAN WYK

The jurisdiction of this Court is provided for in Articles36 and
37 of its Statute. It is common cause that paragraphs 2-5 of Arti-
cle36 do not apply in this case, and it is therefore only necessary
to refer to the first paragraph of Article, which reads as follows:

"1. The jurisdiction of the Court comprises al1cases which the
Charter of the United Nations or in treaties and conventions ine
force."

Dissenting Opinion of Judge Morelli (translation)

DISSENTING OPINIOX OF JUDGE MORELLI

[Translation]
1 voted against the decision upholding the Court's jurisdiction
because 1 am of the opinion that, if a dispute really existed betureen
Ethiopia and Liberia on the one hand and South Africa on the other
with the subject set forth in the Applications, such a dispute would
not be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court. 1think however that,
before taking up the question of jurisdiction, the Court should have
sought to establish whether a dispute existed between the Parties.

Separate Opinion of Judge Jessup

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE JESSUP

1 agree with the decision of the Court that it has jurisdiction
to hear the present cases on the merits and that the four preliminary
objections are not well founded and should be dismissed. Since,
however, the Opinion of the Court doesnot embrace al1the questions
of fact and of law which 1 find essential to reaching the decision, 1

find it my duty to deliver this separate Opinion.

Declaration by Judge Spiropoulos (as appended immediately after the judgment)

The Court concludes that Article 7 of the Mandate is a treaty or
convention still in force within the meaning of Article 37 of the
Statute of the Court and that the dispute is one which is envisaged
in the said Article7 and cannot be settled by negotiation. Conse-
quently the Court is competent to hear the dispute on the merits.

For these reasons,

by eight votes to seven,

finds that ithas jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the merits of the
dispute.

Subscribe to
Links