SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ARMAND-UGON
[Translation]
Whilst concurring inthe Judgment of the Court, 1 feel bound to
statethe grounds which impel me to do so by a different reasoning.

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE BADAWI
jl'rn nslation]

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE NAGENDRA SINGH

1. 1do hold and affirm that this Court has thejurisdiction to entertain
the appeal filed by India, challenging the competence of the ICA0
Council.
2. 1 am further of the considered opinion that there could not be a
more legally justifiable case than the one now before the Court for being
remitted or reverted to the Council for examination of its own jurisdic-

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MOROZOV

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE JIMÉNEZ DE ARÉCHAGA

1. While 1have voted for the operative part of the Judgment and am
in general agreement with the reasoning by which it is justified, I am,
however. unable to concur in one of the conclusions reached bv the
Court: that it is competent to pronounce on appeal on the third decision

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE DE CASTRO '

Exercisirig the right conferred upon me by Article 57 of the Statute,

1venture to set out in detail a few of the reasons which determined my
vote.
Dissenting and separate opinions are criticized, especially in countries
which follow the Latin system, because they weaken the authority of
judgments: it is not the Court. it is said, but only a tiny majority which

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE DILLARD '

1 an1 in fundamental agreeinent with the conclusioiis reached by the
Court and the reasons supporting them. In this separate opinion 1wish,
first, merely to inake certain gerieral observations in further support of

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE ONYEAMA

1 regret tliat 1 find niyself iiiiable to concur in tlic decision that the
Court is conipetent to entertain lndia's appeal.
The jurisdiction of the Court is derived froni the combincd effcct of
Article 36 (1) of the Statute of tlie Court, Article 84 of the Convention on
International Civil Aviation (the Convention) and Article 37 of the

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE PETRÉN

[Translation;

To niy regret, 1 am unable to concur in the opinion of the majority
of the Court in respect of the question whether the Chicago Convention
and its annexes authorize India's appeal in the present case. In my view

72 ICA0 COUNCIL (DECL. ZAFRULLA KHAN)

the Council. Nothing urged by India's counsel in his submissions to the
Court in this context has served to raise any doubt in my mind concerning
the correctness and propriety of the President's rulings and of the pro-
cedure followed by the Council.
As regards the second category, the brief answer to India's objections
is that Article 15 of the Rules for the Settlement of Differences has no