Judge PETRÉN and Judge ONYEAMm Aake the following Joint Declara-
tion :

Judge PETRÉN and Judge ONYEAMm Aake the following Joint Declara-
tion :

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE SIR GARFIELD BARWICK

The Court, by its Order of 22 June 1973, separated two questions, that
of itsjurisdiction to hear and determine the Application, and that of the
admissibility of the Application from al1 other questions in the case. It
directed that "the written proceedings shall first be addressed" to those
questions. These were therefore the only questions to which the Parties

DISSENTIING OPlNION OF JUDGE DE CASTRO

[Translation]

Inits Order of22.June 1973the Court decided that thewrittenpleadings
should first be addressed to the questions of the jurisdiction of the Court
to entertain the dispute and of the admissibility of the Application. The
Court ought therefore to give a decision on these two preliminary ques-
tions.
Nevertheless, the majority of the Court has now decided not to broach

JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES ONYEAMA,
DILLARD, JIMÉNEZ DE ARECHAGA
AND SIR HUMPHREY WALDOCK

1.In its Judgment the Court decides, ex proprio motu, that the claim
of the Applicant no longer has any object. We respectfully, but vigor-
ously dissent. In registering the reasons for our dissent we propose first

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE IGNACIO-PINTO

[Translation]

1concur in the Judgment delivered by the Courtin the second phase of
this case, but without entirely sharingthe grounds on which it has relied
to reach the conclusion that the Australian claim "no longer has any

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE PETRÉN

[Translation j

If 1have been able to vote for the Judgment, it is because its operative
paragraph finds that the claim is without object and that the Court is not

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE GROS

[Translation]

Although my opinion on this case is not based on the Court's reasoning
as set out in the grounds of the Judgment, 1voted in favour of the opera-
tive clause because theJudgment puts an end to the action commenced by
the Applicant, and this coincides with the views of those who took the

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE FORSTER

[Translationj

1voted in favour of the Judgment of 20 December 1974 whereby the
International Court of Justice has brought to an end the proceedings
instituted against France by Australia on account of the French nuclear
tests carried out at Mururoa, a French possession in the Pacific.
The Court finds in this Judgment that the Australian claim "no longer

President LACHSmakes the following declaration :

Good administration of justice and respect for the Court require
that the outcome of its deliberations be kept in strict secrecy and nothing