JOINT SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGES FORSTER,
BENGZON, JIMÉNEZ DE ARÉCHAGA,
NAGENDRA SINGH AND RUDA

particular for the benefit of the developing countries. But since 1 am
above al1 faithful to judicial practice, 1 continue fervently to urge the
need for the Court to confine itself to its obligation to state the law as
it is at present in relation to the facts of the case brought before it.
1consider it entirely proper that, in international law as in every other
system of law, the existing law should be questioned from time to time
-this is the surest way of furthering its progressive development-but

vation and development, and equitable exploitation, of those
resources, making use of the machinery established by the
North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention or such other means
as may be agreed upon as a result of international negotiations.

vation and development, and equitable exploitation, of those
resources, making use of the machinery established by the
North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention or such other means
as may be agreed upon as a result of international negotiations.

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE ARMAND-UGON

[ Translation]

FIR~TPRELIMINARY OBJECTION

1much regret that 1 am unable to associate myself with the conclusions
at which the Court has arrived in the present Judgrnent and 1 avail
myself of the right to set out the reasons for my dissent.
The first Preliminary Objection relates to the discontinuance which

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE MORELLI

[Translation]
It is my opinion that of the four objections presented by the Spanish
Government as preliminary objections, it is solely on the second that
it was open to the Court to take a decision at the present stage of the

SEPARATE OPIXION OF JUDGE BUST-\MANTE

This opinion expresses -certain views wkich differ from those of the
Court on the first Preliminary Objection. It also contains an expres-
sion of individual views on the third Objection, although the conclusion
reached is that of the majority.

Although 1 share the views of the Court so far as concerns certain
doctrinal aspects relating to the first Preliminary Objection, the same
does not apply to the facts and conclusions. This leads me to state

SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE TANAKA

The followingobservations are limited to the Court's opinion on the
second principal Preliminary Objection raised by the Respondent
Government .

1 can completely agree with the conclusion of the Court in rejecting
this objection. Furthermore, 1 cannot deny the well-foundedness of
the reasons by which the Court reached this conclusion. Nor do 1
hesitate to Say that these reasons in general are in themselves suffi-
cient to oveGule this Prelirninary objection.

SEPARATE OPINION OF

VICE-PRESIDENT WELLINGTON KOO

I. 1 am in complete agreement with the Court's findings on the
first, second and fourth Preliminary Objections and with the general
line of reasoning which has led up to them, except on one point in
connection with the second Objection which calls for some elucidation
on my part. As regards the third Prelirninary Objection, 1 regret to

Documents concerning the Organization of the Court, Third Addendum
to No. 2, pp. 313et seq.) said that he "wished to change the heading