Judge SPI~~OPOULm OaSkes the following declaration

1 regret that1 am unable to share the view of the Court in regard
to the second, third and fourth Preliminary Objections.

As to the second Preliminary Objection, my position is determined
by the Court's Judgment in the case concerning the Aerial Incident
(Israelv. Bulgaria). Starting from the concept that the purpose of
Article 37 of the Statute of the Court is the same as that of Articl36,

Judge SPI~~OPOULm OaSkes the following declaration

1 regret that1 am unable to share the view of the Court in regard
to the second, third and fourth Preliminary Objections.

As to the second Preliminary Objection, my position is determined
by the Court's Judgment in the case concerning the Aerial Incident
(Israelv. Bulgaria). Starting from the concept that the purpose of
Article 37 of the Statute of the Court is the same as that of Articl36,

For these reasons,

by twelve votes to four,
rejects the first Preliminary Objection ;

by ten votes to six,

rejects the second Preliminary Objection ;

by nine votes to seven,
joins the third Preliminary Objection to the merits ;

by ten votes to six,

joins the fourth Preliminary Objection to the merits.

Done in English and French, the English text being authoritative,
at the Peace Palace, The Hague, this twenty-fourth day of July, one

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 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.

JOINT DISSENTING OPINION OF SIR PERCY
SPENDER AND SIR GERALD FITZMAURICE

DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE BASDEVANT

DISSENTING OPINION OF PRESIDENT WINIARSKI

SEPARATE OPINION OFSIR LOUIS MBANEFO

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.