SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE MORELLI
[Translation]
1 consider that it would have been preferable to concentrate the
grounds for the Judgment on the essential point in the contention of
Thailand as presented in the Preliminary Objections.
I. That contention was that the declaration of 20 May 1950,
purporting to renew for a fui-ther period of îen years the declaration
SEPARATE 0P1NIOS OF ÇJX PERCY SPZNDER
I agree with the conclusion of the Court.
Since I do not find it necessary, having regard to the approach
I make to the first preliminary objection, to consider a number of
matters to which the Judgment of the Court directs its attention,
1 desire to state briefly the reaçons why I think this objection is
unfounded.
it is my opinion that the conclusions of the Court in the Israel v.
Bulgaria case concerning the scope and effect of paragraph 5 of
Article 36 of theStatute are not applicable to the case now decided,
for the abundant reasons stated in the present Judgment.
Judge WELLINGTOK NOO makes the following Declaration:
it is my opinion that the conclusions of the Court in the Israel v.
Bulgaria case concerning the scope and effect of paragraph 5 of
Article 36 of theStatute are not applicable to the case now decided,
for the abundant reasons stated in the present Judgment.
Judge WELLINGTOK NOO makes the following Declaration:
Since the above conclusion is sufficient in itself to found the
Court's jurisdiction, and the issue of jurisdiction is the only one
which the Court has to determine at this stage of the case, it
becomes unnecessary to proceed to a consideration of the second
basis of jurisdiction invoked by Cambodia, and Thailand's objection
to that basis of jurisdiction.
For these reasons,