1. We share the majority view within the Court that the latter has jurisdiction to rule on the issue of the withdrawal by the Respondent State of its declaration made under Article 34(6) of the Protocol establishing the Court; that the withdrawal in the instant case is valid; but that it has no effect on the application under consideration, We also agree with the majority on all the references contained in the corrigendum attached to the judgment, with regard both to the title of the judgment, the corresponding wording of item (iv) of the operative provisions, and, with respect to paragraph 54 of the judgment. 2. We however disagree with the majority on the Court's decision stating that "...the Respondent's withdrawal of its declaration pursuant to Article 34(6) will take effect one year after the deposit of the notice, that is, on 1 March 2017" [paragraph 69] (Il). Furthermore, with regard to the reasons given in the judgment, it is our opinion that despite the adjustment made in the corrigendum to paragraph 54 of the judgment, the majority’s position on the applicability of the Vienna Convention of 23 May 1969 on the Law of Treaties remains ambiguous (I). 1. On the applicability of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties on unilateral acts 3. In considering whether declaration made the Respondent State had the right to withdraw its under Article 34 (6) of the Protocol establishing the Court, the latter rightly held in the corrigendum, that"...the Vienna Convention does not apply directly, but can be applied by analogy, and [that] the Court can draw inspiration from it when it deems it appropriate" [paragraph 54]. This position is in tandem with that of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in the Fisheries Jurisdiction Case (Spain v. Canada). Referring to the application of the Vienna Convention in the interpretation of declarations of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court, the latter held as follows: Ne a) / | @&