Dating for par Middelfart
 The Danish Government, in its Reply, repeats the sub-missions made in its Case, but also prays the Court to reject the submission made in the Norwegian Counter-Case and to adjudge "that the Norwegian.
Government shall bear the costs incurred by the Danish Government in this case".
 It must have been intended that on the eastern side the sea and on the western side the "Inland Ice" should constitute the limits of the area occupied under the proclamation of July 10th, though the proclamation itself is silent on the subject.
Indeed, Counsel for the Danish Government was disposed to criticize the validity of the proclamation because of the absence of any western limit of the occupation.
 In the Danish Case, the Danish Government, in conformity with Article 40 of the Rules of Court, asks, as stated in the Application, for judgment to the effect that "the promulgation of the declaration of occupation above mentioned and any steps taken in this connection by the Norwegian Government constitute a violation of the existing legal situation and are accordingly unlawful and invalid".
 Under the same Article of the Rules of Court, the Norwegian Government, in its Counter-Case, asks for judgment to the effect that "Denmark has no sovereignty over Eirik Raudes Land; Norway has acquired the sovereignty over Eirik Raudes Land; The Danish Government should bear the costs incurred by the Norwegian Government in this case".
 At the conclusion of the respective statements, the Parties Agents presented the submissions of the Governments represented by them as follows : M. In 1380, the kingdoms of Norway and Denmark were united under the same Crown; the character of this union, which lasted until 1814, changed to some extent in the course of time, more particularly as a result of the centralization at Copenhagen of the administration of the various countries which were under the sovereignty of the Dano-Norwegian Crown.This evolution seems to have obliterated to some extent the separation which had existed between them from a constitutional standpoint. As the Court included upon the Bench no judge of the nationality of the Parties, the Danish and Norwegian Governments availed themselves of their right, under Article 31 of the Statute, each to appoint a judge ad hoc. By an Order made on August 6th, 1931, the Court fixed the times for the presentation of the Case, Counter-Case, Reply and Rejoinder in the suit, in accordance with a proposal made jointly by the Parties' Agents on August 4th, 1931.
[p25]  The Norwegian Government repeats in its Rejoinder the submissions made in its Counter-Case.