Requête introductive d'instance

INTERNATIONAL COOFJUSTICE

PLEADINGS,ORALARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS

NUCLEARTESTSCASES

VOLUMEII

(NEWZEALANDYFRANCE)

COURINTERNATIONADEJUSTICE

MÉMOIRES,PLAIDOIRIEETDOCUMENTS

AFFAIRES DESESSAIS
NUCLÉAIRES

VOLUMEII
(NOUVELLE-ZÉLANDEFRANCE) Abbreviatedreference:
1.C.J.Plearlings,NuclearTests, Vol.II

Référenca ebrégée:
C.I.J. Mémoires.Essaisnlrcléaires,vol. II

Sales number :
Nodevente: NUCLEAR TESTSCASES

AFFAIRES DESESSAISNUCLÉAIRES INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS

NUCLEARTESTS CASES

VOLUME II

(NEWZEALAND 1,FRANCE)

COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE.

MÉMOIRES,PLAIDOIRIES ET DOCUMENTS

AFFAIRESDESESSAIS

NUCLÉAIRES

VOLUME Il
(NOUVELLE-ZÉLANDc.FRANCE) The present volume (II) contains the record filed in the Nticlear Tests(New
Zealand v. Frarrce)caseand the correspondence referring to both this caseand
theNuclearTesrs(Ausfraliav. France) case.

The case,entered on the Court's General List on 9 May 1973under number
59, was the subject of an Order on Interim Measures of Protection (Niiclear
Tests(New Zealairdv. Frairccl ItiterimProrection.Order of22 Juire1973.I.C.J.
~epo&s 1973, p. 135) and of a Judgment delibered on 20 ~ecembe; 1974
(Nuclear Tests (New Zealarrr/ v. Frarrce), Jurl~nietrr.I.C.J. Re~orrs 1974.

~he'~ew Zealand Application, Request for Interim Measures of Protection,
Mernorial and Oral Arguments and the Fiiian Application Tor Permission Io
lnterveneappear in thisiolurne in chronolo~ical order.
The record filed in the Niicleur Tes11(A~~stralia v. Fraftce) case appears in
Volume 1.

The page refercnrer originally iippearing in the ple~ding5and spceche~have
been altercd Io correspond uith the p<i&in~iiori tif the presçrii cdrtidn. \\'hcre
ihc refcrencc isio Volume 1of thç proent eiliiii>n.it1sindicateJ in bold type.

The Hague, 1978.

Le présentvolume (II) reproduit le dossier de l'affaire des Essais,~i,clÉoires
(Noiirelle-Zéloirde c. Frairce). ainsi que la correspondance relative à cette
affaire et àcelle desEssais,zitcliairrs(Attsrraliec.Frarice).
L'affaire dontils'agit, inscrite au r6le général dela Cour sousleno59 le9 mai
1973,a fait l'objet d'une ordonnance portant indication de mesuresconserva-

toires (Essaisrisclbuires(Noiii~elle-Zblande c. France), nresrrresco,zservaroires,
orrlot111anced11j2 iiii 1973. C.I.J. Recueil1973, p. 135) et d'un arrCt rendu le
20décembre1974(Essaisrirrcliaires(Norrvelle-Zblan(/eccF . rance), arrér, C.I.J.
Recrieil1974,p. 457).
La requête,la demande en indication de mesures conservatoires, le mémoire
et les plaidoiries de la Nouvelle-Zélande et la requétede Fidji fin d'interven-

tion sont reproduits dans le présentvolume suivant leur ordre chronologique.
L'autre volume (1) contient le dossier de I'asaire des Essais nucl4aires
(Australie c.Fratice).
Les renvois d'une piece O? d'une plaidoirie à l'autre ont étémodifiés pour
tenircompte de la pagination dela présenteédition. Lorsqu'il s'agit d'un renvoi
au volumeI, cechiffreest indiquéen caractèresgras.

La Haye, 1978. CONTENTS
Page
Application Instituting Proceedings submitted by the Government of New
Zealand
Thesuhject ofthe dispute . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Jurisdiction. . , , , , . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Thefacts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Thelaw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Annexesto tireApplicationInsfitutitrgProceedings

AnnexI. Map. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Annex II. Table setting out the dates of the nuclear tests conducted by
the FrenchGovernment . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 12
Anncerning theFrench nuclear testing programme in the South Pacif.c.
AnnexlV. Diplornatic correspondence concerning clearances for 13
French aircraft and ships having a possible connection with the
French testing programme in theSouth Pacificegion . . . . . . . 40
Annex V. New Zealand accession to the General Act for the Pacific
Settlement of International Disputes,28 . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Annex VI. French accession to the General Act for the Pacific Settle-
ment ofInternational Disputes,1928 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Request for the Indication of Interim Measures of Protection submitbyd
the Governmentof NewZealand

Case to which this requestrelate. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Grounds of requestted. . . . . . . . . . .. .. ... . . . . .... . . . 50
Thenature and extent of the damage sought to beavoided . . . . . . . 50

The world-wide opposition to nuclear weapons development and
esoeciallv 10atmos~heric test-n. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 51
Regional opposition to nuclear testing in theSouth Pacif. . . . . . 52
The entrv into New Zealand. the Cook Islands. Niue and the Tokelau. 54
IslanJ~oirdrlio-asii\s ni~icrs\a rewli of lïrcnch iiu~lcdrres. . 56
Thecon\rquçnccs iur ihechcrii\c <ihigh sc;ij irce.li>m. . . . . . . 5R

Aggravation and extension of the dispute. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
The urgence of the request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Interim measures proposed . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 59
AnnexestorlieRequesfror tlfeIndicalionof 111teril easuresofProtection

Annex 1. Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere,
Request for the In</icalioO/eIt~ferimMeasureso/Proteclion,st1, PP.
120-1211.
A~rnexII. General Assembly resolutions relating to nuclear weapons
development and testing . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . 61X NUCLEAR TESTS

Page
Annex 111.United Nations General Assemblv resolution 2984 (XXVII)
of 14 Deceniber 1972un the "Question of Amcriçün S~moa. tl~hï-
mm, Bcrniuda, Hritkh Virgiii Idands. Hrunei, Cayman Islands,

(:osos (Keeling) Islands, Gtlherl and Ellice Isl3nds. Guam. hlontser-
rat, eh ~ebsdes. Pitcairn, St. Helena, ~eychelles,'~olom~n Islands,
Turks and CaicosIslands and United StatesVirgin Islands" .... 70
Annex IV. Regional opposition to nuclear testsin theSouth Pacific . . 72
Annex V. Proposedstatement of views on atmospheric nuclear tests in
the Pacific submitted to Subcommittee III of the United Nations
Committee on the Peaceful Uses of the Sea-Bed and Ocean Floor
beynnd the Liniiii of National Juriidi~iiun (Augu\t 1971) ..... 77

A>rn,,x VI. Ke.oluiiun 3 (1) and Jc;l<iraiidn îdoptcd hy the United
Nat;i>nsConterence 3n rhr Ilunidn Envirunrnrnl. Sioskholm. 5 to Ih
Junô 1972isee Annexes 19 and 20 to the ~ustralian ~e~uesifor the
Indication of Interim Measures of Protection, 1,pp. 132-1381.
Annex VI1 EEects of French nuclear testing on rad~ation levels in New
Zealand .......................... 80

Application for Permission to Intervenesubmitted by the GovernmentofFiji

1. Description of thecase ..................... 89

2. Staternent of lawand factjustifying intervention.......... 89
Anrtex to theApplicationfor Permissionto Irltervene.......... 93

1. Aide-Mémoire addressed to French Government through the
French Ambassador in London on 1 June 1971[see No. 1 in the
Annex ro the Fiji Application for Permission to Intervene in the
Australia v. France case, 1,p. 1531.
2. Memorandum addressed to French Government through the
French Ambassador in Wellington on 20 April 1972[see No. 2 in
the Annex to the Fiji Application for Pern~issionto Interverte in the
Australia v. France case,1, p. 1531.

3. Extract from the communiqué issued on 7 August 1971at conclu-
sion of First Meeting of the South Pacific Forum [seeNo. 3 in the
Annex ta the Fiji Application for Permission to lntervene in the
Australia v. France case,1,p. 1541.
4. Extract from address by Fiji Permanent Representative to the
United Nations. Mr. SemesaSikivou. in the General Debate. 26th
General ~ssembly of the United aii ion on 4 0ctoher 197i [see
No. 4 in the Annex to rheFiji Application for Permission to Intervene

in the Australia v. France case,& p. 1541.
5.Resolution 3 (1) adopted by the United Nations Conference on the
Human Environment, Stockholm, 5 to 16June 1972[see Annex 19
to the Australion Requesrfor the Indication of Interim Measures of
Protection, 1,p. 1321.
6. Resolution adopted by meeting of Pacific Island Producers Asso-
ciation on 14June 1972rsee Annex IV to the New Zealand Reauest
for the Indication of lntirim hfeasures of Protection, p. 721.'

7. Extract from report by theSpecial Committee of the United Nations
General Assemblv on the situation with resvect to the Im~lementa-
lion of the ~>çcl<ir~ütnn the~irantin~of lndependcncct(; Ci)lonial
Couniries and Pcoplesdaicd 7 July 1972i~ec h'o. 6 i» th? AI~IIVXro CONTENTS XI

Page

the Fi*i A../ication for Permission Io Infervene in the Australia v.
France case,1,p. lj51.
8. Extract from the communiqué issued on 14 September 1972 at
theconclusion of theThird Meetineof the South Pacific Forumfsee
Annex IV ro fhe New Zealond ~equestfor the Indication of lntirim
Measures ofProtection, p. 741.
9. United Nations General Assembly resolution 2934 A-C (XXVII)

on 29 November 1972 on the "Urgent need for suspension of nu-
clear and thermonuclear !ests" [see Annex 21 ro rhe Auslralian
Reqiresrfor the Indication of Inrerim Measures of Protection, 1,
p. 1391.
10. Extract from address of the Deputy Prime Minister of Fiji, Ratu Sir
Edward Cakobau, in the General Debate of the United Nations
General Assembly of 10October 1972Isee No. 8 in the Annex ro the
Fiji Applicationfor Permissionta lnrervene in theAustralia v. France

case, 1,p. 1561.
II. Extract from statement by the Fiji representative, Mr. S.Nandan, in
the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly on
19November 1972[sep No. 9 in theAnnex to the Fui Applicationfor
Permission to lnrervene in the Australia v. France case,1,p. 1571.
12. Extract from the communiqué issued on 19April 1973at the con-
clusion of the Fourth Meeting of the South Pacific Forum isee
Antrex IV to the New Zealo,rd Requestfor the Indication oflnterim
Mrasures of Protection, p. 751.

Oral Arguments on the Request for the Indication of Interim Measures of
Protection

OPENING OF THE ORALPROCEEDINGS ................
ARGUMENT OFDR. FINLAY(NEWZEALAND) ...........

Opening remarks .......................
Circumstances in which the Court may giant interim measures of
protection .........................
Historv of French testin. andresultin-.di~lomaticexchana.s .....
Keactiain of other icrriiories n ihe Souih Paciiic.........
Radiation proieciiun jt;ln.iarin Nea Zwlxnd .........
~orld-wide opposition to nuclear tests ..............
Urgence of the needfor interim measures .............

Closing remarks ........................
ARGUMENT OF MR. SAVAGE (NEWZEALAND) ...........
Criteria applied in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 41 of the

Statute. ..........................
Principle of non-aggravation of disputes brought before the Cour...
Basis for grant of interim relief requested: 1928General Act, Article 33
~pplication of principles to presentcase..............
Replies Io possible objections to application of Article 33 of the 1928
General Act. ....................

ARGUMENT OF PROFESSO QRUENTIN-BAXTER (NEWZEALAND) ......
Thejurisdictional test applicable on a request for interim measures
Jurisdiction in the Dresentcase:

Jurisdiction under the Statute of the CourtXII NUCLEAR TESTS

Page
Jurisdiction under the 1928General Act 129
Continued force of the General Act.............. 130
Significanceof the 1949Revised General Act .......... 133
State practice....................... 136

Final submissions of New Zealand ................ 140
QUESTION BY JUDGE SIRHUMPHREW YALDOCK ............ 141
READING OF THE ORDER. ..................... 142

Mernorial on Jurisdictionand Admissibilitysubmitted by the Governrnentof
New Zealand

Part 1. Introduction .......................
Part II. The jurisdiction of the Court under the General Act of 26
September 1928 ........................
A. Introduction. .......................
B. New Zealand and France are parties to the Statute within the
meaning of Article 37 of it .................
C. The matter which New Zealand has referred to the Court is a
matter provided for in Article 17 of the General Act of 26 Sep-
tember 1928 ........................
D. The General Act is a Treaty or Convention in force between New
Zealand and France within the meaning of Articles 36 (1) and 37
of the Statute .......................
1. The General Act in context: its relation to the League of
. Nations .........................

(a) The ideological context ................
(b) The methods for the settlement of disputes in the Covenant
and in the General Act cornpared ...........
(c) The General Act and non-members of the League , , , ,
(d] The significance of the powers conferred hy the General
Act on organs of the League of Nations ........
(e) The significance of the New Zealand and French reserva-
tions relating ta the League of Nations . . , , , , , . .
2. The effect of the demise of the League of Nations on the
particular provisions of the General Act conferring powers
on League organs, and on the Act as a whole ........
3. 7 he effect of the demise of the League on the reservations to
the New ZL-land accession which refer to the League of
Nations .......................
4. The significance b. the General Assemhly's Revision of the
General Act in 1948and 1949 ...............
5. State Practice relating to the continued force of the General
Act ..........................
(a) Non-action under the final clauses ...........
,b, French oractice relevant to the continued force of the
General Act. ....................
(c) Other practice relating directly ta the continued force of
the General Act ................... Page
(cl) Practice relating to the continued force of bilateral treaties
of peaceful settlement containing obligations similar to
those in the General Act. ...............
6. The General Act and the principles of the Law of Treaties ...

Part III. Jurisdiction under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the
Court ............................

Part IV. Relationship between the two sources ofjurisdiction .....
Part V. Admissibility ......................

A. Nature of the claim which is the subject of the dispute and of the
legal rights for which New Zealand seeksprotection ......
B. International law and the concept of legal interest .......
C. New Zealand's legal interest .................
Part VI. Submissions of the Government of New Zealand ......

A. Summary of contentions put forward in this Memorial .....
B. Submissions of the Covernment of New Zealand ........

Annexes lo ti~eMemorial

Annex 1. General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International
Disputes (Geneva, September26, 1928) ............ 214
Annex II. Resolution of 26 September 1928 of the Assembly of the
League of Nations on "the Submission and Recommendation of a
General Act and of Three Model Bilateral Conventions in Regard to
Conciliation, Arbitration andJudicial Settlement" .... 224
Atrnex 111. Resolutions adopted by the League Assembly at its final
Sessionon 18 Anril 1946 .............. 225
Annex IV. ~eneril ~ssembly resolution 24(1)of 12 ~ebruary 1946 on
the "Transfer of Certain Functions, Activities and Assets of the
League of Nations" ..................... 226
Annex V. Actions relating to treaties adopted under the auspices of
the League of Nations ................. 228
Annex VI. General Assembly resolution 268A (III)of 28 April 1949

on the "Restoration to the General Act of 26 September 1928of its
Original Efficacy" ...................... 231
Aniiex VII. Extract from the report of the Interim Committee to the
Third Sessionof the General Assembly ............ 233
Antiex VIII.Extract from Official Journal of the French Republic,
National Assemblv. 11 December 1964. na.. 6-64: Ouestion to the
French Minister oiforeign AiTairs: Answer by the knister ... 235
Annex IX. Evidence in treaty lists of thecontinued force of the General
Act. .................... 236
Ar»ri,x X. Soie of 15Oiiobcr 1973froni the Ncu ZciilanJ I'crmdnïnt
\li5siun io the LJniiïil N~tion10 rhe I'ïrni3ncni Irlir5ion Xoruay
iatlic (.'iiiteil P.rxiidn\: ri26iOsidher 1973from ihe Perm3ncnr
Mission in reply. ...................... 239
AlrrrexXI. Conditions relating to the period ofvalidity and to termina-
tion in the declarations recoenizine the Court's comnulsorv iurisdic-
-. 241
tion, made by the States parties tDtbe General ~ct' ......
Amrex XI/. Frenchdecreesrelating to "SecurifyZone"around Mururoa 244 Page
Annex XIII.Notes of 22 July 1973and 1October 1973from New Zea-
land Embassy to French Ministry of Foreign Affairs....... 245

Oral Arguments onJurisdiction and Admissibility
OPENINO OF THEORALPROCEEDINGS ......... 250
ARGUMENT OFDR .FINLAY (NEWZEALAND) ............ 252

Opening remarks ....................... 252
History of the dispute..................... 256
Nuclear tests carried out in 1973............... 257
French Note of 10June 1974and New Zealand reply; tests carried out
in 1974 ........................... 259
Adniissibiliry and jurtsdi~iion: prcliminary rrmarks ........ 260
The adniissibility of the Appliç.iiion; the leg.il interest oi Sca Zcliland
Lee.l interest of one State in the orotection.of riehts shared with other
States ...................... 262
Legal obligationserga omttes:theBarcelona Tractioncase .... 263
The legal rigbts violated by Fran......... 264
ARGUMENT OF Mn .SAVAG(E NEWZEALAND) .......... 269

Jurisdiction under the 1928General Act; opening remark... 269
The General Act isa treaty in for............ 269
Termination of treatiesunder the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties ................... 270
Fundîmenial change i>fciriumstances ........ . . 272
Supcrvening in~possibiliiyoi'pcrl'ornian......... 276
Termination by consent;des;etude ...............
ARGUMEN TF PROFESSO RUENTIN-BAXT(EN REWZEALAND) ......

Jurisdiction under Article 36. paragraph 2. of the Statute of the Court;
opening remarks ......................
Interpretation of reservation appended to French declaration of accept-
ance ofjurisdiction .....................
The context of the 1966 reservation: France's changed attitude to
NATO ...........................
The 1966reservation does not apply to nuclear test........
Closing remarks ........................
Final submissions ofNew Zealand .................
QUESTION BYJUDGESIRHUMPHREW YALDOCK ............
READING OF THEJUDGMENT ....................

Documents submitted to the Court alter the filingof the Memorial
Note du ministère des affaires étrangèresde Franceà l'ambassade de.
Nouvelle-ZélandeàParis. en date du 5 octobre 197.........
Note de l'ambassade de France à Wellington au ministère des affaires
étrangèresde Nouvelle.Zélande. en date du IOjuin 1974 .....
Letter of Il June 1974 from the New Zealand Prime Minister to the
President ofthe French Republic................
Note of 17 June 1974 from the New Zealand Embassy in Paris to the
French Ministry of Foreignffairs...............
Report of November 1973 by the New Zealand National Radiation
Laboratory. issuedy the New Zealand Department of Health under CONTENTS XV

Page
No .NRL-F/5I and entitled "Environmental Radioactivity Fall-out
from Nuclear Weapons Tests Conducted by France in the South
Pacificduring July and August 1973. and Comparisons with Pre-
vious Test Series" ...................... 302

Introduction.......................... 303
Units ........................... 303
Potential health hazard and reference levels........... 304
Monitoring and collecting stations in New Zealand and on Pacific
lslands-Figure 1..................... 305
Results of the 1973monitoring programme:

I. Gamma radiation monitoring ............... 306
2. Fission products in air.................. 307
3. Fission products in rain ................. 308
5. Monitoring of migratory fish................. 309

Appendix
Table 1 .French nuclear tests in the South Pacific 1966.1973 .... 310
Table 2 .Total Beta activity of air filter samples 197....... 311
Figure 2. Daily air radioactivity 1973 (Graphical presentation of
table2) ......................... 314
Figure 3.The origin of fresh fission products in air filter samples 1973 315
Figure 4.Average monthly air radioactivity during each monitoring
programme since 1966 ................... 319
Table 3 . Average air radioactivity during each monitoring period . 320
Table 4. Total Beta activity of weekly rainwater samples 1973 ... 321
Figure 5. Average daily deposition of fission products in rain 1973. 328
Fi.ure 6. The ori.in of fresh fission oroducts in rainwater samples
1973 ........................... 329
Table 5. lodine-131 in milk 1973 ............... 331
Figure 7.Iodine-131 in milk during eachmonitoring programmesince
1966 ........................... 332
Table 6. Iodine-131 in milk 1966-1973: hazard assessment ..... 333
Lettre du Présidentde la République française au Premier ministre de la
Nouvelle.Zélande. en date du 1" juillet 1974 ........... 334
Correspondence
Nos.l.213 .......................... 337

Table of Concordanceof the Oral Statements ........... 444APPLICATION INSTITUTROCEEDINGS

SUBMITTEBYTHEGOVERNMENT OF
NEWZEALAND APPLICATION

9 May 1973.

1 have the honour to submit to the International Court of Justice an
Application instituting ~roceedings on behalf of New Zealand against France

THESUBIECT OF THE DISPUTE

2. On 13 Febmary 1960 the French Government conducted the first of a
series of nuclear tests in the atmosphere at the Reggane Firing Ground in

the Sahara Desert. Sometime in the course of 1963the decision was taken by
the French Government to move the test centre to Mururoa Atoll in the
Tuamotu Archipelago (Map at Annex 1). Mururoa is located approximately
2,500 nautical miles from the nearest point of the North Island of New Zea-
land and approximately 1,050 nautical miles from the nearest point of the
Cook Islands, a self-governing State linked in free association with New
Zealand.
3. The first series of French nuclear tests in the atmosphere centred on
Mururoa took place between 2 July and 4 October 1966. Subsequent at-
mospheric tests in the area took place between 5 June and 2 July 1967,

between 7 July and 8 September 1968, between 15 May and 6 August 1970.
between 5June and 14 August 1971 and between 25 June and 27 July 1972
(al1dates GMT). (The tests are listed in Annex II.)
4. The conduct of atmospheric nuclear tests in the South Pacific region
has given rise to concern and apprehension on the part of the people and
Government of New Zealand and of the ~eo~les and Governments of the
State (the Cook Islands) and the territories (Niue and the Tokelau Islands)
associated with New Zealand. As soon as it became known tbat the French
Government had the intention to carry out these tests in the South Pacific,
the New Zealand Government made a strong protest in a note of 22 May
1963 from the New Zealand Embassy to the French Ministry of Foreign

Affairs. Since that lime the New Zealand Government has reiterated its op-
position 10 the French tcsting programme by a further scries of proicsts IO
the French Government. The texts of the Neu Zealand notes io France and
the replies thcreto arc containcd in Annex III. Anncx IV includes relatcd
diplomatie correspondence conccrning clearances for French airsraft and
ships having a possible connesiion uiih the French tehting programme in the
South Pacific region.
5. The New Zealand Government has also taken every opportunity to
make its views on this matter known in statements by New Zealand represen-
tatives at United Nations meetings, at the Conference on the Environment

Seep. 340,iirfra4 NUCLEAR TESTS

held in Stockholm in June 1972 and at regional conferences and meetings of

Pacific leaders. Along with a vast majority of the States of the world, it has
said in these forums on manv occasions that it is onnosed to the testinn of
nuclear ivcapons by any tat te any environment. lt'has also said repeaiëdly
lhai ilhas a spccial concern uith the nuclear testing whish is underiaken by
the French Cio\crnnient in the atmoiphere and in the South Puili~. regii~n
and whiçh represcnts a potential huard to the Iifc. hcalth ~nd iecurity of the
people of New Zealand. the Cook Islands. Niue and ihc Tukcldu lrldnds and
occasions grave disquiet on their part.
6. In a letter of 9 March 1973from the Prime Minister of New Zealand to
the Minister of Foreign Aiïairs of the French Republic (Annex Ill), the New
Zealand Government made known its view that the French atmospheric
nucleartests in the South Pacific wereconducted in violation of ~ew~ealand's
rights under international law, including ils rights in respect of areas over
which it has sovereignty.
7. In the hope that this issue which disturbed the otherwise excellent
relations between New Zealand and France might be resolved through diplo-
matic means. the New Zealand Government, in the letter of 9 March 1973

referred 10 in the precedine paragraph, accepted an invitation previou$ly
extended by the French Governnient Io send a C~binei Mini,ter Io I'arii for
ialks. The Deputv Pri~iiehlinister uf New Zealand çubseauently visited Park
and on 25, 26 and 27 April 1973 discussed this matte; with the Foreign
Wnister, with the Administrator-General of the Atomic Energy Commis-
sion. with the Minister for the Armed Services, and with the President. These
discussions demonstraterl rcspect and eooduill on both sides. L'nforiunately.
however, thcy did net lead to agrccnient. In Parlicular. Ihe French Gobern-
nient did no1 feel able iu give ihc Depuiy Prinic Miiii\icr of Ncm,7caland the
assurance which he souéht. namelv that the French nro.ra-~e of atmos-
pheric~kcleariesting in ïhe'~outh ~acific had cometo an end.
8. The French Government also made it plain that it did no1 accept the
contention that its programme of atmospheric nuclear testing in the South
Pacific involved a violation of international law. There is, accordingly, a
dispute between the Government of New Zealand and the French Govern-
ment as ta the legality of atmospheric nuclear tests in the South Pacific
region.
9. At the conclusion of his talks in Paris, the Deputy Prime Minister of
New Zealand advised the French Foreien Minister that the New Zealand
~- ~ ~ ~
~overnment had very much hoped that teedispute concerning ~renchtesting
in the South Pacific could be resolved hy discussion and negotiation. The
Foreien Minister was told that the New 2ealand ~overnment was annious
no1 to have to litigale the issue but, in the absence of an assurance of the
kind soueht hy the Deputy Prime Minister, it believed it had no choice but to
look to ilegaÏ remedy. ~his view was later conveyed formally to the French
Government in a letter dated 4 May 1973 from the New Zealand Prime
Minister to the French President (Annex II).
10. Having failed to rcsolve through diplomatic nieans tlie di\putc that
exim hetu,een itand the French Governmenr. the Ne* Zeüland Government
is cornpelled to refer ihc diwute to the International Court of Justice. Thc
New ~ealand Government will seek a declaration that the conduct by the
French Government of nuclear tests in the South Pacific region that give
rise to radioactive fallout constitutes a violation of New Zealand's rights
under international law, and that these rights will be violated by anyfurther
such tests. Because it has reason to believe that further nuclear tests in the APPLICATION 5

South Pacific region are imminent, New Zealand will seek interim measures
of protection.

Junisotc~io~
II. The dispute referred to in the preceding paragraphs is hereby submitted
to the determination and judgment of the Court in accordance wiih, and on
the basis of, the jurisdiction which the Court has by virtue of:

(al Articles 36(1) and 37 of the Statute of the Court and Article 17 of the
Generîl ~ct for the Pasific Settlement orInternational Disputer, done
at Geneva on 26 September 1928; and. in the altcrnativc.
rhl Article 36(2) and (5) of the Statute of the Court.

New Zealand and t'iance both acceded io the iiholc of the Genernl Act For
the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes on 21 May 1931. The texts
of the conditions to which the New Zealand accession was subicct and the
declaration to which the accession of France was subject are sei out in An-
nexes V and VI. New Zealand has made a declaration under Article 36 (2)
of the Statute of the Permanent Court of Internarional Justice. France
has made a declaration under Article 36 (2) of the Statute of the present

Court.

THE FACTS
12. Each of the series of atmosnheric nuclear tests carried out bv the
French Government inthesouth~acificregion in 1966,1967,1968, 1970;1971
and 1972 has heen closely monitored hy New Zealand. A description of New
Zealand's exnerience will indicate the wav in which. in varvine deerees.

atmospheric ouclear tests affect al1 count;ies of the borld. A~thougi; thé
French Government has taken precautions designed to minimize their effects,
the New Zealand monitoring system has established that after each series
New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue and the Tokelau Islands have been
subjected both to tropospheric fallout, which produces short-term effects,
and to stratospheric fallout, which produces long-term effects.
13. Tropospheric fallout from nuclear weapons tests arises from the injec-
tion of fission products into the lower atmosphere. It has a predominance of
short-lived radionuclides, causing sudden increases in air radioactivity as
the cloud of radioactive particles is carried along by prevailing winds. Such
tropospheric fallout has reached New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue and
other Pacificterritories in which New Zealand monitors levels of radioactivity
after each series of French nuclear weapons tests in the Pacific. Fallout
reaches these areas within two or three weeks after having circled the earth
in an easterlv direction or. occasionallv. bv meanr of "blowback". that is bv

means of anantic)clonic eddy diverting part of the radioaçiive cloud u,est-.
ward, within a fcw days. A fcature of this kind of fallout is thatitgives rise
to steep increascs in the le\,els of iodine 131 in milk. lodine 131 tends Io be
concentrated in the thyroid of humans and animals.
14. Stratospheric Fallout from nuclear ueapons tests arises from the injec-
tion of fission oroducts into the uooer atmobhere. where radioactive debris
will drift around the uorld for perjodr as long as severai years before sinking
into the troposphere and being prccipitated. II consists almost eiclusivcly of6 NUCLEAR TESTS

longer-lived radionuclides including, in particular, strontium40 and caesium-
137. Both these radionuclides enter the hody in food. Strontium-90 is deposi-
ted with calcium in human hone. Caesium-137 doeî not accumulate in a
specific organ of the hody, although it tends tu be Sound to some extent in
muscle tissue. Stratospheric fallout tends tu he concentrated in the mid-
latitudes, especially of the hemisphere in which the testing takes place.
15. Between 1965 and 1968 strontium-90 fallout steadily decreased in
New Zealand. The commencement of French nuclear weapons tests in the
Pacific in 1966, culminating in 1968 in the detonation of two devices in the
megaton range, partially replenished the stratospheric reservoir of nuclear
dehris. After a pause in 1969the French series of nuclear weapons tests were
resumed and the 1970 and 1971 series included the detonation of megaton
devices. As a result of these tests stratospheric fallout levels increased in 1969
in New Zealand and practically al1the strontium-90deposited since that time
derives from the French nuclear tests with only a minor contribution from
the inter-hemis~heric transfer of dehris.
16. During ;hc process of decay. firrion products of a nuclear explosion
emit ionizing radiaiion to uhich human and animal tissuci are expoicd boih
from internai and from external sources. Somatic effects may involve slow
destruction. particularly of the blood-forming tissues, organ-ic lesions and

destruction of ihe body's naturdl nieans of prutection. Later somatic lesionî
may appear in the form of leukemia and other malignant diseases, cataracts,
skin diseases, impairment of fertility and non-specific ageing. Genetic effect
may result from irradiation of the gonads.
17. Theseeffects mavoccur in territorv which issubiect to fallout and also in
the living natural resoirces of the sea, e;prcially fish and plankton. Migratory
species of such living natural rerources may cdrry both somatic and acnetic
effectsbevond the ranne of fallout occurrinein thbicinitvof an exnlosion and
can aff& the protein-diet of other specieg, including man, in widely distri-
huted areas.
18. With a view to excludinn sh-ooin.. an- aircraft from the area of
Mururoa in connection with the abovementioned tests, the French Govern-
ment has designated in and above areas of the high seaî Prohibiied Zones for
aircraft and DangerousZones for aircraft and shipping.
19. The Prohibited Zones were created around Mururoa Atoll and Hao
Island by Ministerial Decree dated 9 March 1965. So far as is known, these
Zones are intended to be permanent.
20. The Dangerous Zones have been the subjecf of action shortly before
each test series has begun, and the action has heen terminated at the end of.
each series. Excent in 1972, the French Ministrv of Foreign Affairs has in-
formed missions by notes. sent in advance of eaih series, O? the exient of the
zone in which the tests will take place. The notes have indicated that these

zones will be activated as ~annerous Zones hv Notifications to Airmen
(NOTAMS) and by Notificaiion,to Mariners (AVURNAVS) shorily before
the commencement of each series of tests. Shipping is usually notified hy
radio from Paris Saint-Lysand Papeete and aircraft are notified by the inter-
national NOTAM registries. The éxtentof DangerousZones has iaried con-
siderably from one test series to another. l'hose for aircraft have covered a
larger area than those for shipping. At their largest-in 1970 and 1971-the
Dangerous Zones for aircrafthave covered an area ofapproximately 1,132,000
square nautical miles.
21. In at least one instance, in 1972, the French authorities have taken
action to inhibit and interfere with the passage of foreign shipping on the APPLICATION 7

high seas in an area designated by the French Government as a Dangerous
Zone.
22. The French Government has not made available to the New Zealand
Government sufficient information upon which to base a wholly accurate
cstimate of the effects of future nuclear tests in the Pacific region. It is he-
lieved, however, that future tests will follow the pattern of previnus tests. If
so, they will involve: the entry into territory of New Zealand, the Cook
Islands. Niue and the Tokelau Islands. including their territorial sea and
airspace. of additional radioactive material of a-dangerous or potentially
dangerous character; the heighteninr of the apprehension, anxiety and con-
cern to u,hich the French Fogram%e of atmu.rpheric nLSlcar ksts in the

Suuth Pacific region has givcn rise in ihe Past; reneucd restriction of frcedom
of the high seas, including the freedom of navigation and o\erfliaht and the
freedom in explore and eiploit the resources of the sea and seabéd; and the
continued pollution of the terrestrial, maritime and aerial environment of
New Zeaiand, the Cook Islands, Niue and the Tokelau Islands, of other
cnuntries and territories and of areas heyond the limits of national jurisdic-
tion.

23. In the nerind of 27 vears in which nuclear tests have taken dace there
has been a p;ogressive realizatin" of the dangers which they presint to life,
to health and to the securi~yof ~eoples and nations everywhere. Atmospheric
nuclear tests are widelv feared and widelv condemned
24. In part, this attitude has stemmed.from a growing appreciatinn that
world peace and security depend on the checking and eventual elimination of
nuclear weapons and that their continued ~roliferation and refinement

exacerbates kternational tensions and compo"nds the risks of nuclear war
with al1the horrors that would entail. In part, too, the attitude of the world
community tnwards atmnsoheric nuclear testing has sprung from the hazards
to the health of prcrent and future genera~innrinvol\rd in-the dispersal ovcr
wide areas of the globe of radioactive fallout. The vcry large number uf
atmos~heric nuclear tests which uere carried out after 1950and uhich led Io
marked increases in radiation levels. intensified scientific analvses and snecu:
lation which has contributed ta a more complete knowledgeand realigation
of the hazards involved in exposure tn additional radiation from any source.
It is now recognized hv al1 Ïesoonsible scientific oninion as exoressed. for
example, by the International 6ommission on ~adiolo~ical ~roiection,'that
any additional exposure tn radiation may be harmful, that al1 controlled
radiation should be kept to the minimum practicable, and that the risks

involved in such expnsures should be justified in terms of henefits that would
not otherwise be received. The same view is taken
havine a resoonsibilitv for settine standards for the oe
energ;. ~ith regard io nuclear heapons tests that iive rise ta radioactive
fallnut, world opinion has repeatedly rejected the notion that any nation has
the right ta pursue its securGy in a-manner that puts at risk the health and
welfare of other people.
25. More recently, the international community's fear and condemnation
of nuclear testine that nives rise tn radioactive fallout has been based. in
addition, on a p~rceptioi of the damaging and, sa far as genetic maGia1
is concerned, irreversible contribution which such tests make to the pollution
of the human environment.8 NUCLEAR TESTS

26. The maturing of national and international attitudes towards nuclear
weapons development and in particular nuclear testing that gives rise to
radioactive fallout is evidenced by a series of treaties and resolutions. Of
pre-eminent importance is the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the

Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water of 5 August 1963, the princi-
pal provision of which prohibits the carrying out of nuclear explosions if
their radioactive dehris is present outside the territorial limits of the testing
State.This treaty is now accepted by over 100States and its basic demand has
been constantly and almost unanimously stressed by the members of the
world community. International and national attitudes are also ta he seen in

the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America of
14 Februarv 1967, and the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weaoons of 1~~u~~~.968. in ~eneral Assemhlv resol,t~ ~ - - ~~ ~ --~~. ~~---, .9?-.,
125f(~111) 1958, 1379 (XIV) 1959, 1402 (XVI) 1959, 1578 (XV) 1960, 1632
(XVI) 1961. 1648 (XVI) 1961. 1762A (XVII) 1962. 1910 (XVIID 1963. 2032
(XX) 1965, 2163 (XXI) 1966, 2343 (XXII) 1967, 2455 (XXIID 1968, 26048

(XXIV) 1969,2661A (XXV) 1970,2663B (XXV) 1970,2828 (XXVI) 1971and
2934A to C (XXVTT) 1972, in resolution 3 (1) on Noclear WeauonsTests
ddopted b) the Stockholm Conference <in the tn\,ironmciit dnd in thc
Declaralion 011 the Fnvironmcnt adupted b) the rdme conference
27. During the same ~eriod and as a corollarv to intensified zovern-
mental and iopul.ir action to control and prohibit n;clcar weïpons and their

tcsting in the atmosphere and elwrihere and Io sdfçgu<ird the cn\,ironmeiit
and natural resources, there has been a growing juridical perception of the
nature and quality of this activity and a rapid development of law concerning
it.
28. It is thecontention of New Zealand that this law and related rules and
principles of international law are now violated by nuclear testing undertaken

by the French Governinent in the South Pacific region. Inter alia,
(a) it violates the rights of al1 memhers of the international community,

including New Zealand, that no nuclear tests that give rise to radioactive
fallout be conducted;
(b) it violates the rights of al1 members of the international community,
including New Zealand, to the preservation from unjustified artificial
radioactive contamination of the terrestrial, maritime and aerial envi-
ronment and, in particular, of the environment of the region in which the

tests are conducted and in which New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue
and theTokelau Islands are situated;
(c) it violates the right of New Zealand that no radioactive material enter
the territory of New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue or the Tokelau
--~ands. includincr-their air soace and territorial waters. as a result of -~
nuclear testing;

(d) it violates the right of New Zealand that no radioactive material, having
entered the territory of New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue or the
Tokelau Islands, including their air space and territorial waters, as a
result of nuclear testing, cause harm, including apprehension, anxiety
and concern. to the neoole and Government of New Zealand and of the
Cook lslands, Niue and the Tokclau Islands;

(eJ it violates the right of New Zealand to freedom of the high seas, including
freedom of navigation and overflight and the freedom ta explore and
exploit the resources of the sea and the seabed, without interference or
detriment resulting from nuclear testing. APPLICATION 9

That the conduct by the French Government of nuclear tests in the South
Pacific region that give rise to radioactive faltout constitutes a violation of
New Zealand's rights under international law, and that these rights will be

violated by any further such tests.

(Signed) H. V. ROBERTS,
Co-Agent of the
Government of New Zealand.ANNEXESTO THE APPLICATION INSTITUTING PROCEEDINGS

Annex1

[See map opposite] Annex II

Set out below are the dates of the nuclear tests, involving explosions,
conducted by the French Government since it began ils programme of testing
in the South Pacific.

Year Date (GMT) Year Date (GMT)

1966 2 July 1970 15 May
19July 22 May
11 September 30 May
24 September 24 June
4 October 3 July
27 Julv
1967 5June 2~igust
6 August
27 June
2 July
1971 5 June
1968 7 July 12June
15July 4 July
3 August 8August
24 August 14August
8 September
1972 25 June
1969 No tests held 30 June
27 July AnnexIII

NOTESEXCHANGED BETWEEN NEW ZEALANU ANI)
FRANCECONCERNlNG THE FRENCHNUCLEAK

New Zealand to France, 14 March 1963.
New Zealand 10 France, 22 May 1963.
France Io New Zealand. 25 June 1963.

France IO Neu, ~ealand; 6~Sepiember 1963.
New Zealand to France. 12 Sepiembcr 1963.
New Zealand to France. 21 Sentember~ ~~ ~ ~
~ew ~ealand to t ranc 9eecember 1965.
New Zealand to France. 14 April 1966.

New Zealand to France. 27 Mav .966.~ ~ ~
~ranceto ~ew~ealand; ÏO June 1966.
New Zealand to France, 2 July 1966.
New Zealand to France, 20 July 1966.

New Zealand to France, II April 1967.
France to New Zealand, 25 April 1967.
New Zealand to France. 25 April 1967.
France to New Zealand, 5 May 1967.
New Zealand to France. 5 June 1968.

New Zealand to France. 6 April 1970.
New Zealand to France, 14 May 1971.
New Zealand to France, 29 March 1972.
New Zealand to France, 5June 1972.
New Zealand to France. 19 June 1972.
New Zealand to France. 19 December 1972

France 10 New Zealand, 19 February 1973.
New Zealand to France, 9 March 1973.
New Zealand to France, 4 May 1973.

Note/rom New Zealand Embassy
Io French Mfnis~ryof Foreign Affairs,14 March 1963

The New Zealand Embassy presents its compliments to the Minislry of

Foreien Afairs and has the honour to inform the Ministry that the New
~&la;id Government has recently noted with concern a Amber of press
reports that France proposes to conauct nuclear weapons tests in the South14 NUCLEAR TESTS

Consequent upon a report from Paris dated 7 January 1963 which stated
that France proposed to benin work this year on a nuclear test site in the
Gambier archipélîgo, a repurt u hich \rd.mplifiçd in a number oi French
neuspaperson 9 January. the Neu Lclillind Cmh~ssynixrlc informal cnquirici
of the hliniriry of Foreign AiTairi. As a result of iherc enquiries the Neu

Z~~~~~~-~~ve;nm~~t was eiven to understand that. while French technical
reconnaissance missions Gad been sent to the Gambier archipelago to
investieate the possibilities of establishing a nuclear testing base. no decision
had been taken: Subsequently on 4 ~arch, a further press report, purporting
to quote informed French sources, asserted that France hoped ta explode
her first thermonuclear device in the Pacific hy mid-1964, that the device

would probably be tested at Mangareva Island in the Gambier archipelago,
and that appropriate technical preparations for this purpose were now
king made.
It is in these circumstances that the New Zealand Government bas felt
obliged 10 prcseni 11s\ ieupoini io the Governnieni of France Public opinion
inNewZealsnd ha for sconsiderable lime been disturhed about the potentidl
dangers to health created hy nuclear explosions, and has accordihgly become

greatly alarmed at the prospect of further tests in the Pacific. The location
suggested for the reported tests is within some 1,300miles of the easternmost
oortion of New Zealand de~endent territories. the Cook Islands. There is
kidesprearl public apprchen;ion thst fallout froni any tests in this vicinity
will produce ha7ards Io hedlth and contaminate food supplies. both land and
marine. in the Cook Islands and indeed in New Zealand itself.

In addition the published reports have caused marked anxiety in the State
of Western Samoa, whose Prime Minister has requested the New Zealand
Government to conver his concern to the Government of France. In view
of the close îssocidtion~bet\rcrn New Zcaland and Western Samos, expressed
in the Treaty of Friendship of 1962,the New Zealand üovernmeni is obliged
to ensure that the misgivings of the Government and people of Western
Samoa are fully understood by the French authorities.

There are several additional eiements in the New Zealand position which
the New Zealand Government would wish to convev to the French authorities
should the reports concerning the intention to test in the South ~acific be
confirmed. The New Zealand Government would accordingly be grateful
to have earlv clarification of the intentions of the French Cioveriment.
The ~mbassy of New Zealand takes this opportunity to renew to the

Ministry of Foreign Affairs the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note /rom New Zealand Embassy

ro FrenchMinisrry of ForeignAffairs,22 May 1963

Thefrench aiithoriiie, have been auare for some lime of the grave concern
feli hy the New Zealand Government at vnrious reports concerning France'<
vlms~ to cooduct test explosions of nuclear devices in the South Pacific
region. The New ~ealand-Government has sought clarification of the inten-
tions of the French Government in this respect through the New Zealand

Embassy both in interviews with officiais of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
and in the Embassy's Note of March 1963. In that Note it was indicated that
if reports concerning the French Government's intention to test in the APPLICATION 15

South Pacific were confirmed, the New Zealand Government would wish to
convey certain other views to the French authorities. In spite of recurrent and
tncreasingly detailed reports, which have produced growing public înxiety in
Neii Zealand, ti has continued to au,ait unicial iontirmation, in response to

the Emhashy's Noie, that a Jeçision tu procerd iiith the eçtahlishriient of a
nuclear testing centre in the area has heen taken.
On and about 2 May, reports of a press conference given in Papeete by
Generai Thiry, head of a French civil and military mission, appeared hoth in
the French metro~olitan ~ress and in New Zealand. IfaDDeared frorn the

statements attribuied to G'eneral Thiry that a decision to eiiablish a nuclear
test zone in the area of Mururoa Atoll had heen taken. Oral confirmation
that a nuclear test zone had heen decided on in the area descrihed was sub-
\equently given by the Mtnisrry in responsc to cnquiric, hy Ihe Embxuy
In these ctrcumstances, and even though itis understood that a pcriud of

some years may elapse before the first test can he held, the ~ew Zealand
Government feels compelled without further delay to present its views to the
French authorities.
In international forums and in ouhlicstatements. the New Zealand Govern-
ment has repeatedly stressed over recent years itiopposition to the sontinu-

ation of nuclear testinp. It is the Government'r cïrnest desire to sec the ces-
sation of al1 nuclear tests bv means of an effective international aereement
which it regards as a valuabje means of creating a climate in whichProgress
towards substantive measures of disarmament would he encouraged. In
addition, it would end the danger of continued contamination from radio-

active fallout. Each new series of tests conducted hy any nation, or even in
prospect, can only impair the chances of attaining even this first limited
obiective. Moreover. d.s~ite.the area of disaereement still remaininn. it is
thé New Zvdland Government's view that negoÏiations in the United Gtions
Disarmament Cornmittee at Genevî have shown a test-ban treaty IO be

technicallv caoablc of realization. It would bc the honc of the New Zvaland
~overnmént ihat al1nations would be prepared to accept and observe such a
treaty.
Concern at the prospect of further testing is more deeply and immediately

felt, however, when the region concerned, which has hitherto enjoyed com-
parative immunity froin the consequences of atmospheric testing, isin close
proximity to New Zealand territory. The French authorities should he
aware of the serious anxiety which reports of French plans have caused in
New Zealand, where public opinion has come to regard with growing appre-

hension the potential dangers to health and food supplies, land and marine,
which may result from fallout. Until more detailed technical information
about the type and scale of the series proposed isavailable, it is not possible,
of course, to assessaccurately the degree of radioactive contamination which
these tests may produce. But it must he noted that the location for the test

centre to which reference was made in the press conference mentioned above
is only about 1,000 nautical miles from the Southern Cook Islands, New
Zealand dependent territory, and only 2,300nautical miles from New Zealand
itself.
The New Zealand Government must therefore protest strongly against the

intention of the French Government to establish a nuclear testing centre in
the South Pacific. If urges that the French Government reconsider, in the
light of the views advanced in this Note, any decisions which may already
have been taken.16 NUCLEAR TESTS

Notefrom French Ministry of Foreign Affoirs
to New Zealand Embassy, 25 June 1963

Le Ministère des aflaires étrangères présente ses complimentà l'Ambas-
sade de Nouvelle-Zélande et a l'honneur de lui faire part de ce qui suit:
Le Ministère des affairesétrangères a pris connaissance avec attention de
la note 1963/10 du 22 mai par laquelle l'Ambassade de Nouvelle-Zélande
faisait connaître le point de vue de son gouvernement sur la création d'un
polygone de tir français pour des essais nucléaires en Polynésie et au sujet
de la cessation des essais nucléaires.
La position de la France à l'égard des expériences nucléaires est bien
connue et n'a pas varié. A de nombreuses reprises ses représentants ont
ra..elé .ue l'immenre oouvoir de destruction oue reorésentent oour I'huma-
nitéles armes nucléaires demeurerait intact si la suspension des expériences
n'était pas accom~agnée de l'arrêt contrdlé des fabrications nouvelles et
l'élimination oroer&sive et vérifiéedes stocks d'armes existants.
Le Gou\,ernement franqais demeure prét3 s'~siocierà tout moment à unc
politiquede de$<irmementqui soit cfficüceet ciintr0Mai. en l'absence d'une
telle politique et aussi longtemps que d'autres puissances posséderont les
armes modernes il estime de son devoir de conserver sa liberté dans ce do-
maine.
C'est dans cette oersoective ou'une dbcision tendaàtl'établissement d'un
polygone de tir pour des essais nucléaires en Polynésie française a étéprise.
Un délaiassez long s'écouleraencore avant que ce champ de tir soit équipé
et aue des exoériensesnucléaires ouissenv êtieeffectuées:
AU demeurant le ~ouvernemént français croit devoir rappeler qu'il ne
sera pas le premier effectuerde telles expériencesdans le Pacifique. D'autres
~tats l'ont fait avant lui ainsi que le sait le Gouvernement dela Nouvelle-
Zélandeet il pourrait en êtreencore de mêmeàl'avenir.
Le Ministère des affairesétrangères croit devoir également souligner que
les services francais chareés de la réalisation des essais nucléaires dans
cette region veilleront iout particulièrement d assurer la protection des popu-
lations des pays riverains de'oc&<inPacifique Sud. A cet Cyard le Gouverne-
ment francais~se orooose. ainsi ou'il en a deià étéfait oartà l'Ambassade de
Nouvelle-Zélande, de faire connaître aux autorités néo-zélandaises,au mo-
ment opportun, les conditions dans lesquelles se dérouleront ces expériences
et les mesures prises pour éviter tout risque de retombées et éventuellement
d'en discuter avec ces autorités.
Le Ministère des affaires étrangèressaisit cette occasion pour renouveler
1'Ambassade de Nouvelle-Zélande les assurances de sa haute considération.

Notefrom the FrenchEmbassy
ro the New Zealand Ministry of External Affairs, 6 September1963

L'Ambassade de France présenteses compliments au Ministère des affaires
extérieureset a l'honneur, d'ordre de son gouvernement, de lui faire part des
indications suivantes: Le Gouvernement francais. en présencede la campagne systkmatique qui
se développeen Nouvelle-Zélandecontre les expériencesnuclkaires qu'il a en
vue en ~dynesie souligne qu'une telle attitude risque, s'il n'y ktai1,mis un
terme, d'affecter les relations amicales qui existent entre les deux pays.
11note qu'en s'en tenant aux experiences les plus récentes, l'URSS, en

septembre 1961, a prockdk à une serie d'expériencesnuclkaires dans I'atmos-
phére dont la plus puissante atteignait 58 mégatonnes. De leur côtk. les
Amkricains ont du 25 avril au 22 iuin 1962 procédk A une vingtaine d'exolo-
sions sur I'ile Christmas. Des expiosions amiricaines àtréshaite altitude-ont
également étkeffectuées du 9 juillet au 4 novembre 1962 partir des îles
Johnston. Les Russes continuaient pour leur part leurs expbriences atmos-
phériques jusqu'en novembre 1962. Sans doute le premier ministre de la
Nouvelle-Zélande s'est-il en septembre-octobre 1961 et en juillet 1962 elevk
contre les expkriences nuclkaires et a-t-il effectuéune protestation non rendue
publique a Washington en fbvrier 1962, mais, lorsque-ilya quelques jours, le
président Kennedy a fait savoir publiquement que le polygone d'expérimcn-
talion de i'ile Johnston serait entretenu et uerfectionnb oour reprendre
aussitôt les essais nucléaires, si le besoin s'en faisait sentir, aucune protesta-
tion n'aétkfaiteh Wellington bien que cette dklaration fat postkneure à la
signature de l'accord de Moscou du 5 aoOt.
II semble donc au Gouvernement français qu'il n'est pas admissible qu'une
telle campagne contre les experiences françaises se produise dans un pays
avec lequel la France entretient des relations particuliéres d'amitie alors que
ces experiences ne commenceront pas avant quelque annees et qui de tohe
maniérescront beaucoup moins nombreuses que les expkricnces amkricaines
et russes.
Le Gouvernement français rappelle au reste, comme il l'a déjhfait savoir
au Gouvernement nko-zelandais, que toutes précautions seraient prises pour
assurer la orotection des oavs riverains de I'océanPacifique contre tout dan-
ger de retombees radioaciivis da à ses futun essais nuciéaires en Polynksie.
II a de mêmeaccepte de discuter avec les services compétents de Nouvelle-
ïélande des mesures de skcuritéqui seront orises.
L'Ambassade de France saisit c&tc occiis,on pour renouveler au Ministere
des affaires extcrieures les assurances de sa tréshaute considération.

Note/rom New Zealand Ministry
of Exrernol Affairs ro French Embassy. 12September 1963

The Ministry of External Afiairs presents ils compliments IO the French
Embassy and bas the honour, in reply to the Embassy's Note No. 57 of
6 September, to make the following comments:
The terms of the Embassy's communication can leave little doubt that,
while admitting the New Zealand Government's record of oooosition to
nuclear testing in recent years. the French Government neverthelifs considers
that an element of discrimination is involved in the attitude adopted by the
New Zealand Government towards the nuclear tests which France envisa-es
canying out in the South Pacific. Such an implication cannot be accepted by
the New Zealand Government. APPLICATION 19

This is particularly true as regards possible hazards to health. In this field
any definileeslimaleofpo~siblednn~e~s involved must await full information

about the circumstanceand yield of the tests. The New Zealand Government
has noted and welcomed in this connection the undertaking aiven bv the
French authorities to discussssfety measures uith compcten~ New zealand
author8tics at the appropriate time. The Covernmcni's altitude must. however.
failina more ~recise details. continue to be dictated by the concern which is
felt about thepossible lon&term effects of cumulative increases in the general
level of radioactivity.
As has been made clear on numerous occasions. however. the New Zealand
Government's concern is no1 related simply to possible hazards to health.
It has had constantly in mind the obstacles which further tests, or an an-
nounced intention to carrv out tests at some date in the future. miaht raise
to the conclusion of an agreement for thcir complete cessation and iidced to
progress in the field of disarmament generally. With the conclusion of the
oartial test ban treatv there is the added cozkern that anv tests conducted
might be used as a prétextfor invocation of the escape claukc contained in ils
Article IV. In this respect the Iikely scale of the French tesi series isof Iittle

relevance.
The New Zealand Government hopes that the foregoing will provide the
French Government with a fuller understanding of the position of the New
Zealand Government on this matter and will convince il that New Zealand
continues 10 bemotivated solel) by concern about the implications of lurther
nuclear testing and not by the fdct that it should be one particular country
which at this ointin time is envisagine conductine further tests.
The ~inisiry of External ~ffair;aviils itself oïthis opportunity io renew
to the Embassy of Francc the assurances of 11shighest consideration.

Note /rom NewZealand Embassy
IOFrench Minisrry of Foreign Aflairs,21 Seprember 1963

The New Zeaiand Embassy presents its compliments to thc Ministry of

Foreign Affairs and has the honour. on the instruciions of ils Government.
to refér to the subject of discussions on safety measures in relation to the
proposed atomic testing in the Pacific.
The Embassy recalls the numerous occasions, commencing in February
196~~.n which the French authorities have assured the New Zealand Govern-
ment that al the appropriate time the latter Government would be consulted
with regard to safety considerations connected with the proposed tests. The
~mbasFv recalls also the numerous occasions on which the New Zealand
~ovemkent has, both by public statement and formal communication
(e.g.. its Note dated 12September 1963,to the French Embassy in Wellington)
weicomed this undertakinn bv the French authorities
In furtherance of the ab;>vémentionedinterest of the New Zealand Govern-
ment, thc Embassy now wishes to make formal request 10 the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs that such talks be commenced between comDetent authorities
at theearliest opportunity. While recognizing that the appropriatc occasion
for such conversations uill be determined by the French Govcrnment taking20 NUCLEAR TESTS

account of the stage of development of ils plans, the New Zealand Govern-
ment would hope that, given the distance which separates the Iwo countries,
account might also be taken of the availability in Europe of suitably qualified
New Zealand scientists.
In this connection the Embassv would wish Io point out to the Ministry
that an acknowledged New ïeaiand expert on katters to do with atomic
radiation, Dr. G. E. Roth, the Director of the National Radiation Laboratory
al Christchurch, is at present visiting Europe. Dr. Roth's programme pro-
vides for him to be in Paris from 27 October lo 3 November. Dr. Roth is the
officer mainly responsible in New Zealand for health and safety measures
connected with radiation. The Embassv would therefore be arateful if the
Ministry could give consideration to discussions heing heldal ïhat time. It is
recognized that il may no1 be possible oil that occasion to hold conclusive
talks-on this subiect. but il is ho~ed that a useful exchanne of information and
views may be possible duringDr. Roth's visit. Further talks will no doubt be
necessary at a later stage to discuss detailed practical arrangements. The New
~ealandGovernment iishes to sunaest that anv such additional talksoflhis
nature might then more appropriaïeïy he held in the South Pacific.
The New ïealand Embassy avails itself of this opportunity 10renew Io the
Ministry of Foreign Affain the assurances of ils hkhest consideration

Notefrom New Zealond Mit~isrryof External Aflairs ro French Embossy
enclosing a Motion Adopredby rheLegislative Assembly
o/the Cook Islands, 9 December 1965

The Ministry of External Affairs presents ils compliments Io the Embassy
of France and has the honour. in accordance with a reouesl made bv the
Legislative Assembly of ihc Cook Islands. to pasï Io the ~kbassy theencioscd
copy of the tex1of a Motion conccrning the proposed French nuclear tests in
the Pacific.
This Motion was passed unanimously by the Legislative Assembly of the
Cook Islands on Friday, 15 October 1965.
The Ministry of External Affairs takes this opportunity Io renew Io the
Embassy of France the assurances of its highest consideration.

Text of ~oiion passed by the Legislative Assembly
of the Cook Islands on Friday, 15Octoher 1965
"That this Assembly:

recognizing-the French Government's intention to conduct a series of
hydrogen bomb tests in spite of the numerous protests and appeals lodged
with the French Government by the world's governments and peoples
deploring the testing of further nuclear devices
rnindful-of the hazards of further atmospheric pollution and the practicable APPLICATION 21

impossibility of preventing fallout irrespective of the measures taken, or
announced safeguards employed
conscious-of the Cook Islands' proximity to the testing area
strongly re-afirms-the motion adopted by the Cook Islands Legislative
Assembly in 1963 (Motion No. 8) which reads
'That this Assemblv reaards the orooosed H-bomb tests in the Gambier
Group as a serious menace to hialch and security in the South Pacific,
and accordingly registers its protest against these.'

and requesrs-the New Zealand Government to communicate this Assembly's
expression of censure to the French authorities."

Note from New Zealand Embassy
to French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 14April1966

The Embassy of New Zealand presents its compliments to the Ministry of
External Afïairs and acting on the instructions of its Government has the
honour to refer to the ~rinch Government's plans to conduct a series of
nuclear weaoons tests in the South Pacific Ocean.
The ~ew-~ealand Government has more than once made known its deep
concern at these plans which have aroused the keenest apprehension among
the people of New Zealand and those of the Pacific Islands with whom New

Zealand maintains the closest ties. It feels obliged now to reafimitç protest
against the holding of nuclear tests in the atmosphere particularly in the
South Pacific.
If the French Government proceeds with its intentions New Zealand,
consistent with its obligations under the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of
1963, will be unable to grant authority for any visits to New Zealand
territory by French military aircraft or ships oroverflights of New Zealand
by French military aircraft unless assured that they are not carrying material
intended for the test site or for the monitoring of the tests or for the support
of forces and personnel engaged in the tests or in the monitoring of the tests,
other than monitoring to detect possible health hazards.
The New Zealand Government iotends to establish a monitoring system in
certain of the Pacific Islands for which New Zealand feels a special concern
and responsibility to enable the detection of a rise in the level of radiation
resulting from the tests that would give cause for immediate concern. While
such an increase mav be unlikely the existence of the system should help
reassure opinion. hé New ~ealanti Government accordingly has the honour
to request the CO-operation of the French Governmeni in providing the fullest
information that would assist the operation of this monitoring system.
The Embassy of New Zealand a;ails itself of this opportunit; to reneu Io
the Ministry of Exlernal Afïairs the assurances of ils highest consideration.22 NUCLEAR TESTS

Norefrom New Zealand Ernbassy
ro French Minisrry of Foreign Afairs, 27 May 1966

The Embassv of New Zealand nresents ils comnliments 10 the Ministrv of
Foreign ~ffair; and on the instructions of ils Goverornent has the honoir to
refer to the French Government's announcement of 16May 1966,in a notice
10 navigators and an air information publication, of the establishment of a
danger zone in the South Pacific in the light of ils intention toconduct nuclear
weapons tests.
The New Zealand Government has noted this sten with erave concern and
solemnly ritterates 11sprotes1 ai the holding of nuclear terts in the atmosphere
particularly in the South Pacific
The Government and the neonle of New Zealand in common with manv

other governments and peoiles'are deeply concerned at the prospect of
nroliferation of nuclear weanons technologv which carries with it the sniralline
iisks of contamination of the atmospherëaod calamitous nuclear hostilitiec
The Government must regard the checking, no1 the expansion of nuclear
weanons canabilitv. as one of the most urgent nroblems of international
security.~ew ZeaÏand has long sirersed ils opposiiion Io the continuation of
al1nuclear testing. 1iuelçomed the partial test ban ircaty of 1963as a measure
of nronress towards more far reachine measures of disarmament and arms
contrornnd as a means of halting theContamination of man's environment.
Thecontinuation oftesting in the aimospherecannoi but hinder the attainmcnt
of that obleciivc and contribute also10the difficulties or secur-na a universallv
accepted and comprehensive test han treaty.
Moreover, the New Zealand Government and people cannot but be con-
cerned at a further contamination of man's environment particularly in the
South Pacific by nuclear explosions. The Government has welcomed assur-

ances freely given by France that il intends to do everything possible 10
minimize the oossibilitv of a hazard 10 the health and welfare of the inhabi-
tants of the ~acific lsl~nds. Il has appreciated the opportunity offered bÿ~ihe
French Government to discuss bafcty measures with the competeni French
authorities. It mus1 note. honever, that there can be no assurance of the
complete elimination of al1risks incidental to the proposed tests.
If tests are conducted the New Zealand Governmcni trusts that evcry ciïort
n,i11be made in accordancc with France's announced intentions 10 niinimile
the risks involved. In partisular it expresses the carneri wish that explosions
will take olace onlv incircumstances.esneciallv with regard 10meteoroloaical
conditions, which-afford the greatest possibiiity of efiminating the ri& of
fallout on inhabited territories. The New Zealand Government nonetheless
must formallv reserve the riaht 10 hold the French Government resnonsible
for any damage or losses incürred as a result of the tests by New &land or
the Pacific Islands for which New Zealand has special responsibility or
concern.
The Embassy of New Zealand avails itself of the opportunity 10 renew 10

the Ministry of Foreign Mairs the assurances of its highest consideration. APPLICATION 23

Notefrom French Ministry of Foreign Affairs
IO New Zealand Embassy, IOlune 1966

Le Ministèredes affairesdtranaères ~rhenfe sescom~liments à l'Ambassade
de Nouvelle-Ztlande et a l'honn&r delui faire part deCe qui suit:
Le Ministere des affaires etrangeres a pris connaissance avec attention des
notes 196611et 1966113du 14avril et du 27 niai par lesquelles l'Ambassade de
Nouvelle-Zelande faisaii connaître le point de vue de son gouvernement au
sujet des expkriences nucltaires françaises prevues en Polynksie.
La oosition de la France A I'kgard de la cessation des essais nucltaires est

bien connue et n'a pas varié. A de nombreuses reprises ses reprtsentants ont
rappelt que l'immense pouvoir de destruction que reprksentent pour I'huma-
nite les armes atomiaues demeurerait intact si la susknsion des exvériences
n'ttait pas accompagnte de I'arrétcontrblé des fabrjcationr nouveiles et de
I'elimination progressive et vcrifiéedesstocks d'armes cxisiants. Au demeurant
le traite de Moscou auquel se ref&e le Gouvernement nto-rélandais ne met
pas d'obstacle à la poursuite de certaines expkriences. Cette possibilitéttt
largement utiliste par les puissances nucleaires signataires de ce traite;
certaines de ces puissances ont mêmeexpressement réserve leur droit de
reprendre les essais nucleaires adriensiles nécessittsde leur dtfense venaient
A l'exiger.
Le Gouvernement français demeure donc prêt A s'associer à tout moment
Aune politique de désarmement quisoit eflicice et contrble. Mais en l'absence
d'une telle politique et aussi longtemps que d'autres puissances posséderont
des armes modernes il estime de son devoir de conserver sa liberte dans ce

d~maine.
Comme il a dkjAeu l'occasion de le faire savoir. lors des conversations qui
ont eu lieu à Paris avec les exuerts neo-ztlandais le 29 octobre 1965.le Gou-
vernement frangais estime devoir souligner nouveau que toutes prtkautions
seront prises en vue d'assurer la sécuritéet l'innocuité des essais nucléaires
francais. Dans ces conditions, il aooaraitra au Gouvernement nko-&landais
quedans l'eventualite d'un accideni-qui surviendrait en rapport avec le pro-
gramme français d'expkriences. leGouvernement frangais ne pourrait accepter
de voir sa resuonsabilité engaa6e même~artiellement. ausaorès une &de
minutieuse de;circonstancesqÜi auraient èntourt l'acc~dent.il ne saurait en
tout cas l'accepter dans I'hypothese où les victimes ne se seraient pas confor-
méesaux prescriptions d'usage concernant la zone dangereuse des essais.
Toutefois le Gouvernement nto-&landais doit êtrebien conscient du fait
qu'en prenant toutes dispositions utiles pour assurer la protection des popu-

lations voisines de la zone des tirs. le Gouvernement francais a entendu à
fortiori garantir la sécuritt des nooulations oui en sont b~~n olus &l-i~~~~..
tellkqu; celles de la ~ouvelle-kkde, ou de; territoires qui sont placts sous
sa responsabilité. Le Gouvernement nko-&landais a eu connaissance, lors des
entreiiens de 1965.desconditions de stcuritéretenues tant oour lesex~érimen-
tateurs que pour les populations situks dans lesregions citérieures au champ
de tir. A ce sujet, le MinistCredes affaires Ctrangeres est en mesure de renou-
veler A r~mbassade de NouvelleElande I'asiurance oue l'ordre de tir ne
sera donnt que lorsque toutes ces conditions seront reun'ies.
Lc Ministère des affaires etrangères saisit cette occasion pour renouveler a
l'Ambassade de Nouvelle-Ztlande les assurances de sa plus haute conside-
ration. Notefrom New Zealand Embmsy
roFrenchMinistry of ForeignAffairs, 2 July 1966

The Embassy of New Zealand presents ils compliments to the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and, acting on the instructions of ils Government, has the
honour to refer to the testing of a nuclear device by France in the South
Pacific.
The New Zealand Government has consistently expressed its opposition

to the continuation of atmosoheric nuclear testinp. bv anv country. ~articu-
larly if tliis is carried out in the South PasifiItfeils bbliged now to ;eaflirm
itr strong protest to the French Government at the holding of these tesis and
ta deplire any continuation thereof.

Note /rom New ZealaridEmbassy
roFrenchMinisrry of ForeignAffairs, 20 July 1966

The Embassy of New Zealand presents its compliments to the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and, acting on the instructions of its Government, has the
honour to draw ta the attention of the Ministry the following press statement
which was released by the Prime Minister of New Zealand on 20 July:

"This second te\t in the French series is al1the more regrettable in the
light of the unfavourahle uorld reaction 10the first tesi", said the Prime
Minister (Kt. Han. Keith Holyoakel today. "One can only reiterate our
opposition to any nuclear testing in the atmospherc. particularly in the
South Paçiiic, and express the profound hope that progress u,ill bcmade
towards the cessation of al1testina -nd the settlement of other disarma-
ment problems."

The Embassy of New Zealand avails itself of this opportunity to renew to
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the assurances of its highest consideration.

Noterrom New Zealond Embassy
IO FrenchMinistry of ForeignAffairs, II April1967

The Embassy of New Zealand presents ils compliments to the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and has the honour, on the instructions of its Government.
to inform the Ministry of the following:
The attitude of the New ~ealand Government towards nuclear testing in
the atmosphere has already been made clear in the Embassy's Notes 10 the
~-~--~-~-of 15 March 1963. 16 Mav 1963. 14 Aoril 1966. 27 Mav 1966 and
4 July (966. The Embassy has beeninstruCted to'reaffirm these stitements of

the Government's position and to reiterate its strong protests at the conduct APPLICATION 25

of nuclear tests in the atmosphere, particularly in the South Pacific. The
Government expresses the hope that France will not proceed with further
tests. If, however, the French~overnmeni proposes nevertheless Io resume
ils test programme, the New Zealand Government would welcome the

earliest advance notice of the intention in order that arrangements for the
establishment of a monitorina network similar to that de~loyed in 1966 may
be reviewed and finalized. hi façt that the monitoring sisteni recorded high
levcls of radioactivity in the air and in rainouts in variuus Pacific islands,
including the Cook Islands, Western Samoa and Fiji, following the detona-
lions of 1I September and 4 October 196f not only illustratc~ the need for the
grcdtest care to ensure that safeguards arc applied in the conduct of tests in

order to minimize the risk of hazard to holth but also underlines the value
-- .-~.-~~---~~e ~~i~o~-. ~~ th-~~~~~~-xi. the New Zealand Government
wishes to recall the request in its Note of 14 April 1966for the CO-operation
of the French Government in providing information Io assist in the operation
~ ~...~.monitorin~~" ~~e~.
The Embassy of New Zealand avails itself of this opportunity to renew to

the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the assurances of ils highest considerations.

Note/rom French Ministry of Foreign Affairs
IO New Zealand Embussy, 25 April1967

Le Ministère des affaires étrangères présente ses complimenis a I'Ambas-
sade de Nouvelle-Elande et. se référantà sa note du II avril 1967et a I'aide-

mémoirequi l'accompagnait, a l'honneur de lui faire part de ce qui suit.
La position de la France à I'egard de la cessation des essais nucléaires est
bien connue et elle a étéexposCe à diverses reprises, notamment par note
no 22/QA du 10juin 1966 a l'Ambassade de Nouvelle-Zélande. II n'est donc
pas nécessaire d'y revenir.
Dans le domaine pratique, le Gouvernement français reste naturellement
pr&t à poursuivre les échanges d'informations qui ont 616établis avec les

autorites néo-zélandaises a la suite de la visite du Dr Roth en octobre 1965.
L'Ambassade de Nouvelle.Zelande a etèinforméeen temps utile de I'inten-
lion du Gouvernement francais d'entreprendre, entre le I"'juin et le 15juillet
1967, une nouvelle campagne d'essais nuclkaires, portant sur un nombre
restreint d'engins d'une puissance limitée.
L'Ambassade de Nouvelle-Zélande a eu d'autre part communication le
5 avril 1967 des résultats des mesures sur la radioactivit6 effectuees en Poly-
nésie fran~aise pendant la campagne d'essais de 1966. L'Ambassade aura

noté que, s'agissant de mesures définitives qui ont kt6 vkrifiées Paris et
qui s'6tendent jusqu'au mois de ddcembre 1966 inclus. il était normal aue
leur publication enirainit certains délais. Cesmesuresco;roborent notammént
celles qui ont 616signalees par I'Ambassade le 19janvter 1967et qui faisaient
ttat d'un accroissement momentan6 de la radioactivit6 sur certaines iles du
Pacifique. Mais, ainsi que le Dr Roth lui-m&meVa reconnu le 28 septembre
1966, ces accroissements de la radioactivitt ne présentaient pas de risque26 NUCLEAR TESTS

sanitaireétant donné que la dose permise est calculée sur la base d'une con-
sommation annuelle ininterrompue, et que les hausses constatées n'ont
concerné que quelques jours de l'année.
Le ~in&téredesafiires etrangeres souhaite que les échanges rcguliers qui
se sont in~taurésau sujet des experienses francaises soient poursuivis. II est
prêt,pour sa part,à lesfaciliter danstoute la mesure de ses movens.

Le Minisière des alTairesétrangeres saisit cette occasion renou\,eler i
I'Amhassade de Nouvelle-Zdünde les assurances de sa haute considération.

Notefrom New Zealand Embassy
to FrenchMinisfry of ForeignAffairs, 25 April 1967

The Embany of New Zealand presents its compliments to the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs and has the honour to refer to the announcement made by
the French Government on 20 Avril of the re-establishment of a daneer zone
in the South Pacific in light oft; intention to resume nuclear tests tgis year.

In a Note 1966113of 27 May 1966 the Embassy conveyed to the Ministry
the concern of the New Zealand Government at the announcement of the in-
tention of the French Government at that time to establish a danger zone in
respect of lastyear's test series. The New Zealand Government isdisaoo..n-
ieito learn thai the French Goicrnment hüs agüin established a danger zone
with a vicw io carryingOUI tests and firmly reiterates ils protest at the conduct
of nuclear testinp.in the atmosohere. oarticularlv in the-South Pacific.
The New ~edand Government &ce again .expresses the hope that the
French Government will make every effort to minimize risks involved and
ensure that ex~losions take olace onlv in meteoroloeical conditions which
aiïord the grealert pos~ibilil;f eliminÿting risk of hljout in inhübited terri-
tories. The Neu Zealand Government nonethelesr must again formall)
reafirm iir right Io hold the French Govcrnmenl resrionsible for anv damare

or losses incurred by New Zealand or the ~acific'1slands for which ~eb
Zealand has special responsibility or concern, as a result of the tests which
France plans to conduct this vear.
The Ëmbassy of New ~eaiand avails itself of this opportunity to renew to
the Ministry of Foreign Affairsthe assurances of its highest consideration.

Note/rom FrenchMinisrry of Foreign Affairs
to New Zealand Embassy, 5 May 1967

Le Ministère des affaires étrangèresprésente ses compliments à I'Ambas-
sade de Nouvelle-Zélande et se référantà sa note du 25 avril 1967,a l'honneur
de lui faire part de ce qui suit:
Les questions évoquées par cette note ont déji, pour la plupart, reçu
réponse dans celle qui a étéremise le mêmejour h l'Ambassade de Nouvelle-
Zélande. APPLICATION 27

Pour ce qui est des prochains essais nucléa&esl'Ambassade de Nouvelle-

Zklande connaît les mesures mises en Œuvre par les services français pour
assurer la sécurité despopulations; cette question a étéle sujet essentiel des
entretiens de M. Roth à Paris en 1965.
Quant a l'éventualitéd'un accident qui surviendrait à l'occasion de ces
eiip6riencc%,le Gouvernement francais. ainsi qu'il l'a fait savoir 3 I'Ambas-
rade de Nout,elle-Zelînde par note du 10juin 1966, ne pourrait accepter de
voir $a re\ponsahilite engagGe. mime partiellement, qu'apres une &tude
minutieuse des circonstances qui auraient entouré I'accident. II ne <aurait en

tout cîs l'accepter dans l'hypothèse ou les victimes ne se seraient pas confor-
méesaux prescriotions d'usage concernant la zone daneereuse des essais.
Le ~inistère dis affaires étrangèressaisit cette occasion pour renouveler
a l'Ambassade de Nouvelle-Zélande les assurances de sa haute considération.

Note from New Zealand Embassy
to French Ministry of Foreizn Ahirs, 5 June 1968

The Embassy of New Zealand presents its compliments to the Ministry
of Foreign Aiïairs and has the honour, on the instructions of its Government,
to refer~to the latter's note dated 6 Mav 1968 convevine notifications of

warnings to aircraft and shipping aboui the establishment of the danger
zone in the South Pacific in connection with nuclear tests which the French
Government is about to undertake in that area.
The New Zealand Government has made it clear on previous occasions
that it is firmly opposed to nuclear testing and in particular to the continued
atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in direct opposition to the principles
set out in the partial test han treaty of 1963.The New Zealand Government is
therefore deeply concerned to learn of the intention of the French Govern-

ment to carrv out a series of nuclear tests this vear. It feels that such an action
can only hiider the attainment of further diiarmament measures which are
universally considered essential for the attainment of future international

The New Zealand Government is also deeply concerned about the poten-
tial risks of contamination within the environment of the South Pacific as a
result of fallout from the proposed nuclear tests. On behalf of al1the peoples
for whom it is responsible the New Zealand Government deplores the con-

tinued use of the South Pacific area as an experimental site for nuclear ex-
plosions. If such testing of weapons is nevertheless carried out during 1968,
the New Zealand Government will expect the French Government to mini-
mize potential risks, and to ensure that al1 explosions take place only in
me~e~ ~l~~ical c~ ~itions which afford the ereatest oossibilitv of eliminating
risk of dangerous fallout in inhahited areas.~ew ~ealand is iowever deepl;
conscious that-des~ite the ~recautions which may be taken-an element of
iincerta~~~~.must alwavs remain about the notentia-lhazards fromanv atmos-
pheric nuclear &$osion. The New ~ealand Government reaffirms, therefore,

that it formally reserves the right to hold the French Government responsible
for any damage or losses incurred by New Zealand or the Pacific Islands for Notefrom New Zeolund Embrrssy
fo FrenchMinisfry of Foreign Afiirs, 14 May 1971

The Embassy,of New Zealand presents its compliments to the Ministry of
Foreian Affairs and has the honour. on the instructions of its Government.
to refër to the announced intention of the Government of Frdnce to underraki
in the iiear future. a furthcr sertes ofnucle3r tests in the Sou~h Pacific
The New Zealand Government has made it clear on orevious occasions

that it is firmly opposed 10 nuclear testing and in particular ro the coniinued
atmosphcric testmg of nuclear weapons in direct opposition to the principles
set oui in the Partial Test Ban Trcaty of 1903.The New Zealand Government
is therefore deeply concerned to learn of the intention of the French Govern-
ment to carry out a series of nuclear tests this year.

The New Zealand Government is also deeply concerned about the poten-
~ ~~~r~s~- ~f c~ntamination -~thin~ ~ ~ ~ . ~nment of the South ~acific as a
result of faliout from the proposed nuclear tests.~~n behalf of al1the peoples
for whom it is resoonsible. the New Zealand Government deplores the
continued use of the South Pacific area as a site for nuclear exoeriments. If

such tating of weapons is nevertheless carried out during 1971, the New
Zealand Government will expect the French Government to minimize poten-
tial risks. and to ensure that al1exolosions take olace onlv in meteoroloeical
conditions which afford the greatesi possibility &eliminaiing risk of danger-
ous fallout in inhabited areas. New Zealand is, however, deeply conscious

that. de-7ite the orecautions which mav be taken. an element of uncertaintv
mus1 always remain about the potential hazards from any atmospheric nu-
clear exolosion. The New Zealand Government reaffirms, therefore, that it
formall; reserves the right to hold the French Government responsible for

any damage or losses incurred by New Zealand, or the Pacific Islands for
which New Zealand has special responsibility or concern, as a result of the
weapons tests which France plans to conduct this year.
The Government of the Cook Islands has stated that it strongly shares the
views of the New Zealand Government ex~ressed in this note.

The Embassy of New Zealand avails itself of the opportunity to renew to
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs the assurances of its highnt consideration.

Note/rom New Zeulund Embussy

ro FrenchMinistry of Foreign Aflairs, 29 Morch 1972

The Embassy of New Zealand oresents ils comoliments to the Ministrv of
Foreign ~tTair; and has the honour, on instructions from the New Zeaiand

Covernment, to refer to its previous communications concerning the testing
of nuclear weapons.
The New Zealand Government notes from reports ofstatements made by30 NUCLEAR TESTS

responsible French officiais, and notably the Governor of French Polynesia.
that it is the intention of the French Government to carry out a further
series of atmospheric nuclear tests in the Pacific during 1972. The New Zea-
land Government has made it clear on previous occasions that it is firmly
opposed to nuclear testing and in particular to the continued atmospheric
nuclear testing of nuclear weapons which is an activity in direct conflict with
the principles set out in the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the
Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water, to which New Zealand is a
Party.
~he New Zealand Government recalls that in its resolution 2828C (XXVI)

of 16December 1971, the United Nations General Assemhly urged al1States
that have not vet done so to adhere without further delav to the Treatv
Banning ~uclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere, in 0uter Space and
Under Water and meanwhile to refrain from conducting nuclear tests in the
environmenls covered by that Treaty. A further series of atmospheric
nuclear tests would thus be in direct conflict with the wishes of the Assembly.
Furthermore, the participants in the South Pacific Forum which met in
Wellinaton from 5 to 7 Auaust 1971 exoressed deeore.~et-that atmosoheric
nuclea; testr continued to br held in ~rench Polynesia and ïddrcsscd in ur.
gent appeal 10 the Ciovernment of France that the series of nuclear lests then
heina held should be the lart held in the Pacific area. This aoiieal was handed
to the French Government on 5 August 1971 by the New ~ealand Embassy
which was acting on behalf of the participants in the Forum.
The New Zealand Government is also deeply conscious that, despite any
precautions that may be taken, an element of uncertainty must always

remain about the potential hazards which result from any atmospheric
nuclear explosion. The radiation which results is not offset by any benefit to
the people of New Zealand or the surrounding areas.
For these reasons. the New Zealand Government is deeply concerned that
the French Government should intend to carrv out a further series of atmos-
pheric nuclear tests later this year. On behaif of al1 the peoples for which
it is responsible the New Zealand Government deplores the continued use of
the South Pacific as a site for nuclear experiments. If such testing of nuclear
weapons is carried out during 1972, the New Zealand Governrnent will
expect the French Government once again ta make every effort to minimize
ootential risks and to ensure that al1exolosions take olace onlv in meteoro-
iogical conditions u,hich afford the greatist possibil~tyof cliniinating the risk
of dangerous fallout in inhabited areas The New Zealand Government
reaffirms that it formallv reserves the riaht to hold the French Government
responsible for any damage or losses incirred by Ncw Zeüland, or the Pncific

Islands fur which New Zealand has a responsibility, as a result of any nuclear
weaoons tests conducted bv the Government of France.
~he Embassy of New ~ealand takes this opportunity to renew to the
Ministry of Foreign Affain the assurances of its highest consideration. Note/rom New Zealand Embassy
to FrenchMinistry of Foreign Afairs, 5 June 1972

The New Zealand Embassy presents its compliments to the Ministry of

Foreign Affairs and, with reference toproposais to conduct nuclear tests in
the south Pacific in the near future. has the honour. on the instructiofrom
the Ncw Zealand Government. torequest that thc~commenccment of ihcse
testsbe postponed until after the Unitcd Nations Confercnce on the Human
~nvironmeni which began in Stockholm on 5 June.
At the same time the Embassy should mention that, al the request of the
Federation of Labour (which has imposed a ban on the handling of goods
destined for French territom and on ships and. ~robablv. aircraft destined
for French territory in thé Pacific), the New iealand~overnment has
undertaken IO approach Pacific nations and France to ascertain whether they
would be ~re~ared to discuss nuclear tests in the Pacific.
The Ne& ~ealand Embassy takes this opportunity of conveying to the
Ministry of Foreign Affain the assurances of ils highest consideration.

Note from New Zealand Embassy
IOFrench Ministry ofForeign Affairs, 19 June 1972

The Embassy of New Zealand presents ils compliments to the Ministry
of Foreign Affairs and wishes to refer to the forthcoming series of nuclear
tests inthe Pacific.
The New Zealand Government has been requested by the Cook Islands
Government to convev its orotest about the exwcted test series. The Cook
Islands Government f&ls, horeover, it is necessary to stress that il is one of
the closest territories to the test area and that it considen ils interests are

The Embassy of New Zealand takes this opportunity of conveying to the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs the assurances of ils highest consideration.

Letter from New Zealand Prime Minister
ro French Ambassador,19 December1972

My dear Ambassador,
It might be helpful to you if, as you return to Paris for consultations with
your Government, 1set out briefly for you my hopes for the development of
Franco-New Zealand relations and my feelings on the one serious element of
discord which enters into them.
There can be no doubt that in many respects the past few years and more32 NUCLEAR TESTS

particularly 1972 have witnessed a growth in contacts between our two
countries which has served to emphasize how much we have in common. The

framework for New Zealand's economicrelationship with the new Europe of
which France is a leading member has been set for the years ahead in the
arrangement concluded in Luxembourg. and we shall wish to remain in
cuntinuing contact with the French autiorities on these niatters. We grelirly
appreciaied the pariicularly welcoming attitude displayed by the French

author~ties ln our inii.al soundings aboui Neu Zealand niemhership of
OECD, which will further enhancetbe importance of New Zealand's diplo-
matic presence in Paris. We have warmly welcomed such events as the visit
to New Zealand of a strong Parliamentary delegation in 1972. The visit of
the High Commissioner for the Pacific at the time of the Marion du Fresne

bicentenary commemoration earlier this year was a token of the many
common interests which we share in the South Pacific, as was the occasion
itself of Ne~ Zealan~'s a~or,.iation of the historical role olaved bv France.
1 have noted with interest the intensified cultural effort which-you have been
making, notably throuah exhibitions and assistance in the field of French

languGe studies and teaching, and 1 know that this has brought great
satisfaction to many New Zealanders. There are many other areas where
French and New Zealand policies are in harmony. 1am hopeful, indeed, that
insome respects you willfind the Labour Government's policies more closely
in tune with those of France than has been the case up till now:. our stated

objectives in the Asian region are a good case in point, and there may he
scope for a greater degree of consultation between us on these matters.
These are al1 hopeful developments and 1 for my part am ready to commit
my Government to a continuing effort to deepen the relationship.
It is a pity, nevertheless, that it 'should be clouded by the single item of

continued nuclear testing on Mururoa. It has been noteworthy that during
the nast vear. in soite of and oerhaos hecause of. our difference on this one
point, exihan'ges between the two ciuntries should have beeo easier and more
sustained than they have ever been. 1 hope that this climate can be main-
tained

You personally are wellauarc. as 1have no doubr your Government is also
ol the deep-scatcd opposition of the great majority of New Zealanders to
nuclear IcstinK ln the South Pacific. This oublic mood. so nidcs~read that
it must be heëded by a democratically elecied governmént, is basid, 1 think,
on three factors: anxiety about the possible physical effects of radioactive
fallout, concern at this demonstrable~evidence of proliferating nuclear wea-

pons, and resentment that a European power should carry out such experi-
ments nOt on its own metropolitan territory but in an overseas territory in
wbat may seem from Paris a remote region, but which is nevertheless the
reeion in which we and Paci~ ~ o~on-e. ~~7~. - ~ -
-The New ~ealani Government lor ils part has sought to remain objecti*,e

in ils public prcsentaiion of the facts about I;illout. 1knon that the report, on
the rc5ults of monitor~ng publishcd by the National Radiation Lahoratory
and uidcly disseminaicd io othcr governnients in the region a5 wcll as IO the
United Nations Scientifi Committec on the Effects of Atomic Radiation,
have been appreciated by the French authorities as an impartial scientific
assessment and even quoted by them. The fact remains, however, that there

are unknown factors involved particularly as regards long-term effects.
When everv effort is made to avoid unneces~~~~-rad.~~~on fr~ ~ ~h~r~ ~urc~ ~
at the national level, it is surely quite illogical to contend that there are legiti-
mate grounds for the uncontrolled deposition of fallout from nuclear test APPLICATION 33

explosions for ueapons purposes, from which the oiher populations expored
derive no bcnefit whatsoever. This is a sobcr view which does not fall into

the excessesof alarmism or emotionalism. As you are aware, it received very
general support from the United Nations Conference on the Human Environ-
ment.
It is sometimes ar-ued that New Zealand did no1 eive-anv indication of
Opposition to similar atmospheric testing activity in the Pacific on the part
of the United States and the United Kingdom, and this is laraely true. But the
fact is that the growth of public and governmental conceri about both the
physical effects of nuclear testing and ils relationship to progress in the field

of disarmament was a process extending over a number of years. By the time
the moratorium was broken bv the Soviet Union in 1961. the New Zealand
position had evolved ~i~nificantly. The American decisionto follow suit was
far from welcomed, bath in public and in private exchanges. and in the fol-
lowing year New Zealand hoted in the United ~ations to condemn al1
nuclear tests, a position which it has since maintained. Against this historical
background. as well as against the background of the Partial Test BanTreaty.
the Non-Proliferation Treatv. the continuine SALT talks and the eeneral

detente among the majo~po\;ers, ifis difficulïf&any New Zealand Givern-
ment to accept that further nuclear testing, particularly in the atmosphere,
can be iustified on the-erounds of the need to acouire an indevendent nuclear
capability-an argument which could well be employed 5y a number of near-
nuclear powers which do not have the acknowledged nuclear status which
France has already attained.
Finally. if would be mistaken to underestimate the strong feeling which
is evident throughout the South Pacific and beyond. as shown during the

recent debate in the General Assemblv. that the ~ ~ ~ ~Government has
paid inadequateregard to the concern félt in the region itself.lis not $hout
si-nificance that the resolution ado~ted by the General Assembly this year
had so uide a range of Pacific CU-sponsorsor that this uas the first occasion
on which countrieî from various parts of the region h~d taken joint action on
a nolttical auestlnn. 1 niichi add that the feeling that the legiiimate concern
of the region itself hasnet been taken ~ufficien%~into acciunt was greatly

accentuatedthis year by the veil of secrecy which was kept over the timing of
the tests and, indeed, the individual explosions when they occurred. The
impact on opinion at al1 levels was decidedly adverse. 1 believe that this is
an aspect of the problem on which the French authorities would do well to
reflecect.
My Government is committed to working through al1 possible means to
bring the tests to an end, and we shall not hesitate to use the channels
available to us in concert as appropriate with like-minded countries. Itis my

hope, however, MI. Arnbassador, that you will convey to your Government
while in Paris my earnest desire to seethis one element of serious contention
removed from what is in other respects an excellent relationship between our
countries. For my part, 1seeno other way than a hall to further testing.
Yours sincerely,

(Signedl Norman Kim.34 NUCLEAR TESTS

Lerrerfiom FrenchAmbassador
roNew ZeolandPrime Minisler, 19 February 1973

Monsieur le premier ministre,

Mon gouvernement a pris connaissance avec la plus grande attention des
réflexionssur l'état actuel desrelations entre la No~velle~Zélandeet la France,
dont Votre Excellence avait bien voulu me faire part dans sa lettre du 19
décembre 1972.
Le Gouvernement français est très heureux de constater que son vif désir
de voir se développer les relations entre les deux pays est partagé par le
Gouvernement néo-zélandais. De même.considère-t-il. avec Votre Excel-
lence, que cesderniércs années oni $16pariiiulir:rement riches en 4véncmenis
qui témoigneni de Iümultiplication de nos lien\ ei donnentii1.3traditionnelle
amitiéfranco-néo-zélandaisede nouvelles dimensions.
L'accroissement des échanges entre nos pays constaté depuis deux ails,
particulièrement denosachats, témoignede possibilitésde coopération accrue

oui existent entre deux économies en dévelo~~ementraoide. Il est certaine-
ment de notre intérêtmutuel de ne pas compÏomettre ceiteperspective.
L'élargissement des Communautés européennes devrait aussi fournir
l'occasion à nos deux oavs de resserrer leurs relations. Le Gouvernement
français considère, comme le sait Votre Excellence, que cet événement
pourrait conduire la Nouvelle-Zélande à développer ses échanges avec tous
les pays membres des Communautés. II est dispoié, pour sa part, à rester en
contact avec le Gouvernement néo-zélandaiset à examiner, dans les condi-
tions convenues lors de l'élargissement des Communautés, les problèmes
narticuliers seDosant à cet énard àla Nouvelle-Zélande.
La demande d'adhésion-de la Nouvelle-Zélande à I'OCDE thoigne

aussi de I'importance de nos inttêts communs. Nos deux gouvernements
pourront, dans le cadre de cette organisation, poursuivre un dialogue
fructueux et examiner de concert les importantes questions qui commande-
ront. dans les roch haine années,i'avenir de l'économiemondiale,
L~Sperspeç~ivcsqui s'ouvrenfen Asie à l'entente et à la coopéraiion enire
les peuples doivent &galenient inciter la Nouvelle-Zklande et la France j.
elargir le champ de leurs relations et a intensifier leurs echanges. II n'est pas
indifkrent Qzei egard que nos gouvernements aient des vues Ires voisines
sur un certain nombre d'importants problemes asiïtiquer cl qu'ils s'apprélent
notamment tous deux à participer à l'Œuvrede paix que représente la recons-
truction des pays d'Indochine.

L'amicale collaboration qui existe entre la Nouvelle-Zélande et la France
au sein dela Commission du Pacifique Sud, depuis sa création, fournit à ce
propos un précedent encourageant.
L'heureuse kvoluiion dans les relations entre nos deux pays, que Votre
Excellence a si justement rappelée dans sa leitre du 19décembredernier, tient,
le Gouvernemenr fritnçiaisrn est persuadé. nonà des circonstances passageres.
mais aux changenients durables intervenus dans le monde. C'est IQun fait
essentiel que nous ne pouvons ignorer et qui doit nous conduire, par un
dialogue renforcé entre nos deux pays, à mettre I'accent sur ce qui nous
rapproche.
Votre Excellence indique toutefois dans sa lettre que les relations franco-
néo-zélandaises, par ailleurs fort prometteuses, comportent un «élément
sérieux de désaccord9, constitué par lesexpériences nucléairesdans le Pacifique

Sud, et précise lesraisons sur lesquelleselle fonde son appréciation APPLICATION 35

Le Gouvernement français n'ignore pas l'importance attachée à ce pro-
blème par le Gouvernement néo-zélandais et souhaite répondre dans un
esprit de franchise et d'amitié aux préoccupations exprim6es par Votre
Excellence.
Entre 1870et 1940,la France a connu trois fois les souffrances de l'invasion.
Sortie victorieuse des deux guerres mondiales grâce au concours de ses
valeureux alliésau nombre desauels figurait la Nouvelle-Zélande. elle n'en
porta pas moins longtemps la marque des épreuves subies.

II était naturel qu'instruit par cette dure expérience le Gouvernement
francais se ~réoccuoâtde tout mettre en ŒuvreDouréviterle retour de sembla-
blestragédies. uni analyse lucide de la situaiion internationale i'a conduit
à considérer qu'aussi longtemps que les conditions d'un véritable désarme-
ment a-néralet como.et.et tout d'abord d'un désarmement nucléaire. sous
contrôle international efficace, n'étaient pas réunies, il était de son devoir
d'assurer la sécuritéde la France en la dotant des moyens propresà dissuader
tout agresseur éventuel
~e.Gouvernement français n'ignore pas pour autant les progrès de la
détente, dont il se félicite,et auxsuels il a conscience d'avoir contribué, tant
en Europe qu'en Asie, il estimeto"tefois qu'ils nesont pas tels que la situation
internationale s'en trouve radicalement transformée.
On constate, par exemple, qu'en matière de dksarmement, les résultats ne
sont malheureusement pas à la mesure des espoirs, car on ne saurait tenir
pour des progrès décisifsen ce domaine les mesures intervenues ces dernières
années, alorsque,notamment, les deux plusimportantes puissances nucléaires

continuent d'entretenir ou mêmed'accroître des stocks déjà surabondants
d'armements nucléaires, ainsi que de perfectionner et de diversifier ces
armes.
Le Gouvernement français est convaincu pour toutes ces raisons que sa
décision de doter la France d'une arme de dissuasion efficace répond a une
nécessitéimpérieuse de skurité nationale, et il est persuadé que Votre
Excellence, qui a la charge des destinéesde la Nouvelle-Zélande, comprendra
ses préoccupations.
En ce qui concerne les expérimentations, la France a toujours considéré
qu'il était de son devoir de faire en sorte que soient réunies toutes les con-
ditions et prises toutes les précautions pour qu'elles n'entraînent aucun dom-
mage à la population, &la faune et à la flore mondiales.
Votre Excellence s'étonnesue le site retenu se trouve fort loin du territoire
métropolitain de la rance. -~ csion du Gouvernement français a été
motivée par des considérations scientifiques, en dépit des inconvénients
financiers et des longues distances qu'elle impliquait.
Installé dans un archioel de -~~veraineté francaise. le site e~ ~ ~ ~~-d~ ~ ~
deux atolls inhabités, q;i se trouvent eux-mêmes. ~à plusieurs centaines de
kilomètres de lieux habités(à l'exception de l'îlot de Tureia. de souverainet6

française, à 100 kilomètres du lieu des explosions, qui compte quelques
dizaines d'habitants et où les abris nécessaires ont6téconstruits). Aucune
région d'Europe ne présente évidemmentde telles caractéristiques.
Le site où ont eu lieu les expériences a étéchoisi de manièreà apporter le
moins de gêne possible aux communications commerciales, maritimes et
aériennes.
Les distances observées ont toujours assuré les garanties optima de sécu-
rité aux populations les plus proches du lieu des expériences et, à fortiori,
à la Nouvelle-Zélande, qui s'en trouve éloignée deplus de 4000 kilomètres.
II ressort d'ailleurs des rapports établis par leational Laboratory » et36 NUCLEAR TESTS

citéspar Votre Excellence, que les retombées des essais français n'ont jamais
présentéde danger pour la santéde la population néo-zélandaise.Les rapports
du . National Radiation Advisory cornmittee » aboutissent aux mêmeicon-
clusions pour l'Australie.
Au niveau mondial. aucune remarque particulière à l'encontre des expéri-
mentations effectuéesdans le pacifique n'a étéformulée dans les rapports
établisparle Comitéscientifique desNations Unies pour l'étudedes effets des
radiations ionisantes et approuvés par la Commission politique spéciale de

I'Ass~mb~k~ ~é-~~~.e de I'Oraan-sation des Nations Unies et par cette
Assemblée elle-mêmeL . e dernier rapport du Comitéscientifique, approuvé à
l'unanimité le 6 octobre 1972 par la Commission et adopté sans débat par
l'Assembl~~ ~----~~ le17 octobre. faisait état du très faible niveau mondial
des radiations ionisantes.
Votre Excellence fait d'autre part allusion aux effeàslong terme des expé-
riences. Le Gouvernement françaisestconscientdes préoccu~tionsquis'expri-
ment en ce domaine, mais il constate qu'elles ne peuvent reposer quesur des
conjectures. Votre Excellence ne peut ignorer que dans tous les rapports du
Comitéscientifiaue des Nations Unies et notamment celui dont il vient d'être
rappelé la récenie approbation, l'évaluation des effets à long terme de toute

nature dus aux expérimentations nucléaires est trés faible par rapport à
l'irradiation naturelle et à celle imputable aux utili~ations~~acifiq~es de
l'énergie atomique, notamment I'irradiation à usage médical. Dans cette
évaluation globale très faible, la part correspondant aux expérimentations
francaises est infime.
~é~ouvernement français tient enfin à souligner qu'il s'est toujours efforcé
de répondre aux préoccupations qui ont pu s'exprimer dans le monde et
notamment dans la régiondu Pacifique Sud àpropos deses expérimentations.
II a mis chaque année à la disposition du Comité scientifique des Nations
Unies pour l'étudedèsradiations ionisantes une documentation complète et
objective sur les conséquences de ses tirs etil est le seul, parmi ceux qui ont

procédé à des expériences nucléaires, àagir de la sorte.
En ce aui concerne ~lus précisémentla Nouvelle-Zélande. Votre Excel-
lence n'ignore pas qu'une invitationà visiter les installations du Centre d'ex-
périmentation du Pacifique a étéadressée par le Gouvernement français à
Üne personnalité scientifique néo-zélandaiseque désignerait son gouverne-
ment.
Une commission scientifique s'est par ailleurs réunie à Guayaquil les 12.et
13 juin 1972. Composée de représentants scientifiques de I'Equateur, du
Pérou, de la Bolivie, de la Colombie, du Chili et dela France, elle a constaté
que tous les résultats des mesures effectuéesdans les pays participant à cette
réunion étaient satisfaisants et vérifiéque dans le domaine écologiaue,
maritime et terrestre, la contamination radioactive était non significative.

Le Gouvernement néo-zélandaisavait étéinvité à déléguerun observateur ci
cette réunion.
Le Gouvernement francais souhaite vivement .eue l'ensemble des considé-
rationi qui viennent d'éire exposéesAVotre Excellence retienne tourc I'atren-
tion du Gou\,ernrmeni néo-zélandaiset ilveut espérerquçcelui-ci s'abstiendra
de tout acte de nature à porter atteinte auxdroits et intérêtsfondamentaux de
la France.
II ne négligera,pour sa part, aucun effort pour développeravec la Nouvelle-
Zélande des relations mutuellement avantageuseset se déclare prêt,dans cet
esprit,à poursuivre avecle Gouvernement néo-zélandais des échangesde vues
sur tout point qui pourrait paraitre utile. APPLICATION 37

Je prie Votre Excellence de bien vouloir agréer les assurances de ma très
haute considération.
(Signed) CHR~STIA NE NICOLAY.

Lefler/rom New ZealandPrime Minisfer

IoFrench ForeignMinisler, 9 March 1973

My dear Minister,

1have read with care the letter addressed to me by your Ambassador in
Wellington on 19 February 1973 in which he conveyed your Government's
iesponse to my letter of 19 December 1972. It is gratifying that our Govern-
ments agree on the significance we attach to our relations and the ways in
which we want to see them develoo to the advantaae of both Our ~eo~lesand
of the regions in which we live1;as pleased to le& from your ~mbassador
that the views 1conveyed through him, including my concern about the one
area of serious difference between our two countries. have been considered at
the highest levels of government.
1 appreciated the careful exposition in the Ambassador's letter of the
considerations that have led France to undertake a nuclear weapons pro-
gramme. Nevertheless, 1cannot emphasize too strongly that the disquiet and
apprehension to which this programme kas given rise among the people of
New Zealand is once again mounting at the prospect of a further series of
tests in the Pacific. 1 am bound to tell you that my Government shares this
disquiet and apprehension and feels obliged to maintain its opposition ta

these tests.
The bitter experience suffered by @ance and by Europe in two world wars
is part and parcel of the historical'framework within which we in New Zealand
seek-not ieast because of Our share in that exoerience-to construct. in
CO-operationwith others, a morestable and secure world. We have the gre&est
respect for the courage displayed by France during those ordeals. We are
conscious of the role she hasolaved since then in ~romotine détente and
understanding in Europe and eisekhere. In urging the cessation of the tests
programme in the Pacific, we are expressing no mere parochial concern. New
~eaiand's record of oooosition to nuclear wea~ons testine in whatever
environment, by whatecer country, is clear. We aie concerned that the con-
tinued development of nuclear weaponry is an increasing danger to world
oeace. The existine international agreements on the testing and on the
~r,>iifcration <ifnuc?ear ucapons. the-resuliiii<ifthc (ieneryl Asembly of
ihe United Narionsand ofutherinternütional bodiesIitte\t toan <i\,erahclinin':
weieht of international ooinion in suooort of the contention that al1nucleaÏ
tes; are a danger to mankind and sh&d cease. We are not alone in looking
for a positive lead from France in this crucial area. We continue to believe

that bv exertine her influence and authoritv in this direction. France could
open ip new prospects for further progres; towards the peaceful and stable
conditions that we al1 desire.
Reference was made in your Ambassador's letter to the precautions
observed by France in conducting the tests. New Zealand has never contested38 NUCLEAR TESTS

the rigorous nature of those precautions. But an activity that is inherently
harmful is not made acceotable even bv the most strinaent or-.autionarv
measures. It is further said that any suggestion of hazard ta the ecology and

to human life rests on conjecture. This observation merely underlines the
need. in ~at~ ~ ~o~ ~ ~h erav-tv. to.,liminate avoidable risks. Indeed. this is
precisely why the principle that any radiation is harmful is accepted by
resoonsible scientific opinion and by national agencies in setting standards
fo~-t~e oeaceful use~~of atomic enerev and -.v anv exoo...e to radiation
without clear and overriding benefit is regarded as unjustified. The radio-

active fallout to which New Zealanders are exposed as a result of the tests in
~ ~ ~-~th Pacific ~~ not bv their choice nor is it to their beneiit
1have canvassed in this letter some of the reasons why the nuclear weapons
tests conducted by your Government in the Pacific continue to be strongly
opposed by the people and Government of New Zealand. My Government
regards them as unacceptable and in violation of New Zealand's rights under

international law, including its rights in respect of areas over which it has
sovereignty.
In delivering his letter ta me your Ambassador informed me that your
Government would welcome a visit by a New Zealand Minister to Paris to
continue the dialogue on this question. This invitation is most timely and 1

am pleased to accept it. It is my hope that through such discussions, which
we ao~roach in the spirit of mutual respect and friendship that governs Our
relations, the dispute ihat exists between-us on this one issue may be resolved.
It would of course be Our understanding that no nuclear weapons would be
tested by France while the talks are in progress.
1 envisage sending my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister, the

Honourable Hugh Watt, and sbould like him to travel to Paris at the earliest
opportunity convenient to both sides. He himself will be in Europe in the
latter part of March and early April and could be available for talks in Paris
at that time.
Yours sincerely,

(Signedl Norman KIRK.

Letlerfrom New ZealandPrime Minister
tothe FrenchPresident, 4 May 1973

1am erateful to vou for makine time available to discuss with Our Deoutv
Prime ~inister th&qucriion ofnuclear tesiing. MI. Watt has reportcd to mi

that he has rereived lhroughout his talks a full and courteous hearing for
New Zealand's case
I regret very much that it has not proved possible, as a result of these talks,
to convince the French Government that ils policy should bechanged. 1hope,
however. that Mr. watt throuah oersonal contact has succeeded in creatine
a greate; awareness both at thëgovernmental level and among the people of

France, of the grave public concern which exists in my country about the
continuance of atmosoheric nuclear testina in the South Pacific. contrary to
the wishes of the peoble living there and Gthout their consent. APPLICATION 39

Mr. Watt has reported to me that you have invited us to keep France
informed of our views and our intentions. This we shall certainly do.
Since France hîs no1 agreed to Our requesr lhat nuclear ueaGns testing in
rhe atrnorpherc in the South Pacific be brought to an end, and since the French
Cio\ernment doesno1acceut New Zealînd's vie* that there lests are unlawful.
the New Zealand ~overnment sees no alternative to its proceeding with the
submission of ils dispute with France to the International Court of Justice.
Istress again that we see this as the one question al issue between us, and
that Our efforts are solely directed at remoiing il from contention. It is our
earnest hope and aim, by so doing, to strengthen still further the longstanding

friendship between France and New Zealand.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) Norman KIRK. Annex IV

DIPLOMATIC CORRESPONDENC CENCERNING

New Zealand 10 France, 15April 1966.
New Zealand 10 France. 19April 1966.
France 10 New Zealand, 21 April 1966.

New Zealand 10 France, II May 1970.
New Zealand to France. 22 September 1971

Notefrom New Zealand Minisfry
of Exterrra1Afairs IO French Embassy,15 April 1966

The Ministry of External Aliairs presents ils compliments to the Embassy
of France and has the honour to refer to the Embassy's Note No. 23 of 13
April 1966, which requested authorization for an aircraft of the French Air
Force 10 overfly the islands of Niue and Aitutaki in the course of a flight

from Noumea to Hao.
The Ministrv desires to inform the Embassv that steos have ~ ~n~~~~~~~~~~-
advise the ~in-istry of Foreign Afairs in ~arirthat if the French Government
proceeds with ils intentions to conduct a series of nuclear weapons tests in
the South Pacific Ocean. New Zealand. consistent with ils oblinalions under

the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963, will be unable 10 authority
for any visitsto New Zealand territory by French military aircraft or ships
or overflights of New Zealand by French military aircraft, unless assured
that they are no1 carrying material intended for the test site, or for the
monitoring of the tests, or for the support of forces and personnel engaged

in the tests or in monitoring the tests, other than monitoring 10detect possible
health hazards.
Accordingly the Ministry is not in a position to give authority forthe air-
craft concerned tosverfly Niue Island without receiving an assurance in the

terms outlined above.
The Island of Aitutaki is under the jurisdictionof the Government of the
Cook Islands and the Ministry has not vet had an o~~ortunitv 10consul1 that
Government as 10 itaititude-tou,ards the requcst s;bmiited by the Embassy.

11 isprohable, however. thai the Governnient of the Cook Islands would iake
a similar posiiton io the New Ze~land one with regard to the overtlighi of
Aituiaki. The M~nisiry will inform the Embasy of the nature of the Cook
Islands Government's response as soon as it 1s known. APPLICATION 41

The Ministry of External Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renen
to the Embassy of France the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note from New Zealand Ministry of Exrernal Afiirs
IO French Embassy,19 April1966

The Ministry of External Affairs presents its compliments to the Embassy
of France and has the honour to refer to the Embassy's Note No. 23 of 13

April and the Ministry's Note No. PM 59/5/6 of 15April 1966.
The Ministry has been in consultation with the Government of the Cook
Islands concerning the Embassy's request for authorization for a DC8 of the
French Air Force to overfly Aitutaki on 24 April in the course of a flight
from Noumea to Hao. The Government of the Cook Islands has requested
that the Embassy be informed that its position is precisely the same as that
of the New Zealand Government and that it cannot grant permission for the
overflight without a similar assurance to that requested by the New Zealand
Government.
The Ministry of External AlTairsavails itself of this opportunity to renew

ro the Embassy of France the sssurance~ uf ils highest consideratiun.

Note from FrenchEmbassy
fothe New Zealand Ministry of External Affairs, 21 April 1966

L'Ambassade de France rése enteses comoliments au Ministbre des
affaires extérieures,et a l'honneur de lui accuser &cepticn de ses notes en date
des 15et 18 avril derniers, qui contiennent la répond~ Gouvernement néu-
zélandair à la demande d'autorisation de survol de I'ile Niue et de I'archioel
des Cook prhsentéeau nom de son gouvernement.
Les modalités de la réponse néo-zélandaiseont étécommuniqu&es au
Gouvernement français. Celui-ci a fait savoirà l'Ambassade qu'il souhaitait
annuler sa demande. De ce fait, au cours de l'&tapeNoum&a-Hao, qui avait
fait l'objet de cette demande, i'appareil militaire français se tieàdl'kart
de tout territoire et eaux territoriales néo-zelandais.

L'Ambassade de France saisit cette o~.iasiun pour renouvclcr au Ministére
des aiTairesexterieures les assurances de sa ires haute considération.42 NUCLEAR TESTS

Note/rom New Zealand Mitristry of Foreign Affairs
to French Embassy, II May 1970

The Ministry of Foreign Afiairs presents its compliments to the Embassy
of Fran~ ~~~d ha-~-. ~~.. ....o refer to the Embassv's Note No. 46 of 14
~ovemher 1969 and No. 7 of 3 aic ch 1970 concerning proposed training
flinhts by French militarv aircraft between Papeete and Auckland.

~he ~i~i~~~~-,~s~~~~-- full consideration to the reauest for a hlanket
clearance until 31 December 1970 for these flights to New Zealand, with a
landina at Auckland. The Ministry would, however, prefer that the present
proce&re of making an individual request in respect of each flight should
be continued. The Ministry will ensitre that al1 requests are given prompt
consideration.
In the meantime, the Ministry would draw the attention of the Embassy

to the second paragraph of the Ministry's Note PM 591516of 15 April 1966,
concerninn certain assurances to be sought in respect of visits by French
military aircraft atid ships to New ~ealand territo;y or overflights of New
Zealand by French military aircraft, if the French Government proceeds
with its intentions to conduct a series of nuclear weapons tests in the South
Pacific Ocean.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew to

the Embassy of France the assurances of its highest consideration.

Note/rom New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs
to French Embassy, 22 September 1971

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs presents ils compliments to the Embassy
of France and has the honour to refer to the Embassy's Note No. 45 of 2
September 1971 concerning proposed training flights by French military

aircraft between Papeete and Auckland.
The Ministrv has eiven full consideration to the reauest for a hlanket
diploniîliccler~ir<inicf;otii I JrniiarIO31 Vecembcr 197ifor thereflights b~t
\iould prcfcr that the present procedure of niaking an individual reque\t in
rcs~e:i uf e~ch fliphi he continued. The Miniitrv will ensurc thüt üIIreauests
are given promp&onsideration.

In the meantime, the Ministry would draw the attention of the Embassy
to the second paragraph of the Ministry's Note PM 591516of 15 April 1966,
concerning certain assurances to be sought in respect of visits by French
military aircraft and ships to New Ze~land territory or overflights of New
Zealand by French military aircraft, if the French Government proceeds
with its intentions to cnnduct a series of nuclear weapons tests in the South
Pacific Ocean.
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs avails itself of this opportunity to renew

to the Embassy of France the assurances of its highest consideration. Annex V

New Zealand acceded to the whole of the General Act for the Pacific

Settlement of International Disputes, 1928, on 21 May 1931 subject to the
following conditions:

(1) That the following disputes are excluded from the procedure described

in the General Act, including the procedure of conciliation:

(il Disputes arising prior to the accessionof Ilis Majesty Io the sîtd Gencral
Act or relating to situations or faci> prior IOthe said accession;
(ii) Disoutes in regard to which the parties to the disoute have azreed or
shail agreeto have recourse to somi other meihod of pcaceful setÏlement;

(iii) IXsputes betuecn His Maje5ty's Government in New Zealand and the
Government of anv oiher Member of the Leaaue which is a Member of
the R-itish~~o-mbnwe~ ~ ~ ~ of Nations. al1 of which disoutes shall be
settled in such manner as the parties have agreed or shall agree;

(iv) Disputes concerning questions which by international law are solely
within the domesticju;isdiction of States; and
(v) Disputes with any Party to the General Act who is not a Member of the
League of Nations.

(2) That His Majesty reservesthe right, in relation to the disputes mention-

ed in Article 17 of the General Act, to require that the procedure described
in Chapter II of the said Act shall be suspended in respect of any dispute
which has been submitted to. and is under consideration by, the Council of

the League of Nations, provided that notice to suspend is given aher the
dispute has been submitted to the Council and is given within ten days of the
notification of the initiation of the procedure, and provided also that such
susuension shall be limited to a period of twelve months or such longer period

as may be agreed by the partiesto the dispute, or determined by a decision of
ail the Members of the Council other than the parties to the dispute.
(3) (i) That, in the case of a dispute, not being a dispute mentioned in
Article 17 of the General Act, which is brought before the Council of the

League of Nations in accordance with the provisions of the Covenant, the
procedure described in Chapter 1 of the General Act shall not be applied,
and, if already commenced, shall be suspended, unless the Council deter-
mines that the said procedure shall be adopted.

(ii) That in the caseof such a dispute the procedure described in Chapter
111of the General Act shall not be applied unless the Council has failed to
effect a settlement of the dispute within twelve months from the date on which
it was first submitted to the Council, or, in a case where the procedure pre-

scribed in Chaoter 1 has been adopted without producing an agreement
beiucen the pÿ;tics. iriihin six nioiiths [rom the termination of the uork of
the C'onciliiiiion Commission. The Council niay extend eithcr of the ilbove
periods by a deiision ofïll itsMemhers other thxn the parties to the dispute.44 NUCLEAR TESTS

By a communication which was received hy the Secretary-General of the
League of Nations on 15 February 1939, New Zealand made the following
declaration :

His Majesty's Government in the Dominion of New Zealand will continue,
after the 16th August 1939, to participate in the General Act for the Pacific
Settlement of International Disputes subject ta the reservation that, as from
that date, the participation of the New Zealand Government will not, should
it unfortunately find itself involved in hostilities, cover disputes arising out
ofevents occurring during the war. This reservation applies also to the proce-
dure of conciliation.
The participation of the New Zealand Government in the General Act,
after the 16th August 1939, will continue, as heretofore. to he subject ta the

reservations set forth in its instrument of accession. Annex VI

FRENCHACCESSIO NO THE GENERAL ACT FOR THE PACIFIC
SETTLEMEN OTFINTERNATIONA DLISPUTES1,928

France acceded to the whole of the General Act for the Pacific Settlement
of International Disputes 1928 on 21 May 1931 subject to the following
declaration: .

.Ladite adhésionconcernant tous les différendsqui s'élèveraientaprès
ladite adhésion ausuiet de situations ou de faits oosteriàuelle. autres
que ceux que la Cour permanente de Justice internationale reconnaitrait
comme portant sur une question que le droit international laisseà la
comoetence exclusive de i'~tat: éiant entendu a.e..Dar ao. .cation de
l'art/cle 39 dudit acte. les di~érinds quc Ici parties ou l'une d'entre elles
auraient dCierCsau Conseil de la SociCtedc\ Nations ne seraient soumis
aux orocédures décritesnar cet acte que si le Conseil n'&taitoas Parvenu
à statuer dans lesconditironsprévueà l'article 15,alinéa6, dû pacte.

En outre. conformément à la résolution adoptée par l'Assembléede la
Société des Nations "pour la presentation et la recommandation de
l'Acte général>,,'article 28de cet acte est interprétépar leGouvernement
français comme signifiant notamment que ale respect des droits établis
par les traités ou résultant du droit des gen8est obligatoire pour les
tribunaux arbitraux constitués en application du chapitre 3dudit Acte
géneral.n

On 13 February 1939 the following further declaration was notified by
France to the Secretary-General of the League of Nations:

,Le Gouvernemeni de la Képublique früriçaise déclareajouter 9I'ins-
irument d'adherion i l'Acte yeneral d'arbitrage JCposéen son noni.

le 21 niai 1931. lareservc que dfsorniair ladite adhesion ne ~'etendra pïs
aux différendsrelatifà des événements quiviendraient àse produire au
cours d'une guerre dans laquelle il serait impliq>B.