372 NUCLEAR TESTS
the terms of Article 62 of the Statute of the Court, in the N~iclear Tests case
(Aitsrralia v. France). 1have the honour to sendyou herewith three copies of the
bilingual edition. printed by the Registry, of that Application.
74. THE REGISTRAR TO THE SECRETARY-GENER AFLTHE UNITEDNATIONS'
30 May 1973
1refer Io my cable 30 of 16 May 19732by which 1 informed you of the filing
by the Government of Fiji of an Application for permission to intervene. under
the terms of Article 62 of the Statute of the Court, in the Niiclear Tests case
(Ausrrolio v. Frarlce).
By Article 69. paragraph 4, of the 1972 Rules of Court, 1 am required Io
transmit copies of the Application for permission to intervene to Members of
the United Nations throue~~~ t~-~-~c~e~~~~,General. I should accordine-. be
grateful if you would be sa good as to communicate copies of the Application
referred Io above 10the Members of the United Nations, for which purpose 1am
forwarding to you under separate cover (by airmail parcel post. mar.ked "At-
tention Director, General Legal Division") 150copies thereof.
75. THE AGENT OF AUSTRALIA TO THE REGISTRAR
31 May 1973
1 refer to the question put by Judge Gros at the hearing of 25 May 1973
(1, p. 244) in the NI!C/PRI Tars case (Aitstralia v. Frairre) and to the state-
ment by Judge Gros ai the same hearing that he wished to put a further ques-
tion which would betransmitted to the Agent for the Government of Australia
in writing. 1 refer also to your letter dated 29 May 1973 forwarding the tex1
of the further question oîJudge Gros, together with an English translation made
by the Registry.
1 now have the honour to submit the written answers of the Government of
Australia 10the two questions.
FirsrQuestion:
The question put by Judge Gros nt the hearing on 25 May 1973reads in full
as follows:
"Le conseil du Gouvernement de l'Australie a indiqué la Cour le lundi
21 mai (1, p. 187) qu'il y avait «une question sur laquelle nous réservons
notre positionn.
M. I'a-ent du Gou~~ ~ement de l'Australie oeut-il indiauer auelle
position est ainsi réservée;et s'il s'agit d'une réservede positionjuridique
qui serait un élémentdu différend soumis à la Cour par le Gouvernement
Acommunication in thesametermswassentto IheSecretary-Generalof the United
Nations regardingthe New Zealand v.France case.
1 Not reproduced. CORRESPONDENCE 373
de l'Australie, le point a-t-il été soulet traité comme tel dans les entre-
tiensà Paris, en avril 1973, entre les représentantsdes deux gouverne-
ments?!
In his speech on 21 May 1973 (1, p. 187, line 22). the Solicitor-General of
Australia used the expression: "This is a matter on which we reserveOur posi-
tion." Judge Gros has asked what position is thus reserved.
The Solicitor-General was developing the proposition that radio-active fall-
out on Australian soi1from French tests would constitlite a violation of Aus-
tralian territorialsovereignty. In addition, he observed that questions might
arise whether the consequencesof the French testscould be in any way affected
by the consideration that they represented a'possibly legitimate use of French
territory. The Solicitor-General argued that such use of French territory could
not be legitimate. It was in the course of this submission that the Solicitor-
General indicated that he didnot wish to be taken as accepting the validity of
an assumption on which it rests, namely that Mururoa may simply be treated
like any other part of French territory and that this was a matter on which we
reserved Our position.
This is the rcser\ation i>f pi,\itii>n regïrding uhiih Judgc Gro, ha, frïmed
his question. Itian rhu\ he sen io be d \ub$iJiary matter in the Icgal argument
rclsiing io the merit\. In the suhmiss~onoiihe Go\ernnient ofAustrali:i noih~ng
can turn on it ai the stage of inlerini nicïsures.
In ansuer IO ihcsccond part ofthequcstion put by JudgcGros.theAuriralian
Government statesthat the matter thus reservedis notan element in the dispute
in ihc scnsethai ii is not a constiiucnt part of ihc dispute. The explanxtion given
abo\e ihous th31 the lcgal argument in quc\lion is ïncilldry only and if itarises
at al1for consideration will onlydo so in connection with the merits.
It may be observed that amongst the many points mentioned in the course
of the discussions held in Paris in April 1973between the representatives of the
two Governments was the status of Mururoa Atoll. The French Foreign
Minister look the initiative in categorically stating that under the ~rench
constitution the testing sites were French territory. The question was therefore
clearly one on which the FrenchGovernment hasa fixed and unchangeableview.
Second Question:
The second question asked by Judge Gros, which was forwarded with your
letter dated 29 May 1973,reads as follows:
"Vis-à-vis de quels Etats, en dehors de la France, le Gouvernement de
l'Australie estime-t-il êtreliépar I'Acte généralpour le règlement pacifique
des diîïérends internationaux de 1928, pour l'ensemble de I'Acte ou pour
partie?"
The Government of Australiaconsiders itself to be bound by the 1928General
Act towards those Stateswhich have accededthereto. A list of those Statesasat
IOJuly 1944 is set forth in the League of Nations twenty-first lis1of Signatures,
Ratificatio,rsandAccessions in RespectofAgreements and Coni.entiofrConcluded
Under the Auspices of r/!e League of Nations. No States have acceded to or
denounced the General Act since that date.
The prcscni ansxrer 1s.of :durse. gi\.eii uithoui preju.i~:e to the po\ition in
reldiion IO any accc\\ion thc continuing \alidiiy of \\hich ma). be silecied hy
spci~al;iriunistancc, not rcle\,ïni io the prcscnt rdje Alii~. the Govçrniiient of
~ustralia does not consider itself bound by the General Act towards any other
State by reason of State succession.
Réponse écrite de l'Australie à la question posée par M. le juge Gros à l'audience du 25 mai 1973