Summaries of Judgments, AdNot an official documentrs of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
NUCLEARTESTSCASE (AUSTRALIA v. FRANCE)
(INTERIM PROTECTION)
Order of 22June1973
The Court, by 8 votes t6, made anOrder indicating, dock,Nagendra SinghandRuda;Judgead hocSirGarfield
pending its final decisionthe case concerningNuclear Barwick.
Tests(Australia. France),thefollowingprovisionalmeas- Of the Membersof theCourtwhovotedin favourof the
uresofprotection: indication of provisional measures, Judgesimbnez de
TheGovernmentsof AuslraliaandFranceshould eachof Ardchaga,SirHumphreyWaldock, NagendraSinghandSir
themensurethatnoactionof anykind istakenwhich might Garfieldarwickeach appendedadeclaration.Ofthejudges
aggravateor extend the disputesubmittedto the Court or who votedagainst theindicationof the measures, Judges
prejudicethe rightsoftheotherPdtZyinrespectofthecarry- Forster,Gros,eMnandIgnacio-Pintoeach appendedtothe
ing out of whateverdecisiaiithe Court may render in theOrderadissentingopinion.
case;and,inparticular,theFrenchvernm1:ns thouldavoid
nucleartests causing thel;ositof radio-activefall-outon
Australianterritory.
As PresidentLachswasfor health reasonsunableto par-
ticipate, it was Vice-PresidentAmmoun vvho,inaccord- InitsOrder,theCourtrecallsthtn9May1973Australia
antewith 45ofthe SlatutepresidedandreadOutthe institutedproceedingsagainstFraninrespectof a dispute
Order.JudgeDillardwasliklawiseabsentfor'healthreasons, theholdingofatmospherictestsofnuclearweap-
andtheCourtwasthereforecomposedasfollows: ons by the French Governmentin the PacificOcean. The
Vice-ResidentAmmoun, Acting Reside:nt;Judges For- Australian Government askedthe Court to adjudge and
ster, Gros, Bengzon,etr611, nyeama,Ignacio-Pinto, de declare that the carryingout of furtheratmosphericnuclear
Castro,Morozov,Jimdnez& kkhaga, Sir'Humphrey Wal- weapontests in the SouthPacific Oceanwas not consistent
Continued on next pagewithapplicablerulesof internationallaw, andto order that able to establisha legal interestin respectof these claims
the French Republic should noc tarry out any furthersuch entitlingthe Courttoadmit theApplication;
tests.Onthe samedatethe AustralianGovennmentaskedthe --for the purposeofthe presentproceedings,it sufficesto
Court toindicateinterim measuresof protection.In a letter observethat the informationsubmittedto theCourt doesnot
fromtheAmbassadorof Franceto the Netherlands,handed exclude the possibility thatdamage toAustralia might be
byhimtotheRegistraron 16May1973,the:FrenchGovern- shown tobe caused by the deposit on Australiantemtory
ment statedthatit consideredthat the Court wasmanifestly of radio-active fall-out resultingfrom such testsand tobe
not competentin the case and that it could not accept the irreparable.
Court's jurisdiction,and that accordingly the French Gov- The Court then says that it is unable to accede at the
ernmentdid not intendtoappointanagent,arrdrequestedthe present stageof theproceedingsto the requestmadeby the
sonswhichhadledtheFrench Governmenttatementothese conclu- FrenchGovernmentthat the casebe removedfromthe list.
However, thedecisiongiven todayin no wayprejudgesthe
sionswasannexedtothe letter. questionofthe jurisdiictionoftheCourttodealwiththemer-
TheCourt hasindicatedinterim measures onthe basisof itsofthecase, orany.questionrelatingtothe admissibilityof
Article41ofitsStatuteandtakinginto accou:ntthefollowing the Application,or relating to the merits themselves,and
considerationsinteralia: leavesunaffectedtherightoftheFrenchGovernmenttosub-
-the material submittedto theCourtleadsit tothe con- mitargumentsin respectofthosequestions.
clusion,atthe presentstageofthe proceedings, that thepro-
visions invoked bythe Applicantwithregardto theCourt's TheCourtfurtherdecides that the writtenpleadingsshall
jurisdictionappear,primafacie, to afforda basison which firstbe addressedto the questionof the jurisdictionof the
thatjurisdictionmightbefounded; Courttoentertainthe:dispute,andofthe admissibilityofthe
Application,and fixes21 September 1973as the time-limit
-it cannotbeassumedapriori thattheclaimsoftheAus- for the Memorialof the Governmentof Australiaand 21
tralian Governmentfall completelyoutsidethe purviewof December1973as the time-limitfor the Counter-Memorial
the Court's jurisdictioorthatthatGovernmentmaynotbe oftheFrenchGovernment.
Summary of the Order of 22 June 1973