Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
Not an official document
NUCLEAR T.ESTS CASE (NEW ZEALAND v.FRANCE)
InitsjudgmentinthecaseconcerningNticler ests(New has in effect been accomplished,inasmuchas France has
Zealandv.France), theCo~l, y9votesto6, hiisfoundthat undertaken theobligationto holdnofurthernuclear testsin
theclaimofNewZealand 110longerhadanyobjectandthat the atmospherein the SouthPacificras. 50-55 of Judg-
the Courtwas thereforncacalleduponto give a decision ment); thedisputehaving thudisappeared,the claim no
thereon. longerhasmy objectandthereis nothingon whichto give
Inthereasoningof itsJudgment,the Courtadducesinter judgment(paras.58-62ofJudgment).
aliathe followingconsideri8,s:venbeforetuning tothe U n the deliveryof the Judgment, the Orderof 22June
questionsofjurisdictionandladmissibility,theCourthas firsti"dicatinginterim measuresof protectionceasesto be
toconsidertheessentiapleliminaryquestioZItowhether operativeand the measuresin question lapse (p64aof
a dispute existsand tonalysethe clainl submittedto itJudgment).
(paras. 22-24 ofJudgment); the proceedings instituted
beforethe Courton 9 May 1973concernl:dthe legalityof
atmosphericnucleartestsconductedbyFr'mcein theSouth
Pacific(para. 16 ofudgnient);the originalrindultimate
objectiveofNew Zealandi:to obtaanterminationofthose ForthepurposesoftheJudgmenttheCourtwascomposed
tests (paras.25-31 ofJudgment);France,byriouspublic asfollows:PresidentLachs;JudgesForsteir.Gros,Bengzon,
statementsmadein 1974,has announcedits intention, fol-etdn, Onyeama,Dillard,Ignacio-Pinto,deCastro,Moro-
lowing the completionof the 1974 series of atmospheriNagelndraSingh and Ruda; Judge admphoeySir Garfield
Judgment);theCourtfindsthattheobjectiveofNewZealand44Barwick.
Continued on next page Ofthenine MembersoftheCourtwhovotedforthe deci- WithregardtotheFrench requestthatthecasebe removed
sion, Judges Forster, Gros, Pe&n and Ignacio-Pinto from thelist-a requestwhichthe Court,in itsOrderof 22
appendedseparateopinions. June1973,hadduly notedwhile feelingunabletoaccedetoit
atthatstage-the Courtobservesthatit hashadthe opportu-
Onyeama,Dillard,JimdnezdeAr6chagaandSirHumphreyon, Judges nityof examiningtherequestin the lightof the subsequent
Waldockappendedajointdiknting opinion,andJudgesde proceedings.Itfinclsthatthe presentcaseisnotoneinwhich
CastroandSirGarfieldBarwickdissentingopinions. the procedureof siummaryremoval from thelist wouldbe
appropriate. Itis to be regrettedthat France hasfailed to
Theseopinions makeknown andsubstantiatethepositions appearin orderto]putforwardits arguments,but theCourt
adoptedbythejudgesinquestion. neverthelesshasto proceedandreacha conclusion, having
regardto the evidencebroughtbeforeit andthe arguments
addressedtoitbytheApplicant,andalsotoanydocumentary
orotherevidencewhichmightberelevant.
ObjectoftheClaim
Also on20 December1974, the CourtrnadetwoOrders (paras. 21-41 of the Judgmentin the Australiancase, and
regarding applicationssubmittedby thec~vernmenotf Fiji 21-44 intheNewZealandcase)
for permission to intervene in the two cases concerning The present phaseof the proceedingsconcerns thejuris-
Nuclear Tests(Australiv.France;NewZeiand v.France). dictionof theCourtandadmissibilityof theApplication.In
In these men, which were not read in public, the court
found, followingtheabove-mentioned Judgments,thatthese examiningSuchquestions,the Courtisentitled,andinsome
applicationslapsed andthat nofurtheractionthereonwas whichmaynotbestrictlycapableofclassificationasmatters
calledfor. These Orders were voted unsulimouslyby the ofjurisdictionOradmissibilitybuareof Sucha naturea.3to
court inthesamecompositionas for theJucjgments.Judges. requireexaminationinprioritytothosematters.Byvirtueof
G~~~o ,nyeama, Jimbnez de ~~h~~~ and sir ~arfi~ld an inherentjurisdictionwhichtheCourt possessesquajudi-
~ ~ ~ ~ i~pendeddeclarationsto them,anldjudges ~ill~~d cia1organ, ithasfirtoexamineaquestionwhichit finds to
andSirHumphreyWaldockajointdeclaratilon. beessentiallypreliminary,namelytheexistenceofadispute,
theCourt&livered a Ju.dgmenftoreach for, whetheror not .theCourthasjurisdictionin the pent
of the two Tests casesreferredto they are' case, the resolutionof that question could exerta decisive
analysedtogetherinthesummarywhichfollows. influenceonthecontinuationof the proceedings. Itisthere-
forenecessaryforitto makea detailed analysisofthe claim
* submittedintheApplication,whichisrequiredbyArticle40
* * ofthe Statutetoindicatethesubjectofthedispute.
InitsApplication, AustraliaasktheCourt:
--to adjudgeanddeclarethat "thecarryingoutof further
Procedure atmosphericnuclearweapontestsintheSouthPacificOcean
(paras. 1-20ofeachJudgment) is notconsistentithapplicablerulesof internationallaw"
In itsJudgment,theCourtrecallsthaton 19May 1973the andto order "that theFrenchRepublicshallnotcarryoutany
Applicantinstitutedproceedingsagainstranceinrespectof furthersuchtests".
French atmospheric nuclear testsin the SouthPacific.To New Zealand,inits Application, asksthe Court:
foundthejurisdictionoftheCourt,theApplicationreliedon
the GeneralAct for the PacificSettlementof International -"to adjud eanddeclare:Thattheconducb tytheFrench
Disputesconcludedat Genevain 1928andArticles36and37 Government fnuclr!artestsinthesouth hcific regionthat
oftheStatuteofthe Byaletterof 16May1973France give rise to radio-activefall-out constitutesa violationof
stated thatit consideredthat theCourt was manifestlynot rightswillbeviolatecjbanytfurthersuchtests".hat these
competentinthecase,thatitcouldnotacceptitsjurisdiction
andthatitrequesodmcremval ofthe Case"Omthe Itisessentialtconsider whethertheApplicm requestsa
list. judgment which wouldonly state the legal relationship
The Applicant having requested the Court to indicate between thePartie01:ajudgmentrequiringoneofthePdtzies
interimmeasuresofprotection,theCourt,byanOrderof22 to take, or refrain from taking,someaction.The Courthas
June 1973, indicatedinteralia that, pendingits finaldeci- the powerto interpretthe submissionsof the Partiesandto
sion,Franceshouldavoidnucleartestscausingthedeposio t f exclude, whennecessary,certainelementswhich aretobe
radio-activefall-outontheterritoryoftheApplicant.Byvar- viewed, not as indicationsof what thParty is askingthe
iouscommunicationsthe Applicanthasinfoxmedthe Court decide in the sense contendedfor. In the present case, if
that further seriesof atmospherictests took place in July-accountistakenoftheApplicationasawhole,thediplomatic
August1973and June-September1974. exchangesbetweenthePartiesinrecentyears, thearguments
of theApplicantbeforetheCourtand thepublicStatements
BythesameOrderof 22 June 1973,theCourt,considering madeon its behalfdwing and afterthe oralproceedings,it
that it wasnecessaryto beginby resolvingthequestionsof becomesevident that the Applicant'soriginaland ultimate
theCourt'sjurisdictionandoftheadmissibilityoftheAppli- objectivewas and has remainedto obtaina terminationof
cation,decidedthatthepeedings shouldfinsbe dkssed Frenchatmospherica~cleartestsintheSouthPacific.
sented argument at public hearings. Itsubmittedthat the Inthese circumstances, the Court boundto take noteof
Courthadjurisdiction andthattheApplicationwas admissi- furtherdevelopments,both prior to andsubsequentto the
ble. France didnot fileany Counter-Memoridand was not close of the oral proceedings,namelycertain publicstate-
representedat the hearings;its attitudewas &fined inthe mentsbyFrenchauthorities,ofwhich some were mentioned
above-mentionedletterof 16May 1973. beforethe Courtat public hearingsand others were made
98subsequently.Itwould havelbeenpossiblefortheCourt,had possibilityof further atmospherictests has been left open,
itconsideredthatthe interestsofjusticeso~quiaed,tohave even Hfterthe French statements mentioned above. The
afford tedPartiesthe opportunity,e.g., by reopening the Courtimust,however, formitsown viewofthe meaning and
oralproceedings,ofaddressingtotheCourt ~:ommento snthe scope intendedto be givento these unilateral declarations.
statementsmadesincethecloseofthoseproceedings.Sucha Havingregardto their intentionandto the circumstancesin
course,however,wouldhavebeenjustified onlyifthematter which they weremade, they mustbe held to constitutean
dealt with in those statementshad beencompletelynewor engagementofthe FrenchState.Francehasconveyedtothe
hadnot beenraisedduringiheproceedings,whichis mani- worldat large, includingthe Applicant, its intention effec-
festlynotthecase.TheCourtisinpossessicenotonlyofthe tively to terminateits atmospherictests. It was bound to
statementsmade by the French authoritiesin questionbut assumethat otherStatesmight take noteof these statements
alsoofthe viewsoftheApp:licanot nthem. andrelyontheirbeingeffective.Itis true thatFrance hasnot
The firstofthesestatemeritsiscontainedinacommuniqu6 recognized that iitsboundbyanyruleofinternationallawto
whichwasissuedbytheOffiiceofthePresidentoftheFrench terminateits tests, but this doesnot affectthe legalconse-
Republicon 8June 1974andtransmittedinparticular tothe quencesof the statementsin question;the unilateralunder-
Applicant:". .. in viewof,thestage reachedincarryingout takingresultingfrom themcannotbe interpretedas having
the French nuclear defenceprogramme Francewill be ina been made in implicit relianceon an arbitrary power of
position topassontothestageofundergroundexplosionsas reconsideration.
soonas the seriesof testsplannedfor this summeris com- Thus the Courtfacesa situationin whichtheobjectiveof
pleted". Further statementsare containinaNote fromthe the Applicanthasineffectbeenaccomplished,inasmuchas
French Embassyin We1ling;ton(10 June), a letterfrom the theCourtfinds that Francehasundertaken theobligationto
PresidentofFrancetotheP~imeMinisterofNewZealand(1 holdno further nuclear testsinthe atmosphereinthe South
July), a press conferencegiven by the ])residentof the hcific. The Applicanthassoughtanassurancefrom France
Republic(25July), a speecbmadeby the Ministerfor For- thatthe testswouldceaseandFrance,on its owninitiative,
eign Mairs in the UnitedNations GeneralAssembly (25 has mi3dea seriesof statementsto the effe~tthat they will
September)and a televisioninterviewandpressconference cease.TheCourtconcludesthatFrancehasassumedanobli-
bytheMinisterforDefence(16August and I1October).The gation asto conduct, concerning the effective cessatnfo
Court considers that these statementsnveyan1announce- thetests,and thefactthat the Applict asnotexercisedits
mentbyFranceofitsintentiontoceasetheconductofatmos- right to discontinuethemeedings does not prevent the
pheric nuclear tests following the con~clusionof the ject. As a courtof law, it is calleduponto iesolveexisting
1974series. disputes between States: these disputesnnustcontinueto
existat the time whenthe Courtmakesits decision.In the
StatusandScopeoftheFrenchStatements presentcase, the disputehavingdisappeared,the claimno
(paras.42-60 of the Judgrr~enitn the Aus~raliancase, and longerhas anyobjectandthereis nothingon whichto give
45-63 oftheJudgmentintheNew Zealandcaw) judgment.
It iswellrecognizedthat declaratios adebywayofuni- Once the Courthas foundthat a Statehas entered intoa
lateral acts,concerning legalor factualsituations,mayhave commitmentconcerning its future conduct, it is not the
theeffectofcreating legaloltjligati. othinginthe nature Court's functiontocontemplatethatit willnotcomplywith
of aquidproquo,nor anysubsequentaccelptance,noreven it. However,ifthebasisofthe Judgmentweretobeaffected,
any reactionfromother Statesis requiredfor suchdeclara- theApplicant could requeanexaminationofthesituationin
tion to takeeffect.Neitheris the questionof formdecisive. accordancewith theprovisionsoftheStatute.
The intentionofbeingboundisto be ascertainedbyaninter-
pretationoftheact.Thebindingcharacteroftheundertaking
resultfrom the termsof theactand isbasedon goodfaith;
interestedStateareentitled.to require that?heolbligationbe
respected. Forthese reasons,theCourt findsthattheclaimnolonger
In the presentcase, the Applicant,whilerecognizingthe hasanyobjectandthatitisthereforenotcalledupontogivea
possibilityofthedisputeking resolvedbyaunilateraldecla- decisionthereon(para.62of the JudgmentintheAustralian
rationonthe partof France,has statedthat, iizview, the case,andpara.65ofthe JudgmentintheNew Zealandcase).
Summary of the Judgment of 20 December 1974