07-'09'9515::2:2 ~ 11 :2:2313515 E.lOUTERPOC~TQC
131
NUC:I .t:AR Tt;:STS CASE (NEW ZEALAND y_,__fRANCE)
(Application of 9 May 1973)
SUPPLEMENTARY AIDE-MLMOJRE Qf NEW ZEALAND
1. New Zealand, having rcccivedthe French Aid~-M~moi daeed
6 Scptcmbcr 1995, believc!thul theCourt may be as~i~ ifeidhas before
iL.when cousiueriug the ruallcr uu8 September, two bricf comments on
thaL cJocurnenl. The present Aide-Memoire i~nor inrendcd. and in rhe cime
available eould not be, a full rcply to the French document, the dctailed
treatment of which i~re:;crved.
'2. ltwill be clear to theCourt, from the detail imo which the
French 1\ide-Memoire hns found itnecessary to enter i~.lr tderrake its
1-JUÎHt:s.ULÜ;uad y 11Scdions A and l3 rdating to the presentstat ''~the
proceedings begun in 197.-,;~n rhl contention thal themain Request by
New Zealand does not relate to a "case", thar therc are in respect of lhese
maltl;rs significanr differences of vicw between the Panic:-ï which musbe
reso1vecl hy lhe Conn. Such consideration l)y rhe Courtcanr1ul prup~rly
takc place 011 th~ b~ts ifsthe Aides-Memoire which the Parties have
submillcd at. the rcyuesl othe PrcsidcnL Thcsc have no forrnul standing
nor m~ 1hey fully rcsponsive to each ether. New z~alau uid not
contemplate when it filed its main Reguest that this document could be
treated as anything othcr than the document initiating the rcsurnplion by the
Court ()filsconsiderarion of the case hegun in 1973. üu the::basis of the
unvarying practiŒ of the Court in relation10 matters thalcan, al the very Uf/ù''95 11!59
lcnst, beprima facie rclated tu:oiorllc t!XÎSbasis of jurisdictionNe.w
z~(11a eudectcd rhar iwoukl h:w~ the opportunity ta developitsrequest
in oral procecdings.
Il
3. Thcsc preseut procccdings ar~ uot comparable ro rhe cases
which rre1m.:chas invokcd in supporr ofir ~ontention thaNc:w Zealand's
main Rt>.fjueis not an act introductive of proccedings copublcof bcing
related taany provisionof the Staturor anye;.;isün~.:a:st::.
4. The attcmpt by ~ranc te invokc the Ordcrs of the Court
which it mentions ut p.J5 of its Aide-Memoire cau c.mly.l.Jvinue of the
failureto rdcr to certaill dominatinfcaluresorrhose L.:i b.Cdesc$ied
as jX)SiüvcJymisle::Hiing. Those UrdL'rs are umade by the Court in three
t:ascs in~::a ofd1 hich the Applit:unState not onJy did not idtutify any
possible juri:sùictional lberween it:-melrhenarne.dRe.spondc.:State but
even C'.Xpre.ssacknowlt.:· ::inirs Application thno such link existed.
S. Thus, in tllc lïrst case citcFrance,rh::n()the Trcatment ÏJl
Huneary of Airq<~ -m~dflrew of United Statesof America (USJ\ v
llungary: USA v USSR), the Application said iparagraph 2:
"The United StatesGovl!mlllentin filing rhiapplk~T i(t)n
the Court,~ubmit tstlu;Cuun's jurisdictiororrhe pmp()~ ef.his
case. The Huug<.uiallGovernmcrll appears nor ro h:wc filed any
declaration witlr ti: uun thus far. analthoueh irW<- ~nsited to do
soby the U11it St:ts Uovernrnentin the N()I: nnexe.dhereto ihas
r1ntJll<tdt::arcsponsive rcply rorhe invitation.The Hungarlan
CJovemmcJll is. however, C)ll;.tlita submit ta thejurisdictionof
the Court inJhi r;itleand may upon notificatioof thisapplication
hy the Rcgistrar, in accordancc withe Rules ofthe Court, takc the'. 97.-99'9515: GG z 11 223313515 E.LnUTERPnCHCC 133
J
neccssarysteps to enable the Court'sjurisdiction ovcr both parties to
the disputlo be confirmcd.
Thus the United StatesGuv~.:rt fuumllstCeIjrIsdi<.:lionof
this Court uu the furegoing considerations and on Arti36( 1)of
thl: Stalut(Sec thePleu.dl ngt~atc;Jse,p.9.)
6. ldcnticnl words wcrc uscd in the Application in both the other
cases citcdby France. theAc~ri Iucdem of 4 SepŒmber 1Y 54 (USA v
USSR) (sec /C./ P!f~at fninatcase. p.9)and the Aerial incident of 7
lnot4, as thefrenchdocument stntesl Novcmhcl.'J54 (USA v USSR) (sec
JCJPleadings inthat casep.9).
7. The French Aide Memoire suys thnt:
"In ull thcsc cases, theCourt, using its administrativepowc1.
dccidcd, by orders made without holdingh~.:c: aU iwuthuut Lhe
Parties havinghccn inviteJtu p<ntid!Jate in aproccdural act. to
strikc them froJII !hl! list, arter having raken note tlackiof
jurisùh.:tion was manifesr."
This is quircc:orrect. What is totally incorrect unsustainableis the
st , .~e whic.:hncxt follows: "Jt shoul<ocnhandlcd differently to-day"
("Jint aurait en u.lld~ffùem eujurdlhui").
8. The difference betwecn thcscca~c ~nd the present one is
manifcst. As stated. it:<thf:thes c~ses (and therare severa!mhers of
the.same kind notcitcc.iin the French document) the United conceded
from the outset thufltthe moment of the Application it could not identify
any jurisdictionallink l>ctwet:IIitself and the respondent State.r.he
present ca.;;New i'.~al painds to a pcrfcctvalid link -the terms of
paragraph 63 of the 197-1Judgmenl. The on!y question is whcthcr the
conditions of operalion of thalil iJC~sali~f ai ednended by New 04
~ 44 223 313545 E.L~UTERP~CH TC
,,
Zealand, or arc not, as contendcd hy France. That is a substantial legal
issue which cannat be resolved percmptorily.
9. h follows thal the French contention in paragraph 34 of its
Aide-Memoire, namdy, that the Court'sdecision in thematter can be taken
proprio motu withtHit a public hearing, iegunlly misplaced. So likewise is
the pretence in the next paragraph that there is no "objective fact'' to which
may be relatcd such maucrs as the application for interim rncasures of
protection, the applications for intervention and the rcsumcd participation
of the ad hoc J udge choscn by New Zealand.
1O. lt is intercsting to note th3t Professor Rosenne, in hisLn.w and
Procedure of the International Court. Vol. IL p.540, trcats these cases as
instanct:s of ''uni laieraiarrai gnm<.;nt under the doc tri ne of Jo ru m
proru)!,U.lum" whcre the scisin is nol even prima facie effective. The
present proceedings do not fall into that catcgory. New Zea)and · ..;not
invokc forum proro~at l p.ints quite spccifically to paragraph 63 of
the 1974 Judgmcnt as th(: basis of the Court's competence to proceed.
Supplementary Aide-mémoire of New Zealand