CORRESPONDENCE CORRESPONDENCE
1. THE AMBASSADOR OF AUSTRALIA 'IO THE NETHERLANDS
TO THE REGISTRAR
9 May 1973.
1have the honour to transmit to you an Application' instituting proceedings
in the International Court of Justice bv Australia aeainst the French Reoublic.
The C;i>vcrnmentof husiralia hür app;inir.d hlr. l><iiric. ravil.ïnoffice ;ifthe
Auitrdlian Attorney-Gener~l's I>cliartment. 3s ils agent. and 1ceriify ihat ihc
si-nature on the ar rcation is the sienature of Mr. Ërazil
1have been appointed as Co-Agent.
In accordance with Article 38 (5) of the Rules of Court2, 1have the honour
to state that the address for service of the agents is this Embassy.
(Signed) L. D. THOMSON.
'
2. THE AGENT OF AUSTRALIA TO THE PRESIDENT
9 May 1973
1 have the honour to refer to the Application dated 9 May 1973 by the
Government of Australia instituting proceedings against the French Govern-
ment and to the Request 3lodged on the same day for the laying down of pro-
visional measures to be adopted hy the FrenchGovernment pursuant to Article
33 of the General Act for the Pacific Settlement of Disputes 1928 and in ac-
cordance with Article 41 of the Statute of the Court.
In view of the extreme urgency of the matter, may 1respectfully request you,
as President of the Court, to consider the possibility of sending a telegram Io
the French Minister for Foreign Affairs, drawing his attention to paragraph 3 .
of Article 33 of the General Act and suggesting to him the desirability, pending
the judgment of the Court in this case, of continuing the suspension of further
atmos~heric nuclear testine to which the French Government aareed for the
duration of the diplornatic-negoti receitlynconcluded and;n which the
Australian Government hoped to secure a settlement which would have avoided
the need to institute the present proceedings.
Your Excellency willrecall that requests comparable to this were made to the
President of the Permanent Courtof International Justice in thCuseconcerning
the Administrationof thePrince of Pless(SeriesE, No. 9,p. 165,n. 1) and to the
President of theInternational Court ofJustice inthe Anglo-lranian Oil Co. case
(I.C.J.Pleadings, p. 704).
(Signed) P. BRAZIL.
' 1, pp. 3-39.
Rules of Court as amended on 10 May 1972, I.C.J. Aerr undDocumenrs No. 2.
1,pp. 43-146. 3. THE AGENT OF AUSTRALIA TO THE REGlSTRAR
9 May 1973.
1 have the honour 10 refer again to the Application dated 9 May 1973, by
which Australia is instituting proceedings against the French Republic.
The Australian Government considers that it possesses, and it intends to
exercise, the right to choose a Judge under Article 31 of the Statute of the
Court, and 1 wish hereby to notify the Registrar of the Court to this efect.
The person chosen by the Australian Government to sit as Judge in the case is
the Right Honourable Sir Garfield Edward John Barwick, PC, GCMG, Chief
Justice of the High Court of Australia.
4. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE FRANCE
(télégramme)
9 mai 1973,
Ai honneur communiquer à Votre Excellence que Gouvernement australien
a fait déooser ce iour au Greffe une reouêtecontre Gouvernement francais
concernant puursu~iieess~i, nuil2liir~i ddni o2Can Pli2ilique SudCI Te r&f<r.int
à article17 ,\cte gencrdl pour rGglerneniplicltique dili'trenrli internsiinnaux de
1928 et ,uh\idiairïnienti arti~lz36 r>:irdara~he? Statut C'a~r.Cour est ririCe
. -.
<<To adjudge and Jïrlarc that for the ;iho\e-nientioned reliionor any ofthem
or fur an) oiher ruion thdt the Court Jrcnis io hr.rele\lint the carrying oui~f
further atrnos~heric nuclear weaDon tests in the South Pacific Ocean is not
consistent with applicable rules Of international law and to order that the
French Republic shall not carry out any further such test». Ai égalementhon-
neur informer Votre Excellence que Gouvernement australien a présenté même
jour une demande indication mesures conservatoires aux termes articles 41
Statut et66 Règlement. Demande conclut comme suit: «In the light of the
foregoing considerations Australia submits that thisis a proper and necessary
case for the Court to exercise its power to lay down or indicate provisional
measures of protection. The measures which Australia respectfully requests
are simvle and are directlv and exclusivelv related to the riahts for which
~ustralfa seeks protection- in these proceédings. The provis~onal measures
should be that the French Government should desist from any further at-
mospheric nuclear tests pending the Judgment of the Court in this case.
Texte requêteet demande indication mesures conservatoires vous seront ex-
pédiéscejour par exprès.
5. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE FRANCE
(rélégromme)
9 mai 1973.
Me référanttélégramme etlettre ce jour concernant requête Gouvernement
australien ai honneur communiquer Votre Excellenceque cegouvernement aux CORRESPONDENCE 339
termes article 31 Statut a désignésir Garfield Barwick président Haute Cour
d'Australie pour siéger enqualitéjuge ad /roc.Se référant article3 Règlement
Cour attacherait prix àconnaître par voie télégraphique opinionGouvernement
français.
6. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANG~RES DE FRANCE
9 mai 1973.
Comme suite à mes télégrammesde ce jour, j'ai l'honneur de confirmer à
Votre Excellence aue le Gouvernement de i'Australie a déooséau Greffe de la
Cour internationale de Justice une requëte introduisant contre le Gouvernement
de la République francaise une instance relative à la ooursuite des essais at-
mosohérkues d'armes nucléairesdans l'océan~acifiaue Sud
~btre ~xcellence voudra bien trouver ci-joint copie certifiéeconforme de
ladite requête.Je lui en ferai prochainement parvenir d'autres exemplaires,
dans i'éditionen anglais et en français qui sera établiepar les soins du Greffe
aux fins des communications à effectuer en conformité de l'article 40, para-
graphes 2 et 3, du Statut de la Cour.
Je ioins éealement à la orésentelettre cooies certifiéesconformes d'une lettre
de ls&nbasCadeur d3~usiralie aux pays-B'asconcernant la désignation d'un
agent et d'un coagent du Gouvernement australien, et d'une lettre de l'agent du
Gouvernement australien concernant la désienation Darce rrouvernement d'un
juge ad hoc. Par l'un des télégrammesci-dessis ment<onnés,;'aifait connaître à
Votre Excellence que, se référant à l'article 3 du Règlement, laCour attachait
du orix à connaître Darvoie téléeraohiaueI'ooinion du Gouvernement francais
en ce qui concerne ia désignationd'un'juge id hoc par le Gouvernement ;us-
tralien.
Je ioins enfin à la orésentelettre cooie certifiéeconforme de la demande en
indication de mesures conservatoires présentéeau nom du Gouvernement
australien le 9 mai 1973aux termes desarticles 41 du Statut et 66du Règlement
de la Cour. demande dont i'enverrai orochainement à Votre ~xcellence une
traduction en français, sans-caractère hfficiel, établie par les soins du Greffe.
Je saisis cette occasion pour attirer l'attention de Votre Excellencesur I'arti-
cle 38 du Rè-lement dela Cour oui dis~o,e(oa,.era-he .) au, ,a oartie contre
laquelle la requëte est déposée età laquelle elle est communiquéedoit, en ac-
cusant la réceptionde cette communication. ou sinon le plus tôt possible, faire
connaître à la Cour le nom de son aeent et aue. aux termes du oaraeraohe 5 de
cet article, la désignation de l9agen<doit êt;eaccompagnéedi l'inéication du
domicile éluau siègede la Cour et auquel seront adresséestoutes les com-
munications relatives à l'affaire en cause.
(Signé) S. AQUARONE.
7. THE REGISTRAR TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS
(lelegram)
9 May 1973
With reference Article 40, paragraph 3, of Statute have honour inform you
that on 9 May Australia filed (a) Application instituting proceedings against340 NUCLEAR TESTS
France asking the Court to adjudge and declare that "The carrying out of
further atmospheric nuclear tests in the SouthPacific Ocean is not consistent
with applicable rules of international law and to order that the French Republic
shall not carry out any further such tests". (b) Request for the indication of
interim measuresof protection in accordance with Articles 41 of Statute and 66
of New Rules. Measures requested are that the French Government should
desist from any further atmospheric nuclear tests pending the judgment of
the Court.
8. THE AMBASSADO RF NEW ZEALANO TO THE NETHERLANDS
TOTHE REGISTRAR
9 May 1973.
1 have the honour to submit to the International Court of Justice an AD-
plication'instituting proceedings on behalf of New Zealand against ~rance'in
respect of a dispute concerning the legality of nuclear testing in the Pacific
region that gives rise to radioactive fallout.
Paragraph 10 of the Application indicates that New Zealand intends to seek
interim measuresof protection in this cas1.expect that the request for interim
measuresof protection will besubmitted to the Court. at the latest, on Monday
14 May 1973.
In accordance with Article 38 (2) of the Court's Rules, the New Zealand
Government has appointed Professor R. Q.Quentin-Baxter as its Agent in this
case.L have been appointed as Co-Agent.
In reliance on Article 313) of the Statute of the Court, New Zealand wishes
to nominate the Right Honourable Sir Garfield Barwick. GCMG, Chief Justice
of the High Court of Australia, as Judge ad Iioc.
The address for service of the Agents of the New Zealand Government is the
New Zealand Embassy, 18 Lange Voorhout, The Hague.
(Sixlied) H. V. Roeenrs.
9. THE AGENT OF NEWZEALAND TO THE PRESIDENT
9 May 1973.
1 have the honour to refer to the Application of 9 May 1973 by which New
Zealand instituted proceedings against France.
1 have also the honour to cal1attention to paragraph 10of the Application,
and to the covering letter to the Registrar, in which it is stated that the New
Zealand Government will seek interim measures of protection pending the
final disoosition of this case. and that the reauest is exoected to be filed. at
Iatcsi. on hlimiü). 14)rl;i)The righi.;, the iniirproirltion uluhich will be
souphl. are ihosc siaicd in pïragraph 28 of ihc Applicalion.
' Seepp. 3-45,supra. On behalf of the New Zealand Government 1would respectfully submit to
Your Excellency that you consider suggestingto the French Ministerfor Foreign
Affairs that. ~ending consideration of the matter by the Courtitis desirable
that ~ranceihould no1conduct nuclear tests givingrise to radioactive fallout.
In making this submission, 1am mindful of the need to ensure that the Court
is in a position to give an effectivedecision, and of the urgency of the matter in
the light of the declared intention of the French Government Io continue with
its programme or nuclear testing in the South Pacific region.
1 understand that the Agent of the Government of Australia, which has
instituted comparable proceedings against France, has, in a letter of today's
date. addresseda similar request to you.
10. LE GREFFIERAU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRESÉTRANGÈRE DSE FRANCE
9 mai 1973.
Ai honneur communiquer Votre ExcellencequeGouvernement n6o-zélandais
a fait déposerce jour au Greffe une requêtecontre Gouvernement français
concernant essais nucléairesdans région Pacifique Sud et se référant à arti-
cle 17Acte généralpour règlement pacifique différends internationaux de 1928
et subsidiairement à article 36 paragraphes2 et 5 Statut Cour. Cour est priée
«To adjudge and declare that the conduct by the French Government of
nuclear tests in the South Pacific Region that give rise Io radioactive fallout
constitutes a violation of New Zealand's rights under international lawand
that theserights will beviolated by any further such te».sTexte requête vous
sera expédiéce jour par expres.
11. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DI!S AFFAIRESÉTRANOÈRES DE FRANCE
(réldgronime)
9mai 1973
[Méme texte que no 5ci-dessus.]
12. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE FRANCE
9 mai 1973.
Comme suite à mes télégrammesde ce jour, j'ai l'honneur de confirmer à
Votre Excellence que le Gouvernement de la Nouvelle-Z6lande a dépos6au
Greffe de la Cour internationale de Justice une requêteintroduisant contre le342 NUCLEAR TESTS
Gouvernement de la République française une instance relative aux essais
nucléaireseffectués dansla région du Pacifique Sud.
Votre Excellence voudra bien trouver ci-joint copie certifiée conforme de
ladite requête.Jelui en ferai prochainement parvenir d'autres exemplaires dans
l'édition en anglais et en français qui sera établie par les soins du Greffe aux
fins des communications à effectuer en conformité de I'article 40, para-
-.aohes 2 et 3. du Statut de la Cour.
Jejoins bgalemeni i Iü prewnie lettre 2opie ccrtiti2e cainfornic d'une letir.Ir.
I'amb.i~ssdcur de Souielle-Zr'lande au., I'sy,-lhs ionserri.int n~itaninieni 1.i
désianation d'un agent et d'un coaaent du Gouvernement néo-zélandais.ainsi
désignation-par ce gouvernement d'un jugead hoc. Par I'un des télé-
grammes ci-dessus mentionnés, j'ai fait connailre à Votre Excellence que, se
référanta l'article 3 du Réalement.la Cour attachait du orix à connaître Dar
ioie ir:lGgraphique l'opinion du C;ou\crnemeni français en ce qui ci)nccrne la
dcsignaiion d'un juge ct</hoc par Ic Gou\ernenieni nCi>-7r'Iandc~is.
le saisis cette occasion oour attirer I'attention de Votre Excellence sur I'ar-
ticle 38 du Règlement de la Cour qui dispose(paragraphe 3) que la partie contre
laquelle la requêteest déposéeet à laquelle elle est communiquée doit, en
accusant la réception de cette communication, ou sinon le plus tôt possible,
faire connaître à la Cour le nom de son agent et que, aux termes du para-
graphe 5 de cet article, la désignationde l'agent doit êtreaccompagnéede I'in-
dication du domicile élu au siège dela Cour et auquel seront adresséestoutes
les communications relatives à l'affaire en cause.
13. THE REGISTRAR 70 THE SECRETARY-GENERAL OF THE UNITED NATIONS
9 May 1973.
With reference Article 40, paragraph 3,of Statute have honour inform you
that on 9 May New Zealand filed an Aoolication institutina oroceedings aaainst
Fr~ ~ ~ ~d =skine t-e C~u-~~~o adiudééan- declare "~ha<the condict bv 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 any further such
tests".
14. THE REGISTRAR TO THE CO-AGENT OF AUSTRALIA
10 May 1973.
1 have the honour to acknowledee the receiot of the letter of 9 Mav 1973
whereby Your Excellency transmitted to the lnternational Court of ~usiice an
Ao~lication on behalf of the Government of Australia instituting proceedings
aG-st France and informed m~ ~f~the aoooin..ent of Mr. ~atrick ~raril asthe
Agent, and of Your Excellency as the Co-Agent. of the Government of Aus-
tralia for the purpose of the proceedings. It has been duly noted that the ad-
dress for service is the Australian Embassy in The Hague. CORRESPONDENCE 343
10 May 1973.
1ha~ ~the honour to acknowled~e t-e recei~t on 9 Mav 1973of a reauest bv
the Auiiralian Ciovernment for the indication of provisional measures in the
proscedtngs instituied againsi Franie by the Au\irrrlian Goiernment's Applica-
tion of the vame date. The French Government aas immediatcly informed hy
ielegram of the filing of this rrquert and a seriified c~py u,as litthe same tiine
dlsplitched to the Minisier ior Foreign Afiliirs of trance.
10 May 1973.
1 have the honour to acknowledae the recei~t of the letter of 9 May 1973
whereby Your Excellency transmittéd to the ~nternational Court of ~usÏicean
Application instituting proceedings on behalf of New Zealand against France,
advised me of the intention of New Zealand to seek interim measures of
proteaion in thcca\c. and informed me thai the New Zeliland Government hïd
appointcd I'roléisorK. Q. Quentin-Blixter as ithAgeni for the proccedinp~and
vourself as Co-Affint. It has been dulv noted that the address for service is the
New Zealand ~~bassy in The ~ague:
Your Excellency further notified me by the same letter that, in reliance on
Article 31, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the Court, New Zealand wished to
nominate the Right Honourable Sir Garfield Barwick, GCMG, Chief Justice
of the High Court of Australia, as Judge ad hoc. 1 have the honour to inforrn
you that this notification has ken communicated to the French Government in
accordance with Article 3, paragraph I, of the Rules of Court.
17. THE PRIME MlNlSTER AND MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
OF FIJI TO THE REGISTRAR
Suva. 10 May 1973.
1have the honour to advise that the Government of Fiji intends to make ap-
olication' for Dermission to intervene under the terms of Article 62 of the
statute of the court in Applications instituting proceedings on behalf of the
Governments of Australia and New Zealand against the French Republic in
respect of disputes concerning the legality of nuclear testing in the atmosphere
in the Pacific region.
1 have the further honour to inform you in accordance with Article 38 (4)
of the Court's Rules that the Fiji Government has appointed Mr. Donald
McLoughlin, as ils Agent in this case. 1 verify that the signature "D. Mc-
Loughlin" appearing below is that of Mr. Donald McLoughlin the Agent of
the Fiji Government in this case.
The address for service of the Agent of the Fiji Government is: C/oAustralian
Embassy, Koninginnegracht 23, The Hague.
(Signed) K. K. T. MARA.
l See Nos.29,37 and 42, infra.344 NUCLEAR TESTS
18. THE CO-AGEN TF NEW ZEALAND 70 THE REGISTRAR
14 May 1973.
1 have the honour ta submit a request' for interim measures of protection
in the casecommenced by New Zealand against France by the Application filed
on 9 May 1973.The filingof the request today was foreshadowed in paragraph
10of the Application and in my letter of 9 May 1973to you.
You will note that the Request refers in paragraph 36 to Reports of the
National Radiation Laboratory, relevant issues of which are listed in Annex
VIT.The Reports are not annexed to the request; sufficient copies will however
be available should the Court wish to refer tohem2.
19. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE FRANCE
(rélégramme)
14 mai 1973.
Me référantmon télegramme 9 mai ai honneur communiquer à VotreEx-
cellence aue dans affaireEssaisnucléairesGouvernement néo-zélandais a fait
Jépobcr:e jour 3uCirefiilcmande indicaiion nicsures conscri<iioireau^rerme,
:irli:les II48lS1;iluiel66K2glement. ,\linCa linal ainsi Lain..Ncw Zca13nd
submits that in the liaht of the considerations set out above the Court should
exerciseits power to-lay down and indicate interim measures to protect the
rights of New Zealand set out in paragraph 2 above. The measure which New
Zealand reauests to Drotect those;iahcs iSthat France refrain from conduct-ne
any further'nuclear iests that give rise ta radioactive fallout while the Court is
seized of the case. » Texte vous sera expédiécejour par exprès.
Comme suite à mon télégramme dece jour, j'ai l'honneur de confirmer à
Votre Excellence que le Gouvernement néo-zélandais a faitdéposercejour au
Greffe de la Cour internationale de Justice. aux termes des articles 41 e48
du S131uIel hhdu KCglemenldc la Cour. une demande en indicatiun de niesures
con\çr\atoirri dan, I'u1I'~eei Eao,~ »r«.l<'a,r1.\'i>i,v<~/l~~.Zi~ Fruici. .
Je ioins à la orésente lettre co~ie certifiéeconforme de cette demande en
indication de misures conservatoires et d'une lettre de couverture du coagent
du Gouvernement néo-zélandais. J'enverrai prochainement à Votre Excellence
une traduction en français sanscaractèreofficiel. établienar les soins du Greffe.
de ladite demande.
See pp.49-86,supra
Not reriroduced. CORRESPONDENCE 345
21. THEREGlSTRAR TOTHESECRETARY-GENER OALTHEUNITEDNATIONS
(rrlegrom)
14 May 1973.
Have honour inform you that on 14 May New Zealand filed request for the
indication of interim measuresof ~rotection in accordance with Articles 41 and
48 of Statute and 66 of New ~ulei. Measures requested are that France should
refrain from conducting any further nuclear tests that give rise to radioactive
fallout while the Court is seisedof the case
22. LEGREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE FRANCE
(télégramme)
14 mai 1973.
Me référant à mes télégrammeset à ma lettre du 9 mai sur l'instance intro-
duite Darl'Australie contre la France et en particulierà la demandeen indication
de misures conservatoires j'ai l'honneur de faire savoir à Votre Excellence:
1) que le Président a fixe au 16 mai la date expiration du délai dans lequel
conformément article 3 du Règlement Votre Gouvernement peut faire con-
naître son opinion sur la notification deAustralie concernant désignation d'un
juge ad hoc (voir mon second télégrammedu 9 mai); 2) que conformément à
article 66 paragraphe 8 du Règlement de 1972le Présidentse propose de con-
voauer la Cour DOUr audience ~ubliaue le lundi 21 mai à 15heuresDour donner
'aux'Partiesla possibilité de faire entendre leurs observations sur lademande en
indication mesures conservatoires. Le Président de la Cour exprime I'espoir
que les gouvernements intéresséstiendront compte du fait que la question est
subjrtdice devant la Cour. Communication identique adresséeaujourd'hui au
Gouvernement australien
23.THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF AUSTRALIA
14 May 1973.
Ihave the honour to refer to vour letter of9 May addressedIo the President
of the Court in respectof the caséconcerning~ucle;r Tesrs(AssIro1iav. Frairce).
1 have the honour to state that the President has directed me to inform the
Government of France and the Government of Australia that he expressesthe
hope that the Governments concerned in these proceedings will take inIo ac-
count the fact that the matter is now snbjudice before the Court.
1 have the further honour to inform you that the President proposes Io con-
vene the Court for public hearings commencing on Monday, 21 May 1973, at
3 p.m. at the PeacePalace,The Hague, to afford the parties an opportunity of
~resentin- their observations on the reauest of Australia for the indication of
interiiii rntxriires oi proteciion. puriIOn.%rii<leOh.plir:igraph 8. of the 1972
Kule, OC C<iurt, 1.,I,<h~ic the honour ro inii)rm yo~ ihlii the I're>iJcnt of
ihe Couri har tixed 16 \la.i,ihc timc-limit iinJer .rii<le 3i~fthc Rulcr wiihin346 NUCLEAR TESTS
which the Government of France may submit its views on the notification of
cho~c~ o~ ~ .~~--~ ~d hoc contained in vour letter to me of 9 Mav.
1 enclose a copy of rhe telegram i have today despatched io the French
Minister for Foreign Affairs concerning the matters mentioned ahove, together
with an official ~nÏlish translation theieof.
(télégramme)
15 mai 1973.
Me référantmes télégrammeset ma lettre du 9 mai sur l'instance introduite
par Nouvelle-Zélande contre France et mon télégramme hierconcernant
demande en indication mesures conservatoires présentéepar Nouvelle-Zélande
ai honneur faire savoir Votre Excellence : 1, .ue le Présidenta fixéau 16 mai
la date expiration du délai dans lequel conformément article 3 du Règlement
votre gouvernement peut faire connaitre son opinion sur la notification de la
Nouvelle-Zélande~ ~n~ ~~ ~ ~désienation d'un iuee . - ad hoc (voir mon second
télégrammedu 9 mai); 2) que confokément à article 66 paragraphe 8 du Règle-
ment de 1972 la Cour tiendra en temps voulu des audiences publiques pour
donner aux parties la possibilitéde faire entendre leurs observations sur de-
mande en indication mesures conservatoires et qu'on envisage que ces audiences
suivront immédiatement les audiences tenues dans affaire Australie c.France.
Le Président de la Cour réitèrei'esooir exorimé dans mon télémanme hi-r
concernant le fait que 13 quertiun e<t mainten3nr sitb;«di<.cde\aiit la Cour.
Communication analogue adre$s;e aujuurJ'hui au Couiernement nCo-
zélandais.
25. THE REOISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF NEW ZEALAND
15 May 1973.
1have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 14 May, received
in the Registry the same day, enclosing a request by the Government of New
Zealand for the indication of interim measures of protection in the Nuclear
Tests case (New Zealand v. France).
\Vilh reference IO yoiir leiier of9 >la) addre,jed ru ihe Prejideni of the
Court. I haie the honi~urro srarc ihat the I'resideni ha<dire;ted me to inform
the Government of France and the Cio\ernment of Keu Zealand ihat he eu-
prese, ihe hopç ihst the Go\ernnienis concerneci in ihew pro;eeJing\ aill take
inro acsount the faci ihai the marier iindu ,iib;«<liiibefore the Couri.
1 hahe rhe hunour also IO inr<>rmsi~uthai the Prejideni oi the Court has
fixed 16 May as the time-limit unde; Article 3 of the Rules of Court within
which the Government of France may submit its views on the notification of
choice of a judge ad hoc contained in your letter Io me of 9 May.
The Court will in due course hold public hearings Coafford the parties Io
these proceedings the opportunity of presenting their observations on the
request hy the Government of New Zealand for the indication of interimmeasuresof nrotection. As vou will be aware. the Government of Australia has
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~~~~ ~
tiled a rcqiicit for thc indiz.iiian of inierim mcdrure\ <if proteiii~in in rcspe~t
<if the pr<iceciling\ithas insitruieJ ;igdin$t France. The Preridciii prspo\r\ lai
isiiheiic the Coiiri fdr piihli~ hcsrinjs in respe~iuf lh~i rcqLe,i coninieiiciiig
un Monilxy, 21 X1.i). ai 3 pni. II ih;~intcmpl.iieJ ihdr ihc public hcarings in
resDeLti~fthe rcuucst of the <io\érnnirnr of Scu Lealdnrl irill open immeJiately
fnliowing the clise of the hearings in the ~usrrali; v. Francecase.
1enclose a copy of a telegram 1have today despatched to the French Minis-
ter for Foreign Affairs, an extract from a telegram despatchedyesterday to the
French Minister for Foreign Affairs, and an unofficial English translation of
these texts.
26. THECO-AGENT OF NEWZEALANDTOTHE REGISTRAR
15 May 1973.
1 have the honour to deliver to you, in accordance with my letter toyou of
14 May with wbich was submitted the New Zealand request for interim mea-
sures of protection, four copies of each of the Reports of the New Zealand
National Radiation Laboratory, as listed on the las1page of Annex VI1 to the
request. In,addition there are four copies of the first report (DXRL FI) which
is referred to on the first page of Annex VI1 to the request. This report is
entitled Fallour in New Zealand: Results 10 Jlr>ie1961.
Thesecopies' are supplied against the possibility that Members of the Court
or interestedparties may wish to refer to them.
27. L'AMBASSADEUD RE FRANCE AUX PAYS-BAS AU GREFFIER'
16mai 1973
Par tilégramme du 10mai 1973vous avez bien voulu faire savoir au ministre
des affaires étrangères que le Gouvernement de l'Australie avait dépose au
Greffe de la Cour internationale de Justice une requêteintroductive d'instance
contre le Gouvernement de la République franqaise au sujet des expériences
nucléaires franqaises dans le Pacifique.
Le Gouvernement de la République a notéque le Gouvernement australien
avait cru pouvoir fonder cette requête,d'une part, sur la déclaration en date
du 20 mai 1966 par laquelle le Gouvernement de la République a acceptéla
juridiction obligatoire de la Cour et, d'autre part, sur l'article 17 de l'Acte
généralpour le règlement pacifique des différends internationaux en date du
26 septembre 1928.
J'ai l'honneur. au nom du Gouvernement de la République française. de
rappeler qiie 1.1.vnipcienx dc 1.1Cour iniern~iii>n.ile iicJur1i.z es1fondte sur
Ir i<msentement de, El319 i SCs,>omeitre i .irjurid~ilion.
Or. p3r ,a rlC~l,ir~tiaindu 20 mdi 1966,le Gourerncnieni Je la KCpublique a
Not reproduced.
La mémecommunication a étéadresséeau Greffierau sujetde l'affaire Nouvelle-
Zélandec. France.348 NUCLEAR TESTS
exclu de son acceptation de la juridiction obligatoire de la Cour les « différends
concernant des activités se raooor..nt à la defense nationale » (déclaration.
paragraphe 3).
La Cour aura certainement observéque ce membre de phrase constitue la
différenceessentiellede ce texte parrapport à la déclaration françaiseantérieure,
en date du 10 iuillet 1959.
Or il n'est pas contestable que les expériencesnucléaires françaises dans le
Pacifique, que le Gouvernement australien considère comme illicites, font partie
d'un programme de mise au point d'un armement nucléaireet constituent donc
une de ces activitées se rapportant à la défensenationale que la déclaration
française de 1966a entendu exclure,
~e Gouvernement de la République souligne qu'en présencede cette volonté
formellement exprimée de soustraire à l'examen de la Cour les différends con-
cernant des activités se rapportant à la défensenationale, aucune conclusion
inverse quant à son consentement à la compétence de la Cour pour de tels
litiges ne saurait être tiréede I'Acte général de1928.
Ainsi qu'il ressort de la note ci-jointe, il est manifeste que le statut actuel de
l'Acte générald'arbitrage et l'attitude à son égard des parties intéresséese , n
premier lieu de la France, interdisent de considérer qu'il existerait sur ce
fondement, dela oart dela France, cette volontéclairement ex~riméed'acceoter
la comoétence dela Co~r-aue celle-ci. selonune iurisnr,denc, c~ ~ ~~ ~. estime ~,~ ~
indi\pcnsable. pour chcrcer jï juriJi~,iion. Hien au conirdire. I'incompc'ten~c
de la Cour \ur la b.ire de I'AJe <le1918e\i c'edlcnieni JGmi>nrrc'e.soi! QueIeJit
acte soit reconnu comme n'étant olus en vieueur.-soit~.u~ ~on~.~~ .~-d'effec- ~
tivité et la désuétudedans laquellé ilest tombédepuis la disparition du système
de la SdN interdisent de le faire orévaloir sur une volonté clairement et c os té-
rieurement exorimée dans la déclaration au'a faite le ~ ~ ~ nu verne men la-de
République sir la base de l'article 36, paragraphe 2, du Statut dela cour.
Je vous serais donc reconnaissant de bien vouloir faire savoir à Monsieur le
Présidentet à Messieurs lesjuges de la Cour internationale de Justice qu'ainsi
qu'il en a averti le Gouvernement australien. le Gouvernement de la République
estime que la Cour n'a manifestement pascompétencedans cette affaire et qu'il
ne oeut acceoter sa iuridiction.
ri n'a, en'conséGence, pas l'intention de désigner un agent et demande
respectueusement à la Cour de bien vouloir ordonner que cette affaire soit rayée
de son rôle.
De ce fait, de l'avis de mon gouvernement, la question de la désignation d'un
juge od hoc par le Gouvernement australien ne se pose pas, non plus que celle
de l'indication de mesuresconservatoires.
Annexe
Le Gouvernement francais considère aue I'Acte générald'arbitrage ne oeut
servir de fondement à la Compétencede ia Cour pour délibérerdu recours de
l'Australie et de la Nouvelle-Zélande contre les essaisnucléaires français soit
aue cet Acte soit reconnu comme n'étant olus en vigueur. soit aue son manque
d.efictiviiç ci la dC\uGtude<lani l.iqurlle'il cjt tombC depui, 1; ~lir~arition~u
\).\iL'me de la Socieie des Salitin\ interdisent Je le faire prbaloir \ur lx \ol<iniL' CORRESPONDENCE 349
clairement et postérieurement exprimée dans la déclaration facultative du
20mai 1966, faite par le Gouvernement fran~ais, sur la base de l'article 36,
paragraphe 2, du Statut de la Cour.
1.DÉFAUT ACTUELDE VALIDITÉ DEL'ACTEOÉNÉRAL D'ARB~TRACE
Le défaut actuel de validité de I'Acte généralsedéduit desélémentssuivants:
1. L'Acte de Genève t'rail ufle partie int@gra~itdu systèn~ede la SdN dans
la mesure où le règlement pacifique desdifférends internationaux devait néces-
sairement, dans ce système, accompagner la sécuritécollective et le désarme-
ment. A cette intégration idéologique correspondait une liaison intime entre
l'Acte et les structures de la SdN: avec la Cour permanente de Justice inter-
nationale. évidemment. mais aussi avec le Conseil de la SdN. le Secrétaire
ginr'r~l Je <elle-ci. le; Eiai.. memhres Je I'Organisitioriou enare \on \iCgç.
Cr5 liens claient encore ;i;iusr's p.ir cerr;iine* mention, Je* a:cepiations de
l'-\<te par I'Aiiitr~lie et la Nuuiellc-Zr'ldnJc qui riser\aicnt la ~onipctcnce de la
Ctoiir permdnente pour iles ililErenil; dont pourrait s',i;;uper le Conieil de IL
SJN. tn terines nioins c<~nirùignani\. la dc;l;ir.iiionfrsncaiie rr'rervdir GgdIç-
ment la compétencede ce dernier organe. De même,lesacceptations de I'AUS-
tralie et de la Nouvelle-Zélandeexcluaient leslitiges avec lesEtatsnonmembres
de la SdN.
Cette intégration de 1'Acte dans la structure de la SdN est apparue si intime
qu'après la disparition de l'organisation de Genève on a reconnu qu'il fallait
procéderà une révisionde I'Acte pour substituer desmentions nouvelles à celles
aui se référaientà un svstèmedisoaru. celui de la SdN. II n'a donc Dasétéiueé
s~ffifisantde substituer ia Cour iniernationale de Justice à la Cour permanente
de Justice internationale, ce qui était déjà réalipar l'article 37 du Statut de la
Cour, pourque13Acte puissecontinuer de fonctionner normalement. La méthode
choisie a étecelle de l'élaboration d'un Acte révisé,comportant des signataires
nouveaux indépendants des anciens.
2. Certes. le "ore de I'Asseniblée wd114raledes Natio~ts Unies et I'oiii,erfuae
la siXiiatrrred'n~Acte revisi ne se sont pas accompagnésde l'affirmation nette
et claire que I'Acte primitif étaitcaduc. Mais cevote et cet Acte réviséont ajouté
encore au poids des arguments permettant de refuser que l'on puisse en 1973
invoquer I'Acte de 1928 comme manifestation d'une volonté claire d'un Etat
de consentir à la juridictionde la Cour internationale de Justice.
oJ Aucours de la discussion devant l'Assemblée générald eesNations Unies,
le\ pdys \o<i;ili>teCI n<itaniiiieni I'URSS. \e ,on1 c\prim;.s d'une mlinir're Ires
<ritique iI'r'g~rd de I'Acie de IY2Y.I'<iur I'UKSS, cet 4;te qu<<en pratique n'a
j.imsi,iii appliqiiC. n'a qu'une tdleur nr'gligeahle >-(hl Ts.ir3pkine. 27' scssian
Je 13 Ci~mniii\ii>n p.>l:iique spc'~.alc~.1.e projet de rL:s~lutii>nqui tendi le
$<rc*su\ciicr,,rrt ucontraire su* principes Jr Ili Charte t>.I.'A.'te est<<un
instrument malheureux et périmé de la SdN ». Les autres pays socialistes ex-
priment desjugements semblables sousune forme plus modérée(notamment
M. Katz Suchy pour la Pologne).
Le Canada et l'Australie ne prennent pas de position notable sur ce sujet.
Le déléguénéo-zélandais«sans êtresceptique ni vouloir faire de I'obstruc-
tion. maisen se bornant à la simple prudence iIogard desprojets de résolution
proposéspar la Commission intérimaire, suggère que «l'efficacité première »
de I'Acte général de1928, à laquelle seréferela première résolution, fassel'objet
d'un complément d'étudesdu point de vue historique ». Aussi propose-t-il que
ces projets soient envoyésà l'examen de la quatrième sessionde l'Assemblée.
Le délégué belge s'y oppose en faisant remarquer que le projet de résolution350 NUCLEAR TESTS
tendant à rendre son cficïciic première i I'Acie géniral de 1928 n'inipliqurr~
dr la pari de I'Asscmblce ptncrale ni approbation. ni \lr:sïppr~ihaiion des di<-
positions de cet instrumeni. ~'~ssembléëse bornera à faiie~préparerun texte
réviséouvert à l'adhésion des Etats afin de leur permettre de rétablir de leur
plein gréla validité de cet Acre.
Du reste la délégation belee déclare Dar ailleurs aue «l'Acte de 1928 est
toujours en vlgueur » mais que ,<ioutefois son auioriir: se trouve diminuie du
Faitde 13 dispariiion de certains rouage,> .'Acte de 1928, u bien que toujours
théoriauement valide. est devenu en arande oartie inano.i.able » (Assemblée
1948, troisième session.doc. A1605). -
Le Royaume-Uni rappelle que sadélégationa donnéson accord au projet de
résolution étant entendu au'il ne comoortait aucune a~~robation de l'Acte
généralpar l'Assembléeei que la ~ommission avait reconnu qu'il s'agissait
seulement de régulariser officiellement des modifications rendues nécessaires
nar la dis~arition de la SdN
' Le délégué de la France (M. P.-O .apie) déclareque I'Acte «est un docu-
ment précieuxque l'on a héritéde la SdN et dont il faut seulement modifier
les termes pour l'adapter à la nouvelle organisation».
Les mots qui reviennent comme un leitmotiv sont: redonner à I'Acte son
efficacité première (fa resfore Io ils original rficacy).
61 En conclusion de ce débat. l'Assembléeeénéralea adonté une résolu-
tion visant à <<restituer à 1'~ctL son efficaciti première » e; affirmant que
«ces amendementsnejoueront qu'entre les Etatsayant adhéréa I'Acte général
ainsi réviséet, partant,ne pasatteinteaux droits desEtats qui, parties
à I'Acte tel qu'il a étéétabli le 26 septembre 1928,entendraient s'en prévaloir
dans la mesure où il pourrai1jouer >)(résolution 268A (111)du 28 août 1949).
Cette résolution est intéressanteà plusieurs titres:
- L'expression «dans la mesure où il(l'Acte) ~ourrait iouer » est fort
dubitative. C'est une évidence,en enet, que de dire qu'un accord ne peut être
invoqué que dans la mesureou ilpeut jouer. Cela n'a de sensque si par là on
veut exprimer quelque doute sur cejeu éventuel.De plus, c'est au conditionnel
qu'est expriméel'éventualité d'uneinvocation de I'Acte de 1928et de sa valeur
au moment de cette invocation.
- La résolutionprévoitquel'Acte pourrait éventuellementjouer siles Parties
entendaient s'en prévaloir. La condition est donc que l'accord sefasseentre les
Parties pour que I'Acte puissejouer. Cette condition n'existe pas dans le cas
présent.
- D'autre Dart.si I'Acte de 1928étaitencore envieueur au moment où I'Acte
réviséa été c;ncl;, on a quelque peine à comprendre le passageplus haut cité
de la résolution de l'Assemblée générale selonlequel les amendements «ne
joueront qu'entre les Etats ayant adhéré à I'Acte général révisWé.
En effet, comme l'a fait remarquer le juge od /roc Armand-Ugon dans son
opinion dissidente à propos de I'aflaire de la Borcelona Traction (Recueil des
arrêts 1964, p. 156):
«La lettre c) de la résolution indique les amendements à apporter aux
articles 17, 18, 1, 0, 23.28, 30, 33, 34, 36, 37et 41où lesmots « C.P.J.*.
doivent êtreremplacéspar «C.I.J. ». Un tel précédentdémontre, sans
aucun doute, que l'Assembléegénérale n'a pas cru qu'elle pouvait faire
application de l'article 37 du Statut de la Cour quant aux dispositions de
I'Acte général visantla Cour permanente: pour le transfert à la Cour
internationale de la juridiction accordéeà la Cour permanente, un nouvel
accord était indispensable, ce qui signifiait que l'article 37 nejouait pas. » CORRESPONDENCE 35 1
Comme, d'autre part, l'article 37 du Statut de la Cour est très précis, ilne
peut y avoir qu'une raison à l'anomalie signaléepar le juge Armand-Ugon:
c'est que l'Assemblée généralen'était pas certaine que I'Acte de 1928, au mo-
ment où elle délibéraitau sujet de la révision, fût encore en vigueur.
3. L'examen desposirions prises par lesjuridictions internationales et de la
conduiredesEtats ajoute de nouvelles raisons de conclure au défaut actuel de
validité de I'Acte de 1928.
En ce qui concernela Cour inrernarionalede Jusrice,elle avait l'occasion de
trancher ce point à propos de l'affaire des Empruntsnorvégiens.
Le juge Basdevant en a indiqué la raison avec la plus grande clarté dans son
opinion dissidente, tout en prenant parti pour la validité de I'Acte de 1928:
((Rien ne permet de penser que cet Acte généraldoive échapperà I'at-
tention de la Cour. A aucun moment il n'est apparu que le Gouvernement
français ait renoncé à s'en prévaloir. Eût-il gardé le silence que la Cour
«dont la mission est de régler -onformément au droit international les
différends qui lui sont soumis » ne saurait l'ignorer. Lorsqu'il s'agit de
statuer sur sacompétenceet surtout de statuer sur la portée d'uneexception
à sa compétenceobligatoire dont le principe a étéadmis entre les Parties,
la Cour doit par elle-même rechercheravec tous les moyens dont elle
. dispose quel est le droit. En une matière où une telle recherche s'imposait
moins impérativement à elle, la Cour permanente n'a pas reculé devant
celle-ci, déclarant que, dans l'accomplissement de sa tâche de connaître
elle-mêmele droit international, elle (...) a étendu ses recherches à tous
orécédents.doctrines et faits aui lui étaient accessibleset aui auraient. le
caséchéant,pu révélerl'existence d'un desprincipes du droit international
viséspar le compromis. » (C.P.J.I., arrêts,no9, p. 31.)
Ce point lui paraissant établi, lejuge Basdevant affirme que la Cour n'avait
pas le droit de faire prévaloir la clause plus restrictive contenue dans la déclara-
tion française de 1949,faite sur la base del'article 36, paragraphe 2, du Statut,
sur l'attribution plus large de compétenceréaliséepar I'Acte généralde 1928et
la déclaration franqaise qui l'accompagnait.
On ne peut douter que le juge Basdevant n'ait exposéà ses collègues son
argumentation selon laquelle la Cour avait le devoir, si elle considérait que sa
compétenceétait fondéeà ce titre, de prendre position sur ce point alors même
qu'il n'avait pas étéinvoqué par le Gouvernement franqais. Du !este cette
opinion parait partagée par sir Hersch Lauterpacht (voir son opinion indi-
viduelle, C.P.J.I., arrêts, no 9, p. 61).
Mais la Cour n'a pas suivi lejuge Basdevant. Elle a fait étatde ce que 1'Acte
général n'avait pas été expressémenitnvoqué par le Gouvernement frayais
comme fondement de sa requête.II est difficile de croire que la Cour aurait
écartéaussi sommair~~e~t~c~ -o-~e~e~t~d~ ~a~com~étences'il avait fourni à
celle-ci une basemanifeste.
De plus, non seulement le juge Basdevant n'a pas étésuivi par la Cour sur
ce .oint..mais encor~ ~ ~~ ~se sur la validité de I'Acte génér.l.qui aurait eu
cependant une valeur décisivepour le litige à trancher, n'a mêmepas paru méri-
ter d'être discutée dans aucune des opinions séparées ou dissidentes exprimées
Dar sescollèrues.
Or le rezuirj de I'Austr.ilicet JeIs Sou$clle-Zr'l~ndc contre13 Pr3nie prL:scnte
un problc'me analogue. celui des rapports entre I'dcsepration large de 13 C.P.J.I.352 NUCLEAR TESTS
DarI'Acte de 1928et I'acce~tation postérieureDIUSrestreintede la com~étencede
ia Cour internationale de Justice sur la basede l'article 36, paragraphe 2es
seules difierences venant de ce que I'Acte généralest îormellement invoqué
par les requérants, mais aussi que près de vingt annks additionnelles sont
venues accuserla désuétudede I'Acte de 1928.
B) La coirduiredes Erarsdepuisi'effo~~drenred ~rtsysrè~ri<lela SdN
a) Le premier point à noter dans la conduite des Etats parties à I'Acte de
1928 a trait à ces formalités qui marquent la «vie» d'un traite:adhésion.
réserves.modification des réserves,retraits, etc. Or depuis les premières années
de la seconde guerre mondiale, c'est-à-dire depuis que la faillite du système
de la SdN est apparue manifeste, on ne peut plus rien signaler dans ce domaine.
En efet, lesdernières manifestations de volontésétatiquesà propos de I'Acte
sont. à notre connaissance, les protestations d'un certain nombre de pays,
en 1940, contre des réserves à l'Acte généralintroduites en septembre et dé-
cembre 1939 respectivement par I'Australie et le Canada, alors que la période
de validité de I'Acte ne se terminait qu'en aoUt 1944.
C'est sur ces réservesde l'Australie et du Canada et sur les protestations
qu'elles ont provoquéesque secl6t la relation de la vie du traité en question.
En particulier, l'Australie et le Canada n'ont paséprouvéà l'égard del'Acte, le
besoin de réa-lariser leurs réservesde 1939comme ils l'ont fait Dour celles
émisesà I'cgard de leurs dr'claraiionr Fdcul~ati~es.Pour cei dernic'res. 11sse
mcttcnt en regle J& 1910 En re\anche. en aoüt 1944.ils s'abslienncnt de régu-
lariser leurs dénonciations partielles de 1939.
En conséquence,ce serait le silence des Etats qui constituerait l'argument en
faveur du maintien en vigueur d'un texte qui, par ce silence mêmes.etrouverait
reconduit de cinq ans en cinq ans. Ce silence total en 1944, 1949. 1954,1959,
1964, 1969,silence observépar la France, mais aussi par l'Australie et la Nou-
velle-Zélandecomme du reste par les autres Etats parties à I'Acte, serait ainsi
présente comme une volonté de reconduction de I'Acte sans modification
aucune.
Une telle affirmation est contraire au bon sens.
b) II serait d'autant plus absurde de voir une volonté de reconduction pure
et simple de I'Acte dans cette absencetotale, de la part de quelque Etat que ce
soit, de toute mesure se rapportant à lui que, simultanément, on constate un
trks vif intérêtpour la matière du réalement pacifique des différends. L'absence
de démarche & rapportant à l'Acte-fait donc contraste avec ce qui est fait par
ailleurs par les Etats dans cedomaine, soit qu'ils choisissent d'accéderà I'Acte
révisé,soit que, en bien plus grand nombre. ils préfèrent fixer par des déclara-
tions unilatérales l'étendue de leur acceptation de la juridictiode la Cour.
L'Australie et la Nouvelle-Zélande, comme la France. appartiennent à la
catégorie des pays qui ont accepte unilatéralement la compétence dela Cour
internationale mais n'ontpas accédé à I'Acte révisé.
Les deux décisionssont intéressantespour notre propos.
En premier lieu, si I'Acte de 1928 était encore en vigueur aprésla seconde
guerre mondiale et notamment au moment où I'Acte réviséétait ouvert à la
signature. le refus des pays en question de devenir parties à ce dernier Acte
serait malaiséà expliquer.
Comme les deux Actes ont des contenus identiaues en ce qui concerne
I'éiendueder ohligaiions de soumettre les différends des modes be rr'glenicnt
paciliqucs et comme Ic second Acte ne diifére du preniier que dan13rnerure UU
ilsubsÏitue desorganes desNations Uniesenactivité aux organesdisparus de la CORRESPONDENCE 353
SdN, bref dans la mesureoù il est mieux adaptéà la conjoncture, on ne voit pas
pourquoi despays auraient préféréla version qui reliait leurs engagements,par
hypothèse semblables dans les deux cas, à des structures inexistantes.
Au contraire, le refus de s'engager dans le cadre de I'Acte nouveau prenait
toute sa valeur si I'Acte primitif était caduc.
Mais lapratique des Etats à 1:égarddesdéclarations sur la basede I'article 36
est é-alementimoortante ~our iuge- -e la validité de I'Acte. Plus exactement,
ilfaut tenir compte de la position prise par les Etats en ce qui concerne leurs
réservesà leurs déclarations facultatives, d'une part, et à leur acceptation de
I'Acte -énéral.de l'autre.
'Tant que l',\sic gCner31est nianifestenient en \,igueur, le\ rkervesà la com-
pr:tencede la Cour sur l'une et l'autre bï~, \ont ti>uj~urs senibl;iblei Comme
le dit trr's bien .e -uce IluJs<,n...irirc'\ 3iOir indiqui le nunibrc dei dr:<ldriitions
unilatérales:
« L'Actegénéral(. ..) a aussipour objet de conférer à la Cour compétence
pour les litiges mentionnés à I'article 36 du Statut» (article 17); «mais le
Chapitre II de I'Acte contenant cette disposition n'a pas été accepté par
aucun membre de la SdN qui n'ait aussi fait une déclaration au titre de
I'article 36». (Hudson, The Perrnarie,rt Cor~rr of Inrenrational Jirstice,
p. 405.)
Pour la France, en 1931,ce sont même deuxarticles d'une mêmeloi qui au-
torisent la ratification de l'acceptation de l'Acte généralet de la clause faculta-
tive de I'article 36, paragraphe 2. Ainsi les liens entre les deux modes de sou-
mission des différends à un règlement pacifique se trouvaient particulièrement
soulignés.
Autre preuve de la cohérence nécessaire entre les deux fondements de la
compétence de la Cour: quelques annéesplus tard, lorsque le systeme de la
SdN parait près de s'effondrer et lorsque la guerre d'agression de la part des
puissances de l'Axe est considéréecomme imminente, on constate que les
oarties à I'Acte -énéral émettent deux sortes de réservestout à fait semblables,
les unes se rapportant i la cliuie f.i<Jlt.iii\ri le\ autre. à l',\<te er:nr:r.iI.
Aimi. 1.1France. le K<iyaumc-ilni. Id S<iu\ellc-ZClsndc et l'Inde Cmellent leurs.
rCserrcs j.I',\ite 3u clibut <le1939.Duur respecter le deldi de>iimoir a\.int I'ex-
piration de la période quinquennale de validité de I'Acte qui tombe au mois
d'août. Ces pays ne procèdent pas immédiatement à,la modification de leurs
réservesà leurs déclarations facultatives Darceque les Dériodesde validité de
celles.-;i ne sont point eipirie,\13is 11sp3$sentautre j.cette ohje;ti<in qu3nd13
guerre .iirvient. In\oqu.int le ch~ngenient de circ<instsnce~. IJ I:r.inic. le
Rovaunie-Uni ci la Nourelle-7clan<lc ni.~.iiiicnt leur.; re,r.rvrs 6 leur iIc'~lardti6>n
fac;ltative po;r en mettre le texte en harmonie avec celui de leurs réserves à
I'Acte général.
L'Australie et le Canada, qui n'avaient pas suivi la Grande-Bretagne dans
sa dénonciation oartielle de I'Acte eénéralau début de 1939. envoient quasi
. -
simultanément les deux sortes de réserves nouvelles, accusantparlaitement la
similitude nécessairedes deux fondements de la compétence dela Cour.
Pour soulie-er encore l'étroite interdé~endance des deux démarches. les
dénonciations partielles de cesdeux pays secontentent, pour leur justification,
de renvoyer aux considérations énoncéesdans leurs modifications de leurs
déclarations sur la basede I'article 36..~ara-.anhe 2
\!Ji\. dcpui.; 1940. le p.irxllL'limcest r<impu. \I<ir\ que les Etdt~ parties 6
l'Acte de 1928:ontinuerii de ridiger ;iiei un ,oin e\trCnie leur, JC<l.iration\ sur
la basede I'article 36, modifiant fréquemment leursréserves,parfoisen plusieurs354 NUCLEARTESTS
fois dans une année,et rendant généralementces réservesplus restrictives, ils
paraissent sedésintéressertotalement dela très large compétencequ'ils seraient
supposésconsentir à la Cour sur la base de I'Acte général d'arbitrage. Ils
-~~~lent insensibles~-u~ ~ivere~~-es entre cesdeux attributions de iuridiction.
Cela s'entend despays qui sont parties à I'Acte général de1928.Pour ceux, au
contraire, qui accèdent à I'Acte révisé,le principe de parallélisme ne sedément
pas. C'est ainsi que les conditions dans lesquelles la Belgique, le Luxembourg,
le Danemark, la Norvège et la Suèdeacceptent la compétence dela Cour selon
i'une et i'auire méthodessont identiques
Ainsi le i(?ntrarlc entre le diJinririt tarai marqui uar les parties i l'Acte Je
1928pour le maintien d'unecoh~ren.vr.ntrc les dibers cas dc coiiip~trn~~equ'ils
reconnaissent à la Cour ne oeut s'exoliu..r aue D.. le sentiment aue I'Acte de
1928 avait perdu sa validité:
Dans cesconditions, on comprend la raison pour laquelle, dans l'affaire des
Enzprimls norvégiens,le Gouvernement français, qui cherchait à prouver la
compétence dela Cour, s'est borné à évoquer très brièvement I'Acte général
sans i'invoquer expressémentcomme fondement de sa demande. La validité
de I'Acte lui eût oermis ceoendant d'écarter I'exce~tion aue la Norvège allait
tirer de la clause.de récipkocitéjouant à propos de la déclaration frinçaise.
D'autre part, le fait même queson agent le mentionne montre que l'argument
n'a oas échaoo..u Gouvernement francais
Entin, I'anciennci; J'un texte n';tait viiiblenient pa, considérée.L'n elle-
mhc, comme un obsta:le 3 $,in in\o:ation, pui>quï le Gou\ernemcnl frünçals
fait e~oress2mcntaiiiiel ala deuxièmecon\entionde La Ilaycde 1907concernant
la limitation de ~'e%~loide la force pour le recouvrement des dettes contrac-
tuelles. On ne peut donc expliquer la position française à l'égard de I'Acte de
1928aue. .ar la conviction qu'il était. en 1955.tombé en désuétude.
En .wn~lu,i<in, I'Aiie. qui jemblc n'xioir jamais été;ippliqu; i un ;a\ con.'rït
alors qu'il itaii en iigueur, e,t tonibi. aprh I'eKc~iiilrcnient Ju \ystimc Je la
SdN. Jans UrieJ;>uCtu.ie si mdruu5e auc Ic silcn~.~des Ftats jsc>ncnJruit. hicn
loin Je ,igniiicr un? v,>l<~nrCta:irc Je rescinJucti~n iniCgrale. n'a dr'norr' qu'une
inJitTcrcn~esi proiondc que nii.nic' une d;nonciation l'ormellc pdrai\>aii ,upcr-
fétatoire
II. HYPOTHÈSE SELON LAQUELLE L'ACTE GÉNÉRAL D'ARBITRAGE N'AURAIT
PAS TOTALEMENT PERDU SA VALIDIT~. À L'HEURE ACTUELLE
Si i'Acte n'avait pas perdu toute validité, le Gouvernement français ferait
valoir:
a) qu'il ne s'applique pas dans ses rapports avec l'Australie et la Nouvelle-
Zélande:
b, qu'il ne ;'applique pas dans de, hypothGse\ c~~luîs par s;i ~léclaraiionuni-
Iatr'rale d'acicpiaiion Je Id :s>nipétcncede la Cour internalionale de Justice
sur la basede l'article 36, 2.
1. Non opplicarion dans les rnpportsentre la Frarrce,
l'Auslrolie er la Noui,elle-Zélande
ai Le Gouvernement francais observerait aue si I'Acte était en vigueur il
exiiterait, quant à la desréservesde ~'~ustralie et de la ~ouvelle-%lande,
une incertitude tout à l'avantage de ces deux pays et donc inacceptable.
Lorsaue l'Australie et la Nouvelle-Zélande ont accédéà I'Acte nénéral-elles
l'ont fait en assortissant leur acceptation d'un certain nombre de réserves. CORRESPONDENCE 355
Parmi celles-ci, l'une vise deslitiges qui seraient portésdevant le Conseil de la
SdN. On peut iuger.-ue l'A.stralie et la Nouvelle-Zélande attachaient une
grande importance i ces reser$e\ par le fait que. dr's qiie le Conseil de la SdS
a CIL!remplacL:par Ic Conseil de \icurite dan, le dispositif international ile rc'gle-
ment des différends ou situations oolitiaues. ces deux oavs on. .ntroduit dans
leurs acxptatitins de 13 compL!tenccJe 1.1Cour intern~tisn.ilc de Ju>tiie une
rCserve\emblable cn cequi con:ernc Icsquestion, deiant le <.'<in,cilde si:uritC.
Or. ilest bien clair au'à l'heure actuelle la oartie de la réserveaustralienne ou
néo-zélandaiserelatiie au Conseil de la S~Ndans le cadre de I'Acte de 1928est
caduque. Mais les autres Etats parties à I'Acte sont dans l'ignorance des con-
séauencesaue I'Australie ou la~~ouvelle- éla vnodderait faire iouer a cette
caducité partielle. Si l'un de ces pays était attrait devant la Cour, il pourrait
soutenir que la condition essentielle de son consentement à êtrelié ayant dis-
oaru. son consentement a dis~aru lui aussi. Si,au contraire. il trouvait exoédient
. .
d'invoquer I'Actr. pour attrxire un autre pays, il \cri[ alors amen6 i niinimi*er
la \,alcur de cesriser\cj et i faire valoir que leur iiilluc~tLi l.ii~ie inta;tc la valeur
de son acceptation. Mais. par là, se trouverait crééeune situation entièrement
à son avantage qui découlerait de ce que l'on voudrait continuer de considérer
comme valide une pièce d'un dispositif complexe, I'Acte général,alors que les
autres élémentsde ce dispositif (la SdN) ont disparu.
De mêmeI'Australie et la Nouvelle-Zélande ont précisé,dans leurs accep-
tations de l'Acte général d'arbitrage,qu'elles excluront les litiges avec des Etats
parties à l'Acte mais non membres de la SdN.
Cette réserve~v~ ~ un sens~ort c~ ~ ~ ~nt au'il existait une SdN. Denuis aue
la SdS a disparu CI qu'aiictin piivs ne peut :Ire dit .<menibre Je la SJS ,> l.
clausea pris une valeur fort dnibague. Ilest loisible a I',\ustraliceit 13'I<iu\elle-
Zelandc de [ICclarer que cctte clau\< népcut pawr pour e\clure la trdn:e qui
%In'est plus B..mais qdi <<Ctaitn. incnibrc <lela SdN Ou hien cespl) spourraient
choisir d'aifirmer que cette clause <I:n<itc un lien atec la SdiX \i intinie que I'ac-
ceptarion tout entiL:rcezt<.iiluque di5 lors que 1sJi\prrtr~un de Id SdN en~pz~hr
plusieurs de se; Ji~pi>\itions cs,entielle~ Je jouer.
On reioint ainsi la conclusion nlus haut tirée auant aux avantaaes inac.eo-
tables qui dr'zoulcr.~ient p0t.r I',\usiralte et Id '.ouielle-%Clande d'un prétetidu
maintien en \,igueur de 1'Acte gLin2rdld'arnitrage
b, Si l'A~te ctait c<in\iJ2re :oninir i3lide. il serait. danï IcCAS <leI'r\uitralie.
invoqué par un pa)s dont la dernière mesure prise expressément à l'égard de
cet Acte a consisté à le violer de manière patente.
En effet, alors que l'approche de la seconde guerre mondiale amenait la
France à dénoncer partiellement son acceptation de l'Acte dans les délais
prescrits par celui-ci, I'Australie, par sa dénonciation partielle aveceffet immé-
diat de septembre 1939, s'affranchissait des dispositions de I'Acte relatives aux
modifications des réserves.I~-~-~s~ ~ ~ besoin d'insister sur le caractère essen-
tiel, dans le systèmede I'Acte géné;al,de la clause sur la non-modification des
réservesencours de &riode au. .uennale (article 45). De plus, l'Australie s'est
abstenuedesemettre en règleaveccette disposition de ~'~ctealors qu'elle eût pu
aisémentle faire en 1944.
Le Gouvernement n'a pasprotestécontre cette attitude australienne, notam-
ment en raison des événementsaui ont affectéfondamentalement le statut de
l'Acte gcncral: la gucrrï. ~'ah<>rd.'~uisla di\p<irition de li SdS. Du re\tc. mCme
les pays qui ont protestéen 1939contre les J<n<inzi;itii~n\ piirtielles de l'Au+-
tralie et du canada ont iuee inutile de répéterleurs nrotestations a~rès la
guerre, tant I'Acte lui-méme désormais et "on plus telie de ses dispositions,
paraissait inapplicable. Mais si on prétend demanderau Gouvernement français356 NUCLEAR TESTS
d'observer un accord dont les autres se sont affranchis, ilfera valoir qu'il ne
s'estime pastenu de respecter un traité que l'Australie ne respecte plus elle-
nlCmedepuis une dale f<;rt re~ulr'r..Ouire ;lie la Con..tituiion francdi& prCvoit
que lesengdgcment; $ou.<rirj par irrlite s'cnienilcni sousrr:servcdeleur appliii-
tion par l'autre oartie. l. orincioe de la réciprocités'..~l.aue très.généralement
au dioit des traités.
2. Non-applicabilitéda,rsdes l~ypothèscs exclriespar la rléclaratioi~fiançaise
siir la base de/'orticle36, paragraphe2. dit Statst de la Corir
Dans l'hypothèse où l'Acte n'aurait pas perdu toute validité, le problème
des rao..rts entre le consentement donné à la iuridiction de la Cour à travers
I'Acte généralet par déclaration sur la base de I'article 36, paragraphe 2, se
ramènerait à un oroblème derelations entre deux actesconventionnels successifs
portant sur la mêmematière.
A cet égard,on pourrait d'abord observer qu'il existe une différenceimpor-
tante entre une situation de ce type qui se serait produite du temps de la SdN
et la situation survenant à l'heure actuelle. En effet, dansle systèmede l'ONU,
le statut de la Cour fait partie intégrantede la Charte, alors quecelui de la Cour
permanente ne faisait pas partie intégrante du Pacte. Or. I'article 103 prévoit
qu'en cas de conflit entre les obligations des Membres des Nations Unies en
vertu de la Charte et leurs obligations en vertu de tout autre accord interna-
tional, les premières prévaudront. Les obligations assuméesau titre de I'ar-
ticle 36 du Statut doivent donc rév valo sur celles de l'Accord de 1928.
M2mc siieiie priemineniesur I'r\<ie de 1323de Iiren<dntre\ie$\leui v.>li>nics
eipriniie~ pJr le, Je~nJr'ilarationï au litre de I'.iriicle 36, p3ragr~phe2.n';tait
p3\ donsiJr'rec somnie déiaiulant Je I'ariiile IO3de la Charte. on \er.<ii rdniene
au pr<ihlCniztirdiw~ire d'un trsiic po\ir:ricur portant sisrIsmcnic n~~tir'requ'un
accurd anir'ricur dsns les rclatioiii eiitre le; niCmespays.
Certes. il nes'a-.t oasde prétendreaue. lorsau'un~traitéauelconaue contient
une claubesiiribuxni con~p~cr><e i la Cour inicrniiti<>n~lede Ju,iice. un Elai
partie i ce iraiir' peut aui~,niati~iienient %'ail'ran~.hiirlc cetic clAureen mtiJitisnt
sesréserves à la com~étencede la Cour sur la basede I'article 36. oaranraphe 2.
Le cas analysé est'sensiblementdifférent. II s'agit, avec ~'~cte'de 628. non
pasd'une convention comportant, pour les litiges relatifs à l'application de ses
disoositions. une clause cinférant comoétencei la Cour. mais d'un texte dont
l'objet exclusif est le règlement pacifique des différends et notamment son
règlement judiciaire. La partie de I'Acte relative au règlement judiciaire serait,
du reste. si cet Acte subsistait. d'autant plus imoortante à l'heure actuelle que
était prévua l'article 6. On ne DeUtdonc présenterla oosition francaise comme
impliquant la possibilité d'annuler les ciauses de règlement des différends de
toutes les conventions signéespar la France qui prévoient la compétence dela
Cour internationale de Justice
La position française est ainsi bien circonscrite. Elle consiste à faire ressortir
le manque d'effectivité et la désuétudedans laquelle I'Acte est tombédepuis la
secondeguerre mondiale el à souligner, par contraste avec la totale négligence
des Etats a I'énardde l'Acte eénéral.le soin minu~ ~ux~ ~ ~..é bar les ~artiesà
la rédactionde leurs déclaraÏionss;r la basede I'article 36, pa;agraphe 2.
La préoccupation de donner leur effet utile à ces déclarations doit conduire
àconsiderer que leur effet doit s'appliguerégalement à la compétencedela Cour
sur la basede I'Acte général dansl'hypothèse où un pays cherche à évoquerla CORRESPONDENCE 357
A ce raisonnement. on veut obiecter au'il ~ermettrait de tourner les dis-
positions de I'Acte de 1928quant ai moment O" peut prendre eRetun élargisse-
ment du charnu des réserves.En effet, I'Acte général(par son article 45 dont
l'A~~tralie s'~st ~ffranchie comme ila étérGoel. Yi:dessus) ne orévoit.cet ~ ~
6largi.rcnient dei riscrvcj que cous iiirnie de JCnonci~tion partielle. <.>rnmuni-
<idées~xmui, ;iu niiuni ;ir;inr la fiii d'uns périodequinq~enn3~e de \aii,iitc <le
1'~cte et orenant effet au début de la oériode auinau.nnal. suivante.
hl& lx pr20xupsti<in Je Jonncr on eikt uiilc aux ribertes dont les p~y,
partie, à I'4:tc Je 1928ont ï%s<iriileur ilé~larütion unil;itéralc J'accept.iiisn de
ia comoétence dela Cour veut fort bien seconcilier avec le resoect sur ce oint
de 1'~c.tegénéral: ilsuffit de considérer que les nouvelles résekvesen question
ont pris effet, en ce qui concerne la compétencede la Cour sur la base del'Acte
généralau moment~où se terminait une période quinquennale de validité de
celui-ci.
La Cour, qui, dans l'affaire du Temple de PrPal! Vihéar,a considéréque le
renouvellement d'une déclaration d'acceotation de la comDétencede la Cour
permanente. enéaiiie a~ niclmeni su :cite Cour n'eki,tdit plu,. pouhült s'inter-
pretcr comme signifiant x<epiati,m <le IA:onipétcn<e Je Id Cour in1ern~tion:ile.
ne devrait pas \i>ir ile rlilli:ul~i ~Jrnetirt':~ qui p3r.iit I'intenti<in iJciite dei
partici. i r*!otr que ;clles qui <in1Ilmit2 leur ciln~enienienr i Id i,linpétenLe Je
la Cour p3r ICU~SJCil3r.i11<in.:uni14tr'rale\ entcn.i;~ient cl.iiiement que ies
reservessiappliquent aussi à l'Acte généralpour autant que, contrairement au
sentiment général,cet Acte serait considérécomme encore valide.
28. THE REGISTRA TO THEAGENT OF AUSTRALIA1
16 May 1973.
1have the honour to sendyou herewith a certified copy of a letter and Annex
thereto filed in the Registry today by the French Ambassador at The Hague,
relating to the Ni,clear Tesrscase(Ai!stralia v. Fro,zce).
16 May 1973.
1 have the honour pursuant to Article 69 of the Rules to submit to the
International Court of Justice an ApplicationZ on behalf of the Government
of Fiji for Dermission to intervene under the terms of Article 62 of the Statute
in the caseco~c~rnine Nuclear Tesrs(Ausrralia v. France).
1 hate the Curther Iioiiour ti~ inform you, in 3ccord~nce uiih Article 38 (41
of the Rulei thdi the Fiii C;o\ernment lia, appuiiiteil niea, it5Agent in this case.
The address for service of the Agent of the Fiji Governrnent is: c/o the
Australian Embassy, Koninginnegracht 23, The Hague.
' A communication in the sametermswassentto the Agent of New Zealand.
1, pp.149-152.358 NUCLEAR TESTS
30. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF AUSTRALIA~
16 May 1973.
I ha\< the honour IOinform you thai ihc Guvernnicni i)f Fiji hac tod2v Tiled
in the Rçgisiry c>ftheCouri :in Application. uniicr the ir'rnis of Ar62cof ihe
Statute of the Court. for oermission to intervene in the Nuclear Tesrs case
(Ausrrulia v. fruizce). In accordance with Article 69, paragraph 3, of the 1972
Rules of Court, I send you herewith a certifiedcopy of the Application in ques-
tion, and of the two letters accompanying il.
Le 17mai 1973.
J'ai l'honneur d'accuser la réception de la lettre, accompagnée d'une note,
que vous m'avezremisehier en mainspropresrelativement àI'instanceintroduite
devant la Cour internationale de Justice par l'Australie contre la République
franqaise au sujet des expériencesnucléairesfrançaises dans le Pacifique.
Cette communication a étéportée à la connaissancedes membres de la Cour
et copie en a étéadresséeau Gouvernement australien.
32. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGERES DE FRANCE
(~Pligrotfmre)
17mai 1973
Me référantmon télégramme 9mai relatif à requéte Australie ai honneur
informer Votre Excellence sue Cour tiendra audience lundi 21 mai à 15heures.
33. THEREGISTRAR 70 THE AGENT OF AUSTRAL~A~
17 May 1973.
Article 65of the 1972Rules of Court provides, in paragraph 1.that averbatim
record shall be made by the Registrar of every hearing, in the official language of
the Court which has beenused,and (para. 4) that copies of the transcript thereof
shall be circulated to the parties. The rule further provides that the parties
A similar communicalion wassentto the Minister for ForeignAffairs of France.
Y La même communication a6thadressée ài'ambassadeurde Franceaux Pays-Bas
au sujet de l'affaire Nouvelle-Zéle.dFro,tce.
A communicalion in the rame terms was sent to the Agent of New Zealand and
similar communicationsweresent Io the Agents belore the opening of ihe oral pro-
ceedingsonjurisdiciion and admissibility in both cases. CORRESPONDENCE 359
"may, under the supervision of the Court, correct the transcripts of the speeches
and statements made on their behalf, but in no case may such corrections affect
the sense and bearing of the statement".
The transcriot of the oral proceedings to be held to hear the observations of
the Parties on Australia's Gquest fo; the indication of interim measures of
protection in the Nuclear Tesls case (Ausrralia v. France) will be made available
the same dav
In order (O facilitate any supervision which the Court may feel it proper to
exercise, and in order not to delay the Court's consideration of the request for
the indication of interim measures of protection, any correction or revision
which Agents, counsel or advocates may wish to make to the transcript should
be handed to the Registrar's secretary as early as possible on the day following
the Sitting. In any event, corrections should be handed in, in respect of the
transcript of the hearing of Monday afternoon, not later than 12 noon on
Wednesday, and in respect of subsequent days' hearings, not later than 6 p.m.
on the day following the hearing.
34. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGERES DE FRANCE
17mai 1973.
Me référant à ma lettre du 14 mai 1973, j'ai l'honneur de communiquer
ci-jointà Votre Excellence, pour son information:
1. La traduction francaise. établieoar les soins du Greffe. de la demande en
indication de mesures conservatoires présentéele 14mai 1973par le Gouverne-
ment néo-zélandaisdans l'affaire des Essais nucléaires (Nouvelle-Zélandec.
Francel
2. La irailuclion frdnjai\e. établiepïr les si)in\ du Grcltc. et. seli~nleca\. 13
\er,i<in fr~njsisc olti~icllctic.;annexe, jointes a cclic dcmandc en indialion de
mesures conservatoires.
~'~>~~t~ n.e le coaae-t du Gouv-~~eme~ ~~éo-zélandaisa~ ~ ~ ~auatre
exemplaires de chacun des rapports mentionnés à l'annexe VI1 à la demande
dont il s'agit. Ces documents peuvent êtreconsultésau Greffe.
18mai 1973.
Me référant à mon télégrammedu 14 mai 1973,j'ai l'honneur d'adresser
ci-joint à Votre Excellence, pour son information, le texte d'une lettreZ qui a
étéadresséeau Présidentde la Cour par I'agent de l'Australie le 9 mai 1973.
J'y joins à toutes fins utiles la traduction française.
1 Unecommunicationanaloguea étiadressée au ministre der affaire &srangèresde
France au sujetde l'affairNouvelle-Zélandee .Fronce.
Vairci-dessusno2.360 NUCLEAR TESTS
18 May 1973.
1 have the honour to refer to my letter of 16 May submitting to the Interna-
tional Court of Justice an Application on behalf of the Government of Fiji for
permission to intervene under the terms of Article 62 of the Statute in the case
concerning Nuclear Tesls (Auslralia v. Frnnce) and informing you that'in
accordance with Article 38 (4) of the Rules that the Fiji Government has ap-
pointed me as its Agent in this case.
1 now have the further honour Io inform vou that the Fiii Government has
appointed the Fiji High Commissioner in ~~ndon as ils ~o--~~entin this case.
The address for service of the Agent of the Fiji Government remains
c/o the Australian Embassy.
Koninginnegracht 23,
The Hague.
37. THE AGENT OF FIJI TO THE REGISTRAR
18May 1973
1 have the honour to refer to my letter of 16 May submitting to the Inter-
national Court of Justice an Application on behalf of the Government of Fiji
for Dermission to intervene under the terms of Article 62 of the Statute in the
cas; concerning Nucleor Tests(Aitstralia v. Fra)~ce).
thave the further honour to now submit an Annex for attachment to that
Application containing a list of documents relied upon in support of that
Application together with copies of those documents1.
It is appreciated that these documents should have been attached to the
Application but 1regret thai for technical reasonsthat was not possible.
38. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF FIJI
18 May 1973.
1have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 16 May. received
in the Registry the same day. enclosing an Application by the Government of
Fiii for Dermissionto intervene under the terms of Arti62eof the Statute in the
~;rrlea; Teslscase(Aiistralia v. Fratrce).
In accordance with Article 69. paragraph 3, of the 1972Rules of Court. the
President has fixed 29 May as the lime-limit for the written observations of the
Parties to the caseon the Application of Fiji to intervene.
1 have the honour also to acknowledge receipt of your letfer of 18 May,
informing me that the Fiji Government has appointed the High Commissioner
of Fiji in London as Co-Agent in this case. Due note has beentaken of this
information. CORRESPONDENCE 361
39. THEREGISTRAR TOTHEAGENT OF AUSTRALIA1
18 May 1973.
With reference to my letter of 16 May enclosingacertified copy of the Appli-
cation by Fiji for permission to intervene under the terms of Article 62 of the
Statute of the Courtinthe Nuclear Tesrscase(Ausrraliav. France), 1have the
honour to send you herewith a certified copy of a let1have today received
from the Agent of Fiji and of the Annex enclosed with that letter.
18 May 1973.
With reference ta rnv letter of 16 Mav. with which 1enclosed a certified coov
of an Applicationby the Governrnent of Fijifor permission to intervene in the
Nuclear Tesrscase (Auslralia v France) under the terms of Article 62 of the
Statute. 1 have the honour to inform vou that the President of the Court has
iiicd ?YMay 1973 sr the iimr.-limit for theuritien obscrviilioni ofihe I'driier on
the Application pursuant to Arti~69,par~graph 3.of the 1972Rulcs ofCourt.
18 May 1973
1 have the honour pursuant ta Article 69 of the Rules to submit to the Inter-
national Court of Justice an Application* on behalf of the Government of
Fiji for permission to intervene under the terms of Article 62 of the Statute in
the caseconcerning Nuclear Tesrs(New Zealand v. France).
1 have the further honour to inform you, in accordance with Article 38(4)
of the Rules that the Fiji Government has appointed me as its Agent in this
case,and the Fiji High Commissioner in London as Co-Agent.
The address for service of the Agent of the Fiji Government is: c/o the Aus-
tralian Embassy, Koninginnegracht 23, The Hague.
42. THE REGISTRA TO THE AOENT OF NEWZEALAND1
18May 1973
1 have the honour ta informyou that the Governrnent of Fiji has today filed
in the Registry of the Court an Application, under the terms of Article 62of.the
Statute of the Court, for permission to intervene in the Nuclear Testscase
(New Zealand v. France). In accordance with Article 69, paragraph 3, of the
--
' A similar communication wassentto the Minister for Foreign Affairs of France.
See pp.89-94, supra.362 NUCLEAR TESTS
1972 Rules of Court, 1send you herewith a certified copy of the Application in
auestion. and of the letter accom.an.-nc it.
'In iicchr~ance u,ith Article 69. pïragraph 3. of the 1972 Ruler of Court. the
l'residrnt ha? liked 31 hlay IV73 as thc time-limit for the wriiten obscr!ations
of the Parties on this ~ppÏication
43. THF.REGISTRAR T0 THEAGENTOFAUSTRALIA
18 May 1973.
1 have the honour Io confirm the information already conveyed to you by
telephone, namely that the oral proceedings Io hear the observations of the
Parties on the request by Australia for the indication of interim measuresin the
Niiclear Te-srscase(Aiislralia v. Fraiice) will open al 3p.m. on Monday. 21 May.
1 refer to Article 48. paragraph 3. of the 1972 Rules of Court. and enquire
whether the Government of Australia would have any objection to the docu-
ments before the Court at this stage in the case, namely the request for the
indication of interim measuresof protection and the communications received
from the Government of France. being made accessible to the public with
effect from the opening of the o~al proceedings concerning the question of
interim measuresof protection.
44. LE OREFFlER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DEFRANCE
(lélé.qran~nrej
18mai 1973.
Me référantarticle 48 paragraphe 3 nouveau Règlement Cour ai honneur
solliciter avis Votre Excellence sur communication éventuelle au oublic à
partir 21 mai des demandes en indication mesures conservatoires déposées
par Australie 9 mai et par Nouvelle-Zélande 14 mai et des lettres avec annexe
remises Dar ambassadeur France 16mai
45. THEAGENT OF AUSTRALlATOTHE REClSTRAR
19 May 1973.
I haie the honour Io refer to Sour letier daiçd 1Mis 1973i<~nfirniing thit
the oral proirr.J~ngs Io hcir the oh\er\.itioof the I'ariics on the requcst by
~ustralia for the indication of interim measures in the Nuclear T&/S case
(Australiav.Frairce) will be open at 3 p.m. on Monday, 21 May.
The second paragraph of the letter refers Io Article 48, paragraph 3, of the
1972Rules ofCourt. In that connection. 1wish Io confirm that the Government
of Australia would not have any ohjeclion to the request for the indication of
interim measuresof protection being made accessibleto the public with effect
from the opening oforal proceedings CORRESPONDENCE 363
Your letter refers to the question of the distribution of the communications
received from the Government of France also being made accessible to the
public at the same time. The Government of Australia completely reserves its
position in relation to these communications and to distribution of any further
documents from the Government of France that do no1accord with the regular
~rocedures of the Court.
21 mai 1973.
Par un télégrammeen date du 18mai 1973vous avez bien voulu demander au
ministre des affaires étra-gèresde la Ré~ubliaue francaise s'il avait obiection
à ce que soient communiquées au public les demandes australienne et neo-
rélandaiseen indication de mesures conservatoires et nos lettres avec annexe en
date du 16 mai
J'ai l'honneur de vous faire savoir que le Gouvernement français ainsi qu'il
l'aindiquédans sa lettre du 16mai n'a pas l'intention de sefairereprésenterdans
ces affaires pour lesquelles la Cour n'a pascompétence.
En conséquence n'étantpas partie a cette affaire il ne saurait donner un avis
sur la base de l'article8, paragraphe 3, du Règlement de la Cour.
47. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF il11
21 May 1973.
1 have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 18 May, with
which you enclosed an Annex containing copies of documents in support of the
Application of the Government of Fiji for permission to intervene in the
Nuclear Tests case (Australiav. France).
21 May 1973.
1have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 18 May, received
in the Registry on the same day, enclosing an Application by the Government
of Fiji for permission to interveneunder the terms of Article 62 of the Statute
in the Nucleor Testscase (New Zealaif<l v.France). Due note has been taken of
your appointment as Agent and of the High Commissioner of Fiji in London
as Co-Agent.
As I informed you orally on 18 May, the President has fixed 31 May as the
lime-limit for the written observations of the Parties to the case on the Appli-
cation of Fiji in accordance with Article 69, paragraph 3, of the Rules of
Court.364 NUCLEAR TESTS
49. THEAGENT OF AUSTRALIA TO THEREGISTRAR
21 May 1973
As you are aware Australia has filed a request for provisional measures of
orotection. Referencesare made in oar.erao-. 46. 60 and 64 of the reauest to
;lie l<cporiof ~o~enlher 1~72ufan;\d~is,~ry ~<imhiii<con ihc hiolog,c~efictj
of ioniling r~diaii~~n.~ppoiiiirJ by th< S\'jti,?n.,l ,\cadeni). uf Scien.ç> of ihc
IJnii~~ Si:iier.1hi. full ii~l~ ~f the .enuri 11/i<,L-Ii.<r(in Pooi<lorio~ro~Lx-
positreIo Low Levels ofbnizi,rr Radiarion.Attached herewith is one copy of the
Report'. In addition, 15 copies of the Report are heing forwarded to you
separately in casethey may be of assistancefor purposes of reference.
50. THE AGENT OF AUSTRALIA TO THE REGISTRAR
22 May 1973.
1 have the honour to refer tomy discussion with you on 21 May 1973con-
cerning the reDorts of the meetinr hetween Australian and French scientists
whichtook place in Australia on 7-9 May 1973.
Attached is a copy of the document2 on the meetings issuedby the Australian
scientists concerned. It will be noted that it consists of three parts:
(i) A section A, which is identical with section A of the report issued by the
French scientists.
(ii) Section Bof the Australian scientists' report, which is the soleresponsibility
of the Australian scientists, and
(iii) Section B of the French scientists' report, which is the sole responsibility
of the French scientists.
SI. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE FRANCE
(tél@gra111171e)
22 mai 1973.
Me référant instanceintroduite par Nouvelle-Zélande contre France ai
honneur faire savoir Votre Excellence que Cour a fixéouverture des audiences
publiques au jeudi 24 mai à 10 heures.
22 May 1973.
1havethe honour to acknowlePge receipt of your letter of 19May in reply to
my enquiry of 18 May concerning the possibility of making certain documents
1 Not reproduced.See1, p. 176.
VI, pp.540-544, and No. 149,inJPa. CORRESPONDENCE 365
in the Nirclear Testsc~ ~~,ustralia v. France)accessible to the oublic. 1 also
have the Iioiiour to senJ)du herehiitliacopy of dlettcr rc.eivcd )e<terrlsy frcim
the AmhdiixJdr of Frdncc ttithe Nctherldnd* aitlirefereii:e to~siniilarenqiiirs
which 1 addressed to the French Government
53. THEREGISTRAR TOTHE AGENT OF NEW ZEALAND
22 May 1973.
With reference to Article 48, paragraph 3, of the 1972Rules of Court, 1have
the honour to enquire whether the Government of New Zealand would have
any objection to the text of the request for the indication of interim measuresof
protection in the Nitclear Testscase(New Zealatrdv. France),and of the com-
munication from the Ambassador of France of 16 May, being made accessible
to the public with eîïect from the opening of the oral proceedings on the New
Zealand request.
1 have the honour also to send you herewith a copy of a letter received yes-
terday from the French Ambassador in reply to a similar enquiry addressedto
the French Government by telegram, relating both to this case and to the
proceedings instituted by Australia against France.
94. THEAGENTOFAUSTRALIA TO THE REGISTRAR
22 May 1973.
1 have the honour to refer to your letter dited 18 May 1973 referring to an
Application by the Government of Fiji for permission to intervene in the
Nucleor Testscase (Ausrrulia v. France) under the terms of Article 62 of the
Statute. The letter stated that the President of the Court has fined 29 May 1973
as the time-limit for the written observations of the Parties on the Application
pursuant to Article 69, paragraph 3, of the 1972 Rules.
The Government of Australia has no objection to the Application king
granted.
22 May 1973.
1refer to my cable of 9 May 1973bywhich 1informedyou of the filing by the
Government of Australia of anApplication instituting proceedings against the
French Republic in respect of a dispute coiicerning French nuclear tests in the
South Pacific Ocean (Nuclear Testscase), and a request for the indication of
interim measuresof protection in that case; 1 now have the honour to inform
you that 1am forwarding to you under separate cover (by airmail parce1post,
' A similar communication was sentto theSecretary-Generao l f theUnited Nations
regardingthe New Ze<ilan<lv.France case.366 NUCLEAR TESTS
marked "Attention Director, General Legal Division") 150 copies of the
Application referred ta.
1 would be grateful if, in accordance with Article 40, paragraph 3, of the
Statute of the Court, y011would be good enough ta inform the Members ofthe
United Nations of the filing of this Application.
56. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES D'AFGHANISTAN~
22 mai 1973.
Le 9 mai 1973a étédéposéeau Greffe de la Cour internationale de Justice,
au nom de l'Australie, une requêtepar laquelle le Gouvernement australien
introduit contre la France une instance en l'affaire des Essaisnucléaires.
J'ai l'honneur. à toutes fins utiles. de transmettre ci-ioinà votre Excellence
un exemplaire de cette requête.
57: THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF AUSTRALIA2
23 May 1973.
1have the honour to transmit herewith for your information three copies of
the bilingual edition,prioted by the Registry, of the Application of the Govern-
ment of Australia in the Nuclear Tests case.
23 May 1973.
1have the honour to iefer to Article 56. uaragrauh 2. of the 1972Rules and
io the linal Cormalsubniission niadc on hçhalf c? the C><ncrnmcntof Auitralia
ar the publicbiriing hel~lti~da)3 hlay 1973 3 iithe Vticlîur TCSIXcare IReqactt
for th, ltr<lirutiu!iof P~o~irio~ralllr-arrirr7<~>fProl,~<.t. t,rtrali\,.i'ra~rcr,
1attach a written copy of the final submiSsion signe; by me as Agent for the
Government of Australia.
Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures of Protection
Final Submissionof the Goverrimentof Aurrralia
The finalsubmission of the Government of Australia is that the Court, acting
1 Cette communicationa ete adressée,pour chacunedes deux affaires,aux Etats
Membresdes Nations Unies et aux Etats non membres desNations Unies admis à
esterdevant la Cour.
Similarcommunicationswere sent to the Agent ofNew Zealand regarding the
New Zealandv.France case andto the Ministerfor ForeignAffairsof Franceregarding
hnth caîeî~ CORRESPONDENCE 367
under Article 33 of the General Act and Article 41 of the Statute of the Court,
should lay down provisional measures which require the French Government to
desist from carrving out further atmosuheric nuclear tests in the South Pacific
pending the judgmkt in this case.
59. THE AGENT OF NEW ZEALANO TO THE REGISTRAR
23 May 1973.
1have the honour to refer to your letter of 18 May 1973in which you advised
me that the Government of Fiji had filed an Application for permission to inter-
vene in the Nuclear Tests case (New Zeala~rd v. France). 1 set out below the
brief observations of mv Government on the ADDiicationmade bv Fiii.
The final paragraph of the Application made bithe ~overnmeniof Fiji States
that the New Zealand Government has been informed of the intentions of the.
Fiii Government and has indicated that it has no obiections. 1 am nlad to be
able to confirm this information. The New Zealand ~overnment beteves that,
for the reasons set out in its Application, the Government of Fiji has asub-
stantial interest in the proceedings instituted by New Zealand and fully under-
stands its wish to intervene in these proceedings.
60. THE AGENT OF NEW ZEALANO TO THE REGISTRAR
23 May 1973.
1 have the honour to refer to your letter of 22 May 1973 in which you ask
whether the Government of New Zealand would have any objection to the
text of the request for the indication of interim measures of protection in the
Nuclear Tests case (New Zealand v. Fraace) being made accessible to the public
with effect from the opening of the oral hearings on the New Zealand request.
1 have the honour to inform you that the New Zealand Government has no
objection to that action.
Your letter also refers to the communication from the Ambassador of France
on 16 May. The Government of New Zealand reserves its position as to the
applicability of Rule48(3) to that document and as to the making of it acces-
sible to the public.
23 May 1973.
1 have the honour to refer to my letter of 18May advising you ofthe appoint-
ment by the Government of the Fiji High Commissioner in London as Co-
Agent in the case concerning Nuclear Tests(Ausrralia v.France).
1A communication in the same terms was sent to the Registrar regarding the
New Zealand v. Francecase.368 NUCLEAR TESTS
1 now have the honour of advising that the name of the Fiji High Commis-
sioner in London, the Co-Agent of the Government of Fiji in this case, is
H.E. Mr. Josua Rasilai Rabukawaqa, MVO, MBE.
Confirmation of theappointment is being sent from Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara,
the Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign AiTairs of Fiji.
62. THE AGENT OF AUSTRALIA TO THE REGISTRAR
24 May 1973.
1have the honour to refer to your oral inquiry whether, as a matter of cour-
tesy. copies could be made available of the reports of the National Radiation
Advisory Committee referred to on page 30 of the printed Application in the
Nuclear Tests case (Auslroliav. Fro,rce).
Attached is one copy of each of the reports1 referred to.
Paragraph 63=of the request for provisional measures makes reference to the
report of the Australian Academy of Science tabled by the Prime Minister of
Australia in the Australian Parliament on 1 May 1973. For convenience, 1
attach a copy of that report 1.
63. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF FI11
25 May 1973
1 refer to mv letter of 18 Mav. bv which 1 informed vou of the time-limit
fixed by the piesident, pursuani'to2~rticle 69, paragraih 3, of the Rules of
Court, for the observations of the Parties to the Nuclear Tesrs case (Aitstrolia
v. Fronce) on the Ao~lication of Fiii to intervene in that case. 1 now have the
honour to send you'herewith a certked copy ofa letter dated 22 May from the
Agent of Australia concerning the Application of Fiji.
'
61. THE PRIME MlNlSTER AND MlNlSTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF FIJI
TO THE REGISTRAR
Suva, 24 May 1973.
1havethe honour to refer to my letter of 10May advisingyou of the intention
of the Government of Fiji to make Applications for permission to intervene
under the termsof Article 62 of the Statute of the Court in the cases concerning
Nuclear Tests (Ausrralia v. France) and (New Zealand v.France).
1have the further honour to refer to the letters of 18 May in which the Agent
of the Fiji Government, Mr. Donald McLoughlin, informed you that the Fiji
Nat reproduced.
2 1,pp.54-55.
Similarcommunications were sent Io the Agent of FijiregardingthNew Zeolond
v.Francecaseand Iothe Ministerfor ForeignAffairsof France regardingbofhcases. CORRESPONDENCE 369
Government has aooo..ted the Fi<i Hi-h Commissioner in London as its Co-
Agent in ihesecascs. I nsw have the furiher honour ioionfirniihat appointment.
The adjress for sert Les of the Agen1of thcGo\ernment tif tiji remains care
the Australian Embassy, ~onin~inne~racht 23, The Hague.
65. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE FRANCE
25 mai 1973.
J'ai l'honneur d'adresser ci-joint à Votre Excellence un exemplaire corrigé
et un exemplaire non corrigé du compte rendu des audiences publiques que la
Cour a tenues les 21, 22 et 23 mai 1973 en l'affaire des Essaisnucléaires(Aus-
tralie c. France).
Je transmets en outre à Votre Excellence, à toutes fins utiles, la traduction
en français de ces comptes rendus. Je me permets de souligner que cette tra-
duction est dépourvue de caractère officiel.
25 May 1973.
At the conclusion of the oral statements2made on behalf of New Zealand in
support of its request for interim measures of protection in the Nuclear Tests
case (New Zealand v. France), 1 have the honour to advise you that New Zea-
land's final submission is:
"that the Court, acting under Article 33 of the General Act for the Pacific
Settlement of International Disputes or, alternatively, under Article 41
'of its Statute, should lay down or indicate that France, while the Court is
seized of the case, refrain from conducting any further nuclear tests that
give rise to radioactive îallout."
67. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE FRANCE
28 mai 1973.
J'ai I'honneur de porter à votre connaissance que l'agent du Gouvernement
australien dans l'affaire desEssaisnucléaires(Australie c. France) a déposéau
Greffe de la Cour les documents suivants auxquels l'Australie s'est reféréedans
ses écritures ou en plaidoirie:
1. Un rapport établien novembre 1972 par le Comité consultatif sur les effets
biologiques des rayonnements ionisants, nommé par l'Académiedes sciences
1 La mémecommunication a été adresséaeu ministre des affairesétrangères de
Franceau sujetde l'affaiNouvelle-Zélande c.Fraiiceetdescommunicationsanalogues
luiont été adresséeàsI'occasiondes procéduresorales sur la comp6tence.ella receva-
bilité.
See p. 140,supra.370 NUCLEAR TESTS
des Etats-Unis; ce rapport a pour titre TheEffects 011Populationof Exposure
ro Law Levelsof lonizing Radiation.
2. Le rapport des savants australiens sur les entretiens qu'ils ont eus en Aus-
tralie du 7 au 9 mai 1973 avec des savants français; ce document contient
trois sections:
-une section A (identique à la section A du rapport établi par les savants
français);
-une section B rédigéesous la seule responsabilité des savants australiens;
- le texte de la section B du rapport établi par les savants français et rédigé
sous leur seule responsabilité.
3. Les rapports du Comité consultatif national australien sur les radiations,
publiés enmars 1967, décembre 1967, mars 1969,mars 1971et juillet 1972.
4. Un rapport de l'Académiedes sciences d'Australie présentépar le Premier
ministre d'Australie au Parlement le 1" mai 1973.
Ces documents peuvent êtreconsultésau Greffe de la Cour.
29 mai 1973
Me référant à mon télégrammedu 18mai 1973relatif à la communication de
certaines pièces en l'affaire des Essaisnucliaires (Australie c. France), j'ai
l'honneur de oorter à la conn~is~ ~~ ~ ~-~ Votr~ Exce~ ~ ~e la re~~nse aue .'ai-
reçue de l'agent du Gouvernement australien sur ce sujet. J'adresse ci-joint à
Votre Excellence copie de sa lettre en date du 19mai dernier. ainsi que. à toutes
fine utiles, une traduction française établie par le Greffe.
69. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE FRANCE'
29 mai 1973
J'ai l'honneur d'adresser ci-joint à Votre Excellence, conformément à I'arti-
cle 56..oara-.aohe 2. du Règl-ment de laCour. cooie de la conclusion finale aue
l'agent du Gou\ernenienl austr.ilicn en l'affairerlcrEssaisniir~l~'airi~Ara,rrulir
c.I.ia~rre,a lue a I'dudlcncepuhliquedu 23nni 1'173ei dont II m'dcrimmuniqué
le texte écrit. Jefais égalemint tenir à Votre Excellence, à toutes fins utiles, une
traduction française de sa communication.
29 May 1973.
1 refer to the statement by Judge Gros at the hearing of 25 May (1,p. 244)
in the Nuclear Tests case (Ausrralia v. France), that he wished to put a further
question, and would transmit it to you in writing.
La mêmecommunication a kt6 adressée au ministredes affaires etrangèresde
France au sujet de I'affaireNouvelle-Zélandec. France. CORRESPONDENCE 371
1 now have the honour to send you herewith the tex1of the question of Judge
Gros, together with anEnglish translation made by the Registry. The Court has
decided that il would wish the answer to this question tbe given in writing.
Questionposéepar M. Gros à M. l'agent
du Gouvernement de I'Ausrrolie, le 28 ma1973
Vis-à-vis de quels Etats, en dehors de la France, le Gouvernement de I'Aus-
tralie estime-t-il êtrelié par I'Acte génkral pour le règlement pacifique des
différends internationaux de 1928, pour l'ensemble de I'Acte ou pour partie?
29 mai 1973
J'ai l'honneur d'adresser ci-joint à Votre Excellence un exemplaire du compte
rendu de l'audience tenue par la Cour le 25 mai 1973 en l'affaire des Essais
nucléaireslAustralie c. Fronce). Je transmets en outre à Votre Excellence.à
toutes fins Ililes, la traduction in fran~aisde cecompte rendu. Jeme perrnets.de
souligner que cette traduction est dépourvue de caractère officiel.
Me référant en outre à la déclaration faite DarM. Gros à la fin de I'au-
dience (1,p. 244) je prie Votre Excellence de bien vouloir trouver ci-joint le
texte de la question queM. Gros a poséepar écrit à l'agent du Gouvernement
australien.
72. THE REGISTRAR T0 THE AGENO TFNEWZEALAND
29 May 1973
1 refer to the question put to the representatives of New Zealand by Judge
Sir Humphrey Waldock al the hearing of 25 May (p. 141,siipra), and have the
honour to inform you that the Court has decided that il would wish the answer
10 this question to be made in writing.
73.THE REGISTRAR TOTHEAGENTOFAUSTRALIA1
29 May 1973.
Further tomy letter of 16 May 1973,with which 1 sent you a certified copy
of the Application of the Government of Fiji for permission 10intervene, under
1 Similar communicationswere sent to the Agent of New Zealand regardingthe
New Zealandv.Francecaseand IO theMinisler for ForeignAKairsof Franceregarding
both cases.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 OALTHE UNITEDNATIONS'
30 May 1973
1refer Io my cable 30 of 16 May 19732by which 1informed 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~a~~~,eneral. I should accordinel-. 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.
Firsr Question:
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 position».
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. Francecase.
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.374 NUCLEAR TESTS
1" juin 1973.
Me référantàma lettre du 29 mai 1973 à laquelle j'avaisjoint lecompte rendu
de l'audience ~ubliaue tenue Dar la Cour le 25 mai 1973en l'affaire desEssais
nucléaires(~;srrolie c.~rancé) ainsi que le texte d'une question de M. Gros
poséepar écrit à l'agent du Gouvernement australien, j'ai l'honneur de faire
tenirà Votre Excellence copie de la réponse faite par l'agent du Gouvernement
australien et,à toutes fins utiles, une traduction franqaise de cette réponse,
établiepar le Greffe.
77. THE CO-AGEN T FNEW ZEALAND TO THE REGISTRAR
1lune 1973.
In accordance with your letter of 29 May addressed to the Agent of the
Government of New Zealand, 1have the honour to transmit herewith theanswer
to the question put ta the representatives of New Zealand by Judge Sir Hum-
phrey Waldock al the hearing of 25 May.
Atrswerro the QuestiorrPur ro rhe RepresenrarivesofNew Zealand by Judge Sir
Humphrey Waldock al the Hearing of 25 May (p. 141, supra)
ludge Sir Humphrey Waldock asks for an explanation of the position of the
New Zealand Government regarding the status today of the provisions of the
1928General Act, and of New Zealand's Instruments of Accession to that Act,
which relate to the Council of the League of Nations. It will be convenient to
deal first with the relevant provisions of the General Act itself, and then with
those of New Zealand's Instruments of Accession.
There are Iwo provisions of the General Act which relate to the Council of
the League. Article6, paragraph (i), provides that the appointment of members
of a conciliation commission shall. on the reouest of the oarties concerned. be
entrusted to the Acting ~resident'of the ~o;ncil of th&League of Nations.
Article 43 empowersthe Council of the League of Nations to invite States no1
members of the Leaaue to accede to the General Act
In his statement made to the Court on 25 May, the New Zealand Agent ob-
served, in reference to the second of these provisions, that the Council's power
to invite non-members of the League to accede to the General Act "will
obviously have lapsed". In the view if the New Zealand Government, this will
also be true of the powers entrusted to the President of the League Council
pursuant to Article 6 of the General Act.
The considerations on which this view mainly depends are the demise of the
League itself, the absence of any action-whether taken in a United Nations
context or otherwise-to effect or recognize a transfer of the powers reposed in
the League Council and its acting President, and the decision of the United
Nations General Assembly in 1949 to establish a revised General Act, which
would confer oowers on United Nations orrrans. but would leave undisturbed
the provisions-and operation of the 1928 A;.
In the viewof the New ZealandGovernment, therefore,Article 43 and Article CORRESPONDENCE 375
6 of the General Act, in so far as they purport to entrust powers to the League
Counciland toits actine President. are now without effect. Theseare asoectsof
the impairment of the &icacy of ihe General Act, which the United Nations
General Assembly recogniz.d without adopting the view that the Act had lost
its force.
There would appear to be ample justification for the position taken by the
General Assembly-and by the parties themselves through their involvement
in the Assemblv'2.nroceedines. In oarticular. as the New Zealand Aeent n-ted
in his statement to the Court, there are numerous instances in which League
treaties havesurvived the laoseof the oower to invite adherence: and the powers
entrusted to the acting ~re~identof the League Council were not central to the
procedure for appointing members of conciliation commissions.
New Zealand's Instrument of Accession to the General Act contained two
reseriations-numherd re\peciiiely (2)and (3) and set oui in Annex V io the
Applicaiion-uhicti relaie IO the Council of the Ledgue of Nations In broad
terms. thesestioulations reservedto New Zealand a oower to require, in certain
circumstances,'that the operation of the procedures laid down- in the Act be
suspended in favour of the procedures provided by the League Covenant.
The New Zealand Government of course recognizes that the imoairment of
the efficacy of the General Act, which stems from the demise of théLeague of
Nations, extends to reservations that specifically relate to the League. The
maintenance of such reservations does not disturb the balance of advantage in
-
relations with other parties; for it is the Court. not the author of the reserva-
tions, which determines their meaning.
Amonn the reasons for maintaining the reservations are the following: they
reflect an-unchanging New Zealand policy; their wording is in keeping with the
frame of reference in the text of the General Act itself; and no change in cir-
cumstancescan have causedthesereservations to become incompatible with the
continued operation of the treaty instrument to which they relate.
As the 1948and 1949 debates in the General Assembly have shown, parties
which had attached the same or similar reservations to their accessionsto the
General Act have no1 doubted the continuing force of these accessionssince
1946.This has beentrue even of parties such as the United Kingdom and New
Zealand which retained oolitical doubts stemmina from the fact that the Act
Iay oui\ide the Cotenant and Chsricr sysicnij. Thc vamepai\iiiun ha; becniskcn
in rcldiion IO iliors de;Iaration, <ifacceptan~eof the iompulwry juridiction of
the Permanent Court of International Justice which were subject to a reserva-
tion relating to the Council of the League.
For the reasons mentioned, it was submitted ta the Court at the hearing of
25 May that it was not necessarvfor New Zealand at the oresent stage of the
proiceJing, IO urge any pariicdlar iieu ot' th' euci clTc~iai iis rescrtations.
Indecil, the Nc\i Zesland C;oicrnmïnt hclic\es ihai. in ihesepro;eedings. iliiiII
neser bciume necc\vars ta resol~eth;ii quejiiim. Wiih ihir qualiti.'aiion. il mas
be helpful to indicate ihat the New zealand Government inclines to the view
that the reservations relating to the League must now be regarded as without
legal effect
The ground, for thi, vieu are ihi>ie already adJu;eJ in reldti<~n IL!the ques-
lion or the proper conrirusiion of Ariiiles h and 43 of the Gcneral hii. The
\Cr) fsi<;t5ihat tlic Learue Coun:il no longer e\ists. ïnil ihai na1action ha, been
taken-through the United Nations or-otherwise-to effect or recognize a
transfer of the Council's functions to a corresponding United Nations body,
would seem to militate against any attempt to provide the reservations with a
UnitedNations connotation. At the sametime, the New Zealand Government376 NUCLEAR TESTS
would not be concerned to resist such a construction if it were urged in aPi-
lateral context by another Party, becausethat construction would accord with
the spirit in which the reservations were made and have beenmaintained.
78. LE GREFFIE RU MINISTRE DESAFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DEFRANCE
4juin 1973.
Mc rtfcrant i ma lettre du 29mai 1973 i laquelle ,'s'ais joint lz iompte rendu
dcs ~iudicnceïpubliques que la Cour a renuei Ics24ci 25 mii 1973dxni l'affaire
de, t.'\roisnrrrlr'ai(NoeiL~llr~-Z<'lut ~~Ii~»rr .j'ai l'honneur d'adrewr i
Voire twïllence copie de13 repone C~ritcfaile par lecoagent duGou\~erncment
nco-7clandair a la question posee p3r ~ir Iluniphrey Waldoik d l'audience du
25 mai.
Je transmets en outre i Votre Excellence, à toutes fins utiles, la traduction
française de cette réponse,établie par le Greffe.
79. LE GREFFIERAU MINISTREDES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES D'AFGHANISTAN~
5juin 1973
J'ai adressé à Votre Excellence, avec ma lettre du 22 mai 1973, le texte im-
primé de la requêtepar laquelle le Gouvernement australien a introduit le 9 mai
une instance contre la France (affaire des Essaisnucléaires) t j'ai en outre fait
tenir à Votre Excellence, par ma lettre du 23 mai 1973, le texte imprime de la
requêtepar laquelle le Gouvernement néo-zélandais aintroduit le 9 mai une
instance contre la France (affaire des Essaisnucléaires).
J'ai l'honneur J'çnioyer ci-joini Votre C~cellen~e. i tuutei !in< utiles, un
chcniplairc ,les requCici fin d'inier\entionau\ ierme, Je I'art~ilc hZdu Siaiut
de 13 Cour aue le Gou~ernemcnt de f-idii ï dCiiosCcsles 16et IX mai 1973dans
.
les deux affaires relatives aux Essaisnucléaires.
80. THE AGENT OF AUSTRALIA IO THEREGISTRAR
18June 1973.
1 have the honour to refer to the oroceedines in the Nuclear Tests case
-
(Ausrralia v. France).1 have the honour, further, ta refer ta the request for
provisional measuresof orotection lodged on 9 May 1973 by the Government
of Australia in those oroceedines and to the oral statements in suooort of that
request put on behalf'of the ~oiernment of Australia at the hearings of 21.22,
23 and 25 May 1973. In that request and in those statements the Australian
1 Unecommunicationanaloguea kt6adressé aux autresEtats MembresdesNations
Unies et aux Etats non membresdesNations Unies. CORRESPONDENCE 377
Government drew attention to the urgencyof the request for provisional
...~~~~~~~ nr,~~c~ ~n~
1noii ha\c the honour to ilrai\ tothcattcnri<in oftheC<iuri ihediiïrheu ncu,
itcni uhich indiaies the imminen<s of the ismmenscment oi a furihcr icricj
of atmai\phcric nu~leïr ciplssionr by the French Cioicrnnicnt ai ilsie4, ccnire
in the South Pasific Oscïn. The iicm c~nsiiis &>fa report thdi ïppeared in the
"Dt;fi~!.ie"section of 1.enlo~zdeof 17-18June 1973'. Kçferenrç is made in the
report to the movement from the port of Papeetebetween 12 and 16 June of
six French Navy vesselsattached to the nuclear tests programme. The report
goes on to state, inrer alia, that according to some sources ("informarions"),
the tests numbering three or four, could commence as from 24 June 1973.
Similar reports have heen published in Australian newspapers.
81. LE GREFFIEA RU MINISTRE DESAFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DEFRANCE
19juin 1973.
J'ai l'honneur de faire tenir ci-joint à Votre Excellence copie d'une com-
munication que l'agent du Gouvernement australien en l'affaire des Essais
nircléaires(Aiisrraliec. France) m'a remise le 18juin 1973.
82. LE GREFFIE RU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANCÈRES DE FRANCE^
(télégramme)
20 juin 1973
Ai honneur faire connaitre à Votre Excellence que l'ordonnance de la Cour
sur demande mesuresconservatoires en l'affaire des Essais,recIéaires(Australie
c. France) sera lue en séancepublique le vendredi 22 juin à 10 h. 30.
83. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANCÈRES DE FRANCE 3
(rélégramme)
22juin 1973.
Ai honneur faire connaitre à Votre Excellenceque la Coura rendu aujourd'hui
ordonnance sur demande australienne indication mesures conservatoires dans
affain EssaisnucléairesS . uit citation dispositif:
Not reproduced.
La même communicationaéiéadresséeauministredea sffairerétrangèredeFrance
au sujetde l'affaire Noitvelle-Zélac.France(séance publique prevuepour le 22juin
1973. 16heures).
Une communication analogue a étéadressée au ministre der affairesétrangeres
de France au sujet de l'affaire Nouvelle-Zélandee. Fronce(voir C.I.J. Recueil1973,
p. 142). NUCLEARTESTS
[Voir C.I.J.Recueil 1973,p. 106.1
Exemplaire officiel ordonnance expédieaujourd'hui parcourrier aérien exprèsà
Votre Excellence.
84. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE FRANCE'
22juin 1973.
Par exprhs
Me référantà mon télégrammede cejour, portant à la connaissance de Votre
. Excellence le texte du dispositif de l'ordonnance rendue par la Cour sur la
demande en indication de mesures conservatoires orésentéeen i'afaire des
Essaisnucléaires(Australie c. France), j'ai l'honneur de transmettre ci-joint a
Votre Excellence un exemplaire2 officiel de cette ordonnance.
85. THE REGISTRA TROTHE SECRETARY-GENER OALTHEUNITED NATIONS~
(relegrafrr)
22 June 1973.
Have honour inform you Court by Order of 22 June indicated interim mea-
suresof protection in Nuclear Testscaseinstituted by Australia against France.
Copy Order airmailed Io you today for transmission Security Council pursuant
Statute Article 41, paragraph 2.
86. THEREGISTRAR TOTHESECRETARY-GENER OFLTHEUNITEDNATIONS3
1havethe honour, in accordance with Article 41, paragraph 2, of the Statute
of the Court, to send you herewith an official copy, for transmission to the
Securitv Council. of an Order of todav's date bv which the Court. followinp: the
reques;daied 9 May 1973 of the ~ovcrnrneni of Au~lralia. indicaied incrim
measuresof proleciion in the h'i«clrarTestscase(Ausrrul~uv. t'ra»rtni.
' L3 niémeri>mmuniz:iiii>n3 616~dre<cé cu minirire de, atldre, 6ir~ngérede
Franîc au 5u)etde I'arfJiNoutelle-%Plonder. F~o~~cc'.
Ler auire, eremplairc\ oflicde.dcur ordannancei on! 6térrmls aux agcnisdc
I'Au<rr;llri de 13S~u\elle.Zilande d I'occacionde I'auJicnce puhllqudu m>mc
jour.
A communication in the sameterms was sent to the Secretary-Generalof the
United Nations regardingthe New Zealandv. Francecase. CORRESPONDENCE 379
87. THELEGALCOUNSEL OF THEUNITEDNATIONSTOTHEREGISTRAR1
1 have the honour to refer to your cable of 9 May 1973 to the Secretary-
General informine h-m that on 9 May 1973an Aoolicatio. .as filed bv Aus-
tralia in\iituiingpr,icccJings again\[ the 1-rcnchKcpuhli; in respe2tof a ilispuie
conccrning rrcnch nuclear icsis in ihc Souih Pasiiic Ocean (.\'rtrli~<r7ri,(35s).
and a reauest for the indication of interim measuresof orotection in that case.
and Io your letter of 22 May 1973 informing him of the transmission of 150
copies of the Application with the request that he inform member States of its
iiling.
In accordance niih Article 10. p~ragr~ph 3.,?t'theSiblute of the Internati<inal
Court of Justice. the Sesretdry-Gener~l Ilas notitied the Memhers of the IJniieJ
Sütions of this AnnIi.xii<>n. A ;opv of ihe :tr.'uldr note: in Fnclish and rrcnsh
is enclosed. It is understandingthat you will have notified directly the other
States entitled to appear before the Court.
(Signed) Constantin A. STAVROP~UL~S.
25 June 1973.
1refer to the Order made bv the Court on 22 June 1973in the Nuclear Tests
c~rç (Ar<st~ali,i,.tia,rcr.)hy \ihi:h. i!ir,.<ilia. the Court li\ed lime-limitifor
the Mernorial of ilic Goternnieni of i\iisir~lia and the Couilter-\lcmori~l of the
French Go\crnnient on the a.icstidns of ihc ~ur:sdiciion ofihcCourt tocnieriain
thedispute and ofthe admissibility of the ~pplication. In this connection, 1have
the honour to send you herewith for your information a note concerning the
printing of pleadings, together with a copy of the Registry's Rulesfor the Prepa-
ration of Typed atrdPritrted Trxfs referred to therein.
Nuclear Tests case (Asstralia v. Fronce)
Note for the Parties ConcerrtirrgPrinting of Pleaciings
1. Article 43, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court provides that the original
of every pleading shall be signed by the agent and filed in the Registry, ac-
companied by the number of copies required by the Registry, but without pre-
judice to an increase in that number should the need arise later. The Rules no
longer require that pleadings be printed, but if a party contemplates filing
printed pleadings, consideration should be given to the arrangement described
A similar communicationwarsentto ihe Registrarregardingthe New Zeoland v.
Fronce case.
Not reproduced.
A communication in the sametermswassentto the Agent of New Zealand. CORRESPONDENCE 381
90. THE PRIME MINISTER OF AUSTRALIA TO THE VICE-PRESIDENT
Canberra, 27 June 1973
Confidenfial
1 have the honour to refer to the request of the Court for a report from the
Australian Government on the words attributed to me in an article in the
London Times on 22 June lastl.
The circumstances out of which that article arose have been stated to the
Court hy the Australian Co-agent in his letter of this date. My remarks were
purely speculative, were made in the course of an informal talk to lawyers and
were certainly not intended for publication.
1wish to expressto the Court my personal regretat any embarrassment which
the Court may have suffered as a result of my remarks.
27 June 1973.
Confidenfial
1 have the honour to refer to the request of the Court for a report from the
Australian Government on the words attributed to the Australian Prime
Minister bv an article in the London Times of 22 June last'. The article reuorts
that the PFime Minister had told a meeting in Melbourne that he underitood
that the International Court of Justice had upheld by eight votes to six the
oetition o.esented~~v ~,stra-ia and New Zealand obiectine to t.e Fre-ch
nuclear tests in the Pacific.
The article originated from remarks madeby the Prime Minister in informally
replying on behalf of the guests to the toast proposed in their honour at the
Solicitors Annual Dinner in Melbourne on Thursday night 21 June. He was not
speaking from notes.
He indicated ai the time that his remarks were of the record and not for
publication. A few members of the press were present and reported them.
The reDort of what he said in the London Tinreshowever is quite inaccurate and
conveys the wrong impression. What he actually said wds "the majority in Our
favour, they say, is going ta be eight to six".
This statement was no more than s~eculativecomment by,a lawyer to lawyers
and it wo~l~ certa~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~een s~ ~nderst~ ~ ~v the lawver. Dre.ent.A view
wascurrent among Australian advisers, of which the Prime Minister was aware,
that the decision could be in Australia's favour but by a small majority. By
the time the comments were made, it was known that two members of the
Court were il1and that they probably would not take part in the decision.
There was a great deal of speculation by the pressin Australia and elsewhere
in the days preceding the delivery of the Court's decision as to the likely out-
come of the proceedings. These reports, some of which preceded the Prime
Minister's statement, speculated in some instances that Australia would win
but by a narrow margin.
' Seep. 393, sirpro.382 NUCLEAR TESTS
1 trust that this letter will he sufficient to indicate Io the Court the circum-
stancesout of which the London Tin~es article aras1.am forwarding with this
letter a copy of a letter which the Prime Minisler has today written Io the Vice-
President of the Court.
92. THELEOALCOUNSEL OF THEUNITEDNATIONSTOTHERECISTRAR
29 June 1973.
1 have the honour to refer to your cables of 16and 18 May 1973respectively
Io the Secretary-General informing him of the filing by the Government ofFiji
of an Application for permission to intervene, under the terms of Article 62
of the Statute of the Court. in the Nltclear TEcases(Ausrraliav. France) and
(New Zealorrdv. Fra~rce)respectively, and Io your letters of 30 May 1973 in-
forming him of the transmission of 300 copies of the Application with the
request that he inform Memher States ofits filing.
In accordance with Article 69. paragraph 4. of the 1972 Rules of Court. the
Secretary-General has notified the Memhers of the United Nations of this
Application. A copy of the circular note' in English and French is enclosed.
It is my understanding that you will have notified directly the other States
entitled Io appear before the Court.
93. THERECISTRAR TO THE IIIRECTOR OF THECENERALLEOALDIVISION
OF THEUNITEDNATIONS
3 July 1973.
Re Nf~clearTesrsprinted Orders for Security Council are being sent hy Flight
PA 167arriving 10.20July 4th. Airway bill No. 39258100.
94. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANCÈRES D'AFCHANISTAN~
Le Greffier de la Cour internationale de Justice a I'honneur de transmettre,
sous ce pli, un exemplaire de l'ordonnance rendue par la Cour le 22 juin 1973
sur la demande en indication de mesures conservatoires présentéepar le
Gouvernement australien en I'afïaire des Essaisnricl6aires.
D'autres exemplaires seront expédiésultérieurement par la voie ordinaire.
1Not reproduced.
Cette communication a et6 adresséep, our chacunedes deux anàiresaux Etats
Membres der Nations Unies et aux Elatnon membres derNations Unies admis à
esterdevantla Cour. 95. THEDIRECTOR OF THECENERALLECALDIVISION OF'THE UNITED
NATIONS 70 THERECISTRAR
10 July 1973.
1 am enclo,ing for your inform~iion Sccuriiy Council doiumeni S 10962'
in al1 Iangu3gessoniaining the Secreiary.Grner~l's note under cowr of which
Iimiied copies oi the C<~uri'sOrder indiating interim measurcs of proteciion
in the \'rr<I<,T<,sfi.<iwrrere ciriulateJ io XII Memhers of ihc United Vati<ins.
OCfsctcopies of the mimcJgrapheJ \ersion of the Orders mers pre\.iously com-
municated to members of the Securitv Council under cover of a note verbale
dated 28 June 1973.A copy of this note1 is also enclosed.
1wish to thank you very much for making the printed copies available so
quickly.
(Sigited) Blaine SLOAN.
II July 1973.
Further to niv teleohone discussions of 3rd6thand9th instant 1confirm that
Fiji ~o,ernnie~t di>;urhed ai del;) in being heird in support 11,\pplications
IO interi,cnc in .\'iiclzurT<,<rica\cs. Grateful ifdaies .lxlii.\ed for hear~ng
of Fiji in support of those Applications in terms of Article 69 of Rules.
97. THEDEPUTY-RECISTRA TOTHE AGENT OF FIJI2
13July 1973.
1have the honour, with reference to the Applications of the Government of
Fiji to intervene in the cases cancernini Nrirlear Tests (Ausfralia v. France;
New Zea/ntr</v.Fratrce)Io conlirrnthat the Court on 12July 1973madeseparate
.0rders3 in this connection and to enclose official copies of them.
Nat reproduced.
* Similar communicationsweresent 10 the Agent5of Australia andNew Zealand
and IO the Minister for Foreign ARjirs of France.
I.C.J. R~POIO 1973, pp.320and 324.384 NUCLEARTESTS
98. LE GREFflER ADJOINT AU MINISTRE DESAFFAIRES ~TRANCÈRES
D'AFGHANISTAN~
20 juillet 1973.
Le Greffier aioint de la Cour internationale de Justice a I'honneur de trans-
niettrc. sous ce pli. un exemplaire ile I'sriloiin.irend(.? par la Cour le IZ
juillet 1973ais ruje111:~rcqu?ie hfin d'inter\cntiondkpojée pu le (;s~ierne-
ment de I'idti dans I'atTaire de>Elsfrir ~~«i.h;<su,rruliec. Ftaircz.
D'autres éxemplaires seront expédiésultérieurement par la voie ordinaire.
99. LE GREFFIER À L'AMBASSADEUR DE BELGIQUE AUX PAYS-BAS'
24 juillet 1973.
Dans la reauéte Dar laauelle l'Australie a introduitune instance contre la
Francedansl'affaire desEssaisnrrclr'aires,requêtedontj'ai eul'honneur d'adres-
ser copie à Votre Excellence avec ma lettre du 22 mai 1973, le demandeur a
invoauéI'Acte générao l our le rèelement ~aciiisue desdifférendsinternationaux.
Iciit Cienr'\e T26 sepiernhreT.JZ &Xur fonder 13 compL'tencc de 13 ~~iur.'
Je prie \'otrc Ex.ellenie de bicn isul.)ir considérerque IJ présentecoinmuni-
~.Jtionson\titiie la noiitis~tion ~réiieI'arti~le 63 du Slat~l 1.Csur.
J'ai l'honneur de faire tenirjoint a Votre Excellence,pour son information,
le texte d'une communication du 16mai 1973émanantdu Gouvernement fran-
sais, les comptes rendus des audiences tenuespar la Cour les 21, 22. 23 et 25
mai 1973 au sujet d'une demande en indication de mesures conservatoires
présentéepar l'Australie, ainsi que le texte d'une réponseque l'agent de I'Aus-
tralie a faite par écràdesquestions poséespar un membre de la Cour.
100. THEREGISTRAR TO THEAGENT OF AUSTRALIA
9 August 1973.
1 have the honour to send you herewith for your information a copy of a
notification under Article 63 of the Statute of the Court in conneciion with the
Nuclear Tesrscase(Auslralia v. France) which has been despatchedIo the States
enumerated in the lis1 enclosed.
' La mEmecommunicationa&léadresséep.our chacunedesdeux affairez,aux Etais
Membres desNations Unieset aux Etats non membresdes Nations Unies admis A
esterdevantla Cour.
La même communicaiiana &léadresséep,our chacune der deuxaffaires,aux Etats
suivants: Canada,Danemark.Ethiopie, Finlande.Grèce. Inde.Irlande. Italie, Luxem-
bourg, Norvège, Pays-Bar.Pérou,Royaume-Uni. Suède.Suisseet Turquie. Elle a
également étaédresséeB la Nouvelle-Zélandepour l'affaire A~iriroliee. Franceet
l'Australie pour I'atTaireNoitt~elle-Zé.France.
Communicationsin thesametermsweresentto the Agentof New Zealandand to
the Minister for ForeignAffairs of France.
Not reproduced.Seefaotnate 2, sr4pra. CORRESPONDENCE 385
101. THECO-AGENT OF AUSTRALIA TO THE PRESIDENT
10 August 1973.
1 have the honour to refer to the Order of 22 June 1973in which the Court
Jecidcd "th21 the wriiten procïcdings \ha11tirsi be aJJressed io the quehiions
of the jurisdiciion oi the Court to enteriain the di<puie snJ of ilic admissibility
of ihc avol~:ati<in". TheCouri fi~cd 21 Septembcr 1973for the hlemoridl of ihc
Government of Australia.
The Government of Australia regrets to have to inform the Court that al-
though its Memorial is under active preparation the range of matters which are
involved in a consideration of the admissibilitv of the aoolication in addition
tu those relating to thejurisdiction of the couri proves to be such as to make it
impossible for the Government of Australia to meet the time-limit of 21 Sep-
tember 1973. Accordinelv. the Government of Australia. oursuant tu ~rticle
40 (4) of the Rules, requeits the Court tu extend this lime-Iihit tu 21 December
1973.
102. THE CO-AGENT OF AUSTRALIA 10 THE REGlSTRAR
13 August 1973
As you will recall,on 10August 1973HisExcellency thePresident of the Court
was good enough to receive me in connection with the application which 1
transmitted to vou on that dav for an extension until 21 December 1973of the
date for the délivery of the ~ustralian Mernorial on questions of jurisdiction
and admissibility. In the course of that meeting, His Excellency the President
invited me to ascertain whether the Government of Australia mieht - be able tu
\uggcst a Jite earl~crih~n thit mentioncd in the application.
Ilai,ing iiau ha.1Jn i>pporrunity Io ~oniult my Ci,mcrnnient in Cnherri. the
arlvicz wliisli I hi\< recei\e~iiithat ihç Cii>\ernnic~it uill nceJ the iu11ncriod
u,hizh iths5 prupoçcd if ii1,io he able io proJu;e ï >leinarial wlii?li (,>\cri ihc
many jubitanriil irsuer in\<~lvedanJ. in parti:ular.th<i~c<ifaJmi~iibiliiy Thcis.
aswas indicated in making thea~~lication of 10Auaust. were not foreseenwhen
the Government of ~ustralia w& origindlly asked ;O indicate the time which it
would require for a Memorial on jurisdiction.
Due to the dimensions of the task and the pressureof commitments which the
Court will fully appreciate, Counsel have advised the Government that it is
not practicable for them to complete their drafts, carry out the necessarycon-
sultations amonrst themselves (which are considerably extended and comoli-
cated by the distancesinvolved) and allow time for printing before 21~ecember.
This assessmenthas been made on the basis that the text of the Memorial
should be readv for delivery to the ~rinter a~or. .mately four weeks ~rior to
21 De~ember. In ihcic clrLum,tanxs. ifitu,ïre of ~ini\tari:e tu the Court. rhç
Au,irilixn Goiernmeni ;ould lodgc \iith the Court .inunibcr .)f~cr,i\ed <spic\
of this text at the time it is delivered to the printer, fhaf is to %y, on or
about 23 November.
The Government of Australia fully shares the Court's wish that this case
should proceed expeditiously and will continue tu do al1it can, as it has in the
past, to assist the Court to deal with each stage of the case in the minimum
appropriate lime.386 NUCLEAR TESTS
103. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE FRANCE
16août 1973.
Par exprès
Me référant à l'ordonnance rendue par la Cour le 22juin 1973en l'affaire des
Essaisnucléaires(Ausrraliec. France). qui fixait notamment au 21 se~tembre
1973la date d'exoiration du délaioour le déoôtdu mémoiredu ~~ ~~;~e-e~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
australien, j'ai l'honneur de transmettre ci-joint A Votre Excellence les photo-
copies de deuxcommunications de l'ambassadeuret coagent du Gouvernement
australien. datéesdu 10 août et du 13 août 1973. adresséersesoectivement au
Président dela Cour et à moi-méme, et demandant lereport au 21 décembre
1973dela date limite susvisée.Une traduction en français decesdeux communi-
cations est égalementjointe.
Aux fins de l'article 40. paragraphes 4 et 5. du Règlement de la cour en
vigueur depuis le 1" septembre 1972, le Président dela Cour serait très re-
connaissant à Votre Excellence de bien vouloir, si elle le juge utile, faire con-
naitre son opinion sur la demande formuléepar le Gouvernement australien, au
plus tard le 23 août 1973.
104. CONSOLIDATE RDEPORT ON PREMATUR DEISCLOSURES
16 August 1973-12September 1974.
1. This report recapitulates the information received by the Court from its
First Secretary in charge of information, with regard to the disclosures of20-22
June 1973durina the Sterim measuresof orotection ohaseof the Nuclear Tests
case (Aitsrralia ;. F~LIIICP)T.his informaiion has al;eady appeared in several
interim reports. i.e.. those of 16August and 9 November 1973,and 21 January,
22 March. 22 May and 12Seotember 1974.
2. As in the iGerim reporis. the intention in the present report is to state
facts, without however drawing any conclusions from them. It will be confined
to the information and documents which reached the Registry between May
1973 and October 1974. Those items which appear likely 10 be able to shed
light on the subject are listed in chronological order within the general context
of the development of the proceedings. Except as otherwise stated, the dates
mentioned are given in official western European time.
A. Oral Procee~iirigaslrd Deliberarion(25 May-20 Jrrne1973)
3. On Friday. 25 May 1973.the Court held ils final hearings on the requests
for the indication of interim measuresof ~rotection. One ~oint should be made
for the purpose of this report. Judge ill lardw.ho had'entered hospital the
afternoon of the previous day, was not present.Journalists in The Hague were
aware that he was il1even before the Presidentannounced the fact at the sittina
-
(1. p. 245). Nonetheleuon 20anJ 21June iheCih<in.! Ycws ,\geii<y. the (;h<i!~ui~rn
7ï»irs. ille lrirh Titr~c,.ilie Ari<.kI tur. ihe \Vellington T~~vii>iygiiranil ihe
Il'u,i~a,iuitli,r<rlilacre .;tiII rcferIOna Bench of 15 hlembcrs plu, d judgc
ad I~C (see also Tlie Artsrralia>r,Canberra, and Caaberra ~irties,22.~une;
Mercrrry, Hobart, and The Agc, Melbourne, 23 June). On the other hand, the CORRESPONDENCE 387
London correspondent of the New Zealand Press Association reported that
Judge Dillard would probably not take part in the final vote; his despatch,
published in the Wellington Evening Posr on 22 June, was based on "informed
sourcesin The Hague" with which hehad heenin contact on 21 June (European
time).
4. The Court beean its deliberation on 29 Mav. On Saturdav. 2 June. while
it was still deliberaying, the NRC Handelsblad i~otterdam) carried an article
whose penultimate paragraph reads as follows [translation]:
"The decision of the InternationalCourt of Justice will not be able to
prevent Paris from carrying out the tests. What is interesting is that the
Court's decision is likely ta be determined on highly political lines. Ac-
cording to one source, it is probable that the Russian, Frenchand Swedish
judges and the three judges from black Africa will vote against the Aus-
tralian request for a temporary stay of the tests. This means a 9-6 decision.
It is hardly a clear majorily."
5. A few days later, on Wednesday, 6 June, the President of the Court was
admitted~~o hns- r~l. Diolomatic circles in The Haeue-were aware of this bv the
working week of 12-15June. Judging by the articles referred to in paragraph 3
above and by an Agence France-Presse despatch quoted in Le Moirde on the
evening of 21 June fin the issue bearing, asis cuskmary, the date of the fol-
lowing day, 22 June), the news seemsonly belatedly to have reached the press.
The London correspondent of the New Zealand PressAssociation appears to
have been the first to indicate. in the Auckland Star and Wellinaton -venina
Pnrr for 21 June. rhar ihr I'rectJcnl ill, ;ind thai the Jec~cidnin the .\'ri<%?rr
7i,s1i Law\ niighi he rc:id oui hy the \'icc.PrïiiJent. He r?iieraicJ thi, in ihc
Evenin~Post lie followine dav. referrine to "informed sources" and addine that
"~ourisources" had deccned to say w/;ether the President would be presint or
not. The information he relied on dated from 20 and 21 June (European time).
6. During the working week 12-15June in TheHagueand Canberra, rumour
had it that the Court was "very divided.
7. On the morning of Wednesday, 13June, the Vice-President received the
Agent of Australia and gave him reason ta expect delivery of the decision on
21 or 22 June, or early the following week. On the evening of Sunday, 17June
(Le., on 18 June, Australian time), the Sydney Morning Herald published the
following item:
"From Ourdiplomatic correspondent, Canberra. The International Court
of Justice is expected to hand down [its decision] late this week.. .Failing
action late this week, the judgment will certainly be handed down early
next week according to Government sources in Canberra ...ln the event
of the Australian and New Zealaiid Governments meeting successwith
their application for an interim prohibition order, the International Court
would then set down a time-table for a full hearing of the case later this
year."
On the morning of Monday, 18 June Radio Australia News, a bulletin issued in
London by the News and Information Bureau of Canberra House, reported:
"Radio Australia's Canberra office says the Government thinks the
Court will probably hand down its decision late next week."
That afternoon the A NP News Bulletin issued in The Hague carried the fol-
lowing report:388 NUCLEAR TESTS
"Canberra. June 18.The International Court of Justiceat The Haeuewas
-
expected to give its ruling later this week on Australia's application for an
injunction against French nuclear tests in the South Pacific, Government
sourcessaid~odav. ..The sourcessaid the Attornev-General's Deoartment
had not ken given definire advice but it was beliebed the ~ourt'sdecision
would come on Friday."
On the evening of the same day the London Ereili~r~Sla~t</ordreprinted the
first sentenceof the above quotation almost word for word, while in Australia
the Co>rberroTimes (dated 19 June) wrote:
"ln Canberra the Attorney-General's Department was reported yester-
day to expect the International Court's ruling this week, possibly on
Friday."
Similar information, according to which the Court would "give its decision this
week or early next week", had been made public in New Zealand during the
night of 17-18 June, i.e., on 18 June, New Zealand tirne (ANP News Bl<lleri~!,
The Haeue. 18 June. afternoon: A4ercurv>.Hobart. and Ca~~berraTimes. 19
June; Tic Tinres, ond do 20,lune; New Zealo,r<l~iral<l, Auckland. 21 ne).
8. On 14June the Registry had announced by PressCommuniqué No. 73/19
that the Court would hold a oublic hearine on ~uesdav. 19June in the oendine
caseconcerning ~rialoj~aki~lairi ~risonerso/ Wor. 0n-th.emorning of Mondai
18 June. the Court decided to defer that hearing for one week, with a view to
readine-its Orders in Niiclear Tesrs al oublic sitti-es on Fridav. 22 lune. The
Jezision ti~deicr the he~ring in Trial ofP<ikisra»rPr>rrst,,,osfIVur u.25inlme-
diÿtely ~ommuniclitcd icithe Itrtiçs concerncd and iii.ide puhli~ in ihç cÿrly
ckcnina b~ Pre%sC~immuniuuc No. 73 ?O.On the follouinr. mijr-inr. - IV June.
the ANP ~ews Bttlleri,~wroie:
"TheHague, June I8.The IntcrnationalCourt ofJuslice todayannounced
that it had postponed tomorrow's sitting on the case between India and
Pakistan concernina -he Trial of Pnkislniri Priroircrs of War until next
Tue,,lsy 'on .ic.wunt ofII,pr<lgr;immc of uork'. .. So furtlicr e\pllinai~<in
u3s yl\çn. but infi~rnicd w>ur<esIiçrc SJIitlut>kcJa,iitlie ('<~tirthxdcdnie
und& pressurefrom the French decision to go ahead with the nuclear tests.
It was clear, they said, that the granting of an interim injunction against
France by the Court would no1make senseif ilcame after a further series
ofSouth Pacific tests.Assuming that French pressreports of a further series
of nuclear tests by France in the South Pacific this coming weekend were
correct it was obvious that the Court would have to give a ruling before
that date. This lent credence Io Canberra and Wellington reports that the
Court might decide to give a rulingon Friday."
On the evening of 19June (i.e.. the morning of Wednesday, 20 June, Australian
lime), the Ca~iberroTinas wrote:
"The Hague, Tuesday (AAP-Reuter). Speculalion that the World Court
mav soon cive orioritv to the issueof French nuclear testina in the Pacific
ha; been boosied bithe Court's postponement of a scheduled hearing
today ...Court oficials and the Australian Embiissy in The Hague had no
comment on reoorts from Australia and New ~ealand that the Court would
probably give 'ils ruling this Friday on their application for an interim
injunction to stop the tests."
On the sameday thesetwo sentencesalso appeared practically word for word CORRESPONDENCE 389
in the Hobart A4ercury. Thefirst of them also appeared in the SydneyMorning
Herald, while The Age of Melbourne wrote, giving the same source:
"The International Court of Ju~tic~ ~s thoueht tou~ ~ ~ ~o.eo.rinr!-an earlv
desision.. .TheCourt announccd yesierday itwas postpuninp by a week the
hearinw on//iialof Pokis~onP i ri,o>rcrsofIVorl.. . Obscr\ers in The Haaue
said the court appeared to have beeR put "nder pressure by rance's
apparent decision to go ahead with the tests."
Shortly aftenvards, a report was transmitted by the Ghana News Agency (20
June) and reproduced in practically identical terms by the G/ia~raia~T i intes
(21 June):
"The Hague ... The International Court of Justice is thought to have
speeded up its deliberations over the upcoming French nuclear tests fol-
lowingreports that the seriesof blastsareimminent.Thejudges are expected
to deliver their verdict bv.the~ ~ ~ ~~~his week orat t~ ~~ ~ ~t the beeinnine
of next on the Australian and New zealand Governments' appeal-for the
Court to issue an injunction to halt the tests, according to well-informed
sources here. ~eanwhile. a strict oficial blackout hacbeen imoosed on
news of the deliberation; of the Court's IS judges, plus ~ustralia's Sir
Garfield Barwick as an ad hoc iudge. who hegan to consider the case on
May 28."
The first and last sentences above also appeared, with minor changes, in the
Irish Times of 21 June.
B. Final Voteand Readingof the Orders (20-22 June1973)
9. As a preliminary ta an examination of the rumours which werecirculating
shortlv before the Court eave its decisionsl on the reouests for the indication
-~~~~~ ~ ~ ~
of interim measures of protection, it will be as well to fix the precise chrono-
logy of the events of Wednesday. 20 June. Towards 12.30o.m. on that day the
court voted on the Order in théAustralian case and decided that the public
sitting for the reading of the Order would take place on 22 June in the morning.
At about 5.30 p.m. it voted on the New Zealand Order and decided to have it
read out on the afternoon of 22 June. The news of the date of the public sitting
was conveyed as soon as possible to the Parties and telephoned to the ap-
propriate journalists from 4'p.m. onwards. Press Communiqué No. 73/21,
announcing the date, was issued after 6 p.m. However, by that time various
rumours, separately or in combination, had begun to circulate or had been
revived.
10. One of these was far from new (see para. 6 above) and alleged that, as the
Court was very evenly divided, the majority, whatever it might be, would be
small. By Wednesday, 20 June, it was circulating in London. A despatch from
the London corresnondent of the New Zealand Press Association was oublished
in almost identicai terms on the morning of 21 June (Le., late afternoon of 21
June by New Zealand time) in the Wellington EvenirtaPost. the A~icklo~tdSrar
and the WongoniriHerald:
"London, June 20. The World Court in The Hague will hand down its
decision on the Australian request for an interim judgment halting the
-
' The Order in the Australiancasewar read on Friday,22 June, at 10.30a.m. (7.30
0.m.. Sydneytime)and that inthe New Zealand caseat 4 p.m. (3am. on 23June by
Auckland time). CORRESPONDENCE 391
"If the Australian Government is reading the signs correclly. the Inter-
national Court of Justice in The Hague will cal1on France tonight to sus-
oend its nuclear test Droeramme in the Pacific. All the advice reachine Can-
berra suggeststhat tie court's decision on the Australian and New ~ealand
applications for an interim injunction. .. will be handed down within
24 hours. Legal and diplomalic optimism similarly runs strongly in favour
of the Court's 15 judges upholding the application." (Tlic Ausrraliorr,
Canberra, 22 June.)
"Canberra ...The international Court will announce ils interim de-
cision tonight Australian time. Australian offici%lsare confident the Court
will grant an interim injunction calling on the French to stop their nuclear
testoroeramme." (~aiiv Telz~raolr.Svdnev. 22 June.)
"SenGor Murphy was guarde'd today in'his comments on the possible
decision by the Court. He said it still remained tbe seenwhat decision the
International Court would make. Senator Murphy pointed out thar any
further action by the Australian Government could be taken only in the
light of the Court's decision. 'This is the highest tribunal in the world', he
said. 'If the French do ignore if,ihen it is up to the trade unions and the
citizens of the world to maketheir feelings known'." (Daily Mirror, Sydney,
22 June, late afternoon Australian time.)
"Svdnev (AP). ..Anticioatine the verdict Attornev-General Senator
.
~ionél ~"rihy. ;ho prcscnted Au\lralia's cascto the couri month ago.
saiJ in Cdnberrii scrtrrday: 'The Court isihe hishest tribunal in ihe \rorlJ.
If the French ignore it, then it is up to the tradeunions and citize's of the
world to make their feelings known'." (Bangkok Posf, 23 June.)
13. On the morning of Thursday. ?I June. ihc 1-rance-Interser\ice of French
radio and sub~cquenily a report rrom the Agence France.Prcsrc currcspondeni
at The Haeue forecast a successfuloutcome for the rectuests.Bv the end of the
afternoon and on the following morning, that report was broadcast ashard news
by the French-speaking radio-station Europe No. 1, by German-speaking
~hiss radio. andbv a Soanish-lanauaae oroaramme oicked uo in the Nether-
- -. -
lands. II wis also Caken'up by evening and morning papers:
"La Cour itrrerrrariortolee Jusricedemaitderairà la Frarrcede s~irseoirà
sesex~érimerrrarioiis ...C'est vendredi 22juin que la Cour internationale de
~ustick(C.I.J.) rendra en audience oubliaue sa décision dans l'affaire des
Essaisi~ucléairesfrançais dans le Pacifique. Selon l'agence France-Presse,
on s'attend d'aprèsdes informations de source sûreque la Cour demandera
à la France de surseoir à ces essais." (Le Motrde, Paris, edition issued 21
June but dated 22 June.)
"La Cortrirrlerrrariotralde La Haye demanderaitla srispeirsiordiesessais
alonriariesfiatrcais. La Have. 21 iuin (AFP). La Cour internationale de
. > , ,
Justice demandera vendredi à la France de surseoir Ases essaisnucléaires
dans le Pacifique. apprend-on de sourcessûres.Au palais de la Paix toute-
fois. on contin~ued'observer le black-out le olus strict concernant la orise de
position du tribunal." (Le Soir. Brussels,edition issued 21 June b"t dated
22 June).
"A La Haye. On apprenait de bonne source le 21 que la décision qui
sera lue dans la matinée du 22 demandera à la France de suspendre
ses essais nucléaires dans le Pacifique." (L'li~jortnorioirIaiN~e, Paris,
22 June.)
"Paris, June 21 ...Tomorrow, the International Court of Justice at
The Hague is expected to make public ils verdict on the application by392 NUCLEAR TESTS
Australia and New Zealand to have the tests stopped; and the French
News Agency has reported, quoting sources in the Dutch capital, that
France will be asked to suspend the explosions." (Financial Tinies,
London, 22 June.)
14. A third rumour circulating before the Orders were read out was that the
Court had taken its decision by eight votes to six. This had been virtually
forecast in the Rotterdam NRC Handelsblodfor 2 June (seepara. 4 above) and
was a subject of conversation in The Hague as from Tuesday, 19 June. In
London, some pressagenciesappear to have hada presentiment of this asearly
as Wednesday, 20 June:
"Sourcestip 8-6 voteby World Corrrrin favour of NZ case.NZPA Staff
Correspondent.. .London, June 21. The World Court Judges are believed
to be 8-6 in favour of granting an interim injunction halting French at-
mospheric nuclear tests in the Pacific, according to informed sources in
The Haaue todav ...The sources em~hasisedhowever that the situation
could chànge hefore the final decision on the New Zealand caseis handed
down ai 4 p.m. tomorrow ...The decision on the Australian Application
for an interim iudnment which will be handed down at 10.30 mm. to-
. -
niorrou. . i\ helieted t<ibe siniilarly in the bdlance .. Cmri sources
rcfiiseil to çommrnt on \i,hxr ihe siiu;ition \ii~ul,l he if ihere ii7-7 iied
vote in the Couri.. \Vhile Couri wurxs ,roulJ ngii rule oui ihs mxsihilitv
of the Australian and New Zealand judgments being difTerentLfor exam-
ple, one being granted and the other turned down-informed sources said
this was highÏy unlikely. Ltis thought, however, that thereasonsfor granting
or turningdown the requestsfor injunctions could be couched in very dif-
ferent terms." (EveningPost,Wellington. 22 June.)
"AAP. Auckland. Fridav ...Meanwhile. sources in The Haaue believe
~ustralia may havewon itsi\lorld Court caseagainst France bfi two-vote
margin ...The World Court Judges will announce fheir decision officially
later today." (Si~n,Sydney. 22 ~ine.)
"London, June 22.. .a London source last night said the marginwould
be two.. ."(EveningPosr,Wellington, 23 June.)
15. Meanwhile the Australian Prime Minister paid an eighi-hour visit to
Melbourne, and there, on the morning of Thursday, 21 June (or rather in the
evening, Australian time), he made certain remarks during a dinner:
" We've woii N-test case:PM. The Prime Minister (Mr. Whitlam) said
last night that Australia would win its appeal to the International Court of
Justice by a majority of eight votes to six. Mr. Whitlam said he had been
told the Court would make a decision within 22 hours. The Prime Minister
made the prediction while addressing the annual dinner of the Victorian
Law Institute. He said: 'On the matter of the High Court, 1 am told a
decision will be given in about 22 honrs from now. The majority in Our
favour is going to be eight to six.' When asked to elaborate on his com-
ments after the dinner. Mr. Whitlam refused to comment. and said his
reniarks uere oil ilie rcc(ir4. The <Iiiinea.~iaiicnJeJ hy sctcral hiinclred
memher, of ihe ].au Instiiute. in~,luiling scieral proniinmi ,uilge>. \\'hile
mïlinc ilie nrcJiciion ihai ilie Court uoulJtoit elrht tuhi\. hlr.\\hiilani
placedhis Land over a microphone. The microphone was being monitored
by an ABC reporter." (The Age, Melbourne, 22 June.)
Another edition of the same issueof TheAgegave the same information under394 NUCLEAR TESTS
"Times Service, Reuter" given as the source. On 23 June Mr. Whitlam's state-
ment was again mentioned in two articles in non-Australian newspapers:
"London, 22 June ...Prime Minister Gough Whitlam was another to
forecast a correct outcome." (EveningPosf, Wellington, 23 June.)
"Sydney (AP). Australia had already drawn up further anti-French
protest plans in anticipation of winning ils case before the International
Court of Justice against France's nuclear testing in the Pacific, it was un-
officiallyreported yesterday...The Court's decision was given yesterday at
The Hague. Australia was confident of winning ils case. Prime Minister
Gough Whitlam Thursday predicted a 8-6 majority hy the Court in favour
of issuing an interim injunction against France,calling for a suspension of
the planned tests on Mururoa Atoll." (BangkokPosf, 23 June.)
C. AJier the Pronouncernent
17. After the Orders had been read out in public, the Registry naturally
declined to answer anyone who endeavoured to discover how those Judges had
voted who had not appended separate or dissenting opinions:
"[Court]' officiais said they could not reveal how the remaining [six]
judges voted." (The Age, Melbourne, SydneyMorning Herald and West
Australiort,Perth, 23 June.)
Pursuing the line of its article of 2 June (see para.above), the NRC Handels-
bladappearing on the evening of Friday, 22 June, said [franslofionl:
"It may be surmised that the other two judges voting against were the
Russian Morozov and the Nigerian Onyeama."
The speculations of others took a diferent tack. For example:
"France needed to swing only one vote last week to have tied the Court's
decision with the possibility that the Acting President, Lebanon's Judge
Ammoun, would give the casting vote in France's favour." (The Aitsfro/ian,
Canberra, 2 July.)
18. Severaljournalists were under themistaken impression that thecourt had
communicated the texts of its Orders to the Parties before they were read out in
public, and in this they saw an explanation of the statements reported above.
Others expressed surprise at what they considered to be the result of leaks.
"On s'estétonné à La Haye de ce que le Premier ministre australien ait
pu faireétat des dispositions de l'ordonnance et dela répartition exacte des
votes, la veille du jour où cette ordonnance a étérendue en audience pu-
bliaue à La Have." (Le Monde. Paris.24-25 June.)
"Quatre des sixjuges qui ont optépour le rejet de la requête australienne
se sont fait connaître ... Une question a intrigué: «Qui sont les deux
autres? »On finira oar le savoir:~n3va-t-il oas eudéià des fuites. le 21 iuin.
sur les délibération;de la Cour?" (L'~xphss, pari;, 25 June-l July.)
"The 8-6 vote in Australia's favour confirming that there was a prima
facie case for the Court's jurisdiction was much closer than anyone could
The words in squarebracketsappeared in The Ageand WestAusrralion ,ut not
in theS],dnqvMorningHerald. CORRESPONDENCE 395
have expected-presumably France thought it was fighting a lost cause-
and provides some vital pointers to the future. First of all, it seemsthat the
Court's decisions can be predicted with accuracy sometime in advance.
Just how Mr. Whitlam knew at least24 hours beforethe announcement was
made both the result of case and the voting pattern will have.to remain
speculation but it is obvious that leaks are made on political lines. Those
hours of ad~ ~ce w~rnine cnul..~av~ been vital in the oreoaration. .
.4usirdl~~', ne\t diplomaii. I~~III~II\Cpar~i~~uI.irl.i.IIw.i\ \%i.lel) iho~~ghi
th.it the Il-homh trimer ;ould bc tesied si hlururoa 41011iliai ueekcnd."
(Tlre Artsrralian,~anberra, 2 July.)
19. Mr. Whitlam had the opportunity of putting the record straight before
the Australian Parliament:
"Mr. Killen. My question, which 1 address to the Prime Minister, con-
cerns the judgment given by the International Court of Justice relating
to this country's application for an injunction to restrain France from
nuclear testing. Does the honourable gentleman agree that his release of
what appeared to be the details of the judgment in advance of the actual
releaseby thecourt hasput theChiefJusticeofthe High Court of Australia,
who sa1 on the International Court, in a very difficult position-one of
embarrassment. If the honourable gentleman does acknowledge that, will
he detail to the House the circumstances whereby he became acquainted
with the details of the Court's judgment?
Mr. Whirlam. 1 did not become aware of the Court's judgment be-
fore it was delivered. t reeret reoorts of a oassine remark 1 made as a
lawyer, among lawyers, at a legal dinner in speculating, as lawyers do, on
the possible close outcome of this case. One television commentalor even
said that there could beno doilht that 1 had eot information from Australia's
representative on the ~our;;as he descrrbed him-the Chief Justice of
Australia. 1had not receivedany information from theChiefJusticedirectly
or indirectly as to the result ofthe voting by the Court. In fact, 1had had
no communication with the Chief Justice betweenthe time that 1asked him
whether he would accept nomination asjudge ad hocand some days after
the publication of the Court's judgment when he wrote to me personally.
1might add that the television station has apologised to the Chief Justice .
for this newscast." (Australia. House of Represe,itotivesD , aily Hairsard,
12 September 1973, p. 833; see also The Alistralian, Canberra, 13 Sep-
tember 1973.)
20. The Court's PressCommuniqués Nos. 73/30 and 7412issuedon 8 August
1973 and 26 March 1974 respectively were reproduced or referred to in:
I.C.J. Yearbook1972-1973, p. 142; I.C.J. Yearbook1973-1974, pp. 127.128;
I.C.J. Reoorrs1974. DO. 273, 29. -.6~and 298: ANP NewsBitllelitr.The Haeue.
9 ~ugusi 1973 and i6 March 1974; Lfulletin'of~e~al~velopme;~ts, ondin;
1September 1973and 18April 1974; Guardia,?.RadioAi<sfraliaNews.London.
Ghana News Aeencv and Svd,>evMorfrin~Herald. 9 Aueust 1973: Annuaire
.. . . ~,
/iir»niiriIr~ilroir iorr~r~r<rrii1r9<l.pp 250-253; 1.i..\lwr(A,.P;iris.?O-21Jsiiu3ry
1973; 1%~A . arrnili~,~C.dnhcrrd. ?h M;<rch 1974; 1.c.lIo!r./<<, Iiplo>iiarr,/P.dris.
.4prtl 1974: l!ir<~r,r<irit,.il,&,<i.llfuri.rtirlr,Warhirigton. hldy 1974;I,rr<~t.ri~irr~it~~iI
Lakyer. Chicago, July 1974: Fraiice, Acsi~t~rbl,;~<~<irii»ralrJ.ouniul ofir!zl.
9 Mdrch and 20 July 1971, pp. 1086-1059 and 3511.3572; United Nations,
Oll,<.,<tlR~~.ot< l,/'I/f;crr~~r<.i-~t,,>vhl~l'.tt,t-r~~tu.l~c,~>io,j.i,rl, (i~,tuvrirte,t~.
Si;nrmary~ecor&, 1466th Meeting, para. 16; étc.396 NUCLEARTESTS
105. LE CHARGÉ D'AFFAIRES A.1. DE FRANCEAUX PAYS-BAA SU GREFFIER
23 aoOt 1973.
Par lettreen da~~~---i ~6août 1973.vous avez bien voulu informer le ministère
des affaires étrangèresde la République française de la demande du Gouverne-
ment australien tendant au report jusqu'au 21 décembre1973de la date d'ex-
niration du délai notir le déoôt deson* mémoire )).
. ~~~ .
\'ous aie) hicn voulu Cgalcnieni Faireja\oir q~e 41. le Prciident de Iï Cour
iiiiernliiioniilde Juiii~e. en appliiïtion ds I'irii.'le40 (~3rag-iphc> 4 el 5) du
Règlement de la Cour, sirait Ïeconnaissant au Gouveinement français de faire
connaitre, s'il le juge utile, son opinion sur ladite demande formulée par le
Gouvernement australieri, au plus tard le 23 aoat 1973.
Ainsi a,e i> vouî en :ii informé officiellement lors de notre entretien de ce
mitin. 23 ;ioiît, ,'ai l'honneur de iuuj dinfirnicr. pdr la présenteleiire. que le
G,i~i\crncment francais. ayant Jtni; la cumpCten~ede 13 Cour intsrnïtionille
de Justice dans ce~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~. lettre en date du 16 mai 1973. ne saurait ex-
primer une opinion sur ladite demande australienne, en fonction de l'article 40
(paragraphes 4 et 5) du Règlement de la Cour.
(Signé) Pierre GtAcoeei.
106. THEReGlSTRAR TO THE CO-AGENT OF AUSTRALIA
23 August 1973.
1havethe honour~ ~ ~ ~~~ to vour letters of 10and 13Aueust concerninz the
time-limit fixed for the ~emoriil of the Government of ~ustralia in the ~uilear
Testscase(At,slra/ia v. Ftartce), copies of which letters were transmitted by meto
the French Government. 1 have the honour to informvou that the Chargéd'af-
faires a.i. of the French Embassy in The Hague calledon me this morning and
conveyed to me the information confirmed in the letter of which a copy is
enclosed herewith, and which was received in the Registrythis afternoon. 1also
enclose a copy of an unofficial English translation of the letter in question.
28 August 1973
1havethe honour toconfirm theinformationalread~communicated to you by
telephone. narncly ihat h" :in Orderbi iodsy's direthe Presi,leni of the Court
hi%e\iendeJ the rims-limii for the tiling i~fthe hlcmorial of the Go\crnmcnt of
Au~iriili~ in ihe .\',ri./,I;~~lrcJ\e (At,slr<rl>ov Iio~r<v) on llic aussiions or ihe
jurisdiction of the Court and of the admissibility of the ~pplication, from
21 September 1973 to 23 November 1973. The time-limit for the filing of the
1 A similar communicationwassentto the Minister for Foreign AtTairsof France.
2 I.C.J. Reports 1973, p. 335. CORRESPONDENCE 397
Counter-Memorial of the French Government has been extended from 21
December 1973 to 19 April 1974.
The sealed copy of the Order and further copies will be sent to you in due
course.
108. THECO-AGENT OF NEW ZEALAND IO THE REOlSTRAR
28 August 1973.
1have the honour, in confirmation of my cal1on His Excellency the President
of the Court yesterday, to refer to the Court's Order of 22 lune 1973in which
the Court fixed 21 September 1973 for the Memorial of the Government of
New Zealand.
The Government of New Zealand, while anxious to minimize delays in ac-
cordance with the revised Rules of Court. would wish to take into account ihe
reqiic5t h) the Go\ertiincni>C,\u\irsl~d for .in e~tcit\:<)ntif a\iiell35 the
Court', pre~umcil aiin th:ii ammon limiti hï %cifor both tltc Scu Zc:ilsnJ and
Australian cases.
The Government of New Zealand therefore requeststhe Court, in accordance
with Article 40 (4) of the Rules of Court, to extend the time-limit for the filing
of its Memorial on jurisdiction and admissibiliiy by six weeks to 2 November
1973.
109. LEGREFFIER AUMINISTRE DESAFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE FRANCE
28 août 1973.
Par exprès
Me référant a l'ordonnance rendue par la Cour le 22 juin 1973en l'affaire
des Essais nr,c/Gaires lNoi!ve//e-ZCla,tr.eFrafrre).aui fixait notamment au
21 seplembre 1973 la date d'expiration du délai pour ie dépôt du mémoire du
Gouvernement néo-zélandais,j'ai l'honneur de transmettre ci-joint à Votre
Excellence une ~hotoco~ied'une lettre de l'ambassadeur etcoaaent du Gouver-
nement néo-zélandaisen date du 28 aoiit 1973, demandant le-report au 2 no-
vembre 1973 de la date limite susvisée.Une traduction en franqais de cette
communication est égalementjointe.
AuxfinsdeI'article40, paragraphes4et 5, du Règlementde la Couren vigueur
depuis le 1" septembre 1972. le Président dela Cour serait très reconnaissant
a Votre Excellence de bien vouloir, si elle le juge utile, faire connaître son opi-
nion sur la demande formulée par le Gouvernement néo-zélandais,au plus tard
le 4 septembre 1973.
4 septembre 1973.
Par lettre enatc du ?Rdoûi 1973, \eus a\ci bien \oulu iniormer Ic minihière
dei antires r'tr;ingr:rer de 1s K2puhl.q~~ fraitçaisc Je la deniande du Ciouter-398 NUCLEAR TESTS
nement néo-zélandaistendant au report jusqu'au 2 novembre 1973 de la date
d'expiration du délai pour le dép6t de son «mémoire ».
Vous avez bien voulu écalement faire savoir aue M. le Présidentde la Cour
iniernattonslc de Jusiicc. in spplciation dc l'article 30 (paragr3pher 5)du
Kr'glcmeiitde la Cour. \cr.lit reconnaissant au Gourcrnçment fran<;aisde faire
connaitre. s'il l. -uee utile. son oninion sur ladite demande formtilée Dar le
Gou\ernement tiéo-~l:l;in~hi>.au plu, tard le 4 wptcrnbre 1973.
J'ai I'honnciir de \ou; contirmer. pIï prr'ienic Icttre. que Ik!Ci<iui.erncment
fran. ... avant déniéla comnétencede lacour internationale de Justice dans
cette affaire, par lettreen date du 16mai 1973.ne saurait exprimer une opinion
sur ladite demande néo-zélandaise, enfonction de l'article 40 (paragraphes 4
et 5)du Règlement de la Cour.
111. THEREGISTRAR TOTHECO-AGENT OF NEWZEALANO
6 September 1973.
1 have the honour to refer to your letter of 28 August 1973concerning the
tirne-limit fixed for the Memorial of the Government of New Zealand in the
Nuclear Tesrscase(New Zealaird v. Frairce,.a co.. of which was transmitted
by me to the FrenchGovernment. 1have the honour to inform you that a leiter
from the French Ambassador, dated 4 September 1973. of which a copy is
enclosed herewith, was received in the Registry today. 1also enclose a copy of
an unofficial English translation of the letter in question.
112. THE REGISTRAR TOTHECO-AGENT OF NEWZEAL&ND1
6 September 1973.
1havethe honour the confirm the information alreadv communicated 10you
by telephone, namely that by an Order2 of today's date the President ofthe
Court hasextended the time-limit for the filing of the Memorial of the Govern-
ment of New Zealand in the NuclearTesrscase(New Zealaizdv. Fraircr)on the
que\tions of ihc)uri\Jictioof the Court and of !lie admiisibility of the Appli-
cation. from ?I Sepicniber 1973 to 2 No\.ernkr 1973.The iime-limii for the
filine of the Counter-Mcmorial of the French Government has ken extended
from 21 December 1973to 22 March 1974.
The sealed copy of the Order and further copies will be sent to you in due
course.
113. REPORT BY THEREGISTRAR TOTHEPRESIDENT
10September 1973.
In compliance with your request concerning the possibility of leakage of
information through members of the Registry, raised in connection with the
A similar communication wassentto the Minister for Foreign Affairs of France.
I.C.JRcporrs 1973,p.341. CORRESPONDENCE 399
statement in the Dutch mess on 2 June 1973 of the nosition of a number of~ ~ ~~ ~
7 ~-
Judgesin the Nuclrar ~e;tcase(Australiav. France)and subsequent disclnsures
in the press, culminating in the statement of the Australian Prime Minister.
re~orted in TheTimesof22 June. 1 have carried o~t~a~ ~n~ ~ ~eation. the result
. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
of which hasconfirmed my conviction that al1members of the staff, permanent
or temporary, are fully conscious of the confidential nature of any information
thev nbtain in the course of their duties. 1 am satisfied that the Dossibilitv of
indiscretion on the part of any of them can be reasonablyexcluded'and reiterate
my certainty that al1the staff are completely trustwnrthy.
114. THE CO-AGENT OF AUSTRALIA 70 THE REGISTRAR
19 September 1973
Although the Members of the Court will no doubt be aware from statements
made in the press that the French Government has conducted atmospheric
nuclear tests on Mururoa Atoll subsequent to the date of the indication of
provisional measures by the Court on 22 June 1973, 1have been instructed to
ask vou formallv to brine to the notice of the Court~th~ followine information.
On 21 2n.l 29 July 1913respeaitely the Fren~h Go\ernniciit e\pl,iJeJ twti
snioll iiu.'le<irdeiices in lhssim<isphcre;ibo\c hlururtid At<>II I>cte:iion Jciiccc
on Ille terriior). dl',\ustrdli3 heg~n to rcgisicr frerh f.iII.<iui ihroughout Aus-
1rali.i brginning during the pericid h io Yf\ugus~. Thi, i,ihc pcriod in uhich the
arri~xl oiire~h IdIl-oui in Au,triliü irom the July tcii.; \roulJ bc r.~iic.te,l in the
liaht of meteoroloeical and other factors
-~nalysis of the short-lived radio-active products in the samples has positively
identified the fall-out with the French ex~losions in Polvnesia.
The Government of Australia has reason to believe th& three further nuclear
devices were exploded over Mururoa Atoll on 19, 25 and 29 August 1973.
It is apparent that as a result of the explosion of the devices the French
Government has caused the deposit of radio-active fall-out on Australian
territory.
In the opinion of the Government of Australia the conduct of the French
Government constitutes a clear and deliberate breach of the Order of the Court
of 22 June 1973.
The Government of Australia proposes to bring the information in this letter
to the attention of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
115. LE GREFFIER ADJOINT AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES
DE FRANCE
20 septembre 1973.
J'ai l'honneur de transmettre ci-joint à Votre Excellence une photocopie de la
lettre que le coagent du Gouvernement australien dans l'affaire des Essais
nuclLiaires(Ausfralie c. France) m'a adresséele 19 septembre 1973. Elle est
accompagnée, à toutes fins utiles, d'une traduction en français.400 NUCLEARTESTS
20 September 1973.
1 have the honour to acknowledge receipt of Your Excellency's letter of 19
September 1973,referring to the Order of the Court dared 22 June 1973 in the
Nuciear Tests case (Aiistrolia v. France), and setting out certain information
which Your Excellency's Government desiresIo bring to the notice of the Court.
The contents of your letter have been communicated to the Members of the
Court.
117. THE CO-AGENi OFNEWZEALANDTOTHE REGlSTRAR
21 September 1973.
1have hecn instrucicd by my Goi~ernincni IOhring IOthe noti-e of thc Court
certain tnlormxiion rele\xnt IO ihc question of ihç ohicr\.an;e of the Couri's
Order of22 June 1973mddc folloiiing the requeii hy Sc\\, Zeal;ind for inierim
measurci of proie;ri<in in illeA'oi.li,<Trsrscase(Nwv I~~oirii~ <.lIrn>zi.t~j.
On 22 and 29 July 1973 ihe French Go\crnmeni e\ploJe(l twa smAl nuclcar
devices inthe atmos~here above Mururoa. The New ~ealand Government has
reason to believe th& three further nuclear devices were enploded above Mu-
ruroa on 19, 25 and 29 August 1973.
The New Zealand svstem of monitorine levels of radioactivitv involves the
taking of samples in New Zealand, the ~6ok Islands and ~iue.-~nalysis of a
number of recent samples has established conclusively the presenceof radio-
active fallout from the French nuclear devices exoloded above Mururoa. It is
a;cordingly ihc view of the Ncu Zçaland Go\zrnnicnt ihsi ihcre has bccn a
clcar brcnch hy the French Goicrnmcni of the Couri'i Order of22 June 1973.
1have also beeninstructed to advise the Court. with reference to that oortion
of itiOrdcr of22 Junc 1973rcfr'rring to ihc iaking sia~ti<~nof any kinil u hich
might aggra\aie or exicnJ the dispute \ubniiiteJ ii>ihe C,)urt. thai on J July.
by twu de~reespublishcd in the Oficinl Journal of ihc Fren;h Rcpulili~, on
8 July. the I-rcnch Go\crnnient purporicJ i<i2rc:iied ">c:uritg 7.1nc" on the
high icns ar<)uii<lhlururda lu a distance of 60 niiuii;al niilr'\ coiitiguoiio the
territorial sea. The decrees Dur~orted to sus~end maritime navigation in that
zone front II July 1973uniil.fur~hcr notice. On IYJuly and ag~in<in 15Augu\i,
New Zealand ciiizens on vcssclswhi~h\vert nibi~f Frcncli naiioniiliiy and \hich
ucrcon ihc highrnisin ihç\icinity ofhlururoa. wereapprchendcd b) the Ficnch
authi>ritir'r and subsequently iaken a~~inii thcir uiII io Frenih ierrii<ir!. and Je-
taincd ihere for a period toidays bsforc hcing permiiicd IO rciurn IO New Zca-
land.
My Go\crnment intend, io bring the informaiii)n in !hi\ Icitcr IO the ailention
<if the Secrciary-Gencral of the Uniid Nation,.
118. LEGREFFIER ADJOINTAU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE FRANCE
21 septembre 1973.
J'ai l'honneur de tran\mcitre ci-joint ù Vairç Ekccllence une phoiocupic de la
lciirc que le coagent du Guuvcrncmcni nr'o-7cl3nJai\ dans I'afiirc drs CORRESPONDENCE 401
Èssais nucléaires(Nouvelle-Zélande c.France) a adresséece jour au Greffier
de la Cour. Elle est accompagnée, à toutes fins utiles, d'un traduction en
français.
119. THE DEPUTY-REGISTR TORTHE CO-AGEN TF NEW ZEALAND
21 September 1973.
1 have the honour to acknowledge receipt of Your Ezcellency's letter of 21
September 1973,referring to the Order of the Court dated 22 June 1973 in the
NuclearTesfs case(New Zealand v.France). and setting out certain information
which Your ~xcellenc~'sGovernment desires to bring 6 the notice of theCourt.
The contents of your letter have been communicated to the Members of the
Court.
120. L'AMBASSADEUR DE FRANCE AUX PAYS-BAS AU PRÉSIDENT
4 octobre 1973.
J'ai l'honneur de vous faire savoir que le Gouvernement français ne saurait
considérer comme le satisfaisant le communiqué publié le 8 août 1973' par
le Greffe de la Cour au sujet des déclarations faites par le Premier ministre
australien vi-.t-quatre heures avant que la Cour ne rende son ordonnance sur
les niesurcs con,eriaioircl dan, I'illdire de\ e\\ais nuclr'dircs.
tn elTe[.d'apr& ce communiqur'. IcGou\crnenient aultralien aurait «Jonne
une ex~lication ». indiqué «que les nouvelles parues dans la presse ne corres-
pondaient pas exactemént à<anature de la déclaration faite»et exprimé«des
regrets...pour la situation embarrassante dans laquelle la Cour avait pu se
trouver ».
Le Gouvernement français est d'accord avec la Cour pour regretter une jn-
discrétion,qui lui paraît sans précédentdans l'histoire de cette haute juridiction
internationale.
Mais ce gouvernement observe de plus qu'une «situationembarrassante »de
la Cour n'intéressepas seulement celle-ci mais tous les Etats qui sont parties
à son Statut. Or ceux-ci n'ontmêmepas eu communication de «I'explication ))
donnée par le Gouvernemrnt ausir3lien. De cc fait, on ne saurait dire qu'il
ait Ci6mis lin a la<\itu~tion cinbarrassante>,en que.tion.
1.eGou\erncmïnt francais souhaite donc. cn tant qu'fiai-pïrtic au Siaiut de
13 Cour, iirre~aciemerii inforniidci <ir.wnitancei ~ins lesqucllcss'estproduite
I'indiicrr'tiondoni il ,'agFIde\ mewres prises par la Cour iI'Cparddu OU des
responsables de celle-ci. .
Ayant laissés'écouler,depuis les faitsen question, un délai suffisammentlong
pour que la Cour ait pu mener son enquéteet en tirer lesconclusionscorrespon-
dantes, il s'attend recevoir une prompte réponse à sa demande.
--
C.I.J.Annuaire1972-1973, p.143-144.402 NUCLEARTESTS
121. THEREGISTRAR TOTHE AGEN TF AUSTRALIA
1 November 1973
1 have the honour to send you herewith a copy of a letter dated 4 October
,1973, addressed by the Ambassador of France at The Hague to the President
of the Court, received in the Registry on26 October 1973,together with a copy
of an unofficial translation thereof preparedby the Registry.
1 November 1973
I h4\e ihc honour IO submii. in conneciion uiih the .\'r,c/cwL~ri case (.i't,*'
Zt,olu~ril\tionci.)ihe Zlenioridl' iflhe Gu\ernineni ol Xcw Zedland onluris-
di<ti,>n 2nd admi,\ihilii).30 copie> of ihc hleniorial are deliicrcd hcrcaifh.
1" novembre 1973.
Conformément à l'article 43 du Statut de la Cour eà l'article 43 du Rè.le-
nieiii. j'ai l'honneur de irnn~meiirï ci-joini \'dire Ekcellen;e ;<>pieccriitiic
conf~irmc du nir'nioire du <;i>uverncniciii n+o-/;lanJ.\ur la ct>nipeieii:e Jlil
Cour pour ;ori~ixiirc du Jiltërcnd ci Id rc;ev.ihiliiL' ile la reauCiç Jan\ I'iiiïa~re
des ~ssaisnuclGaires(Nouvelle-Zllande c. France), déposéce jour au Greffe.
23 November 1973.
1 have the honour Io refer to the proceedings in the Nuclear Tesrscase
(Australiav. France)and Io the Memoria12 of Australia filed in the proceedings
on 23 November 1973.1refer also to the footnotes appearing on pages354, 358
and 366 of the Memorial (1) in each of which it was stated that certain material
would be lodged with the Registrar.
1 now have the honour to forward the materials3 in question, in the form of
appendices Io this letter.
The materials consist of:
Seepp. 145-246, supra.
2 1,pp.249-380.
Not reproduced. CORRESPONDENCE 403
A. The notification dared 14 JliIy 1971from the Goi~er,imei~o rf Borborloscoir-
cerniirg the Ceneral Act for the Pacific Serrlenrenr of I~zterizatio,ralDisprires.
Reference is made in footnote Iwo on page 354 of the Memorial (1) to a noti-
fication dated 14 July 1971 from the Government of Barbddos concerning the
General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, 1928.1attach
a photocopy of the notification in question (Amendix A). The ohotocoov is
taken from the copy received by the ~ustralian Permanent Mission to ihe
United Nations, New Y,ork.
B & C. correspondence with Fiji coircenri~rgairorher Treary roncliuied eir</erthe
auspicesof fhe League of Narions.
Reference is made in footnote one on page 358 of the Memorial (1) to corre-
spondence concerning the receiving of a declaration of succession bv the
Government of Fiji iirespect of theSpecial Protocol concerning Stateles;ness.
Attached is a photocopy of the correspondence, consisfina of the following
items:
ii)Letter dated I November 1972to the First Secretary, Permanent Mission
of Fiji to United Nations. from the Acting Chief of the Treaty Section.
Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations (Appendix B).
iii)Note dated 7 February 1973 from the Secretary-General of the United
Nations to the Permanent representative of Fiji to the United Nations
(Appendix C).
The photocopies have beentaken from copies made available by the Depart-
ment of Foreign AlTairs, Prime Minister's Office, Fiji.
D. Theresolution of rlre Trrritorial Assei>rblyof New ~alc<loi~iaof 13Jlrire 1973.
Reference ismade in footnote one on oae.366of the Memorial (1) to the text
i~fa re.;<ilutic>,ii ihs Tcrr.is~ri31A>\ciiihly criNew CaIcJonia .!i 13Jiinc 1971
Jc~laring the apposition of ihc .A\\eiiibl!. tti411nu:le.ir ic,ts Aii.,:rieJ i*A LSIP)
oi [lie rcioluttun (,\o..nJi\ UJ. lt con,i\t> .>f 3 ~II~~IOLO.. V1'the oiIict:il te\[
of the resolution.
23 November 1973
1 refer to the oroceedings in the Nuclear Tesrscase(A~crtralia v. ïrolrrc) and 10
the Memorial of the Government of Australia lodged in the proceedings on
23 November 1973.
1refer also to Article 48, paragraph 2. of the 1972Rules of Court. which is t0
the effect that th~ ~ -~t~or -he President mav. aft,. obtainine the views of the
parties, decide that the pleadings and annened documents in a particular case
shall be made available IO the Government of any Member of the United Na-
tions, or of any State which is entitled to appear before the Court.
1 now have the honour to submit the view of the Government of Australja
on the question of the avÿilability of pleadings in the present proceedings. It 1s
convenient to submit that view at this stage. rat-er than to await particular
rCquesIshy Goieriinieni, ;oniing iiiliin p.tr3grapli Z 01'Arlicle 48
III [li$leu ,if the<;,iicrilnir,niof 4u~ir:ili~ tlrrrc aoulil hcni>ahjeitii)n icithe
nlcidinei and antiexed iI,,iunient, bein~ m.de sv;iildhls ru ;in) \u~h G<nsrn-
-
ment requesting them. 23 November 1973.
1have the honour to refer to my letter of 1 November, enclosing one signed
copy and thirty photo-copies of the Memorial of the Government of New Zea-
land on the questions of the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of
theApplication in the N~~cleaT r estscase(New Zealondv. Fro,rce).
In accordance wiih Article 43 of the Rules of Court, 1 have the honour to
trûrismit 125printed copies of the Memorial.
127. THE CO-AGENT OF NEW ZEALAND TO THE REGISTRAR
23 Novemher 1973
I hate the hoiiour ta>rcierti,the irlr.niori:il of the <io\ernmerit oi h\'r\i Zrs-
1~n.Ion the qucitionç ol the juris~iition of th^.C,>ur~and the adniijribilityof
the AnpIi:.~ii,>n in th< .V~,'.l~,o7ri~15:.f(\#,M ,!~~,,/~,L.//',U,K,.!nhtzh \\as
submitted Io the Court on 1 November 1973.
In footnote 3 to paragraph 66 of the Memorial ' reference is made Io a docu-
ment entitled Imperia1Confererrce,1930. TheGeneralAct for rhePacificSertlr-
nreirtof I~rtenrarionalDispr,tes". 1 have the honour to transmit herewith, in
accordance with Article 47 of the Rules of Court, nine photo-copies of this
document. These photo-copies omit from the original document the text of the
General Act which has already been included in the New Zealand Memorial
at Annex 1 %. The photo-copies reproduce Correspondence Between His Ma-
jesty'sGover~rnrenin r tire Unite</Kirrgdoniond His Majesiy's Gover,rrnenfin rhe
Donrinioirs",Io which footnote 3 ta paragraph 66 of the Memorial makes
reference.
23 November 1973
1havethe honour to refer to the Memorial ofthe Government ofNew Zealand
on the questions of the jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the
Application in the NrdclearTesrscase (New Zealon<lv. Fronce), which was
submitted to the Court on I November 1973.
Annex XII1 of the Memorial contains the text of a New Zealand Note of
1October 1973which was addressedto the French Ministry of Foreign Atfairs.
A note4 from the French Ministry of Foreign AtTairsof 5 October 1973in reply
to the New Zealand Note was received in Wellington foo late for inclusion in
the Memorial. The Government of New Zealand hasthought it proper to advise
Seep. 161, rupro.
2 Seep. 214,supra.
Nol reproduced.
Seep. 297,supro. CORRESPONDENCE 405
the Court of the existence of the French reply and to make copies of it available
to the Court. Attached to this letter are 30copies of the Note of 5 Octoher 1973
of the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
129. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE FRANCE
23 novembre 1973
Conformément à l'article 43 du Statut de la Cour àtl'article 43 du Regle-
ment, j'ai I'honneur de transmettre ci-jointà Votre Excellence copie certifiée
conforme du mémoire du Gouvernement australien sur les questions de com-
pétenceetderecevabilitédans I'affairedesEssaisnucléaires(~"slraliec.France),
déposécejour au Greffe.
Jejoins également à cet envoi le texte de deux lettres que l'agent du Gouverne-
ment australien m'a remises aujourd'hui. L'une d'elles concerne le dépôt de
certaines piècescitéesdans les annexes au mémoire australien. Ces piècesse
trouvent au Greffe où ellepeuvent êtreconsultées.
Le Gouvernement fran~aisayant la possibilitéde déposerun contre-mémoire
dans un délaiqui expire le 19 avril 1974,je me permets de signaler à Votre
Excellence. en a..lication de l'article 43. oaraara~he 1. du Règlement. que le
nombre d'éxemplairesrequis par le Greffiest de cent vingt-cinq. L'impression
de cette piècen'est pas nécessaire.
130. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGERES DE FRANCE
26 novembre 1973
J'ai transmisà Votre Excellence, avec ma lettre du 1" novembre 1973,copie
certifike conforme du mémoiresur la comoétenceet la recevabilitédéoosépar
le Gouvernement néo-zélandaisdans l'affaire des Essaisnucléaires(Nouvelle-
Zélande c.France).
Le texte impriméde ce mémoirem'est parvenu depuis lors et j'ai I'honneur
d'en faire tenir un exemplaireà Votre Excellence, pour sa commodité.
Le Gouvernement fran~aisayant la possibilitéde déposerun contre-mémoire
dans un délaiaui ex~ire le 22 mars 1974. ie saisis cette occasion pour signaler
à Votre ~xcelleke, in application de l'article 43, paragraphe 1, dÜ Règlement,
que le nombre d'exemplaires requis par le Greffe est de cent vingt-cinq. L'im-
pression de cette piècen'est pas nécessaire
131. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE FRANCE
30 novembre 1973.
J'ai I'honneur d'adresser ci-jointà Votre Excellence la photocopie d'une
lettre' que le coagent du Gouvernement néo-zélandaisdans I'affaire des
' VO~Tno127 ci-dessus.406 NUCLEAR TESTS
Essais nucléaires(Nouvelle-Zélande c. France) m'a envoyée le 23 novembre
1973. Le document qui y est mentionné se trouve au Greffe où il peut être
consulté.
132. LE GREFFIER ADJOINT AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANOÈRES DE FRANCE
20 décembre1973.
J'ai I'h<inneurd',idrcsserci-joint ci Votre F\ccllenie la photocopie d'une le'ire
que le coiigcnt Ju Coursrnemcnl néo-lélaridai ddn> I'aiiaire der L«arr
11ucl4atr<~(st>a,t~//e,-/i'/flc.<Fr<i,rcr,, m'a envovÇe le23 nuvenibre 1973. Je
tous aJrcrse Gpalcnieni un e~eniplaire Je Iï noir joinie 3 cette ;i)mmunicarion.
La lettre ci la note \cront tr.m,miscs par me, win> a \l hl. les memhrei dç la
Cour si vous ne soulevez oas d'obiection. Dans le cas contraire, c'est la Cour
qui décidera.
133. THE DEPUTY-REGISTRAR TO THE CO-AGENT OF NEW ZEALAND
21 December 1973.
1refer to your letter o23 November 1973.with which vou enclosed 30 cooies
of 3 Uolc from thç Frcnih \linistr), uf ~oreign Atl3irs iaicJ 5 Octokr 1~73;
iiISnote.lthdi ihis iommuiiicatiun \\,asre;ei\eJ t<io hic for it to he anne~edto
the \lemurial tiled by ilie Cu\ernmeni i~f 'leu Zealdnd in the A'rrrlt.ar Tc.irs
c.tre. I ha~eiranriniited a copy of ymr letrer 2nd of ils eniloiure to the French
Gu\ernmcnt. and if no objeiiiun IS re:eiieJ frum th31 qu3rier. the Kole of
50-rokr 1973will be communicsted Io Mernher, of the Court. In the cvent of
objection king made, it will be for the Court to decide.
4 January 1974.
As the Court is soon to reassemble 1 think it proper to recapitulate certain
elements already submitted to my colleagues, and to lay before them some
additional information concerning action which I have taken in connection
with the oremature disclosures of the Court's decision in the Nuclear Tests
cases.In view of the seriousconcern felt by the Court 1thought itmy duty to do
what 1could to establish, if possible, whether there had, in fact, been a leakage
of information from the Court and. if so. in what circumstances this had oc-
curred. 1 pursued the matter from the da; the Court recessedin July until the
end of August and resumed it immediately upon my return from the United
Nations, on 16October. As the Court is aware. 1called for and had circulated
a nuniber i~frcpi,rrs prep3reJ in the Regisiry anJ I m)relf look a nunikr of
>icp\ dcj.gned IO ihrnw lighi on uhai had oiiurred.
Alrhoiigh thir tiar not ihe fi151o<;d<ion ouhi~hrcoorisanneared ftire:.i,rin&
the result of a decision of the Court, the worldwide interest inthe Nuclear ~esG
--
' Voir no 128 ci-dessus. CORRESPONDENCE 407
cdsej iic~.entuatedthe gravity of the Jisclosurcs in !hi\ ~nsiance.While the Court
nas jtillJcliheraiing, pressreports appeared nhich nçni far beyond uhat could
be viewed as factual reoortina or admissible commentarv on a case which is
-
,uh,<i</~reior ihey entercd the spherc uhere wireiy must beniainiaincd in order
tcisafeguard the proper functioning of the nidchincry i>fjd\tiie and respect for
the Court. However. imoortant as~thisis in itself, it has not been mv ~rimarv. .
concern of the action taken. t\en more essential !%as 111asceriain how the in-
forniation hiid ken ohrained and if AI h3.i come from ch~nnelsclosetothe Court
and. in varticular. whether there could have beena leak. which in the varticular
circunis;an:es miy h3sr bcrn aggraiarcd by ihc wrdc puhlicity of the printrJ
uord. Thu, the first step uas IO ~olleci al1 ihr report\ that appeared during the
;ritical ueriod. Tni> ud* Jone in tuo st;ir?es(16 Auduct 1973and 9 Noiember
1973 1).ihouph the reports did not clainiio hee~ha;itive. ihey containcd nio\t
ofthee\~ential inform;ition anil co\ereJ pres repsrir irom al1continent,. The)
wiselv refrained from drawing conclusions, leaving Members of the Court to
~ra~-their nwn.
Eten more iniportant wds the bt:itemeni made by the Ilr.id da Cioiernnient,
r13riy 10 one of the Law\. The pressreooris folli>uing Slr. M'hitlani's statemeni
~ ~ ~ee~ ~ncluded in the comoilati.n~~.~~~rred to above ~ ~
In the lightof the facts collected it hasbecomeclear that the following matters
relating to the proceedings and their results were revealed vrior to their havina
been made public by thecourt:
(1) the date or dates on which the Court would issue the Orders;
(2) the general substance of the Orders;
(3) how many Judges would take part in the vote;
(4) the size of the majority.
As to (l), on 18June and on the following days reports appeared in the press
indicatine the date of the readine of the Orders in the Nuclear Tests casesas
being ~r%ay, 22 June (which wai the date fixed by the Court but not yet re-
vealed). andspeculating on the reasonfor thepostponement of the hearing in the
Prisoners of War case.Some of thesereports referred to the Attorney-General's
Department in Canberra. Of course press clippings did not reach The Hague
until a few days later but Members of the Court were able to get some idea
of what was haovening from the 18 and 19 June issues of the ANP News
Bu//erin2. ~inall;,. the ~egistry publishg the proposed date for the reading
of the two Orders by a press communiqué released in the late afternoon of 20
June. Re~orts orecedine.that communiaué mav have been basedon soeculation
or have heen dcduce~ irim aiiher ~~cio'rs.bucimcc the communiquf ua\ puh-
li,hed the uh61lcprohlem ceasedio c\iit No deduiiion regÿrding this question
could however have vroduced other information relatine to~theCourt3sdecision.
As lai(2).(3) and (4) .he que,iion beconies niore imiairi.int and serious. Itis
thereiore on these three di~~lc~sures made frequently-thït our ctTorts had
to concentrate and in particular on:
(i) the statement of the Prime Minister of Australia;
(ii) press reports prior to and independent of the Australian Prime Minister's
statement;
(iii) the possible relationship between (i) and (ii).
Seepp. 386-395, supra.
* See pp. 387,388, supra.408 NUCLEAR TESTS
The matter has been pursued both within the Court and outside.
1 reauested the Reaistrar to carrv out an investigation concernina the DOS-
sibilitfof leakage of information through membersof the ~egistry';
In addition il was brought tu my attention that the possible decision of the
Court and the com~osition of the maioritv and minoritv were the subiect of
discussion on num&ous occasions ouGide ihe Court. A few days prior-tu the
reading of the Order its substance was king discussed together with the anti-
cipated majority. The figures 9-6 were frequently mentioned and, in discussions
on thsevening preceding the issueof the Order, the figures8-6,andin one or two
cases, the figures-7. However, it was impossible to identify the sourceof these
rumours. ALIefforts in this respect, discreet as they had to be, did not supply
any valuable information.
There was one more question. It will berecalled that the first disclosure was
published as early as 2June 1973,while the Court was still deliberating, in NRC
Hairdelsblad2:
"According to one source, it is probable that the Russian, French and
Swedishjudges and the three judges from black Africa will vote against the
Australian request for a temporary stay of the tests. This means a 9-6
decision."
As is.well known, journalists are very reluctant to disclose their sources, if any.
1 cannot fail to regret that this first disclosure, made as early as three weeks
before the Order was issued, was not brought to the notice of the Court at the
time, but only on 16 August.
In the observations submitted by Members of the Court on this question,
which have been circulated, a number of suggestions were put forward as to
particular steps which might be taken. Some of these have been pursued;
others, it has seemed to me, are betterft for anyconsideration which the Court
may wish to give them when it next meets.
It appears to me that the Court may wish to discuss the following questions:
1. What further action should be taken by the Court?
2. What further steps can be taken for the future to preserve the secrecy of the
Court's deliberations?
3. Are any additional safeguards necessary in respect of the handling of
confidential matters and documents?
135. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE FRANCE
31 janvier 1974.
Lors de la conversation que le Présidentde la Cour internationale de Justice
a eue le 28 novembre 1973 avec Son Excellence l'ambassadeur de France aux
Pays-Bas, il a indique que la Cour s'occupait de la question qui faisait l'objet de
la communication du Gouvernement français en date du 4 octobre 1973 et
qu'elle en discuteraitlorsqu'elle se reuniraià la mi-janvier.
Tenant compte du fait que c'estcontre la France que l'Australie a engagé une
See p.398, supra.
Seep. 387, supra. CORRESPONDENCE 409
instance relativeà des essaisnucléaires dans l'océanPacifique, la Cour désire
qu'il soit porte à la connaissance de Votre Excellence qu'elle a examiné la
auestion dont ils'a.it lors des séancesau'elle a tenues ce mois-ci. Aorès avoir
Ciudtc les r&uliats des rc~herchei ordi~nncespxr elle l22 1973.clle a con-
clu que lei di\er\es cnqui.ier f.iite\~usqu'à prr'\eni ne lui pcrnietiaieni pii.,d'iden-
iifier I'-.ripinc ~rectsçJe, information5 sur le*uucllo re(onJ.iiciii IesilC~larati~ins
parues dans la presseet prédisant I'issue de son délibéré.
La Cour a décidéen conséquencede procéderà d'autres enquêtes.
C'est sur la suggestion de Son Excellence l'ambassadeur de France aux Pays-
Bas que j'ai l'honneur d'adresser la présentelettre à Votre Excellence, pour
la mettre au courant de ce qui précède.
136. THEREGlSTRAR TOTHEAGENT OF AUSTRALIA
31 January 1974.
I have the honour to sendyou herewith a copy ofa letter of today's date which
1 have addressed to the Minister for Foreign ARairs of France, and a copy of
an unofficial English translation thereof.
137. LECHARGÉ D'AFFAIRES A.I. D'ARGENT~NE AUX PAYS-BAS
Il février 1974.
Urgent
Au nom du Gouvernement argentin - et en vertu de l'article 48, para-
graphe 2, du Règlement de la Cour - j'ai l'honneur de vous prier de bien
vouloir me faire parvenir les pièces de procédure relatives aux affaires des
Essaistarcliairesconcernant la France versrisl'Australie et la France versusla
Nouvelle-Zélande (« Atoll de Mururoa ))).
Dans le cas ou cette sollicitude impliquerait des frais, l'ambassade les ferait
arriver à la Cour.
(Signe) Mario CAMPORA.
15 February 1974.
1have the honour to inform you that the Government of Argentina has asked
that the pleadings in the Naclear Tesrscase(New Zealandv. France)be made
available Io it.Pursuant to Article 48, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, 1
have the honour to request you to inform me whether the Government of
New Zealand hasany objection to the request of the Government of Argentina
being acceded to.
1 A similar communicationwas sent Io the Minister forForeign Affain of France.410 NUCLEAR TESTS
21 February 1974
1 have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 15 February,
addressedto the Agent, concerninga request by the Government of Argentina
that the pleadings in the Nuclear Tests case(New Zealand v. France) be made
available to it.
The Government of New Zealand has no objection to the request of the
Government of Argentina king acceded ta.
140. THEAGENT OF AUSTRALIA TO THE REGISTRAR
Canberra, 28 February 1974.
1 have the honour ta refer ta the Court's request for assistance from the
Australian Government on the subject of statements published in the pressand
speculating about a possible favourable result ta Australia on the application
for interim measures in the Nuclear Tesrs cases.
The Australian Government is ha... to e-ve what assistance it can to the
Court on this particular matter. In doing sa, itis acting in accordance with its
long maintained support for the Court's standing and authority; evidenced, for
examn.., bv the initiatives of the Australian ~overnment as earlv as 1947 in
relation to the adoption of resolution 171(II) of the United ~atfons General
Assembly on the need for greater use by the United Nations and its organs of
the International Court of>ustice.
During the recent conversations with the Agent and Co-Agent on 7 and 8
February 1974, clarification was sought and given ta the Court of the circum-
stancessurroundine the statementmade bv the Prime Minister at a gathering o-
Iïuyers in ~ustral~ in Melbourne on ~hbrrday nighi. 21 June 1~73.
As wds promptly explaincd IOihc Couri by ihe Prinic Minktcr in î cuniniuni-
cation dated 27~une 1973.theseremarks were ourelv s~eculative and were made
in the course of an informal after-dinner talk io laGyers. At the time the Prime
Minister indicated that his remarks were not for publication. No source of
concrete information was relied uoon nor did anv exist. The reference by the
Prime hliniuer ta the figures of X ;o 6 uas specul~tion bïsed on an üsscss~eni
currcnt among Ausirîlian advi~er~:the figurcs uere an expression of ihc iiew
thai ille decision coulrl be in Australia's iavour buhy a imall maj~rit.. which
was part of the assessment.
Before the institution of the proceedings by Australia on 9 May 1973, con-
sideration was eiven bv Australia's advisers. asin the circumstances was natural
and indeed ine;itable;to the possible outc&ne of those proceedings. The view
was then taken that Australia might reasonably hope ta obtain a decision in its
favour bothon interim measures and at later stages.At the conclusion of the
oral hearing Australia's legal advisers entertained-a "cautious optimism" that
there might be a narrow majority in Australia's favour. A possible decision of
8 Judges to 6 beean to be considered when it was rumoured that two of the
~ud~c<uere III. the public~iton uf thc Cuurt's decirion revçiiled ihît ihis
di\i5ion. the only one consisreni in the cir~.umsiancesuiih a niirrou mdjurity.
happened io beaciuraie. 11uill berecïlledih<iioneofthe Judgesc(inccrned hd.
foi Ïeasons of illness, been unable to participate in the latter stagesof the oral CORRESPONDENCE 411
hearing. The possibility of the President not being able to participate in the
decision becauseof illness could be inferred from the fact that Vice-President
Ammoun. acting for the President. consulted with the Aeent on 13 June 1973 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
on ccriain que\Gi>nsrcl.iiiiig io the conduc, of thc pri>;cLlingr
The Ctiuri \\il1 no dtiuht rccall rhat rhe procecdingr arouxd the most inlcnrc
interest. Speculation and rumour asta what the Court's ultimate decision might
be was widespread, including speculation as to the possibility of a division of
opinion among the Judges.This included, in particular, speculation and rumour
in press and diplomatic circles centred in The Hague, which in a number of
instances referred to the possible numerical division of Judges; the figures of
8 to 6 were mentioned in those circles. The Court itself has referred in the
recent conversations to the article dated 2 June 1973 aooearine..n the Dutch
NRCHandelsbladl which contains thestatement "This meansa9 to 6division".
The Australian Government only mentions this article as an illustration of the
extent to which oress soeculation of what the Court's decision mieht be had
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~
eiended as ai 2 June i>flast >cilr. IIi..no doubr po\\ihle ihdt the paiiage men-
tioncd ssuld hi\c atlorded s hajii for ihdi ~pc;ulaiion in pressdnd diploniaiic
circles centred in The Haeue alreadv referred to which contained referenceto a
possible judicial divisionof 8 to 6.Such pressand diplomatic speculation and
rumour had come to the notice of the Australian Embassyat The Hague on and
after 19 June of last vear. The Australian ~overnment-reerets its -nabilitv to
a\sist thc Couri 25 to thc sourcesupon iihich ihat presi and diplonl~ric spccula-
lion relicd bc)ond tihar ilha already con\e)ed hy il, Agen! and C'o-Agent io
the Court durine the recent conversations and inthis leiter. In oarticuiar. the
Australian ~ov~rnment would wish to state that it is unaware oi the source, if
any, relied upon in the article of 2 June 1973 to which the Court referred it.
Reference was made in the recent conversations to a statement discouraging
public speculation made by the Attorney-General shortly before the decision
was given; and further details were promised.
In answer to numerous press, radio and television inquiries made ta his
Office on 21 and 22 June 1973 (Australian lime), the Attorney-General stated
that no-one would know the result until the Court gave (i.e., published) ifs
decision. This answer was reflected, e.g., in the Sydney Daily Mirror of 22 June
which quoted the Attorney-General as follows:
"He said it still remained to be seen what decision the International
Court would make."
Further assistance hasalso been requested by the President concerning press
attributions of certain matters to official sources in Australia in the davs imme-
diately preceding the decision.
In this connection, the Government calls attention to the statement made by
the Agent in the recent conversations to the efect that there is in Australia
neither an official or semi-official press nor even a favoured newspaper. Thus,
Australian press references to government "sources" are not official or autho-
ritative in any remect: often thev are no more than a iournalistic device to add
. .
appïrent ueight io journali\itc rcporis I ~iould like io conrirni agiin ihît, a\
rncnii~incd in ihc recent zon\srsiiiion\. ihere uds ni) hdckgr~iund presshriering
during ihç pcriod lcading up to ihc ~ubli;aiion of ihs de;ision hs ihc Courr
relating either to the likeÏy date of p;blication of or to the margin by which a
decision might bereached. It wasalso pointed out in thoseconversations that no
Seep. 387,supra.
See p. 391, supra.412 NUCLEAR TESTS
rnember of the Australian legal team made any statement Io the pressabout the
possible outcome of the case.
1now turn 10the particular instances of pressattributions mentioned by the
President and Judge Sir Humphrey Waldock. In endeavouring to furnish the
information requested of if the Australian Governrnent would point out that it
is compelled to a considerable degree to rely upon its judgment of what prob-
ably had occurred. This follows from the fact that what has been sought of it
are its views uoon the writinas of iournalists. This is a matter over which the
Government, in the circums~nces~existing in Australia, has no control direct
or indirect. The Australian Government has indicated in ils written com-
munications to the Court and orally through its Agent and Co-Agent, the exact
nature of what it said.
The various matters raised by the President and JudgeSir Humphrey Waldock
are dealt with in paragraphs (a) to (d) below:
(a) A report in the BangkokPosr dated 23 June 1973 'was mentioned in which
appears a statement attributed by the reporter to the Attorney-General.
This statement is introduced by the words "Anticioatina
. - the verdict.
Aiiorncy-General.. .said". The uord "Anticipating" is ihe Ianguageuf thé
neuspaper concernedand no1ihai olthe Aiiorney.General. II is iniportani
that that should be understood. The ohrase was no1 used hv the ~ttornev-
General The te.51makes that clcdr. lhe ~iturney-Ciencrai was no1 for;-
ra\ting. and a1no time lorecast. any rcsull. He u3s ansuering questions as
Io what might happen if .Ideci\ii~n ucrç gwen in Ausiralia's favour. The
Court uill. olcourse. bear in minù ihai. (rom the puhlicaiii)n ol the fact of
the Iaunching of its proceedingr in ihe press. continuous inquiry hac hrçn
made of the Australian Government as to various oossibilities that miaht
occur. Afier the French Cio\crnment'> aiiiiude Io the proceedingr beiîie
known, many of theseinquiries uere direcicd IO uhat might happen should
the Couri rule in Aurtrîlia's Cavour.The Ausiralian Go\ernmeni har 31a11
iimei endea\ourcd to deal uiih ihese inquiriei in a manner con5i~tent ai
once uiih the Court's standing and auihoriiy and Ausirîliî's atiitudc toit
and ils resoonsibilities to the Australian oeoole.
(6) A question has also ken asked concerning a report in TireAge of 21 June
1973'. The question asked is whether the speculations oflegal adviserswere
known to exist and were the subject of gossip as to their substance.
Any person conversant with Australian conditions would realise as a
matter of course that the legal advisers would endeavour Io form some
assessment ofthe outcome. It would seemthat thearticle reflectsiournalistic
gossip about what that assessmentmight be.
(c) A further question is asked. namely, that, if there was no Government or
official source. where did the press get their information, as legal issues
were involved with which the averagejournalist would hardly be farniliar.
With thegreatest respect,il may beincorrect to think that expertjournalists,
trained to cover complex national and international issues, would not be
able Io follow the eeneral lee-l issuesinvolved and. drawine o- whatever
sources uere aifailable (rom oierseas. Io form an impression of *,ha[ ihe
Au$irali<in oflicial position mighi be. So doubt ihe Court will kîr in mind
in this connection that the oral argument uas uidely aiiended byjournaliris
and was widely reporied. and thai the suh\tance ulihe declararions rought
' Seep. 391, supra.
Seep. 390,supra. CORRESPONDENCE 413
by both the Australian and New Zealand Governments is readily compre-
hensible to laymen. It is further pointed out that Australian newspapers
do have access to Hague sources. The Court will recall that the Agent
drew to the Court's attention, during the course of the recent conversations,
a report in the Sydney Suii of 22 June 1973 1 (Australian time) which con-
tains the following passage:
"Meanwhile sources in The Hague believe Australia rnay have won
its World Court caseagainst France by a two-vote margin."
This report is byelined "AAP, Auckland, Friday". The possibility is not
altogether to be dismissed that the Australian Associated Presscorrespon-
dent may have ken aware of the publication of 2 June 1973 in the NRC
Hatrdelsblad to which reference has already ken made by the Court.
(ri ) uestions have also been asked in particular as to the references in the
Australian press to the date on which the decision would be given. One
press report referred, in particular, to information supplied by the Attor-
ney-General's Department (Canbrrro Tii>ies, 19 Junez). Ithas ken con-
firmed that no such statement was issued by the Attorney-General's De-
partment. It was true that, at that time within Government circles in Can-
berra, there wasan expectancy that the Court would, on a matter that under
its Rules it is required to treat as a matter of urgency, hand down its
decision in the near future.
The Australian Government trusts that the comments it has been able to
provide on the matter of press reports, both in the general and in the par-
ticular, are of assistanceto the Court. In providing theseand other comments in
the detail it has. the Government has gone beyond what would normally be
expected ofa sovereign Government. It hasdone so solely becauseit has heeded
the reauest of the President for assistanceon a matter which aiTectsthe standing -
of the;udiii.ilinrtitutisiiof thc, lritern~iii>n:il Couoi Juslice.
'lhc ,\u\Irali.m Cio\crnmcnl irJ.~I<I<,h\cr\e ihsitdocs noi reg~rd eiihsr the
rczcni ci>ni.err.,iionr uiih ilic C'i~uri hy ihc Ayeni ;inJ C+.'îgcnI at The Higuc
or thc :oiitcnis 01 ihis 2n.ui.r to ille ('ouri'rcque,i iirbe.iig in an)' ~3yil re-
sp,rn,e hy ilIO~hclciicr i~>rhcC'~~urfirùni ine t'rrn.h,\mh.i~\;~Jor I<i'rhe tl:igue
dafed 4 0ctobe~~1973.
The Australian Government has not been informed whether a further public
statement might be made by the Court on this subiect. If such a statement were
to be made. the ~ustralian Government would ao~reciat..aoorooria.. no.ice
of the matter; and it would in that connexion reserve its right to draw if neces-
sary on the matters referred to herein and in its previous oral and written com-
munications to the Court in order publicly to ciarify ils position.
141. LEDIRECTEUR DES AFFAIRES JURIDIQUES DU MINISTÈRE DES AFFAIRES
ÉTRANGÈRE~ DE FRANCE AU GREFFIER
Paris, 5 mars 1974.
J'ai l'honneur d'accuser réception de votre lettre du 15 février, par laquelle
vous me demandez de vous faire savoir, conformément aux dispositions de
See p. 392,supra.
Seep. 388, supro.414 NUCLEARTESTS
I'drti<le 48. pxragrdph2.du Riglcmr'nr de 13Cour. sile Gou\crncnient frïnwis
\.crr~iJrs oblcciion\ ice que la Répuhliquc 3rgcntinr reqoive coinmun~cat~on
despièces deprocédure dans les affaires desessaisnucléaires.
Me référant à la lettre qui vous a étéremise le 16mai 1973,?ai l'honneur de
vous indiquer que le Gouvernement français, ayant déniéla compétence dela
Cour dans cette araire, ne saurait exprimer une opinion sur la demande for-
mulée parla République argentine.
(Sigiré)Guy DE LACHARRIÈRE.
142. Le GREFFIER AU CHARGÉ D'AFFAIRES A.I.D'ARGENTINE
AUX PAYS-BAS
7 mars 1974.
Me référant à votre lettre du II février 1974.i'ai I'honneur de vous faire con-
naitre qu'en application de l'article 48. paragr&h2. du Règlement de la Cour
le Présidenta décidéde tenir à la dis"osition du Gouvernement argentin les
piècesde procéduredans lesaffairesdesE,r.sois !rrtcléaire(sAuslralie c. Franceet
A'otivellc.-Zc'larc/.eFraiiceJ.
En conséquence,jevous adresseci-joint, en un exemplaire, les demandes en
indication de mesuresconservatoires nrésentks resoectivcmcnt var l'Australie
ci1s Nouiclle-%Clande Ics 9 ci IJ ni1 1973 etles mCiiioirî5 ;!ustr.ilicii ci n6i1-
/Clandais portsni \ur Is comr>étcnccdc la Cour ci la rc<c~~hiliicde. rcquéicsen
l'espèce.
Je crois bien faire en vous faisant égalementremettre trois exemplaires de la
traduction de ces documents en franqais. Me référant à l'article 42, para-
graphe4, du Règlementde la Cour aux termesduquel « leGreffier n'est pastenu
d'établir la traduction des pièces de procédure». je me permets de préciser
que cestraductions, établiespar lessoinsdu Grelfe àI'usageintérieur de laCour,
ne Présententaucun caractère oficiel.
7 March 1974.
1refer to your letter o23 November 1973,by which you were good enough
to give astanding consenton behalf of the Government of Australia for requests
for Communication of the pleadings in the Ntrcleor Tests caseto any State en-
!ttled to appear before the Court to be acceded to. I now have the honour to
lnform You that such a reauest kas beenmade bv the Government of Ar~entina
and ihai ihe Presidcni of iheCourt ha\ dccidej ;bat ihc plcaclingi niaybemade
3vailablc io ihat Go\crnmeni in accordansc uiih Articlc 4s. paragraph 2. of the
Rules of Court
'Similar communicationswere sent ta the Co-Agent of New Zealand regarding
the New Zealand v. Francecaseand to the Minister for Foreign Affairsof France
rezardingbath cases. CORRESPONDENCE 415
144. THE PRESIDENT TO THE PRIME MlNlSTER Of AUSTRALIA
27 March 1974.
1 ~ ~ ~ ~e honnur--- r~ ~~ ~n th~-l~ ~ ~ ~ated -~~~une 1973 which Your Ex-
cellency addressed ta my colleague Judge Ammoun, Vice-President and at the
time Acting President of the Court. in connection with the Court's request for a
report from the Ausiralian C;i)i,ernmenr on the words atirihuted IO Your
EA.'ellencyin rn article in ihe London Tit>r,,,The Ciiuri ha, now deiided ihai
tu,o J,icuments communi;aied tu the Court and furnibhing e\pl<inations i>fihis
mdlter should bc;ommunic~ieJ io ihe French ~uvrrnmeir. and the lerier irom
Your Excellency IO u hich I have refcrred is onc orihe documents. Alihi>ughthe
subiect-matter of this letter has alreadv heen made public. it was considered
3ppii)pridte thïr Your Ehcellency bhould be infsrmcd of ihc Couri's de;i\ion
brfore the te~t or the letler u<i,supplied tiithe French Govcrnmenl. uhiih uill
be done by the end of this week.
(Signed) Manfred LACHS.
29 March 1974.
On the instructions of the Court, and with reference to Communiqué 7412
issued by the Registry on 26 Marchl, a copy of which 1 handed ta Your Ex-
cellency on 22 March, 1have the honour to transmit to Your Excellency here-
with for the information of the Government of Australia the tex1(in English
and French) of a resolution adopted by the Court on 24 January 1974%.
29 mars 1974.
Me référant à ma lettre du 31janvier 1974,j'ai I'hnnneur d'adresser à Votre
Excellenceletexte ducommunique depresse3 reproduisnt la résolutionadoptee
par la Cour internationale de Justice le 21 mars 1974 et de lui faire tenir, sur
l'instruction de la Cour, les documents suivants:
1. La lettre adresséeau Greffier de la Cour le 27juin 1973par le coagent de
. l'Australie (texte original anglais et traduction française);
2. La lettre adresséeau Vice-Présidentde la Cour par le Premier ministre
d'Australie le 27juin 1973 et jointe à la précédente (texte originalanglais et
traduction française);
3. Le texte d'une déclaration de l'Attorney-Generol d'Australie, le sénateur
Murphy, telle qu'elle est rapportée dans le Daily Mirror4 de Sydney du 22 juin416 NUCLEAR TESTS
1973et que l'agent de l'Australie considère comme une déclaration gouverne.
mentale autorisée (texte original anglais et traduction fran~aise);
4. Le texte de la résolution adoptéepar la Cour le 24janvier 1974'.
J'appelle en outre l'attention de Votre Excellencesur le fait que le Hansard
australien. ramortant les débatsdu 12 septembre 19732 à la Chambre des
représentants.-contient le texte d'une question poséeau Premier ministre au
sujet de l'affaire des Essaisnricléoireset de la réponseque celui-ciy a apportée.
29 March 1974.
Ihave the honour to confirm the information already conveyed to Your
Excellency orally, namely that no Counter-Memorial has been filed by the
Government of the French Republic in the N~lclearTesrscase(New Zealandv.
Froitce) within the lime-limit (22 March 1974) fixed therefor by the Court's
Order of 22 June 1973,as varied by the President's Order of 6 September 1973,
and that the case is therefore ready for hearing. The Government of New
Zealand will be inforrned in due course of the date fixed by the Court or the
President, pursuant to Article 51 of the 1972 Rules of Court, for the com-
mencement of the oral proceedings in the case.
148. THE REGISTRAR TO THE COAGENT OF AUSTRALIA
2 April 1974.
'
1have the honour to send Your Excellency herewitha copy of a letter dated
29 March 1974 which, on the instructions of the Court, 1 despatched to the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of the French Republic, together with an unofficial
English translation thereof.
149. THE AGENT OF AUSTRALIA T0 THE REGISTRAR
Canberra, 10 April 1974
1have the honour to refer ta the proceedings in the Nucleor Tesrscase(Aus-
rralia v. Frorice) and to the Order bv the Court dated 22 June 1973 that the
n,ritten proceedings in the case \hall lir.4 beadJressed io the questions of the
jurisdiction of the Court io enteriain the dbpuie and of the admissibil~ty of the
Aoolication. It seems~ossiblethat theseauestions will becomereadv for hearinp-
in'ihe near future. '
In thesecircumstances t have the honour ta refer to the following published
materialswhich have become available since the Australian Memorial was filed
in the Registry and ta which the Parties or the Court may wish ta refer during
1 Non reproduire.
Voir ci-dessusp. 395. CORRESPONDENCE 417
the oral hearing. Copies of thesematerialsL are being conveyed to the Registry
for the convenience of Judges.
. . ReDort of the S~ecial Sessionof the United Nations Scientific Committee
on'the Effects oi Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) held in New Yorkon 26
and 27 November 1973; and
(b) Resolution 3154 (XXVIII) relating to the work of UNSCEAR adopted by
the United Nations General Assembly on 14 December 1973.
1 refer also to the letter dated 19 Se~tember 1973 from the Co-Aeen- con-
cerning ihe positi\e ideniificïiion of ihc deposit of ritilio-acti\e faII.our on
Ausiralian ierritory from nucleitr te\ts e~pl<i\ion\ conduited hy the French
Governmeni itits Pacific Tesir Cenire in July and August 1973. 1now annex
certified copies of the fsllowing titblesbfd3taforuÿrded IO UNSCEAR for the
purpose of irs Spcciitl Session hcld un 26 and 27 Novcmbïr 1973:
(a) lodine-131irrArtsrraliarrnrilk srrpplieandesrinraredrhyroiddosesforyoring
clrildre~/rollowirtg iruclearresrsby France iir Polynesiain July and Aiigiist
1973: and
(b) Esriniaredexterira1gamnta-radialioiidosero tlre wliolebody/rom /al/-orti
over Artsrralia/ollowirrg rrrtclearresrsby France irt PolyiresiaduriirgJrrly
a~idAr/grrsr1973.
Copies of thesetables werealso forwarded, bydiplomatic channels, to the other
Party to the proceedings.
Finally, 1wish to refer to my letter dated 22 May 1973annexing the reports
of the meeting between Australian and French scientists which took place in
Canberra on 7-9 May 1973. The reports have been tabled and printed as a
Parliamentary Paper of the Australian Parliament, and 1am taking the oppor-
tunity of forwarding copies of the printed reports for the convenience of
Judges 3.
Canberra, 11 April 1974.
1have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated 27 March
1974.
The action taken by the Court in relation to my letter dated 27 June 1973to
your colleague, Judge Ammoun, Vice-President and at the time Acting Presi-
dent of the Court. has been noted.
151. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE FRANCE
18 avril 1974.
J'ai l'honneur d'adresser ci-joint à Votre Excellence la photocopie d'une
lettre que l'agent du Gouvernement australien dans l'affaire desEssaisni~cléaires
11. pp.531-537.
1, pp.538and 539.
1.p.540and No. 50, rupro.418 NUCLEAR TESTS
(Ausrralie c. Frnifce) m'a envoyéele 10 avril 1974et que je viens de recevoir.
Jevousadresseégalementun exemplaire desdocumentsjoints a cette communi-
..tion.
La lettre et les documents joints seront transmis par mes soins à MM. les
membres dela Cour si vous ne soulevez pasd'obiection. Dans le cascontraire,
c'esr la Cour qui décidera
152. THE CO-AGEN OTF AUSTRALIA TO THE REGISTRAR
19 April 1974.
1 have the honour to request that a copy of the Memorial on Questions of
Jurisdiction and Admissibility in the Ni~clear Tesrs case (New Zealand v.
Frailce). submilted by the Government of New Zealand on 2 November 1973
in responseto the or-der of the International Court of Justice. should be made
available to me at your earliest convenience.
153. THE DEPUTY-REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF AUSTRALIA
20 April 1974.
I have the honour to inform you that no Counter-Memorial has been filed
by the Government of the French Republic in the Niiclear Teslscase(A~fsrralio
v.Froiicc) within the time-limit 119Aoril 1974)fixed therefor bv the Court's
0rder of22 o un 1973,asvaried by the ~resident'sOrder of28 ~ugust 1973,and
that the case is therefoready for hearing. The Government of Australia will
be informed in due course of the date fixed bv the Court or the President. our-
suant to Article 51 of the 1972 Rules ofCO&, for the commencement oi the
oral proceedings in the case.
22 April 1974
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 10April, received
in the Re-~st-v on 17 Aoril. and enclosi-.! cooies of certain documentarv ma-
,;rialÏoote that this mate*ial has becomeavailable since the filing of théAus-
tralian Memorial on iurisdiction and admissibility in the Nftcleor Ttsrscase, and
that vou consider that the Partiesor the Court mav wish to refer to it d-rinr! the
oral proceedings in the case.A copy of your letter and of the material referred
to has ken transmitted to the French Government, and ilno objection is
received from that auarter. the documents will be communicated to ~embers
of the Court, who have bien informed of the contents of your letter. In the
event of objectionking made, it will be for the Court to decide. CORRESPONDENCE 419
22 April 1974.
1 have the honour to inform you that the Government of Australia hasasked
that the pleadings and annexed documents in the N~rclearTestscase (New
Zealandv. France)be made available to it pursuant to Article 48, paragraph 2.
of the 1972Rules of Court. 1would therefore begrateful ifyou could inform me
assoon as possiblewhether the Government of New Zealand hasany objection
to the request oftheGovernment of Australia being acceded to.
156. THE CO-AGENT OF NEWZEALANO TO THE RFCISTRAR
25 April 1974.
1 have the honour to acknowledee vour letter of 22 Aoril concernine the
request of the Government of ~ustili for the pleadings and annexed &CU-
ments in the Nlrclear Tesrscase (New Zeafatrdv. France) and to inform you
that the Government of New Zealand has no objection to the request of the
Government of Australia being acceded to.
25 April 1974.
1have the honour, on behallof the Government of New Zealand. to request
that the pleadings and annexed documents in the NriclearTesrscase(Ai~srralia
v. Frairce)be made available to it pursuant to Article 48, paragraph 2, of the
1972 Rules of Court.
26 April 1974.
1have the honour to advise you that, in view of the expiration of my appoint-
ment as Australian Ambassador to the Netherlands, the Government of
Australia has appointed Mr. F. J. Blakeney, CBE, Ambassador Designate for
Australia to the Netherlands, as Co-Agent in the NrtclearTesrscase(A~,slralia
v. Frairce)to replace me.
2 mai 1974
J'ai l'honneur de faire connaître Votre Excellence que le Gouvernement de
la Nouvelle-Zélandea demande à recevoir communication des piècesde procé-
dure dans l'affaire des Essais,1itcl4aires(A~~~rme. Fratlce).
A sirnilar cornmunicalion wassentto the Minisier for ForeignAffairs of France.420 NUCLEAR TESTS
Me référantà l'article 48, paragraphe 2, du Règlement de la Cour, je serais
reconnaissant a Votre Excellencede bien vouloir m'indiquer. dans les meilleurs
délais.sielle voit desobjectionà ceque cespiècessoient tenuesà la disposition
de ce gouvernement.
160. THE REGISTRAR TOTHECO-AGENT OF NEWZEALAND1
6 June 1974
I refer ta the requestmade in Your Excellency's letter of 25 April last, that the
oleadinps and annexeddocuments in the Nirclear Testscase(Aestralia v. France)
ka~~,emade available to the Government of New Zealand oursuant to Article
4d. pxrgraph 2. ofihc Ruler oiCourt. I ha\c ihç himo~r to inforni ).ou lhat ihc
President of the Court lins Jc;iilcd lh31 the plciirling, aiid anne\cJ do:umcnts
may be made available to Your ~xcellency's Government. 1 therefore enclose
a copy of the Mernorial on jurisdictionand admissibilitybled by the Govern-
ment of Australia; no Counter-Memorial has been filed by the French
Government.
161. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF AUSTRALIA~
6 June 1974.
I refer to vour letter23fNovember 1973.bv which you informed me of vour
Governrnent's absenceor objection ta the pleadings and annexed docume<s in
the Nislear Tesrscase(Aiistralia v. Froirce) being made available under Article
48. ~araera~h2. of the Rules of Courtto anv of the Governments referred to in
-. .
thai paragraph which may request them. 1now have the honour to informyou
that the President hasdecided to accede10a request made by the Government
of New Zealand for the pleadings and annexed documents in the case ta be
made available to it.
162. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE FRANCE^
Le 7 juin 1974.
Me référant à ma lettre du 2 mai 1974 par laquelle je faisais partà Votre
Excellence du désir exprimé par le Gouvernement de la Nouvelle-Zélande de
1 A communication inthe sameterrnswnr sentIO the Co-Agen1of Aurtralia in the
New Zeolmd v. Fmce case
1 A similar communicaiion was sent to the Co-Agent ofNew Zealand regarding
the New Zealand v. Francecase.
3 La memecammunicalion a étéadressée au ministre des affaires etrangèresde
Franceau sujetde l'affaire Nouvelle-Ztlanc.France. CORRESPONDENCE 421
recevoir com~ ~ ~~ti~n d~s .i~~~- d~ ~r.cédure dans l'affaire des Essais
nucléaires(Australie c. France),j'ai l'honneur de faire connaître à Votre Ex-
cellence que le Présidentde la Cour a décidé,conformément à l'article 48, para-
graphe 2: du Règlement, que ces pièces seraient tenues à la disposition de ce
gouvernement.
(rélégramme)
21 juin 1974
Me référantaffaire Essais nucléaires(Australie c. Fratrce) ai honneur faire
savoir Votre Excellence que ouverture plaidoiries est fixée au 4 juillet 1974.
161. THE REGISTRAR 70 THE AGENT OF AUSTRALIA1
25 June 1974.
1refer to Article 48, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, which provides for
the pleadings and annexed documents in a case being made accessible to the
public, with the consent of the parties, before the termination of the case, and
would be grateful if you would inform me whether the Government of Australia
would have any objection to its Memorial on jurisdiction and admissibility in
the Nuclear Tesrscase (Australia v. Fratrce)being made accessible ta the public
with effect from 3 July 1974.
Ihave the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 25June, addressed
to the Agent of the Government of New Zealand, which in referring to Article
48, paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court, asks whether the Government of New
Zealand would have any objection to its Memorial on jurisdiction and ad-
missibility in the Nucleor Testscase (New Zealaitd v. France)being made avajl-
able to the public with effect from 3 July 1974.
The Government of New Zealand has no objection to its Memorial being
made accessible to the public as from that date.
Similar communications were sent to the Agent of New Zealand regarding the
New Zealundv. Franeecaseand to the Minisierfor ForeignAffairs of France regarding
both cases.422 NUCLEAR TESTS
28 June 1974.
Further to my recent telephone conversation with the Co-Agent, 1 have the
honour 10confirm that the Court has fmed Thursday, 4 July 1974, as the date
on which the presentation of oral argument will begin on the questions of the
jurisdiction of the Court and the admissibility of the Applications in the cases
concerning Nuclear Tests(Aitsrralia v. France; New Zealarid v. Frarice),and
has decided to hear first, beginning at 10am. on the above date, the arguments
Io be presented on behalf of Australia.
1July 1974.
1have the honour to refer to vour letter of 25 June 1974asking whether the
-
Gu\ernmcni or ,\u\tralia nould ha\ç any ob.ectiun io its Xlemorial on juris-
Ji~tinn and ïdniissihiliiy in ihc A'rrileurTc<.rtcrase (Aa>tru/i'v. Fro>ii.ibeing
made acce~\iblc Io ihc oublii iiith eileii froni 3 July 1974.
The Government of ~ustralia has no such objection and gives ils consent Io
ils Memorial being made accessible from that date.
168. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRE SE FRANCE
3 juillet 1974.
Me référant à ma lettre du 25juin 1974relative à la miseà la disposition du
public, à dater du 3juillet 1974,des mémoiresdéposéspar les Gouvernements
australien et neo-zelandais dans la orésente ohase des affaires des Essais
i~itcléair~si. i l'hon~~ ~ de fai~~ tenàrVotre ~xcellencecooie desréoonsesaue
> . ~ ~ . .
ni'oni ïdres%ées cesujel Ic coageni du Gouvernemeni nGo-7élanddiset I'agcni
du Cioui,ernement ausiral~cn. les26 iuin et 1" iuillct resoeciiicment. et i'v ioins,
à toutes fins utiles, une traductionin francais de ces communicatio~s~~ablie
par le Greffe.
169. THE AGENT OF AUSTRALIA TO THE REGISTRAR
3 July 1914.
1have the honour to refer Io ~aracraoh 4262 of the Australian Memorial on
jurisdiction and admissibility in'the Nuciear Testscase(Aitstralia v. Fronce)in
which reference is made Io the letter dated 19September 1973on behalf of the
Government of Australia to the Acting Registrar concerning the conducting
A communication in the sameterms war sent10the Agentof New Zealand
a 1, p. 330. CORRESPONDENCE 423
by the French Government of five nuclear tests alter 22 June 1973which led to
fall-out of radio-active material on Australian territoryThe Acting Registrar
in a letter dated 20September 1973stated that thecontentsof theletter had been
communicated to Members of the Court. In this connexion, 1 desire to submit
copies of the diplomatic protestsl made by the Government of Australia on
22 July, 24 August and 26 September 1973 in respect of the 1973tests.
170. THE AGENT OF AUSTRALlATOTHE REGISTRAR
3 July 1974.
1 have the honour to refer to the hearing of oral argument on the questions
of jurisdiction and admissibility of the Application in the case concerning
Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France) to commence at 10 a.m. oh 4 July next.
In that connexion, 1 submit herewith certain materials2 that have become
available since the filin- of the Australian Memorial on iurisdiction and
admissibility.
1 have the honour to forward herewith, as Attachment 1, a Note dated II
June 1974from the French Embassy, Canberra, to the Australian Department
of Foreign Afiairs. The Note refers to the public communiqué published in
Paris on 8 June 1974 by the Office of the President of France relating to the
French decree reactivating security measures in the South Pacific Test Zone.
1 also forward herewith, as Attachment 2, the copy of the communiqué that
is attached to that Note.
1 also have the honour to forward herewith, as Attachment 3, a copy of the
public statement issued by the Prime Minister of Australia on 17 June 1974
concerning the explosion by the French Government of a nuclear device in the
atmosvhere over Mururoa Atoll on 17June 1974.
1 a60 forward herewith, as Attachment 4, a certified copy of a Note dated
18June 1974from the Australian Department of Foreign ARairs to the French
Embassy. Canberra, protesting to the Government of France in respect of the
commencement by France of a further program of nuclear tests in the Pacific
area.
1 also forward herewith. as Attachment 5. a memorandum from the Secre-
tary-Generïl of the Uniierl Nailon. Io ihe Permanent Represeniaii\e of Aus-
iralia to the Uniicd Nations cuncerning respecii\ely "a noiifiiaiion hy l'rance
and the denunciation bv the United Kinndom of Great Britain and ~orthern
lreland in respect of thé~eneral Act on &e Pacific Settlement of International
Disputes done at Geneva on 26 September 1928".
The following document referred to in the Secretarv-General's memorandum
isslw loruard2 hereuiih-Uniicd Nalionsiiriulr<rÏcttcrC.S.3. 1074 T11EA-
TIES-1. of6 Februsry 1974,ioniaining a translatiun of ihc French nuiifiaaiiun
(attached hereto as Attachment 6).
In addition to subniiiiing ihe ïbo\e-meniionerl niaicri3ls. I relcr io the fol-
louing maicrials3 whict~are paris oi publicaiion? rcadily a\,ailable. Copies of
these ian be ioru,srrlcd lor the con\cnience ol !4embers of ihc Couri iTihai is
desired:
' 1, pp. 545-549.
1, pp. 550-554.
Not reproduced.424 NUCLEAR TESTS
(a) SI. Meld. tir.32 (1949) king a Norwegian Parliamentary Paper concerning
Norway's participation in the United Nations Second Special General
Assembly and in the first part of the Third Ordinary General Assembly
session. The following is a translation from the Norwegian of a passage
appearing on page 33 concerning the 1949 revision of the 1928 General
Act:
"The changes from the 1928 General Act comprise changes in the
rçferenîes inÏlie Gencral Act IO the diffcrent orgiin.; oi the ~c.a@uto
corre%ponding references to the orgiins of the Uniicd hïiions. II i\
:~sicriicd that the Gçncral Act in ii\ netv forni \vil1 be hindingonly for
thosé States which become party to it. The General Act ilself will
remain valid in the old form-in so far as it is still applicable-
ktwesn the original parties no1 acceding ta the General Act as
revised."
ibJ The ~ro~ksal bv the Swedish Kina-in-Council. No. IO5of 10 March 1950.
submittid to the Swedish parliament concerning the question of ~wedish
accessionto the Revised General Act. The following are translations from
the Swedish of passagesrelating Io the 1928General Act:
"Through the dissolution of the League of Nations and the Per-
manent Court of International Justice which Dursuant to the 1928
General Act were given certain functions, the Said Act-though still
valid to theassociated States-has lost itseffectivenesstoa largeentent."
"ln the resolution by which the amended General Act was adoDted
by the General ~ssembly it is stated that the altered wordiig is
applicable only belween States acceding ta said Act and implies no
chanaed riahts for States which accededto the 1928 General Act and
whici wanÏ to refer io still salid part, of nid Act."
"II 1sfor the Kingin-Council to decide if and ai whai pcriod uftime
Su.çdenshould cancel the 1928Gcneral Act on acieJinr io-the Ke\iscd
General Act."
(c) The Danish notification of 22 April 1952of adherence to the Revised Gen-
eral Act (Bekendtg relse am Danmarks tiltraedelse af den af De Forenede
Nationers plenarforsamling den 28. april 1949vedtagne reviderede general-
akt angaende fredelig bilaeggelse af mellemfolkelige tvistigheder). The
following is a translation of the second paragraph of an explanatory note
appearing on page 27:
"The General Act of 26 September 1928, which was made public
through the notificztion of 19 June 1930 by the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, is still applicable forthose States which have adhered to
this instrument only."
3 July 1974.
With reference to the forthcoming hearing in the Nfrclear Tesrscase (New
Zealoird v.Fraiice) 1 have the honour Io enclose copies of correspondence ex- CORRESPONDENCE 425
changed between the New Zealand and French Governments after the filing of
the New Zealand Memorial and to the contents of which we shall wish to refer
in the course of our statements to the Court during the forthcoming hearing.
Attached isa certified copy, together with thirty additional copies, of each of the
following documents':
(a) Note of IO June 1974 from the French Embassy to the New Zealand
Ministry of Foreign Affairs;
(b) Letter of 11 June 1974 from the New Zealand Prime Minister to the
President of France;
(c)Note of 17June 1974from the New Zealand Emhassy to the French Minis-
try of Foreign Affairs;
1 also enclose a Report2 prepared by the New Zealand National Radiation
Laboratory on Fallout from the Nuclear Weapons Tests conducted by France
in the South Pacific during July and August 1973. This document, which was
issued in November 1973 after the filing of the New Zealand Memorial, and
which is available to the public in New Zealand, is in the same series as docu-
ments previously submitted to the Court. It is now being filed in order that the
information available from this source should be as up to date as possible.
172. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ETRANGER EESFRANCE3
4 juillet 1974
J'ai l'honneur de vous faire tenir ci-joint deux lettres avec annexes que l'agent
du Gouvernement australien dans l'affaire des Essais nucléaires (Australie c.
France) m'a adresséesle 3juillet 1974.
8 July 1974.
With reference to the forthcoming hearing in the Nuclear-Tests case (New
Zealand v. France) and to my letter of 3 July, 1 have the honour to enclose a
certified copy, together with thirty additional copies, of aetter from the Presi-
dent of France to the Prime Minister of New Zealand4 dated 1 Julv 1974and
delivered in Wellington on 5 July 1974. This letter, to which we shall wish to
refer in the course of statements to the Court during the forthcoming hearing,
is an addition to the diplomatic correspondence attached to my previous
letter.
Seepp. 298-301,supro.
2 -~-rr~ ..-...,- v~rr~ ~ ~
Une lettre analogua étéadresséeau ministredes affairesetrangèresde Franceau
sujetdel'affairNouvelle-Zélond c. France.426 NUCLEAR TESTS
174. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE FRANCE
9 juillet 1974.
J'ai I'honneur de faire tenir ci-iointVotre Excellence une lettre aue I'aaent
-
du Gou\ernement nco-lelandais dans I'aliaire des Lssai~~~rrrl<'a<r/~ A.'ri>~,rrllr-
Zi.landrr. Iiunrr, m'a adre5sl:ele8 juillet 1974.transmettant copie d'une lettre
du Prcsident de 13 K6nubliuue franca'se ;iu Premier ministre de Nou\,elle-
Zélandeen date du 1" juillet'1974.
17s. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DEFRANCE
(rélégramme)
9 juillet 1974
Me référantaiïaire Essaisnrtcliaires(Norivelle-Zdlarrdec.France) ai honneur
faire savoir Votre Excellence que ouverture plaidoiries est fixée au 10 iuillet
1974 à 10 heures.
176. THE AGENT OF AUSTRALIA TO THE REGISTRAR
9 July 1974
1havethe honour to refer to the hearing of the questions ofjurisdiction and
admissibility of the Application in the caseconcerning Nuclear Tests(Alvlralia
v. France).
1havethis morning received by cable from Canberra the texts of the following
two documents'; copies of which are enclosed:
(oJ A copy ofa telex messagereceived on 21 December 1973by the Australian
Department of Primary lndustry concerning non-radioactivity certificates
for tuna exports; and
(6) A copy of a letter dated 5 February 1974from Port Lincoln Tuna Proces-
sors Pty Ltd to the Australian Department of Primary Industry.
These sheJ lighi on a matter whi;h hds ar1sr.nsince the filing i~fthe r\urtrüliîn
Memilridl in Notcmber 1973and IO ahich ihc Solicitor-Gener31 aishe5 to refer
in his soeech this afternoon. Thev have onlv now come to hand after extensive
investigations.
9 July 1974.
1have the honour IOrefer to Article 56, paragraph 2, ofthe 1972 Rules and
to the final formal submissions made on behalfof the Government of Australia
1, pp. 556-557. CORRESPONDENCE 427
at the public sitting held today, 9July 1974' in tNuclear Tests case(Ausrralia
v. France).
1 have the honour to attach a written copy of the final submissions signed by
me as Agent for the Government of Australia.
Jurisdicrionofrhe Courtandadmissibility
The final submissions of the Government of Australia are that:
(a) the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute the subject of the
Application filed hy the Government of Australia on 9 May 1973; and
(b) the Application is admissible
and that accordingly the Government of Australia is entitled to a declaration
and judgment that the Court has full competence to proceed to entertain the
Application hy Australia on the Merits of the dispute.
10juillet 1974.
J'ai l'honneur de faire tenir à Votre Excellence une lettre. accom~aanéede
deux annexes, que I'agent du Gouvernement australien dans i'affairedei Essais
nucléaires(Australie c. France) m'a adresséele 9juillet 1974.
179. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE FRANCE
IOjuillet 1974
J'ai l'honneur d'adresser ci-joinà Votre Excellence, conformément à I'arti-
cle56, paragraphe 2, du Règlementde la Cour, copie des conclusions finalesque
l'aeentdu c ou verne mustrnlen en l'affaire deEssaisnucléairels ~usfralie
c.France) a luesà l'audience publique du 9juillet 1974et dont il m'a communi-
quéle texte écrit.Je fais égalementtenirà Votre Excellence,à toutes fins utiles.
"ne traduction frangaise de ces conclusions
180. THE AGENT OF NEW ZEALAND TO THE REGISTRAR
1I July 1974
At the conclusion of the oral statements presented by New Zealand at the
hearine in the Nuclear Tests case (New Zealund v. France) on the auestions of
lurisdiction of ihc CouriIOeniert3in the Ji.putc dndciithe 3ilniir\ibility of our
Ap~licïiion. I h3\c ihc honour IO adtire sou 11131ihc linal \uhmi\\ions of the
~overnment of New Zealand areas follows:
--
1 1,p. 523.
See p. 290,Zupro.428 NUCLEAR TESTS
The Government of New Zealand is entitled to a declaration and judgment
that
(a) the Court hasjurisdiction toentertain the Application filed byNew Zealand
and to deal with the merits of the dispute; and
(6) the Application is admissible.
Il juillet 1974.
J'ai l'honneur d'adresser ci-jointà Votre Excellence, conformément à I'arti-
cle 56, paragraphe 2, du Règlement de la Cour, copie de la conclusion finale que
l'agent du Gouvernement néo-zélandais en l'affaire des Essais nrrcliaires
(Noirvelle-ZPla~lrk c. Frairccla lue à l'audience Dubliaue du I I iuillet 1974 et
di~ntII ni'a communiquC Ic te~lcecrii. Jer~i<2galcnieni icnirj.Voire E~ccllcncc.
i iuutcs fins utiles. une traduction franqairde 5.1cilniniun.aliion.
182. THE REGISTRAR TO THE EDtTOR OF "THE TIMES", LONDON
II July 1974.
The reoort in vour columns (Julv 10) of the recent official visit Daid bv the
~ecretarykeneral of the ~nited ~ations, Dr. Waldheim, to the international
Court of Justice includes the statement that "Although. in accordance with Dr.
Waldheim's request, no information has ken givën about his talks at the
Court, or with various Dutch oficials and Queen Juliana, it is believed that one
of the main topics has been the competence of the Court and the refusal of
France to recognize ils jurisdiction over nuclear tests."
1am directed by the President of the Court at once to make it clear that the
"klief" referred to in the passage quoted above is without any foundation
whatever. It is indeed inconceivable that the Court should even contemplate
issues arising in pending cases king the subject of discussion outside the
proceedings in those cases. To link together an oficial visit of the Secretary-
General of the United Nations to the Court. which coincided with oublic
hearings in two cases,and issuesarising in those cases,is wholly unwarranted.
1trust that you will therefore take any stepsnecessaryto correct theerroneous
. .
and invidious impression given by the above-mentionid report
183. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF AUSTRALIA 1
12 July 1974.
I have the honour to transmit to you herewith a copy of a letter which 1
addressedon II July 1974 to the Editor of Tlie Times.
Similar communicationsweresentto the Agent of New Zealand.the Minister for
ForeignAffairs of Franceand the Secretary-Generalof the United Nations. CORRESPONDENCE 429
Paris, 12juillet 1974.
Par leiirc ilu 25juin 1971,idtir a\c7 bicn \oulu mcdcmandcr si le Gr>u\erne-
ment fransiiib durait Jcs <ih,c<ii<ini <c que s,>iciit rendus sccciiiblcs :iu public
a daicr du 3 iuillci 1974lcs ni2iiioircJi'n<>\r:>iir le\ G<iu\crnemeni> iii$ir~licn
et néo-zélandais surla compétence deia CO& et la recevabilité de la requête
dans les deux affaires dites lesErsais niicléaires.
Ainsi aue vous le savez. le Gouvernement francais n'est oas oa.tie . ces
aiïdirer pour le\quellcr il rstinic qiic la Cour n'a p3s conipCicnic
En coriscqucnce. il ne 5.tur311Joriiier .inrl\isni formuler Je. <ihje<ti<in.sur
ILIhise dc I'ariicl18. p4r:igrnphc 3. du Kiylcmcni Je la Cuur.
15 July 1974.
On behalf of the Government of New Zealand 1 have thehonourtoanswer the
questions, connected with the issue of admissibility, put to it by Judge Sir
Humphrey Waldock at the hearing on 11July 1974 l in the Nttcleor Tesrs case
(New Zeala~rrlv. Fralrce). The auestions relate to asoects of two of the five
separate rights which ~iw zealand contends are vioiated by nuclear testing
undertaken by the French Government in the South Pacific region.
1would oreface theanswers bvrecallinrtheunderstandine - of the Government
ol Yeu Zc:<l;inJ. ~i;iicil bdih in ilic Zlcmorial and ai ille oral hearings, in rcla-
Iidn Id adniissibiliiyThai unJersi:in,ling. uhizh uc hclic\c also io be rcflcctcd
in the questions. is that the Court at this st-ee of the oroceedines is concerned
nith 411 iruc oi a prcliinin;nr) ihrlrs;terihrlti\ \sy. with one nhich. nhile it
niay hc rel.ticil Io the meri!.: <rfihc diipuic hciuccn Scu Zcaland 2nd Friin..e.
is distinct from and anterior to the merits. (1 refer to .ara-.a~h 4 of the New
Zealand Memorial2 and to the ~ttorney-Gineral's statement to the Court on
IO July 1974, p. 262, supra.)
The first auestion relates to the third of the cateeories of riehts which New
-
Zealand claims is violated, that is to say, the right Ïhat
no radioactive material enter the territory of New Zealand, the Cook
Islands, Niue, or the Tokelau Islands, including their air space and terri-
torial waters, as a result of nuclear testing.
In the first oart of the auestion. we are asked whether we "consider that everv
transmission by natural Causesof chemical or other matter from one State intk
another State's territory, air-space or territorial seaautomatically constitutes in
itself a l-eal cause of action in international law without the need to establish
anything more ...Do (we) draw a line, and if so where, between a deposit or
dispersion of matter within another State which is unlawful and one which
l Seep. 291, supra.
Seep. 145, supra.430 NUCLEAR TESTS
hasto be tolerated asmerely an incident of the industrialisationor technological
development of modern society?"
We do not consider that every transmission of the kind described from one
territory to another constitutes in itself a legal causeof action. A line does have
to be drawn between dilïerent types of intrusion into areas over which another
State has sovereignty; and, as new activities arise and diiïerent dangers are
perceived, that line may have to be extended. It will not, however, in the Ap-
plicant's view, be necessaryfor the Court, when it comes 10the merits stage of
these proceedings. 10 fix the exact line between lawful and unlawful transmis-
sions, as the present case falls clearly within the latter category. One of the
principal factors tobe taken into account in the Dresentcaseis that the intrusion
complained of, and the activity which gives riSe to it.are condemned by the
international community. This condemnation of nuclear testing in the at-
mosphere is basedon the dangers to mankind presented by the proliferation of
nuclear weapons, by ils harmful consequences for the health of present and
future generations of mankind. and by the contamination of man's environ-
ment by radioactive substances. Moreover, the consequence of the intrusion
is to interfere with the power of the New Zealand Government bath to control
exposure 10 radiation from artificial sources and to ensure that any increased
radiation level is justified in terms of benefits that would not otherwise be
received.
The second part of the question asks whether we consider that harm or the
~otentiality of harm is a sitrqua non for establishina the breach of an inter-
national obligation in such cases.While, as noted in Ïhe preceding paragraph,
harm or the potentiality of harm is relevant Io the condemnation by the inter-
national community of nuclear testine.in the atmosohere. we do not consider
that harm or the potentiality of harmls an element ihat the law requires to be
proved in order to establish the breach ofan international obligation under this
head. We would note however that we do. under another head. ..ead that harm
does result from this activity.
The second question concerns the fifth of the categories of rights which New
Zealand claims is violated, that is to say, the right ta
freedom of the hieh seas. includine freedom of ndvieation and overflieht
and the freedom ïo explore and exploit the resources of the sea and The
seabed, without interference or detriment resulting from nuclear testing.
We are asked whether we draw any line between lawful and unlawful inter-
ferenceswith the freedom of the seasfor militarv Duruosesin time of Deace,and.
if so, what line. Do we, for example, draw a kgal distinction betwéenthe de-
claration of a temporary submarine exercise area or temporary missile testing
area and a declaralion of a temporary nuclear testing zone? If so, what are the
elements considered 10make an interference with the freedom of the seasof such
a temporary kind unlawful?
There is no doubt that States may lawfully use the high seas for certain
traditional militarv ourooses of the kind referred to in the auestion-submarine
.. . .
exercises.missile testmg.gunnery practicr andso on. This is. hoii.c\er. an acti\,ity
that confcrs on States no special rights in relation to other usrrs ui the high
seas. but im~oses a dutv on them Cosee that those other users are no1 hurt.
This duty should not be-confused with a right to exclude the ships and aircraft
of other States. The New Zealand position is that there is no such right; that
the law does no1 recognise the subordination of freedom of navigaiion and
overflight and fishing to military usesof the high seas.
If, however, there are circumstances in which international law recognises432 NUCLEAR TESTS
17juillet 1974.
Me rcferant a ma lettre da 12juillet 1A7laquclle~'avaii joint lecomple ren-
du de l'audience publique ienue par la Cour Ic I I juillet dans I'aFaire des E,s<iis
,,ai~/t~uir~h'i~i,i~<~lle-Z~~I. ~F<ltc<,,,j'ail'honneur d'adrcçser i Votre
E~ceilencccopie de la reponhr r'critc faite Is 15juillet par l'agent du Gou\ern~'-
nient n&~-zCland~iri 12qucstlon po<éepar sir Humplirey Waldock B I'audir.ncc
dont il s'agit (p. 291ci-dessus). Unetraduction en français vous en seraenvoyée,
à toutes fins utiles, dès que faire se pourra.
187. THE REGISTRAR TOTHE AGENT OF AUSTRALIA
26 July 1974
In response to your recent enquiry,1have the honour to confirm what has
already been conveyed by telephone to the Australian Embassy, namely. that
1 am instructed to inlormvou that the Court has no obiection to the Australian
Government tabling its ~emorial on jurisdiction and admissibility in the
Nuclear Tesrscase(Aiisrraliov. Fratzce)in the Australian Parliament.
188. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF AUSTRALIA '
29 July 1974
1 have the honour, with reference to the proceedings on jurisdiction and
admissibility in theitrleor Trsrscase(Al~srraliav. Frairce),to communicate to
you herewith a copy of a letter dated 12July 1974which 1 have received from
the French Government.
189. THECO-AGENT Of AUSTRALIA TO THE REGISTRAR
29 August 1974
1havethe honour Io refer to the indication of provisional measuresof protec-
tion bv the Court on 22June 1973in the NucleorTesrsCase(Assrraliav. Fra~ice)
and t& the letter dated 19 September 1973from the CO- gen tor the Govern-
ment of Australia informing the Court of the conduct by the French Govern-
ment of a seriesof atmos~heric nuclear tests above Mururoa Atoll in Julv and
August 1973, causing identifiable fall-out in Australian territory in breach of
the Order of 22 June.
1have beeninstructed to ask you to bring the following information formally
to the notice of the Court.
A communication inthe rametermswassentto the Agentol New Zealand. CORRESPONDENCE 433
The Goscrnment of Australia ha%rcason to belicvc that on 17 June and 8
July 1974 respcaively (Austrîlidn iinic), the Frcnch Gi)vrrnmçnt c<inilucterl
tuo further tcits abo\c Murur(vd At<>11T .he Court wdr informcd of theïç lests
during the recent oral proceedings from 4 to 11 July 1974relating to the ques-
tions of the jurisdiction of the Court and of admissibility. The 15 August
edition of Le Monde has quoted "a good source" in Paris as indicatingthat the
test of 17June had a yieldof five kiloton and that the test of8 July had a yield
of 150 kiloton.
The Government of Australia has reason to believe that four further nuclear
~ ~i~ ~ ~ ~~ ~x~loded bv the French Government at its Pacific Tests Centre
on 18and 26 JU~Yand on 15and 25 AU& 1974respectively (Australian time).
The urohibited and dangerous zones ~roclaimed for the purpose of conducting
this iear's series of tests-are still in force, and therefore further explosions this
year may be undertaken.
Detection deviceson the territorv of Australia began to register fresh fall-out
throuehout Au\tralid on 21 July (974. Analysis ocihc shoÏt-livcd railiodciii,~
product%detestcd by thc Australi~n Gu\crnnicnt monitoring programme has
po,iti\rly idcntified the Pdll-out uith this year's French cirplo\ion.. in Polynesia.
Thi>\e zxplosiùni are cstiniated to hii\c conimiitcd the Australidn population
to date IO addiiional radiation ,li>sesduc tu frcsh fi\,ii)nproJu;t\. uhich arc
about five times greater than the doses incurred by the Australian population
from the whole of the 1973 French tests.
It is clear therefore that, as a result of this year's explosions, the French
Government has caused further de~osit of radioactive fall-out on Australian
territory. In the opinion of the Go;ernment of Australia, the conduct of the
French Government constitutes a further clear and deliberate breach of the
Order of 22 June 1973.
It is proposed ta bring the information in this letter ta the attention of the
Secretary-General of the United Nations.
30 août 1974.
J'ai l'honneur de transmettre ci-joint à Votre Excellence une photocopie de la
lettre que le coagent du Gouvernement australien dans l'affaire des Essais
iracléaires(Australie c.France) m'a adresséele 29 août 1974. Elle est accom-
pagnée,à toutes fins utiles, d'une traduction en français.
191. THE AGENT OF FIJITO THE REClSTRAR
Swanbourne, 10 September 1974.
1 have the honour to refer to my letters of 16 and 18 May 1973respectively
suhmitting Applications on behalf of the Government of Fiji for permission ta
intcrvene under the terms of Article 62 of the Statute in the casesconcerning
Nuclear Tests(Australia v. France) and (New Zealatrd V. France).
Ihave the further honour to request, in accordance with Article 48 (2) of the
Rules of Court, that the Government of Fiji should have made availahle to434 NUCLEAR TESTS
it the pleadings and annexed documents relating to those cases, particularly
those relating Io jurisdiction and admissibility.
192. L'AMBASSADEU DU PÉROU AUX PAYS-BAS AU PRÉSIDENT
16 septembre 1974.
Teneo a honra dirieirme a Vuestra Excelencia nara solicitarle a nombre
del ~ibierno de mi P~S, que de acuerdo al paragraio segundo del articulo 48
del Reglamento de la Corte Internacional de Justicia. ado~tado el 6 de mayo de
1946vmodificado el 10 d~~mavo de 1972. t,nea a bi~n~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ el ~elator
de esa Ilustrada Corte ponga a disposition del Gobierno del Peru las piezas
del procedimiento del Caso sobre Ettsayos Nucleares que siguen Australia y
Nueva Zelandia contra Francia.
(Signé) Juan DELA PIEDRAV.
Canberra, 27 September 1974.
1refer Io rny letter to you dated 31 May 1973forwarding the written answers
of the Government of Australia Io two questions put by Judge Gros in the
Nuclear Tesrs case (Airsfraliav. France). The second question asked to what
States Australia regarded itself as bound by the General Act for the Pacific
Settlement of International Disputes, 1928.
The Australian Government has recently been informed by the United Na-
tions Secretariat of a "Notification of Succession by Pakistan" in relation Io
the 1928 General Act. 1 would be grateful if you would ascertain from the
Members of the Court whether there would be any objection if the Australian
Government, in taking action with regard to this notification, were ta make a
reference to the relevant part of my reply dated 31 May 1973.That par1 of the
reply reads as follows:
"The second question asked by Judge Gros, which was forwarded with
your letter dated 29 May 1973, reads as follows:
'Vis-à-vis de auels Etats. en dehors de la France. le Gouvernement de
l'Australie estime-t-il êtrelié par I'Acte généralpour le règlement paci-
fique des différends internationaux de 1928, Dour l'ensemble de I'Acte
ou pour partie?
The Government of Australia considers itself to be bound by the 1928
General Act towards those States which have acceded thereto. A list of
th<i\c Si:itcs ;JI 10 JJI~ 19741s<clforih in Ihc Lc~guetif Slitions lacni)-
iirst lis! .S';~,nuli,rci,Kol,fi<<uiuo,z<l <,,;u,,Ji, ,?,p?cr uf .4yrr,cnn'/tl.r
<,»LICo»i<'~ziio>(r'so,irlrrd~<lU,r<lth,>.Iiirp,rr.s of 11I.<~opa<of \'orii»r~
No States have acceded to or denounced the General Act since that date.
l'hc prcscni ansiter is. <ifcour.c. gncn riilhi>ut prcjudi;e1%)the pi~çition
in relation Io any axcisiJn the conrinuine v~lidii) of utii.'li riili) he1iITr:lcJ CORRESPONDENCE 435
by specialcircumstances not relevant to the presentcase.Also, the Govern-
ment of Australia does not consider itself bound by the General Act
towards any other State by reason of State succession."
194. THE RECISTRAR TOTHE PERMANEN RTEPRESENTATI VE FIJI
TOTHEUNITEDNATIONS
IlOctober 1974.
Ihave the honour to refer to a letter addressedto me on 10 September 1974
bv Mr. D. McLouahlin. the Agent a~vointed bv the Government of Fiii in
réspectof its ~pplicatio" to intérvene-in the Ni,c?carTesrscases(~i<srro(iuv.
Fronce; NewZeolatrdv.Fra~rce).By that letter the Government of Fiji requests
that. in accordance with Article 48. o.rag-.oh 2. of the Rules of Court. the
pleüdings and anncxed do~umenti in rhew cases.parti.vlarly ihow rclating to
juridiction and adniisiibilitymAy he made aiailahle io il
I haie the honour ti>inform Yuur Exsellcncy ihsi theCourt. h3i,ingconsultcrl
the I'ariies ro ihe.~~ses.hasiIecided ihst the reqiiesi m~Jcby Fiji asa hlcmher <~f
the L'nited Uationi shi)uld he ac~eded IO.Copics (if ihe plesdings KI far iiled
will therefore be sent to your Government.
195. THE REGISTRAR TO THE AGENT OF AUSTRALIA
16October 1974.
1have the honour to refer to your letter of 27 September 1974.by which you
enquire whether thecourt would have any objection to the Australian Govern-
ment making a reference, in another context. to part of a written reply given hy
the Australian Government ta a written question put bya Member of the Court
during the oral proceedings on the quesiions of jurisdiction and admissibility
in the NircleorTesrscase(Ai,slrolio v. Fro~rce).
Havinr-laid the matter before the Court. 1 now have the honour Io inform
).<NIthat the Caiurl cuniiders thal questions put diiring the oral pro~eedings.aiid
ihç replie> ihcrçtu. are in principle in thç puhlic domlin. purmint10 Ariiele 46
id ihe Siatuic or the Couri. which pruvides ihst "The hedring in Court shall
k public. unlers Ilie Court shall decide ~iiheruise. or unler, the pdriies demand
thrit the pulililxrio1ddniitterl". The faci that the uriiten forni nisy habc ken
ado~ted for convenience does not affect the fact that such questions and reolies
form part of the oral proceedings, so that the principle of Article 46 of the
Statute applies equally to written questions and replies.
Accordingly, the Court can have no ohiection to the Australian Government
referting toyr quoting the replies given by it to questions put by Members of
the Court during the recenl oral proceedings.
This communication followed an exchangeof correspondencesimilar Io that con-
cerning a requestIo thesame eKect by Argentinn (seeNos. 138,139, 141s,upra).436 NUCLEAR TESTS
196. THE CHARGE D'AFFAIRES A.I. OF INDIA IN THE NETHERLANDS
TO THE REGISTRAR
23 October 1974.
From a perusal of the Yearbook of the International Court of Justice for
1972-73.it hascome to the notice of the Government of India that Dursuant to
Article 63, ~i<ir.igr.i1, of theSt:itute, the Internaiion.il<:<~urt ofJu,tice notified
the p.irtic, r<ithc C;cner.il Act ior the IL~iii: \sitlcnieni oi internationdl ilisputes
of 1923,con:crning the filing hy ,\u*trlili.i ~nd Neu 7.ealiind. re\pccti\sly. of
tao applic;ition\ in their ;3\si 1Vri~l<,,r 7>srs, .ig.iinit France Roth the dppli-
clint.\<~ii&lito iouiid the ~uri,.licI:on ultlie Court upon Art~cIc 17of the Gen-
eral Act if 1928.The Government of lndiado not a~~earto have received anv
such notification under Article 63 (1) of the Statute n& indeed they should have
receivedone. To make Our position clear beyond any doubt, 1 havebeendirected
bv the Government of lndia to inform the ~ ~~~ C~ur~ that~in~so far ~~-~~~-1928
Genera~Act is concerned, the Government of lndia have never regarded them-
selves bound by this Act since India's independence in 1947. whether by suc-
cession or otherwise. Accordingly, lndia has never been and is not a &rty to
the 1928General Act ever since her independence.
197. THE REGISTRAR TO THE CHARGE D'AFFAIRES A.I.OF INDIA IN
THE NETHERLANDS
29 October 1974.
1 have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 23 October, con-
cerning the notification issued in the Nuclear Testscases(Ausrralia v. France;
New Zea10,rdv. Fratrcr) under Article 63 of the Statute in resoectof the General
Act for the Pacific ~eltlement of International Disputes, done at Geneva on
26 September 1928.As explained in the Court's Yeurbook (197211973. Q. 140)
the States to which this notification waî addressed were those tat t~. s:her
than the parties to the proceedings, listed in the relevant documents of the
League of Nations as being parties to the General Act, and which were still in
existence.
A notification was thus addressed to the Government of India, which is in-
cluded in the League of Nations list (Offcial Joltrnal, Special S~ipple,nenf No.
193,Geneva 1944,p. 47) ashaving accededto the General Act on 21 May 1931.
It is noted from your letter that the Government of India have never regarded
themselves as bound bv the General Act since India's independence in 1947.
whether by successionor otherwise; this information has been laid before the
Members of the Court.
Iam concerned that the notification under Article 63 does not appear to have
reached the Government of India. According to my records, it was transmitted
to the Minister of External Affairs of India, New Delhi (the channel of com-
munication indicated by the Government of lndia for communications made
under the Statute of the Court) by letter dated 24 July 1973. 1enclose a copy
of the communication for the information of your Government, and would
be glad to know whether you would wish me to institute an enquiry tbrough
the Netherlands postal authorities into the fate of the original communi-
cation. CORRESPONDENCE 437
31 October 1974
Further ta my letter of 4 October concerning the request made by Your
Excellency's Government under Article 48, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court,
for the pleadings and annexed documents in the Nuclear Testscases(Aifsrralia
v. Frajrce; New Zealairdv.Froizce)to be made available ta if1have the honour
ta-inform you that the President of the Court, after consulting the Parties, has
decided that this request should be acceded ta. Copies of the pleadings so far
filed are therefore being sent ta Your Excellency under separate cover.
199. THECO-AGENT OFNEWZEALANDTOTHEREGlSTRAR
I November 1974.
1 have the honour 10 refer 10 my letter of 21 September 1973 in which 1 in-
formed the Court of the conduct by France of a series of nuclear tests in the
atmosphere above Mururoa between 22 July and 29 August 1973. My letter
drew attention to the fact that thesetests resulted in the deposit of radioactive
fallout on New Zealand territory and, in the view of the New Zealand Govern-
ment, constituted a clear breach of the Court's Order of 22 June 1973 in the
Niiclear Testscase(New Zeala~rdv. Fral~ce).
1 have now ken instructed by my Government to bring to the notice of the
Court the following further information relevant 10 the question of the ob-
servance of the Court's Order of 22 June 1973.
The New Zealand Government has reason to believe that between 16 June
and 14Septcmber 1974(GMTJ the FrenchGovernment explodcd seien nucleïr
de\,icesin the atmosphere ahote Mururoa Analy\is undertaken in New Zealand
of le\,els of rddiaidctivity has estïhlished coiiclusi\ely thït the nuclear dcvices
explodeil aboi,e Mururi>ï rcsulted in ihe dcposit of radio3ciit.e fallout in Neu,
Zealand. the Cook Islands anJ Niue Ftllout letcls recorded for the 1974 test
serics hate been \ianilicantlyhiaher than rliose medsurcd in 1972 and 1973.
In the opinion ojthe ~ew Zeiland Government this conduct by the French
Government constitutes a further clear breach of the Court's Order of22 June
1973. Moreover, no public statement hy any representative of the French
Government and no communication by the French authorities to the New
Zealand authorities has provided any assurance that further such breaches of
the Court's Order will not occur in the future.
My Government intends ta bring the information in this letter ta the at-
tention of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
200. LE GREFFIER À L'AMBASSADEUR DE FRANCE AUX PAYS-BAS
I" novembre 1974.
J'ai l'honneur d'adresser ci-jointVotre Excellence une lettre que le coagent
du Gouvernement nko-zklandais en l'affaire des Essais nitcléaires (Noiivelle-
1This communication followed an exchangeof correspondencesimilar to that
concerninga requestIo thesameeiïect by Argentins (seeNos. 138,139,141,supro).438 NUCLEAR TESTS
Zéla~rdecF . ratrce)vient de meremettre aujourd'hui. IIm'a égalementremis un
communiqué de presse dont Votre Excellence voudra bien trouver le texte
ci-joint.
Je me permets de faire appel a l'entremise de Votre Excellence pour la
transmission du présentpli à Monsieur le ministre desaffaires étrangèrescarje
crains que, dans cette périodede perturbations postales, une lettre envoyéepar
la voie normale ne parvienne pas à destination en temps voulu.
PressSlafen~r~rfof 1 Noi,eniber1974 by r11eRI. Han. IV. E. Rowlinb.,Prinre
Mi?iisterof New Zealarrd
Commenting today on recent public statements by the French Ministers of
Foreign Affairs and Defenceon the future of the French oroeramme of nuclear
testing, the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. W. E. ~owling, szd that il had been
known for some time that France was ~lannina .a move its nuclear tests under-
ground.
"The recent statements have confirmed that. The most recent of all-by
the French Minister of Defence in the middle of last month-indicates that
the French Government amears to have abandoned anv intention of
conducting atmospheric teskin 1975.The New Zealand ~overnnienf will,
of course, continue to seekan end ta the testing of nuclear weapons by any
country in any environment. The curtailment of atmosoheric testin. re.re-
~c8it..,imc .iiiaiiceiou<irds <iur g<>jlanil ue haie nokd uiih ~aiisi.i;tioii
the rrcnch plnl in mtnc iheir 1~515underground. Se\\ Ze.il<iii,ler\ and the
pcoplcr i)iieighb<iuring :ouniriciwill :il1 he gla10 le.irn ihst in 1975ille
S.~iih Pd;itic uill he sp.irïJ this form <if pollutton. II stiould. h<iucbr..
clelrly undcriio<?d ih.ir noihing sdid by the French <;o\crnniciit.uhclher
to New Zealand or to the international community at large, has amounted
to an assurancethat there will be no further atmospheric nuclear tests in
the South Pacific. The option of further atmospheric tests hasbeen left
open. Until we havean assurancethat nuclear testinr! of this kind is finished
for good, thedispute betweenNew Zealand and b rai ceersistsand the pro-
ceedings before the International Court of Justice, which consiitute an
attempt toresolvethat dispute by legalmeans,remainas important asever."
Mr. Rowling added that while governmental comment had to be somewhat
restricted while the casewas before the International Court he honed that the
Court's judgment on the questions of jurisdiction and admissibiiiiy which it
was now considering might be available reasonably soon.
201. THE RLGISTRAR TO THE CO-AGENT OF NEW ZEALAND
4 November 1974.
1 have the honour to refer to the enquiry made by Your Excellency as ta
whether the Court would have any objection to the Government of New
Zealand making public ifs Memorial on jurisdiction and admissibility in the
Niiclear Teslscase(New Zealaii~lv. France).1have the honour to inform Your
Excellency that, in the circumstances of this case. the Court will have no ob-
jection. CORRESPONDENCE 439
4 novembre 1974.
Me référant à ma lettre du 25juin 1974relative à la mise à la disposition du
public des mémoires sur la compétenceet la recevabilité dans les affaires des
Essois izuclL'airesm . e référant en outre à ma lettre du 3 iuillet 1974 et à la
communication du Directeur des affaires juridiques en date du 12juillet 1974,
j'ai l'honneur de faire savoir à Votre Excellenceque, le Gouvernement australien
ayant demandé à ce que son mémoire soit rendu accessibleau Parlement aus-
tralien, la Cour n'a pas vu d'objection à faire droit à cette demande.
4 novembre 1974.
5.31 I'h<~nncurJc parier ;i 13 conna.i,ance Je \',>ire F\:cllcncc i raiuie, lins
titiIr.\que I'dgcni dc I'i\u,iralic Jdn, I'siTdirc Jss F,,<ii>i~,<i.l,'air~sA~<.,~r<,l l.,
FrotrccJ,ori.la Cour -~ ~ire si elle verrait desinco~ ~ ~~ ~~àceaue le Gouver- -~~
nement australien utilise, pour répondre à une demande de renseignement du
Secrétariat de I'Or~anisation des Nations Unies, un oassage de la ré~onse
écriteau'il a faite ~e-~1mai 1973à une auestion .ciit~ ~'"~ ~embre de la cour. - ~
réponsedont le texte a ététransmis à Votre Excellence le 1" juin 1973.
La Cour a estimé que. si la auestion et la ré~onseavaient étéformuléesorale-
ment, elles auraient'incontestablement fait Partie des plaidoiries auxquelles
l'article 46 du Statut confère un caractère public et que la forme écritequi a été
employéepour des raisons de commodité ne leur enlevait pas ce caractère. La
Cour n'a donc pas vu d'objection à ce que le Gouvernement australien cite un
passagede la réponseécrite dont il s'agit.
11 November 1974.
1havethe honour to refer tomy letter of 29 August 1974in which 1informed
the Court of the commencement by the French Government of a series of
atmos~heric nuclear tests above Mururoa Atoll in 1974 causiiig identifiable
fall-o;t in Australian territory in breach of the Order of the ~oGt of 22 June
1973.The letter of 29 August referred to the explosion by the French Govern-
ment of six nuclear devices in the Deriod of June to August 1974
1 have been instructed by the ~"stralian Governmentto bring the following
further relevant information to the notice of the Court.
The Australian Government has reason to believe that a seventh nuclear
device was exploded by the French Government above Mururoa on 15 Sep-
Une rommunicarion analoguea été adressé ae ministre des affaires etrangère
de France au sujet de l'affaire Nouvelle Ztlande e. France.440 NUCLEAR TESTS
tember 1974 (Australian time). It appears that this explosion was the last
explosion to he conducted by the French Government in its 1974 series.
Monitoring of fresh fission nroduct fall-out over Australia as a result of the
-
1974te\ts in the South Piicifii Oceanissiill in progres1.ïm ~nstructedto point
out thdi ihe e~pldsionj dre eiriniiited ta have conimiticd the Auïiralian puoula-
tion to date to-additional radiation doses, due to fresh fission products, which
are more than ten times greater than the doses incurred by the Australian
population from the whole of the 1973 French tests.
In the ooinion of theGovernment of Australia. the exolosion of 15Seotember
by the ~rinch Government constitutes yet another clear and deliheraté hreach
of the Order of 22 June 1973.In addition, the Australian Government has not
received from the French Government. either bv .av o. ou.lic statements from
ihr French auihoriiies or in the form of commiini;itii~nrby the French iiuihdr-
ities io the Ausiralian ~uthoriticr. any dSiUrün:c thüt furihcr such tests uill no1
be conducted in the future. Australia's position in this regard therefore remains
that indjcated to the Court hy the Attorney-General on 4 July last (1,
pp. 389-390).
My Government intends ta bring the information contained in this letter ta
the attention of the Secretary-General of the United Nations.
13 novembre 1974.
J'ai l'honneur d'adresser ci-jointVotre Excellence une lettre que m'a remise
le coagent du Gouvernement australien en l'affaire des Essais ni~clbaires
(Australiec. France). 11m'a égalementremis le texte d'une question poséeau
Sénat d'Australie et de la réponse que I'Attorrtey-Ceneral, M. Murphy, y a
donnée.Votre Excellence voudra bien trouver ce texte ci-joint.
Nuclear TestsCase:SenareQuesrionand Answer
26 September1974
The following question was addressed to the Attorney-General, Senator the
Hon. Lionel Murphy, QC, in the Senate on 26 September 1974:
''ask the Leader of the Government in the Senate whether he has seen
newsagency reports that the French Foreign Minister announced in the
UN General Assembly on 23 September last that France has finished
atmospheric nuclear testingand would conduct further enperiments under-
ground. 1sthis true? Also, is Australia still pursuing its proceedings in the
International Court of Justice concerning atmospheric nuclear tests by
France?"
The Attorney-General answered as follows: .
"From the reports 1 have received it appears that what the French
Foreign Minister actually said was 'We have now reached a stage in our
nuclear technology that makes it possible for us to continue Our program
hy underground testing, and we have taken steps to do sa as early as next
year'. Honourable Senators will note that this statement falls far short ofa CORRESPONDENCE 441
commitment or undertaking that there will be no more atmospheric tests
conducted by the French Government at ils Pacific Tests Centre. Radio-
active fall-out has now been positively identified as resulting from the
latest series of French tests. The Government h?s protested against this
action by the French Government which is in breach of the Order of the
International Court of Justice on 22lune 1973.
There is a basic distinction between an assertion that steps are being
taken to continue the testinn Droaram bv underground testing as earlv as
neki yr3r 2nd an a\s~r=nc1631 nilurihe; atniojphcric tc\i\ uill takc pl&c.
IIscemsihai ihc Govcrnmcnt of France. uhile apparenily iaking .,siep in
theriaht direction. isstill reservina to itself theriaht tocarrr out atmos~heric
nuclear tests. Inlegal terms, Austra~ia has nothing from the French
Government which protects it against any further atmospheric tests should
the French Government subsequently decide to hold them. The judicial
proceedings are therefore as'relevant and as important as when the Aus-
tralian Application was filed in May 1973. The stage reached in those
~roceedinas is that. after the ~resentation of maior araurnent on behalf of
the ~ustralian Go;ernment on the questions oijurisdiction and admissi-
bility, the Court is considering its judgment on these questions.
1s~eciallv want to assure on ou ra benators that. so far as the Aus-
tralian GoCernment is concerned, there is no basis for a report which 1
understand is being carried by someof the news agenciesand which quotes
'normallv well-informed sources' assa.ine that Auslralia and New Zealand
nias ari.ihc Inttrnational('ourt io ririkç the iasc off iis roll in the Iight of
ihç I.rench korcign hlinicter's siaienieni. TNeu, Zçal~nrl Gi>\crnnicni
no doubt can s~eak for itself on the matter."
206. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE FRANCE
(fé/égramme)
16 décembre1974.
Ai honneur faire connaître à Votre Eicellence aue les arrêtsde la Cour dans
affaires desEssaisnucléaires(Australiec.France Nouvelle-Zélande c. France)
seront lus en séancepublique le vendredi 20 décembreà 15 heures.
207. THE REGISTRAR TO THE CO-AGENT OF AUSTRALIA1
17 December 1974.
1 have the honour to confirm the information communicated to Your Ex-
cellency orally yesterday, that the Court will hold a public sitting at three
o'clock in the afternoon of Friday, 20 December 1974, for the reading of two
Judgments in the Nuclear Testscases, the first of these Judgments being that
relating to the proceedings instituted by Australia against France.
A similar communicationwas sentto the Co-Agent of New Zealand442 NUCLEAR TESTS
208. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DE FRANCE'
(rélégramnre)
20 décembre 1974.
Ai honneur faireconnaître à Votre ExcellencequelaCour arenduaujourd'hui
arrèt dans aiTaire Essaisnucléairesintroduite par Australie. Suit citation dis-
positif.
[Voir C.I.J. Recrieil1974, p. 272.1
La Cour a prisen outre uneordonnanceconcernant requëte Fidji àfin d'inter-
vention. Citation dispositif.
[Voir C.I.J. Reciteil1974, p. 531.1
Exemplaires officiels arrêtet ordonnance remis cejour ambassadede France
à La Have.
209. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ~TRANGERES DEFRANCE2
20 décembre 1974.
Me référant à mon télégramme decejour, portant à la connaissance de Votre
Excellence le texte du dispositif de I'arrrt rendu par la Cour en l'araire des
Essoisirrtclr'nircs(Atislraliec.Fro~rce),j'ai l'honneur de transmettre ci-joint à
Votre Excellence un exemplaire officiel3 de cet arrC.1.
210. LE GREFFIER AU MINISTRE DES AFFAIRES ~TRANG~RES DE FRANCC~
20 décembre 1974.
Me référantà mon téléar-mme dece iour. Dortant à la connaissancede Votre
Eycellencc Ic teyte Ju dijporitifde I'ordonnan:~ priw plr Iii Cour au >ujet Je la
rcquCie par Idquelle le C;ou\crncnicnt fidjien d\ail Jemandi' i iiiicr~ciiir Jans
I'alTaireder Ehsuir,ir<i.l<;<ir,l,r>ririolr<Fr<ii,rr,i'ai I'honneiir de iransnieltrc
ci-joint à Votre Excellence un exemplaire officiel .l.de cette ordonnance.
Une communication analoguea été adressé ae ministre desalkires étrangères
de France au suiet de i'affaire Nor<vellr-Zélan<clcFraiire(voir C.I.J. Reci,eil 1974.
p. 478et 536).
2 La mi-mecommunication a étéadressée au ministre der anàires étrangèresde
Francc au sujet de I'afiire Norrvrlle-Zdlotk. Fr<iiree.
3 Lesauircsexemplairesofficielsdesdeuxarrëts on1éttremisaux agentsde I'Aur-
traliet de la Nouvcllc-Zélande à l'occasionde l'audiencepublique du mi-mcjour.
Les autres exemplairesofficiels des deux ordonnancesont étéremis auxagents
de Fidji, de l'Australie etlaeNouvelle-Zélanded l'occasionde l'audiencepublique
du mèmejour. CORRESPONDENCE 443
211. THEREOlSTRAR TOTHESECRETARY-CENERO ALTHEUNITEDNATIONS
(telegrani)
20 December 1974.
Court today gave two Judgments in Niiclear Testscases(A~istraliav. France
and New Zeelandv. France). Operative clause which is identical in two cases
save forname of applicant State reads:
[seeI.C.J. Reports 1974, pp. 272 and 4781
In eachJudgment Court refers to ifs Order of 22June 1973in thecase, indicating
orovisional measures oendine its final decision in the oroceedin~s and States:
:.Ifollous that%ucIi<irderccil\esio be<iper4ii\eup<>nthcdcliiery;>fthcpresent
.ludgment. and th31 ihe pri>iisi,inal mîdiurcr I:ip<e at the unie lime". Cciurt
today also made two Orders in samecaseson Applications by Fiji for permission
to intervene finding that Applications lapsedand that no further action thereon
was called for on part of the Court.
22 janvier 1975.
Le Greffier de la Cour internationale de Justice a l'honneur de transmettre,
sous ce pli. un exemplaire de chacun des deux arrêtsrendus par la Cour le
20 décembre 1974dans les aikires relative: aux Errais nrtrl6aires (Aitsrralie c.
Fratrce: Norrrelle-Zllairfle c. Fraiice) ainsi qu'un exemplaire dechacune desdeux
ordonnances rendues par la Cour le m6me jour au sujet de la requéte à fin
d'intervention déposéepar le Gouvernement de Fidji dans ces afiaires.
D'autres exemplaires seront expédiésultérieurement par la voie ordinaire.
8 September 1977.
1have the honour to refer to the letter which MrP. Brazil, then Agent of the
Government of Australia in the case concerning Nficlear Tests (Aitstralia v.
Froirce), addressed to me on 28 February 1974(a copy of which is appended
hereto for your convenience) and, on the Court's instructions, to inform Your
Excellency that the Court has decided to publish the tex1 of that letter in the
"Correspondence" section of the volumes of Plea~li~rgs.Oral Argef~ienU.
Dociit~roit.rdevoted to the case, printing of which is at present in hand.
1 Unecommunicationanalogueaétéadrcssé auxautres Etats Membres desNations
Unies ct aux Etatsnon membresdes Nations Unies admis à esterdevant la Cour. TABLE OF CONCORDANCE OF THE ORAL STATEMENTS
The following table indicates the relationship between the pagination of the
present volume and that of the provisional verbatim record (stencil-duplicated)
of the speechesmade in Court, issuëd to Members of the Court during the
hearings, carrying the references CR 731 and CR 741 . A number of
referencesto the CR appear in the separate and dissentingopinions of Members
of the Court annexed to the Judgment of 20 December 1974 (I.C.J.Reports
1974, pp. 457.528); the passagesso referred to can be identified by means of
this table.
CR Presenr CR Presenr CR Presenl
page pare Volume
page Volume Voliime
page pare page
CR 7316 16-18 131 CR 7411 1 Thepublicationsof the INTERNATIONAL COURT OF NSTICE may k orded
from any bookseller. For information regardhg the sale oi the Court's publications
please write to thDirrriburiound Sales SectionO& of tke UniredNotions, 1211
Ceneva10 (SwitrerlnndJ.or the Sdes Section. UnitedNationr;New York,N.Y. 10017
(U.S.A.).
' ~he&blicaiionsof the PERMANENTCOURTOFlNTERNATIONAL JUSTICE
(1920-1946)are obtainable from Kraus R-orint Ltd ,9491 Nendcl.. Lishienrie.-- to
which al1riquests shouldk addressed.
On peut acquerirlespublicationsdela COUR INTERNATIONALE DE JUSTICE
auprèsdes librairiesspkialists du mondeentier..Pourtous rcnseigncments.prih de
s'adresreà la Section de la distriburion etdes venres,Ofie des Nations Utties,1211
GenèveIO (Suisse) OU la Section&$ ventes. Noiionr Unies,New York,N.Y. 10017
(Erars-Unis).
On put acqu~rir les publications de la COUR PERMANENTE DE JUSTICE
INTERNATIONALE (19Zü.1946)auprèr,de Kraus Reprint Ltd.. 9491 Nendeln.
Liechtenstein.Pour tous renseignements,pritre des'adreAscettesdCt.5.
Correspondence