prima facie confers jurisdiction upon the Court and which incor-
porates no reservations obviously excluding its jurisdiction."
(Separate opinion of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht in Interhandel case,
I.C.J. Reports 1957,p. 118.)
It needs to be mentioned, therefore, that even at this preliminary stage
of prima facie testing the Court has to examine the reservations and
declarations made to the treaty which is cited by a party to furnish the
base for the jurisdiction of the Court a.ndto consider also the validity of
the treaty if the same ischallenged in relation to the parties to the dispute.
As a result of this prima facie examination the Court could either find:
(a) that there is no possible base for the Court's jurisdiction in which
event no matter what emphasis is placed on Article 41 of its Statute,
the Court cannot proceed to grant interim relief; or
(b) that a possible base exists, but needs further investigation to come
to any definite conclusion in which event the Court is inevitably left
no option but to proceed to the substance of the jurisdiction of the
case to complete its process of adjudication which, in turn, is time
consuming and therefore comes into conflict with the urgency of the
matter coupled with the prospect of irreparable damage to the rights
of the parties. It is this situation which furnishes the "raison d'être"
of interim relief.
If, therefore, the Court, in this case, has granted interim measures of
protection it is without prejudice to the substance whether jurisdictional
or otherwise which cannot be prejudged at this stage and will have to be
gone into further in the next phase.
Judge ad hoc Sir Garfield BARWICm Kakes the following declaration:
1have voted forthe indication of interim measures and the Order of the
Court as to the further procedure in the case because the very thorough
discussions in which the Court has engaged over the past weeks and my
own researches have convinced me that the General Act of 1928and the
French Government's declaration to the compulsory jurisdiction of the
Court with reservations each provide, prima facie, a basis on which the
Court might havejurisdiction to entertain and decide the claims made by
New Zealand in its Application of 9 May 1973.Further, the exchange of
diplornatic notes between the Governments of New Zealand and France
in 1973afford, in my opinion, at least prima facieevidence ofthe existence
of a dispute between those Governments as to matters of international
law affecting their respective rights.
Lastly, thematerial before the Court, particularly that appearing in the
UNSCEAR reports, provides reasonable grounds for concluding that
further deposit in the New Zealand territorial environment and that ofthe Cook Islands of radio-active particles of matter is likely to do harm
for which no adequate compensatory measures could be provided.
These conclusions are sufficient to warrant the indication of interim
measures.
1 agree with the form of the provisional measures indicated, under-
standing that the action proscribed is action on the part of governments
and that the measures are indicated in respect only of the New Zealand
Government's claim to the inviolability of its territory, and of that of the
Cook Islands.
Judges FORSTER G,ROS, PETRÉN and IGNACIO-PINa Tppend dissenting
opinions to theOrder of the Court.
(Initialled) F.A.
(Initialled) S.A.
prima facie confers jurisdiction upon the Court and which incor-
porates no reservations obviously excluding its jurisdiction."
(Separate opinion of Sir Hersch Lauterpacht in Interhandel case,
I.C.J. Reports 1957,p. 118.)
It needs to be mentioned, therefore, that even at this preliminary stage
of prima facie testing the Court has to examine the reservations and
declarations made to the treaty which is cited by a party to furnish the
base for the jurisdiction of the Court a.ndto consider also the validity of
the treaty if the same ischallenged in relation to the parties to the dispute.
As a result of this prima facie examination the Court could either find:
(a) that there is no possible base for the Court's jurisdiction in which
event no matter what emphasis is placed on Article 41 of its Statute,
the Court cannot proceed to grant interim relief; or
(b) that a possible base exists, but needs further investigation to come
to any definite conclusion in which event the Court is inevitably left
no option but to proceed to the substance of the jurisdiction of the
case to complete its process of adjudication which, in turn, is time
consuming and therefore comes into conflict with the urgency of the
matter coupled with the prospect of irreparable damage to the rights
of the parties. It is this situation which furnishes the "raison d'être"
of interim relief.
If, therefore, the Court, in this case, has granted interim measures of
protection it is without prejudice to the substance whether jurisdictional
or otherwise which cannot be prejudged at this stage and will have to be
gone into further in the next phase.
Judge ad hoc Sir Garfield BARWICm Kakes the following declaration:
1have voted forthe indication of interim measures and the Order of the
Court as to the further procedure in the case because the very thorough
discussions in which the Court has engaged over the past weeks and my
own researches have convinced me that the General Act of 1928and the
French Government's declaration to the compulsory jurisdiction of the
Court with reservations each provide, prima facie, a basis on which the
Court might havejurisdiction to entertain and decide the claims made by
New Zealand in its Application of 9 May 1973.Further, the exchange of
diplornatic notes between the Governments of New Zealand and France
in 1973afford, in my opinion, at least prima facieevidence ofthe existence
of a dispute between those Governments as to matters of international
law affecting their respective rights.
Lastly, thematerial before the Court, particularly that appearing in the
UNSCEAR reports, provides reasonable grounds for concluding that
further deposit in the New Zealand territorial environment and that of contenantaucune réserveexcluantmanifestement cette compétence.»
(Opinion individuelle de sir Hersch Lauterpacht dans l'affaire de
l'lnterhandel, C.I.J. Recueil 1957, p. 118-119.)
Il convient par suite de préciserque même à ce stade préliminaireoù
elle vérifiesa compétenceprima facie, la Cour doit examiner les réserves
etdéclarationsaffectant letraitéqu'une partie invoquecommefondement
de la juridiction de la Cour, ainsi que la validitéde ce traité si elle est
contestée en ce qui concerne les parties au différend.A l'issue de cet
examenprimafacie, la Court peut conclure:
a) soit qu'il n'existeaucune base possible de compétence de la Cour,
auquel cas, quel que soit le rôle attribuà l'article 41 du Statut, la
Cour ne peut accorder de mesures conservatoires;
b) soit qu'il existeune base possible, mais qu'un examen plus approfondi
s'impose avant de parvenir à une conclusion ferme, auquel cas la
Cour se doit d'examiner àfond sa compétencepour s'acquitter com-
plètement de sa mission judiciaire, ce qui prend du temps, nuit à
l'urgence existant en la matièreet risque de porter un tort irréparable
aux droits des parties. C'est une tellesituation qui justifie l'indication
de mesures conservatoires.
Ainsi, si la Cour a indiqué desmesures conservatoires en l'espèce, elle
l'a fait sans préjudice des problèmes de substance, juridictionnels ou
autres, qui ne peuvent être actuellementpréjugéset devront êtreappro-
fondis au cours de la phase suivante.
Sir Garfield BARWICj:u Kg,e ad hoc,fait la déclaration suivante:
J'ai votéen faveur de l'indication de mesures conservatoires et de l'or-
donnance de la Cour sur la suite de la procédure, convaincupar les dis-
cussions très approfondies auxquelles la Cour a procédéces dernières
semaines et par mes propres recherches que l'Acte général de1928et la
déclarationdu Gouvernement français acceptant, avec réserve,lajuridic-
tion obligatoire de la Cour constituentl'un et l'autre, prima facie, une
base possible de compétencede la Cour pour connaître des demandes
formuléespar la Nouvelle-Zélandedans sa requêtedu 9 mai 1973et se
prononcer àleur sujet.In outre,selonmoi, l'échangedenotes diplomatiques
de 1973entre le Gouvernement néo-zélandaiset le Gouvernement fran-
çais démontre,au moins de prime abord, qu'il existe un différendentre ces
gouvernements sur des questions de droit international affectant leurs
droits respectifs.
Enfin, sur la base de ladocumentation soumiseà la Cour, eten particu-
lier des rapports duClomitéscientifique des Nations Unies pour l'étude
des effetsdes rayonnements ionisants, il est raisonnable de conclure que de
15the Cook Islands of radio-active particles of matter is likely to do harm
for which no adequate compensatory measures could be provided.
These conclusions are sufficient to warrant the indication of interim
measures.
1 agree with the form of the provisional measures indicated, under-
standing that the action proscribed is action on the part of governments
and that the measures are indicated in respect only of the New Zealand
Government's claim to the inviolability of its territory, and of that of the
Cook Islands.
Judges FORSTER G,ROS, PETRÉN and IGNACIO-PINa Tppend dissenting
opinions to theOrder of the Court.
(Initialled) F.A.
(Initialled) S.A.nouveaux dépôts de particules radioactives dans l'environnement territo-
rial de la Nouvelle-Zélandeet desîlesCook causeraientprobablement des
dommages pour lesquelsil ne sauraity avoir de réparation adéquate.
Ces conclusions suffisentà justifier l'indication de mesures conserva-
toires.
J'approuve la formedonnéeaux mesures conservatoires, étantentendu
selon moi que les actes prohibés sont ceux des gouvernementset que les
mesures sont indiquéesuniquement en relation avec la demande néo-
zélandaiseconcernant l'inviolabilitéde son territoire et de celui des îles
Cook.
MM. FORSTER G,ROS,PETRÉN et IGNACIO-PINTjO ug,es, joignenà l'or-
donnance les exposésde leur opinion dissidente.
(Paraphé)F.A.
(Paraphé)S.A.
Declaration by Judge ad hoc Sir Garfield Barwick (as appended immediately after the order)