Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court's Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) Case - Samoa and Solomon Islands se

I T OF JUSTICE
PeacePalace,2517KJ TheHague.TeL(070-302 23 23).Cables:IntercoT,heHague.

Telefax(070-36499 28).Telex32323.

Communiqué

unofficial
for mdiata rrlrasa

No. 95/24

24 August 1995

New Zealend's Remest for an Examination of the Situation

in-ce with Parasxanh 63 of the Court's 1974 Judmm&
ear Tests (New v. Frulce)

Today, 24 August 1995, the Governments of Samoa and Solomon Islands
each filed identical Applications for permission to interveni en the
proceedings on New Zealand's Request for an Examination of the Situation
in accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court's 1974 Judgment in the case
concerning Wear Tests (New Zealand v. France) (see Press Communiqué
No. 95/22 of 21 August 1995). The Applications arebased on Article 62,
paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Statute of the Court, which reads as follows:

"1. Should a State consider that it has an interest of a legal
nature which may be affected by the decision in the case, it may
submit a request to the Court to be permitted to intervene.

2. It shall be for the Court to decide upon this request."

The Governments of Samoa and Solomon Islands indicate in their
Applications that the purpose of their intervention is "to protect
[their]legal interests under general internationallaw and under
applicable treatiesby al1 means available in conformity with the Statute
of the Court. Those means include intervention in cases where a legal

interest of the State may be affected by the decision." They seek "to
inform the Court of [theirl interests beforeany decision that might
affect them ismade, as well as to affirm the collective characterof the
obligations involved". The proposed interventions also refer to
New Zealandls E'urtherRequest for theIndicationof Provisional Measures.

The Governmentsof Samoa and Solomon Islands each also filed
identical declarations of interventionunder Article 63 of the Statute of
the Court "to the extent that the constructionof any provision of the
Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environmentof
the South Pacific Region, signed at Noumea on 24 November 1986, is in

question". The declarations of intervention also refer to Article 82,
paragraph 3, of the Rules of Court which provides:

"3. Such a declaration may be filed by a State that

considers itself a party to the convention the construction of
which is in question but has not received the notification
referred to in Article 63 of the Statute."

Article 63 of the Statute of the Court reads as follows:

"1. Whenever the construction of a convention to which
States other than those concerned in the case are parties is in

question, the Registrar shallnotify al1 such States forthwith.

2. Every State so notified has the right to intervene in
the proceedings; but if it uses this right, the construction
given by the judgment will be equally binding upon it."