Summaries of Judgments, ANot an official documenters of the Internationa
l Court of Justice
NUCLEAR TESTSCASE (AUSTRALI v.FRANCE)
Jludgmeno tf20 December 1974
In its judgment in thecaseconcerning Nuclear Tests 1973indicatinginterim measuresof protection cetobe
(Australiv. France), thC!urt,by9 votesto ti,hasfound operativeand the measuresin question lapse (para.61 of
the Courtwas thereforenot called upontoive a decision Judgment).
thereon.
In the reasoningof its Judgment,theCourtducesinter
alia the followingconside~ations:Even tefore turntog ForthepurposesoftheJudgmenttheCourtwascomposed
questionsofjurisdictionandadmissibility,theCourthasfirsasfollows:PresidentLachs;JudgesForster,Gros,Bengzon,
toconsidertheessentiallypreliminaryquestasto whether Petdn, Onyeama,Dillard, Ignacio-Pinto, deCastro,Moro-
a dispute exists and toannlyse the claim submittedto itzov, Jimbnez de Mchaga, Sir Humphrey Waldock,
(paras. 22-24 ofJudgment); the proceedings instituted Nagendra Singh and Ruda; Judge ad hc Sir Garfield
nucleartestsconductedbyFrancein the SouthPhcific(para. Barwick.
16ofJudgment);theoriginiaand ultimateobjectiveof Aus- The:President appendeda declarationto the Judgment,
traliaistoobtainaterminationofthosetests(pams.32-41 of and Judges Bengzon, Onyeama, Dillard, Jimbnez de
Judgment); France,by various public statementsmade in Arkhaga andSirHumphrey Waldock ajointdeclaration.
1974,has announceditsintention, followingthecompletion Ofthenine MembersoftheCourtwhovotedforthe deci-
of the 1974seriesof atmospherictests, toetheconduct sion, Judges Forster, Gros,Petrdn arid Ignacio-Pinto
ofsuchtests (paras.32-41 ofJudgment);thew findsthat appendedseparateopinions.
the objective ofAustraliahiasin effectbeemaccomplished. Of the six judges who voagainst the decision, Judges
inasmuch asFrancehasundbrtakenthe obligationtoholdno Onyema, Dillard,JimbnezdeAdchaga andSirHumphrey
furthernuclear testsin the atmosphereineSouthPacific Waldockhave appendeda joint dissenting opinion, and
(paras. 47-52 of Judgment); the dispute having thus Judges de Castroand SirGarfieldBarwickdissenting opin-
disappeared, the claimno longerhasanyobjectandthereis ions.
nothing on whichtogivejudgment (paras.55--59of Judg- Theseopinionsmake knownandsubstantiatethepositions
ment). adoptedby thejudges in question. (Seealso the following
Uponthe delivery ofthe Judgment, theder of 22 June summaryforfurtheranalysis.)
Summary of the Judgment of 20 December 1974