Application for Permission to Intervene under the Terms of Article 62 of the Statute submitted by the Government of Australia

23/08'9S 17:10 ft082SO S9SO
C'lŒ.U.TB SOL-GEN

Annex 1 to GEN95/79

INTERNATIONAL COURTOFJUSTICE

NUCLEAR TESTS
(NEW ZEALAND v. FRANCE)

APPLICATION
FOR PERMISSION TO INTERVENE
UNDER THE TERMS OF ARTICLE 62 OF THE STATUTE
SUBMITIED BY THE
GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA

23 AUGUST 199523/oa ·os 11:11 ttos 2sososo C'IE.U.TB SOL-GEN
~OOJ

23August1995

I have the honour as the Agent for Australia to submit tothe International Court
of Justice thepresent Application for permission tointervene, under the terms of

Article 62 of the Statutein the case concerning Nuclear Tests (New aaland v.
France).

2. Article 69, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court adopted on 6 May 1946, as
arnended on 10 May 1972, provides that an application for permission to

intervene under the terms of Article 62 oftheStatute shallcontain:

a description of the case;

a statement oflaw and of fact justifying intervention; and

a list of the docwnents in support of the application. which documents

shall be attached.

Article 81, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court adopted on 14 April 1978
provides that an application for permission to intervene under the tenus of

Article 62 of the Statute shall state the name of an agent. shall specifthe case
to whicb it relates, and shall set out:

(a) the interest of a legal nature whicb the State applying to intervene

considers may be affected by the decision in that case;

(b) theprecise abject ofthe intervention;

(c) any basis of jurisdiction whichisclaimed to exist as between the State
applying to intervene and the parties to the case.

Paragrdph 3 of that Article provides that the application shall also contain a list
ofme docwnents in support, which documents shall be attached.

3. Although the Preamblc to the 1978 Rules provides that any case subm.itted
to the Court before 1 July 1978,or any phase of such a case, shall continuetobe

governed by the Rules inforce before thatdate,for the convenience of the Court
the present Application sets out the matters required by the 1978 Rules, in
addition to the matters :requirby the earlier rules.23/01 '8S 17:11 !tOS ZSO S8SO C'I'E.ALTJISOL-GEH
rz0 4

2.

L SPECIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF TIIE CASE
TO WIDCH TI1E APPUCA TION RELATES

4. Proceedings in thecase conccrning Nuclear T~s N ew Zealand v.France)
were commenced by New Zealand by an Application instituting proceedings of

9 May 1973. A judgment was given by the Court in these proceedings on 20 ,.
December 197 42. Details ofthe prier proceduralhistocy of the case arc givein

paragraphs 1-14 of that judgment

S. The judgment of 20 December 1974 was given after arguments on the
questions of the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the dispute and the

admissibility of the Application. New Zealand had îùed a Memorial_ and
presented oral arguments on these questions. The French Govemment did.not
appoint an agent. did not fùe Counter-Memorial and was not represented atthe

hearings. However, in a letter to the Registrar of 16 May 1973, France bad
stated that it considered tbat Court was not competent in the case.

6. In its judgment of 20 December 1974. the Court found it unnecessary to

decide the questions of jurisdiction and admissibility. The Court found that
France, through certain unilateral stalements, bad given an undertaking
possessing legal effect to the international community to hold no further

atmospheric nuclear testsin the South Pacific3. In view of this, the Court found
..that the clairn of New Zealand no longer bas any object and that theCourt is
therefore not called upon to give a decision thereon"4.

7. In paragraph 63 of that judgment, the Court said:

··once the Court has found that a State has entered into a
commitment concerning its future conduct it is not the
Court's function to contemplate that it will not comply with
it. However. the Court observes that if the basis of this
Judgment were to be affecled, the Applicant could request
an examination of the situation in accordance with the

provisions of the Statute; the denunciation by France, by
letter dated 2 January 1974, of the General Act for the
Pacifie Seulement of International Disputes, which is relied
on as a basis of jurisdiction in the present case, cannot

23 l.CJ. Reports 1974, p. 457.
4 Ibid., at pp. 474-475 (paragraphs 52-55).
Ibid.atp.478 (paragraph 65).23/oa '85 17:12 ttoe 25o 5850 C'IEAL'lll SOL-GEN
~005

3.

constitute by itself an obstacle to the presentation of such a
request."

8. TheGovemtnent of Australia was advised, by a letter fromthe Registrar of

theCourt dated 21 August 1995, that on tb.atdate New Zealand submitted to the
Court a R.equest for an Examination of the Situation "arising out of a proposed
action announced by France which will, if carried out, affect the basis of the

Judgment rendered by the Court on 20.December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests
Case (New Zealandv. France)". The letter indicates that:

''The request refers to a media statement of 13 June 1995 by
President Chirac 'which said that France would conduct a

fmal series of eight nuclear weapons tests in the South
Pacifie starting in September 1995'. New Zealand states that
the request is made 'under the right granted to New Zealand
in paragraph 63 of the Judgment of20 December 1974."'

9. Theletter indicates further that New Zealand requests theCourt to indicate

certain further provisional measures.

10. By this present Application, Australia seeks pennissionto intervene under
the terms of Article 62 of the Statute any further proceedings in this case. In

particular, in addition to proceedings related to the merits theclaim brought
by New Zealand against France, Australia requests pennission to intervene in
proceed.ings relating to the New Zealand request for the indication of furtber

provisional measures. Australia reserves any rights which it may also have
pursuant to Article 63 of the Statute to intervene in relation to any aspects of the
proceedings in the case.

ll. STATEl\IE!\"TOF LA'\VANDFACT JUSTIFYING THE
Th"TERVE~"TION

(1) The rights under international law invoked by New Zealand in these
proceedings

11. New Zealand's Application instiruting proceedings of 9 May 1973

concluded with a reque:stto the Court to adjudge and declare:

"That the conduct by the French Govern.ment of nuclear
tests in the South Pacifie region that give rise to radioactive
fallout constirutes a violation of New Zealand•s rights under23/08 ·as 17:13 ttos 2sosaso C'I'EAL'ISOL-GEN
"OOtl

4.

international law, and that these rights will be violatedby
any furthersuch tests."5

12. The Registrar's letterof 21 August 1995 indicates that New Zealand now

asks the Court to adjudge and declare:

"(i) that the conduct of the proposed nuclear tests will
constitute a violation of therights under international law of
New ~alan ds,well as of other States: further or in the
alternative;

(ii) that it is unlawful for France to c:onduct such nuclear
tests before it bas undertaken an Environmental Impact
Assessment according to accepted international standards.

Unless such an assessment establishes that the tests will not
give rise,directly or indirectly, to radioactive contamination
of the marine environment the rights under international law
of New Zealand, as weil as the rights of other States. will be
violated."

13. That letter indicates further that New Zealand asserts "that the rights for

which it seeks protection 'ail fall within the scope of the rights invoked by New
Zealand in paragraph 28 of the 1973 Application'". Paragraph 28 of the 1973

Application referred to five different "heads'' of legal rights. These were
described as:

(a) the rights of ail members of the international community, inclnding

New Zcaland, that no nuclear tests that give rise to radioactive fallout
beconducted;

(bJ the rights of ali members of the international community, including

New Zealand, to the preservation from unjustified artificial
radioactive contamination of the terrestrial, n1aritime and aerial
environment and, in particular, of the environment of the region in

which the tests are conducted and in which New Zealand, the Cook
Islands, Niue and the Tokelau Islands are situated;

(c) the right of New Zealand that no radioactive malerial enter the

territory of New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue or the Tokelau
Islands, including their airspace and territorial waters, as a result of
nuclear testing;

l.CJ.Plea.djngsNuclearTests,VoL TI,p.1, ap.9.23/oa '85 17:13 ttos 25o 5850 C'IEALT.BSOL-GEN

s.

(d) the right of New Zealand that no radioactive materlaL having entered
the tenitory of New Zealand, the Cook Islands, Niue or the Tokelau

Islands, including their air space and tenitorial waters, as a result of
nuclear testing, cause h:mn, including apprehension. anxiety and
concern. to the people and Oovemment of New Zealand and of the

Cook Islands, Niue and the Tokelau Islands;

(e) the right of New Zealand to freedom of the high seas, including
freedom of navigation and overflight and the freedom to explore and

exploit theresources of the sea and the seabed, witbout interference or
detriment resulring from nuclear testing.'

These five heads of rights were set out again in full in New Zealand's Request
of 14 May 1973 for the indication of interim measures', and in New Zeaiarid's

Memorial of November 19738. However, theRegistrar's letter of 21 August
1995 adds that New Zealand says that at the present tirne it "seeks recognition
only of those rights that would be adversely affected by entry into the marine

environment of radioactive matcrial in consequence of the further tests to be
carried out at Mururoa or Fangataufa Atolls, and of its entitlement to the
protection and benefit of a properly conducted Environmental Impact

Assessment".

14. Thus. it is the rights claimed by New Zealand under beads (a)-(e) above
which formed the subject-matter of the 1973 Application of New Zealand, and

which at present form the subject matter of the New Zealand claim.

(2) The erga omnes character of cerbin of the rights invoked by New

Zealand

15. It is immediately apparent that whereas beads (c), (d)and (e) each refer
solely to a "right of New Zealand", heads (a) and (b) invoke "the rights of ali
members of the international community, including New Zealand". In its

Memorial ofNovember 1973, New Zealand explained this difference, saying:

6 Ibid.,atp.8.
7 l.CJ. Pleadings, Nuclear Tesrs, Vol. ll, p. 47, at p. 49 (paragraph 2).
s I.CJ. Pleadings, Nuclear Tesrs, Vol. ll, p. 143, at pp. 2.03-204(paiagraph 190).23/08 '01 17:14 !tOI 210 SOSO C'IULTll SOL-GEN
~OGS

6.

"The rights asserted under heads (a) and (b) fallinto a
different category from these under heads (c), (d)and (e).

The rights listed under (a) and (b) are ~d in the sense
tbat tbeir violation in relation to any one nation will
necessarily involve a violation of the same rights vested in
other members of the international community. The degree
of attention wbich individual countries are pŒpa.red to give
to the protection of these rights and the degree of anxiety
displayed in the event of their violation may. and obviously
does, vary. Y et the rights are thesame for all They re.flect

a community interest in theprotection of the security. life
and health of ali peoples and in the preservation of the
global enviromnent. The rigbts are held in common and the
corresponding obligation imposed on France (and on any
other nuclear power) is owed in equal measure to New
Zealand and to every other member of the international
community. It is an obligoë.tionergaomnes."9

New Zealand added that:

''The rights in (c),(d) and (e)are not shared in that sense.
New Zcaland is not, of course, the sole possessor of the
right, which derives from its sovereignty, to control the leve!
of radioactivity in its territory, territorial waters and air
space or of the right not to have hann caused to it and its
people as a result of the entry into those areas of radioactive
debris from nuclear testing. Nor, obviously, is New Zealand

the only nation whose cirizens are entitled to exercise well­
established freedoms of the high seas. Yet it cannat be said
that the nuclear testing which France has undertaken in the
past, and may undertake in the future, will necessarily
involve the violaùon of the same rights possessed by all
ether countries ....If radioactive debris from French testing
does not enter the territory, territorial waters or air space of a

particular country (or at any rate cannet be detected) its
rights under heads ( c) and( d) will not be affected by what
has occurred at Mururoa .... Whether or not the French
action will involve a violation of the high seas rights of any
particular country will depend on whether or not its citizens
have occasion to anempt to exercise high seas freedoms in
the vicinity of Mururoa.... "lO

9 Ibid., p.204 (paragraph 191).
10 Ibidat pp. 204-205 (paragraphs 192-193).23/08 'IS 17:1S ttos 2SOSISO
C'1ŒA.LTBSOL-GEN "oos

7.

16. TheNew Zealand Memorialthen:rcferredll to thepassage in thejudgment

in the case conceming the Barcelona Traction. Light and Power Company,
limitetJ12in which the Courtsaid:

"... an essential distinction should be drawn between the
obligations of a State towards the international com.munity
as a whole, and those arising vis-à-vis another State in the

field of diplomatie protection. By their very nature the
former are the concem of all States. In view of the
importance of therights involved, ali States can be beld to
have a legal interest in theirprotection;they are obligations
erga omnes."

The New Zealand Memorial suggested 3 that this passage was "especially

pertinent" tothe rights claimed by New Zealand Wlderheads (a) and {b) refèrred
to above. It went on to saythat:

'In the submission of the Govemment of New Zealand, the
principle stated in thatpassage conceming obligations owed

to the whole of the international community is directly
applicable to the protection ofthe right toinherit a world in
which nuclear testing in the atmospherc does not take place
and of the right to the preservation of the envirorunent from
unjustified artificiai radioactive contamination. As already
noted, these rights for which New Zealand seeks protection
reflect community interests and they are shared. The

obligation not to undertake nuclear testing which gives rise
to radioactive fallout-like the obligations stemming from
the outlawing of aggression and genocide and from the law
relating to the protection of human rights-is owed to the
international community as a whole. In the words used by
the Court, 'all States have a legal interest in its
observance' ."14

It added that:

"On the basis of the doctrine stated by Ùle Court in the
Barcelona Traction case every member of the international
community must have a legal interest in the community
rights which New Zealand has invoked and wbich the
present proceedings seek to protect. That alone would be

11 Ibid., p.2(J] (paragraph 199).
ll J.CJ.Reports 1970,p. 3, at p. 32 (paragraph 33).
13 I.CJ. Pleadings, Nuclear TesVol. llp. 143, at p. 209 (paragraph 206).
14 Ibid.atpp. 209-210 (paragraph 207).23/08 '8S 17:11 ttoe 250 5850 C'IE.U.TB SOL-GEN
~010

8.

sufficient to give New Zealand standing to take legal action
toprotect those rights. Additionally, however, New Zealand
isspecially affected by the violation of those rights and its
legal interest in their protection is correspondingly
strengthened."JS

17. On 10 July 1974, during the oral arguments on jurisdiction and
admissibility, Dr Finlay added on behalf of New Zealand:

"... Nuclear testing of thekind carried out by France
inevitably produces results in areas beyond the limits of
national jurisdiction.In thatsense, and ina broader sense as
we~ the common heritage of mankind is affected. If New
Zealand is correct in its contention that French actions

inevitably conflict with international environmental law­
and this is also a matter for the merits phase--then the
obligation imposed by that law is. once again. of a universal
character,an obligation erga omnes.

The Court 's observations in the Barcelona Traction
case are, I submit, precisely applicable to the protection of
the right to live in a world in which nuclear tests in the
atmospbere do not take place and of the right to the
preservation of the environment from unjustified radio­

active contamination. Those rights are of a kind that. in the
words of the Court, ali States canbe held to have an interest
in their protection and in the observance of the
corresponding obligation.

A doser examination of the nature of obligations erga
omnes m.ight perhaps lead to the conclusion th.atwithin this
category of obligations there is a further distinction to be
dra'Wil.Wba.tI am suggesting is tbat certain obligations. by
their very nature. are owed tome whole of the international

conununity, and it makes no sense toconceive of them as
sets of obligations owed, on a bilateral basis, to each
member of that community. In other cases this is not true.

If this kind of distinction, reflected in Article 60,
paragraph 2, of the Vienna Convention on the Law of

15 lbilf..,p.211 (paragraph 211).23/oa ·es 17:11 tS'OI 2SO S8SO C'IŒ.U.'ISOL-GEN
~011

9.

Treaties, is to be drawn within the category of obligations
erga omnes, then the universal obligations which, inNew

Zealand's submission, France violates by continuing its
programme of atmospheric nuclear tcsting in the Pacifie, are
plainly inthe fust. rather than the second, sub-category .••.
The duty to refrain from nuclear weapons tests giving rise to
radio-active fall-outand the duty to avoid the unjustified
artificial radio-active contamination of the global
environment are wholly lacking in~an bilateral character

and cannat be conceived of or stated in bilateral term"~'

(3) The interest of a legal nature which Australia considers may be
affected by a decision in thiscase

18. If, as New Zealand daims, the rights under heads(a) and (b) are of anerga
omne s character in the sense described above. it necessarily follows that the

New Zealand claim against France puts in issue the rights of ail States,
including Australia. Assuming that France is subject to lhe corresponding erga
omnes obligations invoked by New Zealand (a matter which will fall to be

determined by the Court at the merits stage of the proceedings), Australia, in
common with New Zealand and ali other States, bas-in the words of the Court
inthe Barcelona Tra:ction case-a "legal interest" in their observance by

France.

19. As indicated above. New Zealand argues that these obligations "by their
very nature, are owed tothe whole of the international community, and it malŒs

no sense to conceive of them as sets of obligations owed, on a bilateral basis. to
each member of that community"l 7• If so, it must follow that a decision by the
Coun on the merits of the New Zealand claim would not be a decision asto

bilateral rights and obligations of France and New Zealand, capable of being
considered in isolation from identical bilateral rights and obligations existing as

·between France and every other member of the international conununity.
Rather, a determination of the New Zealand claim would of itself inevitably
entail a determination of the obligations of France vis-à-vis the members of the

international community as a whole, including Australia; and of the

16 I.CJ. Pleadings, NucleaTestsVol.n, p. 247, pp.264-266.
17 See paragraph 17 above.23toa ·as 11:11 !fos zso saso C'1Œ.U.l'BSOL-GEN

10.

corresponding rights of the international community as a whole. including
Australia.

20. This is not to suggest that New Zealandin bringing the claim is pUtpOrting
to represent and speak on behalf of the international community as a wbole.
The dispute which forms the basis of the proceedings, and which New Zealand

asks the Court to determine. is a bilateral dispute between New Zealand and
France. Other States may or may not agree with New Zealand that the proposed
conduct of France would violate an ergaomnes obligation under international

law. Furthennore, by virtue of Article 59 of the Statute,itis only the parties to .
the case. and not the international community as a whole, which would be

bound by the judgment of the Court. However, while the dispute between New
Zealand and France is bilateral, it remains the case that in determini.ngthemerits
of the New Zealand claim, the Court would necessarily be required ·to

pronounce on the rights of an States. The legal interests of every member of the
international community, even of those States not bound by Ùlejudgment, are
thus "affected" or "en cause" within the meaning of Article 62 of theStatutets.

21. The situation inthe present instance is very different from that in cases in
which the Court has refused requests for permission to intervene pursuant to
Article 62. In the Continental Shelf case between Tunisia and the Libyan Arab

Jamahiriya19, as in the Continental Shelf case bctween the Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya and Malta2o, the relevant interest of a legal nature of the State
seeking to intervene was particular to that State, and was distinct from the legal

interest of either of the parties to the case. A decision of the Court on the
matters in issue in those cases dld not involve a decision directly upon the
interest of the State seeking to intervene. On the other hand, in the instantcase.

in relation to the rights under heads (a) and (b) invoked by New Zealand.
Australia's own legal interest as a member of the international com.munity is
identical to the legal interest of New Zealand. Insofar asit relates torights

under heads (a) and (b).the New Zealand claim puts direct/y in issue Australia' s
legal rights as a member of the international community vis-à-vis France, in the

18 SeelAnd, Island a11dMaritime Fronrier Dispute (El Salvador/HonduraApplication to
1 /ncervene, JudgmentJ.CJ.Reports 1990, p. 92, at p. 130 (paragraph 90).
9 Continental Shelf(Tunisia!LibyanArab Jamahiriya), Application forPermis~ tion
lnterveneJudgment, J.CJ. Reports 1981, 3.
20 InterveneJu.dgment,l.CJ.Reports 1984, p3.!Malta), Application for Permission to23108 ·es 17:18 ttos zsoseso C'1ŒALTBSOL-GEN
Il. ~OlJ

same way and to the same extent tbat itputs in issue the rights of New Zealand.

and of a1lother members ofthe intenlational community.

22. In another case, in which one of the parties claimed the existence of an
objective legal régime that would apply not only to both parties but also to a

thirdState which was not a party to the case. the Chamber of the Court found
that thethird State bad an interest of a legal nature which may be affected for
thepurposes of Article.ti'of the SUiLule:l• AU.5tnùiA conoiden ~ ~ c~m~

reasoning must apply in a case suchas the present. Where a party to a case
invokes obligations, a breach of which gives rlseto responsioility not only to
thatState but also to a thlrdState wbicb isnot aparty.that thirdStatemust be

considered as having an interest of a legal nature which is en cause for the
purposes or Article 62. 'Wherethe relevant obligation isan obligation erga
omnes, this means that every State hasan "interest of a legal naturewhich.~y

be affected by the decision in the case", and is entitled to seek pennissiori to
intervene under the tenns of Article 62 of the Statute. In practice, it is of course

not to be expected that every State will seek permission to intervene. As New
Zealand observed in its Memorial of November 1973: "The degree of attention
which individu al countries are prepared to give to the protection of thesc rights

and the degree of anxiety displayed in the event of their violation may, and
obviously does, vary. Yet the rigbts are the same forall''22 Australia as aState
inthe South Pacifie region clearly bas a particular interest in the observance by

France of the erga omnes obligations invoked by New Zealand. However,
Australia considers that such special interest is not required by Article 62 of the
Statute as a prerequisite for intervention.

23. The situation in a.case such as this is analogous to a case in which aState
brings proceedings alleging that another State has violated a multilateral treaty
obligation, being an obligation the breach of whicb gives rise to responsibility

vis-à-vis every ether State Party to the treaty. In such a case, the dispute is
bilateral, and onlythe:two parties will be bound by the decision of the Court.

Nonetheless, the interests of ali States Parties to the treaty wien cause, as is
reflected in the provision made by Article 63 of the Statute. If the treaty
involved is a treaty to which ali, or nearly ali, States in the world are parties,

21 Sce Land.Islandand MaritimeFrontierDispute(ElSalvador/Honduras),Applica.rito
lnrervene.Judgment,I.CJ. Reports1990,p.92,atpp.12~12 paragraphs70-72).
22 See paragraph 15 above.23/08 '85 17:18 !t08 250 5850 C'I'EAL'I'HSOL-GEN

12..

every such State will have a right to intervene pursuant to Article 63, even if in

practice probably not every such State would avail itself of that right.

24. Just as Australia's legal interest will be en caus i~ any proceedings
relating to the meritsof the New Zealand cJaim.that legal interest will similarly

be en cause in proceedings relating to the indication of provisional measures.
The power of the Court to indicate provisional measures under Article 41 of the

Statute bas as itsabject to preserve the respective rights of the parties pending
the decision of the Court. As the legal interest of ali members of the
international community in the observance of erga omnes obligations isthe

same, that legal interest of every State will be affectcd equally by a decision
whether or not to indicatesuch measures. Any provisional measures indicated

by the Court would have the effect of preserving the rights not only of ~ew
Zealand, but of ali States.In the present instance, Australiaseeks permission to
intervene in support of New Zealand's application for the indication of

provisional measures because, in the absence of such measures, theeffect of the
proposed nuclear tests on the rights of the international community as a whole

will be irretrievable.

25. 'W'hileit is for the Coun itself ta decide uponany request for permission to
intervene 23,the Court has indicated that itdoes not consider that it bas any

general discretion to accept or reject a request for permission to intervene under
Anicle 62 simply for reasons of policy. The Court has indicated that itstask is.
rather, to determine the admissibility or otherwise of the request by reference to

the relevant provisions of the Statute:!• Australia submits that. in principle,
permission should not be refused once the requirements of Article 62 have been

esrablished. This is panicularly soin cases involving a claim of a breach of an
erga omnes obligation. Reference has already been made to the analogy
between intervention under Article 62 in such cases and intervention under

Article 632• Under Article 63, intervention is as of right.

23 Article 62, pnragrap2,of the Statute.
24 Continental Sheif (Tunisia!Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Application for Permission to
In~erv eudemeni,l.CJ. Repons 1981, p. 3arp. 12 (paragraph 17); Conti118ntalShelf
(Llbyan Arab Jamahiriya!Malra), Application foPermissionto Inrervene,Judgment,
I.CJ. Reports 1984, p. atp. 9 (paragraph 12).
25 Seeparagraph 23 above.23/08 '85 17:20 ttos 250 5850 C'WE.U.lll SOL-GE:N
~015

13.

Ill. THE PRECISE OBJECT OF THE INTERVENTION

(1) The legal issues in respect of wbich Australia seeks to intervene

26. Australia recognises that if it is permitted to intervene in respect of its
interest of a legal nature wbich may be affected, this does not mean that the

Court will also permit it to "make excursions into other aspects of the case"
brought by New Zealand against France.26

27. As indicated above, the New Zealand claim puts in issue five heads of

rights under international law. As regards heads (c), (d) and (e). as New
Zealand saidin its Memorial ofNovember 1973:

" ... If radioactive debris from French testingdoes not enter
the territory. territorial waters or airspa ce of a particular

country (or at any rate cannot be detected) its rights under
heads (c)and (d) will not be affected by what bas occurred
at Mururoa. ... 'Whether or not the French action will
involve a violation of the high seas rights of any particular
country will depend on whether or not its citizens have
occasion to attempt to exercise high seas freedoms in the
vicinity of M:ururoa....·-v

In this Application for pennission to intervene, Australia does not rely on any
"legal interest" of its c)wn.for the purposes of Article 62 of the Statute, in the

qucsùon whether there has been any breach of the rights of New Zealand under
heads (c),(d) and (e).

28. Nor does Australia seek to intervene in these proceedings under Article 62

in arder to argue that there has been a breach of the rights of Australia under
heads (c), (d) and (e). To do so would be, in effect, to seek to become an
additional party to the proceedings, and to tack on a new case and so have

Austra1ia's own claim against France adjudicated by the Court in thecourse of
the proceedings brought by New Zealand.lB The Court will not need to be

26 SeeLand, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras), Application to
lntervene, JudgmentI.CJ.Reports 1990, p. 9atp. 116 (paragrnph 58).
28 See paragraph 15 above.
introducinitsown c:laimsinto thproceediudedInrhe~.ase conec:min'theLtuuJ..sland
and Maritime Fronder Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras), Application to lnterveM.
Judgment, I.CJ. ReportS 1990, p. 92, at pp. 133-135 {parag97-99),the Chamberof
theComt considerecl that an intervener may becopartytoa casewiih theconsent of
the original parties. Australia submitsisunnecessary to consider whethcr there arc23toa ·as 17:20 ttos 2sosaso C'IEALTB SOL-GEN

14.

reminded that on the same day that proceed.ings were commenced by New
Zealand against France in1973, proceedings were also com.menced by Australia

in the case conèeming Nuclear Tests(Australia v. France).29 However, unlik.e
the 1973 Application of New Zealand, which complains of nuclear testing

generally, and is not con:fined solely to atmospheric t.esting. the 1973
Applicàtion of Australia specificallyrequested the Court to adjudge and declare
tbat "the carrying out of further atmospheric nuclear weapon tests in theSouth

Pacifie Ocean is not consistent with applicable rules of intemationallaw".30
Australia accepts tbat it could notrequest the Court to resume thoseproceedings

brought by Austral.ia, wbich were expressly confined by Australia to the issue of
atmospheric nucl.ear tests, in arder to seek a detennination of the legality of the
proposed underground tests by France. The position of Australia is thus entirely

different to that of New Zealand. ·..

29. Australia's proposed intervention would thus be confined solely to those
aspects of the case which concem the rights asserted by New Zealand under

heads (a)and (b). In deciding the merits of the New Zealand claim, insofar as it
concems those rights,the Court would he called upon to determine whether
under customary international law France has erga omnes obligations of the

kind clairned by New Zealand, and whether those obligations have been
breached by the conduct of France complained of by New Zealand. For the

reasons given in pnragraphs 18-25 above, Australia bas a legal interest in bath of
these questions, and seeks permission to intervene in order to present arguments
to the Court on them. Similarly, Australia requests pennission to intervene in

proceedings relating to the indication of provisional measures only in relation to
the issue of whether such measures should be indicated for the preservation of
the rights under heads (a) and (b).

30. In sho~ the purpose of Ausrralia's proposed intervention is not to ask the
Court to decide anything whlch itwould not decide in the absence of that
intervenùon. Australia requests permission to intervene merely toenable it to

state its views on certain of the matters which already fonn part of New
Zealand's cla.im, in order to protect or safeguard Australia•s interests of a legal

nature by ensuring that they arc not "affected .. by a decision of the Court

become a party to the case or introduce new issues inw theproceedinp, sinisnotis
Austtalia.in~nri io he presenr instance.
29 See I.CJ. Pleadings, NucleTests.Vol.L p.1.
30 lbUi., at pp. 14-15 (emphasis added).23/08 '9S 17:21 ttos 250 S9SO C'11'EA.LlOL-GEN
~017

15.

without Aust:ralia being heard.31 Australia's proposed intervention to argue in

favour of the~d.ica otprovisional measures is for the same pwpose.

31. It is not appropriate at this stage, befothisApplication for permission to
intervene has beendecided. for Australia toset outin detail thargumentS that it

would present on the merits of the New Zealand claim if itsrequest for
permission to intervene were granted. However, itwould seem useful if not
necessary for Australia to indicate in advance tbeposition itproposes to take.

Australia would be pleased to comply with any request by the Court forany
further information it may desire on Australia's position to assist it in its

consideration of this Application for permissioto intexvenc.

32. If granted permission to intervene. Australia's position will be th~ the
underground nuclear tests proposed to be conducted by France in the Sauth

Pacifie will constitute a breach of ·the obligations of France under customary
international law. The following paragraphs indicate briefly the principal
contentions of law and fact on whichthis conclusion is based.

(2) Australia's position on the legal issues in respect of whicb itseeks to
intervene

33. Australia will argue that under international law all States are subject to the
fallowing erga omnes obligations:

(1) the obligation not to conduct underground nuclear testing, which will

lead to. or which risks, the immediate or future introduction of
radioactive rnaterial into the marine environment. particularly into the
marine environment beyond areas under the jurisdiction of the State

conducting the activity; and

(2) the obligation not to conduct underground nuclear testing, which may
cause signir"i.cant and harmful changes to the marine environment,

particularly to the marine environment beyond areas under the
jurisdiction of the State conducting the activity. in the absence of a
prior and adequate environmental impact assessmcnL

3l SeeLand, island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador/Honduras), Appltoation
Intervene, Judgment, I.CJ. Reports 1990, p. 92, at p. 130 (paragraph 90).23/os ·as 11:22 ttos uo uso C'WEALTB SOL-GE:N

16.

Australia will contend that these erga omnes obligations are owed to both
present and future generations and that these are obligations to which the

precautimwy prlnciple applies. 32

34. Australia will argue that these specifie obligations are reflective of certain

more general rules of customary international law. 1bese general rules are
tbemselves reflected in various international instruments. In relation to the

marine environment, Part xn of tbe 1982 United Nations Convention on the
Law of the Sea ("UNCLOS')l3 which deals with ~tectio annd PreseiVation

of the Marine Environment"l-4, contains provisions which reflect these rules.
France made a declaration upon its signature of this Convention on 10

December 1992, paragraph 1 of which stated that:

"Les dispositions de la Convention relatives au statut des
différents espaces maritimes et au régime juridique des
utilisations et dela protection du milieu marin confirment et
consolident les règles générales du droit de la mer et

autorisent donc la République française à ne pas reconnaître
comme lui étant opposables les actes ou règlements
étrangers qui ne seraient pas conformes à ces règles
générales. 'tJS

Australia will contend that France bas thus itself acknowledged that the
principles of international law from which tbese specifie obligations derive form

32 The "precaurionary principle", a principle whlcb forms pan the preamble to the
Convention on Biological Diversity (Rio de Janeiro, S June 1992) to which both
Australia and France are partiis,that where there is a thre:n of serious or irre-versible
damage, lack of fullscientific cena.inty should not be used as a reason for postponing
mea.suresto a-void or minimise such threat. Article 130r of the European CommWlity
Treaty (as amended by the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht. 7 February 1992)), ro
whicb France is a pany, unequivocally provides for the precautionary principle to form
the basis of European Union environmental protection.
33 Mont.ego Bay. 10 December 1982. UNCLOS ~terc into force both gener.illy and for
Australia on 16 November 1994. This Convention has becn signcd, but not ratified. by
France.
34 The provisions of particular relevance are Articles 1, 192, 194 and 204-207. Tbcse are
reprod.uccdinA.nneJC1 to this Application.
3S Sec Traitésmultilaréraw:déposésauprès du SecrétaireGénéral.Érat au 31 dkembrt
1994, ST/LEG/SER.FJ13, a.tp. 893 (reproduceinAnncx 2 tothis Application). For an
English translation, see Multilateral Treaties Deposited with~SecretJJry-Gtneral.
Status as at 31 December 1994, ST/LEG/SER.FJ13,atp. 858) (reproduced in Annex to
this Application): ..The provisions of the Conventionrelatinl to the sutus of the
different maritime spaces and to the legal régimeof the uses and protcetion of the marine
envirorunent confinn and consolidate the general rules of the law of theandathus
entiùe the French Republic not to recogna!ecnforccable aga.initanyforeign laws or
regulations that are not in conform_itywith those general rules."23/oa '85 17:23 ttoe 25o 5850
C'IEALTII SOL-GEN

17.

part of "les règles g61érales du droit de la mer", that is, part of customary

international law.

35. Australiawill argue further thatdraft Articles 1, 2, 12 and 14 provisionally
adopted by the International Law Commission in 1994 in relation to

International Liability for Injurious Consequences of Acts Not Prohibited by
International Law36 are also reflective of the customary international law
principles from which these specifie obligations derive, particularlythe second

obligation referred toin paragraph 33 above. Au.c;traliawill also contend that
Article 16 of the Convention for the Protection of theNatural Resources and
Environment of the South Pacifie Region ("the NouméaConvention ")l' is treaty

commitment of regional application reflecting customary international law as it
relatesto that second obligation conceming environmental impact asse~ent.

The NouméaConvention was concluded on 25 Nove.mber 1986 and entered Ülto
force both generally and for Australia, New Zealand and France on 22 August
1990. France is therefore bound vis-à-vis both Austtalia and New Zealand not

only by the rule of customary international law reflectedinthat Convention, but
by the Convention itself. Under Article 16, each Pany to the Nouméa
Convention is obliged, within its capabilities, to assessthepotential effects of

major projects which might affect the marine environment and to communicate
the results of these assessments to the South Pacifie Commission)&

(3) Australia's position on the facts relevant to the legal issues in respect
of which itseeks to intervene

36. Berween 1975 and 1991 France exploded sorne134 nuclear deviees at the

bottom of sbafts beneath Mururoa and Fangataufa. 126 underground nuclear
tests were conducted at Mururoa and 8 at Fangataufa. The most recent
underground nuclear explosion in the South Pacifie took place at Mururoa on 15

July 1991. As a result these past underground tests, Mururoa and Fangataufa
are already repositories of very large quantities of radioactive material The

explosion cavities under Mururoa and Fangataufa are, in effect, high-level
nuclear storage sites. Australia will contend that further underground nuclear

36 See NCN.4/L.498/Add.2, 15 July 1994,reproduced in Annexto thiApplication.
37 The text of the Convention is reproduced International Legal MateriauVoL 26.
1987, p. 38.
38 Articles 1, 2 and 16 of the Nouméa Conventionare reproduced in Anncx S to thil
Application.23/08 '8S 17:24 troa 2SO S8SO C'IE.U.TSOL-GEN

18.

tests will add significantly to the accumulation of radioactive material at

Mururoa and Fangataufa. Austrdlia will also contend that the proposed eight
testswillcontribute to, and through their impact on the structural integrity of the
atolls may accelerate. the release of radioactive materials into the marine

environment. including into the marine environment beyond areas under the
jurisdiction of France.

37. In the 1980s France sought to reduce continuing international concems
over its underground nuclear testsin the South Pacifie by allowing independent

scicntific research missions access toMururoa atoll. The scientiststakingpart
in these missions were well respected and of international stature. They were
led by M. Haroun Tazieff (1982), Mr Hugh Atkinson (1983) and Commander

Jacqucs.Yves Cousteau (1987) respectively. T'lmeconstraints and restri~ons
on access to the atoll severely limited the scope of these studies and the
information obtained was, thus, in each case, onlof a preliminary nature. The
International Atomic Energy Agency also conducted two radiological sampling

exercises of marine organisms in the vicinity of Mururoa in 1991 and 1994.
Both studies were designed as intercomparison exercises, to check the
consistency of analysis on the same samples between participating laboratories,

and not as studies of the environmental impact of nuclear testing at the Mururoa
atoll. No independent scientific mission has been permitted to visit Fangataufa
atoll.

38. If granted permlSSlOn to intcrvene, Australia will contend that the

independent scientific investigations which have been conducted to date at or
near Mururoa have not alleviated international concems about the impact of
underground nuclear testingat tlleatoll on the marine environment. On the

contrary, although far from complete or comprehensive, the accumulation of
information and srudies now available to the international community raises
serious concems about the effects of the further underground nuclear tests

proposed by the Govemment of France. These concerns can only be
satisfactorily resolveby a priorand adequate assessment of the envirorunental
impact of past and proposed tests at }..fururoa.23/08 '85 17:25 ttos 250 5850 C'1ŒALTBSOL-GEN

19.

39. Australia will argue .that an three independent scientific missions that
visited Mururoa in the 1980s agreed that long-term leakage of radioactive
material from the nuclear test sites below the atoll will occur. but none bad

access to sufficient data to estimate reliably the time scale involved.
Radioactive material deposited in the underground cavities and fractured rock
produced by nuclear explosions can be expected to be leached by water

inf'ùtrating into the fractures. Water circulates through and sattuates the
geological structureof atollssuchas Mururoa andFangataufa. 1bis water flow
.can provide a vehicle for leach,ingradioisotopes from the underground test sites.

The speed at which this leachingwill occur depends on the types and solubility
of radioisotopes, the permeability and temperature of the rock, the degree of
faulting and fracturi.ninthe rocks and other factors. When leakage does oc~.

if indeed it is not already taking place, therethe potential for adverse effe'cts
on the marine environment in the vicinity of the atolls andin thewider region
through the ocean currents and themovement of contamlnated marine species.

Radionuclides released into the water are concentrated as they pass through the
marine ecosystem, affecting highly migratory species including tuna on which
people of the South Pacifie rely for sustenance and trade.

40. The Australian position will be that the available evidence also indicates
that significant physical damage to Mururoa atoll has occurred as a result of
underground nuclear explosions. Ali three international scientific missions in

the 1980s reponed fissuring of the limestone cap of the atoll. There is general
acceptance both amongst the French autborities and independent scientists that
these fissures have, at least in part. been due to the effects of past nuclear

testing. Subsidence of the atollsurface due to compaction of the limestone cap
arising from testing has affected the north east and south west of the atoll.
There is also evidence of a nurnber of submarine slides from the edge of the

limestone cap having occurred as a result of nuclear testing. Further submarine
slides could facilitate tlle movement of soluble radioisotopes through the
·limestone cap and into the marine environment by removing the outer, relatively

low-permeability, layers ofthe atoll.

41. Australia will also argue that there is insufficient evidence available to the
international scientific community to rule out the possibility of a major
rupturing of Mururoa atoll as a result of the further nuclear tests proposed by the

Govemment of France:. Serious co11apseor fissuring of the atoll could greatly

'·23/08 'OS 17:25 ttoa 2so suo C'1ŒAL'l11SOL-GEN

20.

accelerate the release of significant quantities of the radioactive material stored
therein with potentially serious adverse consequences for the marine
envirorunent. Past testing has a:ffectedthe structure of the atoina way which

is likely tincrease the longer-term potential for leakage of radioactive material
into the marine environment. Further nuclear tests are likely to hava funber
impact on the structure of the atoll with consequent acceleration of the release of

radioactive material This will increase the likelihood of adverse effects on the
marine environment.

42. Australia will further contend that although most of the radioisotopes
produced in an underground nuclear test are initially confined inthe explosion

cavities, such tests also involve a significant risk of immediate rclease of
radioisotopes into the atmosphere and. in the case of Mururoa and Fangataufa,
into the marine cnvironment. Very high pressures are generatcd during a

nuclear explosion and immediate release of radioactive gases and vapours can
occur through fissures in the rock or test shaft to the surface-a phenomenon
known as venting. Even inthe best circumstances, some radioactivity produced

by underground nuc1ear explosions can escape into the atmosphere. Seepage of
gases subsequent to nuclear tests and drill-back sampling can also release
quantities of radioactive material. Venting of radioactive gases and vapours

from underground nuclear tests has ta.kcn place in the United States of America
and the former Soviet Union. Such vcnting is known to have occurred at
Mururoa. Occurrence of venting, however minor, is an indication that direct

pathways erist from the underground test sites to the atmosphere and marine
envirorunent.

43. It will be Australia's contention that although there have been a nwnber of
international investigations and reports, no adequate environmental impact

assessment bas been done which would enable the question of the impact of
funber underground nuclear tests on the marine envirorunent of the South
Pacifie to be answered with authority. There is a need for further independent

·and comprehensive scientific srudies of the environmental impacts of nuclear
testing at Mururoa and Fangataufa. This need is based on:

concerns about the cumulative effects of underground nuclear testing,
particularly on the structural integrity of Mururoa and Fangataufa,

which could open up additional pathways for the release of radioactive
materiel intothe marine environment; and 23/08 '85 17:28 ft08 250 5850 C'I'EALTBSOL-GEN

21.

the lack of internationallyavailable data and assessments to pennit a

comprehensive and independent anaJysis of the release rates of
radioactivityfrom theatollinto thesurrounding ocean.

44. The need for an adequate environmental impact assessmentprier to any
further underground nuclear tests at Mururoa and Fangataufa was strongly
expressed by a report preparedby·Australianscientistsin.a range of relevant

-V'\.S'l.ollr,t.,.;.,]!"Afor 2 mP.P.tln9 of SotJth Pacifie Environment Ministers held in
Brisbane, Australia, on 16 and 17 August 199~ '.llereportconu~~

~More information is required to define and understand the
structurnl integrity of the atolls and to assess the timing ànd
scaleof any leakage of radioactivity. The Frenchauthorities
have a considerable data base of geoscientific,
environmental and other relevant information, buih up over

two decades of monitoring in French Polynesia. France
should release this (currently confidential) information to
the international scicntific community for independent
consideration and analysis as a matter of priority.
Moreover. it should allow international scientiststo have
unfettered access to the atolls before, during and after the
proposed program of eight tests, to obtain independent

samples and c::onductexperiments. In the longer term, there
is a need to continue to monitor the atolls, and international
scientists should be allowed to participate in, and publish
outcomes of. such long-tenn monitoring activities.'~9

45. Additionally, Australia will argue iliat an isolated atoll or small group of
atolls, including the watewithin the lagoon comprising theatoll, constitutes not
"land". but a "marine feature" which fonns part of the marine environment. 1be

limestone and other rock structures of these atolls are penneated or overlainby
water. They cannot be considered as land in any nonnal sense. Accordingly,

harm to Mururoa or Fangataufa itself constitutes harm to the marine
envirorunent On this basis, damage to the marine environment is direct and is
already occurring.

39 TheImpacrofNuclear Tes tingat MururoaandFangatal.({a.ape:rdraftcby aninformal
scientific advisory group convened btheChief Scientist, Depanment of the Prime
Minister anCabin fo! he South Pacifie Environment Ministcrs Mcctin&. Brisbane,
August 1995. at p. 2.23/08 '85 17:27 ttos 2so 5850 C'IEALTB SOL-GEN

22.

46. By a marine feature imeant an area of land and water which as a Œsultof
climatic conditions or geographical position basmarine characteristics. For
instance, ibas beenargued that the Rann of Kutch,which migbt be described as

an area of salt desert tbat fperiods ofthe ycar islargely covered by sea water
and monsoonal floods, is a marine feature4o. The notion tba.t the division
between land and sea is not simply a matter of determining what is dry land is

well illustrateby the Fisheriescase in~wlhich thisCourt bad to consider the
relationship of part of the coast of the mainland of Norway to the islands, islets,

rocks and reefs in that coastal zone.Inthe Court's view, inthesituation of the
coastal zone in dispute in that case, the "coast of the majnland does not
constitute ...a cleardividingline between land and sea. What matters, what

really constitutes the Norwegian coast line, is the outer line of: the
'skja:rgaard'".2• Mururoa atoll is an example of theconverse situation. wlieŒ
the dry land of the atoll does not mathe dividing 1inebetween sea and land.

47. In the light of these facts, Australia will argue that the proposed
underground nuclear tests by France willlead to, and wilrisk,the immediate or
future introduction of radioactive material into the marine environment,

including into the marine environment beyond areas under the jurisdiction of
France. Furthermore, Australia will argue that although the proposed
underground nuclear tests may cause significant and harmful changes to the

marine environment, particularly to the marine environment beyond areas under
the jurisdiction of France, there has been no prior adequate environmental
impact assessment by France.

IV. BASIS OF JURISDICTION

48. Article 81, paragraph 2 (c).of the Rules of Court adopted on 14 Aprill978
provides that an application for permission to intervene under the terms of

Article 62 of the Statute shall set out "any basis of jurisdiction which is claimed
to existas between the State applying to intervene and the parties to the case".

40 See the /ndo·Paki.stan Wescern Boundary (Rann of KCash)(lndia v. Pakistan) (19
February 1968), lnrernatioLaw Repons, Vol. 50p.2, app.2.0-21,30.34, 390,470.
41 J.CJ. Reports 1951, p. 116.
42 Ibid., at p. 127.23/08 '85 17:28 ttos 250 5850 C'WEALTBSOL-GEN

23.

However, thisrequirement is not includedin the Rules in force prior to 1 ]uly
1978, and does not reflecany provisionof the Statute.The absence of any such
jurisdictionalink betwcen an intervcner and a party to the case is no bar to

pcnnission being given to aninterVe ntliaot~incircumstances such as the
present in which Australia is not seeking to becomea party tothe case,and is
not seeking to tack on a new case and so have its oclaims adjudicated by the

Court'3. As Australia considers thatitis not required to do sit doesnot rely
on any jurisdictionallink between itself and tpartiesto thecase to justify its
interventionin theseproceedings.

V. DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION

49. The following is a list of the documents in support of this Application,
whlch documents are attached hereto:

(1) United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Montego Bay, 10
December 1982, Articles 1, 192, 194 an204-207

(2) Declaration of the Republic of France upon signature of the 1982
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, Traités

multilatéraux déposésauprès du Secrétaire Ginéral, État au 31
décembre1994, ST/LEG/SER.E/13, p. 893

(3) English translation of(2)above, Multilateral Treaties Depo.sitedwith

the Secretary-Genera/, Status as at 31 December 1994,
ST/LEG/SER.E/13, p. 858

(4) InternationalLaw Commission, Draft articles on intemationalliability

for injurious consequences arising out of acts not prohibited by
intemaùonallaw, A/CN.4/L.498/Add.2, 15 July 1994

(5) Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and

Environment of the South Pacifie Region 1 Convention sur la
protection de:sressources naturelles et de l'environnement de la région
du Pacifique sud, Nouméa.24 November 1986, Articles 1, 2 and 16

43 Intervene, Judgment, .T.CJ. Repons 1990, p.92, at pp. 133-135 (paragraphs 97-101).23/oa ·es 17:28ttos 2soseso C·I'EA.SOL-GEN

24.

VI. CONCLUSION

50. For threa:sonseout aboveAustraliarespectfully requests ttoCourt

pennit ito intervene under the terms of Artiofethe Statute the
proceedings broughtNew Zealand agaiFrance.

G OJ-

GAVANGR1FFI1H
Agent of theGovernment of Austntlia23/08'8517:28 ~08 250~850 C' lEALTH SOL-GEN

ANNEXl Al

The Law of the Sea

Official Text
of the United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Sea

with Annexes and Index

Final Act
of the Third United Nations Conference
on the Lan· of the Sea

In tro ductor~l\Iate ri al
on the Convention
and the Conference

li ni ted l' ations
New York.. 198323toa ·es 11:ze ttos 2soseso C'1ŒALTB SOL-GEN

A2

2 Convtntion: •n. 1

PART 1

INTRODUCTION

Alfâ]

fJu ,,,~ 11111s1 ro~
1. Forw purposcsorthisConvcnûoa;

(l) MArca.. muns the sea-bcd aDd oŒan noor and subtoil thcreoC.
beyood lhc limits natiarulj&~risdietioc:
{2) "Autharity" means thelnternationaSca--BedAutboritr.

(3) ~activ Dttiee.rs:a"mcans ailactiviùeofcxplarsLionCor.and n­
ploilJiticn of.rc:.sourcof theArca:
(.C) pollution or the marine environmcnt• muns the introduc:tioby
man.. direcdy or inciirectlysabsunc or encrSY into the marine environ•
men:t.. includin& estuaries. whic:h reswu or i\0re1ult in suc:h dclctcrious
effe:u.asharm to livin& resourc:.es .and marine lifc. hto hum.an heahh.

hindr:lnc:e to marine: activiincludinc fishinc and ether lc&itim.atc uses or
the sea. impairmc:nt of quality for snewater and reduction ofamc:niticS;
(5l (al •dumpins· me:1ns:
li anv deliber:ndispOsaiof w.asu:s or othct matter from vesse !s.
aircr.lfl. pla:rorms or m~n-m atàctres at se:a:

Cul ~nyàeliber diuosai of vcssels. airer:Jfl. platforms or other
man·madc: structure~tsu;
(bl ·'dumpinii-does not melude:
Cil thd~os.a olrwa.uesor olher maner inc:identtc.or dcrived

from the normal operJtions ofvessels. JircufLplatforms or
other man-m~de struc:uues at se.a and thcir equipmeether
thal'l ,..uor ether matter transponc:d by o\0 "C:SSels.air­
~;ra pt:f.rms or other man-made stru.:t\lr&.s at sea. openunc
for the purpose odi~o. arsucb matter or ôcriv&d (rom the
tr~tmen otsuc:h wast.es or otl\cr matter on ~tcss ir·s.

cnfL platforms ostr1.1cture~
(ii)pl~ceme ofmatter for a purpose othcr than the mere disposai
thc:reof. provicied that sueh placement is conuary LOthe
ainlS of lhis Convention.

2. (1) •States Partiesmuns Sutes whic:b have c:on.scntedbeobouncl by
t:hJConvention Uldfor which tl\ls Convention ifore~
(2) This Conventionapplics muuztifftiJIDtto the antitics rafc\0ein
article 305. parat1'2Ph Ub). h1Ll(c) and <0.whic:h bec:omcPanics Ulthis
Cotwention in a::oràanc:.e wilh tha conditions relev10&ach. and 10 thal
cxter:.t ·states Panirefers lo those cntities.Z3/08 ·es 17:3o tros zso uso C•IEALTB SOL-GEN

113

70

PARTXli

PROTECTION AND PRESERVATION OF THE

MARINE ENVIRONMENT

SECTION 1. GENERAL. PROVISIONS

Artid419l

Gnrn~rQ/ob/~Qdo~
States have:tbc:obli&ation to protcct md preserve the matine enviroomeoL

Aniclt 191
Sov~rt 'iÏI:qfSurr ~oexploittirfl4fl,rtso~u

States have the sovc:rc:ri'htto exploit their natural rcsourccs purtOant
thcir environmenul policies :snd ao::ord wath~their duty to protect and
preserve the marine environm:nL

Arliclt 194

MiOSIJftroP't-.enr. "d/Jet and copolliJtoj'rl!t
martn~ tnvlfonmt~r

l. St.ates shall taltc:.individu;l.)ly or joint! y as lppropriconsis­i mcuurcs
tent with this Convention that are nec:ess~:~reo vc=nec.nd control pol­
lution othe:marine environmc:nt from 2ny sourc:e. usin&for this purpo5e the
be:st prac:tiable meal'\Satdi~sair lnd in''~or=a wichthcir capabilitlu.

and they shall cndeavour to harmonizc their polic:iesln this c:onncction.
2. States shall talee ali me:Lnlres nea:s.sary to etUure that a=tivltles undcr
their jurisdinioor control arc sa conductas not to cause damace bYpoilu·
tian to other States and their environmand that pollution ariJina from inci·
denr.s or aaivitie.s under their )urtsdor control docs not spread beyond

the arcas where ther exercise sovereign ri!hl.S in aceordancewlth this
Convention.
J.The musures uken pursuant to this Pasnali deal wilh ali souorPOI­
h.llion of the: ma.r1ne cnvironmcThese mc:uures shall include.ins.rtzlkz.
those desi&ne10 minimizc to the...!ulle.stPOSsiblecxtent:

Cal the rele3Se of toxic. harmful or noxious substanŒS. especiallJ those
whieh are persistent. from land·ba.sed sources, from or throuah the at­
mospherc or bYdumping;
(b) pollutioo froi"Dvessel$, in panic:ular muslor preventloa acc:idcatl

and dealinz with emer&eneies. ea.surin& saferyof operatioaat sea.
prcventinz imentional anluaint~don disl:har&es.and re&ulatlnalhe
desizn. c:or.struction, equipment. operatimannln& ofvesscls:
(c) POllution from installations and deviees iDexploration or nplolu·
tion or the: natural resourec:s or the sea·bed and subsoll. ln particular

mc:&Suresfor preventina accidents and deslin& with emeracocensur­
ing the wety of operations asea.and rezulating the desi&n. COCISU'UC•
rioa. cquipment. operation and m:mrlitli or such iastallatioas or deYices:
(d) pollution from other installations and deviees operacinc in the muille eu­
vironment. in panicular measures for preveotin& accidcoLSand dcafma

with emCI'IC:OC:CSI',\SUrinstbe safeO~TitÎO ltSU . UldrCCWalÏDJ23/os ·as 17:31 ttos zso saso C'IEALT.H SOL-GEN

A4

Convention: alU. 195-1 gg 71

the etesien.conStruction. equipmcnt. operaanc1mannin& of SUChia­
Slallations or deviees.

4. ln cüin& mcasures to prevent. reduc:a or conuol pollorithe marifte
environment. States shalrefrainfromunjustif"aableincctf'crenc:ewith ac:civi&ies
arried out by other States in the exereorthairriatusand lnpurs&~ ~rnce
chcirduticsinconformicywiththisConventioa.

5. The measures W:cn in aa:orcW1c: witb this Pan shall indude thosc n==es­
suy ~ protea and preserve r:uc or fraecosysccms asweUas the babitator
c1cplctcd, thrcaLcncdendancercd specfu anc1Ott\fomu of marinelire.

Arti d~S

Dury Ml rotranv dlrzmao~r lttr.orIrralll/ormofY/M
ofpollutio• lllro anorltn

lntakin& m~un:s w prevent. reduccand conuol polhuion of the mariell•
viroament. Stat eall;a so as notto cransfer. 4irectJindirc:ctidamqe
or luz.ards from onuea to anothcr or transfonn ontypeof pollution into
another.

Artidt 196
U~eofc~hnolo 0t11utulu"iooft1/iar111ts~ein

L States shall taleeali masune.:~r 1.prevcnt. rcduec and control pol­
haicn of che:marine cnvironmenrc:sultine from the use or rechnotoaics 1.1nde.r
the1rjurisc!ic:t10nor control. intenli on::~lcide inuoluctionofspe.
cies.:~.l irne•.,, t3panic:ul:l! part of the m;.tr•ne envirowhic:h may

c:~u sinifiant and harmful ch:an&esthcreto.
~.This :l!tic:le docs not affec:~ph.pl~itofotis Convention rcprding
the prevcntiOI'I. rc:duInd control nf pollulion of :he m:1rinc environ ment.

SECTION~~ G-LOBAL AND REGIONAL CO-OPERATION

...iciJ97
Co-op~rc :uaolobQ/or rtgionbQSIS

St.ltes shall c:o-()pel"2t~lo'o b:ssland.~ appropri on~atee.ional
b:asis. c!lrectly or lhrough comil'lternational or&aniutin rormulatia&
anu elabor~t iint&c:rn: wuen.~st.and.aras ;and rec:ommc:nded prac:tic:c.sand

procedures consisrew1th this Ccnventionfor the protection and preservation
ol'rhe marine environmc:nt. uli:in:~c:co ::ou.at:terisu.:rc$ife:~turr.>\..

Anid~ 198
Nucifir:aofoimminttnor am.udtJmqe

When :Statebec:om :cUC or eues in which the marine environ menins
imminent dancer orbeinr; dama.ged or ha.sbeen damaced by pollution. lt shaJI

lmmc:diately notify otl\er Sutes it dcems lilcely to be l!Tecd~ma,e. such
asweil as the competent mcernational O!'ianiutions .

.nU:/, /9Y
C ontinzurzy plQfainSCpollurion

ln the csc:s rderrc:d to in 1r19!!.S11tes in the are.a &!Teinu~r·.
c:Unce with the:ir c.apabil•mdethe compcLcnt inreraationaoraanizatioas23/08 '85 17:31 ttos 250 U5o C'I'EALTIISOL-GEN

A5

Convention: ans. 204·207 73

Ca) the allocation or çpraprr.ue fllnc!tedulic:usiswlce: and

(b) the lltillznion oftbeir specializcd services.

SECTION 4. MONITORING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ASSESSMENT

Arùdc204
MonittJritJtherWa orqftΠD/poltutiDn

1. Sutc:s stult. consistent with theorolhcr States. ea.dcavour. as rar a
pncticable.dire~ or th.rO'Ithe competent iotcnwional orsani:ations.ra
observe.. me&Suree~uat end analyse. by reco&Dizcdscicntific methods. the
nsksor cfferuorpollution orthe rnllrioc cnvironmenL

2.ln panicubr.Sutes sh:!ll keeunder surveillanthe efTccuarany activi­
ties which they permor in which they eapgcÏQorcier c4etermin& wheth.er
these activitarelilceto pollutthe marinecrwironment.

Anklt 10S

Publi~ao uorttporu
St:ltes stupubli.sreporu or the n:sulob11inedpurs-u tona'ticll04 or

provide suchrepnrtS sapprollriainterv1: 0~lescompetent internatioi:'Lalor­
pntntions. whichshould mak.ethem avai~b tl:11Sutes .

.-lrtùJ:6l~
,.tss~ss ofportnt~ jJrr/ofa~tMties

When Sures i'l: r~e~o:nai~lrleund for believinthat planncd &c:tivities
under theijurisd1;t1on or contm:~ use substanu:lpollution of or siiilifi·
c~n a..nh~rmfc ul:~n1g 0tse manne environment. they shaH, af3r uprac­

lic.'lbuses; thepntential effects of such activtthemarine cnvironmcnt
1nd shallcommuraote reportsofthe ren~t otsc:h asscssmcntS ithe manncr
~rovid1 enarticl:!0~.

SECTION 5. INTERNATIONAL RULES ANO
NATIONAL LEGISLATION TO PREVENT,

REDUCE AND CONTROL POLLUTION OF THE
MA;:iiNE ENVIRONMENT

Art/ cl7~
PoiiiJlionfromltlnd·baud sauras

1. Sutes sh111adoprbws and regulaLiontoprevcnt. reduce and contropol­
lutionof the marinen-vironmcotfrom l:~nd-b surees,incluclin&rivcrs. es­
tu&ric:s. pipcliceJ and outfall structukin& imo ac:count internaûonall1
aveed rul~ sundards and recommended practiecs 3nd procedures.
2. Sta~ shallulceether measurc:sasm~y be necessaryto prcvcnL.n:liw:e

and control sucpollutaoo.
3. Sute!ls~l enduvour w h:srmonize their policin this eonnectioDthe
appropria.treginruleve!.23/08 '85 17:32 eos 25o5uo C'I'EALTB SOL-GEN

A6

74 Convention: •rts.208-210

4. States.ac:tlnespcdally throuab c:ampcccnt inrcrnaûoaalorpab:atioas

or diplom a:taerence, shall cndeavour co esublistl &lobai IIDd reaïonal
rules. st:IJldards anrcc:ammended Pnaiees and procedures co preveat_
reducc and c:ancrol pollUUOQo( lb& mariftCetlviroClmeatfrom l&Dd-based
sources.ta.ltiD&intoaa:ouot c~~ re&ioaalfeawrcs. the economie

apacity of devclopins SbtCSand lheit neeforeconomie dcvclopmcaL Such
rulcs, sttn=.rds and recommended pi'KtiC'Cand procedures shall be re•
c::umincc1 frotime to time as nc=:ssary.
S. Laws. reaabtions... mc2S'Ur&s.rusWt~. and rec:onuneaded practlŒs

and proceduresre!ernd toinparaçaphs l.l and ' shaiDcludachosedcsilfted
to minimi:e.IDthe fullest u:tent possithe.rclca.seoftoxic. barm!ul or aox­
ious subsunccs. e~ally thosc: wbidl are pcrsislcnt. io'o the~ne
environmc:nL

Anid~ 201

PollulJtJitfrom -UDaafvi rbj«t ID
MlÎOM/juNJiait11f

1 Coasul Sutc:ssna.ladoptIIWS znd reaulationto prcvcnt. rcduŒ andCOD•
uol pollution of the marine environmertt arisiag from or in connwithsc:a·
bcd ~ctivi stbj~t totheir jurisdic:tion and from artiCic:i:llislands. insullations
and structuresllnderthirjurisdiction. pursuar:t to a60 and 80.

2. Stat.cs shill uke other me2Suresm:~ .eneccs.sary to prevenreduce
:md control such pollution.

3. Such11ws.~egubui onsmc::uurcs shall be no less elTcctive than interna.
tiorulrul.es. sunWds :~.rcdommended pr:~.t :ndi(rHcedures.
4. Sutes stull cndeavouto hlJ"moni:ze their policics tn this connection at the
appropriar..e re&io11.3llcvel.

5.States. actincsp.ec:iathrough competent intematiooalorpniutions or
diplomatie conference.s~al clt.ablish alo:~nr de~:io rnl:, standarcii and
recommcnded pr:lelices and procedureto prevent. reduc:e and contpOllu­
tion of the m:1rinc environmenreferrcd to in pangra1Suc:h rules. suadards

and recommc:ndc:d practices and procedures shlll be re-ex:uninec1timcmto
time as necess:lfY.
Anie}, 209
Pollurlof!frt:criv 1ih~A1rre

l.lntc:m~t ulcs.rilgul:~ tndoprscedures shall be establisindIC:·

eordance wath Pv-t Xl tc prevent.rc:duc~nd control pollution or the muine
cnvironment from activitics m the: Area. Sudrulc:s.re&ulatlonand proce­
dures stail be rc-c:uminefrom ti me IDtim:1~ces.sary.
l.Sc.~b octce:elevant provisions of this section. StateS shall adopt llws

and regul;mons to prevcntrcduce and coattol pollution'1\cmarine envicoo­
ment from a.c:tivitiothe Aru undcrulcen ~yvcssclsin.stalwionsstruaurc:s
and othc:r deviees flyin& their flaa or of their rcgislry or op.erat.ina under th.cir
a.uthoricy, as the ose may be. The requiremcntS of such laws and rcJulations

shall be M les:s eiTc:etivc ttun intem:~tr icor~.e,us:tions:utd proce­
dures rcfcn:d to in p;:.."agrapb 1.
Anicit 110
PoUurionby dumpifll

l.St.ate:s shall adopt laws and reaultoprc:vent. reducc and control pol·
lution of the marine environmcnby clumpin&.

2. Statesshall ulce ether measurcs u may be:nc:c:c:ssaryto prevent. reducc
and cont.rol~ p>uuthn. ANNEX2

i
. ; ,
TRA,TES MULT;LATERAUX '
DEPOSESAUPRES

1DU SECRÉTAIRE GÉNÉRAL
1

, ,
Etat au 31 decembre 1994

NATIONSUN!ES23/08 '95 17:33 ttos 250 5950
C'WEALTS HOL-GEN

AS

E..'l'I'RÉEH VIGtŒ'C'Jl :
ElŒE.GIS"m.EMEN lT
TEXIEt

tOJIi~, .1'1
fa~~(c),
Sipu:turt, aLJrnion(QJ Si~IUl!UN.
Parli.-ip~ SlltttUiDI(d) tuee.c.rr..:Jtt ( pQTri.ill.Jl! ~lll:eu 4)Ü/11

A!ghanistul ....•.. 1! C'l.319g3 B~si! 10 &tc: 19&2
Ai:'!que du Sud ...•. s d.!c 1984 Brunéio-.,..-..u~:: 19&4
1\lg~c -.. - ...••• 10 déc: 19&2 Bul~ .....••••• 10 cU.==1982
Ali~ ......-. 14 O:t 199-4Q Bur · Faso ...... 10 déc 1982
~ob. •••......•. 10 d~ 19!2 s déc 1990 Burundi .......... 10 &.e 191l
Ant:Lg ~-B::zrbud.. 7 [é\1'19.!3 :zr:.r 1989 C;m1bod:e ........... 1 juil 1983
A."'l'S3.0dit.e• • • • 7 dtc: 1984 Camerotm..•...••. 10 ~ 1982 19 ftQY 1985
.-'.r~e ...t•ioe 5oet 198~ Can~ ........... 10 dk 1982
Atatra!.ie ••...••••. 10 dtc t9n 5 CX:t 1994 Dp-oYe.rt • • •• •. • • •dtc 1912 10 aoü1 1987
Ac:ric.he .......•..· tO dt.c 19!2 Cbili ....•••.••.•• 10 d!e 1982
Babam.u.......... : 10 déc: 1982 29 juil l9!3' Chine ...............10 dû 19il
Ba!lr'eln. . . . . . .10 db:. 19!2 30 mai l9S5 Ch~ ...•••..••• 10 d6e 1912 12 cS&: 19U
B~!lades ...••. 10 d!c: 19!2 Colombie ......... 10 ~
B.utrii: . . . . . . .10 d~. 1981 n o:l 1993 Com:nun:wl4 =~nne 7 'eSte 19&4
10 dé.ç 198'2 Comores•.. .. •.. •• 6 die 1984 21 juiD 1994
Ecl.;..i...•...•••• 5 déc: 198-4 Con!o ...••,, •.••• 10 eSte:19!2
&.!.iz=............. 10 dt.c 1982 13 ~Ot 19&3 Cosa Ries ........ 10 4te 1911 21 sep tm
Bécin -............. 30 ~Ût 198:3 Coced'Ivoire .•.•.• 10 die 1981 26 11\at1984
BlloUWl •••...••.. 10 d~ l9g2 Cuba .•••.••••••.• 10 ~ 19!2 lS aoot 1934
Bolivie •.......... l7 tiOV B84 Danem:rt ......... 10 die: 1982
Bosru.e.. O.VHce:rz!~ 1'2j:l.nv994 d Djil::l:luti .•••••••10 ~ 19&2 8 0C1 1991
BotS'III;uu .....•... s d.tC 1~~S4 : rr.J.1990 Domirliquc .•••..•• 23 J:W5 19!3 24 oc 1991

U323/08 '85 17:34 '6'08 250 5850 C'I'EALTB SOL-GEN iGOJS
A9

~·: ur..--• --c: ...- .J.3

,.=:td) ,.,..,.,.(l)
p~
10 ~ 1912 M~ •••······ 10 d6c 1ta
:~~-······· 5 dK 198-4 N~ •......•. 10 df.C 1912 1& .:« 1913
~-.;;;i·: 10 d6c 1912 Nlllta ••••• -••••••0 cSS 190
~ -········· 10 cl*:1912 N:~ ···........ . J9 eSte1914
~dl:··-····basie 10 cite1981 10 Mc 1911
10 df:C1912 10 d6: 1912 Ms6ia -·· ..•••••• 10 Mc 1912
Fi:Dl:aDc••.•••••• 10 ~ 1912 !f~ •••••••••••• Jac UM
Prat= .••......... 10 ~ 1912 lf~c .••....•.• 10* 19ll
~ ·--····· ·.. IO 46::1912 Noaft&-Vkmde 10 d6c: 1911
c:iambi:•••••• - -••10 d6c 1912 2111Yi 1914 ~ ··--········ 1&..:11913 17 Dit 1989
~l::Ls............••10 ôte 1.912 1 jaill1913 ~--········ 10cl*: 1911 tDOtlt90
~ •......... 10 d6c 1982 25 l\'f1991 ~ ·••····•·· 10 Mc 1912
G'\attg •a••.a 8 jm1 1913 ~o-Noavelle-·
Gulllte •••••• ••••· 4 oct 1914 6 scet1985 ~ ...... ... 10dâ; 190
G\Date-Bisau ••••• 10 dtc 1912 lS ao'*1916 ~--·····--· 10~ 1912
Ga~~.....w •. 30 . 1914 16 ,.,.1993 Pa~ ••••••••• 10.wc 191l
Hall1 ••••••••••••• 10~d6c 1912 Po~-····........•. 10d6c 19Sl1
~ .......... 10 dia:19&2 ~sa! ......... 10eue 19tl
10 ~ 19&2 ' a:t 1993 ~-············ %7 acw 1914
~:········· 10 dia:1912 ~
MarsbÎ: i:i::::: 9 :.:)1991 ~ c=~ •••• 4 d6c 198&
Ë Salomaa •••••• 10cU: an t•mari 1913
ln~ec•••••..•.•••• 10c.to.1.982 3 Uvr 1916 dmccratiqo~
l:z~bl:iqœ ==œ~= ....... .10 eUe 1912
isl.a:mi1!') • • •10c!b: 1932 k41'Ubtiquc
lr.iq ............ 10d.ée 198'2 30 jail1985 ~que
Irla:Ddc •••••••••••10 d!c 19&2 ~Uo •••• 10 dt4: 1912
Island .•...•..• 10~ 19!l 21 juin1985
lrz.Ue•••.••••••.•• 7 dote 1984 ~bliquo-Unie ••••• lD dtc 1912
Jmlibyl::mle ...... 3db: 198-4 10 d6c: 19il 30 sep 1915
Iaawüqae ...•••••. 10rjbC 1982 21 ~ 19&3 R~J;:~~· 22 ftvr 1993d
Japoa ...•....•... 7 ftvr 19!3 ROI.IaloaiiiC••••••10•dtc 1932
K=nya...••....... 10dt.: 1981 2 ~ 1989 R.w~ .••••••••• 10 eSte 1912
Ko.-eîl. ..• .-.••..10 dk 1982 2. mai1986 Salrue-Lucie ..••••10 &c 19&2. l7 zrws 198'
le.x-'Rtpubliquc • •10déc 19Sl S:aim-V.ux:dn-&-Ncvi1 &c 1914 1 jav 1993
yongosr::a~ ct~cs •.. 10 dtc: 19U 1 oa 1993
Q.c~oille ••. Samoa............ l8 scpc 1984
liban •........... 7 d!C 19&4 SaoTom6-erPri%1cipc13 juil 1983 l 110Y1917
Libéri.a•...........10 dtc 19!2 s~ .......... .10 dtc 1912 2S cx:t1SJ84
Lie<ten.ncin •...;. 30 nov 1984 Sey:belles ...•••••10 d.tc 1911 16 sepc1991
l.u%emtlaarg ••••••2S ftvr 198j Singapow:........ IO ~ 1982 12 d= 199-4
~~--···.....•.... 10déC 1982 Sl~ui ..S.. .. :u mal; 1993d.17 DaY 1.9!U
JJUbVIf\.••••••••••.7 c!.6c1934 SotD.I.lic •••••,••10 ~ 1912 lot j1l1989
!oW!f1ves••.....••. 10 dt: 1982 Soudan ••••••••••• 10 d*= 1911 23 ~ 1SIIS
Mali ............ 19oa 19!!3 16 juil1985 Srll..3nk:l •. ••. 10 eSte 19C 19 Ja:i~
~u ........... 10db: 19!2 lO t:l.ii 1993 s~ ........... 10 d6c 1982
Maarict.•••••.••••. 10 déc 198.2 4 DOY 1994 Swuibnd ••...••.. 11 jaDW"1984
M.aurii:Uli' • . •. . . •• 1982 SI!Usc•••••••••••• 11 oet 191.
10 dte 1982 l8 mm 19!:3 Tc::!l.a,d•• • • • 10 dtc• 1912•
~~~ëœüt-s"••• l'b&1bndc••••••••• 10 cS6: 191l
f6dûtsd.e) .... 2.9:1vr1991 a To,o .....•••••••• 10 ~ 1982. 16 &Yf I91S
Mo~ .......... 10~c: 19&l Tnru~A T-obt·o•• 10 dtc 1982 1S .,.,. 1916
M0%3mbique •..••. 110 4tc:1982. ~unisie........... 10 c!k: 1982 lA avr l9B.S 23/08 '85 17:35
'Ztos2soseso C'1\LU.l'B SOL-GEN
~C.îè

AlO

XXU: Orah 4e an~- Cn,._doak lfll

S"~ Slr~
IW#:GÜO•(JJ P~lllll J~&Unsû (•)

~--········- 10d6: 1982. YouJoslavi•e•••••• 10 dtc 1912 s mal 191&
Ururuay ........ ,..10dt= 1911 10"" 1992 2.:airë•••••.••••••22 dt "1983 17 ~"" Ul9
Y.nuabl•••••••••. 10 d6c: 198'125 .mf 1994 bmbil •••..••••.• 10 ~ 1912 7 ~ 1913'
"='~ ········· 10 4k 19!1 ~ ········ 10 &k 1982 24 rm 1993
YŒ='.... · ..... . 10~ 1982 ll ~;; J9j1 i

An!QtJE DtTSOD
CoafonD~a: ltldisositO'ti= ramc:J 310 Π1a
CoavcnàcmJ.e Go~t S~a4-a& &idm:lqi nla
$1~ de.b:fiCoovŒQoa pur AlriqucSuSa4 D'imP.Dquc
~cm que c:= ~ r=:Œn=rissle Comcil~
NacimuUnilspoΠ~ N2m.ibieoa s~~ pom' ~ 311
Dom da $u4-0Ues:~~fr (i=iiic).

ALCÎ:RIE
Lon dela~~:
~ ~t al&&ie:eo~ que lsi~e de
l/V:1.tw a de lCom=cicm desNaticmUciusarLed:rccL:
U mc: parlAl&&ie u'.i:mplipa5de dWJieml:Dldam sa
p:niêODrclaûve~ b.ao~=œ d'amres FtÏCS
si~ olcfobli&31iode cclbbar:ltidans quelQue
ào~e quec:soit.a"lesdites çŒù.c:s.·

ALLEMAGNE
DlcU:rarimu :
La~bliqoef~e c!'Allt:mlnppe~ qu·e:~ntque
~bre de la_c::cmm'lln:lote!urt)pécraxérl.a:lle--ci
COC'l.~ :u'lle atnnS!~ 1 =-De-c~!:ne: pour
e~ ~ dontmite la Convention.r:nlen cz:mps
voulu une dtcbraris~ u ~Qlr :tr~ud-c ~e~
~c:z qu·eUeacrans! à~aCam::nanaureappliC1tiou
t1es<ltspolideol'~nc X de1.Cmn-c:ntion.
Pou:b. R.tpobU!·t~e ~Allemag l.ebtion c:tU!.:ln[
entrebpmtiXI de1sCŒveaùon cicNaéonsUoiessur1drIii
~taUld'dolO d.."--c:1\reetl'~ en lUt~u28juillet
relad~l':a:ppllcde lp:ll'tide Convcntioc:lN!Worl-'

l..':sw-ldroit delame-. Çllelleesq:rtw= 1 l'l2nicie
dudi3CeordesfcM:~tn.e.atl.le.
Enl'@~o: dnLOua~ moyeo de:règlementpaci~uiue
aW'2it1.2p.ré!mnŒ~t ~ laRépUbliquCéd.ér.ll~
ciAll~oc. ca dernier jage de Q.oisl'unc1cmoyen.\
ci-a;~ pebr ~ tèclementdo:$4Ufés"cn.dsrr:l•t~fs
l'in~n cu~ l'appliQ!ion dc.s deux Convention sur le
d:oi~ lamc:r.d.atorth'c5UÎY.Ult:
1. Le TribunaiDcunaaon.dudrcidr:la muc:œstiw~
confo:m!ment rac~ VI:
2. Un tn'bunal ar'oitnl sptdal constitut eoa.omtm:nt
l'~ VIII;
3. L.aCouinU:nW:ionale Jwtioe.
~g:ùc. en lahsenŒ de tou;z~ ;r:~o li~~lemcnt
pliod!iqu~. Gcavcroemen[ ck b R.épubli fdér:ùr:
6"Allcm:af"'& rea)~lp:arderc=jour la::c~teU dune
ttibana.spttipeur c:om:Wt:retoctdi!Cé:uc:onc:e-m:llu
t'int:rpr Ol~apnliaêotl c1e.. Co-avttltld.ro~t.dc
laoerrdatiU.~-·tu: pr,eea.aet1prtiervaooduauU~u

885 23/08 '85 17;38 Bos 25ouso
C'IŒALTB SOL-GEN

All

C:RËCE

l.IJdl~ .JÎIMlllr6:
l>ldtlrŒill 'fllkZ Œt'6"1.ZIl'dtMia:
La IICWaŒ ~ Jesdispcshïaas ck la
~ m IDàcaJ6c~ Jef'VaDC .la uvtautŒ
~ ..ecpla~ fçp1ialims d:w la
padqve desanide36.U, 4lu4ld&1aCcc"~a sadlakaic
aclame. 'DaDSJazoacsuQaS~ anJDDdDOCDb=düc&uscz
espac6esui== ail p3aambre cc~ d1.fCbads.IDais
qui ~ Cifail ..... " ID&DaICIGt.t&&::rV)Il
am~ ll=udoDaJe,l'ID~ da JGtb:e ac cp:·
rtQi c&i.ID~ alaraponmmtt de dlsipc1aroueaa
Ja 10DŒS.l1Z'IVc'Sdl«âaa dâraics.G&le~~:~ cVlisres
a6:oDds= ,., = peaveactmpnJn= da rcŒn: du5c:
droidepz.s:aeuecrmsd ~c~. l ceqw:,crac~ ks
J"JNLANDE c.:a:i&cdcsau~ a da sznolblŒ:m:uicaaŒsoidl
LJm d.tlsi~: . llàsCma etqŒ.~-= PII'Llc:z:Œ mŒim:s:mdxe~
Le Gogveruemmtfintanw cgnsi&n que l"ez=pûoa aa ~les Œ,;,a ccks~CD nnait aiA1\• poucee de
r!.:hode;assare m ansidais IC~ics. quiesc.rtvΠ1 l'Ew c&icJOi=t rmq&.
l'ali:Dtae)faniâ3' deb.CcaYCilticm.s'e:ppcud.tcroit.
c:GC"Cl3-Mnl.medtl.tad)ula CSammclepwa,:edms .. Gt11NÉE : •
çe ~ c:SlrqlemeatiF ae cŒwnâOD tllŒmadoaalc l.DntûIIJlipt:UIII : ·
es:is::Wlonrue~ et tcajo=vi~ k~ j&tridiqnc -u ~de Ja~QbQql deGculnlcac~k
a.cmd~ce c!éc'te sc:.a.J:1fccr6par J'mm vis~ de droicS'~œt'Q)VlWçl,c c5laC0avc:DdodlialeCOD't"'r
laûmvcuè=.. Clm rczz::mtdüc:ccpŒda b.~ de lo.Œte ede
EDŒ qaic:cucem!espartiede la CCDwmioquiontrait sŒ ~ ~ .u. qu·cn ·e·~ 11a o:zr•.
aa~= iDol!a ctmsla:nu~ lOcuvcmcn~nt respg.Œcu1amer.· ·
finlandaasJ'iorez d~tci inuu d'~;~Pl li~qaieme
accuellem=co "Vi:ucurm pas.n.danslA Œ..cenirarUle GUINtE-3tsSA.t1
fi~ dea.&'VÛcS.:uerr~cn;D~ et~e sa=s navires "1..Gouvem:me8 de la ~ubUquc de ~8issaa
d'~ vtil l~~ finsnΠc.omme:reWe..:rt~:~ i'me d!d..zrequ'CDquic:ot=r= 1"anic2!7sur~ c:boi1c'e
plŒement ::ca::!pavecbl:cnvencioe. p~ pcar Je 1t&kment da e~ n:laJ:Us l
ri.n~UODCU l t~J:Ilic :S:adCooYCDÜOD des
NaticnUmes sur lDrott deb Mc::r.U o·3CapŒ 93Sb.
nANCE jllrid.iack laCŒr lntcmiU:iŒ.lck JQS.QŒ•'.qu'en
Le~ rk.tr-sMn.rt : eonsl.qnenceUnrac=pr~ p3.nnon plupoW'ce qoestdes
•1. L:.dispositions1;Convenécn reucves S:.:lŒt~:anicl~zn et l9g."
di.fU:"C~ts DUriC:ma et 3U régime j\l%"i.ddesuc
Utllis:a.ticie1aproŒ:ctidu m.Uiemarin c::nflf'ctlent IRAN (:RtPtmLIQUE ISUMIQti'E D')
~li.:ko l~ ègl:,téna.lcdu droidela ma e:ute:is:tH!.Ardtû:rÎfNlM':
donc1:~.l)bliqf u.2cn~ ~ cepas~~tr. çamm~ lui Didara:itd'lz1urprlrmi.c11:
tc::lcop;:csabl.cs ou~lcmcJus~~gen ne uint Con!onnéma.t';nille310 de b Coov=bs~ ~droitde
pascor.fcrm~~ r~&} &es:l!r.lles. lam:r.lGou~cmmtd a R.tpubliquci 4itl~saisit
2..tes dispotitioun Convenûea r'Wivcu :z:oees r01:::3SioJ.cnneD.ielst:namrcck laO:ia'Uiiolpour
!onll r:wi:ls :w-a=:•1!mUte 6clajuridjc :~u.tio~a eaus~n uon"~Qlioa'" de~cs dlsposidool dla
~eottnt destc.mtns:mc:ct des i::'npemctiuoubtes Conventionn.soumet ess.entielleces~tiafts dms
~t l':x?lorlaoe~l'e.xploitcecesfendquïl s.:rar~tenL :'btUr(!.ml':tvc:nirt~wioo tvanuelle.
né.~ c1: c::rri~-e ~l'ado~c pTOtaCommi.Ulou des zrti~ de!ILsoavemioa qllisait iftc:ompadbleavec
p~oire c1projets t~:Le rè,~lcne entsoœdo~ de l'inrcu:ioo imzlespositiop~a de l~lique
~ture j~:':let13thiSesurpiet~ !onctiŒc.::ncntcffecisla ue d·m cu quin&soitpasea hatmŒlcavem laict
e:rAllt:Jrinc::tWional.efo~smllrins. rtglem..'1uüon~.
A'ea.cfin. rled!oru~M !:red~plo y.tiin dl.:l LiDtc~éa t:acR.e~bUq Waanûqued'bA eude" la
Commusion pré~o~ poupat'\~ ·~i~-or..1tC a'Icralante:
fond selolaproc:t~ ~YUe ' l'zrude 37 drèg_l.::tli.;U!) Bi~ que l"inŒnri~a 50ll ck !aite da la
incbi.ec1la trois\!.me Con!frdl:N~or. Uni& ..~le Convenlicn an lnsii'UO\cnlcl'çplic::etdfl:n&alc
d.roi[ d:n:r. c~ ncrmati!.eertaiuesi:lesesdl!posontzu
3. E-nee qui c:oncul'~::l 1eC,12 siguawrp:lla
simpleznentissuUfcaondecomptO:DictQCY!senr.
Fr.ma ~ la Ccuventionne p:utê~ in~rpr~ t:re-ne p;ntceS$&ir=ltat~codifaer lsesa,m:mrnesou
Un::>li<r.nrull.looOdïûciesa ~tioo~ lt:.:ud: L:l (l~pracique)es.isgm~l c.mct~eY=tiZil
résoh:tiou1514 (XV). ~c obliptaUe.l'atcms6qucmlsemble~
4. U.S dis~tio nuparagnpbc2 del'a.rti.:le 2.10 de 1:\ctconfor1l"JrticledalaCOnvendO De VJ.Cde
ConVU ian n·aelucll pasll' d~in:sponsabtd.ru--~ 1969surle citWdcs!r2i.tbque laCosurJdtoit
é~.ran l,Teru:s dd me:suresromoir=ou e~wi~ dtatncr1c:r6cdecitc.aa~l quepourles~
tcll.c:sque l'iauno"bidU.Uvire..Ell.::s::lu:nt rïl5 panic~cettConvcn~n.
d.av21: lprononc:depeineauer ~uept.ctr. iure.>t Le$CIJruid~ oid.euus ,.appliqup2t!ieul~t
~ d~it: t:garég~nénte depollcti.on... (~S non C1clusivc.alcctquisuit : 23/0'8517:37 ttos2so 5850 C'WEALTBSOL-GEN
~OJS
... ANNEX3
A12
STILECISER.EIU

fiLECOPY .1f

MAY-(935

MULTILATERAL TREATIES
DEPOSITED WITH THE

SECRETARY-GENERAL

Status as at 31 December 1994

~1TED NATIONS23/08 'OS 17:38
'2!'08 250 5050 C'WEALTS HOL-CES

Al3

" UNrrtn NAl10l'CSC~V!:.' OTfJŒO H,.4or nr~ ~

Condutlttt/41MtJnlltfB~ }IIIIIIIÏ01110Dubdu 190

Di"TR.Yll'ITOFORCE:
REGISTRATION:
TEXTr

Ralijit:t:tiftn,
.Jnrm.:;f
CU1l}"t,.ltl(~)...D1J
Si~n.::tl.lrt, l:.CaUiQr(a) Slt~rt,
P-=rridpatrJ su.cca:s:i(d) lU~~<U fdJ Î.Drtl'ar:Lcipazr succusilln{tl)

Afgt:.aniStL"1....•... l8 Mlt 19~3 Burun:i .... .. .. .. •10 De: 19!l
Al_!:.S ........... . 10 Dcc 1982 û.."':l.bodi&• . . • •. 1 Jul .\9!1
A:!gob. - •.......... 10 De~ l9S2 S D:: l9SO ~'"0011 • • • • • • . 10 0..: 191l 19 Nov 191S
Anos ua&M Br~:h . 7 F:!: 1?83 2 F~~ 1959 Canld.: . . . . . . . •10 Dec: 19Sl
A:g~tir ....•... s 0:. 1984 CapeVerde . • . • . . •10 tl~ 1982 10 AU&19f7
Acsa-al ..-.... . !()De: !9S: CentralA!"ric;.nRepublic: Dcc 19S4
AO.St:'.• • •• - .- . - 10 De: 19!2 O~d . . . . . .. . . .10 0«. .1912
Ba.!u..":'la!- ..•... 10 De: 19~: 2Q Ju! 198:?. C.hi!c . • . •• . . • . 10.De.c:1982
BU.oo:U........•... 10 D:: \9S2 30 M;,y 198.:' Cbi.n.l.. .. . . •. •.••10 De.e 1982
Bangl~ei ..l... . 10 De: 19è1 Coloobu ......•. , . \0 Des: 1982
Barba=cs ......... . 10 De~ 1;g:; 12 C;; 1'>~3 Ccmoros.. . .. .. . . . 6 Occ 198-4 11 Jun 1994
Bela. .s....... . 10 De;· 1982 Ccogo............. 10 Dcc 1982
B:lgiu:n .......... . 5 ~· 19S~
Cook l$l.ands. • . ••. 10 Dec: 198l
B~l~c ............ . lO D:~: 19S: Co'l'..l ia. . . . . . .10 Oec: 1982 ll Sep 1992
Benir. ............ . 30 A.u;:1983 Cored'Ivoire • . . . • •10 Oec 1982 26 Mir 1984
B:t.ut211.......•.... 10 Dec l9S2 C1.1ba. .. •. .. .. •.. 10 Cee: 19&1 15 Âllt 1984
Bolivia ........... . '27 No•' 19~.! Cyprus .. .. . .. . ....10 Do: 19!1 ll J:)c:19SI
Bosnia :~nHderu~ovi.n;l. ]S."\1994 d C;:ecbR:publ i•• ;~22 Fcb 19934
Bors._~ ......... . S Dcc 198.: M::.y1990 DtTT\OCt':WPc: ple's
B~il .......•..... 10 D::: 1::i82 2 0<::·1C)~~ ReP'Jblico:CKorea • 10 Dec 19!l
Bnm.:iDzu~ .. . ~ !):::l9!J fJenm~ . . . ••••• •••10 Dec 19i2
Bul~?. .....a . lD De1: 1982 Djibouù . .... .. .. .. 10 Dec l9Bl a Oc:t 1991
Bur!Cn•Fa.so ...... . 10 8:: 1c;!2 Dominic.a. .•. . ••. . 28 Mar 19S3 2A Oa 1991

~0

-----·~---~----------- 23/08 '8S 17:38 ttos 2sosuo C'WE.U.TBSOL-GE:N

Al4

SitlriW1rc, s;,~
P4rlidp..z1 n&uGMII(IJ IIUCUS,.•{iJ

DamiDiC& :Republic • tO Cee 1981 Nauru •••• -•••••••• 10 Dcc 1912
10 Dec 1981 N•••••••••••••• 10 Dcc 19!1.
~::::::: 5 :>c: 1934 N~ •••••••• 10 Da; 19!l
~~Çiuiœa .•. 30 lm 1984 New Zn':md•.••••. 10 Dcc 1982
Etbacpsa••••••••••• 10 Ou: 1981 Jrrrr' •&a•r•~&aa 9 Dec 1934
~ Comcmzrity 7 Dcc 19&4 ~~a •••••••••·•• 10 Da: 1912
~g•i •••·•••••••••• 10 .Dec l98l toDcç tm N:_ajer•.•••••••••• 10 ~ 1912
Fmbn4 •. -••••••• •• 10 Dec 19S2 li.ae ••• ••••••• ••••S Dcc 1914
~ ........... .. 10 .De ~912 ~-····-······ 10 ~ 19&%
G:aboo•••.•.•.••••• 10 Dcc 198:2 n Mayi9&4 PalcisCII•I•••• •••••10 Il= 19U83 17 Aai19G
G::m2Dy ••••••••••• 14 Ccl 1994 tl 10 Da: 1911
~ -···· ........ 10 ~ 1982 7 Jw 1913 PapŒNewOaila .•• 10 Doc 198l
10 Dcc: 19!1 10 Dcc 191%
~ ·........... . 10 Dcc 1982 25 NJr 1991 Pll.ibpp.I••S••••••• 10 Dcc 1981
Qaarcma" •••••• - •• a Jul t9n Pal:m4 •••••••••••- 10 Dei: tm
GuÎl'C:a•••••••••••• ~ Oa 1914 6 Sep 198S POlUI.Ca•l• -••••••••10 Dcc 1912
Quinca-Bissau •••••• 10 l)ec:1982 2-'Ail!1986 Qa.Œ ...........1 1. l7 NaY1914
au.~ ..........•. 10 I>cc 1982 16 Nov 1993 ~abüc:o!~ ••• 14 Mir 15113
l'laie .......- .... 10 Dcc 1982 R.,..,...ia ..-•••• 10 Da: 1912
Hon4ur2s ••.•...••• 10 t>cç1982 sOct 1993 RussiaPcdetaâc•m •• 10 De 1912
li\ID!31')' •• , ••,•••• Dec 19&2. R.\1104............. 10 Dcc 1911
I~bnd ........... . 10 ~ 19!2 11JVD 1985 s.-t lOusD4 Nms • 7 Dec 1984 7laD 1991
1Mi.a •••••.•••·-··­ 10 'OK 1912 saiml..DI:••••••••• 10 Dcc 19&1 7.7W.191S
Indon=sla••.•.•.••• 10 Dee 1981 3 reb 1986 Sain\llnc.=c
Iran(Islmùc ~ndtbe Citena1itlcs10 Dcc 19!2 1 oet nn
~ R:............... .•10 ~ 1982 30 Jal 1985 Sao!ome••.••••••.•• 21 Sep 19!4
lr:!Jil'ld ...••....•••0 D~ 19Bl andPrilldpé. . . •.13 lul 1983 3Nov 1917
lu.ly •............. 7 Dec 19!4 SzudiAnbia .. .. .. . 7 Der: 1984
I~c:a ........... . 10 Do:: 1982 21 :Mz 19&3 Set~e .ga.l.. .. . .10 ~ 191l 25oi:t 1914
'? Feb 19&3 Sey~eUc s. . . . . 10•OCI:19Sl 16 Sep 1991
K:.nya ...••........ 1er Dec 1982 2 Y..rl9S~ Si.em t..ecne........10 Dcc 190 llDcii:1994
l(uw:ùt •...••..••.. 10 Dec 19g"; 2 Y~y 19&5 Sing.l'pOre. ••••. . 10•Dec 1981 17NOY 1994
Llo P:opl.:':> Slovaltia• • • • • • • • • • 1993d
Democ::nti= Solomou~ .. . . 10 De.c19!2
Re?ubll: ....... . 10 tle: 1981 S~t3 . .. .. .. ..10 Oec 19!l l-'Jw 19&9
Lebz:1cu ........... 7 De..:1934 Soul.Afric3......... 5 Dcc 1984
wotho ........... . to n~ 1982 Spain .. .. . .. .•...4 Dcc 1984
w"'bal.l ••.••....••. 10 o~ 19&2 Snu'\b :..,..... . 10 Oec:1982 19Jal 1994
LibyiLD Anb S'Cda:l.. .. .... .. 10 Dec 1982. 23 lan 1.985
J3:lT.lh ..r•1~ 3 ~ 1984 Sunna::ne .. •. .. ..10.l)::c1981
Li=àtctlS:on...... . 30 Ncv 19S4 Swa2il.lncf... ·.....1& lz 1914
Lt::t--:nboors .....••.s De.=19!4 S"'edeu . . .. . . . 10 Dec:1982
~1abu.g........•.• . 25 Feb 19!3 S~r~d ....••.. 17 Ck%1914
~..ala ...b... . 10 Dec 1;&'2 Tb;ùLand.. .... .. ••10 Dcc 19Sl
~OJVe$,, •, .••,,• , 10 D« 19~2 !bRepublico! MJc:edoniAl
~ ............ .. 19 Oc~ 1983 15 Jcl 19!5 To~o .. .. •.. . . . 10 Dcc 19!1 16Apr l9S.Sd
}l.ia.Lta .. • • •.. .. "De; 1982 :<t---'.993lY Trioi.d.dd Tobaro . 10 De: 19&2 25 Apr 19!6
Marshall~d s... 9 Acg 1991 a Ttl.''Ùsi.a.... •.. •.10 Dcc 1982 24 APr 19&S
~taDU ...••.••. 10 D~ 1982 1\lv:\lu •. .. .. .. .10 Dec 1912
MauritNS •......... 10 De: 1982 "Nov 1994 U;:l.t'_Q .. .. .. •..10 OK 19Sl 9 Nov 1990
Me:tico •.•....••... 10 Dec 19!2 18~Ur 1983 ü~c. ... .. ... ..10 Dcc 1982
MlamJCSÎ3 (F~t.ed t.'oic:dAra!>Emirate.10 Dcc 1982.
St:m::oO ..•.•••• 291\Ç( 1~1 Q Uni~ Republlç
Mona::e .......... . 10 Dcc 1982 oCUlnZS%Ua •••••• 10 Oc& :98l 'o Sep 19U
Moneo.lia..•....•.. 10 ~ 19!2 Urustt ..~•. - •• 10 Oo: 19&2 10 Oeic1992
Morocco.......... . 10 Dcc 1982 Van~w ..••••..••. 10 Dcc: 1912
Mcu:nhiquc: ...... . 10 D:c 19SZ VietN~ ......... . 10 Dcc 19Sl lS JuJ 1994
Mywn3f ......... . 10 De:: 1982. Yernen ...••...•••_ 10 D= 1912 211ul 1917
Na.rnibia-l •.........10 Dec 1982 Yu~osbvi •.l _., ... 10 t)c.19!1. s May 1986

. !Sl23/08 '05 17:30 'Zt08 250 5950 C'WEAI.TllSOL-GEN

A\5

/l4l=n, Jùrli .!!_~
CO"~"(~), ufl~tt(cJ.
Sifll~~re, &c~GS' i1)ll 11/:S~It(«J.
sw.:ccua.•ll) meeaN11(4) IJIUGSiGI(4} IW~œlol (l)

%.ai:rl•:• ••••••• • • -••J 1983 17 pd) \919 10 Dcc 191% 24 M 1993
Zaznbia •------- ••• 10 Oec 1982 7 Mar 1913

ALGDUA
'CJ~sit'mtrr:
hiSmcvtew ofm•~ of.U:eriar.twisipiD'tk
Fmal A/:=d tb& trDi N~aëms CcmYCll.iaon~ t.lw o~:be

Sudœsc~cntW cblne inieposiriC.a~= c~Di­
liona!Œrc:&m otbct11~cs JlTmy oblipucn 1~
in anyfiel'WbaiSOCvwcri'~:base~

ARC:E.''TINA
Upc11sig-r.c:.trt:
The sj~g o!'t.bcConventbyntbeAzlerttineGove:mm.mr
doc:not tmply~t;6nœ o!tbc.1.0&Ar:or elThir<United
Natio Confcr-..1z:tb L~aw cltbcSa. ln tl:rc::W. the
A.."'gcntiru:Rcoohlirlitwritu:tl Sr:u:ofl1Oec:emba
1982 (AICONF.61/WSI3S).:pl.onn.:ord iu !C$ervltothe
d!~t tllBrT:'iC!luDn.i~:x. ItDthefinaAct.ia ne "'lr.lY
a:!ects tbc·Quutie! IlFalki: tsln<d(Mahi:w}", ..chhi
isgove:mcdbythefollowing~c:!_ rfiau:onsof IlG=~
As.sd:lbly: 20(XX).3160 cxxvrm 31149,37/9 and38112.
adoptt.dwitbi::lfraxn~w cQheXdt:oloniuùcprocess..

1.Uliconncai.on.md~n: illl:liQatl. h~lvizw and
~ Sour:bSanôwic:band South GeorIsl:inform&n int:g~
pan o! Ar(:ntin~rrito !be..~::le Giou:Qe:lt ~~...s
th:sti.tndthertea),nizcsnorwilliltetlltitlt Ofm'fOtllO' BELGilJM
Sw:. eommr:mrtyor~.t~ ortll.xc:::iby it o! an&tuof Upotsi~nm:
~ juris&cüowbi.c:iel.ai ~~.-pote::e.d un2ny TheGovetNn.mt ofrheKio&dcm otBelstumbasc!cddedto
interprdAliorresolutimn thavieu~ the:i~bofAt!tntina sigtt cUn~ Nations CoavcnttŒ on ûaL&w ormc Sca
ovcr àl( MaMnas :mcicbeSoum Sandwichand South ucor:i1bec::aautbe CODvr.nibu a verylarJ•n~~mb efpOSiliw
ts.bnds anmeir respcaîve mmtime:ot~e Co.sequently,itfe.aramlda.chicvas~œnprom indem wbicntsacc:epublc
Jik:ewicelt:DrcccfiÜ%:nor~~ ree.:zni7.eandconstd.er tmosc s~s. N':vettbelC5t,tb rep~:~e Jt:IofawltimJ
null and void any&ctivityor muth.ôrr~be c..miedout orsp3a:it~_cre ~u tb&cŒcqn oCequtty,adopwi lor cbe
adopUdwtthout ics cca.swittte~a toIbis questionllieb delimic.aoi~ '"'uinentalhelandC\ccxcb"lvc econŒnia::
the Argenlice Golfetnc.oa.side::rofmajgrlmpor:mce. zone.wu not appüe.sainiDtbeprovis orddim.i.time
Tbc A.txentinGovemmecn wm aa:ordin&1in!apr-.the &urtoN!sea..~·eJ.c oowncas.be distinaicns I.S\ablis!led
oo:m:::enof a=tOf ÛlJcindruar:to;>.bO&SI:Ot!tr2%the0
byUlcConventiobcN--c.lhcD'lluotmert&blSwhicnpmJJS
a!~tioned re.solutioaO~i by theUnited N.a.tiocs,dS~ttscx. ov:rtccis.rritarSCLonebeon&b:Ulc!.an4ovcr
p~ntObj~ti oCewhkb is the pac:!ulsettl~e ontthe: theeontiunw shelfandmei rusivc ec:onomtcone.onmo
wvaeignty c:Ji.Sce:on~mi nei.\La.symens ofbibt.er.:lo~e:.
ne:ot:U.tion1 andthtou:h tht good ort:c::es orthe hico~ on kno.,l a~atheBdJian GovcnunentaMOC
SeaeW')'~ of UlUnitedN~~iO'!ls. declaniud( atso soui5fie,.;\=nain p:ovistonct tb•

ISl23/oa ·as 17:40 ttos 2so saso C'IE.U.TK SOL-GEN

A16

SUU:,..enU :
The f«<i.c41?Ubtic:( G=::natyrc:.athatas 1Mc:lb::'
of =:Europc::coa:.mucityittwcra::uC'"~d t:~lt.e
CocmtlilÎcy irtSpo:.tof~ ~ io~ed by mc

CotlventioA.dtrajl d::l:lari:Jooe~awr .nde:t.tofUl~
C..'"'Cpeutnnsferruico tbe~ Communicy willbe
b1d.cill dueco~ in :w:ot'dance wilb the prnvisiotu of
Ar..tlIX oftheCcnvc:ncion.
For che fed=alRcpt~b ofi(cm;cy the lW::b:twe.cn
ParIX of~ Uniw! N.a.tioConventic:oo ttlel.:cCù::eSc:a
of10~ 198'2:lndtbeA.,"Y'!.elrrc:otou94relitin&
~ thei:nplem~:U oc:PartX lio.otne U~ Natioc.s
Convtntion on the I.of~.,Sca ~ for=-suc ~ l (1) a!
th:Agree.'UUI:iC~c:oul..
lnLb ~bse:JŒof2n}'othc~!al ::.a.".bich111.-obld
giVcn tnfennee'bythe Gcvemmenrc! thef~ R....-publiccC
G~y. c.b.Govcmm.eotconsi4ersit~!ul tochooseoae of
chefol.....m~ fortbsettle cf~ipu~~dÛI:ll Ule

inttrprelation or appUnùon ort•OCc=vc:otioo3SiLi.fru
todo u.nàa."'ti-8ï oftbe Coove:u.ion theL.zwotb.Se.:L
in the t'ollQ\Vi:l!ocder:
l. · tb1nt.enUtioc3lTribunalfortheLa,tbaSe.e.uabl~ec1
ina.o:ord.anwilhAnncx VI;
2. a specw :bitralmbunsl c:onsUa i.:n~cr:lorlw~i::
Ar.tla V!U;
:;. the.Intm1ati01l ourt oJustice.
..-.Iin ttcaluence o! lliY otbepc.a.:e.mc.ans.~
~VcttlZl cfcthltFed.en.I R.:;:ubor:Ge.."ltlao:ybueby
re.eozni".esu tod:lthevali.drors~ .arbitntion for any
dlSpa ~onc..-mintbe inte:-;mtaUon or appli.:Jorothe
Convent±onontheLaw oCtheSu reU.tintef'i.!.be.~u:ction
~ pres.ervatior lhe m.ari.necnvl:'t:n.narinscientilie23/08 '8S 17:'2 tros 2soseso C'lŒALTB SOL-GEN

ANNEX4 A17

UNITED

NATIONS
A

General Assembly

A/~.4/L.4J8/Add.l
15 ol\lly lt94

IN"l"ElUU.'l'IONJU. LAW COMMISSION

Fo~y-fifth session
2 May-22 July 1994

t'I:R.R:::POltT OF T.nn'I:RNA:riOWULAJr COMMISSIOil
ON nΠWOR.KOF ITS FOR."l"Y'-SIXSESSION

Capter V

~~~~7:0~ L!AE!L!~ FOR rN:t~:ocrC sONS~QOENC~S
OF AC'!'S NûPROE!!E:-:=:EY L'-"l'ERNATIOWI.t. LAW

A.ddt!mdum

c. Ora:t a~:~~les en inte=na~iona lliabili~y for i~juriou. co~equences
arising out of ac~s not p~o~:ited by ~tern6tional law

l. Tex: of the draft a~ticle srov1sionally adopeed by tQe Commission
so :ar c~ !irsc rea~ing

GE. 94-631.73 (Zl23/0& ·as 17:42
!!OIS 2SO SISO C'I'EA.LTIISOL-GEN
Al8

A/CM.,/L •• 98/Add.2
page 2

c. l:lrû ~rtic:l.es on int:emat:icgal lial:>llity fer ia.juriou.s cc:m-equencea

a.n.~ out: of acta not: prohibited by iAte.r:ational lav

1. T~ of the d.nft: articles provisi=al.ly adopeec! by ~ .C:oaai.saiŒ

ao far on firsc r~g ..•

'1'hetex~ of the àra.ft:articles provisionally ad.opted so far by Che

eommissiou &re repraàuc:ed below.
[OIAPTD I

GENJ:RAI. PJtO\TU'IONS)

Artï,cle 1,

Scope of tbe presen; arcicles

The present: articles apply to activities noe prohibitec! hy i:~ar:&eioaal

law and earried oue ill the t:erri tory cr otherwise unef.:-the 'urisc!ict:icm or

c:cmt:rol of a Stace wb.ich inYOlve a risk of c:ausing aigzûfic:ane ~
harm 1:hrough their physical c:o~equances.

!:;'ticle '2.

For the purposes o! ~e presen: ~icles:

(a.) •risk of ca'..lsi::.si~.:!.!ica t~:ansbol.!nd haaryt~~e•compasses a low

prccability cf causing di.sa.s-:rous ha~ and a. hlgh probal;)ility cf causing oüer
signi!ic::a.."'ha:1:1:

{bl •:ra.nsb.:::u.-.cl.t.arr:'lmea::s harTO c::ausedin e:.het:.erri:cry of or in

o~ner places under the j~is~c~io~ o~ c::cn:~ o!l a Stace other ~ the St&te

of crigin, whecber or co: ~he S:a:es concerned share a eommon corder;

{el ftsca:e or or~s~~· means the s:ace in ehe eerriccry or ocherw18&
un~er~e j~is~ie~io= cr cor.-:r=l ct which che ae~ivicies referred to in

ar:icle ~ are ca:-ried o:.:.':.

... • •

Ar;iele l1
Prior authoriza.eion

S~:es :~hal: e's..'e :~.a ::civieies referred to in article l. are D.Oc

e&rrie~ out in cheir terri-:ory cr ocherwise under their jurisdietion or

co~crol vithout eheir prior au:hori:a~icn. Such authorizatio shall also be

req1.1:!..rin case a major change is planned vhieh may transtorm m1 activiey
in~o one referred co in a~=iele l.23/08 '85 17:43 ttos 25o 5850 C'IEALTH SOL-CEN
Al9

A/CN.4/L.458/Add.2

page 3

Artiele U

R.i•Jc assesatnen;

Before t~g a deeiaion eo auehcrize an aeeiviey referrwd ~ 1:

article l, • se.ee •hall ensure ehae an a.sessmene is u=dertakca of ~ ~iak

of auch ~c:eivi~y Suc:h an usessmenc aball inc:lude an eva1uaticn of the

possible impac: of ~t:.~ctivit yn perscns cr properey &a well •• iD the

envircmnent cf ether St.ates.
Article 13

Pre-existina aaciyicieg

~f a Stace, havicg assumed the oblig~tic~ co:~ed ~ theae articlea,

ascertains tha~ an activity invclving ~ risk o! cauaing ai~!icanc

trans~ harm is already being carried out in ita te~itory or othe~••

under its jurisdic:tion cr ccntrcl wic.hour. the autilori:zaticm. as requ.ired by

a...~ic lle it sha.ll direct those responsible for c:&rryin!J aut the ac:tivity

ella':they muse obea..in che nec:e:n1a:y authcri:aticm. Pending authorizat:io:a., t.ha

S':ate ~y pe~: t:.he cc~":icuati cn the ac:tivity in questio:a. at ics own risk.
A:::-ei::le 1*

~su~~~ ~c p~event cr minimize the risk

St:.at:.es shall t:.akelegisla~ivea ,dminiscra~iv ce ether actions eo ensure

e~~': al1 appro:riao:e meas~es are adcp~ed to prevent cr minimize che risk cf

t::-a.::l.Sbou.-:=.a.:-:o~ .a.::t:.ivit:.ie:s refe::to:i:.darticle l.

~t:.i::l 14 bi~ [20 bis}

I:. taki~;~easu:es to ~reve:. :r ~imi~e a :isk of c:a~sing •igni!ic~t
t:.r~boundar ~y~. S~•t:. ~h~ll e~sure~ha~~he ri5k is not:. simply

t:.~a=s!er:c :!::~-ecd,: ::-i..:::.cli !r:m:- ece~a.r,a. co oancchel: cr trom.s!c~<!

from cne type c! risk i:.:;oar.o:.her.

A.r.:icle 15

Nc~ific~eler. and in!ormation

l. :! t:he assessment. :-eferred t:.c i:~icle l2 ind.ieates a risk cf eauain~

sigr.i.!ic:ant tra=..s:.bol.!!ldL.arm. the Seate of orig"in sha.ll not:.ify vithoue delay

'* 'l'he expressioii. •preve~ :r mi.ni.mi:ze tbe risk• cf transbc:nm.c:lary ha:m in
this and ether &r~icles will be recon.idered in the lighe of the àec:isiOD ~y

tbe C:cnmission as tc "Whether the concept cf prevention i.:a.cludtu, in ac!dieiOD
to measures aimeà at preventing cr miniruizing the ri•k of occur:"ez:u:e of AA
accident, measures taken il.fter the occ:urrence cf an accid.e.nc t:.cprevent:. or
min1m:i.%:ethe h.il.rc:aused.23/08 '85 17:(3 ttoe 25o U5o
C'IE.U.TB SOL-GEN

/}:JO
A/CN.4/L.49B/Add.2
~ge 4

the States likely to be affected anci abal.l tra.c.smit co the.ca the available

tecŒical and ether releva:s.t informatiOD on wb.i=h the &aaeaa'llllent ia baaed an4
an indic:aticm of a rea.sacnable ti.me withizl vhich a reaponae ia requ.irac!.

2. Whe.re it subsequently comes to the Jcnovleclge ct the St:at:a of origizl t.hat

there are ot:her States li.kely to :be affectee:!, i.e ahall notUy ehem vi~ut:

·c!el.ay.

AGicle l.§

Exebanqe of informati01l
Wh.ile t!1e ac:ivity is being ca..rrietiout, the scace.s C:CIIlCer::leahall

ex~ge ~ a cimely =anner all information rele~c co prev.Aciag or

m:inimi:~ the risle of causing •ignifica:c cr:msboW1dary b.ol.:cm.

!±1;icle l6 bisa

Xnformation co the p9blic
S<;a.ces sb.a.l.l,-whene"er possible and by such means aa are appropriata,

prov:ià.e t.heir own pul:.lic li.kely co be affec:ted by an ac:tivity referrec! c.o in

article 1 wi~ informocion relacing co thac activity. the risk tnvolved a:d

the b.a.r.nwh.ich miSfh! re sult:.a."lda.scenain che ir views.

Ar:icle 1'7
Na~io~al sec~~ity and indust;ial secrets

~a:a a=d ~!o~~:ic~ vi~al co ~he na:io~~l seeuricy o! the Scace c~

erisin or co che prote=~io of~ i~us:rial secrets may be wit~eld, bu~~

S~a:e o! origin sball cocperace in gocd :aich with che ocher S~aces~cncerned

i= providing as ~~~ i=fc~~~ion as c&n be provided under the eir~eanee~.
Aro:icle 19

C:::1G-.;.:t:ao:icon prever.tiVI! measures

1. The States conce=ned shall en~er~to consultations, at the request of

any cf ~ern and wi~~ou~ de!ay. wieh a view ~o ae~ieving acceptable solutions

reg•rding measu:es :o be a~p':ed in order eo prevent or mi=imize ehe risk of
cau.sing sig:litic.c.:: ~ra.n.s:=:ou h.&dm,. ..drycooperata in Ùle implement&tion cf

~hese measu.res.

2. Scates sba!l seek se!utior~ based on ~~ equit&ble balance cf ineerescs ~

the light cf ~icle 20.

J. If the C:O::lsulta.ti:ms referred co i.n paragraph 1 fa.:il to prcc!uce an ag-raecl
solu~ion the State o! erig~ shall ne"ereheless take 1ntc acco~e the

interest.s of States likely to be affect.ed and may proceec! wieh the aceivi~ ac

its cwn risk, wi~ut prejudice to che right. of any Stace wi~lding ita23toa ·as 17:44 !rOS 250 5850 C'iEALTHSOL-GEN

A21

A/CH.~/L.451/Add.l
piilge 5

asreemez:lt to pursue such rig!1t• u it may have Œlde.r the•• ~iele• or

otherwise.
.p.rtic:le u

Eights of the State likelv co be affected

1. When no :oti.fic:a:icm ha• been given of an aetivity c:cm4u~e 4n u•

territory or othervisa =.der the juri•di~io orn ecmtrol of a St&te. any ether

seate which has seriOU3 reasan ta believa that the aetivity has creaee4 a risk

of eausillg it signific:ant haral may require ccm.sul:atiOD8 undar a.reiela 18.

2. The State requiring c:=nsultatiocs ahall prOTide tachnical as•••sment
aetti:g forth elle rea.sons for suc:h belief. If the aet1.vity :Ls fo\1:4 ·~o !)e cma

of chose referred to in article 1, the Stace requiriag eonsultatio=a may claim

an equitable share of the c:ost of the u•esstDeAt frOftl cha Stata of origil:l •

.Ar;icle 20

Fac:eors involved in an equitable balance et interests

:tn order tc achieve &n equitable ba.lanee cf interests u referred to i11
paragra.pll 2 o! ar:.ic:le l9, tlle States c:onc:er.led sl:l.all talee illtc aec:oun; &l.l

releva..'"l.fa.c:tor:s a!ld circums:.;m.ces, includi:g:

(a) t.!:le èeg=ee of risk of sis-:-.ific-.r.:c:=;;msboundary ha.rm an4 the

ava.ilabili :y cf mea.J:l.So! p=eventi.Dg or :n..i::.i:!'.isu~:hg risk or cf rep&iring

the ha~:

(b) che impo::-::a cf.~tcl:e ac:o:ivi<:y, t::a.king i.nto acc:o\l:lt:i:s overall

advaneages of a social, ec~~omic ~~d tec~~ica. el~act.er tor the St:ate of
crigin in rela~io~ to -:he poten:ial harm for ~he States likely to ~ ~!!ec:ed;

(c) t.he ris~; of sig:1ific:a:.t harm o:o t.lle environment anc:i the

a.vailabilit.y c! means of ?reve::.:ing or ~~imi:ing suc:h riak cr reseoring ehe

enviromne=J.t;

(d) che ec:otlcrnic viabiliey of t.he accivity in rel~t1cm c.o c.he c:cs:a of

preve:ticn èe~ded. by the Sta:e• likely to be affect:ed an4 ta ehe poss~ility
o! C:L.'"'Ty-ingout the: a.c~ivit eyewhere or by otller means or repl~cin~ ie with

a:l al te::nat:ive ac::.:i.:y;

(e) t:he de~ee to wei~ the States likely to be a!facted are prepare4

t:o coot:ritut:e to :.r~ c:os:s of p:=eventi.on;

(f) the st:anda.rds of protection which t.he St.at.es likely to :be affec:ted
apply to the same clr c:or:Ipara.ble act.ivities a.nd elle standards appUed in

c:o~arabl eegional or internati~'" pla.til.23/08 '85 17:(5 ttos 250 5950 C'IEALTH SOL-GEN

ANNEXS A22

38

SOUTH PARESOURCES REGANO ENVIRONMENTOF THE SOUTH PACIFICKOT~CTION KEGION* NATURAL
(Done at Noumea, New Caledonia, November 25, 1986)
+Cite as 26 I.L.M. 38 (1,87)+

I.L.M. Background/Content Summary

The Convention evolved over more than four years from •
recommendations made as early as 1982 at the Conference on the
.Buman Environment in the South Pacifie:, the Thirteenth South
Pac:i fic: Fe rum. and the Twenty Second South Paeific Conference.
From 1983 through 1985, four meetings of experts were hel~ in the
South Pacifie Commission Beadquarters, following vhieh the
Sec:retary-General of t.he South Pacifie Commission c:onvaned ·..the High
Level Conference on the Protection of the Natural Resources and
Environment of the Sout.h Pacifie Region, beld at the South Pacifie
Commission Headquarters, Noumea, New Caledonia, November 17-25,
l9B6. Frcm November 17-23, senior offic:ials met to draft the texts
of the Convention, the Protocol concerning Co-operation in
Combatinq Pollution Emergencies in the South Pacifie !legion, and
the Protocol for the Prevention of Pollution of the South Pacifie
Region by Dumping. A plenipotentiary meeting followed on November
24-25, at ~hich the three above-mentioned instruments were adopted.
~ustralia,s Cooke Islands,entatMicronesia,were Fiji,ed France, attenKiribati,:
Marshall Islands, Nauru, Ne~ Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New
Guinea, Salomon !slan=s. T~nga, Tuvalu, United Kingàom, United
S:ates, Vanuatu and ~este•n Samoa. It was the und:rstanding cf the
Confe::ence that the Convention •.:ill be open to signature by these
same invi:ees. All excep: Niue, Solomon Islands and Uni~•d Kingdom
a::ended ~he Conference.

?::-ea::ble
Articles

l Geographie Coverage (South Pacifie Region)
2 Definitions
3 Addition to the Convention Area [notification;
objec:icnl
4 General Prov:sions
5 General Ol::::ligaticns [prevent, reduce and control
pollution]
7 Pollution trom vessels
8 ?ollution fron Land-3ased Sources
9 Airbornen Pollutionea-Bed Activities

•(Reproouced fro~ tne ~ex~ prov~ded to Internat~ona Lieqal
Coo~riaIslands,y tFrance,. Marsnallnt Islands,ate.New %ealand,emberPalau,25, United
States and Western Samoa became signatories ta the Convention and
Protocols.
[The text of the convention begins at I.L.M. page 41. The
Protocol concerning Co-operation in Combating Pollution Emergencies
in the South Pacifie Region begins at I.L.M. page 59. The Protocol
for the Prevention of Pollution of t.he South Pacifie Region by
Dumping begins at I.L.M. page 65.] '5'08 250 5850 C'\ŒALTBSOL-GEN
23/08 '8S 17:48

A13

lA V'! ACU'!:D.A.FOUOV! ;
- -

J.ftielt 1

1. ~ Ca~eutia aball •PP11 ta the So•&b lacifia Ja&ia••
hereiuaftel' ref&:Teci CO &1 •the Co'neatio1l uea• U (efiaell Ul J&r&~apla
(a) of article l.

2. Ezc~:p •t ..,. be othuviae pro"''i... la -1 hatocol u cllia
C4uTCtioc. tl:le Coa.vmti4e J.rea ahall =t hcl11ù iatanal -.un or
archipehcie vatera of tba fartiu •• it!iad ia acc:ordaace witb

i.::lceru&ci lw.~a1

DUI!!T!OWS

!or tbc p~:~o•e •f tbia Co:.eutioo a:d itt Jratocala aala11 oth&rviaa
ddi=ed ill ey aueb Prococ:ol:

(i) the 100 nautieal mile zone• ettablitbed io acc:ordauc:e
vit~~te~atioaal law o!f:

.6.=::-i Sa:uQ&
.l.u.atra:i(!&tt Cout and !ala:~dt

to eaa~~rdiuc:ludi~
~~c~~rie !alaud)
Cook !Jlauda Palao
7edera:ed State• of Micro~••ia hpu.a Jcv C\Üau
Fiji litc.irR Ialaud•
7rtucb Pclyueaia Solc.oc Idafld•
c~ 'tok.elau

I.i::iba:i. !ocr;a
!'.trahalll1la::.~a !uv&l'li
Nauru 1'&DU&tu
Rew C1!edonia a::.dDepcude~cie l allia aa.d Jgtuga
!iev zu:a::.d Vuten Samoa
!iue

(ii) tho•e •r~•• of bir;b aeaa ~ic:h ara e:cloaed froa all aiiea \y

tbe ZOO ~auci; ~ile 10uea referred to iD a~parasrap (k);

Ciii) eue o! the l'aci!ic Oc:u: wbicb ha-ye MC bclwl.-1 ia &be
Couventiou Ârr& p~rauau tt article 3ï

- any deli~era: dei1~oea lt ••a of waatea or othe% aac\•r frDa
vcsacl•, air:raft, platfo~ or o~ber -au-aade atruc&urea at aaa;23/08 '05 17:48 eos 25osa5o C'I'EALTHSOL-GEN

A24

- &C1 ~eli)era dipoaal at ••• of Ya&aela. air,rafc, platfo~ or

ether sac-aade •c~ctare at •••i

"4i!mi!i:l&" cloDOt bclucle:

• the cli•polal of -.scca or ocher aattcr iDcicla~ co• lr ••~iYacl

frow the 110~1 operatia11a of yeueh, aircraft. pla~fo~ u ocllu
.. e.._cleetncturea at ••• uul chair eq11ipaeu • other ch&a vaatu
0:' othe: 11L&tUrtrmuportell llyor to .....t.. ab·aatc, pl.acfo~
or othe aa.e--.de ar::rue~ are ••• aperat,ill·10 he pu-rJo•eot
diapoaal of su~b .acter or· ierived f~o. tbe treata&Dt tf ·auch
va•te• or · o~he raccar os auch ..aaaala, airC%aft, plAtfo~ or

structure• i

- ptac~ct of aattet for a purpo•• ocber tb&11 the .. ra cliapoaal
tbe:-eof. provicled t'bat auchplae~t ia eot eoat-rat'J ca tbe ai ..
of thi• Coave11tioui

(c) "v:utea or otb.erutter" uaca uterul au auhata11cei·. ouy kiAd.
form or deac:iptioe;

(d) :=.e fcllo"ia.s,.atea or othar ..ccer &hall lie eoui4ere4 u ~

UQu-ta~ioact ievac: sludce. 4:e4&1 rpoil. fl7 aeb, acric.lcu:al
va1:ca, co~tructio .Ateriale. vesaela. ar~ifiai aeef •uit•iDI
~~erial• and otber •uch .. teriala, p~oYided tbat they .b&Yt DOC
b~en contaminated vith ~adio~~liiea of &Dtbzopo&eaie oricia
(e:cc't dispcraed clob~ allout ftoa aucleat veapoQ&cea:i•c>. 110r

are poteo:i•l eource' of ~tQrally occurrinc radio ouelidea for
c~:-:ia~ ~u~osea, eor have ~~~= eeric:hed ÎD utur&l or
a~ti!i:ia rl:io Dùclidea;

i! :here it a ~uestioa as to vbether che cacerial to ~. •uaped
a~o~: je co:1idc~~u do~-:adioac:iv fcr, the purpo&ca o! ~bis

c~uvc~:io~. auch ~ta:ial aball not be dumped un1e•• the
approp:i~: ac:iocal au:hotit! of t~• propoaed duaper coa!i~ that
auch du:?~~x voul~ cet exceed tb.e icdividual and collective dole
lUti·' of the Icternatio ~aglic ~er11 Aceecy ceaeral pr~ciplea
fe: :~e e:e:?ticc of radiatio~ aource1 acd prac:icel froa
regu:-.~: con.ol. The national authority aball alao take i.Dto

ac:o~:t the relevant reco~~~tioDa, at&D~&rdt &cd &uideliuea
dcve:o?~ by :be :;tc~tiocal •toaic ta.erz1 AgeGcy:

(~) "vess~~• a"d "ai:-c::-a!tsc&Us va:e:-boce or ai:-'!lo:-:e c:-oft&Dy
:~·? whacaoeve:. Thil exp::-usi.cicc1-udes air cuahioce4 catt and

!loa~~o &:aft, vhctbcr sclf-propelled ar 110t;

(~) ~pc!lu:i o au' th~introd~cc by ace, directl7 a~ iDdirectlr,
o: ~~~s:a~c or a cnerzy into the cariee eaYiro=m&Dt (iucludia&
estU4:iea) vhich resulta or ie likelJ to ~eaul iD auch jeleterioua
e!!c:::s•• ba~ co livie& reao~rca aDd .. riDelife, b&za;da to

bu:ag health, bindracce to aariDe actiYitiea, ÏDcludi f~ebitl& az4
o:bc:rlet~ti:& ues of tbe eea, i~airmc11 oc qualit1 for ••• af
a~•~Ater ·~~=~uction of a~enitiea;

1n ·~?lyi :ui, definition to tbe Couvactioa o~li&ati toec•,
Partit' ahall uae their Delt eD4eavoura ~o co-ply vic~ the

•?pro'r~: atandarda and reeo~ndatioua eat&~liah b7 dcoa,ccecc
intc:~:i~~ o-,ciaatioa.s, iacl~di te~~Iateraatio Ataaic
!:o.e:-A~e~c: y23/08 'OS 17:47 '5'08 250 suo C'n:Al.TH SOL-GEN ~ 031

(h) ~irector -.AD• tbe Director of tbe South lacific Jureau for
!co~ic Ca-operatioa.
Article J

~, !art1 ~r add are•• aader ica jariadictioc vitbia tbe lacific
Oceaa bee~eD the Tropic ot C.acer •~• iO 4-zr••• Soue\ t&tiea4e aDi
betvcca 130 Àecree• Z.at toacit•de aa4 1~0 4ecrcea Veat 1oasicu4e to the
Coc•eAtioa Area. Sucb adiitioa ahall be ~tified co the ~epoaica vhoy
aball pro.ptly aotify tbe othet Partie• &adthe Or1aAi~acis oac.barea•
ab&ll be iacorporated vithiD the Coa.emcioa Arca aiact1 4a11 afcer

aatificatioa ta tbe ?artiea by the Depolitary 1 pro•i•ed tbere ~. be~ DD
objection to the propo1al to ad4 aev areaa by aay !arcy &ffaccad by chat
propoq 1. U tberc ia aay 1ucb objeetioa tb Jlartiea "CAilCe-t'D..wi 11
~uault "·it.b .a vievco rcsolviac Che aatur.

Articb 1.

CINE~ ?IOV!S!ONS

1. Tbe Partiel aball cDdeavour to coaclude bilateral or ~ltilaceral
acreC11lenta, hcludi!IC r~ioa.a or aub-t*Sioad acree11eata. for t'be
pro:ection 1 dcvclopcent &Cl! aaa.az-ect a! the .. rille ao4 cea•tal
ecviro~cn ofttbe Coav~tio Aurea. Socb acre~t• a'b.all bco~•lltCDt

vit~ r:bie Cocvcctio: a:d iu accordancc vitb iateraatiall&l lav. eo,iea· ot
1ueb agreement• aball ~e com=ucicated to tbc OTcaaiaaciaa aD4 cbrouch it
to atl ?artiee to thia Cocventioc.

2. Jctbic& in thil Convection or it1 frotocola ab,ll ~. tcemed to
affect obli,atioca au~cd by a Party ucdcr &&~cc~uts prcvioutly
c;oulud~.

3. ~=:~in& i~ thia Conve~tio nd itt ~~otocol aball be coc1t~u• :d
i'rejudic:ear a.Hect t!'lei.rlte~utat !ado&nJ)plication of ac,. provi1iou
o• tcrm in the Cocvcctio o~ tbe Prcven:ioc o! ~rice !ollutiou b!
Dumpill& Ctf liaateland Other H.&cter, un.

4. n.ia Convencico aud it1 Prctccoh aball 'be c01Utnae4 Ua acc:orciaQce

"'i:b i:lte,~t~na hl •cutin& to their tubject ~~a:ter.

5. Nothi~ = tbia Cocve:tioc and its Protocols ahall preju~ic tbe
~reae~t o: futu:e c;laima and le&al ~icvs o! au,. Party coucer:iac tbe
"Cature actde1te: ~:~ritillj leo~ri,dic::ioa.

6. Nctti~& !~ this Ccov~~ti 'hcll a!!ect the aovareicn ri&ht of

St&tEI to cr?loi:, ôevclop aod -.cale thci~ ova aatural ~eaoureea
pu:•u.ut to :h~ir ova poticie•, takiu& i:to accou:c tbcir tuty to protect
&cd preaerve tbe enviroa=eat. !ach !artJ ahall ea•ure t'bat actiYitie•
vitbia it• juri•~ieti oracoatrol do QOC C&Yit ~ .. ,.to &~e eavironaeat
cf otber s:ate• or o! are•• beyo~ tbe l~ita of itl aacioual
jurüdic:ioo.

"rtich 5

G!StRAL O!L!GATIONS

1. Tbe ?a::ie• 1hall ~e•~our. eitber iftdiYidually or joiDt11• to
take &11 at~proprm iua:ae~.~ irucoa!cnaitr vit~iaurnatio~ lavl &ad iD23/08 '8S 17:47 1!08 2SO S8SO C'lEAL TB SOL-GEN

A26

aooo aa feaaible. ••~ ot~er couaerle• ... territorie• a_. tbe
Orsaaua tioa af aay .ea.ur.. i.tlt.aeitulf calta to reiuce or coatrol

polla~i GTa cbe tbreat tbereof.

J.rtielt u

1. !be Partie• •cr•• to 4.welop &B4 .. lacalD, vith ~ aaaiataoe• of
ccnçctCilt clob&l, reci.oaal ... aab-reciou1 •rsaai .. ciou •• reqaettecl,
teehaical JUÏ4eliAea &Q4 le1i1latioa JiTÏDC adeq&&ta eapb&aia to
euri.:oJDe a~d~tcial fac:on 'o fa~li.uu hlace.l •eTelo,._t of
their na:Rral reaoarcea &Ddpla:ain1 of t~eir .. jor projecta ~icb -isbt

&ffec:t the -...riDeewi~o=e2: b1t wch a va1 •• to pr_.ct o: •iùaiu
har=.ful impacta oa the Coa.e~do t.rea.

2. Eac:ll !art1allall. vithm iu c:•'Pabil!daa, aaaeu t~e ·.. potnd.al
effec:ta of ~rac phojecu n the aa.riAe G"'in..-e.c, •• tuc &p~opd.ace
~uw:u &:&Il be t&kea ev pre•mt uy aabatatial poUatioa of • or

aipifiea~ cl ba~d c:haasu witllizl.tbe CoDYe~ti .o.u.

3. iith respect to tbe aaaea~t refe~e4 to iD parartapll
lartt a!all. Ybere appropriata. ilrYite:

(b) oth~r Partie• that aay be &!fected to coaaalt
vi~ i: &tldaW.it C:CIIC:I~U.

~e rea~lt• cf tbeae aaaetr.:enta aball ~e ~:ieated to the

O~ga~i~tion ~icb aball aLke the= available to i:tereatP e~~tiea.

SC!!:~In:C ~ T!c:Hl{!CJ.I. CO-oPD.AT!OI'

1. !be Partie• ahall co-operate, citber iireccl7 or vith the
aaaiatato l~~cc=pete:t &lobal, re,i.o~ and au~qi.oli orA lai..atioDa,
in acieutifi: reaear~h uviroameutal ~uitor~c. &Dd the ~chance of
data a..r::o~ber acieutific and technic:al iûonL~tio ~elated to r.he
rurpoae• of t~e CQaveu:iou.

2. ln additio~ ,he Partie• aball, for th& parpoaea of tbia
Couve:tion, cle-velop aue! cet-crdwte ruearc:h aü .aaitoriq prop-&1111111CI
relatiug to tbe Convention ~rea and c:o-opcrate1 •• far .. practica~ loe.
the uubli•a~t and i-Ple1BC1Stati.o:of rccioaal aub~e,ioli .adl
1
i:teruatio~ reaearc:h progra==ee.

A:otiel$.18

Tbe larties unclertake to ~-operate directl7 aa4 vbao approp~i&te
througb th• competent JlObal. regioD&l &DdIUb-re1ioaal O!'J&Di.. tiOA1 iD
tbe proviaioo to otbcr Partiea of techaical •~ other aaaiat&aee iD 23/08 '85 17:48 '!!08 250 5950 C'iEALTH SOL-GEN

A1.7

/

CéJHV!:PrtiOHq! tA nom:tiOH

bts Rb$13CCRCE I3'!l!R;;tt.sttsPE L•miRorŒ;m;NI
DE J..A RE:ïiOR 00 !'ACIEIOUStiD

lf..~Diœ:C lOftSCID'~ "eSa valeur kocŒiqaa et :soaiale
des r-es=l=rces œtl:relle d~ :ilieu ma...-1cde la r&gion c!u

Pae.it'iue Sud;

PREll!...1:1iCONSTilERAtiOH le~ tra::!tio:~ et l e:s~:ctlr as des
peuple3 du Pacifiq~e, ~co:le~cou~~es et U$ages sont la
manit'enatioc;

CONSCI;J!n:s ds la re:poo33.~ili G1.:!.lecr 1:comb• da
sa.t:ve;arderleu.:-~tricoi.t cae~ureè lao~ l' 1oté!"êt et pour
l, agrécer:: c1e.sgéoé:a~iocs :z.ctu~le :t.à.vetir;

RrCO,~!:SS! lel.fr ea::-aeté:-istiques .!:Iy<!:"ologiques,
béolo'~~es et écolo~ue' ~ticuli~es de la région qui
e::::::igede~in:~pa:-ticclie e:-u:le gestioc écla!.rée;

1180/S623108 ·es 17:48 ttoa 2so seso
C'IEALTB SOL-GEN

A28
4

A.rt1cle ;remi et

ZOKE D'APPLICAIIOM

1. La présente Coz:rraation s'applique l la l"c\liOa ela Pac:i.t'iqaSud.,
ci-aprù d6z1c:ll:=t~z.c daaaplicat.ioracle la Coavect!cn~ tel• qu' eJ.l•

est d.ét'im.• aupar~apbe a) de l' &l"t1ol.• 2. ·

2. Saut disposition c:oatz-air-cie l a!l quelcouque 4es prctoc:ol•• t la
prb&nte CoaYention, la :oce cla~p11eati deOla ConTention De aŒprand
pas les ea.u:1ntc\rieu r:~les eaux ar~pilalicta des Parties cJU1.:1es
eoctorm~t au dl'cit iZ~terœtional. 23/08 '85 17:,8 "5'08 250 5850 C'I'EALTH SOL-GEN
~055

A29
,

f
. Œmmou.

!g: t'1= de la prbente COavent1on et de aes prctocolea, et aaut
cU.:po:.it.i.a:u::~Ua de1rlw QuelcoDque de cea p-ot.oool.es'

a) O::aentecd pa.rllzor1ed'applieation de la CaZI\'ent1ou•:

1) les :oces c!es 200 mill•• aarina 'ta'blies co~orcéœen at.dl'"oit
int.erŒtional. aa luge de :

nes Ccok
Australie (Côte est et tles
de la c::ôte est,1
cœprl~ 1·•ne
!'..acquarie}

!ta~s fêdéré:s de Micron~si.e Pol)"llisietranqa1M
F.t.dji Ile Pitcait"Zl
Geam nes Salcmou
I.i~ibati Salnoa améica.ices
IJ.es t-'.ar!a.nnd:~Nord Samoa-OccideBtal
nes 1-'..a~sl:l.all Tokelau
Nacru !o:oga
Ni-ce Tuvalu
Souvelle-c:~édc:i et Va.:~~u
Oé~endartce~
No:.:ve'!.le-~:é:acde

?z.!.au
l
1
\ ~-

1

1

1
123/os ·es 17:4t ttos 2sosaso C'I'EALTB SOL-GEN ~056

A30

ti) les :oae~ de bau~e mer e:clav6ea cSan.le~%OG~a des 200 ailles
11aril!Yi.a~ l 1' al.1n6i) c:i-4e~~;

11.1) l&S %oaea 411l'océa:s hc:1!1que CllaiCDt lté 1Acluses ~a=a la

zoz:zc!application de la Co%2VeaUo cu:oBt'ormb erla:- t1cle
3:

- tout. rejet clil.i~ cléts"lé mer de cl6cbetset autres aati.èrea •

partir cle navires, a6ronets, plates-tormea ou autres ouTrages
plaeu ec =•r;

- tout aabcrdase en mer ~e navires, a4roaets, platea-torces ou
a~trea o~Yra~e slacés en mer;

- le rejet de déeb.et"cu autres ;~at1êr r'sultant ou provenaDt de
l'explo1tat~ oormale de navires, aironets, platee-ro~• ;
autres eUYra&es plac~s cc mer, ainsi qae de leur lqu1pemec~ .
l'exeeptiou des d&chets ou autres aati~res traDsport6s par ou
traasbor~6 sur ~es Dav1res, a~~onets, plates-tor=es ou autres
c'C"'fT "lc~s en mer qui sont utili.s ~our l'1mmet"s1oc C:• aes
mati~res ou prcveuant ~u t~a!te~eat de tels dêchets ou aut~es

matières i berd desdits ~avires, a~~cne!s, plates-formes ou
ouvrages;

- le dépôt de ~atières l de3 rios autre~ que leu~ s1mple
Ui=iŒtioc sous ré:set""Veq1~l:t~ dapôt ce :soit pas tcecm,a ti ble
avee l'objet de la ~ré~e~~e Co:vcc!1oc;23108 ·as 17:so ttos 2so saso C'WEALTS HOL-GEN

A31

c) Or:aer:ateDd par •c!iebets et autres mati~re~ ea aatér1•ax et ·
su'b.su.. dz:ttetetne, de to~te t'ermeet de toute ~~atw-e;

d) L=s d~et.s cu autres ll&t1k'es au1Teta scDt ecr:asic!uls ~cm11e J:lcn
rac!ioactit& : ~ues c!'igoiit,diblais de drap&e, ceadres volantes,
4êcheta ap-icol~, =aUri~ de COl:lstructicD, :avires, matiz-1aax
ut1Lis6s pour la ~r6at1ou de barr1~r•• artit1c1elles et autres
matéri&a% semblables qu1 a•oat paa 't' con~am1nta par des

radioc~clé1de d'oric1ce artitic1ell• (saar les retom~ées
pl aDétaires dispersés risul tant de 1 e%p&-iaentat1 on d ,·armes ·
cucl"'-ires), ae sont ~ des soaroes pcteDt1·ellea de radionuclUdes
d' or1g1ne :c.a.turc:utilisée l dea rtu ecar:meroialea et a• out pa a
étêenrichies en radionuclMdes xaaturels oa arut'1c1els;

a' ily a en doate quant au caractère == roac!1oactit' cles ma.tik-·.4

!.=merpr, au~ !:i.ns dla pr!:~ec Cte:ovectioD, ellesne peUYeat ltr•
immergées 5au~ si 1'agtorit6 aationalc comp6tente de pays
emisaseant cette opéf"'a~ co0:rrmeque l'1Ders1oa ae dépa:s~ait.
pas les lim.ites de do:ses ~lleetive st 1i»c!it'1c!aelle$ ticurandaa.s
les PriDeipes sénéraux dit'in:iepar l' lgeDc• i~teriSat.io puarle
l'énergie ato=1qge ec mat~êre de ~1spease de v6ri~1cat1on
régle::eo.ta:i1'pour les utilisations et sources de rayonnements.

L'a~~crité uaticcale tiect égalecent compte des ~ecommanèat1cas,
co~es et directive :~i~e$ au po!~t par l'Agence 1nternat1cgale
pour 1'~er.:te a.:a;~: o:e:a ::at!. ère.23tos ·as 11:so ttoe 2souso
C'I'E.U.TBSOL-GEN

A32
8

e) O'Dact.eDd. par -navires et alronet ~· les v!h1oulea c.1rc:ulaz:at aur
1reau ou d&Aal'air de quelque :ype que ce soit, 1 ccmpr1a les
vlb1.culu S\r coas~a c!ûr et les ez:ad,zsstlottaz:ataut~propulaéa
OU DOD:

t} CD ente ad par •pollution" l' iDtroductioa direete ou iadir-ec:te s;a:­
l'homme daas le •ilieu ma~ia (y coapr1a les estuaires) c!c
sa"tances oa c!'éaersi• lor~qa •lle a· ou peut aYoir c!as et'tats
auisibles :els que : dc:mmaces aux ressources ~1olo&1que et l la
tauue et la tlore •arines, ris~aes pour la sa~ti c!e l'homme,
eatraTes aux activités maritilles, 1 c:Œpria la plc:he at les autres
vtil.isat1oc.s l6pt.imes de la me:-, alUratioa de la ~ua11t de l'eau

de mer d~ ~o1nt de vue da son ut1liaat1ca at digradatioa des
valeurs d'agr-ément;

.1. ~.ins ciapplication de cette c!it'1nit1ozau~ oblipt.1oas priYue ·~
pa:- la prbente Cc:vention, les Parties s' ctrorcent 4e .:. coa.tormer
ac: nor=•• et recom=an4at1oas appropriées des or&anisat1ons
tnter:aticnales eompêtc~te e~ cotamme~ de l'Ase:c• icternatioA&le
de l' bergte at:C%1.ique;

C) Oll e!lte!ldpar "Orpt::i$3tion• la Cmmhsica du Pa.c:itiqueSuc!;

11
h) On •~ter: p.rd "Directeur- , l• direeteur du !ureau de eoop~atioa
éeonc:ci.que du hci..!i.queSud.23/08 '85 17:51 'a'08 250 5950
C'iEALTH SOL-GE.'i
A33
10

2. Lorsqu'une Pa~tie a connaissance 4'ua cas dans le~ael la ;one
d'application de la Ccu:rveDtiODest ec daqer 1Dicect c:!'êtr-epolluie oa a
6ti polluée, elle en 1nton~e sans 4ila1 les aueras pays et territoires
qu• elle estime suscept.ihl.es d'être touehb par cette pcl.lut1on ainsi que
1
l 0r-pnisatioa. En outre, elle i~crme, dès qu'elle est ea. mesare de le
!ail-e, ees pays et territoires ainsi que l'Orpmsatioz:a de toute mesur-a
;::oise parelle pour réd.ui ~uecom~a ttre la pollution ou le r1sqae de
pollatio=.

EV1LUAIION Pt L'IMPACT SU~ L' MIBONNMU

1. Les Parties eonvieunent d'élaborer et de tenir i jocr, le c&s
~cbéa~t avec l'assistance des organisations ~oodiales ,' 0 1oaales
cocp~te~te de, directi~ tecbc1ques et des lë,islations douna~t le
poids qu• il coAvient aux t'acteurs 6cologiqaes et so~aax en Yue de
taciliter 1me =i!Wl en val.eur éqaili.brhe de lenra resscu:rees DatW"el.l.es et
de platt!!"ier leurs grands projets qui pounaient a-voir une inc:1denoe sur

le z:ilieu :ari.c, c!e l:lalllèta.e:pêche:- ou mim.m.Uez- les ertets Zlirutes
de cetu:-ci 4a:~ la :o::e d'appliea.tiar: de la Corrvectioc.

2. Cbaque Partie éValue, eg toc=tion èe ses =apaoités, le~ erret~
potentiels de ces projet~ sur le ~il1e~ marin, arir: que des mesures
a;:pr-~;:r puéaeut être prises I'Ot;préveni:- toct.e pollt:tiau impo:rta.cte
o~ codir~catio~ $1gc!ficative et ~ui~!b~e èu milieu marin de la :one
d' a?plieatio:: de la Co:C'""e::-:io::.23/08 '85 17:51 .ttos 25osuo
C'WEATl.B SOL-GEN ~060
A34

3· ED ce qui Cj)Doarne lu êmuat1ons vis~es au paragraphe 2, ebaque

?U~1• 1w1 ~·, le cu icb6a.Dt. :

a) le public à to'Mil:ler desobaeJ"Yat:ioDscoz:arot'NmeŒ
t .aes proc64Œ-es aat1ouales c!e cc:n~sultaUcm;

b) les autres Parties QU1 peweŒ être toucbies l
se caueert.er a'l'tcelle et l soamettN c!cs remarques.

1
Les réacltats de ces 'val.Œtious :ont cœllluni~u 4f:s0rpl1isa~oD qui
les met l la disJ)Osit1o~ des Pa!"ties1ntiressies.

Ar:ticle lT

ÇOO'PERAtiOH SCMIMQtlE Et T!CB1liQQE

1. Les P&rties coopèr'e:t directement entre elles ou aYee le oozaooars
des crgani:sat1ons monciiales. rég1ocales et sous--r~onale cs:cap,ten~as,
dans les domai:es de la l"eeherabe scieDt.1!1qae, 4e la ~1ZM'tlll. aAce.
l'earircnnement et 4e l'êcba~ce de donnies et au~res rens•iCDemeDta
scientir1~ue ets tccbniques relatirs aux objectir~ de la pr~seDte
Ccnvectioo.

2. tc outre, au% !1ns de la prése~te ConYection, les Parties
él&boretlt et cccrdoc.ne:rtde~p:-ogratc de:~e!slerche et de surveUla~ce
rel~ti!s à la ZODe d'appliaatioo de la Conv~ntion et ooopèl"eD entre
ell~s, dans l• mes~re du po~sible, à l'êtablisse=ent et i la aise en
ce~vre de ~rogl"~mes de recbe~c~e régiocau%, sous-régionau~ et
icterr.!io::~aux. Annex 2 to GEN95/79

AMBASSADOR EMBASSY OF AUSTRALIA
THE HACUE

23 Aug 95

His Excellency Dr Eduardo Valencia-Ospina
Registrar
International Coun of Justice

Peace Palace
2517 KJ THE HAGUE

Your Excellency,

I have the honour to refer to your letter of 21 August 1995, indicating that New Zealand has

submitted to the Coun a request for an examination of the situation "arising out of a proposed
action announced by France which will. if carried out, affect the basis of the judgement

rendered by the Court on 20 December 1974 in the nuclear tests case (New Zealand v.
France)". Y our letter states further that New Zealand requests the Court to indicate certain
provisional measures.

1have the honour to transmit to you an application by the Govemment of Australia for

pennission to intervene in those proceedings under the tenns of article 62 of the statute of the
Coun.

The Government of Australia has appointed Dr Gavan Griffith. QC. Solicitor-General of
Australia. as its agent. and I certify th:.Jtthe signature on the application is that of Dr Griffith.

1have the honour final! y to:.Jcivi.\ethat the :.1cicfor service is this Embassy.

Accept. Y our Excellency. the :.Jssurances of my highest consideration.

'

' 1 . \_ \·""----
1 1 \'.A.~l"._..t
1 ''-
\

The Hon M.C. Tate

Ambassador to the !\'etherbnds Annex 3 to GEN95/79

SOLJCITOR-CEOFAATRALIA
Fax No: 61-6-250 5950

23 August 1995

f~E?~

1 have the honour to refer to théApplication dated today by the
Government of Australia for permission to intervene under the terms of
Article 62 of the Statute in proceedings in the Nuclear Tests Case (New
Zealandv. France), following the submission to the Court by New

Zealand of a Request for an Examination of the Situation and a request
for the indication of further interim measures.

Australia would wish to make clear its desire for an opportunity to appear
as intervener during proceedings relating to the New Zealand request for
the indication of provisional measures. Australiaespectfully requests the
Court to permit it to argue its application for permission to intervene at a

sufficiently earty time to make this possible if permission to intervene is
granted.

At the same time, Australia would not desire by the circumstances of the
intervention to give rise to inappropriate or significant delay in the hearing
of the New Zealand request for provisional measures.

ln this context, it may be useful to indicate in advance that Australia is
prepared actively to cooperate in respect of whichever procedures the
Court may decide to adopt to meat the exigencies of the situation of
urgency. For example, Australia would be prepared to accepta position
whereby it wouId be·permitted to make submissions to the Court in
respect of its application for permission to intervene prior to the hearing of
the New Zealand request for the indication of provisional measures on
the basis that the Cj:>urtmight not be in a position to rule on the matter of

its interventionntil after the New Zealand application for provisional
measures is heard. Of course, in that situation Australia also would
desire to place before theCourt a short submission on the matter of
interim measures, so that its views would be before the Court in its
consideration of the New Zealand request. -t.'- " -

ln summary, Australiewould wishto assurethe Court of its anxious
cooperationto ensurethat a situationof avoidable delay does not arise

by reasonof îtsintervention.

Please accept, Sir,the assurancesof my highest consideration.

Agent forthe Governmentof P. stralia

His Excellency Eduardo Valencia-Ospina
Registrar
InternationalCourtof Justice

Peace Palace
2517KJ
THE HAGUE
NETHERLANDS

Fax: 0011 31 70 364 9928