Written Replies to Questions put by Judges

COUK INTERNATIONALEDE JUSTICE

MEMOIRE SLAIDOIRIES ET DOCUMENTS

AFFAIRE DE CERTAINESTERRES
A PHOSPHATESÀ NAURU

(NAURU c.AUSTRALIE)

VOLUME III
Contre-mémoirede l'Australie; procédureorale;
réponsesaux questionsosrespoilda;docurnenr

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS

CASE CONCERNING
CERTAIN PHOSPHATE LANDS IN NAURU

(NAURU vAUSTRALIA)

VOLUME 111
Counter-MernoriofAustralia ; Oral Argum;nts
Replies to Quest;Correspondencc; Docuinent Riférenccabrégke
CI.1 Mirnoires,CerlafnesterresriphosphàlNaetru
(Nauru cAusrrulievol.III

Abbreviatedreferen:e
I.L:l Pleading, ertainPhosphaieLandirNauru
(Nauruv.Ausrrali,Vol.III

de vente:

ISSN 0074-4433 Sales number 836 1
ISBN 92-1-079938- 1 AFllRE DE ÇERTA1,NESTERRES
A PHOSPHATES A NAURU
(NAURUc. AUSTRALIE)

CASECONCERNING
CERTAIN PHOSPHATELANDS IN NAURU
(NAURU v.AUSTRAL1A) COUR INTERNATIONALDEJUSTICE

MEMOIRES,PLAIDOIRIEET DOCUMENTS

AFFAIRE DE CERTAINES TERRES

À PHOSPHATESÀ NAURU

(NAURU c. AUSTRALIE)

VOLUME III

Contre-mémoirede l'Australie; proc;dureorale
réponsesaux questions; correspoiidance; documerit

INTERNATIONACOURT OF JUSTICE

PLEADINGS, ORAL ARGUMENTS, DOCUMENTS

CASE CONCERNING

CERTAIN PHOSPHATE LANDS IN NAURU

(NAURU vAUSTRALIA)

VOLUME 111
Couilter-Mernorial of A;Oral Argume;ts
ReplietoQuestions ; Corresp;nDocument VI1

L'affairede Certainesterresà phosphates à Nauru (Nauruc Australie), inscrite
au rôle gintral de laCour sous le numéro80 le 19mai 1989, a fait l'objetd'un
arret rendu le 26juin 1992(Ceriuinesterra iphosphates à Nauru (Nauru ç dus-
rrulk),exceptionsprilirninarres,arrêt,C L6 Reclreil1992,p. 240).El Teen a été
rayée parordonnance de la Cour du 13 septembre 1993, la suite du désrste-
mcnt par accord des Parties (Certaines lerresti phosphates ù Nauru (Nauru c
AirslralieJ,C.LJ Recueil1993, p 322).
Les piécesde procédurerelatives cette airaire sont publiéesdans l'ordre sui-
vant.

Volume 1.Requêteintroductive d'instance de Nauru; mémoirede Nauru
I VolumeII. Exceptions prcliminairesde l'Australie; exposkécritde Nauru sur les
exceptions prLliminaires.
Volume III. Contre-mémoirede l'Australie; procédure orale sur les exceptions
I préliminaires,réponsesécritesaux questions, choix de correspondance; docu-
ment présentéà la Cour

*

I Au sujet de la reproduction des dossiers, la Cour a décidéque dorknavant,
quel que soit le stade auquel aura pris fin une affaire, ne devront êtreretenus ri
fin dc publication que les piècesde procédure écriteet les comptes rendus des
audiences publiques, ainsique Ics seuls documents, annexes et corrcspondaiice
considérks comme essentiels à l'illustration de la décision qu'elleaura prise En
outre, la Cour a demandéexpressémentque, chaque fois que les moyens tech-
niques le permettraient, les voluines soient composésde fac-similésdes pieces
déposées devant elle,en l'étatoù cllesont été produitespar les parties.
De ce fait, certaines des pièces reproduites dans la présente éditionont été
photographiées d'aprèsleur prkscntation originale.
En vue de faciliterF'utilisationde l'ouvrage,outre sa pagination continuehabi-

tuclle, le présent volumecomporte, en tant que de besoin, entre crochets sur le
bord intérieurdes pages, l'indicationde la pagination originale des pieces repro-
duites et occasionnellcrncnt, entre parenthéses, la pagnation du document
original.
S'agissantdes rcnvoisdu Greffe,les chiffres romains gras indiquent le volume
de la présenteédition;s'ilssont immédiatementsuivispar une référence de page,
cctte rékence renvoie à lainouvelle pagination du volumc coiiceriié. En
revanche, les numérosde page qui sont prccCdCsde l'indication d'une piècede
procidure visent la pagination originale de ladite pièceet renvoiciit donc ri la
pagnation entre crochets de la piècementionnée
En ce qui concerne les exposésoraux. la pagination originale est précédédeu
numérod'ordre des comptes rendus distribuéssous forme multicopiéeprovisoire
sous la cote ÇR411-- et, pour les reiivois, c'est aussi à la pagination corres-
pondante placéeentre crochets sur le bord intérieurdes pages qu'il faudra se
reporter

Ni la typographie ni la présentationne sauraient êtreutjliskesaux finsde I'in-
terprétationdes textes reproduits

I..Haye, 2004.VI11 CERTAIN PHOSPHATELANDS IN NAURU

The case conccrning CertainPhosphatel~nds InNauru (Nauruv. AustraliaJ~
entered on the Court'sGeneral List on 19 May 1989under Number 80, was the
subject of a Judgment delivered on 26 June 1992(Certain Phosphale land.^in
Nauru (Nuirru v. Austraiiu), Preliminary Objections, Judgment,1.C.J. Reports
1992, p. 240) The case was removed from the Listby an Order of 13September
1993, followingdiscontinuance by agreement of the Parties (Certain Phosphate
Landsin Nuilru (Naurin v. Atistxalaa),1.C.J Reports 1993,p.322).

The pleadings in the caseare befng publishcd in the followingorder :
Volume 1 Application instituting praceedings of Nauru; Mernorial aî Nauru.
Volume11.Preliminary objections of Australia, ivritten statement of Nauru on
the preliniinary objections.
Volume III. Counter-Memorial of Australia; oral arguments on the preliminary
objeclions; written replies toquestions; select~on of corrcspondence, docu-

ment submitted to the Court.

Regarding the reproduction of case filcs, the Court has decided that hence-
forth, irrespectiveof the stagat which a casehas termiiiatcd, publication shouId
be confined to the writtcn proceedings and oral arguments in the case, together
with those documents, annexesand correspondence considered essentialto illus-
trate its decision. The Court has also specificallyrequested that, whenever tcch-
nically feasiblc, the volumes should consist of facsimile versionsof the docu-
ments subiliitted toit,in the form in which they were produced by the parties.
Accordingly,certain documents reproduced in the present volume:have been
photographcd from their original presentation.
For ease of use, in addiuon to the normal continuous pagination, wherever
necessary this volume also cuntains, between square bra~kets on the inner
n~arginof the pagcs, the original pagination of the pleadings reproduced and

occasion;illy,within parenthcscs,the pagination of the original document.
In refcrencesby the Rçgistry,bold Roman numerals areuscd to referto Vol-
umes of this cdition, if they arc imrndiately followedby a page reference, ihis
relates ta ttie new pagination of the Volumein question. On the other hand, the
page numbcrs whichare precedcd by a referenccto one of the pleadingsrelate to
the original pagination of that pleading and accordingly referto thc bracketed
paginatioii of the docunient in question.
In the case of the oral atgumeiits, the original paginationispreceded by the
number of the verbatim records as issued in a provisional duplicated form and
çarrying the reference CR91I-- and it is also lothc corresponding pagination
between square brackets on the inner margiii of the pages that one should refer
for al1cross-references
Neither the typographynor the presentation may be uscd for the purposc of'
intcrpreting ihe texts reproduced.

The Hague, 2004.WRITTEN REPLIESTOQUESTIONS
PUT BYMEMBERSOF THE COURT REPLY BY AUSTRALIIA TO A QUESTION
PUT BY A MEMBEROF THE COURT

The second question addressed to Australia by Judge Shahabuddeen on
19 November 1991 referred to a statement made by Professor Jimkncz de

Aréchagaon Monday, 11November and asked :
"What was thelegal basis of the responsibility for meetingthe cost of
rehabiliration, which Australia said it did not decline, but on the contrary
had met in thc manner described?"

Australia has never assumed a legcll sesponsibility for meeting the cost of
rehabilitation. It did, however, acknowledgc that thc Nauruans genuinely
believed that the Partner Governments had a moral or political responsibility,
and it is this responsibility which they havein fact met.
The moral or political character of this responsibility appears from the cir-
cumstances of Australia's acknowledgment of it. There is nothing unusual in
Governincnts accepting responsibilitieswhich are not legal.
In his speech, P~Q~~ssoJi~ménezde Aréchagarcfcrred to a statement by the
Chairman ofthe WorkingCroup setupby the Partiier Govcrnmciits andNauruaii
representativesin 1966to examine theDaveyCommi ttee Report. Thai stateintn
concernedAustraliak responsibililyfor ineetiiig thecostof rehabilitation.
The Head Chief had imrncdiatelypreceding this statement

"commentecion the Nauruan vicw of thc responsibility of the PartGav-
ernments to restorc thc mlned lands. [The] Head Chief said- What the
Nauruan people were seekingis Governinent acceptance of thcir responsi-
bility but how Ihe Governments finance th~sresponsibility is up to them.
However in the eyes of the Nauruan people this responsibility is not dis-
charged if the:Nauruan people receiveless from the phosphate in orderto
enable the Governments tameet their share of the costs of rehabilitation."
(Australia'sPreliminary Objections,Vol. II, Ann. 7, p. 34, para. 14.)

The Chairman's response was as follows:
"The Chuirinmremphasised that the Government was not saying thai it
did not takc any rcsponsibility formeeting the cost of rehabilitation, but

it would do this by ensuring that the payments to the Nauruans would be
suficiently generous to enable al1expenditure neccssary for thc long-terln
welfare of the Nauruans, including rehabilitation if they decide uit,to
be mei." (Ibid.p 34,para. 15)
To this the Head Chief replied:

"that the Nauruan pcoplc, having dccidcd upon rehabilitation, cansidered
it a matter of principle that the Governments shouId accept responsibility
for rehabilitation of the areas already inined. He said that as there was
not an acknowledgment of this responsibility he could nol see that any
advantage would be served by the Working Party discussing the Technical
Committee'sReport." (Ibid., p. 35, para. 16.)

The record leads to thc followingconcliisions.First, thawastthe Nauruans,
~iot the Partner Governnîents, who first raised this matteoî responsibility,502 CERTAIN PFIOSPHATE LANDS ININAURU

secondly,that Nauru saw this responsibilitas the responsibilitof al1the Part-
ner Governments, not just Australia, and finally,and most iniportantly, it was
not said that this was a legal responsibility. Rather the responsibility of wbich
Nauru spoke was a moral, politicaor even an economic one. In any event, that
is clearIyhowit was treated by the Partner Governments.The Head Chief spoke
of what seemed fair "in the eyes of the Nauruan people" and the Chairman, of
payrnents "sufficientlygenerous for their long-term welfare, including reha-
bilitatian if they decide upon it". There is absolutely no sense in which the
Nauruans were asserting any kind of lcgal responsibilityYou will find no
refercncewhatsoevertu the Trusteeship Agreement.
Further, this understanding is cornpletely consistoit with the sratçrnent made
by rhe Spccial Represenrativeof the Administering Authority in the Trusteeship
Counal inNovember 1967. In tcrms similar ro those of the Chairman of the
Working Group, the Representativealso acknowledgd that the Parlner Govern-
ments had a responsibilityto see that the financial arrangements €orNauru were
sufficient to enable the Nauruans to provide for their future. He added that he
considered the arrangements which had in fact been madc were "just" and "as
Caras one could judge" that they wouId be "ample" (Australia's Preliminary

Objections, Vol TI,Ann. 28, para. 402).
What is more, even in these present proceedings,Nauru has thought toinvoke
moral considerations to lend support to itsclaim. Thus, it assertstontitsvrew
it would be "neither fair nor equitable for Australia noto abdicatç its respon-
sibility to rehabilitate the phosphate lan(CR9 1118,p. 28).
And, as Australia has already noted iii its written and oral proceedings,
although Nauruan representatives asserted this responsibility before indcpen-
dence, they did not assert that thc failure to meet ir 'wouldamount to brcach of
the Trusteeship Agreement assuçh.
The acceptance by the Partner Goveriiments of sdmc gcneral responsibility of
this nature was pcrfectly natural. It is truc that, under the TrusteeshAgree-
ment, the Partner Governments as the Administering Authority undertook to
mect certain broad obligations. It was, however,for them to decidc in their dis-
cretion how these obligations inight bestbe fulfilled That is, the Pdrtner Gov-
ernments cauld choose how to meet their legal obligdtionsand were not required
to adopt any specificcourse, provid~ngthcy ultimatelysatisfied their obligations
under the Trusteeship Agreement.These oblrgations were, after all, obligations
of result.
Furtherrnore, in exercisingtheir administering authority, the Partner Govern-
ments necessarilybrought with them tlieir own understanding of an appropriate
moral, social, political and economic order lhey, therefore, brought with them
an acceptance of a host of broad moral, political and economic responsibilities.
The discharge of these responsibilitieswas clearlnqta matter of law,although
in keeping with the basic objectives of the Trusteeship system as laid down in
Article 76 of the United Nations Charter.504 CERTAIN I'HOSPHATELANDS IN'NAURU

Sya similar excrcisof the legislativeauthority ialsorepealed the extant
German lawsregulatingthe conduct ofmining;whichhad rcquircd a degree
of rchabilitation of mined lands and the payment of compensation to the
landowncr No attempt was made by AustraEiato replace them with any
equivalent safeguards (see generally,Nauru MemorialVol. 1.paras. 512-551
10-11; paras.54-58 al
at pp. 188-189 ;ibid., Part 1, paras. 22-27 at 'pp.
pp. 22-23, paras. 63-68 at pp. 26-28; paras 80-100at pp. 33-38; see also
Nauru Written Statement, paras. 10 and 11 atpp. 7-81,
(e) The Nauru AGE 1965 whichestablished a LegislativeCouncilon Nauru and
the Nauru Independcnce Act 1967were exclusivelyAustralian legislation.
(f) The defencc of Nauru was a matter exclusivelyof Australian concern
(g) The international agreementswhich were applied to Nauru wére a selcction
of international agreementstowhich Australia was a Party.
(hl Every Annual Report to the League of Nations, and later to the United
Nations General Assemblywas presented by Australia, and orally dealtwith
in the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations and the
Trusteeship Council of the United Nations by the Auslralian delegation.
(il In 1450sand 1960sit was Australia which was instrumental in reporting on
the feasibilityof Nauruan rehabilitation through an Australian Government
agency, namely the Commonwealth Scicntific and Industrial Research
Organisation,and then thmugh the Davey Cornmittee.
(j) Australia called for increasing tonnages of phosphate for the beneoftits
own agriculture.
(k) Neiv Zealand and the United Kingdom, thc other former Partner Govem-
ments, recognized that the actual responsibility for administration of the
Territory wasvested in Australia (see cg. the statement by Mr. Shaw of the
United Kingdom, United Nations Trustceship Council, OfJiciul Records,
13th Special Session,132Jrd meeting, p.4,para. 30).

4. In the light of the legal considcrations set forth in the written statement of
the Republic of Nauru and during the oral hearings, Nauru 1sentitledto pro-
ceed against any one of the three States responsiblcfor thcir acts and omissions
during thc currcncy of the Trusteeship in Nauru ,
5. In these circurnstances,the Republic of Nauru'toak the policy decision to
proceed against AustraliaaIone. By this decisioniihas not in any way waived
its rights under international law to alteriiative rcmcdics,including its Indepen-
dent right to procccd against New Zealand and tlie Uialted Kingdom, as has
been clarifieci by the diplomatic notes dcspatched ~byNauru Government on
20 May 1989 to both New Zealand and the United Kingdom (sce Annex 80,
Numbers 29 and 30, Nauru Memorial, Vol. 4, pp.'565-5 7h1) presentnon-
exerciseof its rights to alternauve ren~edies,in Nauru'sview,has no bearing on
the separate responsibility of Australia in the current praceedings, or on the
receivabilityof Nauru's claims in these proceedings,or on questions of judiciaI
propriety, or on the merits of Nauru's clams againsr Australiü. There exists no
rule of international Iawrequiring a State to bring simultaneous proceedings
against al1States whichrnight possibly be held concurrently liablc iil rcspcct of
particular damage. This is true u forttor rhere the proceedings are brought
against the principal wrongdocr as they have been in the presecase.