374 NUCLEAR TESTS
1" juin 1973.
Me référantàma lettre du 29 mai 1973 à laquelle j'avaisjoint lecompte rendu
de l'audience ~ubliaue tenue Dar la Cour le 25 mai 1973en l'affaire desEssais
nucléaires(~;srrolie c.~rancé) ainsi que le texte d'une question de M. Gros
poséepar écrit à l'agent du Gouvernement australien, j'ai l'honneur de faire
tenirà Votre Excellence copie de la réponse faite par l'agent du Gouvernement
australien et,à toutes fins utiles, une traduction franqaise de cette réponse,
établiepar le Greffe.
77. THE CO-AGEN T FNEW ZEALAND TO THE REGISTRAR
1lune 1973.
In accordance with your letter of 29 May addressed to the Agent of the
Government of New Zealand, 1have the honour to transmit herewith theanswer
to the question put ta the representatives of New Zealand by Judge Sir Hum-
phrey Waldock al the hearing of 25 May.
Atrswerro the QuestiorrPur ro rhe RepresenrarivesofNew Zealand by Judge Sir
Humphrey Waldock al the Hearing of 25 May (p. 141, supra)
ludge Sir Humphrey Waldock asks for an explanation of the position of the
New Zealand Government regarding the status today of the provisions of the
1928General Act, and of New Zealand's Instruments of Accession to that Act,
which relate to the Council of the League of Nations. It will be convenient to
deal first with the relevant provisions of the General Act itself, and then with
those of New Zealand's Instruments of Accession.
There are Iwo provisions of the General Act which relate to the Council of
the League. Article6, paragraph (i), provides that the appointment of members
of a conciliation commission shall. on the reouest of the oarties concerned. be
entrusted to the Acting ~resident'of the ~o;ncil of th&League of Nations.
Article 43 empowersthe Council of the League of Nations to invite States no1
members of the Leaaue to accede to the General Act
In his statement made to the Court on 25 May, the New Zealand Agent ob-
served, in reference to the second of these provisions, that the Council's power
to invite non-members of the League to accede to the General Act "will
obviously have lapsed". In the view if the New Zealand Government, this will
also be true of the powers entrusted to the President of the League Council
pursuant to Article 6 of the General Act.
The considerations on which this view mainly depends are the demise of the
League itself, the absence of any action-whether taken in a United Nations
context or otherwise-to effect or recognize a transfer of the powers reposed in
the League Council and its acting President, and the decision of the United
Nations General Assembly in 1949 to establish a revised General Act, which
would confer oowers on United Nations orrrans. but would leave undisturbed
the provisions-and operation of the 1928 A;.
In the viewof the New ZealandGovernment, therefore,Article 43 and Article CORRESPONDENCE 375
6 of the General Act, in so far as they purport to entrust powers to the League
Counciland toits actine President. are now without effect. Theseare asoectsof
the impairment of the &icacy of ihe General Act, which the United Nations
General Assembly recogniz.d without adopting the view that the Act had lost
its force.
There would appear to be ample justification for the position taken by the
General Assembly-and by the parties themselves through their involvement
in the Assemblv'2.nroceedines. In oarticular. as the New Zealand Aeent n-ted
in his statement to the Court, there are numerous instances in which League
treaties havesurvived the laoseof the oower to invite adherence: and the powers
entrusted to the acting ~re~identof the League Council were not central to the
procedure for appointing members of conciliation commissions.
New Zealand's Instrument of Accession to the General Act contained two
reseriations-numherd re\peciiiely (2)and (3) and set oui in Annex V io the
Applicaiion-uhicti relaie IO the Council of the Ledgue of Nations In broad
terms. thesestioulations reservedto New Zealand a oower to require, in certain
circumstances,'that the operation of the procedures laid down- in the Act be
suspended in favour of the procedures provided by the League Covenant.
The New Zealand Government of course recognizes that the imoairment of
the efficacy of the General Act, which stems from the demise of théLeague of
Nations, extends to reservations that specifically relate to the League. The
maintenance of such reservations does not disturb the balance of advantage in
-
relations with other parties; for it is the Court. not the author of the reserva-
tions, which determines their meaning.
Amonn the reasons for maintaining the reservations are the following: they
reflect an-unchanging New Zealand policy; their wording is in keeping with the
frame of reference in the text of the General Act itself; and no change in cir-
cumstancescan have causedthesereservations to become incompatible with the
continued operation of the treaty instrument to which they relate.
As the 1948and 1949 debates in the General Assembly have shown, parties
which had attached the same or similar reservations to their accessionsto the
General Act have no1 doubted the continuing force of these accessionssince
1946.This has beentrue even of parties such as the United Kingdom and New
Zealand which retained oolitical doubts stemmina from the fact that the Act
Iay oui\ide the Cotenant and Chsricr sysicnij. Thc vamepai\iiiun ha; becniskcn
in rcldiion IO iliors de;Iaration, <ifacceptan~eof the iompulwry juridiction of
the Permanent Court of International Justice which were subject to a reserva-
tion relating to the Council of the League.
For the reasons mentioned, it was submitted ta the Court at the hearing of
25 May that it was not necessarvfor New Zealand at the oresent stage of the
proiceJing, IO urge any pariicdlar iieu ot' th' euci clTc~iai iis rescrtations.
Indecil, the Nc\i Zesland C;oicrnmïnt hclic\es ihai. in ihesepro;eedings. iliiiII
neser bciume necc\vars ta resol~eth;ii quejiiim. Wiih ihir qualiti.'aiion. il mas
be helpful to indicate ihat the New zealand Government inclines to the view
that the reservations relating to the League must now be regarded as without
legal effect
The ground, for thi, vieu are ihi>ie already adJu;eJ in reldti<~n IL!the ques-
lion or the proper conrirusiion of Ariiiles h and 43 of the Gcneral hii. The
\Cr) fsi<;t5ihat tlic Learue Coun:il no longer e\ists. ïnil ihai na1action ha, been
taken-through the United Nations or-otherwise-to effect or recognize a
transfer of the Council's functions to a corresponding United Nations body,
would seem to militate against any attempt to provide the reservations with a
UnitedNations connotation. At the sametime, the New Zealand Government376 NUCLEAR TESTS
would not be concerned to resist such a construction if it were urged in aPi-
lateral context by another Party, becausethat construction would accord with
the spirit in which the reservations were made and have beenmaintained.
78. LE GREFFIE RU MINISTRE DESAFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES DEFRANCE
4juin 1973.
Mc rtfcrant i ma lettre du 29mai 1973 i laquelle ,'s'ais joint lz iompte rendu
dcs ~iudicnceïpubliques que la Cour a renuei Ics24ci 25 mii 1973dxni l'affaire
de, t.'\roisnrrrlr'ai(NoeiL~llr~-Z<'lut ~~Ii~»rr .j'ai l'honneur d'adrewr i
Voire twïllence copie de13 repone C~ritcfaile par lecoagent duGou\~erncment
nco-7clandair a la question posee p3r ~ir Iluniphrey Waldoik d l'audience du
25 mai.
Je transmets en outre i Votre Excellence, à toutes fins utiles, la traduction
française de cette réponse,établie par le Greffe.
79. LE GREFFIERAU MINISTREDES AFFAIRES ÉTRANGÈRES D'AFGHANISTAN~
5juin 1973
J'ai adressé à Votre Excellence, avec ma lettre du 22 mai 1973, le texte im-
primé de la requêtepar laquelle le Gouvernement australien a introduit le 9 mai
une instance contre la France (affaire des Essaisnucléaires) t j'ai en outre fait
tenir à Votre Excellence, par ma lettre du 23 mai 1973, le texte imprime de la
requêtepar laquelle le Gouvernement néo-zélandais aintroduit le 9 mai une
instance contre la France (affaire des Essaisnucléaires).
J'ai l'honneur J'çnioyer ci-joini Votre C~cellen~e. i tuutei !in< utiles, un
chcniplairc ,les requCici fin d'inier\entionau\ ierme, Je I'art~ilc hZdu Siaiut
de 13 Cour aue le Gou~ernemcnt de f-idii ï dCiiosCcsles 16et IX mai 1973dans
.
les deux affaires relatives aux Essaisnucléaires.
80. THE AGENT OF AUSTRALIA IO THEREGISTRAR
18June 1973.
1 have the honour to refer to the oroceedines in the Nuclear Tests case
-
(Ausrralia v. France).1 have the honour, further, ta refer ta the request for
provisional measuresof orotection lodged on 9 May 1973 by the Government
of Australia in those oroceedines and to the oral statements in suooort of that
request put on behalf'of the ~oiernment of Australia at the hearings of 21.22,
23 and 25 May 1973. In that request and in those statements the Australian
1 Unecommunicationanaloguea kt6adressé aux autresEtats MembresdesNations
Unies et aux Etats non membresdesNations Unies.
Answer to the Question Put to the Representatives of New Zealand at the hearing of 25 May 1973