Student Data

 Name: Juan Sebastian Vásquez Parra

 Id: 0000082740
 Activity: Case Brief
 Professor: Carlos Arévalo Narváez
Identification Information
Nature of the case Contentious
Reference Nuclear Tests case (New Zealand vs. France),
ICJ
Institution International Court of Justice
Date Judgment of 20 December 1974
Key Words Nuclear Test, New Zealand, France, Unilateral
acts; applicant subsequently publicly
Facts
1. Prior to the filing of the Application instituting proceedings in this case, the French
Government had carried out atmospheric tests of nuclear devices at its Centre
d'expérimentations du Pacifique in the territory of French Polynesia, in the years 1966,
1967, 1968, 1970, 1971 and 1972.
2. The French government has created “safe zones” to exclude aircraft and shipping from
the test areas.
3. New Zealand asserted that French atmospheric test has caused some fall-out of this kind
to be deposited, inter alia, on New Zealand territory.
4. France argued that the production of radioactive material has been infinitesimal, and this
material cannot be affecting the health of population of New Zealand.
5. France has not agreed the request of New Zealand to put in end the nuclear test, and
New Zealand government decided proceeding with the dispute to the International Court
of Justice.
Legal issues
- The conduct by the French government of nuclear tests in the South Pacific region that give
rise to radioactive fallout constitutes a violation of New Zealand rights under international
law?
- It does exist a controversy in the present case?

Rule of Law
 Audi alteram partem principle
 Customary rules of relevant statements and unilateral acts from States
Holding and reasoning
 The Court started arguing that certain issues like existence of dispute was very important
for solve the case, same as issues of competence. According with the last, the Court
interpreted the claim from New Zealand was to ask the French government for stop the
atmospheric nuclear tests.
 The Court observes that, according with declarations from the French government, more
precisely of the minister of foreign affairs and the president of French working as head of
state which say that the nuclear tests was done before 1974.
 For the Tribunal, the previous statements had the quality of unilateral acts, which confers
the character of legal and, when these declarations had the element of publicly, those
 are binding, which was observed in this case because the declaration of the president
was exchanged with the New Zealand government through a letter.
 In these circumstances, nothing in the nature of a quid pro quo, nor any subsequent
acceptance of the declaration, nor even any reply or reaction from other States, is
required for the declaration to take effect, since such a requirement would be
inconsistent with the strictly unilateral nature of the juridical act by which the
pronouncement by the State was made. Moreover, The Court analyzes that principles like
good faith, pacta sunt servanda and international co-operation was involved into the
declarations.
 The Court considers that the President of the Republic, in deciding upon the effective
cessation of atmospheric tests, gave an undertaking to the international community to
which his words were addressed, which means that the unilateral acts had the character
of binding and erga omnes.
 Thus, the Court faces a situation in which the objective of the Applicant has in effect been
accomplished, because the Court finds that France has undertaken the obligation to hold
no further nuclear tests in the atmosphere in the South Pacific.

Conclusion
If the declarations of France concerning the effective cessation of the nuclear tests have the
significance described by the Court, if they have caused the dispute to disappear, all the necessary
consequences must be drawn from this finding. However, the Court having found that the
Respondent has assumed an obligation as to conduct, concerning the effective cessation of
nuclear tests, no further judicial action is required.