| |
[p324]
The International Court of Justice,
Composed as above,
After deliberation,
Having regard to Articles 48 and 62 of the Statute of the Court,
Having regard to Article 69 of the Rules of Court,
Having regard to the Application by New Zealand filed in the Registry of the
Court on 9 May 1973, instituting proceedings against France in respect of a
dispute as to the legality of atmospheric nuclear tests in the South Pacific
region, [p 325]
Having regard to the application of the Government of Fiji dated 18 May 1973
and filed in the Registry the same day, by which the Government of Fiji
submits a request to the Court under the terms of Article 62 of the Statute
of the Court for permission to intervene in the proceedings instituted by
New Zealand against France,
Makes the following Order:
1. Whereas the application of Fiji by its very nature presupposes that the
Court has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute between New Zealand and
France and that New Zealand's Application against France in respect of that
dispute is admissible;
2. Having regard to the position taken by the French Government in a letter
dated 16 May 1973 from the Ambassador of France to the Netherlands, handed
by him to the Registrar the same day, that the Court was manifestly not
competent to entertain New Zealand's Application;
3. Having regard to the fact that by its Order dated 22 June 1973 the Court
decided that the written proceedings in the case should first be addressed
to the questions of the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the dispute
between New Zealand and France and of the admissibility of New Zealand's
Application;
The Court,
by 8 votes to 5,
Decides to defer its consideration of the application of the Government of
Fiji for permission to intervene in the proceedings instituted by New
Zealand against France until it has pronounced upon the questions to which
the pleadings mentioned in its Order dated 22 June 1973 are to be addressed.
Done in English and in French, the English text being authoritative, at the
Peace Palace, The Hague, this twelfth day of July, one thousand nine hundred
and seventy-three, in four copies, one of which will be deposited in the
archives of the Court, and the others transmitted to the Government of
Fiji, the Government of New Zealand, and the French Government,
respectively.
(Signed) Manfred Lachs,
President.
(Signed) S. Aquarone,
Registrar.
[p326]
Judge Gros makes the following declaration:
I have voted against the deferment of the consideration of the document
filed on 18 May; the question could and should have been settled
immediately, and independently of the problem of the Court's jurisdiction
in the case referred to in the operative paragraph of the present Order, by
a finding to the effect that the document in question does not comply with
the provisions of Article 62 of the Statute of the Court, concerning
intervention.
Judge Petren makes the following declaration:
Being of the opinion that the Court should have given its decision on the
application of the Government of Fiji at the present stage of the
proceedings, I have voted against the deferment of the consideration thereof
to a later phase of the case.
Judge Onyeama makes the following declaration:
I voted against the Order because in my view the application to intervene
should have been considered on its merits now and not put off; for quite
apart from what is postulated by the application itself, there is the
immediate question whether, in the absence of a jurisdictional link with
France, Fiji can intervene in a case in which France is impleaded.
Judge Ignacio-Pinto makes the following declaration:
I do not share the opinion of the majority of the Court to the effect that
consideration of Fiji's application to intervene in the cases concerning
Nuclear Tests (Australia v. France; New Zealand v. France) should be
deferred. There is no treaty link between France and that State capable of
authorizing such intervention on the latter's part.
An examination should consequently have been carried out at the present
stage to determine whether the application was well-founded or not, and it
is my view that deferment to a later phase of the proceedings was in no way
justified; I accordingly cast a negative vote.
(Initialled) M.L.
(Initialled) S.A. |
|
