Nuclear Test Case NZ and Australia v France

On 9 May 1973, Australia and New Zealand each instituted proceedings against France concerning tests
of nuclear weapons which France proposed to carry out in the atmosphere in the South Pacific region.
France stated that it considered the Court manifestly to lack jurisdiction and refrained from appearing at
the public hearings or filing any pleadings. By two Orders of 22 June 1973, the Court, at the request of
Australia and New Zealand, indicated provisional measures to the effect, inter alia , that pending
judgment France should avoid nuclear tests causing radioactive fall-out on Australian or New Zealand
territory. By two Judgments delivered on 20 December 1974, the Court found that the Applications of
Australia and New Zealand no longer had any object and that it was therefore not called upon to give
any decision thereon. In so doing the Court based itself on the conclusion that the objective of Australia
and New Zealand had been achieved inasmuch as France, in various public statements, had announced
its intention of carrying out no further atmospheric nuclear tests on the completion of the 1974 series.

Brief Fact Summary. Australia and New Zealand (P) requested France (D) to put an halt to atmospheric
nuclear test in the South Pacific.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Declaration made through unilateral acts may have the effect of creating legal
obligations.

Facts. A series of nuclear tests was completed by France (D) in the South Pacific. This action made
Australia and New Zealand (P) to apply to the I.C.J. demanding that France (D) cease testing
immediately. Before the case could be completed, France (D) announced it had completed the test and
did not plan any further test. So France (D) moved for the dismissal of the application.

Issue. May declaration made through unilateral act has effect of creating legal obligations?

Held. Yes. Declaration made through unilateral acts may have the effect of creating legal obligations. In
this case, the statement made by the President of France must be held to constitute an engagement of
the State in regard to the circumstances and intention with which they were made. Therefore, these
statement made by the France (D) are relevant and legally binding. Application was dismissed.

Discussion. The unilateral statements made by French authorities were first relayed to the government
of Australia. There was no need for the statements to be directed to any particular state for it to have
legal effect. The general nature and characteristics of the statements alone were relevant for evaluation
of their legal implications.