- •Casebook of The Jessup Competition
- •Krasnodar, Russia
- •Table of Cases
- •International Court of Justice (icj) 4
- •International Court of Justice (icj) East Timor Case (Portugal V. Australia): Judgment of icj, 1995
- •The Ambatielos Claim (Greece V. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) (1956)
- •Nuclear Tests case (Australia V. France): Judgment of icj, 1974
- •North Sea Continental Shelf cases (Federal Republic of Germany V. Denmark; Federal Republic of Germany V. Netherland): Judgment of icj, 1969
- •Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium V. Spain) (New Application: 1962) icj
- •The Corfu Channel Case (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland V. People's Republic of Albania), icj
- •Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua Case (Nicaragua V. United States of America), International Court of Justice (icj), 1986
- •Construction of a Wall Case (Advisory Opinion), icj, 9 July 2004
- •Oil Platforms Case (Islamic Republic of Iran V. United States of America), icj
- •La Grand Case (Germany V. Usa ), icj, 2 March 1999 Germany brings a case against the United States of America and requests the indication of provisional measures
- •Avena case and Other Mexican Nationals (Mexico V. United States of America), International Court of Justice (icj), 31 March 2004
- •Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary / Slovakia), icj, 17/02/1997 - 7 December 1998
- •Arrest Warrant Case of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo V. Belgium). International Court of Justice (icj), 14 February 2002.
- •Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo V. Uganda), I.C.J., 2005
- •Asylum (Columbia V. Peru), Merits, 1950 I.C.J., 20 November 1950
- •Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru V. Australia), I.C.J., 1992
- •Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada V. U.S.), I.C.J., 1984
- •Elettronica Sicula s.P.A. (elsi) (u.S. V. Italy), 1989 I.C.J.
- •Fisheries Case (u.K. V. Norway), 1951 I.C.J.
- •Frontier Dispute (Burkina Faso V. Republic of Mali), 1986 I.C.J.
- •Interhandel (Switzerland V. U.S), Preliminary Objections, 1959 I.C.J.
- •Kasikili/Sedudu Island (Botswana V. Namibia), 1999 I.C.J.
- •Minquiers and Ecrehos (France V. U.K.), 1953 I.C.J.
- •Nottebohm (Liechtenstein V. Guatemala), Preliminary Objections, 1953 I.C.J.
- •Implications for international law
- •Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco (France V. United States of America), 1952 I.C.J.
- •Sovereignty over Pedra Branca/Pulau Batu Puteh, Middle Rocks and South Ledge (Malaysia V. Singapore) 2008 I.C.J.
- •Temple of Preah Vihear (Cambodia V. Thailand), Preliminary Objections, 1961 I.C.J.
- •Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, 1975 I.C.J.
- •Ss Wimbledon, p.C.I.J., Series a. No. 1, 1923
- •The Facts
- •The Applicants
- •The respondents
- •Jurisprudence
- •Russian Claim for Interest on Indemnities (Russia V. Turkey), Permanent Court of Arbitration (picj), 1912
- •Island of Palmas case (Netherlands, usa), Permanent Court of Arbitration (picj), April 1928
- •Payment of Various Serbian Loans Issued in France Case (France V. Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes), Permanent Court of International Justice (picj), 1929
- •The “Societe Commerciale De Belgique” (Belgium V. Greece), Permanent Court of International Justice, 1939
- •The Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Greece V. Britain, Permanent Court Of International Justice (picj), 1924.08.30
- •Reports of International Arbitral Awards (r.I.A.A.) Territorial Sovereignty and Scope of the Dispute (Eritrea V. Yemen), Reports of International Arbitral Awards (r.I.A.A.), 1998
- •Mexican Union Railway Company Claim (United Kingdom V. Mexico), February 1930, 5 r.I.A.A.
- •Chattin case, b. E. Chattin (United States.) V. United Mexican States
- •Other International Cases Trail Smelter (Canada V. United States): Arbitral Tribunal, 1941
- •Tinoco Claims Arbitration (Great Britain V. Costa Rica), Tinoco Claims Arbitration (1923)
- •Rainbow Warrior Case (New Zealand V. France)
- •Background
- •The Case
- •Consequences
- •National Cases Government of Democratic Republic of the Congo V. Venne: Supreme Court of Canada, 1971
- •Inter-Science Research and Development Services Ltd V. People's Republic of Mozambique: Full Transvaal Court, 1980
Rainbow Warrior Case (New Zealand V. France)
Difference Between New Zealand and France Concerning the Interpretation or Application of Two Agreements, Concluded on 9 July 1986
Between the Two States and which Related to the Problems Arising from the Rainbow Warrior Affair (1990) 20 R.I.A.A.
The Rainbow Warrior Case was a dispute between New Zealand and France that arose in the aftermath of the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior. It was arbitrated by UN Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar in 1986, and became significant in the subject of Public International Law for its implications on State responsibility.
Background
On 10 July 1985 an undercover operation conducted by the French military security service (DGSE) sank the Dutch-registered Greenpeace ship Rainbow Warrior berthed in Auckland Harbour. The Greenpeace ship was planning to disrupt French Nuclear tests on the islands of French Polynesia. New Zealand subsequently caught and convicted two members of the French secret forces.
The Case
Even though the actions of the French state were not a threat to "international peace and security" as held by the UN Charter due to their limited objectives and impact, they were widely held to be acts of international delinquency comprising breach of sovereignty and espionage (though peace time espionage is not covered by international law). The French memorandum to the secretary general argued that Greenpeace was engaging in "hostile actions" and "illegal penetration" of French territory around the test site and New Zealand acted as a platform for those actions. These arguments were rejected as not fulfilling any of the criteria of international law pertaining to the use of force.
State responsibility
In such cases where a state sends its agents abroad to commit acts which are illegal under international or municipal law of the target country, it is customary for the state to take responsibility for the act and issue compensation. However its agents are usually granted immunity from local courts. In this case however, New Zealand managed to call out the French state under international law and try its agents under its own municipal law. See also the Caroline affair on the responsibility of states vs the responsibility of their agents.
The Ruling
France, having admitted responsibility, focused its efforts on the repatriation of its servicemen. This was agreed to by New Zealand on the condition that they would serve out the rest of their sentences. A compromise was reached by the mediation of the UN secretary general to three year sentences on the French atoll of Hao (at a French naval base). France ultimately returned both agents to mainland France and freed them by May 1988, after less than two years on the atoll.
In terms of reparations, France initially offered an official apology and acknowledgement of breach of international law. Additionally, the UN secretary-general awarded New Zealand 7 million USD. This is in addition to compensation which France paid to the family of the only victim of the mission and to Greenpeace (settled privately).