Handbook on BIM principles from NZDescription complète
An analysis of 'Dreamers of the Dark' by W. R. van Leeuwen (Roel van Leeuwen). The thesis has been withdrawn from the University of Waikato website and library after complaints were received…Full description
FRANKLIN BAKER COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. HONORABLE CRESENCIO B. TRAJANO, DIRECTOR OF BUREAU OF LABOR RELATIONS, FRANKLIN BAKER BROTHERHOOD ASSOCIATION (TECHNICAL AND OFFICE EMPLOYEES)-ASSOCIAT...
propertyFull description
Case Digest
2017 bar examinations
oFull description
Tax2 Digests
Full description
intellectual property law case digest copyright, trademark, patentFull description
3
NUCLEAR TESTS CASES: AUSTRALIA v FRANCE, NEW ZEALAND v FRANCE JUDGMENT OF 20 DECEMBER 1974 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE Fac!: France was a signatory to the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Treaty and thus continued to conduct tests in the South Pacific until 1973. The test conducted led to the filing of protests by ustralia and New !ealand. By a letter of 9 "ay 1973# recei$ed in the %egistry of the &ourt# the 'bassador of ustralia to the Netherlands trans'itted to the %egistrar an pplication instituting proceedings against France in respect of a dispute concerning the holding of at'ospheric tests of nuclear weapons by the French (o$ern'ent in the Pacific )cean. The pplication was at once co''unicated to the French (o$ern'ent and all other States entitled to appear before the &ourt was notified of the pplication. The French (o$ern'ent stated that# it considered that the &ourt was 'anifestly not co'petent in the case# and that it could not accept the &ourt*s +urisdiction. The "e'orial of the (o$ern'ent of ustralia was filed and was co''unicated to the French (o$ern'ent. No &ounter,"e'orial was filed by the French (o$ern'ent. -n the course of the written proceedings# the following sub'issions were presented in the pplication/The (o$ern'ent of ustralia as0s the &ourt to ad+udge and declare that# for the abo$e,'entioned reasons or any of the' or for any other reason that the &ourt dee's to be rele$ant# the carrying out of further at'ospheric nuclear weapon tests in the South Pacific )cean is not consistent with applicable rules of international law. nd nd to )rder that the French %epublic shall not carry out any further such tests./ -t is asserted by ustralia and New !ealand that the French at'ospheric tests ha$e caused so'e fall,out of this 0ind to be deposited on within their territory. France has 'aintained in particular that the radio,acti$e 'atter produced by its tests has been so infinitely s'all that it 'ay be regarded as negligible# and that such fall,out does not constitute a danger to the health of the people.
I!!"# I!!"# hether or not a dispute s till e2ist between New !ealand# ustralia and France t hat the &ourt can ad+udicate. $#%& $#%& The &ourt finds that France 'ade public its intention to cease the conduct of at'ospheric nuclear tests following the conclusion of the 197 series of tests. I '! (#%% )#c*+'-#& .a &#c%a)a'*! /a&# (a * "'%a#)a% ac!, c*c#)'+ %#+a% *) ac"a% !'"a'*!, /a .av# .# ##c * c)#a'+ %#+a% *%'+a'*!3 D#c%a)a'*! * .'! '& /a #, a& *# a)#, v#) !5#c''c3 W.# ' '! .# '#'* * .# Sa# /a'+ .# &#c%a)a'* &#c%a)a'* .a ' !.*"%& #c*/# *"& acc*)&'+ * '! #)/!, .a '#'* c*#)! c*#)! * .# &#c%a)a'* &#c%a)a'* .# c.a)ac#) * a %#+a% "&#)a'+, .# Sa# #'+ .#c#*). %#+a%% )#6"')#& * *%%*( a c*")!# * c*&"c c*!'!# ('. .# &#c%a)a'*3 A "&#)a'+ * .'! '&, ' +'v# 5"%'c%, a& ('. a '# * # *"&, #v# .*"+. * /a&# ('.' .# c*# * '#)a'*a% #+*'a'*!, '! '&'+3 -n '&'+3 -n these circu'stances# no subse4uent acceptance of the declaration# nor e$en any reply or reaction fro' other States# is re4uired for the declaration to ta0e effect# since such a re4uire'ent would be inconsistent with the strictly unilateral nature of the +uridical act by which the pronounce'ent by the state was 'ade. s was obser$ed abo$e# to ha$e legal effect# there was no need for these state'ents to be addressed to a particular State# nor was acceptance by any other State re4uired. The ob+ects of these state'ents are clear and they were addressed to the international co''unity as a whole# and the &ourt holds that they constitute an underta0ing possessing legal effect. The &ourt# as a court of law# is called upon to resol$e e2isting disputes between States. Thus the e2istence of a dispute is the pri'ary condition for the &ourt to e2ercise its +udicial function5 it is not sufficient for one party to assert that there is a dispute# since /whether there e2ists an international dispute is a 'atter for ob+ecti$e deter'ination/ by the &ourt. The dispute brought brought before it 'ust therefore continue continue to e2ist at the ti'e when the &ourt 'a0es its decision. -t 'ust not fail to ta0e cogni6ance of a situation in which the dispute has disappeared because the ob+ect of the clai' has been achie$ed by other 'eans. -f the declarations of France concerning the effecti$e cessation of the nuclear tests ha$e the significance described by the &ourt that is to say if they ha$e caused the dispute to disappear# all the necessary conse4uences 'ust be drawn fro' this finding. Thus the &ourt concludes that# the dispute ha$ing disappeared# the clai' ad$anced by ustralia and New !ealand no longer has any ob+ect. ob+ect. The &ourt therefore therefore sees no reason to allow the continuance continuance of proceeding proceedings s which it 0nows are bound to be fruitless. hile +udicial +udicial settle'ent 'ay pro$ide a path to international har'ony in circu'stances of conflict# it is none the less true that the needless continuance of litigation is an obstacle to such har'ony.
