## Facts

- France conducted atmospheric nuclear tests in French Polynesia beginning in the mid-1960s.
- Australia alleged the tests caused or risked radioactive fallout on Australian territory and threatened the environment and public health.
- Australia filed an application on May 9, 1973, seeking declarations that further atmospheric testing was unlawful and an order requiring France to cease such tests.
- Australia invoked ICJ jurisdiction under the 1928 General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes and, alternatively, the ICJ Statute’s optional clause declarations.
- France asserted the Court lacked jurisdiction and did not appear or participate in the proceedings.
- On June 22, 1973, the Court indicated provisional measures requiring France to avoid tests causing radioactive fallout on Australian territory pending final decision.
- While the case was pending, senior French authorities issued public statements that the 1974 series would be the last atmospheric tests and that future testing would be underground.
- On December 20, 1974, the Court addressed whether these declarations resolved the dispute as framed by Australia’s claims.

## Issues

1. Whether France’s public unilateral declarations to end atmospheric nuclear tests after the 1974 series created binding international legal obligations.
2. Whether those declarations eliminated the dispute’s object, so the Court should refrain from deciding jurisdiction, admissibility, or the merits despite France’s non-appearance.

## Decision

- The Court (9–6) concluded that France’s public statements constituted unilateral undertakings intended to be legally binding.
- Because Australia’s application sought to prevent future atmospheric tests, and France had bound itself not to conduct such tests after 1974, the Court held the application no longer had any object.
- The Court determined it was not called upon to decide the case, including questions of jurisdiction, admissibility, or the legality of the tests.
- The earlier provisional measures were rendered moot by the Court’s disposition.

## Legal Principles

- Unilateral declarations by a state may create binding legal obligations under international law when made publicly and with an intention to be bound.
- No reciprocal exchange, acceptance by other states, or response is required for a unilateral declaration to have binding effect if the declaration is intended as a legal undertaking.
- The binding character of a unilateral declaration depends on interpretation of the statement in its context, with attention to the state’s intent; the form (oral or written) is not determinative.
- When subsequent events satisfy the objective of the applicant’s claims, the Court may find the case has lost its object and decline to rule on jurisdiction or the merits.

## Conclusion

The Court treated France’s public assurances ending atmospheric nuclear testing as legally binding unilateral obligations and, because those obligations met the relief Australia sought, held the case had no remaining object and declined to issue rulings on jurisdiction or the substantive legality of the tests.


Nuclear Tests (Austl. v. Fr.), 1974 I.C.J. 253 (Dec. 20)