## Facts

- France conducted atmospheric nuclear tests at Mururoa Atoll in the South Pacific beginning in the 1960s, raising concerns about radioactive fallout.
- New Zealand claimed the tests endangered public health and the marine environment and violated international law duties regarding radioactive pollution.
- On May 9, 1973, New Zealand filed an ICJ application concerning the legality of French atmospheric nuclear tests in the South Pacific.
- New Zealand invoked ICJ jurisdiction under provisions of the ICJ Statute and, among other bases, the 1928 General Act for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.
- France rejected the Court’s competence, declined to participate, and asked that the matter be removed from the Court’s list.
- On June 22, 1973, the Court indicated provisional measures calling on France to avoid tests causing radioactive fallout on New Zealand territory pending judgment.
- In 1974, France made public statements indicating the 1974 series would be its last atmospheric tests and that any subsequent tests would be underground.
- The Court issued final judgment on December 20, 1974, addressing the effect of France’s statements on the existence of a dispute and the object of the application.

## Issues

1. Whether the Court should proceed to determine jurisdiction and admissibility despite France’s non-appearance and objection to competence.
2. Whether France’s public statements to cease atmospheric testing rendered the application moot because it no longer had an object.
3. Whether the Court should rule on the substantive legality of atmospheric nuclear testing and the international law violations alleged by New Zealand.

## Decision

- The Court held that New Zealand’s application no longer had any object and that the Court was not called upon to decide it.
- The Court treated France’s public declarations as commitments to cease atmospheric tests after the 1974 series.
- The Court did not issue determinations on the contested bases of jurisdiction or on the merits of New Zealand’s claims about the legality of atmospheric tests.
- The Court concluded that New Zealand’s stated objective—termination of atmospheric testing—had in effect been achieved by France’s declarations.
- Multiple judges filed separate or dissenting opinions criticizing the majority’s approach to mootness and its refusal to decide jurisdiction and merits.

## Legal Principles

- A State may incur binding international obligations through unilateral public declarations when made with an intention to be bound.
- Good faith governs the creation and performance of obligations arising from unilateral declarations, and other States may rely on such commitments.
- The Court’s judicial function is dispute settlement; where the dispute has ceased or the claim has lost its object, the Court may decline to proceed to jurisdiction or merits determinations.

## Conclusion

The Court disposed of the case on the ground that France’s public, good-faith commitments to end atmospheric nuclear testing after 1974 removed the object of New Zealand’s application, and it therefore refrained from ruling on jurisdiction or the substantive legality of the tests.


Nuclear Tests (N.Z. v. Fr.), 1974 I.C.J. 457 (Dec. 20)