Jump to content

Rainbow Warrior Case: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit iOS app edit
(4 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|1986 dispute between New Zealand and France}}
{{Short description|1986 dispute between New Zealand and France}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2016}}
{{Use dmy dates|date=September 2016}}
The '''Rainbow Warrior Case''' was a dispute between [[New Zealand]] and [[France]] that arose in the aftermath of the [[Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior|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]].
The '''Rainbow Warrior Case''' was a dispute between [[New Zealand]] and [[France]] that arose in the aftermath of the [[Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior|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|public international law]] for its implications on [[state responsibility]].


== Background ==
== Background ==
Line 15: Line 15:


=== State responsibility ===
=== State responsibility ===
Nowadays conduct which would qualify as an Internationally Wrongful Act committed by an agent of a State can attributed to it via Art. 5 ARSIWA (compare for instance the Teheran Hostages Case by the ICJ), resulting in the obligation of cessation of the wrongful act, assurances of non-repetition and reparation, compare Art. 30 and 31 ARSIWA.{{fact|date=April 2020}}
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.{{fact|date=April 2020}}


France sought to rely on the doctrine of [[force majeure]] in that the medical grounds used to repatriate the agents was unforeseen and beyond its control, thus the treaty's obligation for detention would be impossible. The Arbitration Panel rejected the use of force majeure; while repatriation was justified, the performance of France's obligations under the treaty was not yet rendered impossible.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.iilj.org/courses/documents/RainbowWarrior.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091229222010/http://www.iilj.org/courses/documents/RainbowWarrior.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=2009-12-29 |title=Rainbow Warrior (NEW ZEALAND v. FRANCE) |date=2009-12-29 |access-date=2020-04-08|author=Jiménez de Aréchaga|author2=Sir Kenneth Keith|author3=Professor Bredin}}</ref>
France sought to rely on the doctrine of [[force majeure]] in that the medical grounds used to repatriate the agents was unforeseen and beyond its control, thus the treaty's obligation for detention would be impossible. The Arbitration Panel rejected the use of force majeure; while repatriation was justified, the performance of France's obligations under the treaty was not yet rendered impossible.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.iilj.org/courses/documents/RainbowWarrior.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091229222010/http://www.iilj.org/courses/documents/RainbowWarrior.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=2009-12-29 |title=Rainbow Warrior (NEW ZEALAND v. FRANCE) |date=2009-12-29 |access-date=2020-04-08|author=Jiménez de Aréchaga|author2=Sir Kenneth Keith|author3=Professor Bredin}}</ref>
Line 38: Line 38:


{{DEFAULTSORT:Rainbow Warrior Case (International Law)}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Rainbow Warrior Case (International Law)}}
[[Category:1986 in law]]
[[Category:1986 in case law]]
[[Category:Arbitration cases]]
[[Category:Arbitration cases]]
[[Category:Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior]]
[[Category:Sinking of the Rainbow Warrior]]

Revision as of 16:22, 9 June 2024

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, killing a Portuguese photographer, Fernando Pereira. 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.[1][2][3]

After a series of diplomatic confrontations between France and New Zealand pertaining primarily to issues of compensation and the treatment of the apprehended agents, both governments decided to have their differences arbitrated by a tribunal chaired by then Secretary-General of the UN, Javier Pérez de Cuéllar. His binding ruling was pronounced on 6 July 1986.[4]

The case

See also: Caroline affair

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 peacetime 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.[citation needed]

State responsibility

Nowadays conduct which would qualify as an Internationally Wrongful Act committed by an agent of a State can attributed to it via Art. 5 ARSIWA (compare for instance the Teheran Hostages Case by the ICJ), resulting in the obligation of cessation of the wrongful act, assurances of non-repetition and reparation, compare Art. 30 and 31 ARSIWA.[citation needed]

France sought to rely on the doctrine of force majeure in that the medical grounds used to repatriate the agents was unforeseen and beyond its control, thus the treaty's obligation for detention would be impossible. The Arbitration Panel rejected the use of force majeure; while repatriation was justified, the performance of France's obligations under the treaty was not yet rendered impossible.[5]

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.[6]

In terms of reparations, France initially offered an official apology and acknowledgement of breach of international law.[7] Additionally, the UN secretary-general awarded New Zealand US$6.5 million and a further NZ$3.5 million to establish the New Zealand / France Friendship Fund.[8][9] This is in addition to compensation which France paid to Pereira's family and to Greenpeace (settled privately).[10]

Consequences

The Rainbow Warrior case bolsters the notion that there is a doctrine of non-intervention in international law and that states will be punished for contravening it. It is also an interesting study of state responsibility, individual responsibility, use of force and reparations. Its consideration for international law is slightly hampered by the fact that it was decided by a single individual (the UN secretary general) as a special Tribunal not internationally established. This is because there existed jurisdictional obstacles for an application to the International Court of Justice by New Zealand, most importantly of which was that France did not (and still does not) recognise the jurisdiction of the Court as compulsory.[11]

References

  1. ^ Page, Campbell; Templeton, Ian (24 September 2014). "French inquiry into bombing of Greenpeace's Rainbow Warrior: from the archive, 24 September 1985". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 April 2020.
  2. ^ Brown, Paul; Evans, Rob (23 August 2005). "How Rainbow Warrior was played down". The Guardian. Retrieved 8 April 2020.
  3. ^ Armstrong, John (2 July 2005). "Reality behind the Rainbow Warrior outrage". NZ Herald. Retrieved 8 April 2020.
  4. ^ "Case concerning the 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" (PDF). 30 April 1990.
  5. ^ Jiménez de Aréchaga; Sir Kenneth Keith; Professor Bredin (29 December 2009). "Rainbow Warrior (NEW ZEALAND v. FRANCE)" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 29 December 2009. Retrieved 8 April 2020.
  6. ^ "THE BOMBING OF THE WARRIOR". 10 March 2012. Archived from the original on 10 March 2012. Retrieved 8 April 2020.
  7. ^ Shabecoff, Philip; Times, Special To the New York (3 October 1987). "France Must Pay Greenpeace $8 Million in Sinking of Ship". The New York Times. Retrieved 8 April 2020.
  8. ^ "Case concerning the 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" (PDF). 30 April 1990.
  9. ^ Boczek, Boleslaw Adam (2005). International Law: A Dictionary. Maryland: The Scarecrow Press, Inc. p. 97. ISBN 0-8108-5078-8. Retrieved 7 May 2016.
  10. ^ "Case concerning the differences between New Zealand and France arising from the Rainbow Warrior affair" (PDF). United Nations.
  11. ^ "Declarations Recognizing the Jurisdiction of the Court as Compulsory". Retrieved 14 March 2011.

Sources

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rainbow_Warrior_Case&oldid=1228128107"