Preliminary Objections of the Government of Australia
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE CERTAIN PHOSPHATE LANDS IN NAURU (NAURU v. AUSTRALIA) PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF AUSTRALIA VOLUME 1 DECEMBER 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page lntroduction ............................................. 1 Section 1: Outline of Preliminary Objections ................. 3 Section II: History and Scope of Dispute as Outlined by Nauru . 4 A . What the dispute covers .............................. 4 B: Time when the dispute arose .......................... 6 C . Summary ........................................... 6 Section III: Scheme of these Preliminary Objections ........... 6 PART 1: BACKGROUND ................................. 9 Introduction ............................................. 11 Chapter 1: Factual and Historical Background ................ 12 Section 1: Mandate Period ................................. 12 A . 1914 Capitulation .................................... 12 B . Grant of Mandate over Nauru ......................... 13 C . The 1919 Agreement ................................. 14 D . Terms of the Mandate ................................ 16 E . Administration of Nauru under the Mandate ............ 17 F. Phosphate Mining under the Mandate .................. 18 G . Period of the War .................................... 20 Section II: Nauru under the Trusteeship ..................... 21 A . The Trusteeship Agreement ............................ 21 B . The administrative system ............................. 23 C . Royalties and economic advance ....................... 24 D . Progress in health and education ....................... 26 E . Political and administrative advancement ................ 28 Section III: Political and Economic Evolution 1959-1966 ....... 29 A . The resettlement proposais ............................ 29 B . Changing policies .................................... 32 C . Australian/Nauruan Discussions. May-June 1965 ......... 32 D . The new constitutional order ........................... 34 E . The rehabilitation investigations ....................... 34 1. The CSIRO lnquiry ............................... 34 2 . BPC estimates .................................... 36 3 . The Davey Committee ............................. 38 4 . Reception of the Davey Report ...................... 40 F. Proposed new phosphate arrangements ................. 42 G . Nauruan/Partner Governments' discussions . June/July 1966 ...................................... 43 Section IV: The Phosphate and Political Settlements 1967-1968 . 44 A . Policy re-thinking by the Partner Governments ........... 44 B . Resumed discussions with the Nauruans ................ 44 Page 1. Phase 1: 12-20 April 1967 .......................... 44 2 . Phase 2: 9-20 May 1967 ........................... 46 3 . Phase 3: 13-14 June 1967 .......................... 48 4 . Phase 4: Political discussions, 15 June 1967 ........... 49 5 . The purchase of BPC assets on Nauru ............... 49 C . Nauruan/Partner Governments' political discussions ...... 52 D . The Phosphate Agreement. 14 November 1967 ........... 53 E . Constitution making ................................. 54 F. Independence. 31 January 1968 ........................ 55 Section V: Summary ...................................... 57 Chapter 2: The Social and Economic Situation on Nauru as a Result of Phosphate Mining ................................ 58 Section 1: History of the BPC on Nauru ..................... j8 Section II: Benefits from phosphate mining .................. 62 Section III: Financial situation at independence and today ..... 64 Chapter 3: United Nations Consideration of Claims Raised by Nauru ................................................... 67 Section 1: General United Nations Supervision and Conclusions as to record of Administering Autliority ..................... 67 A.1964 ............................................... 69 B . 1965 ............................................... 69 C . 1966 ............................................... 72 D . 1967 ............................................... 74 E . Termination of the Trusteeship Agreement ............... 77 I . 13th Special Session. Trusteeship Council. November 1967 ................................... 77 2 . United Nations General Assembly. December 1967 ..... 78 Section II: Nauruan Participation in the United Nations ....... 81 Section III: Financial reporting to the United Nations ......... 82 Section IV: Resettlement and rehabilitation aspects ............ 83 PART II: OBJECTIONS TO JURISDICTION AND ADMISSlBlLlTY BASED ON INVOLVEMENT OF THE UNITED NATIONS 93 Chapter 1: lnadmissibility of the Claim: The Termination of the Trusteeship in 1967 Precludes the Present Claims hy Nauru .... 95 Section 1: Nature of the Obligations under Mandates and Trusteeships ............................................ 95 Section II: The Trusteeship Council and General Assembly had exclusive jurisdiction to settle any dispute .................. 98 Section III: Termination of a Trusteeship Agreement settles al1 claims relating to trusteeship obligations ................... 101 Section IV: The termination of the Trusteeship Agreement settled al1 claims by Nauru arising under the Trusteeship Agreement . 105 Page Section V: Nauru is bound by the settlement of the dispute by the United Nations ...................................... 113 Section VI: The legal consequences that flow from settlement of the Nauruan claim by termination of the Trusteeship Agreement ............................................. 113 Chapter 2: Lack of Jurisdiction: The Australian Declaration Under Article 36(2) of the Statute Excludes Jurisdiction ....... 115 Section 1: Relevant jurisdictional grounds .................... 115 Section II: During the continuance of the Trusteeship, Nauru agreed to settle its claims by direct negotiation .............. 115 A. United Nations Recommendations ...................... 115 B. The Negotiations and resulting Canberri Agreement ...... 116 Section III: At the termination of the Trusteeship, Nauru agreed to settlement of al1 issues between it and the Administering Authority by resolution of the Trusteeship Council and General Assembly ....................................... 117 PART III: OBJECTIONS TO JURlSDlCTION AND ADMISSIBILITY BASED ON ABSENCE OF CONSENT OF THIRDPARTIES ...................................... Chapter 1: The Nauruan Theory of Liability ................. Section 1: The Nauruan Contentions ........................ Section II: The General International Law Position ............ Section III: The Rule in Domestic Legal Systems Corresponds to the Rule in International Law ............................ Section IV: Conclusion .................................... Chapter 2: Specific Issues in the Present Case Concerning Liahility. ................................................. Section 1: Can Australia Alone be Sued? ..................... A. The View of the United Nations ....................... B. The View of Nauru Itself ............................. C. The View of the Three Governments .................... D. The Implications of the Legal Principle for the Present Suit ................................................ Section II: If, contrary to the above Submission, the Court does allow the claim to be made against Australia alone, can such a claim be made for the whole damage? ..................... Chapter 3: The Absence of Jurisdiction Without the Conrent of a Third State ............................................. Section 1: The Principle and its Implications ................. Section II: The right of intervention does not eliminate the need for consent ............................................. Page PART IV: ADDITIONAL CLAIMS MADE FOR FIRST TIME IN THE MEMORIAL CONCERNING THE OVERSEAS ASSETS OF BPC ....................................... 147 PART V: PROCEDURAL AND DISCRETIONARY OBJECTIONS ........................................... 153 Chapter 1: The Claim by Nauru has not been made within a reasonable time and cannot be enterîained by the Coud ...... 156 Section .1: International. law recognises a rule of extinctive prescription ............................................ 156 Section II: Previous claims by Nauru have not asserted a legal claim and, hence, do not preclude an argument based on delay .................; ....................................... 158 Section III: The prejudice now faced by Australia in meeting the Nauruan claim ......................................... 159 Section IV: The choice of an appropriate limitation period for this case ............................................... 160 Chapter 2: 11 would be Contrary to Judicisl Propriety for the Court to Hear the Claim .................................. 162 Section 1: The principle of good faith in international law ...... 162 Section II: Nauru has failed to act consistently and in good faith in relation to rehabilitation while making a claim in this regard against Australia ........................................ 162 Section III: The Court's judicial function requires dismissal of theclaim ..............................................163 SUBMISSIONS .......................................... 165 LISTOF ANNEXES ...................................... 166 INTRODUCTION Section 1. Outline of Preliminary Objections 1. Australia wishes to raise preliminary objections, in accordance with Article 79 of the Rules of the Court, in relation to the claims by Nauru set out in their Application and Memorial. Australia does not, therefore, at this time lodge its Counter-Memorial but shall confine itself