Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Digital Commons Network

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

International Law

PDF

Dalhousie Law Journal

Journal

1976

Nuclear tests

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network

Nuclear Tests Case: Australia V. France; New Zealand V. France, L. L. Herman May 1976

Nuclear Tests Case: Australia V. France; New Zealand V. France, L. L. Herman

Dalhousie Law Journal

In two separate judgments of December 20, 1974, the majority of the International Court of Justice3 held that the objectives of both Australia and New Zealand in ending French nuclear testing in the South Pacific had been accomplished by virtue of various public announcements made on behalf of the French government that, following the conclusion of the 1974 series of tests, France would revdrt to underground testing. Since the objectives of both applicants had been accomplished, and consequently the issues had been resolved, the Court was of the view that it was no longer called upon to give a decision …


Nuclear Tests Case: Australia V. France; New Zealand V. France, L. L. Herman May 1976

Nuclear Tests Case: Australia V. France; New Zealand V. France, L. L. Herman

Dalhousie Law Journal

In two separate judgments of December 20, 1974, the majority of the International Court of Justice3 held that the objectives of both Australia and New Zealand in ending French nuclear testing in the South Pacific had been accomplished by virtue of various public announcements made on behalf of the French government that, following the conclusion of the 1974 series of tests, France would revdrt to underground testing. Since the objectives of both applicants had been accomplished, and consequently the issues had been resolved, the Court was of the view that it was no longer called upon to give a decision …


Nuclear Tests Case: Australia V. France; New Zealand V. France, L. L. Herman May 1976

Nuclear Tests Case: Australia V. France; New Zealand V. France, L. L. Herman

Dalhousie Law Journal

In two separate judgments of December 20, 1974, the majority of the International Court of Justice3 held that the objectives of both Australia and New Zealand in ending French nuclear testing in the South Pacific had been accomplished by virtue of various public announcements made on behalf of the French government that, following the conclusion of the 1974 series of tests, France would revdrt to underground testing. Since the objectives of both applicants had been accomplished, and consequently the issues had been resolved, the Court was of the view that it was no longer called upon to give a decision …


Nuclear Tests Case: Australia V. France; New Zealand V. France, L. L. Herman May 1976

Nuclear Tests Case: Australia V. France; New Zealand V. France, L. L. Herman

Dalhousie Law Journal

In two separate judgments of December 20, 1974, the majority of the International Court of Justice3 held that the objectives of both Australia and New Zealand in ending French nuclear testing in the South Pacific had been accomplished by virtue of various public announcements made on behalf of the French government that, following the conclusion of the 1974 series of tests, France would revdrt to underground testing. Since the objectives of both applicants had been accomplished, and consequently the issues had been resolved, the Court was of the view that it was no longer called upon to give a decision …


Nuclear Tests Case: Australia V. France; New Zealand V. France, L. L. Herman May 1976

Nuclear Tests Case: Australia V. France; New Zealand V. France, L. L. Herman

Dalhousie Law Journal

In two separate judgments of December 20, 1974, the majority of the International Court of Justice3 held that the objectives of both Australia and New Zealand in ending French nuclear testing in the South Pacific had been accomplished by virtue of various public announcements made on behalf of the French government that, following the conclusion of the 1974 series of tests, France would revdrt to underground testing. Since the objectives of both applicants had been accomplished, and consequently the issues had been resolved, the Court was of the view that it was no longer called upon to give a decision …