RAINBOW WARRIOR CASE (1986)

NEW ZEALAND V. FRANCE

FACTS
In 1985, a civilian vessel Rainbow Warrior which was docked in Auckland, New Zealand,
preparing to lead a protest against French nuclear testing in the Pacific Moruroa was bombed by
two French agents leading the sinking of the ship and killing of one crew member. Two of the
agents, Major Mafart and Captain Prieur, were subsequently arrested in New Zealand and,
having pleaded guilty to charges of manslaughter and criminal damage, were sentenced by a
New Zealand court to ten years’ imprisonment. A dispute arose between France, which
demanded the release of the two agents, and New Zealand, which claimed compensation for the
incident. The Two countries agreed to allow UN Secretary to arbitrate the matter and accepted to
abide by it ruling, the countries however did not accept the ruling of the UN secretary and the
matter was therefore referred to the International Court of Justice.

ISSUES
1. Whether there was a breach of state responsibility or obligation by France
2. Whether the agent could be made to extradited to serve their punishment in France
3. Whether New Zealand was entitled to a compensation
4. Whether France was in breach of an International Law.

HOLDING
The court held is that the Prime Minister of France should convey to the Prime Minister of New
Zealand a formal and unqualified apology for the attack, contrary to international law, on the
“Rainbow Warrior” and that the French Government should pay the sum of US Dollars 7 million
to the Government of New Zealand as compensation for all the damage it has suffered. Also, the
Government of New Zealand should transfer the two agents to the French military authorities.
Immediately thereafter, the two agents should be transferred to a French military facility on an
isolated island outside of Europe for a period of three years.

COMMENTS
It was interesting to note the rejection by the court on the contention by France that the
circumstances here constituted a force majeure was rejected by the court. “force majeure” is
usually invoked to justify unintentional acts and refers to “unforeseen external events” that
render it “materially impossible” to act in conformity with the obligation.