Name of the Scholar

Jaganadham

Subject Name: PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW

Research Project Name:

CERTAIN PHOSPHATE LANDS IN NAURU
(NAURU V. AUSTRALIA),1993

TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO TITLE PAGE NO.

1 TABLE OF CASES REFERED

2 TABLE OF STATUTES

3 CHAPTER- I
INTRODUCTION
4 CHAPTER- II
FACTS OF THE CASE
5 CHAPTER-III
ISSUES OF THE CASE
6 CHAPTER-IV
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE

7 CHAPTER-V
ANALYSIS
 8 CHAPTER-VI
CONTRIBUTION OF THE CASE TO THE
GROWTH IN CONCERNED AREA
9 CHAPTER-VII
CONCLUSION

CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION
In the field of international law, disputes between sovereign states are common and are a
reflection of complicated geopolitical dynamics, conflicting interests, and different legal
framework interpretations. The dispute known as Nauru v. Australia, which divides the
Republic of Nauru against the Commonwealth of Australia, is one such case that has attracted
a lot of interest and investigation.
This legal dispute, which has its roots in both historical and modern difficulties, involves a
number of contentious issues such as poverty, damage to the environment, migrating policies,
and territorial sovereignty. Fundamentally, the case represents Nauru's fight against the
policies and actions of Australia, a dominant regional force, as a small island republic.
Throughout its history, the small island nation of Nauru in the Pacific Ocean has encountered
many difficulties, such as environmental degradation, economic dependency, and
colonialism. Nauru has inherent sovereignty as a member state of the international
community, with rights and obligations codified in international law, notwithstanding its tiny
size and restricted resources.
However, Australia is a large continent-state that commands a substantial amount of political,
economic, and military power in the Asia-Pacific area. Australia is a developed country with
significant resources and strength; it frequently takes the lead in regional issues.
The case of Nauru v. Australia has its roots in the colonial period, when Australian, British,
and German forces ruled over Nauru. Nauru saw widespread phosphate mining during this
time, which resulted in disturbances in society and environmental damage. Nauru claims that
Australia, which benefits most from the phosphate sector, neglected to sufficiently address
the socio-economic and environmental effects of mining activities, despite assurances of
rehabilitation and compensated.
The case also touches on current concerns, specifically Australia's contentious immigration
laws that have resulted in the detention of refugees and protection seekers in offshore
processing facilities on the island of Nauru. International human rights organizations have
condemned these Australian government-run prison centers for their harsh conditions and
abuses of fundamental human rights.
Legal options become increasingly important in the quest for accountability and retribution as
tensions between Australia and Nauru grow. In addition to being a legal issue, the Nauru v.
Australia case symbolizes a fight for justice, sovereignty, and the defence of fundamental
human rights.
Both sides argue their positions in this complex legal dispute, using moral imperatives,
historical precedent, and principles of international law. The case's decision will have a big
impact on Australia, Nauru, and the rest of the world as it will test how well international
legal systems can settle conflicts between parties with different status.
As it examines the effectiveness of international legal processes in resolving disputes
between unequal entities, the case's decision has important ramifications not only for
Australia and Nauru but also for the larger international community.
 CHAPTER- II FACTS OF THE CASE
The ownership and use of phosphate reserves in Nauru were at issue in the Nauru v. Australia
case, sometimes referred to as the "Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru" case.
Nauru, a small island nation located in the Pacific Ocean, is known for its extensive
phosphate deposits. Phosphate is a valuable resource used in fertilizers and other industrial
applications. Phosphate deposits were discovered on the island of Nauru in the late 19th
century, which led to the establishment of phosphate mining operations by foreign
companies.
Colonial Administration: During the colonial period, Australia administered Nauru as a
trustee under a League of Nations mandate and later as a United Nations Trust Territory.
Australia played a significant role in the exploitation and management of Nauru's phosphate
resources. Nauru was administered by Australia, along with New Zealand and the United
Kingdom, under a League of Nations mandate following World War I. After World War II,
Nauru became a United Nations Trust Territory, still under Australian administration.
Phosphate Mining: Phosphate mining operations on Nauru began in the late 19th century and
continued extensively throughout the 20th century. Australia, through its control over Nauru,
facilitated the mining activities carried out by various commercial entities.
Environmental Degradation: Over decades of intensive phosphate mining, Nauru's
environment suffered severe degradation, including land erosion, deforestation, and loss of
biodiversity. The mining operations left behind vast areas of barren land and ecological scars.
Phosphate mining operations on Nauru were extensive and conducted by various companies
under the control of the British Phosphate Commission (BPC), which was jointly owned by
Australia, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom.
Economic Impact on Nauru: Despite the significant revenues generated from phosphate
mining, Nauru alleged that Australia mismanaged the proceeds and failed to adequately
safeguard Nauru's interests. The island nation claimed that it did not receive fair
compensation for the exploitation of its natural resources.
Legal Proceedings: Nauru initiated legal proceedings against Australia in the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) in 1989. Nauru accused Australia of breaching its fiduciary duties as a
trustee and sought compensation for the damages caused by the mismanagement of phosphate
resources.
ICJ Judgment: The ICJ delivered its judgment in 1992, ruling in favour of Nauru. The court
found Australia responsible for breaches of trust and awarded substantial compensation to
Nauru to remedy the environmental damage and economic losses incurred.
Significance: The Nauru v. Australia case highlighted the complexities of international
trusteeship, the obligations of colonial powers towards dependent territories, and the rights of
indigenous peoples to control and benefit from their natural resources. It underscored the
importance of responsible resource management and the need for accountability in post-
colonial relations.
The Court recalls a 1989 application filed by Nauru against Australia regarding the
rehabilitation of phosphate lands in Nauru. The jurisdiction of the Court relies on declarations
from the two states, as provided for in Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court.
The time-limits for filing the Memorial of Nauru and Counter-Memorial of Australia were
fixed by an Order of 18 July 1989. On 16 January 1991, the Government of Australia filed
preliminary objections, arguing that the Application was inadmissible and the Court lacked
jurisdiction to hear the claims. By 8 February 1991, the Court suspended the proceedings on
the merits and fixed a time-limit for the presentation of a written statement by the
Government of Nauru.
The Republic of Nauru requests the Court to declare the Respondent State responsible for
breaches of legal obligations, including Article 76 of the Charter of the United Nations and
articles 3 and 5 of the Trusteeship Agreement for Nauru of 1 November 1947. They also
request the Court to respect the Nauruan people's right to permanent sovereignty over their
natural wealth and resources.
The Republic of Nauru has filed oral pleadings with the Court, arguing that the claims made
against Australia in their Application and Memorial are inadmissible and that the Court lacks
jurisdiction to hear them. The Government of Australia has requested the Court to reject the
preliminary objections raised by Nauru and declare that the Court has jurisdiction in respect
of the claims presented in the Memorial of Nauru. The Government of the Republic of Nauru
has also requested the Court to declare that some or all of the Australian preliminary
objections do not possess an exclusively preliminary character.

CHAPTER-II ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. Australia was accused by Nauru of violating its fiduciary duty to protect and manage
Nauru's interests in the phosphate resource exploitation. These included allegations of
inadequate environmental regulations and improper handling of phosphate mining
earnings.

2. The dispute revolved around the extensive environmental degradation that Nauru's
phosphate mining had produced. According to Nauru, Australia neglected to enact
appropriate environmental laws and mitigating measures, which caused unchangeable
harm to the country's ecosystem, including deforestation, land erosion, and
biodiversity loss.

3. The case also highlighted the obligations and function of trusteeship in accordance
with international law. It brought up concerns regarding the duties that governing
 bodies have to trust regions and the procedures that trust regions have in place for
holding violators accountable and addressing complaints.

CHAPTER-IV JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE

The Court rejected Australia's objections in the Nauru v. Australia case regarding
phosphate lands rehabilitation. It upheld Australia's objection based on Nauru's
claim about the overseas assets of the British Phosphate Commissioners. The Court
found the application admissible and the Nauruan claim concerning the overseas
assets of the British Phosphate Commissioners inadmissible.
In favor of President Sir Robert Jennings, the Court rejected the preliminary objection based
on Australia's reservation of compulsory jurisdiction and Nauru's waiver of claims regarding
phosphate lands rehabilitation prior to 1967, with Judges Lachs, Ago, Schwebel, Tarassov,
and Guillaume.
The Court recalls Nauru's 1989 request for phosphate land restoration prior to
independence from Australia. According to the Court's Statute, the jurisdiction of
the Court was established by statements from the two states.
The Court fixed a prescribed time-limit for filing the Memorial of Nauru and Counter-
Memorial of Australia in 1989. The Memorial was filed on 20 April 1990, within the
prescribed time-limit. However, on 16 January 1991, the Government of Australia filed
preliminary objections, claiming the application was inadmissible. The Court suspended the
proceedings on merits and set a time-limit for the presentation of a written statement.

The court is considering the jurisdiction of Nauru, based on the declarations of Australia and
Nauru, which agree that the court's jurisdiction does not apply to disputes that involve
peaceful settlement. Australia argues that the court lacks jurisdiction to deal with Nauru's
Application due to the Trusteeship Agreement, which terminated the trusteeship without
reservation relating to the territory's administration. The agreement, concluded on November
14, 1967, between the Nauru Local Government Council and Australia, New Zealand, and
the United Kingdom, resulted in Nauru waiving its claims to rehabilitation of the phosphate
lands. Australia also claims that the United Nations General Assembly terminated the
trusteeship without reservation relating to the territory's administration. The court is arguing
that the parties had agreed to have recourse to peaceful settlement, and therefore, the court
lacks jurisdiction to deal with the dispute.
The Court ruled that declarations made under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the
Court can only relate to disputes between States. In this case, the question arises whether
Australia and the Republic of Nauru concluded an agreement after Nauru acceded to
independence on 31 January 1968, where they agreed to settle their dispute relating to the
rehabilitation of phosphate lands. The Court found no such agreement existed, and therefore,
Australia's objections must be rejected.

Another objection is that the Nauruan authorities waived all claims related to the
rehabilitation of the phosphate lands before independence. This objection is based on the
Agreement of 14 November 1967 and statements made by the Nauruan Head Chief at the
United Nations in autumn 1967. The Court concluded that the Nauruan local authorities did
not waive their claim prior to 1 July 1967, and therefore, Australia's second objection must be
rejected.
The Court also found that Nauru's claim is inadmissible on the ground that termination of the
Trusteeship by the United Nations precludes allegations of breaches of the trusteeship
agreement. The General Assembly of the United Nations resolved that the Trusteeship
Agreement for the Territory of Nauru would cease to be in force upon Nauru's independence
on 31 January 1968.

Australia's fourth objection to Nauru's claim is that it was not submitted within a reasonable
time, as it was not formally raised with Australia and other former administrative powers
regarding the rehabilitation of the phosphate lands. The Court acknowledges that delay on the
part of a claimant State may render an application inadmissible, but international law does
not set a specific time-limit. The Court considers that Nauru was officially informed of
Australia's position on the phosphate lands before 1 July 1967, and Nauru only took issue
with that position in writing on 6 October 1983. The Court considers that Nauru's application
was not rendered inadmissible by passage of time, but it will ensure that Nauru's delay in
seizing it does not cause prejudice to Australia. The Court also rejects Australia's fifth
objection that Nauru has failed to act consiststently and in good faith in relation to
rehabilitation, as the application has been properly submitted within the available remedies
and there has been no abuse of process.

The Court argues that the Administering Authority for Nauru, constituted by the three
Governments mentioned in the Trusteeship Agreement, does not have an international legal
personality distinct from the States designated. Australia plays a special role established by
the Trusteeship Agreement of 1947, the Agreements of 1919, 1923, and 1965, and by
practice, despite not being parties to the proceedings.
 CHAPTER-V ANALYSIS
The Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru case, which was decided by the International Court of
Justice in 1992, was a very vital part of the international law history, regarding the protection
of natural resources and also indigenous peoples’ rights. The judgment did not only decide
the issue of phosphate mining between Nauru and Australia but also provides the guidelines
to the general rules of international law, such as self-determination, equitable use of the
resources, and also environment protection.

One of the crucial issues featuring in the judgment is the recognition of Nauru’s sovereign
right to its phosphate reserves. The Court ( supported the) the rights of Nauru (which were)
self-determination and the control over its own natural resources, rejecting Australia's claim
of sovereignty over the disputed lands. That assertion of a Nauru's own sovereignty also
confirms a broader rules of international law relating to the right of states to control and
manage the states' own territories and resources.
Moreover, the ruling underlined the doctrine of equitable distribution of the public financing.
The Court recognized that the economy of Nauru is very dependent on the phosphate mining
and understood that the purpose of ensuring that the benefits of the utilization of the natural
resources are fairly and equitably distributed is to prevent the misuse of the economic
resources of the country. Hence, this significant component of the decision signifies the wider
international legal principle of encouraging economic development treading on the rights of
the indigenous peoples on their lands to profit from the exploitation of resources.
On the other hand, the case under consideration emphasized the role of environmental law in
international legal system. The Court took into account the impact of phosphate mining on
Nauru's lands from environmental point of view and declared that Nauru has the right to
adopt necessary measures for environment protection and preservation of its natural wealth.
The aforementioned dimension of the ruling reflects the trend of awareness in the
international arena of the importance of the harmonization between economic development
and environmental protection and sustainable resource exploitation.

In brief, the judgment in the case of Phosphate Lands in Nauru v. Australia, which relates to
international law on protection of resources and rights of indigenous peoples, is a major
contribution to the field. Through assertions of Nauru's sovereignty over its phosphate lands,
recognition of the principle of equitable distribution of resources and underscoring the
relevance of environment protection, the Court had provided significant insights on the key
legal principles that continue to shape international law and practice in the management of
natural resources.
 CONTRIBUTION OF THE CASE TO THE GROWTH IN CONCERNED AREA
The Phosphate Lands v. Nauru case, which has Australia involved, specifically has given rise
to a number of landmark developments in international law, in particular with regard to state
sovereignty, indigenous rights, environment protection, and equitable distribution of
resources.
The determination validated Nauru’s ownership of its phosphate mines, therefore
unintentionally laying a juristic foundation for the strengthening of the principle of state
sovereignty in the international law. The case is intended to rule that Nauru has the right to
exercise control and management of its natural resources and with this it adds to the existing
principle of state sovereignty and territorial integrity.
: The example, then, depicts the necessity of securing the right of indigenous people to their
land and resources. Nauru, as the owner of its phosphate lands, returns to the indigenous
Nauruans, the inalienable ownership of these resources knowing that they are for the benefits
of indigenous Nauruans and that they shall control these resources supporting global
initiatives to recognize indigenous rights.
Environmental Protection: The Court was of the opinion that the mining operations caused
damage to Nauru's lands and reiterated Nauru's right to protect its environment. The second
feature of the case has a significant impact on development of the international environmental
law by imposing the duty of states to prevent unfavorable consequences of natural resource
extraction activities and protecting natural character of the habitats.
The case point out to the relevance of equitable distribution of resources, and its sensitive
characteristic in the context of economic development and natural resource exploitation. The
judgment demonstrates Nauru's economic dependency on the extraction of phosphates and its
right to benefit from them; this is in line with the formation of the principles that govern the
equitable sharing of resource revenues between a state and indigenous communities.

In a nutshell, the dispute related to Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru v. Australia has
brought about landmark developments in international law by endorsing sovereignty, native
claims, protection of environment, and a fair distribution of resources. The judgment stands
out as a landmark precedent on which the legal arguments on the emerging rules of
international law on natural resources and indigenous peoples continue to be based and the
framework within this space continues to take shape.

Conclusion
In its essence, the case concerning Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru v. Australia has proved
to be a major milestone in international law in the facets of state sovereignty, indigenous
rights, environmental security, and fair distribution of resources. Through the recognition of
Nauru’s sovereignty over its phosphate lands and the rights of the indigenous Nauruans over
their resources with regard to the environmental impact by resource extraction and the
principle of sharing of natural resource revenues, the judgment has paved the way for the
evolution of legal principles governing the management of natural resources and the
indigenous people rights in the international community.

The case serves as a precedent to be used in future disputes of a similar nature regarding the
exploitation of natural resources on reservations and reaffirms the importance of upholding
the rights of indigenous people and preserving the environment in the attempt to achieve
economic growth. Furthermore, it detect the functions of international law in the provision of
fair and sustainable resources management strategies as well as a reconciliation of the
interests of the states, the indigenous and the global environment.

To sum up, the ruling on Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru v. Australia signalled a
remarkable stage of development of international law and remains central to legal discussions
and shaping of policies on natural resource management and indigenous rights across the
globe.

Reference:
1. https://www.icj-cij.org/
2. https://www.icj-cij.org/case/80