Last Name: Merino Carretero

Name: Virginia

Assignment 1

1. The International Court of Justice is resolving the dispute between Australia and Japan
about whaling in the Antarctic. Both countries had an agreement about the issue, but in
this declaration, New Zealand states that, because Article VIII of the Convention specifies
that a special permit may authorize whaling only ‘’for purposes of scientific research’’, it
follows that whaling for other purposes is not permitted under Article VIII, even if such
whaling involves the collection of certain scientific data’’. What´s more, it states the
programme of whaling is not a matter of unilateral determination.

2. Because the ICJ has recognized that Article 63 confers a right of intervention, where
the State seeking to intervene confines its intervention to the point of interpretation which
is in issue in the proceedings, and that this right does not extend to general intervention
in the case; and whereas New Zealand underlined that ‘’it does not seek to be party to the
proceedings’’ but confirms that ‘’by availing itself of its right to intervene, it accepts that
the construction given by the judgement in the case will be equally binding upon it’’.

3. The ICJ states that intervention under Article 63 if the Statute is limited to submitting
observations on the construction of the convention in question and does not allow the
intervenor, which does not become a party to the proceedings, to deal with any other
aspect of the case before the Court; and whereas such an intervention cannot affect the
equality of the Parties to the dispute.

4. Australia and New Zealand cannot be regarded as being parties in the same interest, so
consequently, the presences on the Bench of a judge of the nationality of the intervening
State (New Zealand) has no effect on the right of the judge ad hoc chosen by the Applicant
to sit in the case pursuant to Article 31 of the Statute.