Jump to Content Jump to Main Navigation
Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru, Nauru v Australia, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, [1992] ICJ Rep 240, ICGJ 91 (ICJ 1992), 26th June 1992, United Nations [UN]; International Court of Justice [ICJ]

Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru, Nauru v Australia, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, [1992] ICJ Rep 240, ICGJ 91 (ICJ 1992), 26th June 1992, United Nations [UN]; International Court of Justice [ICJ]

From: Oxford Public International Law (http://opil.ouplaw.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. All Rights Reserved.date: 10 April 2020

Whether the International Court of Justice (‘ICJ’) had jurisdiction to the dispute regarding the rehabilitation of certain already-mined Nauruan land, considering that Nauruan local authorities had never clearly waived claims over this issue and that the UN General Assembly terminated Australia's Trusteeship over Nauru without terminating Nauru's rights to rehabilitation of that land.

Whether an untimely submission of the Nauruan complaint may render its application inadmissible before the ICJ, and whether such submission was, in fact, untimely.

Whether New Zealand and the United Kingdom were necessary parties to the dispute, considering that they shared, with Australia, the powers of ‘the Administering Authority’ over Nauru during the time in question.

Whether to dismiss the complaint considering the Nauruan complaint's omission of New Zealand and the United Kingdom, as co-respondents in the Nauruan complaint were necessary parties to the dispute, considering that they shared the powers of Administering Authorities of Nauru with Australia.

Whether Nauru's request for preliminary measures relating to disbursement of the overseas assets of the British Phosphate Commissioner was inadmissible considering that it constituted a new claim and that that the subject matter of the dispute originally submitted to the ICJ would be transformed if it entertained that claim.

Whether to dismiss Nauru's claim that Australia 1) failed to respect a people's right to self-determination, 2) failed to respect Nauruan sovereignty over its natural resources, and 3) breached the principle that a state responsible for the administration of a territory should not irreparably damage existing or continuing legal interests of another state in respect of that territory.

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.