Rainbow Warrior (New Zealand v. France)
France-New Zealand Arbitral Tribunal
20 R.I.A.A. 217 (1990)
- Written by Kyli Cotten, JD
Facts
In 1985, a civilian vessel, the Rainbow Warrior, was moored in a harbor in Auckland, New Zealand (plaintiff). The Rainbow Warrior was a Greenpeace vessel set to depart for protests against French nuclear testing. To prevent the protests, two French agents, Mafart and Prieur, placed explosive devices and sunk the vessel, causing extensive property damage and one death. The two French agents were arrested and sentenced to 10 years in prison by a New Zealand court. France (defendant) and New Zealand then entered into negotiations concerning the sentences of the two agents. The United Nations secretary-general ruled that the French agents were to serve their sentences on the French military base on the isolated island of Hao for three years. The agents began their sentences in July 1986. In December 1987, Mafart was returned to France for emergency hospital treatment and later released by the French government for “health reasons.” In May 1988, the French government received notification that Prieur was pregnant and her father was terminally ill. Thus, the French government released Prieur for “humanitarian reasons.” New Zealand was not consulted about the transfers and eventual releases of Mafart and Prieur and brought an action against France. France argued that Mafart and Prieur’s situations constituted distress, which required the government to take the action it did.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.