Ruling Pertaining to the Difference Between France and New Zealand Arising from the Rainbow Warrior Affair case brief

Ruling Pertaining to the Difference Between France and New Zealand Arising from the Rainbow Warrior Affair case summary
26 I.L.M. 1349 (1987)

FACTS
-The environmental group, Greenpeace, had a ship in a harbor in New Zealand.
-Greenpeace was en route to protest French nuclear testing that was taking place in the South Pacific.
-French secret agents set a bomb on the ship, sinking it off. 
-The bomb killed a crew member.
-New Zealand authorities arrested two of the agents.

ARGUMENT
France claimed that the agents were working for the government, so they should not be held personally responsible for the bombing.

RULES
French law states that criminal acts committed pursuant to official government orders are not illegal.

• New Zealand stated that international law does not excuse criminal if they are committed pursuant to government orders.

• New Zealand tried and convicted the French agents and sentenced them to a New Zealand jail.

• France stated that they should serve their term in France.

• France pressured New Zealand by restricting imports of New Zealand goods into France.

• France and New Zealand finally agreed to Third Party dispute settlement through the Secretary General of the United Nations.

HOLDING
The United Nations Secretary General found that:
1.  France should give an apology.
2.  France should pay compensation.
3.  France should remove the trade restrictions.
4.  The two French agents should be allowed to serve their sentences in France (and not in New Zealand).

---