JURI 4640:
International Law I
The International Legal Process

Professor Bodansky
University of Georgia School of Law

| Home | Syllabus | Assignments/Readings | Documents | Exam Archive | Glossary | Links


Class 3:
The Changing Nature of International Law: The Rainbow Warrior Affair


Assignment

Read Casebook 15-30.

Background

The Rainbow Warrior affair illustrates the changing nature of international law, including the role of non-state actors such as Greenpeace. It also illustrates another potential means of settling international disputes, through arbitration by the UN Secretary-General.

The Rainbow Warrior was a Greenpeace vessel sent to the South Pacific as part of Greenpeace's campaign against French nuclear testing. On July 10, 1985, while docked in Auckland, New Zealand, the Rainbow Warrior was blown up. The investigation by New Zealand authorities revealed that the bombing had been committed by two French government agents. When New Zealand arrested the French agents, France protested. Ultimately, France and New Zealand agreed to refer their dispute to the UN Secretary-General for a binding decision.

The Casebook describes the background, resolution and aftermath of the incident. Many other descriptions of the Rainbow Warrior affair are available on the web, including extensive materials on the Greenpeace web site.

In 1989, Greenpeace launched a new Rainbow Warrior.

Notes and Questions

  1. Who should be held responsible for the Rainbow Warrior bombing? France or the individual agents?

  2. What were the potential legal claims by New Zealand against France? By the victims of the bombing? Under what legal theories might France have been held responsible? In what forums might New Zealand or the victims have proceeded? What defenses might France have asserted?

  3. What were the potential legal actions against the individual French agents? Under what legal theory might the individual French agents have been held responsible? In what forum? What defenses might the French agents have asserted?

  4. How did France respond to the prosecution by New Zealand of the French agents? Was its response permissible under international law? What were New Zealand’s options in responding to France’s action?

  5. What was the basis of the Secretary-General's ruling? Was it based on international law? What norms of international law might France have violated? Against whom were any violations committed? New Zealand or Greenpeace?

  6. The French agents who committed the bombing have been described as "state sponsored international terrorists," and the outcome of the incident has been criticized as a "pitiful sell-out" ( Lawrence Paterson, "The Bombing of the Rainbow Warrior"). Do you agree with these characterizations?

  7. Did international law make any difference to the resolution of the Rainbow Warrior affair? Does the Rainbow Warrior Affair suggest that international law matters, or that it does not matter?