Introduction
The Rainbow Warrior case remains one of the most dramatic episodes in modern international relations, mixing environmental activism, state-sponsored terrorism, and diplomatic fallout in ways few could have predicted.
Background And Events Of July 1985
Back in July 1985, the Greenpeace flagship Rainbow Warrior was docked peacefully in Auckland harbour, New Zealand. The ship and its crew were preparing to lead a protest flotilla to Moruroa Atoll in French Polynesia, where France was conducting nuclear tests.
What happened next shocked the world – two underwater mines ripped through the vessel, sinking it and killing Portuguese photographer Fernando Pereira who was on board. Initially, it seemed like a mystery. But it didn’t take long for New Zealand authorities to uncover the truth: French intelligence agents had planted the bombs.
Arrest, Trial, And Diplomatic Crisis
- Two agents, Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur, were caught.
- They were tried and convicted in New Zealand courts.
- The incident escalated into a massive diplomatic crisis between France and New Zealand.
France, facing international embarrassment, eventually admitted responsibility. What followed was an unusual resolution – the UN Secretary-General mediated an agreement where France apologized, paid compensation, and the two agents were transferred to French custody on Hao Atoll, supposedly to serve out their sentences.
Arbitration And International Law Significance
Of course, France didn’t exactly honour that agreement fully, which led to arbitration proceedings. The case became a landmark in international law, particularly regarding state responsibility.
- It demonstrated how states could be held accountable for covert operations that violate other nations’ sovereignty.
- It tested principles around remedies, reparations, and the enforcement of international agreements.
- It’s still studied today as a clear example of state responsibility in action.
Brief Summary Of The Movie “Rainbow Warrior, 1993”
This movie showcases the real-time incident of the Rainbow Warrior Arbitration, 1990[1].
Opening Context And Nuclear Testing
The movie starts with a description of how the nuclear testing conducted by several nations have affected the people of the South Pacific region. Further on it portrays a discussion of events in the police headquarters, Auckland, where they doubt the intention of the international Greenpeace ship “Rainbow Warrior” that fights for the protection of environment.
Arrival And Attack On The Ship
It docks at the harbour of New Zealand on 7th of July, 1985. On the other hand, we can see French government plotting to attack the ship. As the movie moves on, we can notice that 2 French agents affixing two bombs on the Rainbow Warrior and bombing it on 10th July.
- The struggle of the passengers of the ship to escape can be seen followed by the first explosion.
- Mr. Fernando Pereira is knocked out by the second explosion.
Investigation And Trial
Followed by which New Zealand’s police investigation over the case starts with the view that engine or oxygen tank might have malfunctioned. With the advent of evidences, they arrest two French officials who portrays themselves as Swiss nationals for manslaughter, wilful damage and conspiracy to commit arson.
We can witness a court scene where they are sentenced to 10 years imprisonment.
Subsequent Events And Conclusion
On the other hand, the passengers of the Rainbow Warrior travel to French Polynesia and gets caught trying to enter the 12 nautical mile territorial sea of French Polynesia.
The movie ends with the display of certain facts, the shift of arrested officials to France and France admitting responsibility over it and paid reparation to New Zealand.
| Key Event | Description |
|---|---|
| Bombing Incident | Two bombs were affixed to the Rainbow Warrior and detonated on 10th July 1985. |
| Casualty | Fernando Pereira was killed in the explosion. |
| Arrest & Conviction | Two French agents were arrested, tried, and sentenced to 10 years imprisonment. |
| Final Outcome | Officials were shifted to France; France admitted responsibility and paid reparation to New Zealand. |
Case Study: The Movie Is Based On – Rainbow Warrior Arbitration, 1990
Case Background
Rainbow Warrior Arbitration, 1990 (Case concerning the difference between New Zealand and France concerning the interpretation or application of two agreements, concluded on 9 July 1986 between the two states and which related to problems arising in Rainbow Warrior affairs).
The French agents destroyed the Greenpeace ship, Rainbow Warrior that disguised to work with the goal to make awareness about the environment that was planning to go to Moruroa Atoll to protest against the France’s nuclear testing in French Polynesia, overseas territory of France in the coast of New Zealand.
Two agents were arrested by the New Zealand government for the commission of this act. Namely Mafart and Pierre.
The amicable relationship between both the nations broke and later they entered into an agreement stating that all major nuclear test will be done with the consent of New Zealand and that New Zealand can detain the two accused.
In contrary France takes back the two accused without the knowledge of New Zealand, aggrieved by this New Zealand files an arbitration.
France takes the exception of Force Majeure, stating there was dire need to bring them back to the nation, however it was held that France cannot claim force majeure to be an exception and has to pay compensation / reparation to New Zealand.
The arbitral award was issued on 30th December 1986 by the then UN Secretary General, Mr Javier Perez de Cuellar.
Proceedings Before The Tribunal Of ITLOS
Further both the nation went before the tribunal of ITLOS, the international tribunal for the law of the sea to solve a dispute over the legality of nuclear testing done by France in the south pacific, as result of France’s nuclear testing post the 1986 arbitral award.
The tribunal held in favour of New Zealand that though France has the right to protect its nation it cannot violate its obligation under the international law.
- France was asked to pay reparations for the damage it has caused to the marine environment.
- It also issued an order asking France to cease its nuclear testing program in the south pacific region.
Issues Involved
- Who is liable for the attack conducted on the Rainbow Warrior?
- Can the act be attributed to the state concerned?
- What is the liability for the breach of agreement of the state concerned?
Correlation With PIL Dealt In Context Of The Rainbow Warrior Case
Article 2 Of Draft Articles Of State Responsibility
Article 2 of draft articles of state responsibility talks about the responsibility of states for internationally wrongful acts. In order to hold a nation responsible two criteria are to be met with:
- Breach of an international obligation
- The attribution of the act to the state[2]
Risk Theory And Fault Theory
The other aspect often concerned is the applicability of theory, risk theory and fault theory.
| Theory | Explanation | Case Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Risk Theory | States that if another nation is at risk, attribution is not a main criterion and the nation is absolutely liable. | “Gustav Claire V. United Mexican States, 1929” – where the act of Mexican police of killing Gustav was attributed to Mexico. |
| Fault Theory | States that a nation is liable for the act committed by it. | “Home Frontier and Missionary Society of United Brethren in Christ V. Great Britain, 1920” – where Britain was held to be not responsible for the act of the rebel group. |
In this case the risk theory was applied to hold France responsible.
Direct Responsibility Under Article 4
Here in this case France was held responsible for the conduct of organs of the state, in this case the act attracts direct responsibility under article 4 of draft articles on state responsibility similar to the LaGrand Case[3], where US was held responsibility for execution of prisoners for its breach of international obligation without informing Germany.
Force Majeure Under Article 23
However there exist certain cases where a nation can be exempted for the wrong committed such as:
- Consent of the other nation
- Self-defence
- Countermeasure
- Force majeure
In this case France tried to invoke the customary practice of Force Majeure that is talked about in article 23 of draft articles on state responsibility, however that was denied as force majeure is similar to gods act, something that is beyond the control of the nation as in the case of “Torrey Canyon Case[4]”, where the force majeure exception claimed by the UK was granted as there was no other possible solutions.
Article 42 And Consequences Of Wrongful Act
In the Rainbow Warrior case New Zealand has invoked state responsibility under article 42 of draft articles on state responsibility.
The consequence of any wrongful act is cessation and reparation, however in most cases reparations are granted and not cessation, in this instance France was initially asked to give reparation, however it was also asked to make cessation from conducting nuclear test in French Polynesia.
Types Of Reparation Granted
- Compensation
- Satisfaction
France apologised for its act in the international forum and paid exemplary damage for the damage it has caused to New Zealand.
The basic principle in relation to reparation was developed in the Charzow Factory case[5], where Poland was asked to give reparations for the blast of Charzow Factory.
Principle Of Exhaustion Of Local Remedies
Here the principle of exhaustion of local remedies is followed, in both the cases of New Zealand being aggrieved a case was filed in the tribunal and not the ICJ, this principle is provided under article 44 of ILC draft articles on state responsibility though there was an exception as France had committed a direct breach of its obligation and has caused injury to the state by damaging its marine resource.
Breach Of Agreement
The violation that aggrieved New Zealand is breach of agreement their agreement by France twice:
- Bombing the ship
- Taking the prisoners back without the consent of New Zealand
France breached its obligation towards New Zealand that resulted in return of the agreement signed between the two friendly nations. This incident caused a severe damage to the relationship between France and New Zealand.
Territorial Sea Issue
Further on the context of the movie we can see that the protestors of the Rainbow Warrior enter the territorial sea of French Polynesia, in this instance they were arrested for their illegal entry into the territorial sea as coastal state can make any regulation regarding the entry of ships.
Standard Of Proof
New Zealand in order to prove its claims must provide clear and convincing evidence as decided by the Eriteria-Ethiopia Claims[6] or if the charges are of exceptional gravity, then must prove with fully conclusive evidence as held by the international court[7].
Classification Of Wrongful Act
Any wrongful act was classified into two internationally crime and international delict under article 19 of draft articles on state responsibility.
Any international crime cannot take any circumstances precluding wrongfulness.
This case was a clear example for state sponsored terrorism.
Draft Code on Articles of State Responsibility
| Article Number | Subject | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Article 2 | State Liability | Establishes when a state can be held responsible for a breach. |
| Article 4 | Attribution | Acts of state organs are attributable to the state. |
| Article 23 | Force Majeure | Emergency exception for events beyond a state’s control. |
| Articles 42, 47 | Invocation of Responsibility | Injured states may invoke responsibility and seek remedies. |
| Article 44 | Exhaustion of Local Remedies | Domestic remedies must be exhausted before international litigation. |
Article 2 – State Liability
This essentially establishes when a state can be held liable. If there’s a breach – either by doing something they shouldn’t have done or failing to do something they should have, then the state can be held responsible for that violation.
Article 4 – Attribution of Conduct
This is about attribution. Basically, any act committed by any organ of the state, whether it’s a government official, a legislative body, or any other state entity, can be attributed directly to the state itself. The state can then be held responsible for those actions.
Article 23: Force Majeure
This is a well-established customary principle that works as a kind of emergency exception. When something happens that’s completely beyond a nation’s control and there’s genuinely no alternative way to handle it, the nation can claim force majeure to excuse what would otherwise be a breach of their obligations. It’s like an “act of God” defence in international law.
Articles 42, 47 – Invocation of State Responsibility
These articles deal with who can actually invoke state responsibility. Any state that’s been affected or injured by another state’s wrongful act has the right to invoke that state’s responsibility and seek remedies.
Article 44 – Exhaustion of Local Remedies Rule
This is about the exhaustion of local remedies rule. Before a nation can bring a dispute to the International Court of Justice or another international forum, they must first try to resolve it through all available domestic legal channels in the offending state. You can’t just jump straight to international litigation.
Law of the Sea
| Article Number | Subject | Key Principle |
|---|---|---|
| Article 5 | Normal Baseline | Low-water line used to measure territorial sea and maritime zones. |
Article 5 – Normal Baseline
Every coastal nation gets to establish what’s called a “normal baseline.” This is basically the low-water line along the coast, which serves as the starting point for measuring the territorial sea and other maritime zones. It’s the reference line from which a state’s maritime rights extend seaward.
Analysis Of The Movie On The Rainbow Warrior Sinkage
This movie is an informative and well-crafted work on the Rainbow Warrior sinkage that aims to bring out the clash between environmental activists and political power. The movie further highlights the lengths that a government goes to supress its opposition and the risks and efforts of environmental activists to attain their goals.
The movie mainly focuses on the investigation done by New Zealand. It could have been fruitful if it had been more on the wreckage and sinking of the Rainbow Warrior. The real face of the Rainbow Warrior was hidden throughout the movie except for the first scene where its motive is suspected.
Opening Sequence And Narrative Approach
The movie starts with the lettering, describing the extend of birth defects and new forms of cancer increasing alarmingly in the South Pacific region as a result of the nuclear testing conducted there by several powerful nations. Instead, a visual should be shown to make people empathy about the extent of damage it has caused.
Portrayal Of Events And Political Context
- The movie has exaugurated the events that took place.
- In some areas, it simplified the complex political landscape.
- The whole movie is about two different people trying to serve justice to the Rainbow Warrior and their trial to bring the rightful in front of the law.
- In order to increase the authenticity of the movie, the archival footage of the bombing has been added.
Representation And Bias
The movie is completely one sided towards the New Zealand and the activists of the Rainbow Warrior. The movie failed to showcase diversity in the crew members; mostly everyone seemed to be of the same race. This reminds me of the Western world’s domination in various aspects and showcasing it through various forums.
Alteration Of Facts And Character Depiction
| Aspect | Observation In The Movie |
|---|---|
| Political Responsibility | Changed from order of low-level French officials to direct order by the French president. |
| Image Of The Ship | The image of the ship was altered. |
| Portrayal Of Activists | Greenpeace activists are portrayed as heroes. |
However, we can see that in the eyes of nations they are considered as criminals for breach of many laws of nations and their motive was otherwise.
The movie failed to raise awareness about the issue at a global level and also spread and educated the mass with wrong information about the real incident.
Conclusion On International Law And The Rainbow Warrior Case
Though international law is a weak law, it emphasised its power through cases like the Rainbow Warrior, where France gave reparation of 7 million $ to New Zealand and later cessation of nuclear testing in French Polynesia also occurred.
This case is a complex and tragic incident that took place as a result of France’s effort to show its supremacy and stop the activists from protesting against nuclear testing in French Polynesia. It had consequence in both sphere of international politics and environmental movement.
Impact On International Relations And Environmental Movement
- The Rainbow Warrior case enhanced talks of the international community on state-sponsored terrorism.
- It raised concerns about the use of intelligence agencies in political operations of the state.
- It highlighted the importance of international organisations and cooperation among nations to resolve such disputes.
- In certain instances, it also emphasises the need for strict international principles as it took several years for France to admit responsibility over the issue.
This case also led to the creation of UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea). End Notes:
- France–New Zealand Arbitration Tribunal, 82 I.L.R. 500 (1990)
- Spanish Zone of Morocco Claims (Great Britain v. Spain) (1925), 2 R.I.A.A. 615
- LaGrand Case (Germany v. United States of America), [2001] ICJ Rep 466
- Torrey Canyon Case, 44 Denv. L.J. 400 (1967)
- Factory at Chorzów (Germany v. Poland), (1928) P.C.I.J. Series A No. 17
- Partial Award – Prisoners of War, Eritrea’s Claim 17 (Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission)
- Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Merits, ICJ Reports 2007
