Rainbow Warrior

The Rainbow Warrior was a ship belonging to Greenpeace and was used in protests against actions that were harmful to the environment in the world. In this case, the ship was in Auckland, New Zealand with the purpose of protesting against the nuclear tests that France carried out in the Mururoa atoll in the Pacific Ocean. Upon learning of this, France decided to stop the demonstrations and on July 10, 1985, the country's secret agents attacked the ship, ending with its sinking and the death of a crew member identified as Fernando Pereira.

Subsequently, two French agents, Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur, were arrested and sentenced to 10 years in prison for damages and manslaughter but France started a dispute with New Zealand where they wanted to ban certain imports from the European Community for the reason to demand the extradition of the agents. The Secretary General of the United Nations was appealed to who established an agreement in which France had to pay 7 million dollars to New Zealand and the agents would remain in custody for three years on the French island and military base of Hao. However, France breached the agreement by returning the agents to their country for medical reasons without New Zealand's consent, and New Zealand invoked an arbitration provision set out in the 1986 agreement. The case of the agents' repatriation was brought to the International Court of Justice where New Zealand requested that the criminals return to the Hao to serve their three-year sentence and also requested reparations and compliance with the agreements by France. However, it was determined that in the case of Major Marfart there was no breach, unlike the case of Captain Prieur where there was a continuous breach of the agreement. Finally, the Court determined that France should legally and morally satisfy the damages caused to New Zealand and that both countries should promote friendly relations with each other.

Timeline of events

On July 7, 1985, the Rainbow Warrior arrived at the Mururoa Atoll to start the protest against the nuclear tests that France was practicing at the time. On July 10, 1985, the Rainbow Warrior was scuttled by French orders where a crew member, Mr. Fernando Pereira, died, who drowned when the boat sank. On July 12, 1985, two agents of the French security directorate were interviewed by the New Zealand police and also arrested. On November 4, 1985, charges were brought against the French agents, Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieu, for involuntary murder and damage to the boat, so on November 22 the two agents were sentenced by the New Zealand chief justice to 10 years in prison.

On September 22, 1985, the Prime Minister of France announced the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior by agents of the D.G.S.E. that it was under orders and in June 1986 the two governments approached the Secretary of the United Nations and presented the problem to him, for which reason on July 6, 1986 the Secretary General of the United Nations considered the problem and gave the following solution, which was divided into several sections. First of all, he requested that the Prime Minister of New Zealand receive an apology from the French Prime Minister for the events that took place on July 10, 1985. Later, compensation of 7,000,000 (seven million) dollars was requested to the New Zealand government for damage caused; and, finally, as a third party, they discussed what was going to happen to the two French agents Major Mafart and Captain Prieur, who had to be transferred to a military island isolated from Europe for three years with the indication that they will not be able to leave the island unless the two governments agree and the French government must send a report on its activity on the island, it is also clarified that the import agreements will continue in the same way without any conflict and in a friendly manner and finally they must Supervise that they are complying with the agreement.

On July 9, 1986, the French and New Zealand governments concluded the three agreements in Paris, so on July 23 the first agreement began and the two French agents were transferred to the island of Hao, but on July 7 On December 1987, the French Defense Minister was notified by the Hao military base about Mafart's condition, as it required a review for health reasons. On December 10, 1987, Dr. Maurel sent a message to the defense minister which was received on December 11, stating that Mafart had abdominal problems and urgently needed medical attention at a hospital.

On December 12, 1987, the French ambassador contacted New Zealand to communicate the message of what had happened and later New Zealand asked that he be reviewed by a military doctor to see if it was reasonable for him to leave the island and the French government agreed to this. However, on December 13, the French ambassador notified the Prime Minister of New Zealand that he could not accept the agreement for reasons of urgency, so on December 14, 1987, the officer Masart arrived in Paris to be examined and treated. Due to the acts committed by the French government against what was agreed on December 14, 1987, New Zealand sent the French minister a note in which it clearly disagreed with the measures that were taken in the absence of New Zealand. On December 14, 1987, New Zealand sent a doctor to examine the officer and that was when Dr. Croxons reported that Mafart could not be on the island due to his condition and symptoms. He also added that the conditions in which he found himself were a reasonable justification for his evacuation.

On December 18, 1987, Dr. Croxson made a second report, since the investigations had to be done every two weeks and on December 19, 1987, France sent a letter to New Zealand, to clarify that the methods used used were solely for the officer's health and could not count as a foul or violation. On December 23, 1987, the New Zealand embassy responded to the two communiqués that France had sent, in which it responded that although its actions had been humanitarian, New Zealand had presented solutions that did not break with the agreement and having carried out such action and without communicating it on time counted as a violation. Later that same day, the Prime Minister of New Zealand responded to the Prime Minister of France thanking him for the letter in which he communicated that despite what had happened, they hoped to maintain relations between the countries cordially.

On December 30, 1987, the French minister responded to the New Zealand embassy that when officer Major was in better health conditions he would return to the island, to continue with the corresponding time. On January 4, 1988, Dr. Croxson transcribed what Professor Daly had proposed regarding Officer Mafart. On January 18, 1988, Dr. Croxson announced in a telephone conversation with Professor Daly that he no longer had diagnoses and that the last report would be ready on January 27, 1988.

On January 21, 1988, the New Zealand embassy asked them for a final medical report by January 27, and on January 28, 1988, Professor Daly advised that the officer should continue to be observed in an equipped hospital, to that he can recover in the right way, but he should also refrain from military service for a period of rest. On February 5, 1988, the minister of foreign affairs informed the New Zealand embassy that officer Major would not be able to return to Hao Island, for which reason, on February 12, Dr. Croxson made his fifth report indicating that the The official still needs medical attention, but it was possible that he will take it on the island of Hao and in case something goes wrong, they have the authorization to go to Tahiti where he will receive the attention he needs.

On February 18, 1988, the New Zealand embassy sent a note to the French foreign minister stating that they committed a violation by having transferred it without authorization and on July 21, 1988 Dr.Croxson presented his final report where established that there was no change in Major's conditions. On March 28, 1988, they sent a commander agreed upon by the two governments with the purpose of visiting Hao and supervising how the base was and what was happening. The report indicated that Commander Prieur had had contact with her husband, mother, and in-laws in the time of isolation that was indicated. On May 3, 1988, France received a medical report indicating that Prieur was six weeks pregnant, but that she had to be treated very delicately because she was 39 years old and the medical attention Hao had was not sufficient for this. such a delicate type of pregnancy.

That same day, the New Zealand ambassador was notified of what was happening and of Prieur's medical situation. On May 5, 1988, the New Zealand embassy was informed by the French government that Father Prieur was undergoing cancer treatment and they requested that they come to see him before he died. On May 5, 1988, the New Zealand embassy indicated that the order for Prieur to leave Hao due to the conditions of his pregnancy was approved, but that the request to go see his father was not approved. However, they communicated that first they were going to send a doctor to verify the condition of his father to approve the request and so on May 6, 1988, Prieur left Hao on a special flight with the approval of New Zealand. Finally, on May 10, 1988, the New Zealand embassy presented a note to the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating that it should mark the violations that were initially committed by the French government requesting help from the Secretary General of the United Nations., in order to resolve the situation diplomatically.

Demand

• 1986: It is named that the process will be two parts: one written and another oral. The written allegation consists of:

a) Memorial to be sent by the New Zealand Government to the Court Registrar and the French Agent 8 weeks after the entry of the Agreement. b) A Counter-Memorial to be sent by the Government of the Republic of France to the Court Registrar and to the New Zealand Agent 8 weeks after receipt of the New Zealand memorial by the French Agent. c) A Reply to be sent by the New Zealand Government to the Registrar of the Court and to the French Agent 4 weeks after receipt by the New Zealand Agent of France's counter-memorial. d) A Rejoinder to be sent by the Government of the Republic of France to the Court Registrar and to the New Zealand Agent 4 weeks after receipt by the French Agent of the New Zealand Rejoinder. e) Other type of written document that the Court determines to be necessary.

The Registrant must notify the two Agents of the address for the deposit of the written pleadings and other written materials. Each document must be communicated with six copies. The Court may extend the time limits at the request of any government. Oral hearings must follow the written procedure after an interval of not less than two weeks. Each government must be represented at hearings by its Agents or a Deputy Agent, its advice and experts as deemed necessary for its purpose. (Page 220)

• 1986: France sues for the release of Major Mafart and Captain Prieur after the New Zealand sentence in the absence of a justification. (Pg. 1)
• July 6, 1986: New Zealand demands compensation for events. New Zealand requested compensation of no less than $9 million, while France indicated that it should not be more than $4 million. The United Nations Secretary-General ' s indication was $7 million. (Pg. 224)
• 1989: After the breach of the First Agreement, New Zealand called for the return of Major Mafart and Captain Prieur to Hao Island and the three years agreed in the First Agreement. The order was no longer appropriate since France ' s obligations had already come to an end. (Pg. 4)

New Zealand arguments regarding the case

Part of the argumentation developed by New Zealand was based on the principles of State responsibility, which in this case, arguments were presented establishing that France should have been responsible due to the first agreement made between the two countries on respecting the points where they had to solve any problem between them bilaterally.

The first argument consists of how New Zealand points out that France committed 6 breaches of the international obligations assumed in Clause 3 to 7 of its First Agreement made on July 9, 1986. The first of these breaches is that France did not act in good faith to use its consent to remove both agents from Hao. The second is focused on the fact that New Zealand's consent to do so was not sought; and third, France's continued failure to bring back these agents. (Para. 62).

In depth, regarding the first non-compliance, New Zealand establishes that in good faith this provision was not complied with since the subsidiary obligations were not followed considering that France should have provided complete information on the know when to obtain it, that is, in what circumstances consent should be obtained on their part. Second, it should not have hampered New Zealand's efforts to verify information on this situation; as well as the fact that he has not given his government the opportunity to obtain data and thus make a clear decision. (Para. 63)

Specifying the above points, New Zealand argued that no one reported that Major Mafart had health problems, that he was hospitalized in Hao and even that a French doctor examined him on the island. In addition, New Zealand considered that these data, as well as the medical history, did not justify the unexpected decision to transfer the agent to Paris without the proper time and permits, since instead of taking a 20-hour flight to Paris, one could well attend in Papeete, but no exact explanation was given for this decision.

In the case of Captain Prieur, France did not seek New Zealand's bona fide consent to return her to Paris because of her pregnancy and her father's terminal illness. New Zealand was in the process of examining her state of health to prepare for the treatment that would be given to her by the New Zealand authorities, but the government was later notified at short notice that the captain's father was in serious condition and required his return to France. (Para. 63)

The second non-compliance claimed by New Zealand consists of the State's lack of consent on the issue of repatriation of both agents. France admitted to this breach and stated that it knew from the outset that New Zealand's consent was not forthcoming despite the fact that this mutual consent could allow departure from the island in a legal manner, as long as there was a consent provision. justified and in good faith by both parties. Based on the First Agreement, New Zealand determined that any unilateral act related to the departure of the island was prohibited and that consent was essential to authorize these acts that interrupt the sentence of the agents. (Para. 64)

Lastly, the third breach is about the failure to return the agents, since despite the allegations of France when using the French Military Law in the case of Major Mafart, New Zealand points out that he is healthy enough to be in the War College, so he considers that although his French medical certificate indicates that he cannot attend the war, it should not be an impediment for him to be in Hao because he is only being asking you to attend without making any kind of effort. Likewise, New Zealand establishes that in Tahiti there is good equipment to keep it under medical supervision. Considering this, it is mentioned that although it is part of the military scheme, it is argued that, in accordance with Article 27 of the Vienna Convention, no State can invoke domestic law to breach its international obligations, so France cannot he could make use of the Military Law established by his State.

Regarding the case of Captain Prieur, France established that after the death of her father, France gave her maternity leave in accordance with the French military code, so she had to give birth and could not leave France with her baby. However, for New Zealand this was not a justification since there are many children on the island and there would be no reason to worry; In addition, both her husband and her baby have the opportunity to accompany her since it is established in the First Agreement. (Para. 65)

France's arguments regarding the case

The French defense minister received a message from the commander of Hao Atoll that Major Mafart needed medical attention that was not available on site. Dr. Maruel, the French specialist dispatched to the atoll, reported that the Major needed an examination in a highly specialized environment and therefore urgent repatriation to mainland France. The French authorities tried to obtain the consent of New Zealand, even with the communication difficulties between the two capitals. The French ambassador in Wellington gave a verbal note to the New Zealand authorities on the need for expatriation. The refusal of France to receive the New Zealand aircraft was justified in the 1986 agreement where they could not send agents to the atoll. Also, a foreign aircraft with twelve members on board seemed more like a provocation. But, to respond to New Zealand's concerns, he was given the option of having a doctor appointed by the latter check the major upon his arrival in Paris. There was confusion as to where the doctor dispatched by New Zealand was to send his report from. The French authorities thought that if the doctor returned directly to Wellington, the repatriation of the Major would be delayed and this would put his life at risk. For this reason, the unilateral decision to repatriate was made. (Para. 67)

The eldest was hospitalized upon arrival in mainland France and remained confined to the hospital. The doctor sent by New Zealand concluded that the necessary tests did have to be carried out in a specialized place and could not be carried out on the atoll. However, he doubts the urgency of the evacuation itself. There was an emergency but the degree of urgency was doubtful. The French State allowed the New Zealand State doctor to regularly examine the major and was regularly informed of the patient's health. The checkups were accompanied by a British gastroenterologist. In Professor Daly's final report, from the French side, and in accordance with French military regulations, the major was no longer fit to serve overseas. But the New Zealand doctor and the British colleague disagreed and called for the major's return to Hao Atoll. France, given the difference of opinion, argued that the military condition of both inmates and the opinion of the French military doctors is more forceful, protected by the 1986 agreement. Therefore, the Major could not be sent back to Hao. (Para. 68)

By May 1988, the French foreign minister was notified that Captain Prieur was six weeks pregnant and that Hao's condition was not adequate for medical care of the pregnancy. New Zealand stated that there was no reasonable question not to seek their consent and requested that a doctor be brought in by the New Zealand State to give a report from the atoll. The French airline that would take the doctor was on strike, so his trip would be delayed about 30 hours. But French authorities reported that Captain Prieur's father was dying, giving the evacuation a level of necessity citing humanitarian reasons for her to see her father before he died. France suggested that a New Zealand aircraft transport the personnel directly to Hao. A deadline of 6 May 1988 was given to send the personnel or else the captain will be evacuated. But New Zealand did not have an aircraft ready at that time to send the doctor, it was impossible. Within an hour of the reply, France reported that it was unfeasible to keep Prieur in Hao and that she would be repatriated immediately. (Para. 69)

By keeping the captain in France, the republic justifies that she had to stay throughout the entire pregnancy. And, at the time of the baby's birth, they now rely on humanitarian law not to return to Hao. (Para. 70)

France does not respond to the fact that it literally breached the 1986 agreements with New Zealand as long as it does not return both officers to Hao in the three-year period that was established by both states. However, it is argued that the extremely urgent circumstances of the situations mean that their acts are not considered internationally wrongful acts. (Para. 71)

Sentence

1-By majority it was declared that the French Republic did not breach its obligation to New Zealand by removing Major Mafart from the island of Hao on December 13, 1987.

2- The French Republic was declared to have committed a material and continuing breach of its obligation to New Zealand by failing to order the return of Major Mafart to the island of Hao as of February 12, 1988.

3- The French Republic was found to have committed a material breach of its obligation to New Zealand by failing to make a good faith effort to obtain New Zealand's consent on May 5, 1988 for Captain Prieur to leave the island of Hao.

4-It was declared that as a consequence the French Republic committed a material breach of its obligation to New Zealand by removing Captain Prieur from the island of Hao on May 5 and 6, 1988.

5-The French Republic was declared to have committed a material and continuing breach of its obligation to New Zealand by failing to order the return of Captain Prieur to the island of Hao.

6-By majority it was declared that the obligations of the French Republic that required the stay of Major Mafart and Captain Prieur on the island of Hao ended on July 22, 1989

7-It is accordingly stated that it cannot accommodate New Zealand's requests for a declaration and an order for Major Mafart and Captain Prieur to return to Hao Island.

8-It was declared that the condemnation of the French Republic for its breaches of its treaty obligation with New Zealand, made public by decision of the Court, constitutes in the circumstances adequate satisfaction for the legal and moral damage caused to New Zealand.

9-It was recommended that the Government of the French Republic and New Zealand establish a fund to promote close friendly relations between the citizens of the two countries, and that the Government of the French Republic establish a contribution equivalent to 2 million of dollars.

Repercussions

The main consequence of the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior was the death of Greenpeace photographer Fernando Pereira who returned to the boat after the detonation of the first bomb to document the damage to the Rainbow Warrior without waiting for a second one to occur burst. Months later the French agents Alan Mafart and Dominique Prieur were arrested and on November 22, 1995 they were sentenced to 10 years in prison for the involuntary manslaughter of Fernando Pereira and for the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior. Regarding the relations between France and New Zealand after the attack, the relationship between the two countries was in a delicate situation and both countries had interrupted their exports and imports to each other, however, New Zealand feared that their imports and exports would be interrupted at the entire European Union. In order to settle this situation and dispute between the two countries, on July 8, 1986, the Secretary General of the United Nations Javier Pérez de Cuéllar announced that New Zealand would receive compensation of $13 million euros from France and with the condition that France would not interfere in New Zealand's trade relations with the European Union. A year later, an agreement was reached between France and Greenpeace, where compensation for $8 million dollars was agreed, based on the decision made by the International Arbitration Court based in Switzerland and under the threat of Greenpeace to bring the trial. to the New Zealand court. Finally, the Rainbow Warrior became a logo for the Greenpeace Organization, worldwide recognizing its struggle in search of environmental protection and peace.

General information about Rainbow Warrior

The Rainbow Warrior was the flagship of the international non-governmental organization Greenpeace. She was built in Aberdeen in 1955 and initially used by the British Department of Agriculture as a research ship. She later became a North Sea fishing vessel until her acquisition by Greenpeace in 1978. Her name comes from an ancient North American native prophecy. In 1981 her machines were replaced.

After the attack carried out in 1985, the ship was refloated, but the damage was of such magnitude that it was impossible to repair it, so it was transported in 1987 to the Cavalli Islands where it was sunk to contribute as a sanctuary for marine fauna.

There have been many rock bands that have dedicated songs to the memory of the Rainbow Warrior, see the example of the Argentine heavy metal band "Rata Blanca", the Spanish band "Avalanch" and "Asfalto", or the Heavy Rock band "White Lion" from North America, with the theme "Little fighter" in the year 1989.

Greenpeace named its new flagships, the Rainbow Warrior II and Rainbow Warrior III, the same name.

Rainbow Warrior (Amsterdam, 1981)

Several fictional films have been created about the ship, including The Rainbow Warrior Conspiracy (1989), The Rainbow Warrior (1992), and two French films Operation Rainbow Warrior and Le Rainbow Warrior (both 2006).

In addition, some artists and bands, including Belgian band Cobalt 60, New Zealand outfit The Bats, Faroese heavy metal band Týr, and Argentine heavy metal band Rata Blanca, have dedicated songs to the ship. Geffen Records released a double album, Greenpeace Rainbow Warriors, in 1989 that included songs by artists such as U2, INXS, The Pretenders, Talking Heads, Peter Gabriel, and White Lion. Swedish band Europe also made a demo called 'Rainbow Warrior' on his single 'Le Baron Boys', although it is not known if he references the ship. German punk band Die Toten Hosen also referenced the sinking in their song 'Walkampf', though without using its name. The band Coco Rosie also has the theme 'Rainbow Warriors' on the band. probably referring to this incident.

Some books have also been written about the ship, such as Eyes of Fire: The Last Voyage of the Rainbow Warrior, written by one of its crew, David Robie, a year after the sinking.

External links, Video

• Dargaville Maritime Museum where the masts of the Rainbow Warrior are displayed.
• Official page of Greenpeace International Rainbow Warrior
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxWIg_cRr2M dts digitizations Videos