The Republic of Nauru (“Nauru”) filed an Application to institute proceedings in the International Court of Justice (“the Court”) against the Commonwealth of Australia (“Australia”) to rehabilitate phosphate lands Australia mined during its administration before Nauruan independence. Nauru asserts that Australia, bound by treaties under the League of Nations, and subsequently with the United Nations Trusteeship System, needed to remedy environmental damage it caused Nauru through phosphate mining of Nauru’s lands done by Australia. Nauru is asking the Court to declare that, because of these treaties, Australia must make restitution or reparation to Nauru for the damage it has suffered. Australia has raised several preliminary objections in response, and it has asked the Court to declare Nauru’s Application inadmissible, claiming that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear this case.

In 1947, Nauru entered a treaty with the joint Administrative Authority of Australia, the United Kingdom and the Republic of New Zealand (“Administrative Authority”) under the trusteeship system.  Australia agreed within this treaty to “take into consideration the customs and usages of the inhabitants of Nauru and respect the rights and safeguard the interests, both present and future, of the indigenous inhabitants of the Territory….” Nauru asserts in its Application that Australia failed to hold up these agreements, as the mining of Nauruan lands resulted in large environmental degradation with no equivalent benefit for Nauru. Nauru also claims that Australia has not offered appropriate restitution or rehabilitation for causing this mass degradation, again a breach of its trusteeship obligations. 

Australia, in return, has launched several objections relating to the Court’s jurisdiction and the case’s relevance. Australia asserts that jurisdiction does “not apply to any dispute regarding which the Parties thereto have agreed or shall agree to have recourse to some other method of peaceful settlement” per the Statute of the Court, and therefore any matter concerning this trusteeship agreement fell under the jurisdiction of the Trusteeship Council and the General Assembly. Australia further objects that the Nauru Island Phosphate Agreement of 1967 between Nauru and the Administrative Authority effectively waived Nauru’s claim for rehabilitation from Australia. Even further, Australia objects that Nauru’s claim was made against the Administrative Authority, and that the Court could not decide the question of responsibility for restitution and rehabilitation without considering the responsibility of New Zealand and the United Kingdom, both parties to the dispute but not to the proceedings.

The Court must determine if it has jurisdiction in this case, and if so, what statute imparts jurisdiction. As this is a case concerning the trusteeship system, the Court will have to consider if a trusteeship agreement made through the Trusteeship Council falls within its own or another United Nations body’s jurisdiction. Further, the Court must consider if previous agreements between Nauru and Australia have footing and if those agreements restrict the Court from having jurisdiction. If the Court determines it has jurisdiction, they must determine what predetermined international laws cover issues concerning the alleged breach of trusteeship, such as responsibility for environmental damage, self-determination and permanent sovereignty over natural resources.