By: Anna Curry

On November 25, 2024 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) heard a case brought by the Republic of Nauru. Nauru claimed that the Commonwealth of Australia failed to rehabilitate their land, severely depleted by the mining for phosphate, during its trusteeship over the island. The country contends that Australia failed to adhere to Article 76 in the Charter of the United Nations, regarding the trusteeship system. 

The Republic of Nauru is a small island located in the Pacific Ocean. In 1900, the rare mineral phosphate was discovered, heightening the interest of several nations including Australia. Following the conclusion of World War II, Nauru was placed under Australian trusteeship. During this time, Australia benefited from phosphate mining on the island. In 1968, Nauru was granted sovereignty by the Commonwealth of Australia.

According to the Nauruan advocates, Australia breached Article 76 because they failed, as a trusteeship, to act in the best interests of the inhabiting people and the island as a whole.  Advocate Will Blanchard of Nauru said, “Australia did violate the trusteeship agreement… and [did not allow] for the Nauruans to have any counter or argue with the decision being made,” Thus, Nauru is requesting the Court to rule in their favor and allocate appropriate restitution to compensate for the damages Australia inflicted to their land.

The advocate of Australia argued two central points. The first, according to Article 78 of the UN Charter, trusteeship no longer applies to territories once they become members of the United Nations. Second, the ICJ lacks jurisdiction because a 1967 agreement between Australia and the people of Nauru explicitly established the specific limits on the quantity of phosphates that any entity was permitted to extract. Australia contends that it followed these limits closely. 

The majority opinion in the ruling stated “Australia has breached their obligations provided in the United Nations Charter Chapter XII Article 76 and the Trusteeship Agreement for the Territory of Nauru.” The ICJ also recommended that a joint agreement outlining adequate financial reparations be reached between the nations of Australia and Nauru.

The views expressed by the majority opinion of the court were not shared by every justice. According to the dissenting opinion, Australia did not violate any international obligations nor the United Nations Charter. Specifically, the qualm Justice Kaylin Evans of Sweden expressed about the case was that “[Nauru brought] their case up under the agreement of 1967 [which] is purely economic.” Therefore, according to Justice Evans and the dissent, Nauru’s arguments concerning human rights had no merit.

The ICJ ruled in favor of the Republic of Nauru by a vote of 10 in favor and five dissent.