3d4yVkKMl

- 10 -
6. On 23 April 2012, the President of the Court met with the Agents of the Parties in order to
ascertain their views with regard to the organization of the oral proceedings. At this meeting, the
Agent of Australia stated that his Government did not consider it necessary to organize a second
round of written pleadings; the Agent of Japan, for his part, requested a second round of written
pleadings.
The Court, having regard to Article 45, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, decided that a
second round of written pleadings was not necessary. By letters dated 2 May 2012, the Registrar
informed the Parties accordingly.
*
7. On 19 September 2012, the Government of New Zealand, referring to Article 53,
paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, requested the Court to furnish it with copies of the pleadings
and documents annexed in the case. Having ascertained the views of the Parties pursuant to that
same provision, the Court decided to grant this request. The documents in question were duly
transmitted to New Zealand.
8. On 20 November 2012, New Zealand, pursuant to Article 63, paragraph 2, of the Statute,
filed in the Registry of the Court a Declaration of Intervention in the case. In its Declaration,
New Zealand stated that it “avail[ed] itself of the right . . . to intervene as a non-party in the
proceedings brought by Australia against Japan in this case”.
9. In accordance with Article 83, paragraph 1, of the Rules of Court, the Registrar, by letters
dated 20 November 2012, transmitted certified copies of the Declaration of Intervention to the
Governments of Australia and Japan, which were informed that the Court had fixed
21 December 2012 as the time-limit for the submission of written observations on that Declaration.
In accordance with paragraph 2 of the same Article, the Registrar also transmitted a copy of the
Declaration to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, as well as to States entitled to appear
before the Court.
10. Australia and Japan each submitted written observations on New Zealand’s Declaration
of Intervention within the time-limit thus fixed. The Registrar transmitted to each Party a copy of
the other’s observations, and copies of the observations of both Parties to New Zealand.
11. In the light of Article 84, paragraph 2, of the Rules of Court, and considering the absence
of objections from the Parties, the Court took the view that it was not necessary to hold hearings on
the question of the admissibility of New Zealand’s Declaration of Intervention.