Just Cases | Season 2 | Episode 6 | Bombing of the Rainbow Warrior

It's just before midnight on 10 July 1985. The Port of Auckland, New Zealand. The Rainbow Warrior, a Greenpeace anti-nuclear protest ship, is sitting at its dock when two massive explosions tear through its hull.

A man is killed onboard.

What follows is one of the most bizarre and sinister of diplomatic incidents.

The hunt for his killers uncovers an international network of spies, and exposes a highly-coordinated attack planned from the highest echelons of world power.

Music in this episode:
- Lobo Loco 'Fly of the Brants A'
- Blue Dot Sessions 'Boston Landing'

Explore more Monash Law podcasts

Transcript | Just Cases | Season 2 | Episode 6 | Bombing of the Rainbow Warrior

[00:00:00] In Auckland shortly before midnight, two explosions rocked the ship and she sank at her birth at Marsden Wharf. A member of the crew was missing after the sinking, and his body was found by police divers late this morning. The Rainbow Warrior was due to sail in a few days for Morro on a Greenpeace mission, and explosions rang out from the 40 meter ship at about midnight, and the crew scrambled to get off the vessel to safety as she began going under.

But one crew member was caught below DS and police recovered his body early this morning. So do you suspect sabotage? We certainly do. Ships just don't blow up by themselves at the dock.

James Patterson: Auckland New Zealand, the 10th of July, 1985, the Rainbow Warrior, the pride of Greenpeace lies submerged in the city's port.

From the very start, the captain of the ship, Peter Wilcox, knew that they'd been the victim of a terrorist attack. But what no one knew was just how sinister this attack really was. How elaborate the planning, [00:01:00] how precise the execution, and from how high up into the echelons of world power. The plans had been hatched.

This is Just Cases.

I am James Patterson and I'm here with Melissa Castan. Hi James. Hello. And we're really proud to be joined by Jean Allain. Jean is a professor of international law at Monash University and Jean's gonna be telling us all about this just crazy story today. So welcome John. Thank you very much. It's great to be on Just Cases.

Now, before we go into what happened, I think we really need to rewind to 1985 and some big political and environmental issues. So in particular, there's a tense standoff in the Pacific. Can you tell us what's going on here?

Jean Allain: Yeah, let me just give you a bit of context because we were talking about nuclear issues and nuclear issues.

I think especially in the Pacific and for Australia and this region are very important. Just a couple of things. Hiroshima, in 1945, first time [00:02:00] nuclear weapons are used in anger. That's very interesting in the context that there's a real disconnect between the historians and what the public knows.

Historians will recognize generally that the bomb was used not to end the war, but. To limit Russia's involvement in that region. So that's the first. And then Nagasaki is very interesting because in essence it's very cynical. It was simply to test the bomb. And so that to me is the most cynical thing that's ever happened because of the lives that were lost.

Melissa Castan: But that's not really the way people understood it at that time. No, that's right. In the mid eighties. People weren't thinking of those things in that way.

Jean Allain: No, that's right. That's right. Simon Chesterman has just published a book called The Pacific in 2014, and one of his chapters is The Great Thermonuclear Sea that the Pacific has really been the place where nuclear weapons have been tested and really used in so many ways.

315 tests in the Pacific. It's incredible. It's a graveyard of nuclear testing. So Bikini Island will be made famous by the swimwear. But originally that's the [00:03:00] reason it was given that was that bikinis were seen as being wow. This incredible thing like nuclear weapons. And so at the time, there wasn't, it's a

Melissa Castan: really funny correlation there.

It is. Right?

Jean Allain: And it's no sense of what nuclear weapons are all about except, that it's outta this world. It's incredible. And and so a lot of those tests, American tests take place in the Pacific and also French tests, and we'll come back to that. But also to recognize that in Australia, that there were 12 nuclear tests that were done on Montebello Island in Western Australia, almost kitty corner from where we are on the northeast corner of Australia and then maringa in, in South.

Australia as well. So that's, to take note of that, that we've also had nuclear weapons used within within Australia. So that's the kind of context that what, what's going on with nuclear weapons.

Melissa Castan: Why was France in the Pacific and why did they. Elect to do these tests in the Pacific.

What was special about those Pacific Islands and France's relationship with them?

Jean Allain: Yeah so two things. One is and the British had been the same and the Americans to some [00:04:00] extent, right? It's not within their territory, right? So it's not within, although the United States did some testing in Nevada in general, it's far away from France.

It's far away from the uk. Oh, so far away. It's a

Melissa Castan: meme situation, not in my backyard.

Jean Allain: Yes. And it's also a colonial pass, right? So France and the UK have these territories that are used for military purposes, et cetera, et cetera. They're far, so far away that it's very difficult to protest there, to go there and to do these things.

So a lot of things that can happen where no, there are no eyes.

James Patterson: Can happen in these regions. So that's, the people aren't gonna vote against them. The people who are affected because people are caught up in this. I guess we've gotta remember, it's not testing in the Pacific makes it sound like it's just testing underwater, but people were very badly harmed by these tests, including I believe in the Marshall Islands only just before this particular incident that we're gonna talk about today.

Yeah. Greenpeace had gone to evacuate some people.

Jean Allain: No, absolutely. And you're also talking in the context, especially in the fifties and sixties where there's not a clear recognition of what [00:05:00] radioactive what can happen to a person. And the long-term effects, and this is one of the fundamental things about about nuclear weapons.

They cannot be ca contained both in space. Winds will take them across and also in time. Over time with a half life of millions of years. And so people in the South Pacific find themselves in a situation where they are really victims of something they don't see or know, but also didn't consent to.

And so it's a very dangerous animal.

Melissa Castan: So given that context, if I take you back to the mid 1980s what was Greenpeace doing in New Zealand and how did these circumstances coming come about? That led to the cases that we're gonna talk about

Jean Allain: in the 1980s? There's a resumption of, of nuclear tests, there will be a resumption by France.

And this notion of a flotilla of sending people into the region really disrupts. And one of the things special about Greenpeace is that Greenpeace is also benefiting from international law and the international system. 'cause if you think about it, if Greenpeace was doing the things they are [00:06:00] doing on land.

They wouldn't get away with it because it would be illegal to do the things they're doing. But because they're on the high seas, the international law says the seas are open to anyone to be used. Freedom of the seas. You can, anybody can use it in whatever the way they want. So you can't be trespassing, for example.

No. You can't be going within certain regions. So typically it's a 12 mile region around any landmass that you are excluded from. But beyond that. In general, you can do what you want. So it means that if France is saying we've got these 12 mile limit, but we're extending it to hundreds of thousands of kilometers, then they have no right to do that and anybody can enter into that zone.

Now, I. The reason why the French were declaring a hundred thousand miles off limit is 'cause they were fearful of radiation. And so what Greenpeace was doing, and others that joined the Flotilla were going to do, was going, were gonna put themselves in harm's way because they sought to do is to get in front and not allow France to do this explosion for fear that these [00:07:00] people would die or they would d you know.

Instantaneously or over time by radiation poisoning. Greenpeace is, in many ways we think of Greenpeace as a peaceful organization, but their people are putting themselves in harm's way by doing these types of activities on behalf of those people who wish to see, for instance, a nuclear free world or those people who are concerned about the environment, about sea animals.

So that kind of gets us to a place where we find ourselves in 1985. With the Rainbow Warrior on a cold night in Auckland where all of a sudden there's an explosion. And people are scurrying off the boat. One of the individuals, Fernando Pereira, is a photographer. First explosion. People are running off, puring off.

He turns around, I need my equipment. He goes back and another bomb blows up, explodes, kills him instantaneously, and the ship is is sunk. Sabotage. [00:08:00] It's not clear who's responsible, but very quickly it transpires that the Auckland police, the New Zealand police get a number of leads that attaches ultimately to, to the French, that identifies the French as being behind it.

James Patterson: It sounds pretty bizarre the way that this unfolded, and there seems to be a number of really. Weird coincidences that took place, that made it go from an incident of say, terrorism or sabotage to something that sounds it. Just, it sounds made up including a local neighborhood watch group who apparently detained two people who were acting suspiciously.

Jean Allain: Yeah. So first of all, it's quite interesting because originally the French very quickly have a kind of a one person investigation and the investigation says, wow, there may have been there, there were. Two French agents involved? Maybe two more, but nothing more. So part of this French Secret Service, or is [00:09:00] this who these people are?

It's not clear at the start. Okay. And so the French are saying there are nationals that are involved and, but there's only a maybe. Four, maybe five as a maximum. And then what clearly happens is that news starts reporters start looking into it and more and more revelation.

So it's clear that there is a coverup and an attempted, a very bad attempt at covering up in France, which leads ultimately to the Prime Minister forcing the resignation of the. Defense Minister and of the head of the Secret Service. In fact, the ultimately what happens is New Zealand is in a very strong place because they've arrested two individuals who are in fact Secret Service agents.

So the New Zealanders have two secret service

James Patterson: agents, so these two French Secret Service agents they're outed and I believe that they were. Posing as tourists or something bizarre like that. Yeah. Who were these people? What the hell were they doing there?

Jean Allain: So they were there for a month or so, so there's, what is clear is that there's two groups.

Let's say [00:10:00] three are on a ship, on a boat, on a sailing ship, and they're sailing around. So this is. It's not something that just happens, right? This is premeditated for a very long time. You've got people who are sailing around that are, it looks like they were carrying the bombs. They were carrying the scuba diving equipment.

They were the zodiac the little rubber dinghy that, that brings them to the ship. So there's that part. And the other part are these two individuals, a woman and a man who travel around on their honeymoon, quote unquote around New Zealand. And and what happens is on the evening, someone recognizes that their van that they had, their motor home that they had rented, which was a name brand of a company, had been stationed at a beach, not so far away.

And so there's a call out to say, okay if these two, as you're returning, as these motor homes are being returned, let us know if there's anybody who looks suspicious. And the outcome is indeed that someone says it seemed to us that there was these two French [00:11:00] people who had who had who had rented.

About a week and a half later, they bring it back and there's another part of the scandal, and that is that these French Secret Service agents are on Swiss passports. So there are fake passports being used, which then means that France and Switzerland, there's another part to the affair that, that is causing international tension.

This is just wacky.

Melissa Castan: Is this a clumsier? Is this a clumsy Yes and no heist here, because it doesn't sound like it was really well thought through. At least the aftermath wasn't really well managed. Inspector

Jean Allain: CSO was involved. You can say that, but so France had this, if you wish, a tradition.

Of doing exactly this, of bombing ships in different parts of the world. So it was a modus operandi that the French had done. But you're right, they got caught. And the silliness of it was they did it in Harbor. But at this point it's a case of the Secret Service that, and it's not clear.

How far up the, who makes the decision ultimately, but it's a [00:12:00] failed attempt. And it is clumsy and it's a, yeah. Inspector Clso and all these types of things. It's a. Unmitigated disaster.

Melissa Castan: So this is a murder, right? Because these people put a bomb on a ship and a guy died and other people I presume were injured.

And there's property, massive property damage and it's, so there's a kind of, there's what you a crime under New Zealand law, but there's some other international law offenses or breaches here, aren't there? Yeah.

Jean Allain: So there's two levels. The first level is that there is, yeah. Murder. And sabotage. Right?

Property damage. And so very quickly, these individuals are brought before New Zealand court and found guilty of those offenses and given 10 year sentences.

James Patterson: Is this those two? Those

Jean Allain: two? The two. The two individuals. Okay. They're in prison. That's one part. The other part is the state to state, right?

You can't go about going into another country and bombing things, right? At a and we're lucky in this case that these are relatively friendly countries towards each other, so there's no, distance means that there's no [00:13:00] animosities, et cetera, et cetera. But if you've got countries that are a bit of a, let's say a Cold War mentality or something like that, you could say.

That this is an act of aggression against another country. You've invaded another country in use force, so it's very serious. It's, it is one of those types of, let's say crimes, international crimes of the highest order. The international criminal court has four crimes, crime, genocide. Crimes against humanity, war crimes, but also aggression and aggression.

Is this the use of force in other countries? So it's really a really serious thing in this case. New Zealand didn't push it that far, but clearly what the breach is, what the violation of the law is what we call sovereignty. That sovereignty really means that over a part of a, of this planet, you have complete control in the way in which you do things internally.

Or externally, right? So internally, if you want to pass laws around [00:14:00] gambling or prostitution or drugs, it's for you to do it. You can, no one else has a say. The same thing with your international relations. You can do what you want in your international relations, except that it bumps up against another country.

So it's really about compromise. In this case, a violation of sovereignty. France has done something inside that territory, New Zealand territory. In which it's not allowed to do. So that's what the court or what the breach of the law is. Now, in this case, what, so what happens is that there are negotiations going on between the two countries.

Slowly, France recognizes that it's done something wrong, and France is also at the same time starting to twist some arms. They're starting to echo to the New Zealanders that they're going to have if New Zealand pushes too hard on this. Then they will impose trade sanctions, right? So the levers of the powerful the trade, the balance of power is in France's favor and they're trying to use it.

New Zealand and France ultimately agree to [00:15:00] have an arbitration. So this is a case in which you don't have a permanent court. What happens is both countries have to come to an agreement. They have to come to an agreement is what is the issue? How are you going to, are you gonna have oral hearings or not?

And who is going to effectively be the judge?

Melissa Castan: So it's like a case, but it's on the terms that the parties agree to rather than some objective third party. Yeah, sex in place. All the rules.

Jean Allain: Yeah. So an already established third party, right? Yeah. So a court will have its own judges, it will have a building, et cetera, et cetera.

But here what happens is, and what I show my students is this is what an arbitration agreement looks like, and I hold it up and it's a blank piece of paper. It's for the parties to decide everything. Everything. In this case, they did something quite unusual. They asked the Secretary General to be the arbitrator, which is highly unusual of the un of the United Nations.

Yeah. Un Secretary General, because he is at the end of it. And he is, he is a political animal, [00:16:00] but they, there was, they wanted to get, deal with it rather quickly. And so you have what's called the first Rainbow Warrior. Arbitration case and there what happens is that the Secretary General finds that in fact, France has violated the sovereignty of New Zealand.

And requires France to apologize. And so the President of France apologizes for what's happened compensation for damages. The damages were with regards to the investigation, the amount of money that, that the New Zealand needed to investigate and to do all these things. To render that if you wish, neutral.

So it wouldn't cost $7 million, which, is a large sum, but this is separate from the Rainbow Warrior and the compensation that ultimately France pays to the Rainbow Warrior Society for the damage to the ship, to the murder of one of its individuals and a general compensation package.

It's different than that. But really typically what happens in arbitration is [00:17:00] if, for instance, France, if the Secret Service agents all get away, then France can say we didn't do it. And there's no way. But, so New Zealand in this case has leverage because they have two agents. And if you think about the way in which countries work, that's about the deep state, right?

Is the things that the state is most important to it. Military secret service. So in this case, their whole New Zealand is holding something that's very

James Patterson: valuable

Jean Allain: to the French,

James Patterson: So during this entire arbitration. These two French agents are languishing in a New Zealand jail. Is that what's happening?

Jean Allain: They're, they are serving, starting to serve their 10 year sentence, so they're expected that they'll be there for 10 years. And so the French are willing to engage, but not necessarily because they're sad as to or embarrassed by. What's happened with the Rainbow Warrior is that there are people within France who are agitating or saying, look.

If you want your secret service to be effective, you can't just give up on them. If they're not successful, you've got to do something about it.[00:18:00]

Melissa Castan: You are listening to Just Cases, and we are talking to Professor Jean Allain about the case of the Rainbow Warrior and the unusual arbitration cases that followed the bombing of that ship in 1985.

James Patterson: These were quite experienced secret service agents. Who were these people? Actually, I haven't asked the names yet.

Jean Allain: So there's two, there's Major Mafar who's a who's really a leader of the submarine diving schools. So very well placed and clearly someone who's been active in, and these are all individuals.

And the other is the female Captain Perrier. She's also from the military, and then they have this kind of training. So the pool from which the Secret Service in the, in France is military. And the military intelligence is really the driver of this. And so there's a disconnect in a sense that that it appears that the, at least the French president at the time, Miro is saying, why am I [00:19:00] finding out these things on television instead of from my agents?

But it's not clear whether he actually knows, but he's got that, at least that plausible denial, right? That it looks like what's happened is that there's a rogue unit within the French Secret Service, and

Melissa Castan: that ultimately is why the Minister of Defense had, is

Jean Allain: forced to. So it ends there, right? It ends with the head of the Secret Service and the administer of defense being forced to resign.

It ends there.

Melissa Castan: So do the agents. Stay in the New Zealand's jail.

Jean Allain: Yeah, so part of the of the decision of the United Nations Secretary General is that those agents should serve their sentence, but that they should be handed over to the French, not to be freed, but to carry on in their, with their sentence.

There's an agreement between, so the arbitration takes place and on the basis of that, an agreement is signed between New Zealand and France, and part of that agreement is that these two individuals will serve three years of their sentence [00:20:00] in a French prison somewhere, not. In the territory, the main territory of France in the Pacific.

So near the nuclear tests. That could be codified near as general is a re relative thing in the Pacific? Not near enough, you

Melissa Castan: mean? So they're in quote jail.

Jean Allain: So they are held

Melissa Castan: on a pacifical somewhere. That's right. That's right. Where there's a French military base, military base.

Jean Allain: And so typically with any military base of any size, you'll have a prison. Because there is military, there are military codes of law. And so there's, so it's not unusual now. So that's where things are left. However, part of the final decision of the Secretary General of the United Nations is that if there is a disagreement on this arbitration, then you can have another one.

So if the parties don't fulfill what they're supposed to do, then they can have another one. That's

Melissa Castan: The enforcement mechanism then that's saying if you don't, yeah, it's no use just signing the agreement and going away. Yeah. There has to be something that follows up if you don't comply with it.

That's

Jean Allain: typical in agreement, so there's a technical [00:21:00] term for it in international law, what's called a co misery clause. A clause about. Dispute settlement. So any agreement, or let's put it this way, if you want your agreement ultimately to be fulfilled, you put in this Compromise Mystery clause, this clause that ultimately says if there's a degree a disagreement over the way in which this is interpreted or carried out, then you can bring it to another.

James Patterson: Court, but we're dealing with very, we're dealing with grownups here. So everything was tied up in a nice little bow, and that was the end of the, should have been the end of it. Okay. Except

Jean Allain: for the fact that we're dealing with the deep state and the French cannot abide ultimately. And, it's bad faith and the fundamental element of any international agreement is that it should be interpreted in good faith. This was not what took place, the individuals. So major fra the man is said to have health problems and needs, immediate care. So very quickly. So if anybody, if these two individuals were to leave this at all, [00:22:00] you needed agreement of New Zealand as well.

So the New Zealand, so New Zealand finds out late in the day and they say, okay, we'll fly somebody out as the person, as the doctor is flying before they land this major. My fart is taken off leaves. And what happens is the New Zealand plane is is that you can't land here. It's a military base.

We don't allow foreigners to land. In a sense it's awkward. But it's also a bit threatening because these is a very long flight with a long return, right? So they've gotta make arrangements to find someplace else, to land, to refuel and all those things, right?

Melissa Castan: Yeah, that's a real so it's awkward up.

Yours really, isn't it? Yeah.

Jean Allain: Yeah. So that's the first, and then the second is, so remember we're talking about individuals who are supposed to be in prison. Captain Pri, her husband comes to the Atal. She ends up, it turns out that she's, not only is she not only is she supposed to be in prison, but she becomes the deputy [00:23:00] commander of this base, I

James Patterson: shouldn't laugh. But Right. It's it's funny if you were to script this as a bungling sort of comedy, right? So this is crazy. So the French

Jean Allain: are thumbing their noses all the way through this, it appears, right? Because they're not really doing themselves a service.

They are interested in the way in which their secret service is being treated and seeks to undermine this agreement at every turn she is pregnant. So again, there is a unilateral. Repatriation to France. So both within a year of a three year sentence, within a year, they're both in France.

They have been so in, in both cases, one has a child, the other is not as sick apparently as they thought. They're both fine, but France will not send them back. And so from the get go, it's clear that France was not interested, was only interested in getting them back and getting them in into liberty.

Melissa Castan: So where does that leave that first agreement that they signed that said that this was the punishment that had to be fulfilled,

Jean Allain: So I guess, so there you go, [00:24:00] right? You invoke the Compromise Clause, right? There's a disagreement as to whether that first agreement was carried out properly. A second arbitration is a, is forced on France, but agreed to, could France

James Patterson: at that point, it's forced, but how do you force that on the country?

Could they have just said No we're not having anything to do with this?

Jean Allain: Yeah, you can, and there are examples of it. Probably the most notorious example is the United States against Nicaragua, where the United States simply said, we are not showing up to court. We, you've had it in the South Sea with China just recently as well.

We're not participating. It makes it awkward, right? Because in domestic law you have the ability to compel someone. You have a sheriff, you have a police force. If you don't wanna show up to court, you'll be forced to. You can't force a country to show up. In this case, France at least, I would say, had the decency to show up and to argue its case.

And it argued its case because it thought it had justifications. So what France did, and this is [00:25:00] gets us into the law a bit more, was it said, we recognize that we did something wrong. However, we have a justification. And so let's say, let's give you the example of what would otherwise be.

Murder, right? You've done a wrong, however, you can claim self-defense. So in the technical language of international law, that's called circumstances which preclude wrongfulness. You have created a wrong, but there are circumstances which justify it, and one is self-defense. In this case, what they say is with regards to the man major ma fart that.

He wa there was a, an issue of distress. When a person's life is at stake, then you can violate the law simply because you, it's better to save lives. And of course there's an irony in that. I

Melissa Castan: should have thought about that a little earlier, maybe

Jean Allain: Indeed. And then the second is is another justification, which is, or a circumstance which precludes wrongfulness.

Which [00:26:00] basically means things beyond your control. And this was with regards to this pregnancy, it was beyond control. So I teach the these points because they're very good examples of this attempted justification. But in fact, in this case, the justification is not accepted. I. So the court said the arbitrators in their award say, yes, you could use that justification, except that in this case, it doesn't hold.

So what happens, France is once again found in violation, not with regards to anything that happened with the Rainbow Warrior per se, but in violation of that first agreement. And as a result, they failed to get consent and failed to return these two individuals. But the arbitrators say, look, the agreement was ti time bound.

It was from this date to this date. And as a result, by the time they get to this case in the, in 1990, those three years have elapsed. So they can't. [00:27:00] They can't force France to send these individuals back. But I think also it's clear that France is not gonna do it. So rather than the court saying You have to do this and France again failing to do it, what they do is they give a France an out and saying it was time bound so this, and therefore you don't have to send these

James Patterson: individuals back.

So could they have then, was that a failing of the original agreement? Like instead of it being say from 19, I dunno what years it was, but. Yeah. 80, 86. Okay. 86 to 89. Instead to say this is for a

Jean Allain: period of three years would absolutely right. And this is why and where lawyers talk about language.

And language is important, right? And so if they hadn't. Time bounded from 86 to 89, but rather had said three years.

Melissa Castan: Yeah. Served,

Jean Allain: Served then there could have been placed. But in a sense, because the French weren't really active and unwilling to do this, it gave.

A kind of an out. The other parts of it were that the judgment itself [00:28:00] was a recognition that France had errored. So this is what's called an international law. So it's not an apology, but it's called satisfaction, right? That you have, that New Zealand should feel satisfied that it's what it has sought, has been given, and that the other side has been punished.

And part of that punishment then is an added $2 million that is meant to go into so the arbitration award asks both parties to set up a joint peaceful friendly relations fund of which France will deposit the first 2 million. So this is meant to make sure that there's no rift between the country.

So it's a, so that's, if you wish, the second rainbow. Warrior case. So that's the law parts of this story that starts with nuclear testing and Greenpeace actively trying to stop and ultimately is, in retrospect you have to say it, it has been successful. So just to, but at what cost

Melissa Castan: to, to come back to the start.

What did Greenpeace [00:29:00] and the Rainbow Warrior get out of this legal process and where did that leave them?

Jean Allain: Yeah, so I'm not so good on the domestic stuff but clearly, for instance the individual who was killed had a young daughter and she was, she's been given compensation and the Rainbow Warrior, the Greenpeace, was a, was there was enough money to rebuild and to carry on.

The establishment of the new Rainbow Warrior, a purposely built ship. So if you wish, France had to deal with it on various levels and ultimately did to the satisfaction of the other parties in the sense that between Greenpeace and be that episode. Was settled. So there's a, there's an agreement between France and the Greenpeace society and also the individuals involved.

There was an agreement and then at the state level between New Zealand and France, there was also agreement. So in many ways, so the cases settled. Which raises some interesting issues because there have been, for instance a [00:30:00] candidate for the French presidency. The first woman to run her last name is Royal.

Her brother was actually implicated and was said to be the one who had actually put the bomb on board. So a number of people escaped, and so there's been a call by people in Greenpeace to say these people should also be tried. But because these agreements have been put in place, it is effectively over in the context that France has no interest in bringing any, shining any light on this issue whatsoever.

It's over as far as France is concerned, but of course for others it remains a. Very curious piece of history. That includes countries, the secret service, mining, killing, murdering, terrorism. Otherwise, if it was not a state,

Melissa Castan: we would call

Jean Allain: it terrorism

Melissa Castan: and motor homes.

Jean Allain: And motor homes.

James Patterson: And in a, in a. A crazy coincidence of timing.

The new Rainbow Warrior three, I believe is sitting in Station Pier in Melbourne. [00:31:00] And the two of you have been lucky enough to jump on board.

Melissa Castan: Yeah, we went and had an inspection.

Jean Allain: Yeah. It's very exciting because for me it brings to life the types of things I've learned about and been a fan of Greenpeace.

It's in that for me. From a legal standpoint, it's in this interesting area because the seas are open to anyone. And so it can do the types of things it wants to do on the high seas and it challenges and they can challenge countries. So this is really, a case of David and Goliath, right?

And Goliath acted very, in, in a way that, as I said, if it was the other way around, that's terrorism. Terrorism. The state Secret Service, we don't think of it in those terms. And what it ultimately did was cause the downfall of members of cabinet in France.

France paid millions and millions of dollars as a result of this and was forced ultimately to stop nuclear tests in the Pacific. Which I think for people from this region of the world is really the. The fundamental point, but it was at the expense of one [00:32:00] person losing their life. So that's a steep price to pay.

Melissa Castan: Professor Jean Allain, thank you very much for joining us on Just Cases.

Jean Allain: Thank you. It's great.

Melissa Castan: You've been listening to Just Cases. And you can find us where James?

James Patterson: Yeah. You can find us@justcasespodcast.com. We're also on Twitter. Our handle is at Just Cases Show, and we love hearing story suggestions from our listeners. So if you have any ideas for some cool court cases that you'd like to hear a little bit more about, definitely get in touch.

Melissa, do you have any idea? About superannuation. Have you got your, have you got your head across, like how to use it, how to maximize it, all that kind of thing?

Melissa Castan: I literally have no idea. Where can I go to get some help? James?

James Patterson: Funny. Gimme some help. Funny you mention it. So I've been trying to get my head around my super.

There's a great new podcast called Thought Capital, which is produced by Monash Business School. They've got an episode out called Getting the Most From Your Superannuation. I recommend you ever listen to it.

Melissa Castan: Thank you very much that I'm gonna listen to that this [00:33:00] afternoon. If you've enjoyed listening to Just Case's podcast, please leave us a review or rate us.

Preferably

James Patterson: five stars. If you could, I've gotta say I'm pro five stars. And we've got a couple of really lovely reviews, so thanks to our listeners for doing that. It's much appreciated.

Melissa Castan: Thank you very much for listening, and we'll catch you at our next podcast.