Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Blog

  • Misiles Listos

    Son jóvenes y brillantes militares
    listos  a poner fin al Planeta.

    Creen esar ahí para salvar al mundo, sin darse cuenta
    de que son instrumentos de un sistema enloquecido.

    Permanecen en sus búnkers, siempre alertas
    Sujetando en sus manos las llaves del futuro

    El futuro es oscuro como sus búnkers, excavados
    en la tierra. Y ahí se aburren.

    No pasa nada. Día tras día, permanecen en alerta
    haciendo nada.

    Listos para cumplir órdenes, listos para hacer
    su parte trayendo el mundo a su fin.

    Son instrumentos de un sistema enloquecido.

     

    David Krieger es Presidente de Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

     

    Traducción/adaptación de Rubén D. Arvizu, Director para Américas Latina de Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    Click here for the English version.

  • Missileers

    They are bright young women and men
    ready to bring the world to an end.

    They believe they are saving the world, not
    seeing they are instruments of a system gone mad.

    They sit in their bunkers, always alert,
    holding the keys to the future in their hands.

    The future is dark from their bunkers, deep
    in the earth.  They grow bored.

    Nothing happens.  Day after day, they remain
    alert to nothing.

    They are ready to follow orders, ready to do
    their part to bring the world to an end.

    They are instruments of a system gone mad.

     

    Vaya aquí para la versión española.

  • Q&A: The Marshall Islands’ Nuclear Disarmament Cases at the ICJ

    “Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament”

    Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom; Marshall Islands v. India; Marshall Islands v. Pakistan

    March 7 – 16, 2016; The Hague

     

    What is the source of the International Court of Justice’s legal authority?

    The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). It was established in 1945 by the UN Charter. The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands. The Court’s role is to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it by States and to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by authorized UN bodies and agencies. The Court’s 15 judges are elected by the UN General Assembly and the Security Council.

    Which countries are the Marshall Islands suing, and why?

    The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) has a unique and devastating history with nuclear weapons. From 1946 – 1958 the United States conducted 67 nuclear weapons test explosions over the Marshall Islands, the equivalent of 1.7 Hiroshima-sized bombs daily for 12 years. Castle Bravo, the largest bomb ever tested, was 1000 times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb. Birth defects never seen before and other radiation-related health effects continue to plague the Marshallese people.

    On April 24, 2014 the RMI filed individual Applications in the ICJ instituting proceedings against the nine nuclear-armed States: the U.S., Russia, the UK, France, China, India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea. The RMI contends that each of these States is in breach of its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and/or customary international law to end the nuclear arms race and to engage in negotiations on nuclear disarmament.

    Article VI of the NPT states: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” The UK is a founding member of the NPT, which entered into force in 1970. The U.S., Russia, France and China are also nuclear-armed members of the NPT; nuclear-armed India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea are not. The RMI joined the Treaty in 1995 as a non-nuclear-weapon State and in turn received the binding legal promise of the States parties to the Treaty, including the nuclear-armed States.

    In a 1996 Advisory Opinion, the ICJ issued an authoritative interpretation of Article VI and recognized a parallel customary international law obligation, concluding unanimously: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.” This Opinion is not limited to NPT members; it applies to all States.

    No negotiations on nuclear disarmament have ever been initiated and all of the nuclear-armed states are currently engaged in programs to modernize and qualitatively improve their nuclear arsenals, with an eye toward their indefinite retention. India and Pakistan are also engaged in quantitative arms racing.

    Why were hearings held only in the cases of the UK, India and Pakistan?

    At this time, only the UK, India and Pakistan – among the nuclear-armed states – accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. The other nuclear-armed states were invited to respond to the Applications submitted by the RMI. China declined; the others did not respond.

    What was the scope of the hearings?

    This stage of the cases was limited to preliminary objections. The UK and India claimed that they have strong records of support for nuclear disarmament, arguing therefore that there is no dispute for the Court to adjudicate. The RMI countered that actions speak louder than words, citing the UK’s consistent record of voting against nuclear disarmament resolutions in the UN General Assembly and its plans to replace its Trident nuclear weapons system. With respect to India and Pakistan, the RMI cited programs underway for expansion, improvement and diversification of their nuclear arsenals. The UK and India also argued that the cases cannot proceed without other states possessing nuclear arms being before the Court; that the relief requested would be ineffective; and that various exceptions to their declarations accepting the jurisdiction of the Court apply, excluding jurisdiction.

    Pakistan withdrew from participation in the oral pleadings at the last minute, declaring it had nothing to add to its written submission.

    What will happen next?

    The ICJ will issue separate rulings in each case, probably within three to six months. If the Court rules in favor of the RMI, the cases will move to the merits phase and more written arguments and hearings will be scheduled. If the Court rules against the RMI in any case, that case will be over.

    What relief is the Marshall Islands seeking?

    The RMI is asking the Court to declare that the UK is in violation of its obligations under Article VI of the NPT and customary international law by failing to pursue in good faith negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament, by taking action to qualitatively improve its nuclear weapons system and to maintain and modernize for the indefinite future, and by failing to pursue negotiations that would end nuclear arms racing. The RMI also requests the Court to order the UK to take all steps necessary to comply with its obligations under Article VI of the NPT and under customary international law within one year of the Judgement, including the pursuit of negotiations in good faith aimed at the conclusion of a convention on nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control.

    The RMI is asking the Court to declare that India and Pakistan are in violation of their obligations under customary international law, by failing to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament, by failing to pursue negotiations on cessation of the nuclear arms race, and by engaging in the quantitative buildup and qualitative improvement of their nuclear forces to maintain them for the indefinite future, contrary to the objectives of nuclear disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race. The RMI also requests the Court to order India and Pakistan to take all steps necessary to comply with its obligations under customary international law with respect to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and nuclear disarmament within one year of the Judgement, including the pursuit of negotiations in good faith aimed at the conclusion of a convention on nuclear disarmament strict and effective international control.

    The RMI is not seeking monetary compensation in these cases.

    Where can I get more information?

    A. General information about the cases is available at: nuclearzero.org. Written submissions by the RMI, UK, India and Pakistan, and verbatim records of the oral pleadings are posted at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3 Videos and photos from the oral pleadings are posted at www.icj-cij.org/multimedia.

  • International Court of Justice Concludes Hearings in Preliminary Phase of Historic Nuclear Disarmament Cases

    Contact:
    Rick Wayman
    +1 805 696 5159
    rwayman@napf.org

    Sandy Jones
    +1 805 965 3443
    sjones@napf.org

    16 March 2016

    THE HAGUE – The International Court of Justice (ICJ) today concluded the oral arguments in the preliminary phase of the nuclear disarmament cases brought by the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) against India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom. The hearings, which took place at the ICJ from 7-16 March, were the first contentious cases on nuclear disarmament ever heard at the Court. This set of hearings addressed the respondent nations’ objections to the cases relating to questions of jurisdiction and admissibility.

    Tony de Brum, Co-Agent and former Foreign Minister of the RMI, recounted to the Court the Marshall Islands’ unique perspective about the effects of nuclear weapons due to 67 U.S. nuclear weapons tests conducted in its territory from 1946-58. In a stunning moment at the opening of the hearing against Pakistan on 8 March, Mr. de Brum had the full attention of the entire courtroom. He said:

    Yesterday was a beautiful morning here in The Hague that featured a picture-perfect snowfall. As a tropical State, the Marshall Islands has experienced “snow” on one memorable and devastating occasion, the 1954 Bravo test of a thermonuclear bomb that was one-thousand times the strength of the Hiroshima bomb. When that explosion occurred, there were many people, including children, who were a far distance from the bomb, on our atolls which, according to leading scientists and assurances, were predicted to be entirely safe. In reality, within 5 hours of the explosion, it began to rain radioactive fallout at Rongelap. Within hours, the atoll was covered with a fine, white, powdered-like substance. No one knew it was radioactive fallout. The children thought it was snow. And the children played in the snow. And they ate it.

    The Marshall Islands was clear that while their history with nuclear testing gives context to their current actions for global nuclear disarmament, the cases at the ICJ relate specifically to nuclear-armed states’ breaches of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and/or customary international law.

    Phon van den Biesen, Co-Agent of the Marshall Islands, expressed disappointment that there were not nine respondent nations present for this round of hearings. Only India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. Mr. van den Biesen said, “It is a shame that the other six nuclear-armed States [United States, Russia, France, China, Israel and North Korea] have decided that, for them, there was no need to respond to the Marshall Islands’ Applications of 24 April 2014.”

    All three respondent nations – India, Pakistan and the UK – claimed in written and/or oral pleadings that they are supportive of nuclear disarmament and that they agree with the Marshall Islands about the need for a nuclear weapons-free world. The Marshall Islands presented specific examples of behavior in direct contrast to such aspirational claims.

    Most telling, perhaps, was India’s decision to test-fire nuclear-capable missiles on two days on which the ICJ was hearing the case against it. On both 7 and 14 March, India tested ballistic missiles, an act that Phon van den Biesen, Co-Agent of the Marshall Islands, suggested could be called “contempt of court.”

    The United Kingdom, for its part, told the Court that if it ruled against the UK in this case, it would be forced to be the “one hand clapping” among the nuclear-armed states calling for nuclear disarmament negotiations. On 11 March, responding to the UK’s statement, Tony de Brum said, “This is another way of saying that, to the UK, no parties are pursuing in good faith such negotiations. Or, put differently still, it is like the person who, caught in poor conduct, replies: ‘Everybody’s doing it.’”

    Pakistan chose not to attend the oral hearings, telling Judge Ronny Abraham, President of the ICJ, in a letter, “The Government of Pakistan does not wish to add anything further to its statements and submissions made in its Counter-Memorial and therefore does not feel that its participation in the oral proceedings will add anything to what has already been submitted through its Counter-Memorial.”

    In his concluding remarks, Tony de Brum said, “In its 1996 Advisory Opinion, this Court observed that nuclear weapons ‘have the potential to destroy all civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet’. The Marshall Islands has come before this Court because of its belief in, and reliance upon, the rule of law.”

    In its final submissions to the Court, the Marshall Islands asked the judges to adjudge and declare that the Court has jurisdiction over the claims of the Marshall Islands submitted in its Applications of 24 April 2014, and that the claims are admissible.

    The 15 judges of the ICJ, along with judge-ad-hoc Mohammed Bedjaoui, will now deliberate on jurisdiction and admissibility issues raised in the written and oral pleadings. The Court will announce its decisions in a public sitting at a date to be announced.

    For more information about these ICJ cases in a detailed Question and Answer format, click here.

    Contact information for the International Legal Team:

    Phon van den Biesen, Co-Agent of the RMI
    Attorney at Law at Van den Biesen Kloostra Advocaten, Amsterdam http://vdbkadvocaten.eu/en/phon-van-den-biesen-en/
    +31.65.2061266
    phonvandenbiesen@vdbkadvocaten.eu

    A complete list of the International Legal Team as well as information on the lawsuits can be found at www.nuclearzero.org. The California-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is consultant to the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

  • #NuclearZero at the ICJ: Our Daily Summaries of the Hearings

    Peace Palace
    Photograph: CIJ-ICJ/UN-ONU, Capital Photos/Frank van Beek – Courtesy of the ICJ. All rights reserved.

    Rick Wayman, NAPF’s Director of Programs, attended all seven days of hearings at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in the Marshall Islands’ nuclear disarmament cases against India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom. Below you will find links to each day’s report, published by the Pressenza International Press Agency. For more information about the Marshall Islands’ lawsuits, visit www.nuclearzero.org.

    Preview: The Marshall Islands at the ICJ — “We are, basically, asking the Court to tell the respondent states to live up to their obligations under international law and to conduct negotiations leading to the required result: nuclear disarmament in all its aspects,” said Phon van den Biesen, Co-Agent for the RMI and attorney at law in Amsterdam, who is leading the International Legal Team.

    Day One: Marshall Islands Shines Against India — It was an historic day at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), as oral arguments in the first-ever contentious cases on nuclear disarmament began at the ICJ. The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) argued strongly in favor of the ICJ holding jurisdiction in the case that the RMI has brought against India.

    Day Two: Where Is Pakistan? — Pakistan chose not to participate in oral arguments at the case against it at the International Court of Justice. On 8 March, the Marshall Islands presented its case to the Court. Marshall Islands Co-Agent Tony de Brum recounted the only “snowfall” the Marshall Islands had ever experienced — the radioactive fallout after the 1 March 1954 Castle Bravo nuclear test.

    Day Three: What Is the Sound of One Hand Clapping? — In its opening pleadings on 9 March, Sir Daniel Bethlehem told the Court, “The United Kingdom had thought, although naively, as it now appears, that we had a strong record on nuclear disarmament.”

    Day Four: Aspirational Rhetoric vs. Real Actions — India pleaded to the Court on 10 March that it is, in fact, deeply committed to nuclear disarmament because it consistently votes in favor of various disarmament resolutions at the United Nations General Assembly. Its active involvement in the nuclear arms race, though, tells a different story.

    Day Five: Everybody’s Doing It — In the Marshall Islands’ first session of oral arguments in the case against the United Kingdom on 11 March, Phon van den Biesen, Co-Agent of the Marshall Islands, outlined how the UK is not only not engaged in nuclear disarmament negotiations, but “on the contrary it is and continues to be opposed to such negotiations.”

    Day Six (Part One): Contempt of Court — In the Marshall Islands’ final round of oral argument against India on 14 March, Phon van den Biesen told the Court that India’s active participation in the nuclear arms race – including a test-launch of its K-4 submarine-launched ballistic missile on 7 March (the first day of the ICJ hearings) – could be described as “contempt of court.”

    Day Six (Part Two): Appealing to Sentiment — In the United Kingdom’s final round of oral argument on 14 March, Sir David Bethlehem told the Court that the Marshall Islands was simply “appealing to sentiment” by recounting its experience as a test site for 67 U.S. nuclear weapons tests, and that the cases should be dismissed.

    Day Seven: Making a Big Fuss —  In closing arguments at the International Court of Justice, RMI Co-Agent Tony de Brum asked the Court “to adjudge and declare that the Court has jurisdiction over the claims of the Marshall Islands submitted in its Application of 24 April 2014; and to adjudge and declare that the Marshall Islands’ claims are admissible.”

  • Day Six Part Two: Appealing to Sentiment

    Day Six Part Two: Appealing to Sentiment

    Yesterday afternoon, the United Kingdom completed its oral arguments in the case brought against it by the Marshall Islands at the International Court of Justice. Sir Daniel Bethlehem, Counsel for the United Kingdom, opened his pleadings on a seemingly conciliatory note. He recognized the Marshall Islands’ “special interest that is borne of an historical legacy [of nuclear weapons testing] that is not of their making, and with consequences that are shocking to us all.”

    Sir Bethlehem continued: “I make these observations to underline that we take the Marshall Islands seriously and would not wish the fact of our objections to jurisdiction and admissibility to be taken for dismissiveness or a lack of regard for the issues that they raise. We are neither dismissive nor do we minimize the seriousness of the issues that they highlight.”

    He quickly changed his tone, however, when he told the Court, “The relief that [the Marshall Islands] would wish from the Court does not become more consonant with the judicial function simply because it comes with an appeal to sentiment.”

    Last Friday after the Marshall Islands finished its first round of oral arguments against the UK, Judge Mohamed Bennouna of Morocco asked both sides to prepare a response – to be delivered this week – about the position of each country regarding the interpretation and application of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Sir Bethlehem recounted many instances of the UK stating that it takes its Article VI obligations seriously and that it believes in a “step-by-step” approach to nuclear disarmament. Judge Bennouna was clear in asking each side to answer “each for its own part,” or to speak only about its own position and not to speculate on the other side’s.

    Nevertheless, Sir Bethlehem engaged in lengthy speculation about what the Marshall Islands might say in its response to the question on Wednesday. Some of the 16 Judges on the bench appeared quite annoyed at his disregard for the clear order of Judge Bennouna.

    In its final submissions to the Court on Monday, “The United Kingdom requests the Court to adjudge and declare that it lacks jurisdiction over the claim brought against the United Kingdom by the Marshall Islands, or that the claim brought against the United Kingdom by the Marshall Islands is inadmissible.”

    The Marshall Islands will present its final oral arguments in the case against the UK tomorrow, 16 March, starting at 3:00 pm CET. The hearings can be livestreamed on the ICJ website at www.icj-cij.org.

    Also tomorrow, starting at 10:00 am CET, India will present its final oral arguments at the ICJ.

  • Weapons that Terrorize and Vaporize

    Nuclear weapons are insanely powerful. They cause extreme suffering and widespread death, and cannot distinguish between combatants and civilians. They are long-distance killing devices, cowardly in conception. They are capable of destroying cities, countries and civilization. They threaten the future of humanity and all complex forms of life. Nuclear weapons have zero redeeming qualities, and our global goal must be zero nuclear weapons.

    The nine nuclear-armed countries are all engaged in modernizing their nuclear arsenals. The United States plans to spend $1 trillion on modernizing its nuclear arsenal over the next three decades. It will upgrade its nuclear warheads and replace its land-based, sea-based and bomber-based nuclear delivery systems. It will make its nuclear weapons smaller, more accurate, and thereby more usable. It will modernize weapons whose primary purpose is to annihilate whole populations and whose effects cannot be contained in time or space.

    The United States and other nuclear-armed countries are planning to modernize weapons that terrorize and vaporize.

    In addition, there are far better ways to spend $1 trillion than on preparing for global annihilation, including providing food for the hungry, shelter for the homeless, healthcare for those in need, and education for all children.

    Humankind appears to have gained little wisdom from the use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or from the more than 2,000 nuclear tests conducted since the onset of the Nuclear Age. At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we are dedicated to awakening humanity to the peril of reliance on nuclear weapons.

    The United States led the way into the Nuclear Age, and we believe it should provide leadership in bringing the Nuclear Age to an end by fulfilling its legal obligations under international law to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race (modernization) and for total nuclear disarmament. If not the United States, who might lead? If not now, when?

    At the moment, leadership for nuclear disarmament is coming from the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), one of the world’s smallest countries. The RMI has brought lawsuits against the nine nuclear-armed countries, calling upon them to fulfill their legal obligations for nuclear disarmament under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law. We are proud to be a consultant to the Marshall Islands in these Nuclear Zero lawsuits.

    Join us in working for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons.

  • Day Six: Contempt of Court

    Day Six: Contempt of Court

    This morning at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) presented final oral arguments in its nuclear disarmament case against India during this phase. Phon van den Biesen, Co-Agent of the Marshall Islands, opened the session with a strong condemnation of India’s active participation in the nuclear arms race.

    As we reported last Thursday, India conducted a test of its new K-4 submarine-launched ballistic missile on Monday 7 March, the same day that hearings on the nuclear disarmament case opened at the ICJ. Mr. van den Biesen was not pleased, particularly about the timing of the nuclear missile test. He said, “One is tempted to call this ‘contempt of Court’ simply because naming it an ‘unfortunate coincidence’ would be grossly understating the meaning of this event.”

    While India, in its oral pleadings before the ICJ, has emphasized its votes in favor of nuclear disarmament at the United Nations General Assembly, Mr. van den Biesen highlighted how India’s behavior trumps their hollow words. “In legal terms,” he said, “this is evidence of India’s not acting in good faith concerning the obligation that is central to the current proceedings.”

    Luigi Condorelli, Counsel to the Marshall Islands and professor of international law at the University of Florence, added to the Marshall Islands’ claims on this issue, stating, “The discrepancy between what India says and what it does is significant.”

    Early this morning, unbeknownst to the Marshall Islands legal team at the time of today’s ICJ hearing, India test-fired yet another nuclear-capable missile – this time, the Agni I ballistic missile.

    Tony de Brum, Co-Agent of the Marshall Islands and former RMI Foreign Minister, closed today’s oral arguments against India. Reminding the Court of the real purpose of the case, he said, “The RMI’s horrific suffering motivates it to bring these proceedings against the nuclear giant that India has become, because the RMI knows first-hand the devastation that India’s nuclear arsenal can cause. And it is a nuclear arsenal that India is proudly and rapidly enhancing and diversifying. Such conduct is the opposite of satisfying a legal obligation to negotiate in good faith nuclear disarmament.”

    India will present its final oral argument in the case on Wednesday at 10:00 am CET. After India’s pleadings on Wednesday, the judges will deliberate on the questions of jurisdiction and admissibility of the case and will rule at a date as yet unannounced.

    This afternoon, the United Kingdom presented its final oral arguments in the RMI vs. UK case. A summary of the UK’s arguments will appear in Pressenza tomorrow, as there are no hearings at the ICJ on Tuesday.

    Rick Wayman is Director of Programs at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a consultant to the Republic of the Marshall Islands. He is tweeting about the ICJ hearings at @rickwayman.

  • Day Five at the ICJ: Everybody’s Doing It

    Day Five at the ICJ: Everybody’s Doing It

    The Marshall Islands wrapped up the first week of hearings in its nuclear disarmament cases with oral arguments against the United Kingdom. The RMI arguments outlined why the International Court of Justice (ICJ) should declare jurisdiction in this case, and rebutted arguments presented by the UK on Wednesday to the Court.

    Phon van den Biesen, Co-Agent of the Marshall Islands, told the Court that much of the UK’s argument presented earlier in the week was self-proclaimed. Mr. van den Biesen said, “The respondent states, quoting the most authoritative source available to it, that is quoting itself, that ‘[t]he United Kingdom has a strong record on nuclear disarmament.’” Van den Biesen went on to outline how the UK is not only not engaged in nuclear disarmament negotiations, but “on the contrary it is and continues to be opposed to such negotiations.”

    Laurie Ashton at the ICJ
    Laurie Ashton, Counsel to the Marshall Islands, argues at the International Court of Justice on 11 March 2016.

    Laurie Ashton, also arguing on behalf of the Marshall Islands, countered the UK’s assertion that the RMI only joined the ICJ in order to bring this case. The Marshall Islands, Ashton argued, has now had its compulsory jurisdiction declaration on file with the Court for nearly three years and has not modified it in any way. Ms. Ashton stated, “The UK’s apparent indignation at the Marshall Islands’ acceptance of the UK’s standing invitation to resolve disputes involving international law and the interpretation of treaties is misplaced.”

    Tony de Brum opened the hearing by describing the seriousness with which the Marshall Islands treats the issues raised in the case. He repeated the testimony of Lijon Eknilang, presented to the ICJ in 1995 during its Advisory Opinion case. Ms. Eknilang said, “Women on the island have given birth to babies that look like blobs of jelly. Some of these things we carry for eight months, nine months. There are no legs, no arms, no head, no nothing. Other children are born who will never recognize this world or their own parents. They just lie there with crooked arms and legs and never speak.”

    Mr. de Brum also addressed the “one hand clapping” argument presented by the UK’s Sir Daniel Bethlehem on Wednesday. Bethlehem argued that if the Court would order the UK to negotiate for nuclear disarmament, it would be the “one hand clapping” among the nine nuclear-armed states. De Brum said, “This is another way of saying that, to the UK, no parties are pursuing in good faith such negotiations. Or, put differently still, it is like the person who, caught in poor conduct, replies: ‘Everybody’s doing it.’”

    He continued, “The ‘everybody’s doing it’ defense never worked in my own household, does not work for my Country, and should not hold water before this Court. Moreover, the UK entirely ignores the vast majority of non-nuclear-weapon States, such as the Marshall Islands, that are now seeking such negotiations in earnest.”

    On Monday, the UK will present its final oral arguments relating to its preliminary objections, followed by the Marshall Islands’ final oral arguments on Wednesday. Following the conclusion of this phase of oral arguments, the judges will conduct private deliberations until announcing a decision on jurisdiction and admissibility at a date to be announced.

    Also on Monday, the Marshall Islands will present its final arguments in the case against India.

    Rick Wayman is Director of Programs at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, a consultant to the Republic of the Marshall Islands. He is tweeting about the ICJ hearings at @rickwayman.

  • Day Four at the ICJ: Aspirational Rhetoric vs. Real Actions

    Day Four at the ICJ: Aspirational Rhetoric vs. Real Actions

    This post was originally published by Pressenza.

    India presented oral arguments today at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the nuclear disarmament case brought by the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). India has challenged the jurisdiction of the ICJ to hear this case, and has also claimed that the case is inadmissible. The current issue to be determined by the Court is whether jurisdiction is valid and whether it should hear the case on the merits.

    Nevertheless, India’s Co-Agent, Amandeep Singh Gill, presented many arguments about the merits of the case. Mr. Gill – and other members of India’s legal team – repeatedly insisted that India, alone among the nuclear-armed states, is fully committed to global nuclear disarmament. Only India, they said, co-sponsors the annual UN General Assembly resolution “Follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.” In 1996, the ICJ found unanimously that “[t]here exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

    Reciting a long list of India’s public statements since 1964 and votes on disarmament resolutions in the UN General Assembly, India argued it is fully aligned with the Marshall Islands on the need for disarmament. India’s Co-Agent claimed, “Among the nuclear weapons states, India’s nuclear programme is unique in being technology driven rather than weapons driven.”

    In a stunning case of “Rhetoric vs. Reality,” media reports say that the Indian military test-fired its nuclear-capable K-4 submarine-launched ballistic missile on Monday, the same day that the oral arguments in the Marshall Islands vs. India case began. In addition, according to a 2015 report by Hans Kristensen and Robert Norris, India is developing several long-range ballistic missiles and continues to deploy fighter-bomber aircraft.

    Oral arguments in the case against India will conclude next week with a 90-minute presentation by the Marshall Islands on Monday and a final 90-minute presentation from India on Wednesday.

    Hearings at the ICJ continue tomorrow from 3:00-6:00 pm CET with the Marshall Islands arguing against the United Kingdom. The proceedings will be live-streamed at www.icj-cij.org.

    Rick Wayman is Director of Programs at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. Jackie Cabasso is Executive Director of Western States Legal Foundation. They are tweeting about the ICJ hearings at @rickwayman and @jackiecabasso. You can also get updates from the NAPF Facebook and Twitter feeds, and video of the oral arguments is available on the ICJ website.