The leaders of every nation possessing nuclear weapons should be required to visit Hiroshima. This, of course, includes President Obama and whoever is elected as his successor in November. Abstract theories of national security and nuclear deterrence have been stubbornly followed for more than 70 years while willfully turning a blind eye to the very real catastrophic human consequences of nuclear weapons.
The Post’s call for further reductions in nuclear arsenals is important, but quantitative reductions lose their meaning when the remaining hundreds or thousands of nuclear weapons are made more “usable” and equipped with new military capabilities.
The United States is in the midst of a $1 trillion, 30-year program to modernize all aspects of its nuclear arsenal: the warheads, delivery systems, production facilities and command-and-control system. The other eight nuclear-armed nations are also engaged in modernization efforts. A visit to Hiroshima would underline the moral and humanitarian imperatives to abolish nuclear weapons. This, taken together with the existing legal obligations to pursue in good faith — and bring to a conclusion — negotiations on nuclear disarmament, makes it clear that continuing with business as usual is unacceptable.
Rick Wayman, Santa Barbara
The writer is director of programs for
the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.
Congratulations to everyone who entered the 2016 Swackhamer Disarmament Video Contest. After much deliberation, the judges have decided on the following awards:
FIRST PRIZE
#HumanizeNotModernize by Konane Gurfield
SECOND PRIZE
Dear 9 Nuclear Armed Nations. From: Teenagers by Elias Reta
THIRD PRIZE
What Will We Leave Behind? by David Kirk West
The Marshall Islands’ nuclear disarmament cases received a significant boost in media coverage in March 2016 as the International Court of Justice held its preliminary oral hearings in the cases against the United Kingdom, India and Pakistan. Below is a summary of English-language press coverage.
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.”
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.
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.
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, 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.
This article was originally published on Pressenza.
The United Kingdom presented oral arguments at the opening session of the Marshall Islands vs. United Kingdom case today at the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The Marshall Islands filed an application against the UK – and separately against each of the other eight nuclear-armed nations – at the ICJ in April 2014.
This morning’s hearing addressed preliminary objections raised by the UK. Sir Daniel Bethlehem began the arguments with a lengthy treatise about why there is no “dispute” between the United Kingdom and the Marshall Islands. According to Bethlehem, the UK was surprised that the Marshall Islands filed a case against it in 2014. He said, “The United Kingdom had thought, although naively, as it now appears, that we had a strong record on nuclear disarmament.”
The United Kingdom currently plans to spend many billions of pounds to build a new nuclear weapon system to replace its current four Trident nuclear-armed submarines. Such a weapons system would be operable well in to the 2060s.
Sir Bethlehem expressed dismay that the Marshall Islands would bring a case against the United Kingdom when it knew that the other nuclear-armed members of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) – the United States, Russia, France and China – do not accept the jurisdiction of the ICJ. A ruling by the Court against the UK in this case, Sir Bethlehem argued, could force the United Kingdom to “be the one hand clapping” for good faith nuclear disarmament negotiations among the five nuclear-armed NPT signatories.
The UK was also displeased with the fact that the Marshall Islands filed an application against it on the very day that the UK’s anti-ambush clause expired. As part of the reservation that the UK has on file with the ICJ, countries are required to be a member of the Court for a minimum of one year before bringing any case against the UK. The Marshall Islands filed its application against the UK immediately after this one-year waiting period expired. For this reason, the UK called the Marshall Islands’ application “an artificial case.”
Jessica Wells, Counsel for the UK, argued that the ICJ should not admit this case because the UK cooperates with other nuclear-armed nations on various nuclear-related issues. For example, the Mutual Defense Agreement is a bilateral treaty between the United States and UK in which both sides agree to share classified information to improve “atomic weapon design, development, and fabrication capability.” Because of this and other bilateral or multilateral arrangements, Ms. Wells argued, “a determination by the Court that the United Kingdom is in breach of its obligations to negotiate by reason of this conduct cannot be confined to the United Kingdom alone.”
The Marshall Islands will present oral arguments in the case against the United Kingdom this Friday from 3-6 pm CET. As always, the hearings will be livestreamed on the ICJ website.
Tomorrow, India will present oral arguments at the ICJ from 10 am to 1 pm.
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.
This article was originally published by Pressenza.
Observers arrived at the International Court of Justice this morning expecting to hear the first in a series of four days of oral arguments in the Marshall Islands vs. Pakistan nuclear disarmament case. Instead, Judge Ronny Abraham, President of the International Court of Justice, announced that Pakistan had decided not to attend the hearings.
The legal team representing the Republic of the Marshall Islands at the International Court of Justice from 7-16 March, 2016.
In a letter to the Court, Pakistan wrote, “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.”
The Marshall Islands legal team was still able to present their arguments to the Court regarding jurisdiction and admissibility. Instead of hearing from Pakistan twice and the Marshall Islands once more, the judges will make their decision based solely on today’s oral arguments by the Marshall Islands, along with the Memorial and Counter-Memorial filed by the Marshall Islands and Pakistan, respectively. The Court made those documents public today after the hearing.
The 15 judges listened with great interest as Tony de Brum, Co-Agent of the Marshall Islands, opened today’s session with a powerful personal story. 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. So one can understand that snow, while beautiful, has a tragic and dark history in the Marshall Islands.
After hearing a strong case for jurisdiction and admissibility from the Marshall Islands legal team, the Court brought the hearings in this phase of RMI vs. Pakistan to a close. The judges will now deliberate in private before delivering their judgement at a public sitting at a date to be announced. Today’s ICJ press release has a more detailed explanation of the deliberation process.
Tomorrow morning, the United Kingdom will present opening arguments in the RMI vs. United Kingdom nuclear disarmament case. The hearings will be livestreamed on the ICJ website starting at 10:00 am CET.
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.
This article was originally published by Pressenza.
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.
Mr. Tony deBrum, Co-Agent of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Copyright: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek. Courtesy of the ICJ. All rights reserved.
Tony de Brum, Co-Agent of the RMI and former Foreign Minister, opened the arguments with a strong statement explaining why the case is before the ICJ. He said, “We are here in peace, and our goal is no smaller than to obtain the required negotiations in good faith for nuclear disarmament.”
Mr. de Brum went on to describe his personal experience as a witness to many of the 67 U.S. nuclear tests that were conducted in the Marshall Islands from 1946-58. He then told the court:
To be clear, while these experiences give us a unique perspective that we never requested, they are not the basis of this dispute. But they do help explain why a Country of our size and limited resources would risk bringing a case such as this regarding an enormous, nuclear-armed State such as India, and its breach of customary international law with respect to negotiations for nuclear disarmament and an end to the nuclear arms race.
India has raised objections with the ICJ that the Court does not have jurisdiction in this case for a number of reasons. The RMI legal team addressed India’s objections and argued effectively against them.
Nicholas Grief, a member of the RMI legal team and professor of international law at the University of Kent in the UK, explained why India has an obligation under customary international law to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament. In particular, Professor Grief explained that the Court had recognized this customary obligation in its 1996 Advisory Opinion and that the UN General Assembly and Security Council had both contributed to the rule’s development. He recalled that the Court itself had referred to the very first General Assembly resolution, adopted unanimously in 1946, as the starting point for nuclear disarmament as an international norm. Among many other legal arguments, Grief also cited a 2009 UN Security Council resolution which calls upon “the parties to the NPT, pursuant to Article VI of the Treaty, to undertake to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear arms reduction and disarmament,” and calls upon “all other States to join in this endeavor.”
In February 2014, India stated at the Second Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, “We cannot accept the logic that a few nations have the right to pursue their security by threatening the survival of mankind. It is not only those who live by the nuclear sword who, by design or default, shall one day perish by it.”
The Marshall Islands, by bringing these lawsuits against India and the other nuclear-armed nations to the ICJ, seeks a peaceful resolution for the benefit of all humankind.
The ICJ oral hearings continue tomorrow at 10:00 am CET, with the RMI presenting arguments in its case against Pakistan.
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.
