Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Category: Press Releases

  • Press Release: Open Letter to President-elect Trump

    For Immediate Release

    Contact:
    Sandy Jones or Rick Wayman
    (805) 965-3443
    sjones@napf.org or rwayman@napf.org

    Open Letter to President-Elect Trump

     Santa Barbara–As the inauguration of President-elect Trump approaches, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is reaching out to him in an Open Letter, reminding him that, as President of the United States, he will soon have “the grave responsibility of assuring that nuclear weapons are not overtly threatened or used during [his] term of office.”

    The Open Letter advises Trump of the U.S. obligation under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to negotiate in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament. It explains that nuclear deterrence is based upon on the willingness of political leaders to act rationally under all circumstances, even those of extreme stress. It goes on to say that nuclear proliferation and a renewed nuclear arms race would both make for a far more dangerous world.

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, commented, “Mr. Trump does not seem to have a well-grounded understanding regarding threats to use the U.S. nuclear arsenal. This poses a dramatic danger to the whole world, including U.S. citizens. His presidency may constitute and the most dangerous period in human history.”

    The letter urges Mr. Trump “to choose the course of negotiations for a nuclear weapons-free world,” stating that to do so, “would be a great gift to all humanity and all future generations.”

    Among the signers to the Open Letter are many advisors, board members and staff of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and others, including Helen Caldicott, Noam Chomsky, Daniel Ellsberg, Richard Falk, Oliver Stone and Setsuko Thurlow, to mention just a few.

    The Open Letter is online at https://wagingpeace.davidmolinaojeda.com/open-letter-trump/

    #                             #                             #

    If you would like to interview David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, please contact Sandy Jones at sjones@napf.org or (805) 965-3443.

    Founded in 1982, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders.  The Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations and is comprised of individuals and groups worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age.  For more information, visit www.wagingpeace.org.

  • International Court of Justice Dismisses Marshall Islands’ Nuclear Disarmament Cases Without Considering the Merits

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

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

    October 5, 2016 – The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the world’s highest court, delivered its judgments on preliminary issues in the Marshall Islands’ nuclear disarmament cases against India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom (UK).

    By a vote of 8-8, by the casting vote of Ronny Abraham, President of the Court, the Court upheld the objection of the United Kingdom that there was not sufficient evidence of the existence of a dispute, and therefore the ICJ does not have jurisdiction to hear the case on the merits.

    By votes of 9-7, the Court upheld the objections of India and Pakistan that there was not sufficient evidence of the existence of a dispute, and therefore the ICJ does not have jurisdiction to hear the cases on the merits.

    The government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands released an official statement following the judgments, which can be found at the end of this press release.

    Phon van den Biesen, Co-Agent of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, said, “We are pleased that the Court recited its unanimous decision of 1996 that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. Likewise we are pleased that half of the judges of the highest court in the world confirmed, as the Marshall Islands alleged, that jurisdiction exists here. Nonetheless it is difficult to understand how eight judges could have found that no disputes existed in these cases when they were filed. So that is very disappointing. It is particularly worrying that the World Court cannot be unanimous on what it takes to establish a dispute in the context of nuclear disarmament.”

    These unprecedented lawsuits were submitted by the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) to the ICJ on April 24, 2014. They aimed to hold the nine nuclear-armed states (U.S., Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) accountable for violating international law by failing to respect their nuclear disarmament obligations under the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and customary international law.

    Only the UK, India and Pakistan appeared before the Court, since only they accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. China, the U.S., Russia, France, Israel and North Korea chose to ignore the ICJ cases. The RMI also has a nuclear disarmament case pending against the United States in the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and a consultant to the RMI, said, “In bringing these lawsuits, Tony de Brum and the Marshall Islands have demonstrated the courage and determination to act and speak, based on conviction and bitter, tragic experience, for the benefit of all humankind. De Brum and the Marshall Islands made the choice to act in a constructive manner to find a path to end the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons. With the lawsuits, the Marshall Islands challenged the nuclear-armed states to show good faith in meeting the universal legal obligation to pursue and conclude negotiations on complete nuclear disarmament. The Marshall Islands itself has shown good faith fulfilment of that obligation in a dignified, respectful way, through court action.”

    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.

    Official statement from the government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands:

    “While these proceedings were initiated by a previous government administration, and have been carried forward, the Marshall Islands has – for decades – repeatedly reminded the international community that our own burden and experiences with nuclear detonation must never again be repeated – this includes Marshallese who petitioned the United Nations in 1954 and 1956 to cease the nuclear testing program during its status as a UN Trust Territory. Recent nuclear tests in North Korea are a stunning example of clearly unacceptable risks which remain with us all.

    While it may be that there are several political pathways to sharply reducing – and eliminating – nuclear risk, further progress on nuclear disarmament appears stalled. Without further flexibility and political will by all sides of the table, and with all necessary actors – and without common agreement on a way forward, it is as though there is no visible path to a world free of nuclear weapons, and the peace and security which accompany it. Such a lack of progress is no way to honor or respond to the lesson that Marshallese people have offered the world.

    We look forward to studying closely the Court’s opinion before commenting further.”

  • International Court of Justice to Deliver Judgments on Preliminary Issues in Marshall Islands’ Nuclear Disarmament Cases on October 5 at 10:00 a.m.

    International Court of Justice to Deliver Judgments on Preliminary Issues in Marshall Islands’ Nuclear Disarmament Cases on October 5 at 10:00 a.m.

    Media Advisory

     

    INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE TO DELIVER
    JUDGMENTS ON PRELIMINARY ISSUES
    IN MARSHALL ISLANDS’ NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT CASES
    ON OCTOBER 5 AT 10:00 A.M.

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

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

    The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will deliver its judgments on preliminary issues in the three Marshall Islands’ nuclear disarmament cases against India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom on October 5 at 10:00 am local time in The Hague. The judgments will be read in open court.

    The nuclear disarmament lawsuits were filed on April 24, 2014 in the ICJ by the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The cases aim to hold the nuclear-armed nations accountable for their breaches of Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and customary international law.

    In all three cases the Court is to address and decide questions of jurisdiction and admissibility. If these questions are decided in favor of the Marshall Islands, the cases will go forward to the merits stage. If the Court decides against the Marshall Islands in any of the cases, the litigation in that case will be ended.

    For those unable to travel to The Hague, the judgments will be webstreamed live (no delay) on two sites:

    For those who plan to be in The Hague, information regarding media admission and accreditation is in this ICJ press release.

    Contact information for the International Legal Team:

    Phon van den Biesen, Co-Agent of the Republic of the Marshall Islands
    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

    Press releases about the March hearings on the preliminary issues and other information about the lawsuits can be found at http://www.nuclearzero.org/newsmedia. The California-based Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is consultant to the Republic of the Marshall Islands.

    For those attending the session, Mr. van den Biesen will be available for comment to the press 15 minutes after the conclusion of the session; venue to be announced at that point in time.

  • Media Advisory: ICJ to Deliver Judgments in Marshall Islands Nuclear Disarmament Cases

    cropped-nuclear_zero_lawsuits.jpgThe International Court of Justice (ICJ) has announced that it will read its judgments in the Marshall Islands’ nuclear disarmament cases against India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom on October 5 at 10:00 am local time in The Hague.

    The judgments will address the questions of jurisdiction of the Court and admissibility of the Application in the cases against India and Pakistan. In the case against the UK, the judgment will address the preliminary objections raised by the United Kingdom.

    For those who are able to travel to The Hague, information regarding media admission and accreditation is in this ICJ press release.

    While we have not received confirmation that the judgments will be live-streamed online, they likely will be, just as the oral arguments were last March.

    If you would like to interview members of the Marshall Islands’ legal team, please contact Rick Wayman at either +1. 805.965.3443, +1. 805.696.5159 or rwayman@napf.org.

  • NAPF Strongly Condemns North Korean Nuclear Test; Urges Broader Perspective

    NUCLEAR AGE PEACE FOUNDATION

    For Immediate Release
    Contact:
    Rick Wayman
    (805) 696-5159 / (805) 965-3443
    rwayman@napf.org

    NAPF Strongly Condemns North Korean Nuclear Test; Urges Broader Perspective

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) deplores the continued testing of nuclear weapons and the provocative statements by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). Today’s nuclear test – the fifth by North Korea – makes apparent the growing nuclear dangers in the Northeast Asian region, and generally throughout the world.

    The world’s other eight nuclear-armed nations have tested a great deal. Over 2,000 nuclear tests have been conducted worldwide, and the United States alone has conducted over 1,000 nuclear tests.

    The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), which has been open for signature for over 20 years, has still not entered into force. Forty-four key nations, known as “Annex 2 States,” must sign and ratify the CTBT before it can enter into effect. Of these, North Korea, India and Pakistan have neither signed nor ratified the treaty. China, Egypt, Iran, Israel and the United States have signed the treaty, but have not ratified it.

    While all nations other than North Korea have been observing a moratorium on explosive nuclear tests, many nuclear-armed nations, including the United States, have continued conducting sub-critical tests and computer simulations. NAPF believes that all nuclear testing must stop. This includes North Korea’s provocative yield-producing explosions, as well as the sub-critical tests and computer simulations that other nuclear-armed nations engage in.

    Tests of nuclear weapon delivery vehicles, such as last Monday’s launch of a Minuteman III Intercontinental Ballistic Missile by the U.S. Air Force, are also dangerous and destabilizing. The modernization of nuclear arsenals and production infrastructure by all nine nuclear-armed nations is driving a perilous nuclear arms race.

    The Korean War has never officially come to an end. North Korea has asked numerous times to bring the war footing to an end, and has been rejected each time. The U.S. still keeps around 28,000 troops in South Korea and conducts annual war games targeting North Korea. All parties must negotiate an end to the hostilities, instead of relying on a 63 year-old Armistice Agreement.

    Finally, NAPF urges all nine nuclear-armed nations to fulfill their obligations under existing international law. Nuclear-armed countries have an obligation to convene negotiations in good faith for an end to the nuclear arms race and for nuclear disarmament, as required by Article VI of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and customary international law. As North Korea’s continued nuclear testing shows, the only way to ensure that nuclear weapons are never used is to negotiate their complete abolition.

    #                              #                                  #

    For further information, contact Rick Wayman at rwayman@napf.org or (805) 696-5159.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation – NAPF’s mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders.  Founded in 1982, the Foundation is comprised of individuals and organizations worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations.

  • Press Release: Vandenberg to Launch Minuteman III Missile Test

    For Immediate Release

    Contact:

    Rick Wayman
    (805) 696-5159
    rwayman@napf.org

    Sandy Jones
    (805) 965-3443
    sjones@napf.org

    minuteman_launchSanta Barbara, CA – A Minuteman III ICBM missile test is scheduled for launch early on Sunday morning, September 4, from Vandenberg AFB. The launch window extends from 00:01 to 06:01 PDT.

    This comes just six days after August 29th, a date designated by the United Nations as the International Day against Nuclear Tests. While this Minuteman III missile will not be carrying an armed nuclear warhead, the sole purpose of the United States’ 450 land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles is to deliver powerful nuclear warheads to any target on Earth in under an hour.

    Bunny McDiarmid, Executive Director of Greenpeace International, said, “Nuclear weapons were designed and tested to be the ultimate doomsday weapon, setting a legacy of fear and destruction. No other human invention had as much impact on the story of humanity in recent decades.” To read more, click here.

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, stated, “Regularly testing its nuclear warhead delivery vehicles – in this case, the Minuteman III ICBM – stands in stark contrast to its obligation under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms rate at an early date. This planned test on September 4th continues the provocative behavior by the U.S.”

    Krieger went on to say, “Test-firing these missiles while expressing criticism when other countries conduct missile tests is a clear example of U.S. double standards. Such double standards encourage nuclear proliferation and nuclear arms races and make the world a more dangerous place.”

    The U.S. Air Force’s proposal for the development of a new generation of Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) has in fact stalled over questions surrounding the program’s cost estimates. The Air Force estimates that research, development and production of 400 new missiles would cost $62.3 billion. However, because ICBMs have not been produced by the U.S. for many years, some believe the cost would end up being much higher.

    Former defense secretary William Perry has said unequivocally that his experiences have made him believe the U.S. should remove ICBMs from its nuclear triad, which also includes strategic bombers and submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

    With each missile test, the U.S. sends a clear and expensive message that it continues to be reliant on nuclear weapons. Each test costs tens of millions of dollars and contributes to the U.S. plans to spend $1 trillion modernizing its nuclear arsenal over the next thirty years.

    #                             #                             #

    If you would like to interview David Krieger, please call the Foundation at (805) 965-3443.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders.  Founded in 1982, the Foundation is comprised of individuals and organizations worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age. The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations.  For more information, visit www.wagingpeace.org.

  • British Parliament Voting on Trident Replacement Next Week

    For Immediate Release

    Contact:
    Rick Wayman or Sandy Jones
    (805) 965-3443
    rwayman@napf.org or sjones@napf.org

    Breaking News:

    British Parliament Voting on Trident Replacement Next Week

    On Monday, July 18, the UK parliament will vote on whether or not to replace Trident, the UK’s nuclear weapon system.

    It is yet unknown whether MPs will be asked to support replacement in principle, or whether they will be asked to consent to the building of four new submarines, at a cost of roughly $53 billion. The lifetime cost of Trident replacement is believed to be at least $266 billion. The UK has already spent over $4 billion on Trident replacement, before the vote has occurred.

    Since 1969, a British submarine carrying nuclear weapons has always been on patrol in the world’s oceans. The UK’s current nuclear-armed fleet consists of four submarines. The subs carry up to 16 Trident II D5 missiles, and each can be fitted with a number of nuclear warheads directed at different targets. Currently, the government spends approximately 6% of its annual defense budget on Trident.

    What is not widely known is the fact that the UK does not own the Trident missiles, but rather leases them from the United States. British subs must regularly visit the US Navy’s base at King’s Bay, Georgia, for maintenance or re-arming. And since Britain has no missile test site of its own, it tries out its weapons under US supervision at Cape Canaveral, off the Florida coast.

    Kate Hudson, General Secretary of the UK-based Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, (CND) expressed the feeling of many when she said, “It is quite extraordinary that our government should commit itself to such profligate spending when the utility of such submarines–in defense technology terms–has long passed. The government, and all supporters of Trident replacement, are to be condemned for their short-sighted, head-in-the-sand approach to Britain’s defense.”

    At present, the UK is being sued in the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the highest court in the world, by the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). The case aims to hold the UK accountable for violating international law by failing to uphold its nuclear disarmament obligations under the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and customary international law. Replacement of Trident would clearly violate the UK’s obligation to bring the nuclear arms race to an early end and is further evidence the UK considers itself above the law and does not take seriously its treaty commitments.

    David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, and a consultant to the RMI in its lawsuit, commented, “We support the people of the UK in their move to end the government’s dangerous and expensive plans to replace their Trident submarine fleet. The UK could use this unprecedented opportunity of the vote in parliament to do the right thing by voting down the Trident replacement and commencing negotiations for total nuclear disarmament. This vote is not only about Trident. A ‘NO’ vote will help protect the future of civilization.”

    For more information about the RMI’s lawsuit against the UK at the International Court of Justice, visit nuclearzero.org.

    #                                                      #                                              #

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation was founded in 1982. Its mission is to educate and advocate for peace and a world free of nuclear weapons and to empower peace leaders. The Foundation is a non-partisan, non-profit organization with consultative status to the United Nations and is comprised of individuals and groups worldwide who realize the imperative for peace in the Nuclear Age.

  • 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.

  • Oral Hearings on the Marshall Islands’ Nuclear Disarmament Cases to Begin at the International Court of Justice

    March 2, 2016
    Contact:
    Rick Wayman
    +31.68.6489881
    rwayman@napf.org

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

    On March 7, 2016, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the world’s highest court, will begin hearings in The Hague, Netherlands, on the preliminary objections raised by the United Kingdom (UK), India and Pakistan in the nuclear disarmament cases brought by the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI). The purpose of the hearings is for the Court to determine whether any legal obstacles prevent the cases from going forward to consideration on their merits.

    These unprecedented lawsuits were submitted by the RMI to the ICJ on April 24, 2014. They aim to hold the nine nuclear-armed states (U.S., Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) accountable for violating international law by failing to respect their nuclear disarmament obligations under the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and customary international law.

    The RMI, a tiny island nation in the Pacific, was used for 12 years, from 1946 to 1958, as a testing ground for nuclear bombs by the United States. Sixty-seven nuclear weapons were tested and the health and environmental effects of those tests still plague the Marshall Islanders to this day. The destructive power of the 1954 “Castle Bravo” nuclear test was 1,000 times greater than the bomb that destroyed the city of Hiroshima, Japan.

    Tony de Brum, former Marshall Islands Foreign Minister and Co-Agent in the cases, said, “I have seen with my very own eyes nuclear devastation and know with conviction that nuclear weapons must never again be visited upon humanity. Nuclear weapons are a senseless threat to survival and there are basic norms that compel those who possess them to pursue and achieve their elimination. This is the subject of legal action by my country at the International Court of Justice.”

    Only the UK, India and Pakistan are appearing before the Court, since only they accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ. China, the U.S., Russia, France, Israel and North Korea have chosen to ignore the ICJ cases.

    The UK case differs from the cases of India and Pakistan in that the UK is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and therefore is bound by Article VI of that treaty which requires states to pursue negotiations “in good faith” to end the nuclear arms race and achieve total nuclear disarmament. The Marshall Islands contends that India and Pakistan are bound by similar obligations under customary international law.

    “From a legal perspective, the issues presented by these cases are ordinary ones, but a positive outcome will, spectacularly, change the world. 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, attorney at law in Amsterdam, Co-Agent for the RMI who is leading the International Legal Team.

    With these cases the RMI asks the International Court of Justice to follow up on its earlier findings in the Advisory Opinion it delivered in 1996 on the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. At the time the Court considered that the continued international debate on the legality of these deadly weapons threatens the stability of the international order. It added that “the long-promised complete nuclear disarmament appears to be the most appropriate means” to put an end to that untenable situation. (para. 98, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf)

    World leaders, international non-governmental organizations, world-class experts and Nobel Peace Laureates have offered strong support for the cases, denouncing nuclear weapons as immoral and illegal (http://nuclearzero.org/#lastone).

    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.