Day Seven at the ICJ: Making a Big Fuss
Facebook
<http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=bEmGVcArxK87j5a9HmcZ%2BjVe74ViKb3x>
Twitter
<http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=DedO1xek%2F09%2FteQK665jNiWIed40n4bJ>
Addthis
<http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=eyF%2BHk5Pgv1gxxUENAS4%2FyWIed40n4bJ>
International Court of Justice
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) today concluded the preliminary
phase of oral arguments in 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.
This morning, India delivered its final oral arguments. India’s legal
team doubled down on its assertions that its words speak louder than its
actions. While repeatedly highlighting “irrefutable evidence of India’s
positions in United Nations forums on disarmament,” India’s lawyers
denied that test-launches of nuclear-capable missiles – including on Day
One
<http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=7iiC4Mza3jAl6ylh600M8TVe74ViKb3x>
and Day Three
<http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=AsQ3RovWI96WRpJV3MT4ZSWIed40n4bJ>
of the ICJ’s hearings in the case against India – indicated
participation in the nuclear arms race.
Mr. Amandeep Gill, Co-Agent of India, expressed dismay that Tony de
Brum, Co-Agent of the Marshall Islands, told the Court that India’s
nuclear arsenal threatens the world. “What else,” asked Mr. Gill, “could
be more political, more contrived and more artificial than this
allegation of a threat to the world?” A 2013 report by International
Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War entitled “Nuclear Famine:
Two Billion People at Risk
<http://org2.salsalabs.com/dia/track.jsp?v=2&c=c7Ctrf1Pi6mbBljx0BFwwiWIed40n4bJ>”
shows that, even in a “limited” nuclear war using as few as 100 nuclear
weapons anywhere in the world, the global climate and agricultural
production would be disrupted so severely that the lives of more than
two billion people would be in jeopardy.
Mr. Alain Pellet, Counsel to India, wondered aloud why the Marshall
Islands is now “making such a big fuss” about the International Court of
Justice’s 1996 Advisory Opinion. The ICJ ruled in that opinion that for
all nations, “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.”
In the afternoon session, the Marshall Islands presented its final oral
arguments in the case against the United Kingdom. Phon van den Biesen
opened the session by answering the question posed by Judge Bennouna at
the Court last Friday. Mr. van den Biesen presented numerous examples to
the judges illustrating the Marshall Islands’ interpretation of Article
VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) at the time that its
Application against the United Kingdom was filed (24 April 2014).
Tony de Brum, Co-Agent and former Foreign Minister of the Marshall
Islands, concluded today’s arguments against the United Kingdom. He
said, “The States possessing nuclear weapons that joined the NPT made a
legally binding promise, in accordance with the goals they expressly
adopted in the NPT Preamble, to pursue in good faith negotiations
leading to nuclear disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race,
pursuant to Article VI. The dispute in this case is over whether the UK
is in breach of that bargained-for, legal obligation.”
He continued, “At the end of the day, the UK position boils down to an
assertion that the RMI has no legally enforceable rights under NPT
Article VI. If that were true, the Strategic Bargain of the NPT is
illusory.” The strategic bargain to which Mr. de Brum referred is, at
its core, that NPT signatories that possess nuclear weapons promise to
negotiate the elimination of all nuclear weapons in exchange for
non-nuclear-armed signatories agreeing never to acquire such weapons.
Mr. de Brum again 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.”
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.