Nuclear Weapons Are llegal
The World Court Ruled Three Years Ago

Why Hasn't Any Media Reported This?

Dec. 16, 1994, the U.N. General Assembly voted to ask the World Court the question: Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law?

The vote to ask the Court was: Yes 79 -- No 43 -- Abstained 38 -- Absent 18. The U.S. voted no, but the U.S. has no veto power in the General Assembly. On July 8, 1996, the World Court issued its opinion, which has never been reported in many daily newspapers throughout the country.

The 14 judges do not represent their governments, but rather their understanding of the law. The judges came from: U.S., UK, Russia, France, and China (the nuclear powers), Algeria, Germany, Hungary, Madagascar, Italy, Japan, Guyana, Sierra Leone and Sri Lanka. (One judge had just died and not been replaced, so the Chief Justice could vote twice to break a tie.)

The Court ruled 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."

The Court ruled unanimously: "A threat or use of nuclear weapons should also be compatible with the requirements of international law applicable in armed conflict, particularly those of the principles and rules of international humanitarian law,..."

The Court spelled out what weapons humanitarian law forbids, namely weapons that:

• inflict unnecessary suffering
• are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets
• kill people in a neutral state
• do permanent damage to the environment.

There was no evidence in the record that any nuclear weapons can meet these requirements.

Previous opinions of the World Court have been enforced. E.g., when the U.S. sued Iran over the hostage taking, the World Court decided for the U.S. and established a commission to determine damages to individuals and Iran participated in the Commission's work and did pay the damages awarded. The Court ruled against apartheid South Africa's presence in Namibia in 1971, which bolstered U.N. Gen. Assembly resolutions against S. Africa. The Court has settled peacefully many border disputes and disputes over fishing rights between nations.

When the World Court ruled for Nicaragua and against the U. S. for U.S. military action against the Sandinistas, the U.S. refused to obey that opinion. But under Chamorro, Nicaragua withdrew its request for the World Court to decide what damages the U.S. should pay so the case was closed by the Court.

World Court opinions are enforced the same way the school desegragation case of Brown v. Board of Education was enforced: by the mobilization of shame, leading individuals and organizations to demand government actions. Dec. 9, 1997, the Gen. Assembly voted 115 to 22 to conclude a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

Read the Court opinion, the opinions of each of the 14 judges, and helpful commentary in Nuclear Weapons Are Illegal: The Historic Opinion of the World Court and How It Will Be Enforced. Ann Fagan Ginger. Apex Press. 1998.

Copyright 1999-2004. Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute. All rights reserved.