the - srcfcumuns.soc.srcf.net/joomla/documents/study_guides/10 icj.pdfformally, the main power and...
TRANSCRIPT
1
2
THE
INTERNATIONAL
COURT OF
JUSTICE
3
Title: Enforcement of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (Marshall Islands vs. UK)
THESIS: The right of the Marshall Islands to request into the ICJ for
International jurisdiction and global respect to the
Non-Proliferation Treaty, in behalf of international security,
and against the violation of human rights. Case against the UK.
4
Contents
5
Chairpersons
Welcome
Distinguished Delegates,
Please receive a warm
welcome to the Cambridge
University International Model
United Nations 2014 (CUIMUN
2014). We, Lena Sutanovac, Marko
Pandza and José Antonio Villena
Sierra, are so glad to have you in the
International Court of Justice (ICJ),
and we are honored to become as
your chairs in this important event.
Cambridge and our conference, is the
best environment to learn working
and enjoying, facing international
conflicts and giving positive
solutions for the international
community. The ICJ at CUIMUN
2014, is the field where you all can
demonstrate the help that law and
justice can give to our global society.
For the importance of the decisions
that the ICJ are going to take,
CUIMUN´14 decided to include one
interesting and relevant case that
will require your deep research and
a complete participation:
CUIMUN 2014 ICJ CHAIIRPERSONS
6
“Enforcement of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty
(Marshall Islands vs. UK)”.
The ICJ is more than a regular MUN
committee. It is an academic event
where you have to present your legal
and international background,
demonstrating your skills and
abilities. It is a complex tribunal,
which opens a forum for effective
discussions, solving conflicts between
countries by using your legal
knowledge. You are requested to use
the following document as a guide
for your research, but you are more
than welcome to explore and use
other sources of information.
Outstanding delegates of CUIMUN
2014, keeping in mind that our
collaboration has as main goal, to
give opportunities for future leaders
of the World; it is a high honor for us,
to participate as chairpersons during
your ICJ CUIMUN2014!
Delighted to share this experience
with you all, it is our great privilege
to welcome you all, dear delegates
and judges, to the Cambridge
University International Model
United Nations – International Court
of Justice 2014!
With best regards,
José Antonio Villena Sierra
Director
ICJ CUIMUN 2014
7
Lena Šutanovac
Lena Sutonovac is a Law Student at
University of Ljubljana, Slovenia,
currently enrolled in her third year
of studies. Lena commenced her
MUN career in the historic city of
Mostar, by attending the IB UWC’s
MUNiM. She continued her active
involvement in the world of Model
UN by founding and leading two
MUN Clubs in her hometown,
Ljubljana; GIMB MUN Club at her
former high school, Gimnazija
Bezigrad International
Baccalaureate and MUNLawS Club
at the Faculty of Law, UL. She has
been participating in numerous
MUN Conferences-Harvard and
THIMUN types and has been
granted several awards through her
Model UN path.
In 2013, she was appointed
Secretary General of MUNLawS
Conference, held in Ljubljana,
Slovenia.
Apart from her interest in
international political dynamics,
she is a passionate traveller and
sports enthusiast, also eagerly
committed to civil service,
specifically in the field of First Aid
Assistance.
She is currently involved in two
inter-generational civil initiatives in
Ljubljana and is fluent in four
languages.
Lena is truly looking forward to
meeting fellow MUN enthusiasts
and assist Pepe and Marko as
Co-chair of the ICJ Panel.
Lena Sutanovac
Assistant Director
ICJ CUIMUN 2014
8
MarkoPandža
Honorable delegates,
It is my esteemed pleasure to
welcome you to the International
Court of Justice (ICJ) Committee at
Cambridge University International
Model United Nations 2014. My
name is Marko Pandža and I am
honored and privileged to serve as
one of your committee chairs.
I am born and raised in Bosnia and
Herzegovina and I am currently a
fourth year Law student at
University of Mostar. In addition to
this I am also the Vice-president of
University of Mostar Debate Club,
avid member of my university Moot
Court Club, and also a writer for the
official university magazine. In my
free time I enjoy reading, travelling
and music.
I was first introduced to the MUN
world in 2010 by fellow students in
my hometown and I have caught
the MUN virus ever since. I am
delighted and honored by the
opportunity to chair at such a
storied Conference and I do
believe that Cambridge University
International Model United Nations
is the ultimate MUN experience and
a must-attend for all MUN
enthusiasts because of its rich
history, highest debate level and
beautiful scenery. This year you
shall be dealing with a very
interesting case which will most
certainly be a great challenge for
you to showcase your abilities in
9
the ICJ and I am certain that you
fellow delegates will successfully
tackle the topic at hand and
overcome all the obstacles that are
going to be raised before you.
In the end I hope you shall enjoy
your Cambridge University
International Model United Nations
experience and meet exciting new
people while also learning
something new and expanding your
horizons.
Sincerely,
Marko Pandža
Assistant Director
ICJ CUIMUN 2014
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY
INTERNATIONAL MODEL UNITED
NATIONS
www.cuimun.org
10
The international community
requires more
The rage between rich and
poor people is constantly increasing
showing an incredible margi
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF
JUSTICE (ICJ)
After giving you a sincere and deep welcome, you all future judges and delegates of CUIMUN
2014, have to get familiar with the important function of the International Court of Justice
(ICJ).
11
The ICJ is a permanent court,
known as the primary judicial
branch of the United Nations. It was
established in 1945 as a solution to
legal disputes between recognized
States or group of States.
The headquarters of the ICJ are
placed in The Hague (Netherlands).
Formally, the main power and
function of the ICJ is to settle legal
disputes submitted to it by States
members of the UN (and who
ratified the Statute of the ICJ)
providing advisory opinions on
legal questions submitted to it, by
“duly authorized international
branches, agencies, and the UN
General Assembly”.1
Even the Court was established in
1945, the ICJ just began working in
1946, as a consequence or
successor of a previous court
named as “the Permanent Court of
Justice” 2 (PCJ). This PCJ had its
own Statute that is considered the
main constitutional document
constituting and regulating the
court. The ICJ succeeding the idea
of the Permanent Court of Justice
has also an own Statue that defines
the role, powers and functions of
the ICJ.
By definition, as the statute
considers, “the International Court
of Justice (ICJ) was formed by the
United Nations as a mediator for
international disputes, with every
member of the U.N subject to the ICJ
and its verdicts”. However, with
time, some countries (as the USA)
haven’t recognized the verdicts.
This reaction developed the sad
effect that the ICJ is recognized only
by some members and not be the
total amount of members. Both
ways, those countries who
recognize the ICJ are the majority of
the UN State members.
“The ICJ acts to keep all actions of
the international community within
12
the bounds of international law.
Thus, the Court deals not only with
the disputes of countries
(contentious cases) but also as an
advisor for international action.”3
About the function of the ICJ, Dr.
Daniel Zaffaroni, as the former
President of the Supreme Court of
Argentina, exposed in the General
Assembly of the United Nations
(2010), “the UN was formed to
unify the world and bring peace, but
more than debating, sometimes it is
necessary to work settling the
conflicts that countries have with
each other as well”.
There are several important aspects
of the ICJ that have to be analyzed.
Functions to solve disputes, like
developing arguments, and
researching for evidence to judging
situations through a lens of legality:
rather than ideological preference;
giving verdicts that will fit in all the
corners of the world and respecting
every legal or judicial system.
THE ORIGIN OF THE
INTERNATIONAL
COURT OF JUSTICE
The ICJ consists and
developed a new form of judicial
law in the world. As we exposed
above, it is based on the Permanent
Court of International Justice (PCIJ)
an institution that was the judicial
power of the world under the
League of Nations. Disappearing the
League of Nations, the United
Nations took it place and the
creation and space for the ICJ was
established, not only as a court, also
as an institution of legal
(international law) advisory for the
different organs, agencies and
committees of the UN.
13
At the beginning (1945), it was suggested the extension of the jurisdiction of the PCIJ,
however, the vision of the United Nations including new perspectives and goals,
developed the idea to create a new court. The idea of the ICJ was to be the central
judicial authority of the United Nations and in all the systems of the world. However,
for many theorists (as the members of the Columbia University Law School, the
University of Leuven Institute of International Law, etc.), the ICJ was thereby formed,
belonging to the U.N Charter, but with its statute based on that of the PCIJ.
14
It is extremely important to
remark that one of the core points
of the ICJ is to create an entirely
new judicial institution, where all
members of the United Nations
were automatically subject to the
statute of the ICJ. With this
perspective, all member States in
the new world order were
automatically subject to judgment
in its set international law. About
this last point, the former Secretary
General of the United Nations,
Boutros-Boutros Ghali, mentioned
once that this addition “was one of
the greatest flaws of the PCIJ and a
core foundation to having the ICJ
capable of dealing true
international justice.” This idea is
important for all the delegates of
the CUIMUN ICJ, that have to keep
in mind that the verdicts should
create a precedent in all the regions,
continents and states of the world.
Currently, the ICJ is the principal
judicial organ of the U.N. for the
international law and harmony
between states, with the main
purpose to mediate disputes
between States to the UN, and to
determine the legality of actions
taken by governments or activist
groups.
As it was exposed before, the
Statute of the Court was based on
that of previous world judicial
authority, the PCIJ. “Many integral
articles of the Statute of the PCIJ
have been integrated or referred to
15
within the Statute of the ICJ. The
Statute has also been annexed into
the UN Charter, and is an integral
part to it. All member States of the
UN, therefore, are also member
states of the Statute. The statute
clearly defines court arrangement
and procedure. The statute does
not, however, directly define
jurisdiction as those of other
judicial institutions of the UN”4
The ICJ has its jurisdiction by
examining international law that
has already been developed, and it
include the UN Charter, UN
Resolutions, principles of
international law, international
custom or doctrines. One example
of this is the application of the
Security Council resolutions or
treaties between countries that are
mandatory to be applied in the
verdicts of the ICJ.
The Statute of the ICJ in its Article
34 establishes that the Court is a
judicial body for any case regarding
two states, or group of countries
against other or others, and so
individuals may not approach the
court. ‘Any legal situation deemed a
threat to international peace and
security falls within the jurisdiction
of the Court; the Court is open to all
member states of its Statute and
even non-member states (Statute
Article 35). If, however, a dispute
between two parties as to the
jurisdiction of the Court in a
situation arises, the Court shall
decide the matter (Statute Article
36(6)).
The same statute in the Article 38
literally establishes that the ICJ
decides under all international
treaties and resolutions or other
formal documents passed with
international consent, as well as
international custom and the
16
general principles of law recognized
by the international community.
The ICJ function includes the power
to solve disputes and also to give
advisory opinion. In this last case,
the Court is asked to give its
opinion to the legality of an action.
So there is a function to give legal
advisory and the other function is
the contentious, where the ICJ is to
settle a dispute between two
nations or group of nations. The
judges that compose the ICJ solve
the case, after listening to the
advocates, what present their
arguments for each case.
Analysis of the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons is an international treaty
whose objective is to prevent the spread of
nuclear weapons and weapons technology,
to promote cooperation in the peaceful
uses of nuclear energy……
17
Opened for signature in 1968, the
Treaty entered into force in 1970. On
11 May 1995, the Treaty was
extended indefinitely. More countries
have adhered to the NPT than any
other arms limitation and
disarmament agreement. A total of
190 states have joined the Treaty,
though North Korea, which acceded to
the NPT in 1985 but never came into
compliance, announced its withdrawal
in 2003. Four UN member states have
never joined the NPT: India, Israel,
Pakistan and South Sudan.
Main points on the
Non-Proliferation
Treaty
Elimination of existing nuclear
weapons and the prohibition of
further creation of nuclear weapons
have been among the most
discussed topics in the United
Nations General Assembly.
In January 1956, the UNGA passed a
resolution which sought to put in
motion the elimination of weapons
of mass destruction from national
arsenals. 5 Named resolution set
ground for future developments in
the field of non-proliferation.
With the 1968 Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (hereafter “The NPT”) 6 ,
the non-nuclear-weapon States
have agreed not to acquire nuclear
weapons and the NPT
nuclear-weapon States have agreed
to negotiate their elimination.
The NPT is an international treaty
whose objective is to prevent the
spread of nuclear weapons and
weapons technology, to promote
cooperation in the peaceful uses of
nuclear energy and to further the
goal of achieving nuclear
disarmament and general complete
….and to further the goal of achieving
nuclear disarmament and general and
complete disarmament…
18
disarmament. The NPT represents
the only binding commitment in a
multilateral treaty to the goal of
disarmament by the nuclear-weapon
States (United States, Russian
Federation, United Kingdom, France
and China) 7 and is accordingly
considered as the most important
binding document when it comes to
nuclear proliferation and
production of weapons.
The NPT consists of a two parts: the
preamble and eleven articles. The
preamble stresses the importance
of required negotiations, aimed at
reaching the required conclusions,
by envisioning the prospect of
“devastation that would be visited
upon all mankind by a nuclear war”.8
The NPT contains the solemn
promise and legal obligation of the
nuclear weapon States to negotiate
19
towards total nuclear disarmament.
Article VI of the NPT states as
follows:
The Court has addressed the
question of the legality of nuclear
weapons in its Advisory Opinion of
8 July 1996 on the Legality of the
Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons.
In its Advisory Opinion, the Court
provided an extensive answer to
the question posed by the General
Assembly with respect to the
legality or illegality of the use and
threat of use of nuclear weapons. In
context of the question, the Court
provided additional analysis: “In
the long run, international law, and
with it the stability of the
international order which it is
intended to govern, are bound to
suffer from the continuing
difference of views with regard to
the legal status of weapons as
deadly as nuclear weapons. It is
consequently important to put an
end to this state of affairs: the
long-promised complete nuclear
disarmament appears to be the
most appropriate means of
achieving that result” 9 and
observed that “the destructive
power of nuclear weapons cannot
be contained in either space or
time” and that such weapons “have
the potential to destroy all
civilization and the entire
“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.”
20
ecosystem of the planet” 10 It
acknowledged “the unique
characteristics of nuclear weapons,
and in particular their destructive
capacity, their capacity to cause
untold human suffering, and their
ability to cause damage to
generations to come”11
From that starting point the Court
stated that it “appreciates the full
importance of the recognition of
Article VI of the NPT of an
obligation to negotiate in good faith
a nuclear disarmament.”12
The Court unanimously concluded
with a call for States to keep their
part of the strategic bargain which
included the call for NPT
nuclear-weapon States to fulfill the
obligations enshrined in Article VI
of the NPT and customary
international law, namely “pursue
in good faith and bring to a
conclusion negotiations leading to
nuclear disarmament in all its
aspects under strict and effective
international control”13
21
THE OROAOAKJLFADLKFKJ;LFADKJLADFS;LThe Origin of the International Court of
Justice (ICJ)
The Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons is one of the biggest
challenges that humanity and
international community have to
face in our days. The antagonistic
result of the “Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons” plans is not only
a raise on their production, uses
and the proliferation of them. The
real result is the risk that the world
keeps on using nuclear weapons,
and the strong effect of their uses.
If the international community
doesn’t stop the production and use
of these kinds of weapons, we will
have only destruction; destruction
of societies, of civilizations, of
principles, of development, and a
real risk of the final destruction of
human being.
The fight for non-proliferation of
nuclear weapons is that old as the
use of them. Started with their first
experiences and production, and it
II. INTRODUCTION TO THE CASE
22
will stay as a business if the
producers do not decide to stop
their huge production. The
beginning of this nuclear era started
in 1944 with the elaboration of the
first nuclear bomb, and appeared as
a risk to humanity with the
horrifying nuclear explosions in
Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
In 1946, it was funded the
United Nations Atomic Energy
Commission (UNAEC) on 24
January, by the Resolution Number
1 of the United Nations General
Assembly to deal with the problems
raised by the discovery of the
Atomic Energy.14
The first idea at the UN was to force
all the States with nuclear weapons
to get rid and destroy those
weapons. Of course, this goal failled.
Since then, the main goal is to
reduce the production and uses of
nuclear weapons, limitating the
production to countries under the
control and authorization of the UN
and the UN Security council (for a
future close cessation of nuclear
weapons).
Since 1946, there are some
advances in the reduction of
nuclear weapons production,
having as the biggest instrument
reached, the The Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (NPT), signed in 1968.
However, with this document also
inequality started in the field of the
nuclear energy and nuclear race.
The TNP let the Five-Permanent
Members of the UN Security Council
(USA, China, Russia, France and UK)
to keep their production of nuclear
weapons until 1968, with the
unique commitment for them to
lead discussions for an eventual and
definitive disarmament.
23
Besides the NPT, there are other elements that compose the System of
Non-Proliferation. Here there are traditional and non-traditional actors of the
International System: States, International Organizations and NGOs who fight
for an urgent disarmament, bringing the topic and discussion to diverse
international panels and forums. All these actions built a frame of treaties
and conventions that create the named System of Non-Proliferation.
“Since Human Being created the Nuclear Bomb, he discovered that is
the unique creature in nature that can destroy the world,
Destroy all shapes of life, even can destroy the Universe...
World History is divided before and after nuclear weapons..”
(Salvador Dalí, 1946
24
Even we´ve explained all those previous actions and protagonists in action;
there is one actor that hasn’t participated before in this process of
Non-Proliferation: the International Court of Justice (ICJ). In the ICJ previous
actions there are only two Advisory Opinions, one accepted and other
dismissed; and two cases for consulting: New Zealand vs. France, and
Australia vs. France.
In 1993, the World Health Organization (WHO) asked for an advisory opinion
on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons to the ICJ. On July
8th, 1996, the ICJ established that the Court may not issue or deliver an
opinion for not been this topic and field a competence of the WHO. The topic
of the advisory was focused in international security and peace keeping.
Both fields were not considered as part of the functions and competences that
25
the World Health Organization ((WHO) has.15
15 http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/sp/files/sum_1992-1996.pdf
26
Additionally to the actions for
Advisory Opinion, the ICJ received
one action where New Zealand
asked for Precautionary Measures
for the nuclear testing that France
was practicing in the Southern
Pacific. The ICJ dismissed this
action, for the commitment that
France had, for not testing nuclear
weapons any more in this region.
Australia also started a process
with the same topic against France
in the same year, having an
identical dismissed action by the
ICJ.16
In 1994, another request was
presented. The United Nations
General Assembly (GA) delivered an
Advisory Opinion on the Legality of
the Threat or Use of Nuclear
Weapons, with the question: Does
International Law authorizes in any
case the Threat or Use of Nuclear
Weapons?
This Advisory Opinion was
accepted by the Court in January,
1995. The ICJ handed down an
advisory opinion on 8 July 1996 the
Legality of the Threat or Use of
Nuclear Weapons case.
After a deep analysis, the ICJ
decided that according to
International Law17 , there are no
specific prohibitions or
authorizations over the legality on
the Threat or Use of Nuclear
Weapons. The ICJ added that
there is no definitive conclusion on
the legality or illegality on the use
of nuclear weapons, when there are
extreme circumstances of legal
self-defense for a State, when is in
risk the survivorship of this State.
In other words, the ICJ hasn’t
established a clear frame or
parameter to define if the threat or
use of nuclear weapons is legal or
illegal, according to the current
International Law.
As last point, the ICJ decided the
obligation to continue bona fide on
the international commitment on
nuclear disarmament, and to reach
in a close future the negotiations for
a global disarmament.
27
History of the Proceedings and
Contentious
On April 25, 2014, the Government of the
Marshall Islands filed an Application to the ICJ,
presenting an Action to the ICJ against China, North
Korea, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, Russian
Federation, United States and the United Kingdom of
the Great Britain and Northern Ireland, for
noncompliance of their obligations for a nuclear
The ICJ delivered the obligation of each Member State of the UN to continue on the negotiations for a global nuclear disarmament; and, for a total and definitive cessation of nuclear disarmament in the Nuclear States arsenals (States in possession of nuclear weapons), previously authorized by the UN.
Being the ICJ the primary judicial branch of the United Nations, with the main function to settle legal disputes submitted to it by the States, it is understandable that at the ICJ may be the competent court to solve the disputes appeared in the field of Non-Proliferation.
Even more, if there is a previous decision delivered by the ICJ forcing to all the countries of the world to reach a global and total nuclear disarmament1, to continue the negotiations for nuclear disarmament, and not to adopt any measure that goes against the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Here, the extreme importance of our case, into the CUIMUN ICJ 2014.
28
disarmament and the reach the end of the negotiations on this field.
The Marshall Islands claims on
those nuclear countries for not
following their obligations for
disarmament or negotiations for it.
For their conduct, those countries
violate their commitments and
obligations under the legal frame of
the NPT and International Law
under common law.
Marshall Islands complains that the
“nuclear countries” do not
demonstrate considerable efforts to
reach effective measures for the
end of the nuclear race. For these
reasons, the “nuclear countries”
violate the NPT clauses, presenting
their opposition to the Resolutions
of the General Assembly of the
United Nations on peace, security
and disarmament.
For the Marshall Islands, in the
specific case of the United Kingdom
of the Great Britain and Northern
Ireland (UK), the UK adopted a
negative behavior; being an
obstacle to the goals of the NPT and
UN. Moreover, the UK have
publically declares their intentions
to continue with their nuclear
arsenals in the future.
Formally, “The Republic of the
Marshall Islands files Applications
against UK for their alleged failure
to fulfill their obligation with
respect to the cessation of the
nuclear arms race at an early date
and to nuclear disarmament”18
Marshall Islands claimed that UK
violated several times the NPT
clauses motivating and driving new
reforms in international legislation
for proliferation of nuclear weapons
and for nuclear testing.
The Marshall Islands also
considered that the UK and its
policies impulse consuetudinary
legislation against the content of the
UN charter and the NPT clauses.
This behavior violates international
agreements and the main principles
of international law.
29
The action and Application
presented by the Marshall Island is
without discussion a precedent and
is just the first step. The
International Court of Justice (ICJ)
has to analyze its competency,
jurisdiction. The accused State
(UK) has to recognize the
jurisdiction of the ICJ in the topic
(or not) in order to start this legal
action.
The relevance of this case of the
Marshall Islands vs.UK is basic for
the international community. This
case can represent an advance on
the fight for the non-proliferation of
nuclear weapons. A possible
favorable verdict will be a
precedent on the topic that will
force all the countries in the world,
specially, to the “nuclear countries”
to reduce (for a future cessation)
the nuclear arsenals. A positive
verdict will open the door to jude
and condemn to third countries that
will start nuclear races.
Even without a verdict, the
international community will have
in this case, a first step to inspire all
“nuclear countries” to restart their
negotiations and actions for
disarmament and reduction of
nuclear arsenals.
As we have explained before, the
fight for non-proliferation of
nuclear weapons is internationally
developed in different fields and
fronts. This case will open a new
door in front of International
Justice.
30
THE OROAOAKJLFADLKFKJ;LFADKJLADFS;LThe Origin of the
International Court of Justice (ICJ)
Getting deep in the case, we
will now focus our document in
legal aspects and definitions.
The following paragraphs are a
basic synthesis of the Application
presented by the Republic of the
Marshall Islands against the UK.
The delegates and judges of the ICJ
CUIMUN 2014 have now the
“world” where a possible verdict
should be developed.
The Marshall Islands
Position
III. ARGUMENTS OF THE REPUBLIC OF
THE MARSHALL ISLANDS
31
The Republic of the Marshall
Islands filed an Application against
United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland for their
alleged failure to fulfill their
obligations with respect to the
cessation of the nuclear arms race
at an early date and to nuclear
disarmament.
Article 35, paragraph 1, of the
Statute provides that the Court shall
be open to the States parties to the
Statute, and Article 93, paragraph 1,
of the Charter of the United Nations
provides that all Members of the
United Nations are ipso facto
parties to the Statute. 19
United Kingdom of Great Britain
and Northern Ireland is an original
member of the ICJ and Marshall
Islands have been a member since
17th of September 1991. They are
thus entitled to submit to and
appear before the Court. In July
2004, the United Kingdom
submitted its optional declaration
recognizing the Court’s jurisdiction
as compulsory. The Marshall
Islands have done the same on 23rd
of April 2013.
The ICJ also has jurisdiction over
cases provided for in treaties and
conventions. In this case, we have
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).
This treaty was opened for
signature at London, Moscow and
Washington DC on 1st of July 1968.
The United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland
ratified it in 1968.
The Marshall Islands have acceded
to the TNP on the 30th of January
1995, in Washington DC.
In accordance with the Statue of the
ICJ, the subject and parties of the
dispute must be clear. The Marshall
Islands have specified that the
contentious case will be between
itself and the United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
on the question of whether the UK
has fulfilled its obligation to pursue
in good faith and conclude
negotiations leading to nuclear
disarmament, which can be found
32
in article VI of the NPT and which
states:
The Marshall Islands are founding
their case on the unanimous
conclusion of the ICJ in a 1996
advisory opinion, which states that
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.” 20 Marshall
Islands also stress that as a country
which has been the location of 67
nuclear tests in the period from
1946 to 1958 it cannot ignore the
ongoing threat posed by the
existence of large arsenals of
nuclear weapons.
Furthermore, The Republic of
Marshall Islands believes that UK's
continuous modernization of its
nuclear arsenal is not in order with
article VI of the NPT treaty and that
UK's modernization of nuclear
weapons system shows UK's will to
maintain it for the indefinite future.
The Republic of Marshall Islands
reiterates that drafting history of
the NPT demonstrates that the
treaty constitutes a “strategic
bargain“: the non-nuclear weapon
states agreed not to acquire nuclear
weapons and the NPT
nuclear-weapon States agreed to
negotiate their elimination. This has
been confirmed by NPT Review
Conferences. In particular, the 2010
Review Conference noted that the
overwhelming majority of States
entered into their legally binding
commitments not to acquire
nuclear weapons "in the context,
inter alia, of the corresponding
legally binding commitments by the
nuclear weapon states to nuclear
“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.“20
33
disarmament in accordance with
the Treaty".
Moreover, The Republic of Marshall
Islands also state that good faith
constitutes a "fundamental
principle" of international law is
beyond dispute. Not only is it a
general principle of law for the
purposes of Article 38(l)(c) of the
Statute of the International Court of
Justice and a cardinal principle of
the Law of Treaties. It also
encapsulates the essence of the
Rule of Law in international society
and is one of the Principles of the
United Nations.
The relief requested is a declaratory
judgment of breach of obligations
relating to nuclear disarmament
and an order to take, within one
year of the judgment, all steps
necessary to comply with those
obligations. Those obligations
include the pursuit, by initiation if
necessary, of negotiations in good
faith aimed at the conclusion of a
convention on nuclear
disarmament, in all its aspects
under strict and effective
international control.
34
THE OROAOAKJLFADLKFKJ;LFADKJLADFS;LThe Origin of the
International Court of Justice (ICJ)
THE UK POSITION
The United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland states
that renewing their minimum
nuclear deterrent capability is fully
consistent with all international
obligations. Stating that it is also
consistent with UK's continuing
commitment to work towards a
safer world in which there is no
requirement for nuclear weapons.
United Kingdom also reiterated it
has taken a leading role in a wide
range of multilateral initiatives in
support of the objectives of the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) and also taken significant
steps to reduce their nuclear
capabilities.
Stating that UK has the smallest
stockpile of nuclear warheads
amongst the nuclear weapon States,
recognized under the NPT, and are
IV. ARGUMENTS OF THE UNITED KINGSDOM
OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN
IRELAND
35
the only one to have reduced to a
single deterrent system.21
Furthermore United Kingdom
remains fully committed to the
obligations contained in the
Decisions and Final Document at
the NPT Review Conferences in
1995 and 2000, including the “13
Practical Steps” towards the
implementation of Article VI agreed
in 2000 22 . Saying it has an
excellent record in meeting these
obligations. Over the past decade
UK has: withdrawn and dismantled
maritime tactical nuclear capability
and the RAF’s WE177 Freefall
bomb; significantly reduced the
operational status of nuclear
weapons system. Normally, only
one Trident submarine is on
deterrent patrol at any one time.
It has a maximum of 48 warheads
on board, and is normally on
several days ‘notice to fire’. Its
missiles are not targeted at any
country.
From the points exposed above, the
UK has reduced its maximum
number of operationally available
warheads to fewer than 160. The
UK not conducted a nuclear test
explosion since 1991.
From the perspective of a Legal
Frame, policies and legislation, the
UK ratified the Comprehensive
Nuclear Test Ban Treaty in 1998,
with the ceased production of fissile
material for nuclear weapons and
other nuclear explosive devices.
Supported the proposal for a Fissile
Material Cut-Off Treaty and call for
the immediate start of negotiations
in the Conference on Disarmament
in Geneva; increased transparency
with regard to fissile material
holdings. Produced historical
records of defense holdings of both
plutonium and highly enriched
uranium; pursued a programme to
develop UK expertise in verifying
the reduction and elimination of
nuclear weapons internationally.
The aim of the study has been to
examine and trial potential
methodologies which could be used
in a future nuclear disarmament
regime.
36
Moreover The UK has pursued a
comprehensive multilateral
strategy to strengthen legally
binding obligations on states to
tighten export controls, combat
supply chains and prevent old or
unused materials from falling into
the wrong hands. These efforts
include: UK working closely with
the International Atomic Energy
Agency to develop assurances of
supply for nuclear fuel, which
provide energy security without the
need for proliferation of sensitive
enrichment technology.
Furthermore, the UK, France and
Germany have been leading
international diplomatic efforts to
convince Iran fully to co-operate
with the IAEA over international
concerns about its nuclear
programme. The UK continues to
support the creation of an effective
and verifiable chemical, biological,
radiological and nuclear free zone
in the Middle East.
Additionally, the UK was one of the
leading proponents of UN Security
Council Resolution 1540, which
established legally-binding
obligations on all UN Member
States to take steps to combat
proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction.. (PSI). The UK has been
involved actively in driving forward
the PSI, which aims to prevent the
acquisition and development of
chemical, biological, radiological
37
and nuclear (CBRN) weapons by
states of concern and non-state
actors. The UK is an active member
of the Norwegian 7 Country
Initiative, which aims to foster fresh
thinking on how we can take
forward the three pillars of the NPT
– access to nuclear technology for
exclusively peaceful purposes,
non-proliferation and disarmament.
UK Permanent Representative to
the Conference on Disarmament
also stated that renewal of the
Trident system is fully consistent
with UK's international obligations,
including those on disarmament
and that the NPT does not establish
any timetable for nuclear
disarmament. Nor does it prohibit
maintenance or renewal of existing
capabilities. Renewing the current
Trident system is fully consistent
with the NPT and with all UK's
international legal obligations.23
Regarding an agreement between
the US and UK on the transfer of
nuclear technology - called the
Mutual Defence Agreement. The
UK has stated that only technology
is transferred, so the NPT is not
being broken.
38
About the claims,
jurisdiction and merits
of the case
The Applicant, that is the Marshall
Islands, is a non-nuclear-weapon
State Party to the NPT which
acceded to the Treaty on 30 January
1995 and has continued to be a
Party to it since that time.
On 24 April 2014 the Republic of
the Marshall Islands submitted nine
Applications to the Court against
nine states possessing nuclear
weapons. 24 The Applications are
based on the grounds of breach of
the NPT. If any one State is not
getting what it is entitled to, based
on a contract, a treaty or norms of
customary international law, in
spite of the clarity of the language
in which the obligations are stated,
the State has the option to bring the
State that is not complying with the
obligations to the Court. Since July
1996 UN General Assembly has
continuously called for the
beginning of negotiations leading to
an early conclusion of a convention
prohibiting and eliminating nuclear
weapons.
Most recently in resolution
A/RES/68/42, adopted on
December 2013.
V. CLAIMS
A) CLAIMS AND REQUESTS OF THE
MARCHALL ISLANDS
39
In the Application25 – which serves
as a mere introduction to the
proceedings – the Applicant
provides the relevant facts with
respect to the nuclear arsenals as
well as the nuclear policy of the
Respondent State and sets out the
main points of the Applicant’s legal
position. The applicant argues that
upgrading and modernizing a
State’s nuclear arsenal is not
particularly evidence of respect for
the legal obligation to bring the
nuclear arms race to an early
cessation, but rather, the Applicant
claims it demonstrates that the
Respondent State is not performing
its legal obligations in good faith.
The Applicant also argues that the
continued refusal of most of the
nuclear-armed States to permit the
commencement of negotiations on
complete nuclear disarmament or
even to participate in an
Open-Ended Working Group aimed
at facilitating such negotiations is
evidence of their breaching the
obligation to pursue and bring to a
conclusion. The Applicant is of the
opinion that the UK maintains and
continuously modernizes its
nuclear arsenal which breaches
UK’s obligations under the NPT.26
The Marshall Islands claims it has a
particular awareness of the dire
consequences of nuclear weapons
as it was the location of repeated
nuclear weapons testing from 1946
to 1958. During that time the
international community had
placed it under the trusteeship of
the United States.27 During those
12 years, 67 nuclear weapons of
varying explosive power were
detonated in the Marshall Islands,
at varying distances from human
population.28 As paragraph 10 of
the Application continues, it is well
known that the Republic of the
Marshall Islands has combatted the
harmful consequences that the
effects of climate change have for its
survival. It has come to realize that
it cannot ignore the other major
threat to its survival which is the
threat posed by the existence of
large arsenals of nuclear weapons.
40
A. Breach of Article VI of the
NPT The applicant claims two of the
obligations entailed by Article VI
are relevant for the case: the
obligation with regard to nuclear
disarmament and the obligation
with regard to the cessation of the
nuclear arms race at an early date.
B. Breach of Customary
International law The Applicant claims that the
obligations enshrined in Article VI
of the NPT are not merely treaty
obligations; they also exist
separately under customary
international law.
Breaches claimed in the Application submitted by the Republic of the Marshall Islands
41
C. Breach of the Obligation to Perform its
Obligations in Good Faith
The Applicant further claims that
the Respondent is failing to act in
good faith as far as its performance
of the abovementioned obligations
is concerned he Applicant claims
the Respondent has been actively
upgrading, modernizing and
improving its nuclear arsenal which
constitutes qualitative vertical
nuclear proliferation which in
result would mean a conflict to the
commitment to nuclear
disarmament and cessation of the
nuclear arms race at an early date.
This would mean a breach of its
legal duty to perform its obligations
under the NPT and customary
international law in good faith.29
42
“The Republic of the Marshall Islands requests
the Court to adjudge and declare;
a) that the United Kingdom has violated its international obligations under
the , more specifically under Article VI of the NPT, by failing to pursue in
good faith and to bring a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear
disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international
control;
b) that the United Kingdom has violated and continues to violate its
international obligations under the NPT, more specifically under Article
VI of the NPT, by taking actions to qualitatively improve its nuclear
weapons system and to maintain it for the indefinite future, and by
failing to pursue negotiations that would end nuclear arms racing
through comprehensive nuclear disarmament or other measures;
c) that the United Kingdom has violated and continues to violate its
international obligations under customary international law, by failing
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;
d) that the United Kingdom has violated and continues to violate its
international obligations under customary international law, by taking
actions to qualitatively improve its nuclear weapons system and to
maintain it for the indefinite future, and by failing to pursue
negotiations that would end nuclear arms racing through
comprehensive nuclear disarmament or other measures;
e) that the United Kingdom has failed and continues to fail to perform in
good faith its obligations under the NPT and customary international
law by modernizing, updating and upgrading its nuclear weapons
43
capacity and maintaining its declared nuclear weapons policy for an
unlimited period of time, while at the same time failing to pursue
negotiations as set out in the four preceding counts; and that the United
Kingdom has failed and continues to fail to perform in good faith its
obligations under the NPT and under customary international law by
effectively preventing the great majority of non-nuclear-weapon States
Parties to the NPT from fulfilling their part of the obligations under
Article VI of the NPT and under customary international law with
respect to nuclear disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race
at an early date.”30
44
Jurisdiction of the
Court and claims
over the Marshall
Island action
As a consequence of the Application
presented by the Marshall Islands,
the United Kingdom of the Great
Britain and Northern Ireland
recognized and has accepted the
compulsory jurisdiction of the
International Court of Justice.
Different from the other “Nuclear
Countries” (Besides India and
Pakistan, which seem to have
ground jurisdiction of the Court),
the United Kingdom recognizes the
function and powers of the ICJ, as
its legal frame, firstly founded by
the UN and then developed by their
own international documents.
Recognizes as well the main
function of the ICJ to settle impasses
and conflicts between States.
Currently, the UK has to present a
reply on the Application and claims
presented by the Marshall Islands.
The UK stated presenting all their
efforts on their fight for the
cessation of a nuclear race and the
constant activity for a nuclear
disarmament. This shows their
periodical commitment to the
international rule of law and the at
least eventual elimination of
nuclear weapons.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland states that renewing their minimum nuclear deterrent capability is fully consistent with all international obligations. The UK defends their right to maintain their nuclear arsenals, constantly informing to the United Nations and the Security Council, remarking that until now, there is no illegal prohibition to use nuclear weapons in cases of self-defense and extreme threats that can put in risk the sovereignty, peace and security of the UK. As well, the UK, as a permanent member of the Security Council, remarks on their obligation to preserve peace and security in all the corners of the world. For this reason, the UK preserves their nuclear power, just focused on and for peace keeping. In their
A) CLAIMS AND REQUESTS OF THE
MARCHALL ISLANDS
45
last communication on the field, the UK expressed the risk of the ISIS extremist plans and the terrorist projects of different extreme groups that can probably use nuclear warheads, biological and chemical weapons, where nuclear power can be the unique measure to stop the terrorist actions. The United Kingdom emphasize on its mandate to preserve international peace, as a Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, function that force the preservation of its nuclear arsenal. However, the UK states on their leadership in the different conferences and agreements on disarmament that shows their National and International policies on disarmament, a clear action that shows a real perspective and collaboration, very different from the accusation that the Marshall Islands demanded on the UK. The UK states to have the smallest
stockpile of nuclear warheads
amongst the nuclear weapon States,
recognized under the NPT.
The UK presents their policy, as the
unique nuclear-weapon State, to
have reduced to a single deterrent
system.
As it was previously exposed, the United Kingdom: Both ways, the UK currently need to analyze the final claims presented into the ICJ by the Marshall Islands. This will be the next action that the UK needs to take action into the ICJ CUIMUN 2014.
“Remains fully committed to the obligations contained in the Decisions and Final Document at the NPT Review Conferences in 1995 and 2000, including the “13 Practical Steps” towards the implementation of Article VI agreed in 200031.”
46
`
Maybe the most interesting characteristic that the ICJ has at CUIMUN
2014, is to work in a different way than the MUN committess.
The knowledge that the participants require are completely in the field of
international law. Political and social perspectives can’t take part in the
decisions that the ICJ will take. Our field is International Law, and our world
is the process (the application, claims, evidences, each proof, etc.)
The parties are expected to:
-Address the jurisdiction of the Court. Analyze each position and each point.
-Establish the applicable law in the case. The question of relevance is the
provisions of Article VI go beyond mere obligations of conduct to pursue
nuclear disarmament negotiations in good faith, or, if it actually involves an
obligation of result, i.e., to conclude those negotiations and if the article
concerns an obligation erga omnes.
VI. CONCLUSION AND CLOSING REMARKS
47
-To analyze each point on the Merits of 'negotiations in good faith' are to be
addressed as well.
-Address all claims made by the applicant and respondent.
- Is the subject of peace and security a competency of the ICJ?
- Is important for the case, the recognition of the UK to the jurisdiction of
the ICJ?
- Has the Marshall Islands competency to present an action into the ICJ in
name of the World, or others interests?
- Has the ICJ jurisdiction to solve a case on disarmament?
- Is there any difference between the UK’s action and their policies on
disarmament with the ones of other “nuclear-weapons States” over the
clauses of the NPT?
- Are these differences (if there are differences) important for this
current legal case/ process?
- Is the participation in drafting documents on Disarmament and the
participation/leading in Disarmament Summits enough to demonstrate
the compliance of the NPT obligations, mandate and goals?
Some Questions that can help to the case solution
48
- To comply on the NPT commitments and obligations require the
reduction of the nuclear arsenals or the total cessation of them?
- Do the international community and the international justice require to
establish/stipulate a determined period of time to demonstrate the
respect and compliance of the NPT mandate?
1 Text of the Statute of the ICJ.
2 The Statute of the ICJ is very similar to the statute of the Permanent Court of
Justice.
3 Text of the Statute of the ICJ.
4 Analysis taken from the UN Special Committee of International Law (1960).
5 A/RES/1(1), 24 January 1956.
6 729 UNTS 161.
7 http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml (17.7.2014)
8 NPT preamble, 2nd recital.
9 The Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion,
I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226.
ENDNOTES
49
10 Idem., para. 98.
11 Idem., para. 35.
12 Idem., para. 36.
13 Idem., para. 99.
14 Idem., para. 105, point 2F.
15 United Nations General Assembly, Session 1 Resolution 1. Establishment of
a Commission to Deal with the P/roblems Raised by the Discovery of Atomic
Energy A/RES/1(I). 24th January, 1946. Retrieved 2010-06-18
16 http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/sp/files/sum_1992-1996.pdf
17 http://www.icj-cij.org/homepage/sp/files/sum_1992-1996.pdf
18 International law including positive law and common law
19 ICJ Advisory Opinion on the topic. 1994.
20 http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/files/0/18300.pdf
21 STATUTE OF THE ICJ
http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0
22 http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPTtext.shtml
50
23http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=e1&p3=4&case=9
5
24 The future of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent: defence white paper
2006https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment
_data/file/27378/DefenceWhitePaper2006_Cm6994.pdf
25 http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/npt/2000FD.pdf
26http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/
Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1163677931589
27 Three of the cases are on the Court’s General List: Proceedings instituted by
the Repblic of the Marshall islands against the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland, against the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and
against the Republic of India on 24 April 2014.
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=3.
28 http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/160/18296.pdf (9.7.2014).
29 Paragraph 14, Application of the Marshall Islands against the UK,
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/160/18296.pdf (24.7.2014).
30 Report of the Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the
environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances
and wastes, Calin Georgescu; Addendum, Mission to the Marshall Islands
(27-30 March 2012) and the Unidet states of America (24-27 April 2012): 3
September 2012, Doc. A/HRC/21/48/Add.1.
51
31 Paragraph 9, Application of the Marshall Islands against the UK,
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/160/18296.pdf (24.7.2014).
32 International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms, Request for an
Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice, “Negotiations
Leading to the Total Elimination of Nuclear Weapons”,
http://www.un.org/disarmament/education/docs/goodfaithnegs.pdf
(24.7.2014).
33 Application instituting proceedings against the United Kingdom submitted
on 24 April 2014 by The Republic of the Marshall Islands,
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/160/18296.pdf. (10.7.2014).
34 http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/npt/2000FD.pdf
About the ICJ
http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic618634.files/ICJ%20and%20PCIJ.
http://library.law.columbia.edu/guides/International_Court_of_Justice
http://nyulaw.libguides.com/content.php?pid=45600&sid=695931
SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
52
Kdhit, Moncef. Dictionnaire Juridique de la Court Internationale de Justice.
Bruxelles: Bruylant, 1997. (LAWTCN: ARB743)
Suggested Bibliography
Reports of Judgments, Advisory Opinions and Orders (I.C.J.) . The Hague:
International Court of Justice, 1947-.
International Court of Justice. The Case Against the Bomb: Marshall
Islands, Samoa, and Solomon Islands Before the International Court of
Justice in Advisory Proceedings on the Legality of the Threat or Use of
Nuclear Weapons: Questions Posed by the General Assembly and the
World Health Organization. Roger S. Clark and Madeleine Sann, eds.
Camden, N.J.: Rutgers University School of law at Camden, 1996. [LAW
KZ5665 .I61 1996]
Alexandrov, Stanimir A. "Non-Appearance Before the International Court of
Justice." 33 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 41 (1995).
Alexandrov, Stanimir A. Reservations in Unilateral Declarations Accepting the
Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. Dordrecht; Boston:
Nijhoff, 1995. [OLIN JX1971.6 .A675x 1995, LAW JX1971.6 .A38 1995]
Bodie, Thomas J. Politics and the Emergence of an Activist International Court
of Justice. Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1995. [LAW JX1971.6 .B66 1995]
Burroughs, John. The Legality of Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons: A Guide to
the Historic Opinion of the International Court of Justice. Munster: LIT, 1997.
[OLIN KZ5665 .B87x 1997]
53
Commentaries on World Court Decisions (1987-1996). Peter H.F. Bekker, ed.
The Hague; Boston: Nijhoff, 1998. [LAW KZ213 .C66x 1998]
Deutsch, Eberhard P. An International Rule of Law. Charlottesville, Va.: Univ.
Press of Virginia, 1977. [LAW JX1971.6 .D48]
Fitzmaurice, Gerald. The Law and Procedure of the International Court of
Justice. 2 vols. Cambridge: Grotius, 1986. [LAW JX1971.6 .F55 1986]
Hussain, Ijaz. Dissenting and Separate Opinions at the World Court. Boston:
Nijhoff, 1984. [LAW JX1971.6 .H97 1984]
ICJ/UNITAR Colloquium on Increasing the Effectiveness of the Court (1996:
Peace Palace) Increasing the Effectiveness of the International Court of Justice:
Proceedings of the ICJ/UNITAR Colloquium to Celebrate the 50th Anniversary of
the Court. Connie Peck & Roy S. Lee, eds. The Hague; Boston: Nijhoff, 1997.
[LAW KZ6275 .I16 1997]
International Court of Justice 1946 - 1996. New York: United Nations
Department of Publications, 1998.
McWhinney, Edward. The International Court of Justice and the Western
Tradition of International Law. Dordrecht, The Netherlands; Boston: Nijhoff,
1987. [OLIN & LAW JX1971.6 .M47 1987]
McWhinney, Edward. Judge Manfred Lachs and Judicial Law-Making; Opinions
on the International Court of Justice, 1967-1993. The Hague; Boston: Nijhoff,
1995. [LAW JX1971.6 .M47 1995]
McWhinney, Edward. Judicial Settlement of International Disputes: Jurisdiction,
Justiciability and Judicial Law-making of the Contemporary International Court.
Boston: Nijhoff, 1991. [LAW JX1971.6 .M47 J92 1991]
54
Rosenne, Shabtai. The Law and Practice of the International Court of Justice,
1920-1996. 3d ed. Boston: Nijhoff, 1997. [LAW KZ6275 .R81 1997]
Szafarz, Renata. The Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of
Justice. Boston: Nijhoff, 1993. [LAW JX1971.6 .S989 1993]
The Future of the International Court of Justice. Leo Gross, ed. 2 vols. Dobbs
Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana, 1976. [LAW JX1971.6 .F99]
United Nations sites and International
Documents
-United Nations Charter
-STATUTE OF THE ICJ
-The future of the United Kingdom's nuclear deterrent: defence white paper
2006
-Application of the Marshall Islands against the UK.
-Report of the Special Rapporteur on the implications for human rights of the
environmentally sound management and disposal of hazardous substances
and wastes, Calin Georgescu; Addendum, Mission to the Marshall Islands
BIBLIOGRAPHY USED-STUDY GUIDE
55
(27-30 March 2012) and the United States of America (24-27 April 2012): 3
September 2012, Doc. A/HRC/21/48/Add.1.
-International Court of Justice Yearbook (I.C.J.Y.B.) (1947 to date). The Hague:
The Court, 1946-."Report of the International Court of Justice " in the General
Assembly Official Records Set for each session as Supplement No. 4. UN annual
report.
-Summaries of Judgments, Advisory Opinions, and Orders of the International
Court of Justice: 1958-1991. New York: United Nations, 1992. [OLIN Oversize
JX1991.A26x 1992, LAW JX1991 .A26 1992]
Specialized sites
www.un.org
http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT.shtml
http://www.icj-cij.org/
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/160/18296.pdf
http://www.icj-cij.org/documents/index.php?p1=4&p2=2&p3=0
http://www.un.org/disarmament/education/docs/goodfaithnegs.pdf
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=e1&p3=4&case=95
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data
56
/file/27378/DefenceWhitePaper2006_Cm6994.pdf
http://disarmament.un.org/wmd/npt/2000FD.pdf
http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket/X
celerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1163677931589
http://www.un.org/disarmament/education/docs/goodfaithnegs.pdf
Additional Bibliography on the topic
Bibliography f the International Court of Justice. The Hague: The Court,
1947-.Annual. (LAW Z6464.Z9B58) (2004). The Challenges of International
Justice. Colloquium of Prosecutors of International Criminal Tribunals,
Arusha, Tanzania, Brandeis University.
Abi-Mershed, E. A. H. (2007). The United States and the Inter-American Court
of Human Rights. The United States and International Courts and
Tribunals. C. P. R. Romano.
Alter, K. J. (2005). "International Courts Are Not Agents! : the Perils of the
Principal-Agent Approach to Thinking About the Independence of
International Courts "Proceedings of the American Society of
International Law 99: 138-141.
Amr, Mohamed Sameh M. The Role of the International Court of Justice as the
Principle Judicial Organ of the United Nations. (2003).
57
Cerone, J.P. (2007). U.S. Attitudes towards International Courts and
Tribunals. United States and International Courts and Tribunals.
C.P.R.Romano.
Guillaume, G. (2003). "Some thoughts on the independence of international
judges vis-à-vis states " The Law and Practice of International Courts
and Tribunals 2(1).
Helfer, L. R. and A.-M. Slaughter (1997). "Toward a Theory of Effective
Supranational Adjudication." Yale Law Journal 107: 273-391.
Higgins, R. (2006). "A Babel of Judicial Voices? Ruminations from the
Bench." International and Comparative Law Quarterly 55(4): 791-804.
Lautherpacht, E.(2000). The International Lawyer as Judge. The International
Lawyer as Practitioner. C.Wickremasinghe, London, British Institute
International and Comparative Law: 125-146.
Mckenzie, R. and P.Sands (2003). “International Courts and Tribunals and the
Independence of the International Judge”. Harvard International Law
Journal 44(1): 271-285.
McWhinney, Edward. Judicial Settlement of International Disputes:
Jurisdiction, Justiciability and Judicial Law-Making of the Contemporary
International Court. Boston: Nijhoff, 1991. (LAW JX1971.6.M47 J92
1991).
Meron, T. (2005). "Revival of Customary Humanitarian Law." American
Journal of International Law 99(4): 817-834.
Milles, James. International Court of Justice: A Selected Bibliography of Law
Review Articles. Monticello, Ill.: Vance, 1985. [OLIN Z6464 .Z9 M654]
Publications of the International Court of Justice: Catalogue. The Hague: I.C.J.,
1992- today.
58
Wippmann, D. (2006). “The Costs of International Justice”. American
Jourtnal of International Law 100 (4): 861-880
Suggested University Departments or Specialized Libraries about the ICJ University of Cambridge, Law School
Katholiek University of Leuven, Law School
U Cornell, International Law
Université Paris II
University of Glasgow, International Law Department
University of Maastricht, Law Library
University of Georgetown, Law Center
Johns Jopkins University, Law Dept.
Universidade Estadual do Rio de Janeiro, Dept. Direito Internacional