Kathmandu School of Law Review

P-ISSN : 2091-2110, E-ISSN : 2773-8159, DOI : 10.46985, Publisher : Kathmandu School of Law, Nepal
Annual flagship journal of Kathmandu School of Law, Nepal

Volume 5, Issue 1, April 2017
Articles

Using the Unprecedented Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion as Precedent in the Marshall Islands Cases

PDF
  • Pallavi Kishore
Pallavi Kishore
Associate Professor and Assistant Director, Centre for International Trade and Economic Laws, Jindal Global Law School, O.P. Jindal Global University, Sonipat
Bio

Published 2017-04-30

How to Cite

Kishore, P. . (2017). Using the Unprecedented Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion as Precedent in the Marshall Islands Cases. Kathmandu School of Law Review, 5(1), 136–152. Retrieved from https://kslreview.org/index.php/kslr/article/view/166

Abstract

The issue of nuclear weapons is long-standing and controversial. This article uses the nuclear weapons advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice on July 8, 1996 as precedent to determine the imagined outcome of the cases filed by the Republic of the Marshall Islands against three nuclear powers in 2014.

PDF

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons NPT, 729 UNTS 16, signed on 1 July 1968, entered into force 5 March 1970. (“NPT”)
  2. ‘Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons’, United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs available at https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/npt/, accessed on 4 January 2017.
  3. Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, 35 ILM 1439, adopted on 10 September 1996, art I(1).
  4. ‘Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)’, United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs available at https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/ctbt/, accessed on 9 May 2017.
  5. Case concerning Nuclear Tests (Australia v France), ICJ, Application instituting Proceedings filed in the Registry of the Court (9 May 1973).
  6. Nuclear Tests Cases Volume II, (New Zealand v France), ICJ, Pleadings, Oral Arguments, Documents, Application instituting Proceedings submitted by the Government of New Zealand (9 May 1973).
  7. Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, ICJ, Request for Advisory Opinion transmitted to the Court under a World Health Assembly resolution (14 May 1993).
  8. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ, Request for Advisory Opinion transmitted to the Court under the United Nations General Assembly resolution 49/75 K (15 December 1994).
  9. Nuclear Tests Case (n 6), Request for an Examination of the Situation in Accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court's Judgment of 20 December 1974 in the Nuclear Tests Case (22 September 1995).
  10. Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v India), ICJ, Application instituting Proceedings against the Republic of India by the Republic of the Marshall Islands (24 April 2014); Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v Pakistan), ICJ, Application instituting Proceedings against Pakistan by the Republic of the Marshall Islands (24 April 2014);
  11. Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v United Kingdom), ICJ, Application instituting Proceedings against the United Kingdom by the Republic of the Marshall Islands (24 April 2014).
  12. Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v France), Interim Protection (22 June 1973), ICJ Rep 1973 p. 99; Nuclear Tests Case (New Zealand v France), Interim Protection (22 June 1973), ICJ Rep 1973, p. 135.
  13. Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v France), Judgment, ICJ Rep 1974, p. 253; Nuclear Tests Case (New Zealand v France), Judgment, ICJ Rep 1974, p. 457.
  14. Request for an Examination (n 9) p. 288.
  15. Nuclear Tests Case, Australia v. France (n 12); Nuclear Tests Case New Zealand v. France (n 12); Request for an Examination (n 9).
  16. Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (n 8).
  17. Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep 1996, p. 66, para 21.
  18. Ibid.
  19. Ibid, p. 66.
  20. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep 1996, p. 226.
  21. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (n 8), p. 2.
  22. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (n 19), para 105(2). Also see declarations, separate opinions, and dissenting opinions of all the fourteen judges, appended to the advisory opinion, indicating their agreement or disagreement with the different aspects of the advisory opinion.
  23. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (n 19), para 105(2) (E).
  24. Ibid, para 105(2)(A and B) which states:
  25. ‘For these reasons, THE COURT,
  26. (2) Replies in the following manner to the question put by the General Assembly : A. Unanimously,
  27. There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons;
  28. B. By eleven votes to three,
  29. There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such; IN FAVOUR : President Bedjaoui; Vice-President Schwebel; Judges Oda, Guillaume, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer, Vereshchetin, Ferrari Bravo, Higgins; AGAINST : Judges Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry, Koroma;’
  30. Timothy L.H. McCormack, ‘A non liquet on nuclear weapons The ICJ avoids the application of general principles of international humanitarian law’, no. 316, International Review of the Red Cross p. 76, 1997, pp. 77-78.
  31. ‘Pacific Nation Challenges Nine Nuclear-Armed States in Lawsuits before the World Court’, 24 April 2014, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation available at http://www.wagingpeace.org/pacific-nation-challenges-nine-nuclear-armed-states-inlawsuitsbefore-the-world-court/, accessed on 4 January 2017.
  32. John Burroughs, ‘The Marshall Islands’ Two-Front Fight to Survive and Thrive: Climate Protection and Nuclear Disarmament’, vol. 37, no. 2, Disarmament Times p. 3, 2014, p. 4 available at http://lcnp.org/pubs/DT_Winter_2014.pdf, accessed on 4 January 2017.
  33. ICJ Press Release, ‘The Republic of the Marshall Islands files Applications against nine States for their alleged failure to fulfil their obligations with respect to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament’, 25 April 2014, No. 2014/18, ICJ available at http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/files/0/18300.pdf, accessed on 21 January 2016.
  34. ICJ Press Release, ‘Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v India)’, 5 October 2016, No. 2016/29, ICJ available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/158/19128.pdf, accessed on 28 October 2016; ICJ Press Release, ‘Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v Pakistan)’, 5 October 2016, No. 2016/30, ICJ available at http://www.icjcij. org/docket/files/159/19130.pdf, accessed on 28 October 2016; ICJ Press Release, ‘Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race and to Nuclear Disarmament (Marshall Islands v United Kingdom)’, 5 October 2016, No. 2016/31, ICJ available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/160/19132.pdf, accessed on 28 October 2016.
  35. Of course, one may ask if an advisory opinion that does not answer the question raised should be used as precedent to decide a case, but this issue will not be examined here.
  36. The Covenant of the League of Nations, 28 April 1919, art 14: ‘The Council shall formulate and submit to the Members of the League for adoption plans for the establishment of a Permanent Court of International Justice. The Court shall be competent to hear and determine any dispute of an international character which the parties thereto submit to it. The Court may also give an advisory opinion upon any dispute or question referred to it by the Council or by the Assembly.’
  37. Charter of the UN and Statute of the ICJ, 1 UNTS XVI, signed on 26 June 1945, entered into force 24 October 1945.
  38. Gilbert Guillaume, ‘The Use of Precedent by International Judges and Arbitrators’, vol. 2, no. 1, Journal of International Dispute Settlement p. 5, 2011, p. 6.
  39. Peter Tomka, ‘The Rule of Law and the Role of the International Court of Justice in World Affairs’, 2 December 2013, Inaugural Hilding Eek Memorial Lecture by H.E. Judge Peter Tomka, President of the International Court of Justice, at the Stockholm Centre for International Law and Justice, ICJ, p. 7 available at http://www.icj-cij.org/presscom/files/9/17849.pdf, accessed on 22 January 2016.
  40. Ibid.
  41. Guillaume (n 32), p. 9.
  42. ICJ Statute (n 31), art 59: ‘The decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.’
  43. Edvard Hambro, ‘The Authority of the Advisory Opinions of the International Court of Justice’, vol. 3, no. 1, International and Comparative Law Quarterly p. 2, 1954, p. 5; Michla Pomerance, ‘The ICJ’s Advisory Jurisdiction and the Crumbling Wall between the Political and the Judicial’, vol. 99, no. 1, American Journal of International Law p. 26, 2005, p. 36; Anthony Aust, ‘Advisory Opinions’, vol. 1, no. 1, Journal of International Dispute Settlement p.
  44. , 2010, pp. 133, 150.
  45. Hambro (n 37), pp. 13-14.
  46. Admission of a State to the United Nations (Charter, Art. 4), Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep 1948, p. 57.
  47. UNGA Resolution 197(III) of 8 December 1948 (Admission of new Members).
  48. Reparation for injuries suffered in the service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep 1949, p. 174.
  49. UNGA Resolution 365(IV) of 1 December 1949 (Reparation for injuries incurred in the service of the United Nations).
  50. UNGA Resolution 449(V) of 13 December 1950 (Question of South West Africa).
  51. International Status of South-West Africa, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep 1950, p. 128.
  52. Mohamed Shahabuddeen, Precedent in the World Court, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996, p. 6.
  53. Guillaume (n 32), p. 5.
  54. Shabtai Rosenne, The Law and Practice of the International Court Volume II, Leiden, 1965, p. 612 cited in Shahabuddeen (n 45), p. 7. Also see Shabtai Rosenne, ‘Article 27 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice’, vol. 32, Virginia Journal of International Law p. 213, 1991, p. 231.
  55. Volker Röben, ‘Le précédent dans la jurisprudence de la Cour internationale’, vol. 32, German Yearbook of International Law p. 382, 1989, p. 382.
  56. Tomka (n 33), p. 7; Also see Guillaume (n 32), p. 9.
  57. Röben (n 48), p. 387.
  58. Nuclear Tests Case, Australia v. France (n 12); Nuclear Tests Case, New Zealand v. France (n 12).
  59. Case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America), Merits, Judgment, ICJ Rep 1986, p. 14, para 58.
  60. Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep 1975, p. 12.
  61. Application for Review of Judgment No. 333 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep 1987, p. 18, para. 25.
  62. Shahabuddeen (n 45), pp. 7-8; R. Y. Jennings, ‘General Course on Principles of International Law’, vol. 121, Recueil des cours, The Hague Academy of International Law, 1967, p. 342.
  63. Shahabuddeen (n 45), p. 26.
  64. Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, The Development of International Law by the International Court, London, 1958, p. 9 cited in Shahabuddeen (n 45), p. 28.
  65. Röben (n 48), p. 389.
  66. Sir Gerald Fitzmaurice, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice Volume II, Cambridge, 1986, p. 583 cited in Shahabuddeen (n 45), p. 28.
  67. Guillaume (n 32), p. 6.
  68. Shahabuddeen (n 45), p. 29; Guillaume (n 32), p. 9.
  69. Röben (n 48), p. 394.
  70. Ibid, p. 403.
  71. Guillaume (n 32), p. 6.
  72. Röben (n 48), p. 404.
  73. Tomka (n 33), p. 4.
  74. Case concerning the Factory At Chorzów (Germany v Poland), Merits, Publications of the PCIJ Series A.-No. 17 Collection of Judgments No. 13, Dissenting Opinion by M. Ehrlich, p. 5, 1928, p.
  75. South West Africa Cases (Ethiopia and Liberia v South Africa), Second Phase, Judgment, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Koretsky, p. 6, ICJ Rep 1966, pp. 240-241.
  76. Ibid, p. 241.
  77. Shahabuddeen (n 45), p. 31.
  78. Ibid, p. 107.
  79. Interpretation of Peace Treaties, Advisory Opinion, Dissenting Opinion by Judge Zoričič, p.65, ICJ Rep 1950, p. 104.
  80. Shahabuddeen (n 45), pp. 213-214; Also see Röben (n 48), pp. 388-389.
  81. ICJ Statute (n 31), art 59: “The decision of the Court has no binding force except between the parties and in respect of that particular case.”
  82. Ibid, art 38(1)(d): ‘The Court, whose function is to decide in accordance with international law such disputes as are submitted to it, shall apply: (…) d. subject to the provisions of Article 59, judicial decisions (…) as subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.’
  83. Lauterpacht (n 57), p. 22 cited in Shahabuddeen (n 45), p. 167.
  84. Shahabuddeen (n 45), p. 167.
  85. Hambro (n 37), pp. 21-22.
  86. Ibid, p. 5.
  87. D.W. Greig, ‘The Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Court and the Settlement of Disputes between States’, vol. 15, no. 2, International and Comparative Law Quarterly p. 325, 1966, p. 361.
  88. Aust (n 37), p. 133.
  89. A.P. Fachiri, The Permanent Court of International Justice, Its Constitution, Procedure and Work, London, 1932, p. 81 cited in Shahabuddeen (n 45), p. 168.
  90. Charles de Visscher, Aspects récents du droit procédural de la Cour internationale de Justice, Paris, 1966, p. 195 cited in Shahabuddeen (n 45), p. 168.
  91. South West Africa Cases (n 68), Dissenting Opinion of Judge Tanaka, p. 260.
  92. Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, Separate Opinion of Judge de Castro, p. 16, ICJ Rep 1971, p. 173.
  93. Interpretation of Peace Treaties (n 72), p. 101.
  94. Röben (n 48), p. 395.
  95. Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Rep 1980, p. 73.
  96. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (n 19), para 13; Aust (n 37), p. 136.
  97. Miller discusses the phenomenon of international tribunals referring to the cases of other international tribunals while deciding the cases at hand. He shows that many international tribunals refer to the judgments and/or advisory opinions of the ICJ. For example, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia referred to the nuclear weapons advisory opinion in four cases including in Prosecutor v Kvočka et al., ICTY, Decision of the Trial Chamber of 1 April 1999, footnote 28 and in Prosecutor v Kordić & Čerkez, ICTY, Decision of the Trial Chamber of 2 March 1999, para. 27. See Nathan Miller, ‘An International Jurisprudence? The Operation of “Precedent” Across International Tribunals’, vol. 15, Leiden Journal of International Law p. 483, 2002, pp. 510-511, 513.
  98. Hambro (n 37), p. 22.
  99. Robert Y. Jennings, ‘The International Court of Justice after Fifty Years’, vol. 89, no. 3, American Journal of International Law p. 493, 1995, p. 503.
  100. Lauterpacht (n 57), pp. 66-67 cited in Shahabuddeen (n 45), p. 179.
  101. See Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia v Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Application to Intervene, Judgment, ICJ Rep 1981, p. 3, para. 27 in which the Court referred to the declarations of judges appended to its order in Nuclear Tests Case (Australia v France) Application to Intervene, Order of 20 December 1974, ICJ Rep 1974, p. 530 and Nuclear Tests Case (New Zealand v France), Application to Intervene, Order of 20 December 1974, ICJ Rep 1974, p. 535.
  102. See Nuclear Tests (Australia v France) Oral Arguments on the Request for the Indication of Interim Measures of Protection Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, on 21, 22, 23 and 25 May 1973, President Lachs presiding, and on 22 June 1973, Vice-President Ammoun presiding, pp. 185-186 in which Solicitor-General Mr. Ellicott, Counsel for the Government of Australia, referred to p. 232 in the North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (Federal Republic of Germany v. Denmark and The Netherlands), Judgment, ICJ Rep 1969, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Lachs, p. 3 stating that a dissenting opinion is not devoid of the support of the Court as a whole nor is it inconsistent with what the Court stated.
  103. Shahabuddeen (n 45), p. 215.
  104. The Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria, Preliminary Objection (Belgium v Bulgaria) Judgment, 1939, PCIJ Series A./B. Judgments, Orders and Advisory Opinions Fascicule No.
  105. , p. 64.
  106. Nuclear Tests Case, Australia v France (n 12), Joint Dissenting Opinion of Judges Onyeama, Dillard, Jiménez de Aréchaga and Sir Humphrey Waldock, para 87.
  107. Guillaume (n 32), p. 10.
  108. NPT (n 2), art VI: ‘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.’
  109. Marshall Islands v United Kingdom, Application (n 10), paras 104, 106-107, 113.
  110. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (n 19), para 105(2)(F).
  111. Marshall Islands v United Kingdom, Application (n 10), para 101.
  112. Marshall Islands v India, Application (n 10), para. 41; Marshall Islands v Pakistan, Application (n 10), para 36; Marshall Islands v United Kingdom, Application (n 10), para 86.
  113. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (n 19), Déclaration de M. Bedjaoui, para 23; Marshall Islands v India, Application (n 10), para 44; Marshall Islands v Pakistan, Application (n 10), para 39; Marshall Islands v United Kingdom, Application (n 10), para 89.
  114. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (n 19), para 100; Marshall Islands v India, Application (n 10), para 42; Marshall Islands v Pakistan, Application (n 10), para 37; Marshall Islands v United Kingdom, Application (n 10), para 87.
  115. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (n 19), para 105(2) (F). Marshall Islands v India, Application (n 11), para 43; Marshall Islands v Pakistan, Application (n 10), para 38; Marshall Islands v United Kingdom, Application (n 10), para 88.
  116. Marshall Islands v India, Application (n 10), paras 58-61, 64; Marshall Islands v Pakistan, Application (n 10), paras 53-56, 59; Marshall Islands v United Kingdom, Application (n 10), paras 109-110, 113.
  117. Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited (Belgium v Spain), Judgment, ICJ Rep 1970, p. 3, para 33.
  118. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (n 19), Déclaration de M. Bedjaoui, para 23; Marshall Islands v India, Application (n 10), para 40 and footnote 77; Marshall Islands v Pakistan, Application (n 10), para 35 and footnote 67; Marshall Islands v United Kingdom, Application (n 10), para 85 and footnote 122.
  119. Katherine Maddox Davis, ‘Hurting More than Helping: How the Marshall Islands’ Seeming Bravery Against Major Powers Only Stands to Maim the Legitimacy of the World Court’, vol. 25, no. 1, Minnesota Journal of International Law p. 79, 2016, p. 94.
  120. Hambro (n 37), p. 19.
  121. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (n 19), para 105(2).
  122. Ibid, para 105(2) (A and B).
  123. Ibid, para 99.
  124. Ibid, para 100.
  125. Ibid.
  126. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (n 19), Déclaration de M. Bedjaoui, para 23; Marshall Islands v India, Application (n 10), para 40 and footnote 77; Marshall Islands v Pakistan, Application (n 10), para 35 and footnote 67; Marshall Islands v United Kingdom, Application (n 10), para 85 and footnote 122.
  127. Katherine Maddox Davis, ‘Hurting More than Helping: How the Marshall Islands’ Seeming Bravery Against Major Powers Only Stands to Maim the Legitimacy of the World Court’, vol. 25, no. 1, Minnesota Journal of International Law p. 79, 2016, p. 94.
  128. Hambro (n 37), p. 19.
  129. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (n 19), para 105(2).
  130. Ibid, para 105(2) (A and B).
  131. Ibid, para 99.
  132. Ibid, para 100.
  133. Ibid.
  134. Ibid, para 103.
  135. Ibid.
  136. Guillaume (n 32), p. 10.
  137. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (n 19), para 105(2) (E).