The World Court Project is an inspiring example of what citizens can do to change the course of history. The idea of bringing nuclear arms issues to the World Court, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, was developed by a few people sitting in a kitchen in New Zealand in 1986. They formed a group called the International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms and gained increasing support from individuals, organizations, and governments over a period of seven years. In 1993 their lobbying resulted in a request by the World Health Organization that the court issue an advisory opinion on the legality of the use of nuclear weapons. The court declined this request.
When these issues were brought to the United Nations General Assembly, the United States, along with other nations possessing nuclear weapons, conducted an all-out campaign to keep the General Assembly out of the picture. But in December 1994 the United Nations General Assembly voted in favor of requesting a World Court ruling on the issue.
When the court was discussing the case, a great number of people around the globe wrote to the judges. I sent a letter individually to all fourteen judges of the court. It was based on my trust that they would declare the illegality of nuclear weapons. My letter was also meant to address all who are concerned about world peace. Here is part of what I wrote:
Can we humans liberate justice from the confines of regional, national, class, commercial, or ideological polarization? Can we world citizens be free from the dark assumptions as old as human history that “might is right” and “victors own justice”?
The World Health Organization and the United Nations General Assembly have requested that you issue an advisory opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons. Thus you are determining whether any state or set of individuals has the right to risk the lives of millions and billions of innocent people under any circumstances. By declaring that the use or threat of nuclear weapons is inhumane, immoral, and illegal, you would begin to withdraw from a handful of nations the self-claimed right to annihilate vast portions of the earth. This would confirm that the further development, testing, production, and deployment of nuclear weapons are unjustifiable under international law. By advising the United Nations and the governments of all nations to initiate and conclude negotiations on a comprehensive nuclear disarmament treaty for a permanent abolition of nuclear weapons, you would alert all nations to the fact that they hold the fate of humanity in their hands.
If the international community were fully democratic, nuclear weapons would never be accepted. Unfortunately democracy does not prevail in the United Nations, as it has been structured around dominance of the victors of World War II. The Security Council is controlled by its permanent members. The interests of these major nuclear-weapon-bearing states, as well as of corporations that influence their policies, overwhelm reason and the interests of the majority of the world’s people.
The victims of this unbalanced international system, however, are in all countries, including those that hold the power of the veto. The public knows it cannot control the use of ultra-destructive weapons. Realizing the irony of gambling human survival for their own national security, members of all generations in these states are profoundly harmed. The poverty of many US citizens could be alleviated if funds for the arms race were redirected toward public welfare and education. The continuous increase of drug abuse and crime is another symptom of this illness. The declining economies of states burdened by the astronomical cost of nuclear weapons programs are dramatically represented by the collapse of the Soviet Union.
One important step toward fully democratizing the international community is elimination of veto power from the UN Security Council. Realizing that the veto system is harming the world collectively and the nation-states individually, citizens of permanent member states should urge their governments to give up such privilege. Only when the United Nations becomes truly democratic can it be fully responsible for maintaining international peace. This will enable the international community to take measures to reduce production and trade of weapons. We need to prohibit weapons that are likely to harm citizens indiscriminately. Land mines and napalm, as well as nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, may fall into this category.
Abolition of nuclear weapons is only one step toward actualizing a sustainable human society. But it is the most essential step. Bearing billions of people of the world in mind, I wish you the best in your historic decision-making process.
On July 8, 1996, Judge Mohammed Bedjaoui of Algeria, president of the International Court of Justice (another name for the World Court) in The Hague, announced to a packed courtroom the court’s landmark ruling on the illegality of nuclear weapons. The court declared that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.”
The court stressed 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.” The court, however, remained undecided “whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a state would be at stake.”
The court’s advisory opinion, which was described as consultative and not binding, was largely ignored by the mass media in the United States. But I believe that the implications of this decision by the highest legal authority on questions of international law are huge. The threat of, and readiness for, nuclear attack have been the most powerful forces shaping the foreign and defense policies of the states possessing nuclear weapons. But now, in light of the court’s ruling, anything in line with Kennedy’s threat of nuclear attack to the Soviet Union during the Cuban crisis of 1962 would be regarded as a criminal act.
Although there is a slim gray area regarding the use of nuclear weapons for self-defense, current stockpiles are inherently offensive. The United States would not need as many as one hundred weapons to defend itself in the most unlikely event of desperate self-defense. Therefore the use of at least 99 percent of US nuclear weapons could be defined as illegal. Although nuclear-armed states have not paid attention to this decision, at least for some time, it is clear that the court’s ruling has invalidated any justification for further development as well as deployment of nuclear bombs, which Judge Bedjaoui referred to as “the ultimate evil.”
Because of the nine-hour difference between Europe and California, about ten activists could demonstrate in front of the War Memorial Building in San Francisco on the same morning. I brought a large horizontal banner made by my fourteen-year-old daughter, Karuna, which said “VICTORY,” followed by a drawing of mushroom clouds, and the words “ILLEGAL NOW.” In front of the building we put up another sign which said, “World Court declared today that nuclear weapons are illegal.” About five of us sat on the sidewalk for two hours ecstatically drumming and yelling out, “Celebration! Celebration!” Some passersby responded in excitement and joy. Cars and buses honked in agreement, while the majority of traffic did not notice this small group of demonstrators.