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

jvillena@usal.es

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.

pdf

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