International law and disarmament - discussion

As far as I can see, nuclear weapons, their ownership and ultimate use stand apart from almost every other issue covered by international law; they are often referred to as an 'ultimate insurance policy' of a nation's sovereignty, and the last line of defence against a nuclear- (or other WMD-) armed aggressor state. They carry a weight of fear of destruction on an inhuman scale unmatched by any other weapon, which is, of course, their purpose.

In this context, it seems unlikely that a ruling in a court of international law would be of much significance as to the current or aspirant ownership of nuclear arms, and certainly not to their usage. All declared nuclear powers describe their arsenals as deterrents, not first-strike weapons, and so their usage is something of an oddity in any case (since they have failed in their purpose if you come to use them). If it were deemed illegal to use a nuclear weapon, I would suggest that no nuclear-armed country in the world would hesitate to use them should the existing conditions for their use be met; to suggest otherwise would effectively write-off your deterrent and invite an attack by a less scrupulous aggressor.

As to ownership of weapons - a judgement that it is illegal to own nuclear arms would make no difference to short-term disarmament (since several states are ostensibly committed to phased multilateral disarmament to minimum credible levels), and no difference to long-term disarmament either since all states will want assurances from others in the same way they already do. I would suggest that the likely scenario for the foreseeable future is that no state that currently owns nuclear arms will unilaterally give them up, regardless of what the lawyers say. Aspirant states can then accuse declared states of hypocrisy and carry on regardless (as is happening in Iran).

Nuclear disarmament, if and when it happens, will not come from the courtroom - governments obey international law and treaties because it is in their interest to do so; in the face of annihilation there is no such motivation. There will be no quick-fix to disarmament, there will be no magic bullet; any solution that causes instability is dangerous, and and solution that leaves aspirant states unchallenged is dangerous - international law has a role to play in anti-proliferation, but it will not force disarmament and it will not disconnect the button in the submarine.

The large sums of money, time and resources invested in the frivolous exploration of the extremes of international law that we see are indicative of the lack of objectivity that plagues nearly every international institution - many conflicts and the enormous unsolved problems of global poverty, climate change and resource exploitation are a direct result of this.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Janet King on October 5, 2011 at 20:17

I have pleasure in copying here three paragraphs from George Farebrother, retired Army senior officer, who is now secretary of the World Court Project. Together with INLAP (the Institute for Law, Accountability and Peace) the WCP asked the International Court of Justice for a ruling on the legality of nuclear weapons.The WCP/INLAP website will give you a lot more information and there is a personal declaration on their site, which you may wish to download and sign.

Nuclear weapons have been described as '' the ultimate evil ". They are capable of causing massive and indiscriminate destruction of human lives.They are are not just a means of mass destruction; they are devices of extermination. Launching a nuclear weapon would amount to criminal recklessness because no one could reliably forecast the complex atmospheric conditions and the wind direction at the moment of launch. The effects would be so unpredictable that accurate targeting would be irrelevant.

At the five yearly Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) at the United Nations in 2010, 189 countries unanimously stressed the “catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons” and demanded that all states “at all times” comply with “applicable international law, including international humanitarian law.” This suggests that use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance would be illegal.

In 1996 the International Court of Justice went nearly this far, but pointed out that it did not have enough information about actual nuclear weapons. But we do have that information. The Trident system, used by both the US and the UK, is eight times as powerful as the Hiroshima Bomb. The same would probably be true of its planned replacement. It is difficult to imagine how it could ever be used without incinerating and irradiating huge numbers of civilians. No one could predict the effects and the results would be vastly out of proportion to any possible military benefit. Britain plans to deploy into the indefinite future weapons which it could never be legal to use. Anyone ordering such a launch would be committing a war crime.

World Court Project UK

Permalink Reply by Janet King on October 5, 2011 at 20:40

Having read George Farebrother's thoughts, you may wish to go a little further.What George did not say was that at the Non-proliferation talks last year, a resolution was passed, which takes us a step nearer to a Nuclear Convention, which can ban the use of nuclear weapons in the same way that the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions ban the use of chemical and biological weapons. If/when such a convention is passed it will be foolish to possess a nuclear arsenal,which would clearly be impossible to use.Discussion of a Nuclear Weapons Convention, which will be legally binding and will involve international monitoring, will continue at the next NNPT meeting and in fact behind the scenes it must be happening already.

Matt, do not feel negative about giving up nuclear weapons. Their possession has been compared to the use of slaves in that supporters of slavery (as inhumane a prctice as the possession of nuclear weapons) said Britain and the USA could never give it up because it would ruin their economies to do so. In fact, when legislation was passed outlawing slavery, the reverse happened and both countries became more prosperous than ever before.On economic grounds as well as legal and moral grounds we can and must outlaw nuclear weapons.

The deterrent argument really does not add up, does it?( I agree with you that every state refers to its own nukes as nuclear deterrents and to all the others' as nuclear weapons or WMD.) When has possession of a nuclear `deterrent` ever deterred other states from engaging in warfare? Since 1945 there have been wars in nearly every continent (bless Australia/New Zealand for spoiling that particular 100% although their troops are dying in Afghanistan at present) and this includes Europe. From Korea to the Falklands, from Iraq to Kosovo, from Afghanistan to ... I could go on.So nuclear weapons do not deter states from engaging in wars. Ah yes, you say, but they have deterred nuclear wars.How illogical!!! My answer is, of course, that the best deterrent to nuclear war is to have NO nuclear weapons on Earth and a sufficiently robust inspection system to ensure that this really is the case. The majority of states do not want a nuclear arsenal and, in fact, are relieved not to have one.They can sensibly spend their money on education, health and useful.employment eg in the manufacture of socially acceptable goods.

Here endeth the first epistle....

Permalink Reply by Matt Hill on October 6, 2011 at 20:46

Yes, I think he sums up the catastrophic consequences of a nuclear detonation quite accurately - they are weapons of semi-indiscriminate (they can, after all, hit the city you aim at) and massive destruction. Their inhumanity is the reason that they are a deterrent, after all, and they are a potent symbol of the fact that humanity's control over nature has increased faster than the maturity with which to handle that power.

Metaphysics aside, we can't un-invent them. If I believed that the international community had the stomach to really enforce a ban on nuclear weapons and weapons programmes, then it might give the case for such a ban more credibility. However, the fact is that partisan politics prevent the world from policing the development of these weapons effectively, so a deterrent is the only real protection against nuclear attack, as ludicrous as the idea seems from an absolute moral or ethical perspective.

Permalink Reply by Janet King on October 30, 2011 at 14:00

Really good news for those of us, who believe that the use of nuclear weapons would be a criminal act. The website CNW Criminality of Nuclear Weapons contains an affirmation for everyone to sign. Please find the site, read and sign the affirmation, and tell all your friends about it. Legality issues will win even when morality issues are not taken seriously by governments.

Permalink Reply by Martin Veart on February 15, 2012 at 12:46

The underlying premise of nuclear weapons is simply one of "might is right". It is this very premise which the concept of the rule of law was created to counteract. It is therefore inevitable that there is a clash between the owners of nuclear weapons and international legal bodies. Hence it is vital that groups such as ourselves support legal battles against nuclear weapons and we do not fatalistically accept the argument that nuclear weapons cannot be un-invented.

Many items have been created that is is criminal for an individual to hold and there is no reason why this concept should not be extended to states, in which individuals are held to account for their decisions made on behalf of their country.

Permalink Reply by Matt Hill on February 15, 2012 at 20:35

I think the main sticking point is one of enforcement - while the international community wouldn't have much problem with carrying through any level of sanctions/military intervention to stop Somalia (for instance) possessing nuclear weapons, it is obvious that a country like Saudi Arabia would be a completely different story. The reason is pretty obvious: they have the world over a barrel (...) and the international community is divided and paralysed into inaction.

Since nuclear weapons programmes are expensive, it stands to reason that as oil gets more expensive the oil supplying states will have more disposable money, while the oil consuming nations will have less. It is not impossible to envision the situation where the 'developed' world is paying for the nuclear programmes of oil-producing nations (or other raw materials, for that matter) and is too economically crippled to be able to afford to enforce any ban on them. How will disarmament leave us in a stronger position when faced with this situation?

Permalink Reply by Janet King on February 15, 2012 at 23:51

Matt, If you are talking about unilateral disarmament, it can only set a very good example and set a new standard for all nuclear and would be nuclear states to follow. It would show the world that it is possible for an important and rich state to abolish its nuclear weapons and remain important. If you do not believe that we are significant to be taken seriously, I think you would be wrong. We are rich and a large exporter even of manufactured goods and everyone accepts that our financial sector is a world leader (unfortunately, as it has caused an imbalance between manufacturing and finance sectors but that;s another discussion). Therefore if you believe that we have influence in the world, we can make a difference by acting unilaterally.

If however, you would find this too risky, it is imperative that we persuade all nuclear states to sign up to the proposed nuclear weapons convention, which a group of on-nuclear states managed to keep on the table at the last NPT conference last year. At the next conference it will be on the agenda and we have got to get the peace makers of the world to urge their governments to sign it What the convention would do is reuire nuclear states to reduce and eventually agree to give up their nuclear arsenal.Because the majority of states are non-nuclear one would imagine that it could get passed if the vote on it is majority and not unanimous (which is the best way I know to never achieve anything). It seems at first sight that it would be so damaging for the nuclear states to abolish their weapons that it could never happen but just think about it - nuclear states are accused of hypocrisy; they are demonised; they are accused of being aggressors ( eg by Argentina just now);continuous at sea deterrence is dangerous; nuclear weapons are expensive and proven not to have kept the peace(there have been at least as many wars since 1945 than before) and they encourage non-nuclear states to go nuclear (as you have just said). So we have a long list of reasons to abolish nuclear weapons even apart from the `thou shalt not kill' way of thinking.There are two ways to attempt to abolish them 1 nuclear governments could agree amongst themselves that they will all voluntarily give up their nuclear arsenals and allow regular inspections to ensure that no one cheats.How likely is that? It would be fabulous to get these states working together to disarm - probably the first time they have all come together in a positive way- but I am not hopeful that it will happen any time soon. 2 All states could sign a legally binding nuclear weapons convention under the aegis of the UN agreeing to disarm/ never arm themselves with nuclear weapons. I consider that to be possible.It would result in a more level playing field and therefore remove some of the fear which causes wars.It is not likely to result in more conventional wars -there have been and still are more than enough wars already. If you are not already aware of the work of the WCP/INLAP group you can find their website via google. It is worth reading. We need a speaker in Brighton on the issue of law and nuclear disarmament and george Farebrother of WCP/INLAP lives in Haywards Heath close by. Is it worth booking him for a fringe?

Permalink Reply by Matt Hill on February 17, 2012 at 21:06

All good sentiment, but it doesn't answer the point I raised - if we can't enforce the current Non Proliferation Treaty, why should a new one be any different?

Permalink Reply by Janet King on February 18, 2012 at 12:33

Matt, Enforcement is one of the difficulties and a strong enforcement agency is needed. In fact no state in the world has broken the terms of the NPT since it was signed in July 1968 - you will remember that there were in fact NO nuclear weapons found in Iraq. I am amongst the many not convinced by Israel and W Hague's contention that Iran is about to break the treaty.As of July 2011, 189 recognized states are party to the treaty. Montenegro is the most recent state to have joined, submitting its instrument of accession on 3 June 2006.^[1] In addition, Taiwan is not recognized as a sovereign state, but has accepted comprehensive IAEA safeguards and the measures of the Additional Protocol to verify that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful. North Korea was a party to the treaty but announced its withdrawal on 10 January 2003; its withdrawal became effective ninety days later.^[1] Three states have never signed on to the treaty: India, Israel, and Pakistan. The NPT remains the most widely subscribed to arms control treaty in history.^[2]
The worry is .of course, that no state can be forced to sign and India, Pakistan and Israel have refused to sign, perhaps aware that to do so would be hypocritical (a concern that does not seem to have occured to our Government).

I am currently thinking about how we can bring the concerns of this group to the attention of the new left voice of the Lib Dems ie SLF (Social Liberal Forum) and Liberal Left. Would our readers find time to look at both their websites and consider how we can work along with them to the advantage of both groups? Most of our current leadership could never be described as nuclear disarmers and will never go anywhere near as far as our group (not sure about you either , Matt) would like to go.Yet there are still a large number of Lib Dems and potential Lib Dems out there who will vote for a party with nuclear disarmament on the agenda but can see that the Greens cannot deliver. We need their votes in 2015,.
Matt Hill said:

All good sentiment, but it doesn't answer the point I raised - if we can't enforce the current Non Proliferation Treaty, why should a new one be any different?

Permalink Reply by Janet King on March 15, 2012 at 19:31

Matt (and anyone else reading this post) you must buy a copy of CentreForum's brand new booklet on Trident,`Dropping the Bomb;a post-Trident Future' by Toby Fenwick. This comes out against retaining Trident as an active nuclear weapon and in favour of putting it into cold storage only to be reinstalled if the need arises (unlikely). This will reassure those who feel that we would be too vulnerable without a nuke at all and will appeal to those wanting to save money for use on better things and feel that a nuclear weapon on active alert is simply too dangerous.The official launch will be next month. Keep an eye out for the date on CentreForum's website.

There you are -don't say I never tell you anything new!!

Permalink Reply by Matt Hill on March 15, 2012 at 21:17

Haha, I wouldn't dare! ;) On a more serious note, sorry I didn't reply to your previous message, I must have missed the update. I've made no secret about my position as a pro-deterrent LibDem, but it's definitely good to keep the debate up to date rather than just rehashing the same old arguments. New technology has the potential to turn the debate upside-down at any moment, so it's good to stay on top of things.

Putting Trident into storage sounds like a reasonable compromise until you start digging into the practicalities - you'd still need a sub to launch it from (probably at least 3, even if you didn't want CASD, to maintain repair/refit/training cycles), so you still need to build them, buy the missiles, maintain the naval base, maintain the warheads and the capability to refit them (so Aldermaston/Burghfield would have to stay as well)... the list goes on. In the end you don't save any money and only reduce your capability and credibility when it comes to keeping the US interested in the 1958 agreement.

It's pretty much the same story for going to a different system than Trident as well - all the infrastructure needs to remain in place, plus we'd need to spend loads developing a new platform/missile. Trident is a pretty amazing deal for the UK if you look at how much the French have to spend on theirs (for instance).

Permalink Reply by Janet King on March 16, 2012 at 11:03

Let's continue this discussion when we have both read and digested the recommendations of `Dropping the Bomb:a post Trident future'.