MARSHALL ISLANDS

CASE
Presented by:
Saurav Singh
`Enroll No. 150101119, VI Sem,
Dr. RMLNLU.
 What is marshall islands?

• Marshall islands is a small South Pacific nation with a population of 53,000.

It was the site of dozens of atomic-bomb tests by the United States after
the World War II.
• As may as 23 nuclear devices were detonated by the US at Bikini atoll, which
consists of 23 islands spread in 3.4 sq km area in the Marshall Islands,
between 1946 and 1958. The area is still uninhabitable.
 Overview about marshall islands case

• On April 24, 2014, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) filed applications in the International Court of Justice against the nine nucleararmed states, claiming
they have violated their nuclear disarmament obligations under the NonProliferation Treaty (NPT) and customary international law. The respondent states are
the United States, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Israel, and North Korea. The RMI also filed a companion case against the United
States in U.S. federal court in San Francisco.
• “Our people have suffered the catastrophic and irreparable damage of these weapons, and we vow to fight so that no one else on earth will ever again
experience these atrocities,” said Marshall Islands Foreign Minister Tony de Brum when the cases were filed. “The continued existence of nuclear weapons and
the terrible risk they pose to the world threaten us all.”
• This is the first time the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been asked to address issues relating to nuclear weapons since its 1996 advisory opinion, in which
it unanimously concluded 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 cases serve to bring the legal obligations relating to nuclear disarmament back to the center of
debate and action, where they belong, and to ensure that the ICJ’s 1996 opinion is not allowed to lie dormant and be ignored.
• Three of the nine states possessing nuclear arsenals, the UK, India, and Pakistan, have accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court when the opposing
state has done so, as the Marshall Islands has.
• As to the other six states, RMI is calling on them to accept the jurisdiction of the Court in these cases and to explain to the Court their positions regarding the
nuclear disarmament obligations. However, China has already notified the Court that it declines to accept the Court’s jurisdiction in this matter
 CLAIMS OF REPUBLIC OF
MARSHALL ISLANDS IN ICJ

• breach of the obligation to pursue in good faith negotiations leading to nuclear

disarmament, by refusing to commence multilateral negotiations to that end and/or by
implementing policies contrary to the objective of nuclear disarmament;
• breach of the obligation to pursue negotiations in good faith on cessation of the nuclear
arms race at an early date, by engaging in modernization of nuclear forces and in some
cases (Pakistan, India) by quantitative build-up as well;
• breach of the obligation to perform the above obligations in good faith, by planning for
retention of nuclear forces for decades into the future;
• failure to perform obligations relating to nuclear disarmament and cessation of the
nuclear arms race in good faith by effectively preventing the great majority of non-
nuclear weapon states from fulfilling their part of those obligations.
MARSHALL ISLANDS ARGUMENTS
• 1970: Non-Proliferation Treaty(NPT) came into force. It provides
• Non-nuclear states will not acquire nuclear weapons
• Nuclear states will aim for disarmament.
• But those who signed NPT, haven’t stopped nuclear arms race or started nuclear
disarmament. Thus, they’ve breached NPT Article 6.
• Yes, India, Pakistan, Israel and N.Korea have not signed NPT, but still, the “disarmament”
provision of NPT also apply to them as a customary international law. Yet, by continuing
nuclear arms race, they too have breached the international law.
• Besides, India, Pakistan and UK have accepted compulsory jurisdiction of ICJ. Hence they’re
answerable in this court irrespective of whether they’re party of NPT or not.
• We don’t want any compensation.
• We only want the ICJ court to order those 9 nation to begin nuclear disarmament.
WHAT IS NUCLEAR ZERO LAW SUITS

• Nuclear weapons remain the most urgent threat confronting humanity. So long as they exist, there is
the very real chance they will be used by accident, miscalculation or design. These weapons threaten
everyone and everything we love and treasure. They are fearsome destructive devices that kill
indiscriminately and cause unnecessary suffering. No man, woman or child is safe from the fury of
these weapons, now or in the future. Nor is any country safe from them, no matter how powerful or
how much it threatens nuclear retaliation.
• The Marshall Islands is taking its case to the International Court of Justice in The Hague and, in
addition, filing against the U.S. separately in U.S. Federal District Court in San Francisco. The lawsuits
argue that the nuclear disarmament obligations apply to all nine nuclear-armed states as a matter of
customary international law. The courts are being asked in these Nuclear Zero Lawsuits to provide
declaratory and injunctive relief, by declaring that the nuclear weapon states are in breach of their
obligations under international law and ordering them to begin negotiating in good faith to achieve a
cessation of the nuclear arms race and a world with zero nuclear weapons.
• The Marshall Islands has shown courage and boldness by taking action in filing these lawsuits. It is a
country that knows firsthand the consequences of nuclear detonations. Between 1946 and 1958, the
U.S. conducted 67 nuclear weapon tests in the Marshall Islands. These tests had an equivalent
explosive force greater than 1.5 Hiroshima bombs being detonated daily for 12 years. The Marshall
Islanders paid a heavy price in terms of their health and well-being for these destructive tests.
1996 ADVISORY OPINION

On 8 July 1996, the Court rendered its Advisory Opinion. Having concluded that it
had jurisdiction to render an opinion on the question put to it and that there was no
compelling reason to exercise its discretion not to render an opinion, the Court
found that the most directly relevant applicable law was that relating to the use of
force, as enshrined in the United Nations Charter, and the law applicable in armed
conflict, together with any specific treaties on nuclear weapons that the Court
might find relevant.
The Court then considered the question of the legality or illegality of the use of
nuclear weapons in the light of the provisions of the Charter relating to the threat or
use of force. It observed, inter alia, that those provisions applied to any use of force,
regardless of the weapons employed. In addition it stated that the principle of
proportionality might not in itself exclude the use of nuclear weapons in self-
defence in all circumstances. However at the same time, a use of force that was
proportionate under the law of self-defence had, in order to be lawful, to meet the
requirements of the law applicable in armed conflict, including, in particular, the
principles and rules of humanitarian law. It pointed out that the notions of a “threat”
and “use” of force within the meaning of Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter stood
together in the sense that if the use of force itself in a given case was illegal — for
whatever reason — the threat to use such force would likewise be illegal.
 ICJ REJECTED MARSHALL ISLANDS CASE

• According to the ICJ Court President Ronny Abraham, Marshall Islands failed
to prove that a legal dispute over disarmament existed between it and the
three nuclear powers before the case was filed in 2014, and that
“consequently the court lacks jurisdiction.” The world court accepted India’s
argument that the ICJ had no jurisdiction in marshall Islands suit.
• Accepting the first of India’s arguments on jurisdiction, the ICJ ruled that
there being no legal dispute between the Marshall Islands and India on the
issue of nuclear disarmament, the court had no locus standi to proceed.
Ruling in parallel cases, the court also declined to proceed with the Marshall
Islands’ case against Pakistan and the UK.
 INDIA’S ARGUMENTS
• First, that there was no dispute between the parties;
• second, even if the court finds that there is a dispute, it could only be settled if at least all
the states possessing nuclear weapons and certainly more than one were parties to the
proceedings; this not being the case, the court has to decline to exercise jurisdiction.
• Third, several reservations to India’s optional declaration under Article 36 (2) bar the
court’s jurisdiction; and fourth, that any judgment rendered in these circumstances would
be devoid of any concrete practical effect
• India argued here that India’s neighbourhood, which has a history of proliferation, has
impacted its national security. Therefore, India’s measures of self-defence, which extend
to measures and military strategies which in its perception are necessary to deal with
nuclear threats with which it may in future be confronted, are covered by the reservation.
• India claimed that Marshall Islands was trying to bypass this reservation by stating that its
case was only based on customary law. However, India argued that Marshall Islands’ claim
cannot be dealt by the court without interpreting Article VI of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
 Conclusion

• The ICJ decision is a huge disappointment for Marshall Islands as well as

for activists who still fight for a nuclear-free world.
• The Republic of the Marshall Islands is offering us a way to live on a
planet that is not threatened by nuclear catastrophe due to human
fallibility or malevolence. This courageous small island country deserves
our strong and unwavering support.
“Nuclear weapons elimination will make all states and their people safer.
It is time to assert our right to live in a nuclear weapons free world ”
Jonathan Granoff

Thank You!