INLAP/World Court Project UK


Home. Our Challenge. The ICJ . INLAP/WCP Work. Letters & Comment. INLAP briefs. Publications. Sign Up. Contacts. Newsletter. Home. Our Challenge. The ICJ . INLAP/WCP Work. Letters & Comment. INLAP briefs. Publications. Sign Up. Contacts. Newsletter.
mean what they say and will carry out their promises.  Good Faith must be shown in the quest for a Nuclear Weapons Convention.
The Scottish government should compare the energy the UK Government is devoting to escalating diplomatic pressure on Iran to comply with its obligations under the NPT, whilst at the same time doing nothing to pursue its own obligations under Art VI.
Although the Report pays attention to the view that Trident Replacement is not compliant with the obligation to eliminate nuclear weapons, it fails to use the arguments to make a strong condemnation of Trident Replacement on international law grounds and thus fails to recommend that Scotland refuse compliance with basing any such replacement in Scotland. The report also fails to explore  thoroughly  that 'Good Faith' also impacts on the current Trident system in Scotland as the continuing active deployment of Trident for the 'foreseeable' future in the context of current UK policies undermine good faith negotiations for disarmament.    
International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
Here again the Report gives fairly comprehensive consideration to the legality of Trident and its proposed successor.  However, it draws back from making the robust recommendations which should arise from this analysis.  
One significant indicator of this is the very limited attention given to UK Government’s position on legality.  It comprises one paragraph:
UK Governments have publicly taken the position in relation to international humanitarian law that the 1996 ICJ Advisory Opinion advised that the use, or threat of use, of nuclear weapons was subject to the laws of armed conflict, but rejected that their use was necessarily unlawful.  It argues such weapons would only be used in self-defence in extreme circumstances subject to the law of armed conflict, and that it recognises the applicability of the rules of proportionality, discrimination, moderation, and civilian immunity.
This is not surprising.  The Government has contributed little to the discussion on legality. Concerned citizens, confused by the contrast between the laws of armed conflict and what the British State actually does, regularly write to Ministries.  Official replies are often evasive and irrelevant and usually claim, with no supporting argument, that Britain would never use nuclear weapons unlawfully.This is assertion, not argument.
This approach is also shown in the December 2006 White Paper.  The sum total of what it has to say on the UK's obligations regarding nuclear weapons under international humanitarian law is:  
(Para 2-11).  In 1996 the International Court of Justice delivered an Advisory Opinion which confirmed that the use, or threat of use, of nuclear weapons is subject to the laws of armed conflict, and rejected the argument that such use would necessarily be unlawful.  The threshold   
Continues 