By Pip Hinman
The majority Australian peace and disarmament groups welcomed the decision of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that the threat or use of nuclear weapons breaches international law. However some took a more cautious position saying that while the ruling carried some moral weight, because it did not rule that nuclear weapons are illegal in all circumstances, it may, unwittingly, serve to undermine the campaign for nuclear disarmament.
There was, however, unanimity that much more pressure was needed to rid the world of the nuclear threat. And in the spirit of the court's decision, Australian activists called on the Coalition government to reassess Australia's link with the exclusive nuclear club.
The July 6 decision came just weeks after nuclear weapons states failed to reach an agreement on the terms of a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty due to be signed in Geneva in September.
Senator Dee Margetts from the Greens (WA) welcomed the court's decision. "This case has been a struggle of ordinary people trying to bring a legal judgement against a set of weapons of mass destruction ... for the first time the World Court was forced to accept citizens' evidence in a legal case."
"There is a need to review the entire nuclear part of our defence alliance with the United States", said John Hallam of Friends of the Earth. Max Lane, foreign affairs spokesperson for the Democratic Socialists said that while the court decision carried moral weight, since it was non-binding, the fight to rid the world of nuclear weapons remained an urgent priority.
"The French government's nuclear tests in the Pacific last year, China's this year, and the recent attempt by the US to resume tests in the Nevada desert mean that even human survival under threat is not enough to force the nuclear states to give up their deadly arsenals.
"People, in great numbers, will have to continue to make their opposition heard if we are to force these countries to take the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty seriously. We also have to keep pressing Howard to de-link Australia from the nuclear chain by removing US bases and stopping the mining and export of uranium."
The ICJ vote was tied on whether the use of nuclear weapons was legal in "extreme circumstances of self-defence". Michael Krockenberger of the Australian Conservation Foundation says this more reflects deficiencies in international law than any condoning of the use of nuclear weapons.
However, Lane told Green Left that the court's inability to make a decision on what is, after all, the key issue of whether nuclear weapons should be used at all, leaves the status quo intact. "The exclusive nuclear club would be quite pleased with this decision because the court did not rule that nuclear weapons are unlawful in circumstances of self-defence. It's already understood that such weapons would only be used in 'extreme circumstances'. The nuclear powers will almost certainly use this to argue against nuclear disarmament."
While the ICJ, established under the Charter of the United Nations, is the highest legal authority in the world, its rulings cannot be legally enforced (US president Bush thumbed his nose at the ICJ when it ordered the US to pay compensation to Nicaragua for illegally mining its harbour in the mid-1980s).
The ICJ was asked to adjudicate on the legality or otherwise of the "use or threat of use" of nuclear weapons by the World Health Assembly, the governing body of the World Health Authority on May 14, 1993. In December 1994, the UN General Assembly requested that the ICJ expedite an advisory opinion.
The case was initiated by international peace and disarmament groups. There was opposition from some countries; the Australian government initially argued that the ICJ should not give an opinion, and the US government cut the court's budget.
In the end, 22 nations, including Australia, argued that nuclear weapons are illegal. The court also received, for the first time, 3.6 million public submissions urging that weapons be declared illegal. Only the US, Britain, Russia, France, Germany and Italy argued for legality.
Fred Mendleson from the Medical Association for the Prevention of War said that the court was unanimous in its view that an obligation exists on nuclear weapons state to pursue negotiations which will lead to nuclear disarmament.
"The court was also unanimous that nuclear weapons, like any weapons, are subject to the law of armed conflict protecting civilians, combatants, the environment, neutral nations and succeeding generations from the effects of warfare, as well as United Nations Charter prohibitions of threat or use of force except in self-defence", Mendleson said.
While the court's decision will not make the nuclear powers give up their weapons, executive chairperson for the Campaign for International Cooperation and Disarmament Hal Wootton said that the decision would increase international pressure for the total elimination of the weapons.
"There is now an urgent need for an international convention for the abolition of nuclear weapons in order to carry this new law into practice", Mendleson said.