By: Tessa Schutt, AMUN Staff

The International Court of Justice convened yesterday evening to hear Oral Arguments in the Advisory Opinion: Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Italy, Marshall Islands, Netherlands and Qatar). Through the adoption of A/RES/49/75 in December 1994, the General Assembly requested the Court “urgently” consider the question, “Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law?” Following significant shifts in international spheres of influence at the conclusion of the Cold War, discussion began within the international community with new urgency calling into question the continued relevance of the possession and proliferation of nuclear weapons. Initially referred to the Court by the World Health Organization (WHO), which was deemed to have acted outside of its capacity in its attempt at referral, the General Assembly collaborated to refer this to the Court for consideration.

The Court heard Oral Arguments from Advocates representing Italy, the Marshall Islands, the Netherlands and Qatar. Positing that the Court has the jurisdiction to hear the case, Italy’s arguments before the Court centered around assertions of State sovereignty as a driving consideration in any evaluation of the application of international law to the question at hand. The Advocate from Italy expressed support for international cooperation through the expansion of existing efforts like the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM), an inspection regime established to investigate concerns alleging that Iraq possessed and produced weapons of mass destruction. Acknowledging their unique positioning as a non-nuclear State in possession of a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) ally’s nuclear weapons, the Advocate from Italy suggested that diplomatic collaboration with a particular focus on rogue States would be the most appropriate and realistic avenue for affecting desired changes regarding the limitation of the possession, production, and proliferation of nuclear weapons.

The Marshall Islands accepted the Court’s jurisdiction without question, citing Article 36(2) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, and requested the Court issue an Advisory Opinion on this matter. The Advocates from the Marshall Islands referred to their history as a testing ground for nuclear weapons in the mid-20th century, describing eviscerated islands and significant rates of cancer and other health issues associated with the effects of nuclear radiation. Arguing that the use of nuclear weapons is an inherent violation of Article 8(2a, 2b) of the Fourth Geneva Convention (12 August 1949) due to its posited likelihood of causing long-term damage and indiscriminate suffering, the Advocates from the Marshall Islands plead the Court apply tenets of international law to determine that nuclear weapons should be banned. Addressing claims that agreements outside of the Court would be more effective avenues for enforcement, the Advocates from the Marshall Islands argued that this action by the Court would clarify an impartial international legal standard to which states vacillating about their position on the matter would feel compelled to hold themselves.

Conversely, while acknowledging the authority granted to the Court by the Charter of the United Nations and the Statute of the Court to respond to requests for Advisory Opinions on legal questions referred to them by competent bodies, the Advocates from the Netherlands implored the Court to exercise its discretion not to issue an Advisory Opinion in the matter. The Advocates from the Netherlands argued that issuing an Advisory Opinion in this matter would have a detrimental, undermining effect on cooperative efforts occurring externally, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The Advocates from the Netherlands referred to the indefinite extension of this Treaty in May 1995, which they argued demonstrated a strong continued international commitment to cooperation in nuclear non-proliferation matters. Positing that a decision in either direction – whether toward the determination of legality or illegality – would have a significant influence on current signatories to the NPT as well as potential ratifiers.

Finally, the Advocate from Qatar addressed the Court. The Qatari Advocate began by establishing their acceptance of jurisdiction based on the competence of the General Assembly to refer questions to the Court in a request for Advisory Opinions. Reasoning that the entirety of the international community shares a stake in the matter before the Court because of the “ruinous nature” of nuclear weapons, the Advocate from Qatar argued that the use of nuclear weapons constituted a violation of Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations in regards to the legal guarantee of territorial integrity. The Advocate from Qatar expressed grave concern about the potential that failing to act to establish the proliferation of nuclear weapons as illegal could lead to these weapons being acquired and used by violent non-state actors. Concluding their arguments, the Qatari Advocate argued that external, treaty-based negotiations on the matter faced inherent difficulties in implementation due to distrust and discrepancies between powers and suggested that the Court’s issuance of an Advisory Opinion would serve as a general international standard that would prove helpful in negotiations through other United Nations organs and external channels.

Following a rebuttal period and brief closing questioning,  the Court entered closed deliberations to evaluate the merits of the Oral Arguments and analyze applicable tenets of international law in this matter. The Opinion Reading in this matter will occur at 11:30 a.m. on Tuesday, 21 November 2023, in the Superior A/B room on the Office Level.

_{*The views and opinions expressed in this article were part of a simulation of the United Nations held from 18 to 21 November 2023 and do not reflect the views and opinions of the American Model United Nations Conference, American Model United Nations International, LLC. or the governing bodies of the states mentioned in the article.}