The United Nations

[Shammu]

Article IX • The World Judiciary

Sec. A. Jurisdiction of the World Supreme Court

   1. a World Supreme Court shall be established, together with such regional and district World Courts as may subsequently be found necessary. The World Supreme Court shall comprise a number of benches.

   2. The World Supreme Court, together with such regional and district World Courts as may be established, shall have mandatory jurisdiction in all cases, actions, disputes, conflicts, violations of law, civil suits, guarantees of civil and human rights, constitutional interpretations, and other litigations arising under the provisions of this World Constitution, world legislation, and the body of world law approved by the World Parliament.

   3. Decisions of the World Supreme Court shall be binding on all parties involved in all cases, actions and litigations brought before any bench of the World Supreme Court for settlement. Each bench of the World Supreme Court shall constitute a court of highest appeal, except when matters of extra-ordinary public importance are assigned or transferred to the Superior Tribunal of the World Supreme Court, as provided in Section E of Article IX.


Sec. B. Benches of the World Supreme Court

   1. The benches of the World Supreme Court and their respective jurisdictions shall be as follows:

   2. Bench for Human Rights: To deal with issues of human rights arising under the guarantee of civil and human rights provided by Article XIII of this World Constitution, and arising in pursuance of the provisions of Article XIII of this World Constitution, and arising otherwise under world legislation and the body of world law approved by the World Parliament.

   3. Bench for Criminal Cases: To deal with issues arising from the violation of world laws and world legislation by individuals, corporations, groups and associations, but not issues primarily concerned with human rights.

   4. Bench for Civil Cases: To deal with issues involving civil law suits and disputes between individuals, corporations, groups and associations arising under world legislation and world law and the administration thereof.

   5. Bench for Constitutional Cases: To deal with the interpretation of the World Constitution and with issues and actions arising in connection with the interpretation of the World Constitution.

   6. Bench for International Conflicts: To deal with disputes, conflicts and legal contest arising between or among the nations which have joined in the Federation of Earth.

   7. Bench for Public Cases: To deal with issues not under the jurisdiction of another bench arising from conflicts, disputes, civil suits or other legal contests between the World Government and corporations, groups or individuals, or between national gov ernments and corporations, groups or individuals in cases involving world legislation and world law.

   8. Appellate Bench: To deal with issues involving world legislation and world law which may be appealed from national courts; and to decide which bench to assign a case or action or litigation when a question or disagreement arises over the proper jurisdiction.

   9. Advisory Bench: To give opinions upon request on any legal question arising under world law or world legislation, exclusive of contests or actions involving interpretation of the World Constitution. Advisory opinions may be requested by any House or c ommittee of the World Parliament, by the Presidium, any Administrative Department, the Office of World Attorneys General, the World Ombudsmus, or by any agency of the Integrative Complex.

  10. Other benches may be established, combined or terminated upon recommendation of the Collegium of World Judges with approval by the World Parliament; but benches number one through eight may not be combined nor terminated except by amendment of this World Constitution.


Sec. C - Seats of the World Supreme Court

   1. The primary seat of the World Supreme Court and all benches shall be the same as for the location of the Primary World Capital and for the location of the World Parliament and the World Executive.

   2. Continental seats of the World Supreme Court shall be established in the four secondary capitals of the World Government located in four different Continental Divisions of Earth, as provided in Article XV.

   3. The following permanent benches of the World Supreme Court shall be established both at the primary seat and at each of the continental seats: Human Rights, Criminal Cases, Civil Cases, and Public Cases.

   4. The following permanent benches of the World Supreme Court shall be located only at the primary seat of the World Supreme Court: Constitutional Cases, International Conflicts, Appellate Bench, and Advisory Bench.

   5. Benches which are located permanently only at the primary seat of the World Supreme Court may hold special sessions at the other continental seats of the World Supreme Court when necessary, or may establish continental circuits if needed.

   6. Benches of the World Supreme Court which have permanent continental locations may hold special sessions at other locations when needed, or may establish regional circuits if needed.


cont'd next post

[Shammu]

Sec. D - The Collegium of World Judges

   1. A Collegium of World Judges shall be established by the World Parliament. The Collegium shall consist of a minimum of twenty member judges, and may be expanded as needed but not to exceed sixty members.

   2. The World Judges to compose the Collegium of World Judges shall be nominated by the House of Counsellors and shall be elected by plurality vote of the three Houses of the World Parliament in joint session. The House of Counsellors shall nominate betwe en two and three times the number of world judges to be elected at any one time. An equal number of World Judges shall be elected from each of ten World Electoral and Administrative Magna-Regions, if not immediately then by rotation.

   3. The term of office for a World Judge shall be ten years. Successive terms may be served without limit.

   4. The Collegium of World Judges shall elect a Presiding Council of World Judges, consisting of a Chief Justice and four Associate Chief Justices. One member of the Presiding Council of World Judges shall be elected from each of five Continental Divisions of Earth. Members of the Presiding Council of World Judges shall serve five year terms on the Presiding Council, and may serve two successive terms, but not two successive terms as Chief Justice.

   5. The Presiding Council of World Judges shall assign all World Judges, including themselves, to the several benches of the World Supreme Court. Each bench for a sitting at each location shall have a minimum of three World Judges, except that the number of World Judges for benches on Continental Cases and International Conflicts, and the Appellate Bench, shall be no less than five.

   6. The member judges of each bench at each location shall choose annually a Presiding Judge, who may serve two successive terms.

   7. The members of the several benches may be reconstituted from time to time as may seem desirable or necessary upon the decision of the Presiding Council of World Judges. Any decision to re-constitute a bench shall be referred to a vote of the entire Collegium of World Judges by request of any World Judge.

   8. Any World Judge may be removed from office for cause by an absolute two- thirds majority vote of the three Houses of the World Parliament in joint session.

   9. Qualifications for Judges of the World Supreme Court shall be at least ten years of legal or juristic experience, minimum age of thirty years, and evident competence in world law and the humanities.

  10. The salaries, expenses, remunerations and prerogatives of the World Judges shall be determined by the World Parliament, and shall be reviewed every five years, but shall not be changed to the disadvantage of any World Judge during a term of office. All members of the Collegium of World Judges shall receive the same salaries, except that additional compensation may be given to the Presiding Council of World Judges.

  11. Upon recommendation by the Collegium of World Judges, the World Parliament shall have the authority to establish regional and district world courts below the World Supreme Court, and to establish the jurisdictions thereof, and the procedures for appeal to the World Supreme Court or to the several benches thereof.

  12. The detailed rules of procedure for the functioning of the World Supreme Court, the Collegium of World Judges, and for each bench of the World Supreme Court, shall be decided and amended by absolute majority vote of the Collegium of World Judges.


Sec. E - The Superior Tribunal of the World Supreme Court

   1. A Superior Tribunal of the World Supreme Court shall be established to take cases which are considered to be of extra-ordinary public importance. The Superior Tribunal for any calendar year shall consist of the Presiding Council of World Judges together with one World Judge named by the Presiding Judge of each bench of the World Court sitting at the primary seat of the World Supreme Court. The composition of the Superior Tribunal may be continued unchanged for a second year by decision of the Presiding Council of World Judges.

   2. Any party to any dispute, issue, case or litigation coming under the jurisdiction of the World Supreme Court, may apply to any particular bench of the World Supreme Court or to the Presiding Council of World Judges for the assignment or transfer of the case to the Superior Tribunal on the grounds of extra-ordinary public importance. If the application is granted, the case shall be heard and disposed of by the Superior Tribunal. Also, any bench taking any particular case, if satisfied that the case is of extra-ordinary public importance, may of its own discretion transfer the case to the Superior Tribunal.

Article IX • The World Judiciary

[Shammu]

Article X • The Enforcement System

Sec. A. Basic Principles

   1. The enforcement of world law and world legislation shall apply directly to individual, and individuals shall be held responsible for compliance with world law and world legislation regardless of whether the individuals are acting in their own capacity or as agents or officials of governments at any level or of the institutions of governments, or as agents or officials of corporations, organizations, associations or groups of any kind.

   2. When world law or world legislation or decisions of the world courts are violated, the Enforcement System shall operate to identify and apprehend the individuals responsible for violations.

   3. Any enforcement action shall not violate the civil and human rights guaranteed under this World Constitution.

   4. The enforcement of world law and world legislation shall be carried out in the context of a non-military world federation wherein all member nations shall disarm as a condition for joining and benefiting from the world federation, subject to Article X VII, Sec. C-8 and D-6. The Federation of Earth and World Government under this World Constitution shall neither keep nor use weapons of mass destruction.

   5. Those agents of the enforcement system whose function shall be to apprehend and bring to court violators of world law and world legislation shall be equipped only with such weapons as are appropriate for the apprehension of the individuals responsible for violations.

   6. The enforcement of world law and world legislation under this World Constitution shall be conceived and developed primarily as the processes of effective design and administration of world law and world legislation to serve the welfare of all people on Earth, with equity and justice for all, in which the resources of Earth and the funds and the credits of the World Government are used only to serve peaceful human needs, and none used for weapons of mass destruction or for war making capabilities.


Sec. B. The Structure for Enforcement: World Attorneys General

   1. The Enforcement System shall be headed by an Office of World Attorneys General and a Commission of Regional World Attorneys.

   2. The Office of World Attorneys General shall be comprised of five members, one of whom shall be designated as the World Attorney General and the other four shall each be designated an Associate World Attorney General.

   3. The Commission of Regional World Attorneys shall consist of twenty Regional World Attorneys.

   4. The members to compse the Office of World Attorneys General shall be nominated by the House of Counsellors, with three nominees from each Continental Division of Earth. One member of the Office shall be elected from each of five Continental Divisions by plurality vote of the three houses of the World Parliament in joint session.

   5. The term of office for a member of the Office of World Attorneys General shall be ten years. A member may serve two consecutive terms. The position of World Attorney General shall rotate every two years among the five members of the Office. The order of rotation shall be decided among the five members of the Office.

   6. The Office of World Attorneys General shall nominate members for the Commission of twenty Regional World Attorneys from the twenty World Electoral and Administrative Regions, with between two and three nominees submitted for each Region. From these nominations, the three Houses of the World Parliament in joint session shall elect one Regional World Attorney from each of the twenty Regions. Regional World Attorneys shall serve terms of five years, and may serve three consecutive terms.

   7. Each Regional World Attorney shall organize and be in charge of an Office of Regional World Attorney. Each Associate World Attorney General shall supervise five Offices of Regional World Attorneys.

   8. The staff to carry out the work of enforcement, in addition to the five members of the Office of World Attorneys General and the twenty Regional World Attorneys, shall be selected from civil service lists, and shall be organized for the following func tions: Investigation.

   9. Apprehension and arrest.

  10. Prosecution.

  11. Remedies and correction.

  12. Conflict resolution.

  13. Qualifications for a member of the Office of World Attorneys General and for the Regional World Attorneys shall be at least thirty years of age, at least seven years legal experience, and education in law and the humanities.

  14. The World Attorney General, the Associate World Attorneys General, and the Regional World Attorneys shall at all times be responsible to the World Parliament. Any member of the Office of World Attorneys General and any Regional World Attorney can be removed from office for cause by a simple majority vote of the three Houses of the World Parliament in joint session.


Sec. C. The World Police

   1. That section of the staff of the Office of World Attorneys General and of the Offices of Regional World Attorneys responsible for the apprehension and arrest of violators of world law and world legislation, shall be designated as World Police.

   2. Each regional staff of the World Police shall be headed by a Regional World Police Captain, who shall be appointed by the Regional World Attorney.

   3. The Office of World Attorneys General shall appoint a World Police Supervisor, to be in charge of those activities which transcend regional boundaries. The World Police Supervisor shall direct the Regional World Police Captains in any actions which require coordinated or joint action transcending regional boundaries, and shall direct any action which requires initiation or direction from the Office of World Attorneys General.

   4. Searches and arrests to be made by World Police shall be made only upon warrants issued by the Office of World Attorneys General or by a Regional World Attorney.

   5. World Police shall be armed only with weapons appropriate for the apprehension of the individuals responsible for violation of world law.

   6. Employment in the capacity of World Police Captain and World Police Supervisor shall be limited to ten years.

   7. The World Police Supervisor and any Regional World Police Captain may be removed from office for cause by decision of the Office of World Attorneys General or by absolute majority vote of the three Houses of the World Parliament in joint session.


Sec. D. The Means of Enforcement

   1. Non-military means of enforcement of world law and world legislation shall be developed by the World Parliament and by the Office of World Attorneys General in consultation with the Commission of Regional World Attorneys, the Collegium of World Judges, the World Presidium, and the World Ombudsmus. The actual means of enforcement shall require legislation by the World Parliament.

   2. Non-military means of enforcement which can be developed may include: Denial of financial credit; denial of material resources and personnel; revocation of licenses, charters, or corporate rights; impounding of equipment; fines and damage payments; performance of work to rectify damages; imprisonment or isolation; and other means appropriate to the specific situations.

   3. To cope with situations of potential or actual riots, insurrection and resort to armed violence, particular strategies and methods shall be developed by the World Parliament and by the Office of World Attorneys General in consultation with the Commission of Regional World Attorneys, the collegium of World Judges, the Presidium and the World Ombudsmus. Such strategies and methods shall require enabling legislation by the World Parliament where required in addition to the specific provisions of this World Constitution.

   4. A basic condition for preventing outbreaks of violence which the Enforcement System shall facilitate in every way possible, shall be to assure a fair hearing under non-violent circumstances for any person or group having a grievance, and likewise to a ssure a fair opportunity for a just settlement of any grievance with due regard for the rights and welfare of all concerned.

Article X • The Enforcement System

[Shammu]

Article XI • The World Ombudsmus

Sec. A. Funcions and Powers of the World Ombudsmus

The functions and powers of the World Ombudsmus, as public defender, shall include the following:

   1. To protect the People of Earth and all individuals against violations or neglect of universal human and civil rights which are stipulated in Article 12 and other sections of this World Constitution.

   2. To protect the People of Earth against violations of this World Constitution by any official or agency of the World Government, including both elected and appointed officials or public employees regardless of organ, department, office, agency or rank.

   3. To press for the implementation of the Directive Principles for the World Government as defined in Article 13 of this World Constitution.

   4. To promote the welfare of the people of Earth by seeking to assure that conditions of social justice and of minimizing disparities are achieved in the implementation and administration of world legislation and world law.

   5. To keep on the alert for perils to humanity arising from technological innovations, environmental disruptions and other diverse sources, and to launch initiatives for correction or prevention of such perils.

   6. To ascertain that the administration of otherwise proper laws, ordinances and procedures of the World Government do not result in unforseen injustices or inequities, or become stultified in bureaucracy or the details of administration.

   7. To receive and hear complaints, grievances or requests for aid from any person, group, organization, association, body politic or agency concerning any matter which comes within the purview of the World Ombudsmus.

   8. To request the Office of World Attorneys General or any Regional World Attorney to initiate legal actions or court proceedings whenever and wherever considered necessary or desirable in the view of the World Ombudsmus.

   9. To directly initiate legal actions and court proceedings whenever the World Ombudsmus deems necessary.

  10. To review the functioning of the departments, bureaus, offices, commissions, institutes, organs and agencies of the World Government to ascertain whether the procedures of the World government are adequately fulfilling their purposes and serving the w elfare of humanity in optimum fashion, and to make recommendations for improvements.

  11. To present an annual report to the World Parliament and to the Presidium on the activities of the World Ombudsmus, together with any recommendations for legislative measures to improve the functioning of the World Government for the purpose of better serving the welfare of the People of Earth.


Sec. B - Composition of the World Ombudsmus

   1. The World Ombudsmus shall be headed by a Council of World Ombudsen of five members, one of whom shall be designated as Principal World Ombudsan, while the other four shall each be designated as an Associate World Ombudsan.

   2. Members to compose the Council of World Ombudsen shall be nominated by the House of Counsellors, with three nominees from each Continental Division of Earth. One member of the Council shall be elected from each of five Continental Divisions by plural ity vote of the three Houses of the World Parliament in joint session.

   3. The term of office for a World Ombudsan shall be ten years. A World Ombudsan may serve two successive terms. The position of Principal World Ombudsan shall be rotated every two years. The order of rotation shall be determined by the Council of World Ombudsen.

   4. The Council of World Ombudsen shall be assisted by a Commission of World Advocates of twenty members. Members for the Commission of World Advocates shall be nominated by the Council of World Ombudsen from twenty World Electoral and Administrative Regions, with between two and three nominees submitted for each Region. One World Advocate shall be elected from each of the twenty World Electoral and Administrative Regions by the three Houses of the World Parliament in joint session. World Advocates shall serve terms of five years, and may serve a maximum of four successive terms.

   5. The Council of World Ombudsen shall establish twenty regional offices, in addition to the principal world office at the primary seat of the World Government. The twenty regional offices of the World Ombudsmus shall parallel the organization of the twenty Offices of Regional World Attorney.

   6. Each regional office of the World Ombudsmus shall be headed by a World Advocate. Each five regional offices of the World Ombudmus shall be supervised by an Associate World Ombudsan.

   7. Any World Ombudsan and any World Advocatet may be removed from office for cause by an absolute majority vote of the three Houses of the World Parliament in joint session.

   8. Staff members for the World Ombudsmus and for each regional office of the World Ombudsmus shall be selected and employed from civil service lists.

   9. Qualifications for World Ombudsan and for World Advocate shall be at least thirty years of age, at least five years legal experience, and education in law and other relevant education.

Article XI • The World Ombudsmus

[Shammu]

Article XII • Bill of Rights for the Citizens of Earth

The inhabitants and citizens of Earth who are within the Federation of Earth shall have certain inalienable rights defined hereunder. It shall be mandatory for the World Parliament, the World Executive, and all organs and agencies of the World Government to honor, implement and enforce these rights, as well as for the national governments of all member nations in the Federation of Earth to do likewise. Individuals or groups suffering violation or neglect of such rightst shall have full recourse through the World Ombudsmus, the Enforcement System and the World Courts for redress of grievances. The inalienable rights shall include the following:

   1. Equal rights for all citizens of the Federation of Earth, with no discrimination on grounds of race, color, caste, nationality, sex, religion, political affiliation, property, or social status.

   2. Equal protection and application of world legislation and world laws for all citizens of the Federation of Earth.

   3. Freedom of thought and conscience, speech, press, writing, communication, expression, publication, broadcasting, telecasting, and cinema, except as an overt part of or incitement to violence, armed riot or insurrection.

   4. Freedom of assembly, association, organization, petition and peaceful demonstration.

   5. Freedom to vote without duress, and freedom for political organization and campaigning without censorship or recrimination.

   6. Freedom to profess, practice and promote religious or religious beliefs or no religion or religious belief.

   7. Freedom to profess and promote political beliefs or no political beliefs.

   8. Freedom for investigation, research and reporting.

   9. Freedom to travel without passport or visas or other forms of registration used to limit travel between, among or within nations.

  10. Prohibition against slavery, peonage, involuntary servitude, and conscription of labor.

  11. Prohibition against military conscription.

  12. Safety of person from arbitrary or unreasonable arrest, detention, exile, search or seizure; requirement of warrants for searches and arrests.

  13. Prohibition against physical or psychological duress or torture during any period of investigation, arrest, detention or imprisonment, and against cruel or unusual punishment.

  14. Right of habeous corpus; no ex-post-facto laws; no double jeopardy; right to refuse self-incrimination or the incrimination of another.

  15. Prohibition against private armies and paramilitary organizations as being threats to the common peace and safety.

  16. Safety of property from arbitrary seizure; protection against exercise of the power of eminent domain without reasonable compensation.

  17. Right to family planning and free public assistance to achieve family planning objectives.

  18. Right of privacy of person, family and association; prohibition against surveillance as a means of political control.

Article XII • Bill of Rights for the Citizens of Earth

[Shammu]

Article XIII • Directive Principles for the World Government

It shall be the aim of the World Government to secure certain other rights for all inhabitants within the Federation of Earth, but without immediate guarantee of universal achievement and enforcement. These rightst are defined as Directive Principles, obligating the World Government to pursue every reasonable means for universal realization and implementation, and shall include the following:

   1. Equal opportunity for useful employment for everyone, with wages or remuneration sufficient to assure human dignity.

   2. Freedom of choice in work, occupation, employment or profession.

   3. Full access to information and to the accumulated knowledge of the human race.

   4. Free and adequate public education available to everyone, extending to the pre-university level; Equal opportunities for elementary and higher education for all persons; equal opportunity for continued education for all persons throughout life; the right of any person or parent to choose a private educational institution at any time.

   5. Free and adequate public health services and medical care available to everyone throughout life under conditions of free choice.

   6. Equal opportunity for leisure time for everyone; better distribution of the work load of society so that every person may have equitable leisure time opportunities.

   7. Equal opportunity for everyone to enjoy the benefits of scientific and technological discoveries and developments.

   8. Protection for everyone against the hazards and perils of technological innovations and developments.

   9. Protection of the natural environment which is the common heritage of humanity against pollution, ecological disruption or damage which could imperil life or lower the quality of life.

  10. Conservation of those natural resources of Earth which are limited so that present and future generations may continue to enjoy life on the planet Earth.

  11. Assurance for everyone of adequate housing, of adequate and nutritious food supplies, of safe and adequate water supplies, of pure air with protection of oxygen supplies and the ozone layer, and in general for the continuance of an environment which can sustain healthy living for all.

  12. Assure to each child the right to the full realization of his or her potential.

  13. Social Security for everyone to relieve the hazards of unemployment, sickness, old age, family circumstances, disability, catastrophies of nature, and technological change, and to allow retirement with sufficient lifetime income for living under condi tions of human dignity during older age.

  14. Rapid elimination of and prohibitions against technological hazards and man-made environmental disturbances which are found to create dangers to life on Earth.

  15. Implementation of intensive programs to discover, develop and institute safe alternatives and practical substitutions for technologies which must be eliminated and prohibited because of hazards and dangers to life.

  16. Encouragement for cultural diversity; encouragement for decentralized administration.

  17. Freedom for peaceful self-determination for minorities, refugees and dissenters.

  18. Freedom for change of residence to anywhere on Earth conditioned by provisions for temporary sanctuaries in events of large numbers of refugees, stateless persons, or mass migrations.

  19. Prohibition against the death penalty.

Article XIII • Directive Principles for the World Government

[Shammu]

Article XIV • Safeguards and Reservations

Sec. A. Certain Safeguards

The World Government shall operate to secure for all nations and peoples within the Federation of Earth the safeguards which are defined hereunder:

   1. Guarantee that full faith and credit shall be given to the public acts, records, legislation and judicial proceedings of the member nations within the Federation of Earth, consistent with the several provisions of this World Constitution.

   2. Assure freedom of choice within the member nations and countries of the Federation of Earth to determine their internal political, economic and social systems, consistent with the guarantees and protections given under this World Constitution to assure civil liberties and human rights and a safe environment for life, and otherwise consistent with the several provisions of this World Constitution.

   3. Grant the right of asylum within the Federation of Earth for persons who may seek refuge from countries or nations which are not yet included within the Federation of Earth.

   4. Grant the right of individuals and groups, after the Federation of Earth includes 90 percent of the territory of Earth, to peacefully leave the hegemony of the Federation of Earth and to live in suitable territory set aside by the Federation neither restricted nor protected by the World Government, provided that such territory does not extend beyond five percent of Earth's habitable territory, is kept completely disarmed and not used as a base for inciting violence or insurrection within or against the Federation of Earth or any member nation, and is kept free of acts of environmental or technological damage which seriously affect Earth outside such territory.


Sec. B. Reservation of Powers

The powers not delegated to the World Government by this World Constitution shall be reserved to the nations of the Federation of Earth and to the people of Earth.

Article XIV • Safeguards and Reservations

[Shammu]

There are many more Articles

Article XV • World Federal Zones and the World Capitals

Article XVI • World Territories and Exterior Relations

Article XVII • Ratification and Implementation

Article XVIII • Amendments

Article XIX • Provisional World Government

[Shammu]

PROVISIONAL WORLD PARLIAMENT

11 to 15 August, 2004 at Lucknow, India
in the great hall of the CMS Montessori Schools, Gomptinagar

Since the Seventh Session of the Provisional World Parliament held in Chennai, India, 26-30 December, 2003, a new and more dangerous spectre has come to haunt the world. The United Nations Organization, which had remained dormant and impotent in the face of ever-increasing world crises - not least the fatal consequences of the martyrdom of Iraq, - is entering into an Unholy Alliance with the single Super Power and its allies. Thirsting for a reason to exist, the U.N. is poised to do the scavenging work for the Super Power in Iraq.

Desperate to get into action, the United Nations, with its bureaucracy is succumbing to the Super Power's blandishments. Despite their failure to do what they should have done, stopping the invasion of Iraq, the U.N. is agreeing to take up the role of brokering between contending factions in Iraq. This is what the U.N. thinks is required now and what the Super Power is powerless to accomplish without a new exercise in carnage and horror. The U.N. is therefore cajoled to undertake the scavenging job.

The Charter wanted the United Nations to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war; not to foist unwanted regimes on a defenseless people. The need of the hour is to eradicate all attempts at despotic world dictatorship overt or covert by the Super Power or by its unholy alliance with the bureaucracy within the United Nations.

This marriage of convenience between the U.N. and the Super Power portends universal disaster. Yesterday we had the picture of a powerful Super Power and the United Nations, with its "banner torn but flying," in near total opposition - two large bureaucracies in confrontation. Today the picture changes. We have an unholy alliance between a docile U.N. ready to accept any role to justify its existence and a blustering Super Power offering the dirtiest role in human history to convince its 191 membership that with the Super Power's assistance it will play the role the Charter promised, and that a new and more potent U.N. will arise, phoenix-like, from the ashes in which it is now. U.N. members now face a calculated deception to help the U.N. and the Super Power to get out of the mire in which they are both in. The Super Power in the imbroglio that is Iraq today and the U.N. with its record of impotency.

There are encouraging cries throughout the world that the people must rise as one to stop the present drive to make Planet Earth a Totalitarian State. A frustrated humanity is turning increasingly to acts of terrorism, mob violence, suicide bombings, protest marches, burning effigies, and destruction of property. These, however, are not the answer. They only add up to human misery. They play into the hands of the Super Power to a further release of state violence and terror. Neither is the answer mere strong denunciation by leaders of the developing world, mere increasing criticisms in the media, and mere voices of protest in democratic primaries by would-be United States Presidents. They are but welcoming signs that the majority of the world's people would not tolerate World totalitarianism.

For the Eighth Session of the Provisional World Parliament in Lucknow, India, we renew our Call, at a time of great urgency, and reveal our plan to canalize the favourable forces now ranging against the Super Power into a strong movement to establish the Rule of just World Law as against the Rule of Military Force.

The failure of the U.N. is due to the weakness of the Charter. For 58 years, "WE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED NATIONS" has built our vain hopes on a caricature of a Constitution. However, the citizens of this Earth are demanding an effective and just world constitution, which the United Nations Charter cannot provide.

This Call, therefore, goes out to the Governments and Peoples of the World that the Rule of Law can be made to prevail only by the establishment of a democratic federal world government and a world parliament under a Constitution For The Federation Of Earth. A world parliament cannot emerge without a World Constitution.

Respecting the decision of venue by the Seventh Session of the Provisional World Parliament, its Standing Executive Cabinet convokes this Call to the Eighth Session of the Provisional World Parliament. This is a call to National Governments and Legislatures, Universities, Colleges, and Churches, Scientific Academies and Institutions, Peace Organizations, and men and women of goodwill to send delegates and participate in its deliberations.

PROVISIONAL WORLD PARLIAMENT

[Shammu]

24 October 2007

"Global Action to Prevent War" joins Campaign for UN Parliamentary Assembly

In October 2007 the International Steering Committee of “Global Action to Prevent War” (GAPW) has voted to endorse the proposal for a UN Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) and to join the international Campaign. GAPW is a global coalition of more than 20 non-governmental organizations and research institutes which have united their efforts to develop a program for the sustained, integrated, worldwide application of government resources and knowledge to stop war, genocide and internal armed conflict. “As the UN is playing an important role in war prevention, it will be essential to take steps to assure the impartiality of decision-making in this organization on matters of war and peace. One important step to make the UN more democratic and responsive is the creation of a Parliamentary Assembly. This is why we support the Campaign for a UNPA”, says GAPW Coordinator Waverly de Bruijn.

"Global Action to Prevent War" joins Campaign for UN Parliamentary Assembly
~~~~~~~
GLOBAL ACTION TO PREVENT WAR

Dr. Randall Caroline Forsberg was Director of the Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies (IDDS) in Cambridge, Massachusetts, newly designated Ann and Bernard Spitzer Professor of Political Science at the City College of New York, and Co-Founder of Global Action to Prevent War. From the outset of her productive career, she was an astonishingly effective, inspiring leader in the struggle to end war and armed violence – charismatic and empathetic in her wide appeal yet highly self-disciplined, analytical and dispassionate, searching with surprising success for the key to mobilizing action in the American political system.

From its beginning in 1968 with the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), Randy's remarkable career was imbued with SIPRI's principled approach of opposing war but analyzing it pragmatically. Randy was born July 23, 1945. She married while in Stockholm and had a daughter Katarina, with whom she had remained very close throughout her life.

Randy returned to the United States during the turmoil of the Vietnam War and the Cold War with the Soviet Union . Her knowledge of nuclear weapons, her empathy with the fears and pain of those touched by war, and her intellectual creativity rapidly made her a respected leader in the anti-nuclear movement. In 1979, she led the team that drafted the “Call to Halt the Nuclear Arms Race” which became the manifesto of the nationwide Nuclear Freeze Campaign, advocating a mutual freeze with the Soviet Union of the level of nuclear weapons and delivery systems; she spoke with passion at hundreds of meetings throughout the country, directly influencing the lives of thousands of people to work for peace, and she came to personify the freeze movement with its message of “Go No Further.” These meetings culminated in the giant June 12, 1982 rally in Central Park, New York City, still the largest political demonstration in American history and in a successful freeze resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives, the high-water mark of peace protests in the United States.

Realizing that the struggle for peace was an ongoing one, Randy founded the Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies in 1980. Her first project was the Arms Control Reporter, a monthly journal that was the country's most lucid, informative guide to current arms control negotiations. Randy and a single devoted colleague kept it going for nearly 30 years, and the project now lives on in her spirit. At the Institute, Randy issued a series of professional manuals on the world's armed forces, including the annually updated IDDS Database of World Arms Holdings, Production and Trade. That publication was bought and closely studied by defense establishments throughout the world.

This exacting work was performed on a shoestring. Books like these are not moneymakers. Randy was a gifted fundraiser, but too engrossed in substance to be an energetic one. With her mother's full support, Randy mortgaged the family home to raise money for the Institute's daily operations and cut off her own salary and income. Katarina and friends pitched in to keep things moving in crisis after crisis. Randy applied her charisma and superlative teaching ability to recruit and to train college student interns with the knowledge and analytical skills to research the Institute's professional publications and to set the interns themselves on the path to a new career in arms control and defense analysis.

Randy at times had a legendary temper, which occasionally escaped control and revealed the intensity of the forces that impelled her to work for peace. Paradoxically, this quality only enhanced her authority and the respect paid her leadership.

Randy's other great talent was her ability to talk with government leaders, including President Clinton, as equals in terms they understood. Perhaps the high point of these activities was her discussions with Soviet President Gorbachev in 1988. Randy advanced ideas on conventional disarmament which Gorbachev later promoted in talks which led to the 1971 Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), the largest disarmament agreement in history.

Randy was the founder of Global Action to Prevent War, calling on Saul Mendlovitz and Jonathan Dean to assist, but supplying the concept and the drive. Beginning in 1997, she gave the organization its name and pressed for establishment of a lasting structure. Randy worked day after day, word for word, sentence on sentence in hammering out the text of the Global Action Program Statement, the credo of Global Action, straining in each proposed measure to get the precise balance between aspiration and realism. Like us, Randy believed that, if the measures described in the Global Action Program Statement are carried out, this will fulfill the cautious, but triumphant culminating sentence of the statement, “At this point, we could reasonably say that war has been abolished.”

Randy passed away on the evening of October 19, 2007. We in Global Action believe that Randy Forsberg has, in her full life of leadership for peace, shown us a practical route to reach that goal. With many, many others, we are deeply grateful to her.

GLOBAL ACTION TO PREVENT WAR

[Shammu]

The First Committee Monitor
First Edition: 8-12 October 2007

Introduction

Over the last few years, the UN General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International Security has taken place after disappointing outcomes at the Conference on Disarmament (CD), the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, the World Summit, the Disarmament Commission, and the Small Arms and Light Weapons Review Conference. This year, the situation is not quite so bleak. While the CD closed its 2007 session without agreement on a programme of work, it inched closer than ever to a compromise, with nearly universal agreement on the package deal proposed by the Conference Presidents. In September, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Entry Into Force Conference reaffirmed the commitment of the States Parties to upholding and promoting the Treaty through eleven practical measures outlined in the Final Declaration. The first Preparatory Committee of the 2010 NPT review cycle, after days of procedural wrangling, allowed for interactive exchange between delegations—as the Cuban delegation pointed out this week, “amidst the current impasse and backward steps in the area of disarmament, many believe that having had the opportunity to talk is, per se, a success.”

After the first week of General Debate, most delegations appear optimistic about the possibilities before them. While buzz around the foremost issue in the CD, the Fissile Materials Cut-off Treaty, is largely quiet and cautious, there are some other interesting developments on the horizon. The delegations from Chile, New Zealand, Nigeria, Sweden, and Switzerland intend to table a draft resolution calling on the nuclear weapon states to remove their nuclear weapons from “launch on warning” status (de-alerting). This initiative can be seen as a step towards building a positive outcome to the 2010 NPT review cycle. Cuba, meanwhile, is working to garner support for a draft resolution on the effects of the use of armaments and ammunitions containing depleted uranium (DU), which has been another issue of great concern to civil society for years. (See RCW's DU resources, including a report on the recent Fourth International Conference on DU Weapons.)

Outside of the First Committee, other initiatives such as the Oslo Process on cluster munitions, continuing work on the Arms Trade Treaty, and the ongoing campaign to establish a fourth special session on disarmament at the UN, have been receiving strong support from governments, diplomats, and civil society.

However, these initiatives are taking place against a rather stormy backdrop. Military spending has reached astronomical heights, with global expenditures over US$1 trillion per year and the military-industrial complex profiting from mass destruction more than ever before. Meanwhile, Millennium Development Goals are far from being met, and most donor countries (high income states) have not met their 0.7% development assistance pledge. Violent armed conflicts continue to be waged throughout the world, nuclear weapon modernization programmes proceed despite disarmament obligations, aggressive military posturing has increased geopolitical tensions, and insecurity, for the entire international community, is arguably at an all-time high.

In particular, the US-India deal, which Pakistan suggested was the basis for its opposition to the proposed programme of work in the CD, represents a step backwards for non-proliferation and disarmament. It allows for India to increase its nuclear weapons, fissile materials, and delivery systems, and does not restrict India from resuming nuclear testing. By giving India access to the benefits of the NPT membership without making it sign the Treaty or adhere to its tenets, the deal undermines the NPT at a time when the regime is facing other crises and needs support to retain its credibility and functionality. (See RCW's fact sheet on the US-India deal.) Meanwhile, tensions with Iran over its nuclear programme continue to grow: despite the work plan finalized between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iran in August to resolve all outstanding issues related to Iran's past nuclear activities, the United States and France have been pushing for a third Security Council sanctions resolution in response to Iran's continued uranium enrichment programme. (See the Nuclear Proliferation report.)

However, one year after the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) conducted its first nuclear weapon test, the government has agreed to dismantle its nuclear weapons programme and has shut down and sealed its sole plutonium-producing reactor in Yongbyon under IAEA supervision. The success to date of the six-party talks demonstrates the potential and importance of multilateral diplomacy as the only legitimate, credible, and fair way to engage with contentious issues of disarmament and non-proliferation. It also exemplifies the effect that international diplomacy can have in overcoming the problems created by conflicting national security priorities, priorities which often undermine the collective human security that multilateral fora such as the First Committee strive to protect.

First Committee is often met by delegates and civil society alike with weariness or even apathy, as time-hardened positions have given rise to a number of static annual resolutions that are tabled and voted on year after year. However, the First Committee is the best place for states to build consensus on the issues, to reach common understandings, and to agree on norms of behaviour and principles of cooperation—respect for which we could all benefit from.

- Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will

Cont'd next post

[Shammu]

Nuclear Disarmament

While bemoaning the lack of progress in multilateral disarmament—nuclear and otherwise—many delegates in the General Debate of the First Committee nonetheless found reasons to be more optimistic about the future of nuclear disarmament. South Korean Ambassador Kim Hyun Chong told the Committee, “For too long, the multilateral disarmament agenda has been in disarray, with no substantive progress in the major non-proliferation and disarmament negotiations… This must be changed. The international community has an urgent responsibility to reverse the failures and shortcomings of the multilateral disarmament community.”

In a reference to the decisions by some nuclear weapon states to go forward with new generations of weapons, Ambassador Glaudine Mtshali of South Africa said she was “disappointed that nuclear weapon states have not used the opportunity presented by the renewal of weapons systems to give effect to their disarmament obligations.” Indonesia's delegation complained about “the lack of leadership on the part of the nuclear weapon states” in eliminating nuclear weapons.

Speaking on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition (NAC), Ambassador Luis De Alba of Mexico said that despite continuing reliance on nuclear weapons in military doctrines, the NAC “nevertheless sees some modest signs that might positively evolve to create the conditions for the adoption of specific measures leading to the elimination of the threat of nuclear weapons and to strengthening of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.” Those measures included the improved climate at the first session of the NPT preparatory committee this spring. He added that success in 2010 had to be built on “full respect for and implementation of” all of the commitments made at the 1995 and 2000 review conferences, including the “unequivocal undertaking” by the nuclear weapon states to eliminate their arsenals and the resolution on the Middle East.

De Alba said the NAC would submit a draft resolution on nuclear disarmament issues this year. Japan's delegation said it would submit its annual draft resolution “that maps out concrete measures towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons.” No specifics were offered on either draft.

Other non-nuclear weapon states presented their priorities that they wanted to see the nuclear weapon states pursue, from items as immediate as a follow-on treaty between the United States and Russia on strategic arms to the more ambitious call for negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention. The African Group said the international community “should agree on the commencement without further delay of multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of [a nuclear weapons convention]. In order to realize the objective, the Group calls on nuclear weapon states to commit themselves to stopping the qualitative improvement, development, production and stockpiling of nuclear warheads and their delivery systems.”

Norway's Ambassador Aas said, “We must not abandon a comprehensive nuclear disarmament agenda. My government welcomes ongoing reductions in nuclear arsenals. We hope and expect that the START treaty will be strengthened following its expiration in 2009, and the same should be said for the SORT treaty due to expire in 2012.”

For their part, the United States and the Russian Federation argued they were making significant strides in fulfilling their disarmament obligations, including a replacement for START. Ambassador Antonov of Russia said the two counties were “maintaining a dialogue … on a new arrangement to replace this treaty. US Ambassador Christina Rocca said Washington “has been fully engaged with our Russian partners in devising a post-START framework for over a year.” Rocca added, “We are hopeful that we will be able to carry forward those concepts from the treaty that may still be useful, while developing new concepts more in tune with our new strategic relationship.” They also agreed that they had made deep cuts in the nuclear arsenals since the end of the Cold War. There were few other issues on which the two delegations agreed.

“Today we acknowledge that disarmament is at crisis,” Antonov said, “The stability of its international legal basis is threatened. We have to state that some treaties are not functioning properly, others are eroding and decaying – treaty vacuum is about to come to the area of strategic arms.” He also spoke of the “inherent interconnection between strategic offensive and defensive missile arrangement” and said the “unilateral plans” for missile defenses and space weaponization by the US “would adversely affect the disarmament process.”

Rocca touted the reductions the US is making in nuclear forces, saying that by 2012 the US stockpile will be “nearly one quarter of what it was at the end of the Cold War.” She dismissed as untrue charges leveled at the United States that Washington had abandoned the START process, has nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, had not fulfilled its commitments under the 1990-91 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives and was increasing the role of nuclear weapons in strategic doctrines.

- Jim Wurst, Middle Powers Initiative

cont'd next post

[Shammu]

Nuclear Proliferation

The nuclear programmes in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and Iran once again dominated discussion on nuclear proliferation in the General Debate of the UN General Assembly First Committee (see separate report on the DPRK’s nuclear programme). Contrary to exhortations of unity of the international community on the issue of Iran’s nuclear programme, the discussion in the General Debate revealed a high degree of divergence. On the broader issue of proliferation, most delegations reaffirmed their support for existing non-proliferation initiatives and repeated well-worn concerns and disagreements regarding a balanced implementation of priorities. Overall, delegations presented no new ideas, likely foreshadowing a continuation of the haphazard and selective approach to these issues, as warned of by such individuals as former Secretary-General Kofi Annan and former International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Hans Blix, and the pursuit of solutions based solely on national objectives.

Iran
Divergences were readily apparent in the approach of the P5 on the issue of Iran, despite the 28 September P5+2 statement in which the major powers agreed to seek a third sanctions resolution in the UN Security Council unless reports from the IAEA and the EU High Representative show progress in November. The United States again adopted the hardest line against Iran and called outright for the UN Security Council to “move forward as soon as possible to adopt a third resolution under Chapter VII imposing additional sanctions measures.”

Although the EU's delegation called upon Iran to “respond positively and swiftly to the demands of the international community … in particular by suspending its enrichment related and reprocessing activities,” and endorsed the 28 September P5+2 statement, it more positively expressed hope “that the discussions between the IAEA and Iran on outstanding issues will, at least by November, meet the targets laid down by the 'work plan'.” The EU made no reference to an additional sanctions resolution, however, it expressed “resolve not to allow Iran to acquire military nuclear capabilities and to see to all consequences of its nuclear programme, in terms of proliferation, resolved,” without further specification as to what such “resolution” might entail.

The Russian Federation and China's delegations both placed emphasis on diplomatic and political solutions to addressing the Iran nuclear situation, without reference to the imposition of additional sanctions or the 28 September P5+2 statement, perhaps an indication of lukewarm support for continued escalation of the situation. Russia's Ambassador Antonov called for a “comprehensive approach … to the situation around the Iranian nuclear program.” He further called for a “comprehensive political and diplomatic solution” and “for intensifying contacts between the Six Parties and Iran in order to elaborate the models that would allow to launch such purpose-oriented full-scale negotiations process.” China's Ambassador Cheng Jingye implored all parties to “show flexibility, exercise patience and stick to the course of peaceful resolution in seeking a comprehensive, long-term and appropriate solution” to the Iran situation.

Other Western delegations that spoke out on Iran tended to take an approach closer to that of the EU. Canada and New Zealand emphasized a need for Iran to comply fully with UN Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007), a reference to Iran’s refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment programme. Delegations affiliated with the Non-Aligned Movement, of which Iran is a member, universally adopted a softer tone, welcoming the agreement between Iran and the IAEA to resolve outstanding issues. Additionally, without direct reference to Iran, Non-Aligned delegates generally called for balanced and comprehensive pursuit of non-proliferation objectives and reaffirmed the right expressed in Article IV of the NPT to peaceful development and use of nuclear energy. Ambassador Aziz of Egypt observed the international community was witnessing “efforts aimed at preventing the non-nuclear-weapon-States from their inalienable right in the peaceful applications of nuclear technology.” Indonesia’s Ambassador Asmady stated, “We believe that the international community should not be skeptical of the activities of certain states—which are parties—in building peaceful nuclear programs as long as they will not be diverted into military purposes.”

Other non-proliferation initiatives
Various delegations reaffirmed their support for a variety of other non-proliferation initiatives, particularly those aimed at preventing non-state acquisition of WMD or related materials, including Security Council resolution 1540 (2004) and 1673 (2006), the Proliferation Security Initiative, and the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. The latter met in Kazakhstan in June and has expanded its membership to 60 states. The delegation of South Africa expressed skepticism about these approaches, describing non-inclusive, non-UN based initiatives as “coalitions of the willing,” referring to the ill-fated alliance of states that continues to be bogged down combating an extended insurgency in Iraq. Related to proliferation by state actors, the EU called for a strengthened role of the UN Security Council so that “it can take appropriate action in the event of non-compliance, inter alia, with NPT obligations,” an expansion of the Council’s historical mandate, which is limited to matters that affect international peace and security.

The efficacy of selective approaches to proliferation continued to be questioned amid calls for comprehensive approaches that are inclusive and address root causes of insecurity. Arab states in particular emphasized the growing imbalance in the pursuit of non-proliferation objectives. Ambassador Aziz charged some states with “attaching the priority for non-proliferation while ignoring nuclear disarmament.” Ambassador Al-Nasser of Qatar cautioned, “The selective use of rules of non-proliferation constitutes a driving force towards proliferation and the race to achieve a deterrence capability.”

- Michael Spies, Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy

cont'd next post

[Shammu]

Nuclear Energy and the Fuel Cycle

Amid the ongoing dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme and anticipation of a global renaissance in nuclear energy, the issue of the nuclear fuel cycle featured prominently in the General Debate of the First Committee. Discussion regarding attempts to rein in the spread of the nuclear fuel cycle due to proliferation concerns was met with equal concern over the uneven implementation of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the erosion of rights of member states, pitting the concerns of the industrialized North against the “needs” of the developing South.

The range of disagreement on the issue underscores its complexity and the difficulty states will face in managing the risks inherent in the global spread of nuclear power and proliferation-sensitive nuclear technologies. As a new complication in the already troubled waters of the debate over the future of the nuclear fuel cycle, the US-India deal was cited by several key delegations as a negative development. In attempts to deal with these issues, the First Committee heard both familiar calls for strengthening existing non-proliferation initiatives and announcement of a new one, namely a joint Russian/Kazakh facility to enrich uranium to fuel nuclear reactors.

Worry over the implications for proliferation and international security came primarily from developed states with advanced nuclear programmes and infrastructures. Responding to concerns stemming from additional states acquiring nuclear fuel cycle capabilities, and with it the capability to produce fissile materials usable in nuclear weapons, Ambassador Aas of Norway cautioned, “We must ensure that an expansion of nuclear energy is not at the expense of the non-proliferation regime and international peace and security.” US Ambassador Rocca quoted Mohammed ElBaradei as saying the spread of sensitive nuclear technology is the “Achilles Heel” of the nuclear non-proliferation regime.

Reaction from the delegations of Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) and developing states revealed tension over approaches taken by developed states on the nuclear fuel cycle, amplified by negative implications for the NPT inherent in the US-India deal. Ambassador Aziz of Egypt obliquely criticized some states for their “efforts aimed at preventing the non-nuclear-weapon-States from their inalienable right in the peaceful applications of nuclear technology.” In addition to affirming the right of states to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, Indonesian Ambassador Natalegawa, on behalf of NAM, emphasized “the responsibility of developed countries [is] to support the legitimate requirement of developing countries for nuclear energy.”

Referring to the US-India deal and its conflict with the core bargain of the NPT, Ambassador Aziz asked rhetorically, “How can that be given that such inalienable right represents the return for which non-nuclear-weapon-States have accepted to permanently give-up the military nuclear option?” Also in reference to the deal and worries that the rights of NPT member states are being steadily eroded in the name of non-proliferation, Ambassador Asmady of Indonesia pointed out:

"It would be more logical if nuclear cooperation could be rewarded exclusively to parties to the treaty. Any cooperation with non-state parties does not only undermine the NPT regime but also provides less incentive for those state parties willing to comply fully with the provisions of the treaty, particularly where those faithful parties are faced with incremental obstacles to pursuing peaceful uses of nuclear energy by the unilateral imposition of strict restriction on export of nuclear materials."

Avoiding the debate over the future of the nuclear fuel cycle, Ambassador Mtshali of South Africa called for strengthening regulatory approaches and safety regulations on the spread of nuclear energy. Although Ambassador Mtshali declined to state her country’s position on the matter, South Africa occupies a important position as a country that has expressed interest in enriching uranium domestically, and has rejected participation in the US Global Nuclear Energy Partnership programme.

Despite lack of agreement among key states, several initiatives focused on the nuclear fuel cycle continue to move forward. The delegations of Russia and Kazakhstan announced their countries had established the International Centre for Uranium Enrichment in Angarsk, Russia. According to Russia's Ambassador Antonov, the centre is intended to “provide states with the opportunity to have guaranteed access to the capacities for uranium enrichment to satisfy their needs in nuclear fuel without the need to have their own nuclear fuel cycle,” open to all states “without any political preconditions.” Ambassador Antonov also announced Russia and the United States had recently proposed merging existing initiatives, all toward the purpose of providing “reliable supply of nuclear fuel on the basis of international cooperation as an alternative to proliferation of sensitive technologies.” Rather than calling for new measures, Ambassador Mackay of New Zealand reiterated a standard call to strengthen existing measures by calling for implementation of safeguards and the Additional Protocol to be a condition of nuclear supply.

- Michael Spies, Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy

cont'd next post

[Shammu]

International Court of Justice

In 1996, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), sometimes referred to as the World Court, rendered an advisory opinion in which it affirmed the general illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons and the universal obligation to achieve complete nuclear disarmament. Every year since then, the Malaysian delegation has introduced a draft resolution in the First Committee on follow-up to the ICJ advisory opinion calling for the implementation of the disarmament obligation through the commencement of multilateral negotiations that would culminate in a Nuclear Weapons Convention–an international treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons and providing for their verified elimination. On 8 October, Malaysia announced that it would again be introducing such a resolution to this UN General Assembly.

Despite strong support for the resolution, including from several states possessing nuclear weapons, there appears to have been minimal efforts by the nuclear weapon states (NWS) to take steps on its implementation. Multilateral negotiations on steps towards nuclear abolition have been blocked in the Conference on Disarmament (CD) – as has the proposal to merely commence deliberations on nuclear disarmament as part of the CD draft program for work (the A5 proposal). In addition, the NWS maintain robust policies for the threat or use of nuclear weapons, as well as programs for the upkeep, replacement, and even modernization of weapons into the indefinite future.

On the other hand, the NWS—particularly the United States, United Kingdom, and France—have claimed at nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) Conferences and Preparatory Committee meetings that they have been implementing their disarmament obligations through such actions as halting nuclear testing and reducing stockpiles.

In order to place additional attention on the legal obligation to pursue and achieve complete nuclear disarmament, Indonesia told the First Committee on 10 October: “[W]e will not relent in urging [the nuclear weapons states] to continue to take the necessary steps to achieve further progress on nuclear disarmament in a verifiable and irreversible manner, including perhaps by requesting the ICJ to render its advisory opinion on the nuclear disarmament obligation of all states.”

This idea of returning to the ICJ was floated by the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) in 2005 and was the subject of informal consultations and workshops during the 2006 UN General Assembly and the 2007 NPT Prep Com. In Return to the International Court of Justice: A Strategy to Break the Stalemate, Dr. John Burroughs explains that a follow-up case in the ICJ would allow the Court to clarify what good faith negotiation of nuclear disarmament requires of governments. Dr. Burroughs also notes that the ICJ would most likely a) indicate that states possessing nuclear weapons have not been adequately fulfilling the obligation; b) assess whether specific policies and practices, for example modernization of arsenals and expansion of options for use of nuclear weapons, are consistent with the 2000 NPT commitments to a diminishing role of nuclear weapons in security policies and the disarmament obligation, against the background of the Court’s 1996 finding of general illegality of threat or use; and c) confirm that the disarmament obligation applies to all states, including those outside the NPT - Israel, India, and Pakistan. In addition, returning to the ICJ would demonstrate that “the 1996 opinion is not an anomaly, to be discarded in the dustbin of history, but rather a living reality.” It would also provide a possibility to highlight, in the press and public conscience, the issue of nuclear weapons and the legal responsibilities of the NWS, and thus help revitalize the global nuclear abolition movement.

An indication of the significance of such a return case was given on 2 October when Christopher Weeramantry, President of IALANA and former Vice-President of the ICJ, was awarded the 2007 Right Livelihood Award, with specific mention being made by the Right Livelihood Award Foundation to Judge Weeramantry’s leadership in this initiative to take a follow-up case in the ICJ.

There are some concerns in the proposal to return to the ICJ. One is that a new opinion could undermine the strong statement of the disarmament obligation in the 1996 opinion. However, there is every indication that the ICJ would build on the 1996 opinion rather than revisit it. Since 1996, the States Parties of the NPT have agreed on a set of disarmament steps (the 13 practical steps agreed to in 2000) that give substance to the disarmament obligation. The Court would likely reinforce these and provide legal impetus for their implementation.

Another concern is that is that the Court may have difficulty dealing with the complexities of implementation of disarmament, and may therefore refuse to do so or do so inadequately. However, IALANA believes that there are clear legal principles involving general implementation of obligations that the ICJ would apply to the nuclear disarmament obligation, and that in doing so would strengthen the legal pressure for such implementation.

Finally, there is concern that an opinion from the ICJ would be ignored by the NWS and thus diminish the status of the Court, or at the very least be a waste of time. Regarding the standing of courts, it is generally accepted that their role is to establish what the law is regardless of whether such an opinion is accepted by key actors. Dr. Burroughs notes, “in the words of U.S. Chief Justice Marshall in the landmark 1803 opinion, Marbury v. Madison, words which have shaped the evolution of constitutional law in the United States: 'It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.'” Indeed, once the law has been established, implementation depends on a range of factors and actors. The 1996 ICJ opinion may have had only minimal impact to date on the policies of the NWS (possibly more impact on the UK than the other states), but has been very significant in strengthening the hand of the non-nuclear weapon States including the New Agenda Coalition, and in energizing and motivating civil society–including through citizens weapons inspections of ‘illegal’ nuclear facilities, in a number of domestic anti-nuclear court cases, and in promoting a nuclear weapons convention.

Thus, IALANA has been joined by a number of other international NGOs in supporting diplomatic efforts to achieve a United Nations General Assembly resolution in 2008 requesting the ICJ for an advisory opinion on compliance issues related to the nuclear disarmament obligation.

- Alyn Ware, International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms

cont'd next post