IN FOCUS

Fifty years after Hiroshima, the
International Court of Justice (ICJ)
is now hearing arguments on
whether there can be a circumstance in which any country can
legitimately be allowed to use a
nuclear weapon against another.
The arguments have been polarised
between the nuclear haves and
have-nots. And as with any other
precious thing, the haves are refusing to let go.

This is an unusual case, in fact.
Some feel it is a purely theoretical
exercise. Others hold that this concerns the future of humanity. But
more than anything else, the case is
unusual because it has not been
brought about by feuding governments, but through the action of
private citizens.

Nearlya decade ago, a group of
lawyers opposed to nukes decided
to organise sympathetic governments into a coalition at the UN
General Assembly and the World
Health Organization (WHO).
Aided by scientists and pressure
groups, they managed to persuade
majorities in both the bodies to
request the ICJ to adjudicate on
this. And though the decision will
not be legally binding, it could in
future form the basis for action by
the General Assembly and the
WHO. America and Britain stead-
fastly maintained that nukes could
be used legitimately, and the
British Attorney General reminded
the Courfof"the sombre but vital
role played...in support of international security over the last 50
years." He held that it could be
used for the "conquest...of the
most brutal and enslaving character". But, says Peter Weiss, an antinukes lawyer from New York, "Its a win-win situation." If ICJ says
nukes are legal, there'd be tremendous pressure from non-nuclear
states for a convention banning
them. And "if the court says the
weapons are illegal, many states
will ignore the ruling, which could
lead to perhaps an even greater
effort to force the adoption of a
convention." The hearings are on.