alt

Official statement from the government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands

“While these proceedings were initiated by a previous government administration, and have been carried forward, the Marshall Islands has – for decades – repeatedly reminded the international community that our own burden and experiences with nuclear detonation must never again be repeated – this includes Marshallese who petitioned the United Nations in 1954 and 1956 to cease the nuclear testing program during its status as a UN Trust Territory. Recent nuclear tests in North Korea are a stunning example of clearly unacceptable risks which remain with us all.

While it may be that there are several political pathways to sharply reducing – and eliminating – nuclear risk, further progress on nuclear disarmament appears stalled. Without further flexibility and political will by all sides of the table, and with all necessary actors – and without common agreement on a way forward, it is as though there is no visible path to a world free of nuclear weapons, and the peace and security which accompany it. Such a lack of progress is no way to honor or respond to the lesson that Marshallese people have offered the world.

We look forward to studying closely the Court’s opinion before commenting further.”

IALANA Deutschland  PM vom 7.10.16

IALANA Deutschland bedauert das Prozessurteil des Internationalen Gerichtshofs zu der Verpflichtung, das atomare Wettrüsten zu beenden und über eine vollständige atomare Abrüstung zu verhandeln. Mit der der Frage, ob die Atommächte gegen Ihre Pflicht zur Verhandlung eines nuklearen Abrüstungs-vertrags verstoßen, wird sich der Gerichtshof in dem von den Marshall Islands eingeleiteten Verfahren nun nicht mehr befassen.... Hier die vollständige PM vom 7.10.2016  als pdf   

Phon van den Biesen, Co-Agent of the Republic of the Marshall Islands

 “We are pleased that the Court recited its unanimous decision of 1996 that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. Likewise we are pleased that half of the judges of the highest court in the world confirmed, as the Marshall Islands alleged, that jurisdiction exists here. Nonetheless it is difficult to understand how eight judges could have found that no disputes existed in these cases when they were filed. So that is very disappointing. It is particularly worrying that the World Court cannot be unanimous on what it takes to establish a dispute in the context of nuclear disarmament.”

 

David Krieger, President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and a consultant to the RMI

“In bringing these lawsuits, Tony de Brum and the Marshall Islands have demonstrated the courage and determination to act and speak, based on conviction and bitter, tragic experience, for the benefit of all humankind. De Brum and the Marshall Islands made the choice to act in a constructive manner to find a path to end the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons. With the lawsuits, the Marshall Islands challenged the nuclear-armed states to show good faith in meeting the universal legal obligation to pursue and conclude negotiations on complete nuclear disarmament. The Marshall Islands itself has shown good faith fulfilment of that obligation in a dignified, respectful way, through court action.”


Aus: „Arms Control“ vom 31.10.2016 by Alicia Sanders-Zakre:  "Marshall Islands Lose Nuclear Cases“

The UK welcomed the decision and reasserted its strong record on nuclear disarmament and commitment to working toward a nuclear-weapon-free world, a UK Foreign Office spokesman told Arms Control Today in an Oct. 13 email. The Marshall Islands in a statement deplored the gridlocked disarmament negotiations, remarking that it was “no way to honor or respond to the lesson the Marshallese people have brought the world.”

A mushroom cloud forms after the first atomic bomb test explosion off the coast of Bikini Atoll, Marshall Islands, on July 1, 1946. The United States conducted 67 nuclear tests in the area during a 12-year period. (Photo credit: Keystone/Getty Images)

Despite the court decisions, representatives of the Marshall Islands said the cases brought the frustratingly slow pace of disarmament negotiations to the world’s attention. “The Marshall Islands’ bringing of these cases in and of itself is significant because it squarely challenged the nine nuclear states to comply with the legal obligation to pursue and conclude negotiations on nuclear disarmament,” John Burroughs, a member of the Marshall Islands’ legal team and the executive director of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, told Arms Control Today in a phone interview Oct. 12. Looking ahead, Burroughs recommended that the UN General Assembly request an advisory opinion from the court, akin to the one issued in 1996, that would expand on nuclear-armed states’ legal obligation to negotiate disarmament.

Zum Seitenanfang