World Courts Decision On Nuclear Weapons

EDM number 1137 in 1995-96, proposed by Austin Mitchell on 10/07/1996.

That this House welcomes the decision by the World Court, made at the request of the UN General Assembly, that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be 'contrary to the rules of international law' except in an extreme circumstance of self defence threatening the survival of the state, and the Court's further insistence that the nuclear weapons states should honour their obligation 'to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict international control', points out that these decisions were taken despite intense pressure from the nuclear weapons states not to rule at all and despite the dissent of judges from those states and emphasises the momentous consequences of the decisions in that it is now incumbent on Her Majesty's Government to put up positive proposals for getting rid of nuclear weapons and furthering world nuclear disarmament, on NATO to abandon the option to use nuclear weapons first, and on Britain and France to disavow any doctrine threatening the use of low yield weapons if 'vital interests are at risk'; and notes that the British judge effectively outlawed use of Trident in her dissenting argument that 'a weapon would be unlawful per se if it is incapable of being targeted at a military objective only'.

This motion has been signed by a total of 43 MPs.