As history rolls forward, the past recedes – and with it our collective memory of certain achievements, and in our case, campaigns. One campaign that should not be lost to memory is the World Court Project – an international effort by civil society to secure a ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the threat or use of nuclear weapons. This was finally achieved in 1996. It did not eliminate all nuclear weapons – but then what else has? – and the Opinion itself was not perfect. However it certainly broke new ground and provided important tools for the movement to use. The story reminds us that each effort builds on the previous; we stand on the shoulders of those who led the way in earlier decades.
Background
The use of international law to limit warfare has a long history. The horrors of WW2 (including use of the atomic bomb) gave rise to the Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions and other instruments, primarily aimed at protecting civilians. The judgment of the London Nuclear Warfare Tribunal (1985) drew on all this and more in its condemnation of nuclear weapons from a legal standpoint. It also included the proposal of seeking an Advisory Opinion on the nuclear question from the World Court. This was echoed by N. Zealand lawyer Harold Evans in a landmark 1987 Open Letter to his own and the Australian governments. The MacBride Appeal, launched by the International Peace Bureau (IPB) in 1987, gathered the signatures of over 10,000 lawyers worldwide in condemning nuclear weapons.
One crucial realisation – which helped set in train the whole Project – was that Article 96 of the UN Charter allows for a request to the ICJ for an Advisory Opinion, without reference to the Security Council, thus by-passing the P5 veto.
Developing a campaign
Many strands came together in this late Cold War period. The UK’s World Court Project grouping was spawned by the establishment of the Institute for Law and Peace. WCP-UK specialised in collecting (with the help of CND activists and others) thousands of Declarations of Public Conscience, which were then presented en masse to the Court itself as evidence. The New Zealand group was especially active throughout the campaign, and has done the most to document the whole Project.
In addition, three international federations gave global scope and strength to the movement:
- IPB (a general peace network) organised the formal launch in Geneva (1992), and published the campaign guidebook: From Hiroshima to The Hague, by Keith Mothersson of the UK group.
- The International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) mobilised the lawyers – clearly a crucial role.
- The International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW) mobilised the health professionals, who proved a powerful allies in reaching governmental circles in very many countries.
It was all coordinated by the WCP International Steering Committee, communicating mostly by fax and early email connections. It meant building and nurturing a campaign community able to do effective public outreach, political lobbying and daily communications over a period of years.
Lobbying governments
Political and diplomatic work took place both at national level and at the main UN centres in New York and Geneva. The Non-Aligned Movement played a vital role in overcoming bullying by the nuclear-armed states. In the end the resolution was passed the UN General Assembly in 1994, and the issue referred to the Court. The ICJ hearings were held over several months, and WCP activists arranged for nuclear test victims and others to testify at The Hague.
The Advisory Opinion
The judges finally delivered their Opinion in mid-1996. It was a positive, but ultimately an imperfect, judgment:
(extract) “The threat or use of nuclear weapons would be generally contrary to the rules of international law…However…the Court cannot conclude definitively whether [they] would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.”
Despite a very detailed and impassioned Dissenting Opinion by Judge Weeramantry, the Opinion was dismissed out of hand by the nuclear-armed states. But the way the law protects non-combatants could no longer be ignored in the nuclear field – and with it the imperative of global abolition.
Legacy
The Advisory Opinion became a standard reference point was used/quoted in all manner of ways, including in repeated UNGA resolutions over many years, and by activist groups.
As for the movement itself: many of the key organisations in the WCP coalition then (in 1995) formed the core of theAbolition 2000 network, still active today. Among its key projects was the elaboration of a draft Nuclear Weapons Convention – a full-blown legal instrument that would regulate the disarmament process, including verification measures.
This in turn proved a useful model for the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons promoted by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), which entered into force in 2021 and will be familiar to many readers.
However it is worth noting that the TPNW is only binding on its signatories (currently 99, none of them nuclear states) whereas the WCP effort aimed to secure a ruling based on universal international law principles (known as customary law and peremptory norms).
Anniversary event: A public event commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Advisory Opinion will be held on July 8-9, 2026 in The Hague.
For a fuller history see: https://legacy.disarmsecure.org/publications/papers/the_world_court_project_history_and_consequences.php
