|
|
|
| |
| |
Life Onboard |
LAST UPDATE
July 19, 2005
|
|
| site design imagesparkle.com |
| July 29, 2004 |
Judge Chris Weeramantry - Nuclear Weapons on Trial |
|
| |
 |
| Judge Weeramantry speaking to participants |
In 1996 several countries brought a lawsuit before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal
judicial organ of the UN located at the Hague, in the Netherlands. But this was no ordinary court
case - the use and possession of nuclear weapons was on trial. An ICJ member from 1991 to 2000, Judge
Chris Weeramantry was one of 14 judges that had the unusual and weighty job of evaluating nuclear
weapons, especially in a world that increasingly is questioning nuclear deterrence, the cold war theory
that the threat of using them can prevent large-scale war. As a Sri Lankan who has experienced 20
years of civil war in that nation, Weeramantry has a close understanding of conflict. |
|
|
 |
| Refugee camp in Sri Lanka |
Civil society organizations have long pushed for the abolition of nuclear weapons, which have been
tested over 2050 times by nuclear countries since the first bombs were dropped on Japan. With the
end of the cold war, more countries began to call these tests "acts of of anachronism." An
association supported by lawyers, called the International Peace Bureau, contacted UN ambassadors
from each nation. Only UN representatives have the right to appeal to the ICJ. The court took statements
from 22 countries, 15 of which called the use of nuclear weapons a violation of international law.
The Egyptian representative compared nuclear deterrence to a rampaging elephant and called for legal
restrictions to protect non-nuclear nations. |
| |
 |
| Niran Anketell and Sheamal Samarasekera, two Sri Lankan law students |
Weeramantry said that left to themselves, governments will only escalate nuclear standoffs and only
international law can eradicate nuclear weapons. "The nuclear nations have always gone on the
policy that its legal for them to have nuclear weapons, but not anybody else." Weeramantry was
one of the strongest supporters out of the 14 judges, asserting that nuclear arms are wrong no matter
what, because "They kill absolutely indiscriminately. They don't know the difference between
civilians and soldiers. And it is well known in international law that to precede with an attack you
know will kill civilians is illegal. That is a war crime. But a nuclear weapon definitely does this." |
| |
 |
| Muslim law student Shahina Zahir |
Weeramantry says its absurd that governments and leaders say they have no resources to feed or care
for the world's population, yet manage to have the resources to wage constant war. "They are
spending over $100 billion a year on machines of destruction. And much of the expertise in the world
is spent making these machines." The military industry is entrenched around the world, especially
nuclear nations, and markets war. "For each war means big profits for certain people and the
media is brainwashing the people into thinking this is good," said Weeramantry. Calling every
weapon bought a theft from society, he emphasized the role average people must take to reign in modern
warfare's exponentially destructive power. "Never has the responsibility lain so heavy on common
people to prevent their leaders from going to war than now." |
| |
|
Weeramantry thinks it is ironic that we view our ancestors as barbarians when ancient Muslims outlawed
poisoned arrows and early Christians outlawed cross bows "yet we say nuclear weapons are ok." Weeramantry
also strongly disagrees with academic criticism that peace is simply a utopian pipe dream. He argues
it is easier to talk more about war, because peace requires a more complex view of the world than
fatality and casualty statistics. "So we are content to let our leaders spend 100 billion on
such things when three or four billion would solve so many social problems." One example he gives
of this is the "clash of civilizations" some leaders are saying is coming. Extremely skeptical,
Weeramantry says this reveals an ignorance of Islamic culture. He thinks its ironic that many Westerners,
even diplomats, think that Islamic culture is incompatible with international law, although the first
writers on what is now described as international law were Islamic. |
| |
 |
| Shahina Zahir giving Singalese lessons |
Though a lawyer, he advocates mediation over lawsuits between individuals and governments. In a lawsuit,
even if someone wins, there is remaining animosity. The ICJ's eventual judgment called nuclear weapons
a violation of humanitarian law, but recognized nations right to self-defense, including the possession
of those weapons. An additional unanimous statement, however, stated that "all nations have an
obligation to carry out sincere discussions that lead to complete disarmament." Although the
resolution did not go as far as supporters had hoped, it was a victory in that the hearing brought
the issue out into the open. Weeramantry has since retired as a judge, but continues to work tirelessly
to bring about the change the ICJ's judgment did not fully realize, constantly remembering what a
child once told him : "Everyone in the world says we don't want nuclear weapons, but we still
have them. So someone must be telling a lie." |
| |
|
For more related information, please see the following links:
Weeramantry International Centre for Peace Education
and Research (WICPER) www.wicper.org
International Court of Justice
Nonviolent Peaceforce
International Peace Bureau
Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (LANA)
International Court of Justice
|
| |
|
|
|
