INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
Peace Palace, Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands
Tel.: +31 (0)70 302 2323 Fax: +31 (0)70 364 9928
Website: www.icj-cij.org

Press Release
UnofficialNo. 2014/18
25 April 2014

The Republic of the Marshall Islands files Applications against nine States
for their alleged failure to fulfil their obligations with respect tothe cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date
and to nuclear disarmament

THE HAGUE, 25 April 2014. The Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands
yesterday simultaneously filed in the Registry of the Court separate Applications against nineStates (in alphabetical order: China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, France, India,Israel, Pakistan, the Russian Federation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Irelandand the United States of America) accusing them of not fulfilling their obligations with respect tothe cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.
While these nine Applications all relate to the same matter, the Republic of the MarshallIslands distinguishes between those three States (India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom of GreatBritain and Northern Ireland) which have recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court(pursuant to Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute of the Court), and those which have not done so.
Within each of these two groups, the Republic of the Marshall Islands further distinguishes
between those States which have currently ratified the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons (hereafter: “NPT”), and those which have not done so. The Republic of the MarshallIslands recalls that it acceded to that Treaty as a Party on 30 January 1995.
A. Bases for the Court’s jurisdiction invoked by the Applicant
1. In respect of India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom
In support of its Applications against India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom of GreatBritain and Northern Ireland, the Applicant invokes, as basis for the Court’s jurisdiction,
Article 36, paragraph 2, of its Statute, referring to the declarations accepting the compulsory
jurisdiction of the Court made under that provision by the Republic of the Marshall Islands(24 April 2013), by India (18 September 1974), by Pakistan (13 September 1960) and by theUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (5 July 2004).-2In accordance with Article 38, paragraph 4, of the Rules of Court, the Application of theRepublic of the Marshall Islands has been transmitted to the governments of India, Pakistan and theUnited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Under the terms of that provision: “TheRegistrar shall forthwith transmit to the respondent a certified copy of the application.”
Each of the cases will be entered in the General List.
The full text of the Applications of the Republic of the Marshall Islands against the three
States in question will be available shortly on the Court’s website (www.icj-cij.org, under theheading “Cases”/“Pending Cases”). The full text of the above-mentioned declarations accepting
the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court can also be found online, under the heading “Jurisdiction”.
2. In respect of the six other States
With respect to the six other States (China, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea,France, Israel, the Russian Federation and the United States of America), the Republic of theMarshall Islands seeks to found the Court’s jurisdiction, pursuant to Article 38, paragraph 5, of theRules of Court, on the consent of those States. Under the terms of that provision:“When the applicant State proposes to found the jurisdiction of the Court upon aconsent thereto yet to be given or manifested by the State against which suchapplication is made, the application shall be transmitted to that State. It shall not
however be entered in the General List, nor any action be taken in the proceedings,
unless and until the State against which such application is made consents to theCourt’s jurisdiction for the purposes of the case.”
In accordance with Article 38, paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court, the Applications of theRepublic of the Marshall Islands have been transmitted to the six Governments concerned. Unlessand until consent is given to the Court’s jurisdiction, there is no case to be entered in the General
List.
B. The Applicant’s claims
1. Of the three cases instituted today by the Republic of the Marshall Islands, one concernsa State party to the NPT (United Kingdom), and the other two relate to States not parties to theNPT (India and Pakistan).
In relation to the United Kingdom, the Republic of the Marshall Islands invokes breaches ofArticle VI of the NPT, which provides that: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue
negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at anearly date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament understrict and effective international control.” The Republic of the Marshall Islands contends that “bynot actively pursuing negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of thenuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, the Respondent has breached andcontinues to breach its legal duty to perform its obligations under the [1968 Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty] and customary international law in good faith”. The Applicant furtheraccuses the United Kingdom of, inter alia, opposing United Nations General Assembly resolutions
calling for negotiations to begin; adopting a “negative and obstructive” conduct with regard to thecessation of the nuclear arms at an early date; and repeatedly declaring its intention to rely on their
nuclear arsenal for decades to come.

-3In addition, the Applicant requests the Court to order the United Kingdom to take all steps
necessary to comply with its obligations under Article VI of the NPT and under customaryinternational law within one year of the Judgment, including the pursuit, by initiation if necessary,of negotiations in good faith aimed at the conclusion of a convention on nuclear disarmament in all
its aspects under strict and effective international control.
In relation to India and Pakistan, the Republic of the Marshall Islands asserts that “theobligations enshrined in Article VI of the NPT are not merely treaty obligations; they also exist
separately under customary international law” and “apply to all States as a matter of customaryinternational law”. The Applicant contends that “by engaging in conduct that directly conflicts
with the obligations of nuclear disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date,[India and Pakistan have] breached and continue to breach [their] legal duty to perform [their]
obligations under customary international law in good faith”. The Applicant accuses India andPakistan of, inter alia, engaging in a course of conduct, the quantitative build-up and qualitative
improvement of their nuclear forces, contrary to the objective of nuclear disarmament; beingengaged in all-out nuclear arms racing; encouraging other States possessing nuclear weapons tofollow suit and potentially inducing non-nuclear-weapon States to reconsider their non-nuclear
posture; and manifesting an intention to rely on their nuclear arsenals for decades to come.
The Applicant further requests the Court to order the Respondents to take all steps necessary
to comply with their obligations under customary international law with respect to cessation of thenuclear arms race at an early date and nuclear disarmament within one year of the Judgment,including the pursuit, by initiation if necessary, of negotiations in good faith aimed at theconclusion of a convention on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective
international control.
2. In respect of the six States which have been invited by the Republic of the MarshallIslands to accept the Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to Article 38, paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court: as regards the States parties to the NPT (China, France, Russian Federation and United Statesof America), the Republic of the Marshall Islands asserts claims similar to those asserted
against the United Kingdom; as regards the States non-parties to the NPT (the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea andIsrael), the Republic of the Marshall Islands asserts claims similar to those asserted against
India and Pakistan.
___________
Note: The Court’s press releases are drafted by the Registry for information purposes onlyand do not constitute official documents.
___________The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.
It was established by the United Nations Charter in June 1945 and began its activities inApril 1946. The seat of the Court is at the Peace Palace in The Hague (Netherlands). Of the six
principal organs of the United Nations, it is the only one not located in New York. The Court has a
twofold role: first, to settle, in accordance with international law, legal disputes submitted to it byStates (its judgments have binding force and are without appeal for the parties concerned); and,

-4second, to give advisory opinions on legal questions referred to it by duly authorized UnitedNations organs and agencies of the system. The Court is composed of 15 judges elected for anine-year term by the General Assembly and the Security Council of the United Nations.
Independent of the United Nations Secretariat, it is assisted by a Registry, its own internationalsecretariat, whose activities are both judicial and diplomatic, as well as administrative. The official
languages of the Court are French and English. Also known as the “World Court”, it is the only
court of a universal character with general jurisdiction.
The ICJ, a court open only to States for contentious proceedings, and to certain organs andinstitutions of the United Nations system for advisory proceedings, should not be confused with theother  mostly criminal  judicial institutions based in The Hague and adjacent areas, such as theInternational Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY, an ad hoc court created by theSecurity Council), the International Criminal Court (ICC, the first permanent international criminal
court, established by treaty, which does not belong to the United Nations system), the Special
Tribunal for Lebanon (STL, an independent judicial body composed of Lebanese and international
judges, which is not a United Nations tribunal and does not form part of the Lebanese judicialsystem), or the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA, an independent institution which assists inthe establishment of arbitral tribunals and facilitates their work, in accordance with the Hague
Convention of 1899).
___________
Information Department:
Mr. Andrey Poskakukhin, First Secretary of the Court, Head of Department (+31 (0)70 302 2336)
Mr. Boris Heim, Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2337)
Ms Joanne Moore, Associate Information Officer (+31 (0)70 302 2394)
Ms Genoveva Madurga, Administrative Assistant (+31 (0)70 302 2396)