Vol. 451 No. 5
16 Mr. R. Burke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs if he intends to respond to the World Court's invitation to States to make submissions on the United Nations General Assembly's theme related to whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance is permitted under international law. [6900/95]
United Nations General Assembly Resolution 49/75K of 15 December 1994 requested the International Court of Justice to render its advisory opinion on the question: "Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstances permitted under international law?" The Government has received an invitation from the court to make a submission before 20 June 1995. The response to this invitation is now under consideration.
It will be recalled that the World Health Assembly, in Resolution 46/40 of 14 May 1993, requested the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on whether the use of nuclear weapons by a state in war or other armed conflict would be a breach of its obligations under international law, including the Constitution of the World Health Organisation. As Deputies will be aware, Ireland responded on 9 June last year to the invitation of the International Court of Justice by making a submission on the matter.
It is still unclear what procedure the court intends to follow in handling the two similar, but not identical, referrals. Since it is possible that the court will decide to combine its consideration of the two cases, the precise procedure that it adopts will be relevant to the Government's decision on whether or not an additional submission by Ireland would be helpful to the court. We are currently seeking clarification from the court on this procedural point.
The Government's objective in this matter will be to ensure that, in preparing its advisory opinion or opinions, the court is fully aware of the approach of successive Irish Governments with respect to nuclear weapons — namely, to work by every means open to them, towards the aim of the ultimate abolition of nuclear weapons.
Now that chemical and biological weapons are outlawed, will the Tánaiste accept that the next logical step is for the International Court of Justice to make a judgment banning the use of nuclear weapons also? Will he welcome such a decision by the International Court of Justice? In view of our people's objections to the possession of nuclear weapons and in the light of our key role vis-á-vis the Non-Proliferation Treaty, will the Tánaiste agree that we should respond clearly and forthrightly, outlining our abhorrence of the use of nuclear weapons, stating we want them banned as are chemical and biological weapons?
The Deputy will be well aware of the policy of the present and successive Irish Governments, our ultimate aim being the abolition of nuclear weapons. In that respect any steps that can be taken by the International Court of Justice or the United Nations to ensure an ultimate ban will be welcomed, and we shall continue to work in that direction.
Will the Tánaiste explain why, when the International Court of Justice sought the views of nations worldwide, 21 nations argued that any use of nuclear weapons would be illegal but Ireland simply wanted the question answered. What was the significance of that approach by our Government, as distinct from seeking a straight ban which we should have sought?
One must draw a distinction between the issues submitted by the World Health Assembly and those submitted by the United Nations General Assembly. The question submitted by the World Health Assembly relates to the use of nuclear weapons only, with particular reference to the health and environmental effects, while that submitted to the United Nations General Assembly extends to the threat of use as well as to the use of nuclear weapons, so there is a distinction. We would need to be careful not to confuse the issues before the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference to be held in New York in a fortnight's time and those before the International Court of Justice. In terms of the general area, there are some similarities but we must make progress at the conference in New York. Some people have endeavoured to link the question before the International Court of Justice with the Non-Proliferation Treaty. That would be unwise.
If the International Court of Justice confirms that the threat and-or use of nuclear weapons is illegal, would the Tánaiste agree this would strengthen Article 6 of the Non-Proliferation Treaty and accelerate progress to a nuclear weapons convention, using the widely acclaimed chemical weapons convention as a blueprint?
I would agree with that if the court so finds.
