Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 Nov 1996

Vol. 472 No. 2

Written Answers. - Hague International Court of Justice Declaration.

Ray Burke

Ceist:

92 Mr. R. Burke asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs the Government's and the EU's response to the declaration issued by the Hague International Court of Justice on 8 July 1996, which stated that the use or threat of nuclear weapons is illegal and that all States have a legal obligation to undertake nuclear disarmament; and the steps, if any, the Government has taken in its capacity as EU President to enforce the findings of the Court. [22838/96]

Tánaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Spring)

The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on 8 July 1996 ruled on the casting vote of the President of the Court that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principals and rules of humanitarian law. However, the Court could not conclude definitely whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake.

An important aspect of the opinion was that the Court unanimously concluded that there exists an obligation on nuclear weapons states to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.

I believe that the examination by the Court of the question of the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons has provided compelling arguments for further and deeper consideration of the moral and legal framework on which the possible use of nuclear weapons has been premised in the postwar period.

The international community had its first opportunity to consider the implications of this advisory opinion at the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly in New York earlier this month. Ireland voted in favour of the resolution tabled there, joining Sweden and New Zealand as the only three Western countries to do so. The resolution was carried with 94 countries voting in favour, 22 countries voting against and 29 countries abstaining. European Union countries voted as follows: Sweden and Ireland voted in favour, Austria, Denmark and Finland abstained, and the other ten countries all voted against.

Ireland voted in favour of this resolution in order to underline our view that the present moment, in the wake of the court's opinion, offers a particular opportunity for a new signal of resolve to pursue the goal of complete nuclear disarmament and our firm intention to support all efforts in good faith to that end.

The resolution was not however a perfect one as is shown by the number of countries abstaining and voting against. The particular means of pursuing negotiations leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons, contained in operative paragraph 4 of the resolution — viz. multilateral negotiations in 1997 leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination — are not the sole possible means of achieving this end and the vote showed that they do not command the agreement of all delegations. In our view, what is needed is a firm call on the international community to consider further the fundamental and challenging questions which the advisory opinion poses.