Takeya Sasaki
President, Japan Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (JALANA)

The Object of the Statement
The International Court of Justice, on October 5, handed down judgments and dismissed the Applications filed by the Republic of the Marshall Islands against nuclear-armed states: the UK, India, and Pakistan; attributing to “absence of a dispute between parties.” The Japan Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (JALANA) hereby lodges a protest against these decisions.

Reasons for the Protest
(1 through 5 Omitted.)
6. JALANA cannot see these decisions convictive, because it is clear that there is a dispute over interpretation of treaties and international laws between the Marshall Islands, which have suffered nuclear tests; and the UK, India, and Pakistan, which are nuclear-armed states. In the first place, there is no positive reason for refusal of the Marshall Islands’ claims in the way of interpreting Article 36 of the ICJ Statute. In the end, the Court misinterpreted Article 36 of its Statute and gave up a legal decision on what form nuclear disarmament should take under international law.
7. This position of the International Court of Justice has set back its own Advisory Opinion issued in July 1996. The Paragraph(2)F of the dispositif of the Advisory Opinion recommended not only an “obligation to pursue negotiations in good faith” but also an “obligation to bring them to a conclusion” regarding effective measures on nuclear disarmament in Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Throughout these lawsuits the Marshall Islands demanded the nuclear weapons states to implement this Advisory Opinion. The Court did not admit the Applications based on the Advisory Opinion.
(The rest is omitted.)