Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict | |
---|---|
![]() Emblem of the International Court of Justice | |
Court | International Court of Justice |
Full case name | Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons - Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996 |
Decided | 8 July 1996 |
Citation(s) | [1996] ICJ 3, ICJ Reports 1996, p 226; |
Case history | |
Prior action(s) | Denial of initial request for opinion submitted by the WHO [1996] ICJ 2, ICJ Reports 1996, p 66; |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Bedjaoui (President), Schwebel (Vice President), Oda, Guillaume, Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Flesichhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Ferrari Bravo, Higgins |
Case opinions | |
There is no specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons nor is there any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such. A threat or use of nuclear weapons contrary to the United Nations Charter is unlawful and such a threat or use should be compatible with the requirements of the international law of armed conflicts and nuclear weapons treaties. Contents
Therefore, the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to international law applicable to armed conflicts, particularly humanitarian law, however, the Court cannot conclude whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake. There exists an obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. | |
Decision by | Court |
Concur/dissent | Guillaume, Ranjeva, Fleischhauer |
Dissent | Schwebel, Oda, Shahabudeen, Weeramantry, Koroma, Higgins |
Keywords | |
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons [1996] ICJ 3 is a landmark international law case, where the International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion stating that while the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to international humanitarian law, it cannot be concluded whether or not such a threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful in extreme circumstances where the very survival of a state would be at stake. The Court held that there is no source of international law that explicitly authorises or prohibits the threat or use of nuclear weapons but such threat or use must be in conformity with the UN Charter and principles of international humanitarian law. The Court also concluded that there was a general obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament. [1]
The World Health Organization requested the opinion on 3 September 1993, [2] but it was initially refused because the WHO was acting outside its legal capacity ( ultra vires ). So the United Nations General Assembly requested another opinion in December 1994, [3] accepted by the Court in January 1995. As well as determining the illegality of nuclear weapon use, the court discussed the proper role of international judicial bodies, the ICJ's advisory function, international humanitarian law ( jus in bello ), and rules governing the use of force ( jus ad bellum ). It explored the status of "Lotus approach", and employed the concept of non liquet . There were also strategic questions such as the legality of the practice of nuclear deterrence or the meaning of Article VI of the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
The possibility of threat outlawing use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict was raised on 30 June 1950, by the Dutch representative to the International Law Commission (ILC), Jean Pierre Adrien François , who suggested this "would in itself be an advance". [4] In addition, the Polish government requested this issue to be examined by the ILC as a crime against the peace of mankind. [5] However, the issue was delayed during the Cold War.
An advisory opinion on this issue was originally requested by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 3 September 1993: [6]
In view of the health and environmental effects, would the use of nuclear weapons by a state in war or other armed conflict be a breach of its obligations under international law including the WHO Constitution? [7]
The ICJ considered the WHO's request, in a case known as the Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (General List No. 93), and also known as the WHO Nuclear Weapons case, between 1993 and 1996. The ICJ fixed 10 June 1994 as the time limit for written submissions, but after receiving many written and oral submissions, later extended this date to 20 September 1994. After considering the case the Court refused to give an advisory opinion on the WHO question. On 8 July 1996 it held, by 11 votes to three, that the question did not fall within the scope of WHO's activities, as is required by Article 96(2) of the UN Charter. [8]
On 15 December 1994 the UN General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/49/75K. [9] This asked the ICJ urgently to render its advisory opinion on the following question:
Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstances permitted under international law?
The resolution, submitted to the Court on 19 December 1994, was adopted by 78 states voting in favour, 43 against, 38 abstaining and 26 not voting. [12]
The General Assembly had considered asking a similar question in the autumn of 1993, at the instigation of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which ultimately did not push its request that year. [13] [14] NAM was more willing the following year, in the face of written statements submitted in the WHO proceedings from a number of nuclear-weapon states indicating strong views to the effect that the WHO lacked competence in the matter. The Court subsequently fixed 20 June 1995 as the filing date for written statements.
Altogether, 42 states participated in the written phase of the pleadings, the largest number ever to join in proceedings before the Court. [15] [16] Of the five declared nuclear weapon states (the P5), only the People's Republic of China did not participate. Of the three "threshold" nuclear-weapon states, only India participated. Many of the participants were developing states which had not previously contributed to proceedings before the ICJ, a reflection perhaps of the unparalleled interest in this matter and the growing willingness of developing states to engage in international judicial proceedings in the "post-colonial" period. [15] [17]
Oral hearings were held from 30 October to 15 November 1995. Twenty-two states participated: Australia, Egypt, France, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Iran, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, San Marino, Samoa, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Costa Rica, United Kingdom, United States, Zimbabwe; as did the WHO. [15] The secretariat of the UN did not appear, but filed with the Court a dossier explaining the history of resolution 49/75K. Each state was allocated 90 minutes to make its statement. On 8 July 1996, nearly eight months after the close of the oral phase, the ICJ rendered its opinion.
The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected to nine year terms by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council. The court's "advisory opinion" can be requested only by specific United Nations organisations, and is inherently non-binding under the Statute of the court.
The fifteen judges asked to give their advisory opinion regarding the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons were:
President Mohammed Bedjaoui | ![]() |
Vice-President Stephen M. Schwebel | ![]() |
Judge Shigeru Oda | ![]() |
Judge Gilbert Guillaume | ![]() |
Judge Mohammed Shahabuddeen | ![]() |
Judge Christopher Weeramantry | ![]() |
Judge Raymond Ranjeva | ![]() |
Judge Shi Jiuyong | ![]() |
Judge Carl-August Fleischhauer | ![]() |
Judge Abdul G. Koroma | ![]() |
Judge Géza Herczegh | ![]() |
Judge Vladlen S. Vereschetin | ![]() |
Judge Luigi Ferrari Bravo | ![]() |
Judge Rosalyn Higgins | ![]() |
Judge Andrés Aguilar Mawdsley (died before the decision [18] ) | ![]() |
Registrar Eduardo Valencia Ospina | ![]() |
The court considered the matter of deterrence, which involves a threat to use nuclear weapons under certain circumstances on a potential enemy or an enemy. Was such a threat illegal? The court decided, with some judges dissenting, that, if a threatened retaliatory strike was consistent with military necessity and proportionality, it would not necessarily be illegal. (Judgement paragraphs 37–50)
The court then considered the legality of the possession, as opposed to actual use, of nuclear weapons. [19] The Court looked at various treaties, including the UN Charter, and found no treaty language that specifically forbade the possession of nuclear weapons in a categorical way.
The UN Charter was examined in paragraphs 37–50 (paragraph 37: "The Court will now address the question of the legality or illegality of recourse to nuclear weapons in the light of the provisions of the Charter relating to the threat or use of force"). Paragraph 39 mentions: "These provisions [i.e. those of the Charter] do not refer to specific weapons. They apply to any use of force, regardless of the weapons employed. The Charter neither expressly prohibits, nor permits, the use of any specific weapon, including nuclear weapons. A weapon that is already unlawful per se, whether by treaty or custom, does not become lawful by reason of its being used for a legitimate purpose under the Charter."
Treaties were examined in paragraphs 53–63 (paragraph 53: "The Court must therefore now examine whether there is any prohibition of recourse to nuclear weapons as such; it will first ascertain whether there is a conventional prescription to this effect"), as part of the law applicable in situations of armed conflict (paragraph 51, first sentence: "Having dealt with the Charter provisions relating to the threat or use of force, the Court will now turn to the law applicable in situations of armed conflict"). In particular, with respect to "the argument [that] has been advanced that nuclear weapons should be treated in the same way as poisoned weapons", the Court concluded that "it does not seem to the Court that the use of nuclear weapons can be regarded as specifically prohibited on the basis of the [...] provisions of the Second Hague Declaration of 1899, the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV of 1907 or the 1925 Protocol" (paragraphs 54 and 56)". It was also argued by some that the Hague Conventions concerning the use of bacteriological or chemical weapons would also apply to nuclear weapons, but the Court was unable to adopt this argument ("The Court does not find any specific prohibition of recourse to nuclear weapons in treaties expressly prohibiting the use of certain weapons of mass destruction", paragraph 57 in fine).
With respect to treaties that "deal [...] exclusively with acquisition, manufacture, possession, deployment and testing of nuclear weapons, without specifically addressing their threat or use," the Court notes that those treaties "certainly point to an increasing concern in the international community with these weapons; the Court concludes from this that these treaties could therefore be seen as foreshadowing a future general prohibition of the use of such weapons, but they do not constitute such a prohibition by themselves" (paragraph 62). Also, regarding regional treaties prohibiting resource, namely those of Tlatelolco (Latin America) and Rarotonga (South Pacific) the Court notes that while those "testify to a growing awareness of the need to liberate the community of States and the international public from the dangers resulting from the existence of nuclear weapons", "[i]t [i.e. the Court] does not, however, view these elements as amounting to a comprehensive and universal conventional prohibition on the use, or the threat of use, of those weapons as such." (paragraph 63).
Customary international law also provided insufficient evidence that the possession of nuclear weapons had come to be universally regarded as illegal. [19]
Ultimately, the court was unable to find an opinio juris (that is, legal consensus) that nuclear weapons are illegal to possess. (paragraph 65) However, in practice, nuclear weapons have not been used in war since 1945 and there have been numerous UN resolutions condemning their use (however, such resolutions are not universally supported—most notably, the nuclear powers object to them).(paragraph 68–73) The ICJ did not find that these facts demonstrated a new and clear customary law absolutely forbidding nuclear weapons.
However, there are many universal humanitarian laws applying to war. For instance, it is illegal for a combatant specifically to target civilians and certain types of weapons that cause indiscriminate damage are categorically outlawed. [20] All states seem to observe these rules, making them a part of customary international law, so the court ruled that these laws would also apply to the use of nuclear weapons.(paragraph 86) The Court decided not to pronounce on the matter of whether the use of nuclear weapons might possibly be legal, if exercised as a last resort in extreme circumstances (such as if the very existence of the state was in jeopardy).(paragraph 97)
The court undertook seven separate votes, all of which were passed: [21]
The court voted as follows: [29]
Judge | UN State | Vote 1 | Vote 2 | Vote 3 | Vote 4 | Vote 5 | Vote 6 | Vote 7 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
President Mohammed Bedjaoui | ![]() | For | For | For | For | For | For | For |
Vice-President Stephen M. Schwebel | ![]() | For | For | For | For | For | Against | For |
Judge Shigeru Oda | ![]() | Against | For | For | For | For | Against | For |
Judge Gilbert Guillaume | ![]() | For | For | For | For | For | Against | For |
Judge Mohamed Shahabuddeen | ![]() | For | For | Against | For | For | Against | For |
Judge Christopher Weeramantry | ![]() | For | For | Against | For | For | Against | For |
Judge Raymond Ranjeva | ![]() | For | For | For | For | For | For | For |
Judge Shi Jiuyong | ![]() | For | For | For | For | For | For | For |
Judge Carl-August Fleischhauer | ![]() | For | For | For | For | For | For | For |
Judge Abdul G. Koroma | ![]() | For | For | Against | For | For | Against | For |
Judge Géza Herczegh | ![]() | For | For | For | For | For | For | For |
Judge Vladlen S. Vereschetin | ![]() | For | For | For | For | For | For | For |
Judge Luigi Ferrari Bravo | ![]() | For | For | For | For | For | For | For |
Judge Rosalyn Higgins | ![]() | For | For | For | For | For | Against | For |
Result (For–Against): | 13–1 | 14–0 | 11–3 | 14–0 | 14–0 | 7–7 [30] | 14–0 |
The only significantly split decision was on the matter of whether "the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict", not including "in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake". However, three of the seven "dissenting" judges (namely, Judge Shahabuddeen of Guyana, Judge Weeramantry of Sri Lanka, and Judge Koroma of Sierra Leone) wrote separate opinions explaining that the reason they were dissenting was their view that there is no exception under any circumstances (including that of ensuring the survival of a State) to the general principle that use of nuclear weapons is illegal. A fourth dissenter, Judge Oda of Japan, dissented largely on the ground that the Court simply should not have taken the case.
Vice President Schwebel remarked in his dissenting opinion that
It cannot be accepted that the use of nuclear weapons on a scale which would – or could – result in the deaths of many millions in indiscriminate inferno and by far-reaching fallout, have pernicious effects in space and time, and render uninhabitable much or all of the earth, could be lawful.
And Higgins noted that she did not
exclude the possibility that such a weapon could be unlawful by reference to the humanitarian law, if its use could never comply with its requirements. [31]
Nevertheless, the Court's opinion did not conclude definitively and categorically, under the existing state of international law at the time, whether in an extreme circumstance of self-defence in which the very survival of a State would be a stake, the threat or use of nuclear weapons would necessarily be unlawful in all possible cases. However, the court's opinion unanimously clarified that the world's states have a binding duty to negotiate in good faith, and to accomplish, nuclear disarmament.
![]() | This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (May 2008) |
The Government of the United Kingdom has announced plans to renew Britain's only nuclear weapon, the Trident missile system. [32] They have published a white paper The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent in which they state that the renewal is fully compatible with the United Kingdom's treaty commitments and international law. [33] These arguments are summarised in a question and answer briefing published by UK Permanent Representative to the Conference on Disarmament [34]
- Is Trident replacement legal under the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)? Renewal of the Trident system is fully consistent with our international obligations, including those on disarmament. ...
- Is retaining the deterrent incompatible with NPT Article VI? The NPT does not establish any timetable for nuclear disarmament. Nor does it prohibit maintenance or renewal of existing capabilities. Renewing the current Trident system is fully consistent with the NPT and with all our international legal obligations. ...
The white paper The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent stands in contrast to two legal opinions. The first, commissioned by Peacerights, [35] was given on 19 December 2005 by Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin of Matrix Chambers. It addressed
whether Trident or a likely replacement to Trident breaches customary international law [36]
Drawing on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) opinion, Singh and Chinkin argued that:
The use of the Trident system would breach customary international law, in particular because it would infringe the "intransgressible" [principles of international customary law] requirement that a distinction must be drawn between combatants and non-combatants. [36]
The second legal opinion was commissioned by Greenpeace [37] and given by Philippe Sands QC and Helen Law, also of Matrix Chambers, on 13 November 2006. [38] The opinion addressed
The compatibility with international law, in particular the jus ad bellum, international humanitarian law (‘IHL’) and Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (‘NPT’), of the current UK strategy on the use of Trident...The compatibility with IHL of deploying the current Trident system...[and] the compatibility with IHL and Article VI NPT of the following options for replacing or upgrading Trident: (a) Enhanced targeting capability; (b) Increased yield flexibility; (c) Renewal of the current capability over a longer period. [39]
With regards to the jus ad bellum, Sands and Law found that
Given the devastating consequences inherent in the use of the UK’s current nuclear weapons, we are of the view that the proportionality test is unlikely to be met except where there is a threat to the very survival of the state. In our view, the ‘vital interests’ of the UK as defined in the Strategic Defence Review are considerably broader than those whose destruction threaten the survival of the state. The use of nuclear weapons to protect such interests is likely to be disproportionate and therefore unlawful under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. [40]
The phrase "very survival of the state" is a direct quote from paragraph 97 of the ICJ ruling. With regards to international humanitarian law, they found that
it [is] hard to envisage any scenario in which the use of Trident, as currently constituted, could be consistent with the IHL prohibitions on indiscriminate attacks and unnecessary suffering. Further, such use would be highly likely to result in a violation of the principle of neutrality. [41]
Finally, with reference to the NPT, Sands and Law found that
A broadening of the deterrence policy to incorporate prevention of nonnuclear attacks so as to justify replacing or upgrading Trident would appear to be inconsistent with Article VI; b) Attempts to justify Trident upgrade or replacement as an insurance against unascertainable future threats would appear to be inconsistent with Article VI; c) Enhancing the targeting capability or yield flexibility of the Trident system is likely to be inconsistent with Article VI; d) Renewal or replacement of Trident at the same capability is likely to be inconsistent with Article VI; and e) In each case such inconsistency could give rise to a material breach of the NPT. [42]
In 1999 a legal case was put forward to attempt to use the ICJ's Opinion in establishing the illegality of nuclear weapons.
On 27 September 1999, three Trident Ploughshares activists Ulla Røder from Denmark, Angie Zelter from England, and Ellen Moxley from Scotland, were acquitted of charges of malicious damage at Greenock Sheriff Court. The three women had boarded Maytime, a barge moored in Loch Goil and involved in scientific work connected with the Vanguard-class submarines berthed in the nearby Gareloch, and caused £80,000 worth of damage. As is often the case in trials relating to such actions, the defendants attempted to establish that their actions were necessary, in that they had prevented what they saw as "nuclear crime". [43]
The acquittal of the Trident Three resulted in the High Court of Justiciary, the supreme criminal court in Scots law, considering a Lord Advocate's Reference, and presenting the first detailed analysis of the ICJ Opinion by another judicial body. The High Court was asked to answer four questions: [43]
The four collective answers given by Lord Prosser, Lord Kirkwood and Lord Penrose were all negative. This did not have the effect of overturning the acquittals of Roder, Zelter and Moxley (Scots law, like many other jurisdictions, does not allow for an acquittal to be appealed); however, it does have the effect of invalidating the ratio decidendi under which the three women were able to argue for their acquittal, and ensures that similar defences cannot be present in Scots Law.
This page lists 43 participant countries
International humanitarian law prohibits all means and methods of warfare which: ! fail to discriminate between those taking part in the fighting and those, such as civilians, who are not, the purpose being to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian property
The International Court of Justice is the only international court that adjudicates general disputes between nations, and gives advisory opinions on international legal issues. It is one of the six organs of the United Nations (UN), and is located in The Hague, Netherlands.
The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, commonly known as the Non-Proliferation Treaty or NPT, is an international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. Between 1965 and 1968, the treaty was negotiated by the Eighteen Nation Committee on Disarmament, a United Nations-sponsored organization based in Geneva, Switzerland.
Trident Ploughshares is an activist anti-nuclear weapons group, founded in 1998 with the aim of "beating swords into ploughshares". This is specifically by attempting to disarm the UK Trident nuclear weapons system, in a non-violent manner. The original group consisted of six core activists, including Angie Zelter, founder of the non-violent Snowball Campaign.
Customary international law is an aspect of international law involving the principle of custom. Along with general principles of law and treaties, custom is considered by the International Court of Justice, jurists, the United Nations, and its member states to be among the primary sources of international law.
The International law bearing on issues of Arab–Israeli conflict, which became a major arena of regional and international tension since the birth of Israel in 1948, resulting in several disputes between a number of Arab countries and Israel.
International law, also known as "law of nations", refers to the body of rules which regulate the conduct of sovereign states in their relations with one another. Sources of international law include treaties, international customs, general widely recognized principles of law, the decisions of national and lower courts, and scholarly writings. They are the materials and processes out of which the rules and principles regulating the international community are developed. They have been influenced by a range of political and legal theories.
Rosalyn C. Higgins, Baroness Higgins, is a British former president of the International Court of Justice (ICJ). She was the first female judge elected to the ICJ, and was elected to a three-year term as its president in 2006.
Opinio juris sive necessitatis or simply opinio juris is the belief that an action was carried out as a legal obligation. This is in contrast to an action resulting from cognitive reaction or behaviors habitual to an individual. This term is frequently used in legal proceedings such as a defense for a case.
The use of force by states is controlled by both customary international law and by treaty law. The UN Charter reads in article 2(4):
All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.
The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) is a non-profit, non-partisan international education and advocacy organization. Founded in 1982, NAPF is composed of individuals and organizations from all over the world. It has consultative status to the United Nations Economic and Social Council and is recognized by the UN as a Peace Messenger Organization.
Stephen Myron Schwebel, is an American jurist and international judge, counsel and arbitrator. He previously served as judge of the World Bank Administrative Tribunal (2010–2017), as a member of the U.S. National Group at the Permanent Court of Arbitration, as president of the International Monetary Fund Administrative Tribunal (1993–2010), as president of the International Court of Justice (1997–2000), as vice president of the International Court of Justice (1994–1997), and as Judge of the International Court of Justice (1981–2000). Prior to his tenure on the ICJ, Schwebel served as deputy legal adviser to the U.S. Department of State (1974–1981) and as assistant legal adviser to the U.S. Department of State (1961–1967). He also served as a professor of law at Harvard Law School (1959–1961) and Johns Hopkins University (1967–1981). Schwebel is noted for his expansive opinions in momentous cases such as Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua and Oil Platforms .
War can heavily damage the environment, and warring countries often place operational requirements ahead of environmental concerns for the duration of the war. Some international law is designed to limit this environmental harm.
Distinction is a principle under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict, whereby belligerents must distinguish between combatants and protected civilians. Combatant in this instance means persons entitled to directly participate in hostilities and thus are not afforded immunity from being directly targeted in situations of armed conflict. Protected civilian in this instance means civilians who are enemy nationals or neutral citizens outside of the territory of a belligerent power.
The Martens Clause is an early international law concept first introduced into the preamble of the 1899 Hague Convention II – Laws and Customs of War on Land. There are differing interpretations of its significance on modern international law, with some scholars simply treating the clause as a reminder international customary law still applies after a treaty is ratified while others take a more expansive approach where the clause provides that because international treaties cannot be all encompassing, states cannot use that as a justification for an action.
A nuclear weapons convention is a proposed multilateral treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons. This might include prohibitions on the possession, development, testing, production, stockpiling, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons, such as those in the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, along with provisions for their verified elimination. It could be similar to existing conventions outlawing other categories of weapons, such as biological weapons, chemical weapons, anti-personnel mines and cluster bombs.
The 13 steps are identified in a paragraph of the Final Document of the 2000 Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, providing a set of 'practical steps for the systematic and progressive efforts to implement Article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons'. Article VI is the part of the Treaty that provides for disarmament, including nuclear disarmament.
In United Nations Security Council resolution 984, adopted unanimously on 11 April 1995, the council gave assurances to non-nuclear weapon states that were parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) against the threat of nuclear proliferation.
The Humanitarian Initiative is a group of states that evolved within the framework of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and nuclear weapons diplomacy more widely. 159 states subscribed to the last iteration of the initiative's Joint Statement in 2015. Since 2013, it led to a series of conferences exploring the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, culminating in the Humanitarian Pledge, issued by the Austrian Government, to "fill the legal gap for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons". The Pledge has been endorsed by 108 governments as of 1 June 2015. The Humanitarian Initiative is seen as a direct answer to the lack of progress in nuclear disarmament.
Action AWE is a grassroots activist anti-nuclear weapons campaign/group launched in February 2013. Its aim is to increase and activate public opposition to the UK Trident nuclear weapons system, and depleted uranium warheads manufactured at AWE Burghfield, along with AWE Aldermaston.
The International Association of Lawyers against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) is an international non-governmental organisation headquartered in Berlin. It was founded in 1988 and seeks "to build and strengthen international legal efforts to ban the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons." Its membership consists of individual lawyers and lawyer's organisations. The current co-presidents of the organisation are Peter Becker and Takeya Sasaki. The German section of the organisation was co-founded by former German Minister of Justice Herta Däubler-Gmelin. IALANA had a central role in the process that sought an advisory ruling on the legality of nuclear arms from the International Court of Justice.