Comments of the Marshall Islands on the written reply of the United Kingdom to the questions put by Judges Cançado Trindade and Greenwood at the public sitting held on the afternoon of 16 March 2016

VANDEN BIESEN KLOOSTRA ADVOCATEN

;;JEGROENEBOCHT

TotheRegistraroffue Keizersgra::ht452
i016 GD P..msterdam
InternationalCourtofJustice
ïhe Netherlands
HE .:tvlr.PhilippeCouvr~ eRer istrar
ï +31(OJ20 73asg
Peace Palace
F+31{0)20 524ê245

2517F.JDenHaag [email protected]

ww :J.vdt kad'Jocaten.e!J

also by r~: 070-3649928

3 pages

Amsterdam, 30 March 20] 6

020130018
Filenumber

Comments on the '\VTÏtten repHes to the questions of Judge

Can{:adoTrindade, resp. Judge Greenwood submitted by u:K,

R.J.""Vfi nited Kingdom

.Excellency,

1havethehonortoherewithsendyouthe commentsofthe Marshalllslandsonthe United

Fingdom's written replies to bath the questioï .s put by, respectively Judge C2ncadoTri!ldade

and Judge Greenwood at the Court 's sittingof l6 march 2016 at 10 am.

Accept,Sir,theasS\lJ.-anco ef my highest esteern..

'( -.

()00~

1'

Ph. t vandënBiesen. ·

CoAgentoftheRepublicoftheMarsha1I1 slands

beforetheInternationaC l ourtofJustice

::Ll~t~~!:PAA; C!~l:.~KH:k~::~~Citt...:G-ri!t;!iSl:3~ T.uJONZE:r:li"!t:~:c..;CV~RtJ.KE!.•':RO.:'a"r,\.O!i'w'E~4-:0:5..~U".CJ
~N'..:11>.A-~E~:WT~I:Jr,.~M~uNo"• ~r.OiCHl:-~~Fif.!,r! 2ROF..!AGn.:-Cf ii:M->:-COI":!'J-!ED

tr-.sc:~ni)'-I:..SN.M\!.<;O~t.:H~t-JCE!.: INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

OBLIGATIONS CONCERNING NEGOTIATIONS RELATING TO
CESSATION OF THE NUCLEAR ARMS RACE AND TO NUCLEAR
DISARMAME::"rT

(Marshall Islands v. United Kingdom) (Preliminary Objections)

Comments oftbeMarshall Islands

to the replies submitted on 30l\brch 2016 by the United Kingdom to the

questions of Judge C11.11çadTorindade and of Judge Greenwood

*

Commcnts on the UK~s Reply toJudge Cançado Trindade

1. The MarshallIslandsnotesthat the UnitedKingdomtakesthe positionthat it
hasnot "found the needto conduc1any suchassessmentofthe resolutionsof

theGeneralAssemblyadopted as afollow-upto the1996advisoryopinionof
the Court". Asitsreplyto thequestion shows, theMarshall Islands considers
thatpre- andpost-Ad-visoryOpinion resolutionsaregermane to,respectively,

thedcvclopmcntandthe subsequent confirmationoftherule of<.-stomary
international lawbich iscentralto the Marshall Islandposition.

2. Contntryto whattheUnitedKingdom seemsto imply, the1v1arshalIlslands
recal1thatthe disputewhich,inthe contentionoftheMarshallIslands, exists

betweentheMarshallIslands andthe UnitedKingdom, concems compliance
with both1\'PTArticleV1and acustomarylaw obligation. Thereplyof the

United Kingdom, bywbatit does not address,-indicatesopposingviews
between theMarshalllslands andthe UnitedKingdom concerningthe
existenceand contentofthe above-mentionedruleof customaryinternational

lawwhichwas autboritatively rec.ognizedfor the first timeinthe Court's 1996
Adv;sory Opinion.

Comments on the UK's Reply to Judgc Grccnwood

1. Judge Greenwood asks whetherthe documents in question"bearuponthe

existenceofa dispute".The MarshaJl!slands contendsthatthey do bearupon,
indecd evidence,the c,Ostenceof a dispute. That wasthethrustofRi\ITs

answer to Judge Bennouna' s questiogiven during the oral proceedings on 16
March 2016. Together with UK statements and positions, the documents show opposingviews pre-datingthe filingofthe Applicationregardingthe

inLerpretatioand applicationof'I\".PArticleVIandof tb<:parallelruleof
customaryinternationallaw.

2. TheUnitedKingdomcontendsthatthe votingonthe citedUNGAresolutions
cannotreflecta dispute,statingthata State'sdecis.ioregardingitsvoteona

resolution"isbasedon a varietyofpolitical and legalfactors. However,in
thiscasetheUnitedKingdom's systematic oppositionto suchresolutions,

coupledwith consistentstatcmcntsof theUnitedKingdom,standsin
oppositiontothe MarshallIslands'supportfortheresolutionsandhs

consistent!l1atements.

3. Moreover,legalreasoningseldomproceedson thebasisofa singlefactor.
1
TheUnitedKingdornseemsto assumethatthe documents in question - on
wruch in sevcralinstancesit putsadifferentinterpretationfromthatofthe

MarshallIslands- represcntthe wholeoftheMarshallIslands: caseforthe
existenceof a dispute.However,as an examinationoftheMarshallIsland's
2
v.r1i.tnndoral pleadingsreveals this is notthecase. Bethatasit may,the
documentsdemonstratea patternof conductby ~e MarshallIslands,wlûcb
rendersitdifficultto considerthat the UnitedKingdomwascaughtby surprise

bythe Applicationandwhich supportsthe propositionthatthereis adispute
betweenthe Parties.

1TheUnitedKingdomcharacterizesas"new" theGeneralAssemblyresolutionsinvokedby
theMarshallIsluodsin itsreplloJudgeBennouna'squestion. Onthecontr;uy, theMarshall

Islandsbadciledth \:solutionsL'litswrittenpleadings,asdocwnentin CR2016/9,pp.9-
10,footnotes4,5,and6 (vandenBiesen).RegardingAJRES/68/32s ,ee alsoMemorialofthe
MarshallIslandsQ\-Uvm pa.ras.91,210.InitsanswertoJudgeBennouna'squestion,the
UnitedKingdomreferredtosevera!documentsnotcÏtedinitsPrelimiru:rrO ybjectionsS.ee
CR20I6n, pp.14-16.
2Sec, c.g.,CR2016/9,pp. 13-14,paras.11,12(vandenBiesen);CR2016/9,pp. 16-17,20-
22,paras.2-6,12-15(CondoreUi)C ; R2016/5,pp. 24-26,paras. 14-16(Condorelli);Written

StatementofObservationo sfthe MarshallIslandsre PrcliminarObjectionsRaiscdby the
United Kingdom,paras.32, 38.39. 125~1 a2n7fu.155; tvUv11,ras.76-77,90-91.101-102.

2