INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
OBLIGATIONS CONCERNING NEGOTIATIONS RELATING TO
CESSATION OF THE NUCLEAR ARMS RACE AND TO NUCLEAR
DISARMAMENT
(MARSHALL ISLANDS v UNITED KINGDOM)
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN
AND NORTHERN IRELAND
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS AND ANNEXES INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
OBLIGATIONS CONCERNING NEGOTIATIONS RELATING TO
CESSATION OF THE NUCLEAR ARMS RACE AND TO NUCLEAR
DISARMAMENT
(MARSHALL ISLANDS v. UNITED KINGDOM)
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
OF THE
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN
AND NORTHERN IRELAND
15 June 2015 CONTENTS
Page
I. Overview of issues and outline of preliminary objections 1
11. The Marshall Islands' claim and other relevant context 6
A. The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation ofNuclear Weapons 6
B. The Parties' Optional Clause Declarations 6
C. The Marshall Islands' claim against the UK 9
Ill. Preliminary objections to jurisdiction and admissibility 12
A. There is no justiciable dispute between the Marshal! Islands
and the United Kingdom 12
B. The Marshall Islands' claim is excluded in consequence of
the Optional Clause Declarations of the Parties 25
(1) The Parties'Optional Clause Declarations 25
(2) The Court lacks jurisdiction in consequence of the
ratione temporis exclusion in the Marshall Islands'
Optional Clause Declaration 28
(3) The Court lacks jurisdiction as the Marshall Islands'
acceptance ofthe Court's compulsory jurisdiction was only for
the purposes of the present dispute 33
1 C. The Marshall Islands' claim is excluded in consequence of the
absence from the proceedings of States whose essential interests
are engaged by the claim 36
D. The Marshall Islands' claim falls outside the judicial function
of the Court and the Court should therefore decline to exercise
jurisdiction over the claim 48
IV. Summary and request for relief 53
****
List of Annexes 55
11 I. OVERVIEW OF_ISSUESAND OUTLINE
OF PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
1. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ("United
Kingdom" or "UK") first learned of the Republic of the Marshall Islands' ("Marshall
Islands" or "RMI") case against the UK through press reports on 24 April 2014
indicating that the RMI had filed an Application instituting proceedings in the
International Court of Justice. Those reports indicated that parallel Applications had
been filed simultaneously against eight other States: China, France, India, Israel,
North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and the United States. The Application against the
UK, in terms broadly mirrored in the other Applications, alleged a "failure to fulfil the
obligation enshrined in Article VI of the [Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear
Weapons] and customary international law" by failing to pursue negotiations in good
faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament.
2. The United Kingdom was surprised by the Marshall Islands' Application and
the claims therein. The Marshall Islands had not at any point, ever, prior to the filing
of its Application raised any issue with the UK, either directly or indirectly,
concerning the UK's involvement in nuclear disarmament efforts. On the contrary,
public statements by the Marshall Islands suggested. that the Marshall Islands
acknowledged that important multilateral progress towards nuclear disarmament was
being made. For example, in a statement to the 2005 Review Conference of the
Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons ("NPT"), the
Marshal! Islands noted:
"While the Marshall Islands still suffers from the lingering consequences of
radiation exposure, we are pleased to note areas where progress has been
made. Today, there are fewer nuclear weapons and fewer States that possess
them than there were thirty years ago. This success could not have been
1Application Instituting Proceedings Against the United Kingdom ("Application"), paragraph 2. Also,
Memorialof the Marshall Islands ("Memorial"), paragraph 2.
1 achieved without long-term cooperation among many States, including
between the United States and the Russian Federation. Since 1970, the NPT
has been improved, updated and extended." 2
3. Ina similar vein, the Marshall Islands raised no issue whatever in any bilateral
exchanges with the UK concerning UK involvement in efforts to achieve nuclear
disarmament. Nor did the Marshall Islands take any issue with the UK Statement to
the 2010 NPT Review Conference detailing the UK's progress on each of the
"thirteen practical steps for the systematic and progressive efforts to implement
Article VI" which had been set out at the 2000 NPT Review Conference. In some3
bilateral meetings of a general nature, occasional passing reference was made by the
Marshall Islands to its attempts to press theUnited States for further compensation for
those affected by nuclear testing at Bikini Atoll in the 1950s, but never to issues of
nuclear disarmament.
4. The silence by the Marshall Islands vis-a-vis the UK on nuclear disarmament
issues comes against a backdrop of both a progressive unilateral reduction by the UK
of its own nuclear arsenal, by some way the smallest of the NPT-recognised nuclear
weapon States ("NPT nuclear-weapon States"), and of active UK engagement in
efforts,inter alia,to secure and extend nuclear-weapon-free zones around the world.
The UK is a party to the Protocols to the Treaty ofTlatelolco, the Treaty ofRarotonga
and the Treaty of Pelindaba, addressing, respectively, nuclear-weapon-free zones in
Latin America and the Caribbean, the South Pacific, and Africa. The UK has ratified
the Protocol to the Treaty on a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia and
continues to engage with the States Parties to the Treaty on the Southeast Asia
Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone. The UK signed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban
Treaty on the first day it was opened for signature and was, alongside France, the first
nuclear-weapon State to become a party to it. Beyond this, the UK is leading efforts
2Statement by H.E. Mr Alfred Capelle, Permanent Representative of the Marshall Isla2005at the
Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation ofNuclear Weapons, 5 May
2005- Annex 1.
3 UK Statement to the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference by Ambassador John
Duncan, Ambassador for Multilateral Arms Control and Disarma21nMay 2010- Annex 2.
2to develop verification technologies to ensure that any future nuclear disarmament
treaty will apply under strict and effective international control.
5. Against this background, the Marshall Islands' Application instituting
proceedings against the UK alleging a breach inter alia of Article VI of the NPT, and
of asserted parallel obligations of customary international law, came entirely out of
the blue. The United Kingdom considers the allegations to be manifestly unfounded
on the merits. The present pleading does not, however, address the merits of the
allegations raised by the Marshall Islands but rather the admissibility of the
Application and the jurisdiction of the Court to address the merits of the case. In the
United Kingdom's contention, the RMI's Application is inadmissible and the Court
lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. The United Kingdom accordingly submits these
preliminary objections to jurisdiction and admissibility pursuant to Article 79(1) of
the Rules of Court ("Rules"), within the time limit prescribed for the filing of such
objections.
6. The United Kingdom advances five distinct grounds of preliminary objection.
First, the United Kingdom contends that there is no justiciable "dispute" between the
Marshall Islands and the United Kingdom (together "the Parties"), within the meaning
ofthis term in Articles 36(2), 38(1) and 40(1) of the Court's Statute, Article 38(1) of
the Rules, and relevant applicable customary international law and jurisprudence. In
particular, relying inter alia on the principle set out in Article 43 of the International
Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility ("ILC Articles on State
Responsibility" or "ILC Articles") and addressed in the Court's recent judgments in
Georgia v. Russia and Belgium v. Senegal, the United Kingdom contends that the
failure by the l\1arshall Islands to give the United Kingdom any notice whatever of its
claim renders the asserted dispute non-justiciable, with the effect of depriving the
Court of jurisdiction to decide on the claims related thereto and/or making them
inadmissible.
4Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
(Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p. 70;
Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgiuv. Senegal), Judgment,
I.C.J. Reports 201p.422.
37. Second, in addition or in the alternative, the United Kingdom contends that the
Court lacks jurisdiction pursuant to the Optional Clause Declarations of the United
Kingdom and the Marshall Islands, these Declarations being the sole basis relied upon
by the Marshall Islands to found the jurisdiction of the Court. More specifically, the·
United Kingdom contends that the temporal limitation in the Marshall Islands'
Optional Clause Declaration, excluding the Court's jurisdiction in respect of
situations or facts prior to 17 September 1991, deprives the Court ofjurisdiction over
a substantial part of the period of the alleged breach as well as key aspects of
violations that the Marshall Islands alleges against the UK, with the result that the
Court lacksjurisdiction over the entirety of the Marshall Islands' claim.
8. Third, in addition or in the alternative, and distinct from the preceding ground,
the United Kingdom also contends that the Marshall Islands, by its Optional Clause
Declaration of24 April 2013, accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court only
"for the purpose of the dispute" that it now alleges with the UK. As such disputes are
excluded from the jurisdiction of the Court by operation of paragraph 1(iii) of the
UK's Optional Clause Declaration, the Court has no jurisdiction to decide on the
claims in question.
9. Fourth, in addition or in the alternative, having regard to the specific
allegations advanced by the Marshall Islands against the United Kingdom, allegations
that directly and unavoidably engage the essential interests of States not before the
Court, the UK contends that the Application is inadmissible and/or that the Court
lacks jurisdiction to address the claim on the ground of the absence from the
proceedings of States whose essential interests are engaged by it.
10. Fifth, in addition or in the alternative, as any judgment of the Court in this
claim could have no practical consequence, the Application falls outside the judicial
function of the Court and the Court should therefore decline to exercisejurisdiction in
any event.
11. Each of these grounds of preliminary objection to jurisdiction and
admissibility is developed below (with the second and third grounds being dealt with
4in the same section as they both pertain to Optional Clause Declarations). For the
reasons given, the United Kingdom requests the Court to adjudge and declare that the
claim brought by the Marshall Islands against the United Kingdom is inadmissible
and/or that it is not within the jurisdictionhe Court and/or that the Court should
declineto exercise itsjurisdiction.
* * *
5 11. THE MARSHALL ISLANDS' CLAIM
AND OTHER RELEVANT CONTEXT
12. Some brief detail of the Marshall Islands' claim against the UK and other
relevant context is appropriate for purposes of the jurisdictional and admissibility
objections that follow. This Part proceeds under three headings: (A) the NPT;(B) the
Parties'Optional Clause Declarations; and (C) the Marshall Islands' claim against the
UK.
A. TheNPT
13. The NPT entered into force on 5 March 1970. The UK is an original party to
the Treaty, being bound by it as a nuclear-weapon State party as of the date of its
entry into force. Amongst the commitments made by all the parties to the NPT is the
undertaking in Article VI, invoked by the Marshall Islands in this case, ''topursue
negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessationof the nuclear
arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and
complete disarmament under strict and effective international control". Assuming,
-
arguendo, the existence of a parallel obligation to negotiate under customary
international law of similar content to Article VI of the NPT, there would be little
basis on which to distinguish, as regards an original party to the NPT such as the
conduct relative to the claimed customary international law obligation from conduct
relative to the treaty commitment assumed in ArticleVI of the NPT.
14. The Marshal! Islands acceded to the NPT on 30 January 1995. Insofar as may
be material, the NPT was in force as between theUK and the RMI as of that date.
B. The Parties' Optional Clause Declarations
15. The basis of jurisdiction relied upon by the Marshall Islands is the Parties'
Optional Clause Declarations under Article 36(2) of the Statute of the Court
("Statute"). The relevant Declaration by the United Kingdom, dated 5 July 2004,
states as follows:
6 "1. The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland accept as compulsory ipso facto and without special convention, on
condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice,
in conformity with paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, until
such time as notice may be givento terminatethe acceptance, over all disputes
arising after 1 January 1974, with regard to situations or facts subsequent to
the same date, otherthan:
(i) any dispute which the United Kingdom has agreed with the other Party
or Parties thereto to settle by some other method of peaceful
settlement;
(ii) any dispute with the government of another country which is or has
been a Member of the Commonwealth;
(iii) any dispute in respect of which any other Party to the dispute has
accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of
Justice only in relation to or for the purpose of the dispute; or
where the acceptance of the Court's compulsoryjurisdiction on behalf
of any other Party to the dispute was deposited or ratified less than
twelve months prior to the filing of the application bringing the dispute
before the Court.
2. The Government of the United Kingdom also reserves the right at any
time, by means of a notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the
United Nations, and with effect as from the moment of such notification,
either to add to, amend or withdraw any of the foregoing reservations, or any
that may hereafter be added." (emphasisadded)
16. For present purposes, attention is drawn to the highlighted portion of the
Declarationnoted above, and in particular to the phrase "has accepted the compulsory
jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice only ... for the purpose of the
dispute". The import and effect of this exclusion for the Marshall Islands' case is
addressed in Part III.B.3 below, at paragraphs 76-82. As a preliminary matter, the
7United Kingdom notes that the Marshall Islands submitted its Application instituting
proceedings in this case on 24 April2014.
17. The Marshall Islands' Optional Clause Declaration, dated 24 April 2013,
states as follows:
"1) The Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands accepts as
compulsory ipso facto and without special convention, on condition of
reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, in conformity
with paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, until such time as
notice may be given to terminate the acceptance, over all disputes arising
after 17 September 1991, with regard to situations or facts subsequent to
the same date, other than:
i) any dispute which the Republic of the Marshall Islands has agreed with
the other Party or Parties thereto to settle by some other method of
peaceful settlement;
ii) any dispute in respect of which any other Party to the dispute has
accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of
Justice only in relation to or for the purpose of the dispute.
2) The Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands also reserves
the right at any time, by means of a notification addressed to the Secretary
General of the United Nations, and with effect as from the moment of such
notification, to addo, amend or withdraw either of the foregoing reservations,
or any that may hereafter be added." (emphasis added)
18. For present purposes, attention is drawn to the highlighted portion of the
Declaration noted above, and in particular to the phrase "over all disputes arising after
17 September 1991, with regard to situations or facts subsequent to the same date".
The import and effect of this exclusion for the Marshall Islands' claims is addressed
in Part III.B.2 below, at paragraphs 63-75. As a preliminary matter, the UK notes that
the date of 17 September 1991 is the date on which the Marshall Islands became a
Member of the United Nations and thus a party to the Statute of the Court. The
8 relevant consideration for present purposes is the exclusion from the Court's
jurisdiction that follows in the Marshall Islands' Optional Clause Declaration,
namely,disputes with regard to situationsor facts priorto 17September 1991.
C. The Marshall Islands' claim against the UK
19. The Marshall Islands asserts that the United Kingdom has failed to fulfil the
obligations enshrined in Article VI of the NPT and customary international law. The
allegation is developed in terms of (i) a continuing breach by the UK of its
obligations under Article VI of the NPT, (ii) a continuing breach by the UK of its
customary international law obligation of the same content, and (iii) a continuing
breach by the UK of its obligation to perform its international legal obligations in
good faith. 5 The essence of the claims that the Marshal! Islands advances in its
Application and Memorial is thus that the UK is in persistent and bad faith breach of
its NPT and customary international law obligations over time. The claims do not
turn on an alleged single violation in the recent past but on an alleged continuing
breachover decades. The claims are in the nature of an alleged pattern of conduct.
20. The United Kingdom recalls in passing what it stated in opening, namely, that
the Marshall Islands at no stage, ever, at any time in the past raised with the UK its
concernsor allegations or claims, notwithstandingthis apparent apprehension of long
term bad faith conduct by the United Kingdom. This goes to the UK's objection to
jurisdiction, addressed in Part III.A below, to the effect that there is no justiciable
disputebetween the Marshall Islands andthe United Kingdom.
21. The Marshall Islands proceeds, in its Application and Memorial, to
particularise its claims against the UK by way of a number of specific factual
allegations. These are based on an historical review, beginning in 1952, of "The UK
and the Nuclear Arms Race", and a review of "The UK and Nuclear Disarmament",
which opens with the allegation that "[d]uring the 1970s and 1980s, the UK
repeatedly refused to enter its nuclear weapons systems into the disarmament
5Application, paragraph 7; Memorial, paragraph 7.
6Application, paragraphs 24 et seq.
9 7
negotiations of that time". The facts on which the Marshall Islands relies in its
Memorial in respect of its asserted obligations relating to nuclear disarmament begins
with a review of early UN General Assembly resolutions, through to developments
during the 1960s leading to the NPT, the conclusion of the NPT in 1968, and the
various five yearly NPT Review Conferences, starting in 1975. 8 The allegations
against the UK concerning nuclear disarmament are described in generic terms as the
breach of an obligation of conduct, being the failure to pursue in good faith
negotiations on nuclear disarmament, as well as the breach of an obligation of result
"for which the UK shares responsibility", namely, that negotiations on nuclear
9
disarmament have not been concluded.
22. The allegation of a shared responsibility for a breach of Article VI of the NPT
and its claimed parallel customary international law obligation runs throughout the
Marshall Islands' case. In generic terms, this goes to the UK's preliminary objection,
addressed in Part III.C below, based on the absence from the proceedings of States
whose essential interests are engaged by the Marshal! Islands' claims. The Marshall
Islands' allegations go beyond the generic, however, to a range of more specific
contentions that directly and individually engage the essential interests of other States.
These specific contentions include claims that the UK breached Article VI of the NPT
and asserted customary international law through conduct which inheres to: the
conclusion of the UK-U.S. Mutual Defence Agreement; 10UK-France cooperation
including in respect of the conclusion of a bilateral Treaty for Defence and
Cooperation; 11 and positions adopted by the UK in common with other NPT nuclear
weapon States in multilateral fora. 12
23. This is only the most cursory of reviews of the claims advanced by the
Marshall Islands, as is appropriate to a pleading raising objections of an exclusively
preliminary nature to jurisdiction and admissibility. Three features emerge from this
review, however, that are material for the preliminary objections that follow. First,
7Application, paragraph 60; Memorial, paragraph 66.
8Memorial, Part 4, paragraph 111 et seq.
9
Memorial, paragraphs 214 and 222.
10Memorial, paragraphs 60-61.
11Memorial, paragraphs 62-64.
12Memorial, paragraphs 76, 77, 81-92.
10the Marshall Islands' claims are rooted in an alleged pattern of conduct by the UK
over decades, going back at least to the 1970s and 1980s. Second, the allegations
impugn the conduct of other States, both insofar as the allegations directly address
engagementsbetween the UK and other States and insofar as they pertain to conduct
of the UK in common with other States. Third, an essential element of the Marshall
Islands' case is that the UK shares responsibility with other States for the breaches
allegedby the Marshall Islands.
* * *
11 Ill. PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
TO JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY
24. Against the contextual background just described, the United Kingdom
contends that the Marshall Islands' Application is inadmissible and/or that the Court
lacks jurisdiction to hear the case on five distinct grounds:
(a) there is no justiciable "dispute" between the Parties, within the meaning of this
term in the Court's Statute and Rules;
(b) the temporal limitation in the Marshall Islands' Optional Clause Declaration
deprives the Court of jurisdiction;
(c) the Court lacks jurisdiction in consequence of the terms of the UK's Optional
Clause Declaration which excludes jurisdiction inter aliain circumstances in
which the party instituting proceedings accepted the compulsory jurisdiction
of the Court only "for the purpose of the dispute" in question;
(d) the absence from the proceedings of States whose essential interests are
engaged by the claim; and
(e) the claim falls outside the judicial function of the Court and the Court should
therefore decline to exercise jurisdiction over it.
25. These grounds of objections to jurisdiction and admissibility are addressed in
turn in the following sections. The second and third grounds are dealt with in the
same section as they both relate toOptional Clause Declarations.
A. There is no justiciable dispute between
the Marshall Islands and the United Kingdom
26. The United Kingdom contends that, on the date of the filing of the Marshall
Islands' Application, there was no justiciable dispute between the UK and the
Marshall Islands in relation to the UK's obligations, whether arising under the NPT or
12 under customary international law, to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective
measures of nuclear disarmament. Consequently, the Court lacks jurisdiction to
address all of the Marshal! Islands' claims and/or those claims are inadmissible in
their entirety.
27. This objection rests on two well-establishedlegal principles:
(a) the conditions for the Court's jurisdiction, including the existence of a legal
dispute, must be satisfied at the time of the Application; and
(b) no legal dispute can be said to exist where the State submitting the dispute has
givenno notice thereof to the other State.
28. The principle thatjurisdiction must be assessed "on the date ofthe filing of the
act instituting proceedings" has been affirmed repeatedly by the Court. 13 The
existence of a dispute - a necessary condition for the exercise of the Court's
jurisdiction in terms of Article 36(2) of the Statute of the Court - must also be
determined on that date. As the Court stated in Belgium v. Senegal: "what matters is
whether, on the date when the Application was filed, a dispute existed between the
Parties ..." 14 In Croatia v. Serbia, the Court drew attention to the applicant State's
responsibilitiesin this respect:
" it must be emphasized that a State which decides to bring proceedings
before the Court should carefully ascertain that all the requisite conditions for
the jurisdiction of the Court have been met at the time proceedings are
instituted. If this is not done and regardless of whether these conditions later
come to be fulfilled, the Court must in principle decide the question of
13E.g.: Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arisingfrom the
Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriyv. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections,
Judgment, I.C.JReports 1998, p. 9 at paragraph 44; Application of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary
Objections, Judgment,I.C.JReports 2011, p. 70 at paragraph 31.
14Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgiuv. Senegal), Judgment,
I.C.JReports 2012, p. 422 at paragraph 54.
13 jurisdiction on the basis of the conditions that existed at the time of the
institution of the proceedings." 15
29. Equally important is the customary law principle that the State intending to
institute proceedings must give notice to the other State. This principle is set out in
Article 43 of the ILC Articles on State Responsibility in the following terms:
"Article 43: Notice of claim by an injured State
1. An injured State which invokes the responsibility of another State
shall give notice of its claim to that State.
2. ·The injured State may specify in particular:
(a) the conduct that the responsible State should take in order to cease the
wrongful act, if it is continuing;
·(b) what form reparation should take in accordance with the provisions of
Part Two." (emphasis added)
30. The United Kingdom draws attention to the highlighted language of Article
43(1) above, namely, that an injured State "shall give notice of its claim" to the State
whose responsibility it invokes. Significantly, Article 48(3) of the ILC Articles
extends the requirement of Article 43 to cases in which the responsibility of a State is
invoked by a State other than an injured State. The principle of prior notification thus
operates as a general principle in respect of claims alleging the international
responsibility of States.
31. In introducing what was to become Article 43, the ILC Special Rapporteur
observed that it was analogous to Article 65 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of
Treaties, and that it was supported by the Court's judgment in Certain Phosphate
1Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Croatia
v. Serbia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, lC.J. Reports 2008, p. 412 at paragraph 80.
16Third report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. James Crawford (52nd session of the ILC (2000),
NCN.4/507/Add.2 paragraph 235)- Annex 3. Article 65 of the Vienna Convention reads as follows:
"I. A party which, under the provisions of the present Convention, invokes either a defect in its consent
to be bound by a treaty or a ground for impeaching the validity of a treaty, terminating it, withdrawing
14 Lands in NauruY In that case, Australia had argued, inter alia, that Nauru's claims
were inadmissible because they had not been submitted within a reasonable period of
time. In rejecting this objection, the Court note~:
"The Court ... takes note of the fact that Nauru was officially informed, at the
latest by letterof 4 February 1969, of the position of Australia on the subject
of rehabilitation ofthe phosphate lands worked out before 1July 1967. Nauru
took issue with that position in writing only on 6 October 1983. Irt the
meantime, however, as stated by Nauru and not contradicted by Australia, the
question had on two occasions been raised by the President of Nauru with the
competent Australian authorities. The Court considers that, given the nature
of relations between Australia and Nauru, as well as the steps thus taken,
Nauru's Application was not renderedinadmissibleby passage oftime." 18
32. Addressing the issue of the notification of the claim, the ILC Special
Rapporteur observed that "[d]espite its flexibility and its reliance on the context
provided by the relations between the two States concerned, the Court does seem to
have had regard to the fact that the claimant State had effectively notified the
respondent State of the claim", and that the respondent State's awareness of the claim
was "sufficient". 19 The SpecialRapporteur concluded:
"In the Special Rapporteur's view, this approach is correct as a matter of
principle. There must be at least some minimum requirement of notification
from it or suspending its operation, must notify the other parties of its claim. The notification shall
indicate the measure proposed to be taken with respect to the treaty and the reasons therefor.
2. If, after the expirya period which, except in cases of special urgency, shall not be less than three
months after the receipt of the notification, no party has raised any objection, the party making the
notification may carry out the manner provided in article 67 the measure which it has proposed.
3. If, however, objection has been raised by any other party, the parties shall seek a solution through
the means indicated in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations.
4. Nothing in the foregoing paragraphs shall affect the rights or obligationse parties under any
provisions in force binding the parties with regard to the settlement of disputes.
5. Without prejudice to article 45, the fact that a State has not previously made the notification
prescribed in paragraph 1 shall not prevent it from making such notification in answer to another party
claiming performance of the treaty or alleging its violation."
17Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v.Australia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, lC.J.
Reports 1992, p. 240.
18Id at paragraph 36.
19Third report of the Special Rapporteur,Mr. James Crawford (52nd session of the ILC (2000),
A/CN.4/507/Add.2., paragraph 237- Annex 3.
15 by one State against another of a claim of responsibility, so that the
responsible State is aware of the allegation and in a position to respond to it
(e.g., by ceasing the breach and offering some appropriate form of reparation).
No doubt the precise form the claim takes will depend on the circumstances.
But the draft articles should at least require that a State invoking responsibility
should give notice thereof to the responsible State. In doing so, it would be
normal to specify what conduct on its part is required by way of cessation of
any continuing wrongful act, and what form any reparation sought should
take."2o
33. The prior notification requirement in Article 43 also reflects another principle
of general application relevant to the issue of the Court'sjurisdiction. 21 The existence
of a dispute ratione materiae, actually rather than hypothetically, is a precondition for
the Court's jurisdiction. In determining this, the Court's settled jurisprudence
requires it to look beyond the assertion of the existence of a dispute by the applicant
22
State. The issue is addressed by Rosenne in the following terms:
"Whether a dispute exists or not is a matter for objective determination by the ·
Court. It is dependent neither upon the subjective assertion by one party that a
dispute exists, nor upon an equally subjective denial by a party that a dispute
exists. For the purpose of this enquiry, the Court will need to be satisfied that
the claim of one party is actively opposed by the other. As the Court pointed
out in the South West Africa cases, it is not adequate simply to show that the
23
interests of the two parties are in conflict."
34. The prior notification requirement in Article 43 goes directly to the issue of
the establishment of the existence of a dispute over which the Court has jurisdiction,
20Id at paragraph 238.
21Sep. Op. of Judge ad hoc Mampuya, Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v. Democratic
Republic of the Congo), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, p. 582 at p. 641.
22For example: Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary
Objection, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 803 at paragraph 16.
23Rosenne, The Law and Practice of the International Court, 1920-2005 (4thed., 2006), Volume 11,p.
508.
16 as it enables the Court to undertake an objective assessment of whether the claim of
the applicant State is positively opposedby the putative respondent State.
35. The text of Article 43 was adopted by the ILC with no objections or proposed
amendments from any Government. 24 The Commentary to the Article explains that
"the first step [by an injured State] should be to call the attention of the responsible
Stateto the situation, and to call on it to take appropriate steps to cease the breach and
25
to provide redress".
36. The prior notification of a dispute by the intended applicant State to the
intended respondent State is a common feature of compulsory dispute settlement
arrangements under international law. By way of example, Article 283 of the UN
Convention on the Law of the Sea ("UNCLOS") establishes an "obligation to
exchange views". By Article 286 of UNCLOS, this requirement of an exchange of
views is a precondition to the resort to compulsory procedures entailing binding
decisions. A similar approach, in broad terms, is evident in the field of international
trade, for example, under the World Trade Organisation's Understanding on Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes, which requires prior
consultations before a complaining party may request the establishment of a dispute
settlement panel. It is also a common feature in international investment dispute
.settlement.
37. The United Kingdom does not here draw direct analogies between UNCLOS,
WTO or other international compulsory dispute settlement procedures and the
compulsory jurisdiction of the Court pursuant to Optional Clause Declarations under
Article 36(2) of the Court's Statute. The Court is sui generis. A proposition of
generalapplication is nonetheless apparent- namely, that a State should "not be taken
entirelyby surprise by the initiation of compulsoryproceedings". 26 The languagejust
quoted, which comes from the recent award of the UNCLOS Annex VII Tribunal in
24 Summary Record of the 2682nd Meeting of the International Law Commission, UN Doe.
A/CN.4/SR.2682, paragraph 38- Annex 4.
25 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001,vol. 11, Part Two, UN Doe. A/56/10,
Commentaryto Article 43, paragraph 3 -Annex 5.
26Mauritius v. United Kingdom, Award of 18 March 2015 at paragraph 382 (http://www.pca
cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1429).
17Mauritius v. United Kingdom (and appears in a part of that award where the Tribunal
found against the UK), encapsulates a salutary principle of general application in the
field of international dispute settlement that rests on and reflects the terms of Article
43(1) ofthe ILC Articles on State Responsibility.
38. The Court's recent jurisprudence, while not addressing Article 43 of the ILC
Articles in terms, authoritatively endorses the requirement of the prior notification of
claims as a pre-condition to the existence of a justiciable dispute over which it will
havejurisdiction. The United Kingdom relies in this regard on the Court'sjudgments
in the Georgia v. Russia and Belgium v. Senegal cases? 7
39. In Georgia v. Russia, in determining whether a legal dispute existed between
Georgia and Russia at the time of the filing of the Application, the Court undertook a
detailed review of relevant diplomatic exchanges, documents and statements. The
Court's assessment of this evidence was guided by the following observation:
" a dispute is more likely to be evidenced by a direct clash of positions
stated by the two Parties about their respective rights and obligations in
respect of the elimination of racial discrimination, in an exchange between
them, but, as the Court has already noted, there are circumstances in which the
existence of a dispute may be inferred from the failure to respond to a
claim." 28
40. The Court's analysis of the evidence ran to over eighty paragraphs, covering
numerous instances of official Georgian and Russian practice from 1992 to 2008? 9
The Court found that most of the documents and statements before it failed to
evidence the existence of a dispute, because they did not contain any "direct
criticism" against the respondent, did not amount to an "allegation" against the
27 Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, lC.J. Reports
2011, p.70; Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal),
Judgment, lC.J. Reports 2012p. 422.
28 Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (Georgia v.Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, lC.J. Reports
2011, p. 70 at paragraph 37.
29Id.at paragraphs 31-113.
18 respondent, or were not otherwise of a character that was sufficient to found a
justiciable dispute between the parties.30
41. Having dismissed nearly all the evidence put before it, the Court ultimately
basedits fmding on the existence of a legal dispute between the parties on "exchanges
between the Georgian and Russian representatives in the Security Council on 10
August 2008, the claims made by the GeorgianPresident on 9 and 11 August and the
response on 12 August by the Russian Foreign Minister ..." Crucial to this finding
was the weight attached to the fact that the Russian Foreign Minister had expressly
acknowledged (and dismissed) the accusation by the Georgian President that Russia
was carryingout ethnic cleansing.
42. In Belgium v Senegal, the Court similarly carried out a systematic review of
the diplomatic exchanges that had preceded the filing of the Application in order to
ascertain if the dispute had been properly notifiedto Senegal. The core of the Court's
analysisis found in the following passages:
·"54. While it is the case that the Belgian international arrest warrant
transmitted to Senegal with a request for extradition on 22 September 2005
(see paragraph 21 above) referred to violations of international humanitarian
law, torture, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, murder and other
crimes, neither document stated or implied that Senegal had an obligation
under international law to exercise its jurisdiction over those crimes if it did
not extradite Mr. Habre. In terms of the Court's jurisdiction, what matters is
whether, on the date when the Application was filed, a dispute existed
between the Parties regarding the obligation for Senegal, under customary
international law, to take measures in respect of the above-mentioned crimes
attributed toMr. Habre. In the light of the diplomatic exchanges between the
Parties reviewed above (see paragraphs 21-30),the Court considers that such a
dispute did not exist on that date. The only obligations referred to in the
diplomatic correspondence betweenthe Parties are those under the Convention
30Id. at paragraphs 65, 67, 77, 84, 86-87, 89 and 92.
31Id. at paragraph 113.
19 against Torture. It is noteworthy that even in a Note Verbale handed over to
Senegal on 16 December 2008, barely two months before the date of the
Application, Belgium only stated that its proposals concerning judicial co
operation were without prejudice to 'the difference of opinion existing
between Belgium and Senegal regarding the application and interpretation of
the obligations resulting from the relevant provisions of the [Convention
against Torture]', without mentioning the prosecution or extradition in respect
of other crimes. In the same Note Verbale, Belgium referred only to the crime
of torture when acknowledging the amendments to the legislation and
Constitution of Senegal, although those amendments were not limited to that
crime. Under those circumstances, there was no reason for Senegal to address
at all in its relations with Belgium the issue of the prosecution of alleged
crimes of Mr. Habre under customary international law. The facts which
constituted those alleged crimes may have been closely connected to the
alleged acts of torture. However, the issue whether there exists an obligation
for a State to prosecute crimes under customary international law that were
allegedly committed by a foreign national abroad is clearly distinct from any
question of compliance with that State's obligations under the Convention
against Torture and raises quite different legal problems.
55. The Court concludes that, at the time of the filing of the Application,
the dispute between the Parties did not relate to breaches of obligations under
customary international law and that it thus has no jurisdiction to decide on
Belgium's claims related thereto."32
43. As these passages indicate, the prior notification by an applicant State to an
intended respondent State of the specifics of the claims that the applicant has in
contemplation was held by the Court to be a precondition to the establishment of the
Court'sjurisdiction.
32
Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment,
l.C.J. Reports 2012, 422 at paragraphs 54-55.
2044. In the United Kingdom's submission, a number of general and important
conclusions can be drawn from the Court's judgments in Georgia v. Russia and
Belgium v.Senegal.
(a) A justiciable dispute cannot be said to exist between two States where one of
the parties is not aware of the claim and is thus denied the opportunity to
respond to it.
(b) The existence of a dispute will normally be demonstrated through evidence of
a direct clash of positions over respective rights and obligations, normally
shown in exchanges between the parties prior to the filing of the dispute. In
some circumstances, the existence of a dispute may be inferred from a failure
to respond to a claim, 33 an exception which is itself predicated on the
assumption that the State failing to respond must be afforded an opportunity to
do so.
(c) A claim must be notified by the State intending to institute proceedings in
terms that are clear, specificand directedto the State whose responsibility will
be invoked. For example, a State that gives notice of a dispute of non
compliance with certain treaty obligations will not ipso facto have given
adequate notice of a dispute in respect of any coextensive rule of customary
international law because of the "different legal problems" engaged in these
two situations.34
(d) Even where a dispute on wider issues exists between two States, and is amply
evidenced in statements and documents, the Court will still expect the
existence of the dispute before it to be established through evidence that
relates specifically to the terms of the dispute as submitted to it. Incidental
references as part of a larger claimwill not therefore suffice. 35
33Id. at paragraph 37.
34Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment,
I.C.JReports2012, p. 422 at paragraph 54.
35 Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial
Discrimination (Georgiav. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, JudgmentI.C.JReports
2011,p. 70 at paragraph 63.
2145. The facts and circumstances ofthe Marshal! Islands' claimed dispute with the
United Kingdom are a world apart from those in either Georgia v. Russia or Belgium
v. Senegal. In both of these cases, the applicant State was able to show multiple
diplomatic exchanges with the respondent State on the subject-matter of the dispute
that was subsequently brought to the Court. Even this was not always sufficient to
establish a justiciable dispute in respect of every aspect of the claim that was
subsequently submitted to the Court.
46. In stark contrast, in its Memorial, the Marshall Islands refers to only two
statements insupport of its claim of the existence of a dispute with the UK. However,
neitherthe content of these statements nor the circumstances in which they were made
provide any evidence of the existence of a dispute between the Marshal! Islands and
the United Kingdom on 24 April 2014, the date of the filing ofthe Marshall Islands'
Application instituting proceedings.
47. In the first of these statements relied upon by the Marshall Islands, made on 26
September 2013 at the UN High Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament, the
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Marshal! Islands urged "all.nuclear weapon states
to intensify efforts to address their responsibilities in moving towards an effective and
secure disarmament". 36 The statement did not specifically mention the United
Kingdom, and could not in any way be viewed by the UK as invoking its
responsibility under international law for any breach of the NPT or of customary
international law. Furthermore, and crucially, urging States to intensify efforts in a
certain direction neither entails nor implies that those States are not complying with
international law. The Marshall Islands' Memorial also quotes from this statement
selectively, omitting to refer to the sentence which precedes the one it cites, viz:
"Disarmament comes with political will - and we affirm and welcome bilateral
37
progress in this regard, including betweenthe United States and Russia".
36Memorial, paragraph 98 and Annex 71.
37Memorial, Annex 71.
2248. The second statement relied upon by the Marshall Islands was made just over
two months before the filing of the Application before the Court. It was made at a
38
conference at which the United Kingdom was not present. The Marshall Islands
took no steps to bring this statement to the attention of the United Kingdom.
39
49. As noted by the ILC Special Rapporteur on State Responsibility, it may
suffice for the purposes of Article 43 that a respondent State is aware of the claim. In
the present case, however, it is clear both that the United Kingdom was not in any
way aware of the claim and that the Marshall Islands failed to take even the minimum
steps required to make the UK aware of it. On the occasion of the UN High Level
Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament, where the Marshall Islands made the first of the
statements mentioned above, a ministerial representative of the UK Government was
present. However, the official statement made by the UK on that occasion contains
40
no reference to the Marshall Islands' statement. It is inconceivable that a serious
allegation about UK compliance with the nuclear regime would have attracted no
comment from aUK Minister at a meeting devoted precisely to those issues. The.
reality is that the Marshall Islands' statement could not possibly have been understood
by anyone as invoking the responsibility of the UK for a breach of international law,
and thus as requiring a response.
50. The Marshall Islands has had other opportunities to notify the UK of its
claimed dispute with the UK. In 2010, on the occasion of the NPT Review
Conference, the UK gave a detailed statement about its progress on each of the
thirteen steps on the implementation of Article VI which had been set out at the 2000
41
NPT Review Conference; the Marshall Islands did not raise any issue with it. In
September 2013, the UK's FCO Minister of State, the Rt. Hon Hugo Swire MP,
visited the Marshall Islands over a period of two days during the 44th Pacific Islands
forum meeting, when the UK and the Marshall Islands eo-hosted an event on climate
38Memorial, paragraph 100.
39See supra paragraph 32.
40Statement on behalf of France, the UK and the US by Minister Alistair Burt, Parliamentary Under
Secretary of State, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, at the UN General
Assembly High Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament, 26 September 2013 - Annex 6.
41UK Statement to the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference by Amoassador John
Duncan, Ambassador for Multilateral Arms Control and Disarmament,May 2010- Annex 2.
23change. On 26 February 2014, only a few weeks before the filing of the Application
that commenced these proceedings, the newly designated UK Ambassador visited the
Marshall Islands to present his credentials. During his visit, the Ambassador had
meetings with the Presid an~ the Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands, as well
as other ministers. On none of these occasions was the Marshall Islands' claim, or
any of the issues behind it, raised.
51. The Marshall Islands is not assisted by the contention that it has locus standi
not only on the grounds that it is"an injured State within the definition provided by
Article 42 (b)(ii)", but also by virtue of the erga omnes nature of the claimed
42
obligation to negotiate. As noted above, however, by effect of Article 48(3) of the
ILC Articles, the prior notification requirement applies equally to States other than
injured States as it does to injured States. The critical issue is that theate whose
international responsibility is invoked must be notifiedof the claim and afforded an
opportunity to respond.
52. The Marshall Islands is evidently sensitive to these shortcomings as it attempts
to establish that the UK was on notice of its claims. However, its attempts to show
that the United Kingdom has opposed the Marshall Islands' claims rest on generic and
irrelevant assertions.3 At the point at which its Application instituting proceedings
was filed with the Court, the Marshall Islands had not taken even the most basic steps
to notify its claim to, or any aspectf its apparent dispute or even disagreement with,
the United Kingdom. There was no conflict of legal positions between the Marshall
Islands and the United Kingdom. Particularly in a case where the basis for the claim
is the allegation that an obligation to negotiate in good faith has been breached, it is
remarkable that proceedings were instituted without making any attempt to give any
prior noticeof the claims.
53. In the United Kingdom's contention, the failureof the Marshall Islands in any
way to notify the United Kingdom of its claims renders the claimed dispute non-
42Memorial, paragraph 103.
43Memorial, paragraph 101.
24 justiciable. The Court accordingly lacksjurisdiction to address the claims and/or they
are inadmissible.
B. The Marshall Islands' claim is excluded in consequence
of the Optional Clause Declarations of the Parties
54. In addition or in the alternative to the objection set out above that there is no
justiciable dispute between the Marshall Islands and the United Kingdom, the UK
submits that the Marshall Islands' claim is excluded in consequence of the Optional
Clause Declarations of the Parties. The UK advances two submissions under this
heading: first, that the temporal limitation in the Marshal! Islands' Optional Clause
Declaration, excluding the Court'sjurisdiction in respect of situations or facts prior to
17 September 1991, deprives the Court of jurisdiction over the entirety of the
·Marshal!Islands' claim; second, and distinct from the preceding, that the Court lacks
jurisdiction as the Marshal! Islands, by its Optional Clause Declaration of 24 April
2013, accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court only "for the purpose of the
dispute" that it now alleges with the UK. Following some brief further contextual
discussion of the Parties' Optional Clause Declarations, these submissions are
developedin turn below.
(1) The Parties' Optional Clause Declarations
55. The UK and RMI Optional Clause Declarations are set out and briefly
addressed at paragraphs 15-18 above. The relevant part of the UK Optional Clause
Declarationthat is germane for present purposes is the exclusion at paragraph 1(iii)of
the Declaration, which states as follows:
"[The UK accepts the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court over all disputes
other than] any dispute in respect of which any other Party to the dispute has
accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice only
in relation to or for the purposeof the dispute; or where the acceptance of the
Court's compulsory jurisdiction on behalf of any other Party to the dispute
25 was deposited or ratified less than twelve months prior to the filing of the
application bringing the dispute before the Court."
56. The Marshall Islands Optional Clause Declaration is dated 24 April2013. The
relevant partof the Declaration that is germane for present purposes is the acceptance
thereinof the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court
"over all disputes arising after 17 September 1991, with regard to situationsor
facts subsequent to the same date".
57. As the Court has repeatedly said, "one of the fundamental principles of its
Statute is that it cannot decide a dispute between States without the consent of those
States to itsurisdiction".44 In the present case, the sole basis ofjurisdiction advanced
by the Marshall Islands is the respective Optional Clause Declarations of the Parties.
It is uncontroversial that the Court will only have jurisdiction in respect of matters
engaged by the common ground of these two Declarations.
58. Before turning to the grounds of objection on which the United Kingdom
relies, two preliminary observations are warranted.
59. First, the Marshal! Islands' Optional Clause Declaration is dated 24 April
2013. The Marshall Islands' Application instituting proceedings against the United
· Kingdom is dated exactly, to the day, 12months later, i.e., 24 April2014.
60. The UK is the only NPT nuclear-weapon State to have accepted the
compulsoryjurisdiction of the Court under Article 36(2) of the Statute. The UK is the
only one of the 9 putative respondents of the Marshal! Islands' Applications
instituting proceedings of24 April2014 that is both bound by Article VI ofthe NPT
and in respect of whom the Marshall Islands could have had any (however remote)
informed hope of sustaining a case before the Court. Although this is a circumstantial
appreciation, it is evident beyond any reasonable contention that the Marshall Islands'
44
For example, East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), Judgment, I.C.J Reports 1995, p.90 at paragraph
26, and the cases cited therein.
26 Optional Clause Declaration was aimed specifically at proceedings initiated 12
months later against the United Kingdom. Any other claim by the Marshall Islands
wouldbe disingenuous.
61. Second, as the extract from the UK's Optional Clause Declaration set out at
paragraph 55 above indicates, the UK Declaration includes a commonly used 12-
months anti-ambush clause which excludes the Court's jurisdiction in the case of
disputes "where the acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction on behalf of
any other Party to the dispute was deposited or ratified less than twelve months prior
to the filing of the application bringingthe dispute before the Court".
62. On the issue of the calculation of the 12-month period, the United Kingdom
observes that it is standard practice in international litigation to begin the calculation
of time periods the day after a notice is received. The reason for this is to avoid
disputes about the exact time of the day of receipt of the notice when the clock begins
to run for purposes of the calculation of time periods. 45 Were this practice to be
applied to the calculation of the 12-month time period in the UK Optional Clause
Declaration,the Marshal! Islands' Application instituting proceedings against the UK
wouldfall short of the 12-monthperiod by one day, i.e., the 12-monthperiod from the
filing of the Marshal! Islands' Optional Clause Declaration dated 24 April 2013
would have begun to run from 25 April 2013 and expired on 25 April 2014, one day
after the filingof the Marshal! Islands' Application instituting proceedings. The UK
is content to rest its objections to jurisdiction and admissibility on the grounds
developedelsewhere in this pleading, which engage considerations of greater moment
and principle than the technicality of whether the Marshal! Islands' Application was
filed a day early. The issue of the timing of the Marshall Islands' Application is
touchedupon nonetheless as it goes to an appreciation of the questionable character of
the Marshal!Islands' claim against the UK.
45 This standard practice in respect of the calculation of time periods is reflected in numerous
international instruments- e.g. Article 2(6) of the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules of 2010 ("For the
purpose of calculating a period of time under these Rules, such period shall begin to run on the day
following the day when the notice is received.") and the 1972 Council of Europe European Convention
on the CalculationfTime Limits(cited here for illustration purposes only as the UK is not a party to it
and it self-evidently does not apply to these proceedings).
27 (2) The Court lacks jurisdiction in consequence ofthe ratione temporis
exclusion in the Marshal/Islands' Optional Clause Declaration
63. It is well-established that, as a consequence of the condition of reciprocity
provided for in Article 36(2) of the Statute, any limitation ratione temporis contained
in the Optional Clause Declaration of one of the parties to a dispute "holds good as
between the Parties" and that consequently ''jurisdictionis conferred on the Court
46
only to the extent to which the two Declarations coincide in conferring it". On this
basis, by reference to the temporal limitation in the Marshall Islands' Optional Clause
Declaration, the potential jurisdiction of the Court in the present case is restricted to
"... disputes arising after 17 September 1991, with regard to situations or facts
subsequent to the same date".
64. The United Kingdom submits that, if (which, for the reasons set out above, is
denied) there is a justiciable dispute between the United Kingdom and the Marshall
Islands, it is not a dispute that is properly amenable to adjudication by the Court
simply by reference to situations or facts subsequent to 17 September 1991 but rather
is a dispute that turns on the alleged continuous conduct of the United Kingdom
stretching from the entry into force of the NPT on 5 March 1970 until the present.
This being the case, following the settled jurisprudence of the Court, as a material
component of the dispute falls outside the Court's jurisdiction ratione temporis, the
Marshall Islands' claim against the UK falls outside the jurisdiction of the Court in
toto.
65. As noted in Part II.C above (paragraphs 19-23), the Marshall Islands' claim
against the UK alleges a continuous breach by the UK in the nature of a bad faith
pattern of conduct going back at least to the 1970s and 1980s. Given this, the critical
question for purposes of evaluating the UK's objection to jurisdiction under the
present heading is whether the "situations or facts" to which the Court would have to
have regard in the exercise of its judicial function properly require an appreciation of
46Case Concerning Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslav.Belgium), Provisional Measures, Order of
2 June 1999, I.C.J. Reports 1999, p. 124 at paragraph 30.
28 situations or facts prior to the date from which, pursuant to the applicable Optional
Declaration Clauses, the Court can exercise its jurisdiction (hereafter referred to, for
ease of reference, as the "critical date"). Both the Court and the Permanent Court
before it have consistently stated that the relevant situations or facts in this context are
those which must be considered as being "the source of the dispute" or its "real
47
cause".
66. The essence of the Marshall Islands' case is that Article VI of the NPT and
customaryinternational law impose on the United Kingdom an obligation to pursue in
good faith and to conclude negotiations to cease the nuclear arms race and to achieve
nuclear disarmament in all its aspects and that the United Kingdom is in continuing
breach of this obligation.8
67. By reference to the Marshall Islands' Memorial, the "source" or "real cause"
of the alleged dispute is alleged conduct ofthe United Kingdom relative to Article VI
of the NPT, which entered into force on 5 March 1970, over 20 years before the
critical date in this case. The veracityf this proposition that the "situations or facts"
of this dispute date back to the commencement of the United Kingdom's obligation
underArticle VI is amply de~onstr by the act that:
(a) the Marshall Islands' central allegationagainstthe United Kingdom is that it is
in continuing breach of its obligations under the NPT and customary
intemationallaw; 49
(b) the Marshall Islands' Memorial contains a repeated refrain that the United
Kingdom has failed to comply with its obligations in the 45 years since the
NPT entered into force 5° and that the purpose of the Application is to "ensure
47Electricity Company of Sofia and Bulgaria Judgment, 1939 PCIJ, Series AIB No. 77 at p. 82,
approved and appliebythe ICJ in Case concerning Right of Passage over Indian Territory (Merits),
Judgment of 12 April1960: lC.J. Reports 1960, p. 6 at p. 35, and Certain Property (Liechtenstein v.
48rmany), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, l.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 6 at paragraph 44.
Memorial, paragraph 7.
49Memorial, paragraph 7.
50Memorial, paragraphs 6, 213, 221.
29 that the legal obligations undertaken 45 years ago by the UK in the context of
1
the NPT do indeed deliver the promised result"; 5 and
(c) the Marshall Islands recites and relies upon numerous examples ofthe United
Kingdom's approach to nuclear weapons and disarmament, dating back to the
entry into force of the NPT. The United Kingdom does not, in this regard, in
this pleading, enter into any discussion of the merits of these allegations, but
notes simply, by way of example, that the Memorial asserts inter alia that:
1. the Royal Navy has maintained unbroken nuclear weapons patrols since
52
1968·'
n. the Mutual Defence Agreement, originally concluded by the UK and the
United States in 1958, and most recently extended in 2014, is a breach of
Article VI ofthe NPT; 53
iii. during the 1970s and 1980s the UK repeatedly refused to enter its nuclear
54
weapon systems into the disarmament negotiations of the time;
iv. the UK refused to allow its nuclear weapons to be included in the
negotiations on reductions to nuclear arsenals following the end of the
Cold War· and
'
v. Mrs Thatcher sought and received assurances from the United States that
the supply of Trident missiles to the UK would not be affected by any
future arms control agreement between the US and Russia. 56
68. While the Marshall Islands also refers to and relies upon more recent
allegations against the United Kingdom, these situations or facts merely constitute, in
51Memorial, paragraph 10.
52Memorial, paragraph 35.
53
Memorial, paragraph 61.
54Memorial, paragraph 66.
55Memorial, paragraph 69.
56Memorial, paragraph 70.
30 the context of the Marshall Islands' allegations against the UK, a continuation of a
prior course of conduct on which the Marshall Islands relies to establish a violation by
the United Kingdom of its continuing obligations under the NPT and customary
international law. It is clear from the jurisprudence of both the Court and the
Permanent Court that an applicant State cannot evade the effects of a temporal
restriction on the Court's jurisdiction simply by pointing to conduct occurring after
the critical date.
69. In Phosphates in Morocco, the Permanent Court rejected Italy's contentions
that the temporal reservation was not triggered because (i) certain acts which, it was
alleged, represented unlawful acts per se were accomplished after the critical date, (ii)
these acts, taken in conjunction with earlier acts to which they were closely linked,
constituted as a whole a single, continuing and progressive illegal act which was not
fully accomplished until after the crucial date, and/or (iii) the earlier acts gave rise to
a breach of international law which continued to exist after the critical date. In so
concluding, the Permanent Court emphasised that:
" it would be impossible to admit the existence of such a relationship
between a dispute and subsequent factors which either presume the existence
or are merely the confirmation or development of earlier situations or facts
constituting the real causesof the dispute."57
70. In the present case, it is clear that the more recent situations or facts relied
upon by the Marshall Islands to sustain its claim are precisely caught by this
description.
71. The Court adopted the same approach in Certain Property (Liechtenstein v.
Germany). The issue in that case was whether the dispute related to events occurring
in the 1990s, namely the decisions of the German courts in the Pieter van Laer
Painting case, or whether the "source" or "real cause" of the dispute was the Decrees
of 1945, under which the painting in question had been confiscated, and the
57Phosphates in Morocco, Judgment, Preliminary Objections, 1938 PCIJ, Series AIB No. 74 at p. 24.
31Settlement Convention of 1952, which the German courts held deprived them of
jurisdiction to hear the case. The Court considered that:
"... the present dispute could only relate to the events that transpired in the
1990s if, as argued by Liechtenstein, in this period, Germany either departed
from a previous common position that the Settlement Convention did not
apply to Liechtenstein property, or if German courts, by applying their earlier
case law under the Settlement Convention for the first time to Liechtenstein
property, applied that Convention 'toa new situation' after the criticaldate."58
72. Applying this analysis to the present case, the Marshall Islands cannot
establish that the United Kingdom's recent conduct departs from a previous position
that it had adopted, nor that it represents a new situation arising after 17 September
1991, i.e. the critical date for present purposes.On the contrary, the whole thrust and
logic of the Marshall Islands' case is that the United Kingdom has, since 1970,
consistently failed to comply with its obligations arising from the NPT.
73. In assessing whether a temporal reservation to jurisdiction applies, the claim
must be looked at as a whole. In circumstances where a claim is, on its face, based
upon an alleged continuous course of conduct, it is not permissible for an applicant
State to disavow its reliance on earlier conduct in order to characterise the dispute as
arising after the critical date. The (then) Federal Republic of Yugoslavia's ("FRY")"
attempt to do precisely that was firmly rejected by the Court in its Provisional
Measures Order in the Legality of Use of Force case. In that case, the Court focused
on the first partof the reservation - the date on which the dispute had arisen - but the
analysis is equally applicable to establishing the date of the "situations or facts" of a
dispute. The critical date in the FRY reservation was 25 April1999. The Court noted
that it was established that the bombings in question began on 24 March 1999and had
been conducted continuously over a period extending beyond 25 April1999. In those
circumstances, the Court had no doubt that the legal dispute arose between the FRY
58
Certain Property (Liechtenstein v. Germany), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, l.C.J. Reports
2005, p. 6 at paragraph 48.
32 and the NATO respondent States well before the critical date and that the FRY could
59
not relyon each individual air attack as givingrise to a separate dispute.
74. In the present case, the claimed dispute relates to a continuing obligation of
the United Kingdom dating back to 5 March 1970. The Marshall Islands cannot
evade the effect of their temporal reservation by suggesting that the later allegations
giverise to a separate dispute.
75. In summary,the United Kingdom submitsthat the "source" or the "real cause"
of the alleged dispute arose well before 17 September 1991 and that the Court
accordinglylacksjurisdiction ratione temporis in respect of the entire dispute.
(3) The Court lacks jurisdiction as the Marshal/ Islands' acceptance of the
Court's compulsory jurisdiction was onlyfor the purposes of the present dispute
76. The Marshal! Islands' Optional Clause Declaration was deposited with the
Secretary-General of the United Nations on 24 April 2013. The present Application
was filed with the Court on 24 April 2014. As noted above, this cannot be attributed
to a mere coincidence of timing. On the contrary, it is the clearest possible indication
that the Marshall Islands accepted the compulsoryjurisdiction of the Court "for the
. purpose of" enabling it to bring the present claim against the United Kingdom, within
the meaning of this phrase in the reservation in paragraph 1(iii) of the United
Kingdom'sOptional Clause Declaration.
77. The appropriate principles for the interpretation of Optional Clause
declarations and reservations were restated by the Court in Fisheries Jurisdiction
(Spain v Canada). 60 Inparticular, the Courtfound, inter alia,as follows:
(a) Conditions or reservations do not derogate from a wider acceptance already
given, but operate to define the parameters of the State's acceptance of the
59Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslaviv.Belgium), Provisional Measures, Order of 2 June 1999,
lC.J.Reports 1999, p.l24 at paragraphs 28-29.
6°Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Jurisdiction of the Court, JlC.J.nReports 1998,
p. 432 at paragraphs 44-56.
33 compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. There is therefore no reason to interpret
them restrictively.
(b) Every declaration and reservation must be interpreted "as it stands", having
regard to the words actually used.
(c) The Court should not base itself on a purely grammatical interpretation of the
text but must seek the interpretation which is in harmony with a natural and
reasonable way of reading the text:
1. smce a declaration under Article 36(2) of the Statute is a unilaterally
drafted instrument, the Court may place emphasis on the intention of the
depositing State;
u. the intention of a reserving State may be deduced not only from the text of
the relevant clause, but also from the context in which the clause is to be
read and from evidence regarding the circumstances of its preparation and
the purposes intended to be served.
78. Applying these principles to the present case, the United Kingdom submits
that the jurisdictionof the Court is excluded by operation of the "for the purpose of'
reservation in the UK's Optional Clause Declaration. The natural and reasonable
interpretation of the language used is supported by the drafting history of the UK's
Declaration and reservation.
79. The United Kingdom first entered a reservation in these terms in 1957, as.a
reaction to concerns raised by the Right of Passage case, in which Portugal launched
proceedings against India just three days after depositing an Optional Clause
61
Declaration phrased in general terms with the United Nations Secretary-General.
As the UK Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs stated in Parliament, the wording of
the new reservation sought to prevent an "ambush":
61M Wood, "The United Kingdom 's Acceptance of the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International
Court" in Festskrift til Car/ August Fleischer (eds. 0 Fauchald!H Jakhelln/A Syse) (2006) at pp. 632ff.
34 "... I am advised that when our standing acceptance was originally deposited,
it was only intended to compel us to appear before the Court at the instance of
countries which had likewise deposited a standing acceptance of the Court's
compulsory jurisdiction.
Accordingly, one of our new reservations, which was intended to meet this
point, specifically excludes disputes in which the other party has accepted the
compulsory jurisdiction of the Court only for the purposes of that particular
dispute."62
80. The United Kingdom submits that the present case falls within both the
language and the spirit of the "for the purpose of' reservation. The Marshal! Islands
cannot rely on the fact that its Optional Clause Declaration is expressed in general
terms and could potentially lead to claims being filed against the RMI in the future.
The same could have been said of the Portuguese Declaration in the Right of Passage
case, but it is clear that reliance on such a general declaration fell within the mischief
that the reservation was designed to avoid.
81. The United Kingdom contended in its Preliminary Objections to the Court's
jurisdiction in Legality of Use of Force (Yugoslavia v United Kingdom) as follows: 63
"Although it is ostensibly couched in general terms, the FRY declaration was
in reality deposited for the purpose of the present dispute. That is clear from
the attempt to accept the jurisdiction of the Court with regard to the military
action by the United Kingdom and other Respondents while excluding from
the jurisdiction of the Court the FRY actions to which that was a response, as
well as from the delay of only three days between the deposit of the
declaration and the filing of the Application in the present case."
(emphasis added)
62
63Selwyn Lloyd, House of Commons Debate, 8 November 1957, Cols 472-475- Annex 7.
Preliminary Objections of the United Kingdom of20 June 2000 at paragraph 4.27.
3582. In the present case, although the Marshall Islands delayed the filing of their
Application until a date exactly 12 months after it had deposited its Declaration, the
alacrity with which the Application was filed isjustas clear a betrayal of the Marshall
Islands' true purpose in accepting the Court's compulsory jurisdiction. The United
Kingdom accordingly submits that the Court lacks jurisdiction in the present case in
consequence of the "for the purpose of' reservation in the United Kingdom's
Optional Clause Declaration.
C. The Marshall Islands' claim is excluded in consequence of the absence
from the proceedings of States whose essential interests are engaged by the claim
83. In addition or in the alternative to the preceding grounds of preliminary
objection to jurisdiction and admissibility, the United Kingdom contends that the
specific allegations advanced against the UK by the Marshall Islands are such that
they directly and unavoidably engage the interests of States which are not before the
Court. In consequence, the Marshall Islands' Application is inadmissible and/or the
Court lacksjurisdiction to address the claim in the absenceof these essential parties.
84. This objection to admissibility and/or jurisdiction rests on the principle
enunciated in the Monetary Gold case. As a matter of simple logic, the United
Kingdom cannot conduct, still less conclude, nuclear disarmament negotiations on its
own. Moreover, it is evident from a closer analysis of the specific allegations of
breach made against the UK that other NPT nuclear-weapon States (i) have taken and
are taking positions that are identical toor, for present purposes, bear no material
difference from - the position of the UK on various conferences, initiatives and
resolutions regarding nuclear disarmament (as is evident, inter alia, from joint
statements by the UK, the US and France, and by the five permanent members of the
Security Council on several occasions), and/or (ii) are counterparties to the
agreements or specific examples of cooperation which are alleged to constitute
specific violations by the UK of its obligations under Article VI of the NPT or
customary law. The Court cannot, in consequence, rule on the conduct of the United
Kingdom without concurrently necessarily and inevitably evaluating the lawfulness of
the conduct of other States. It follows that a determination by the Court of whether
the United Kingdom is in breach of its obligations would not only affect the legal
36interests of other NPT nuclear-weapon States but that those interests would "form the
64
very subject matter" of the decision and/or that the decision would inevitably imply
"an evaluation of the lawfulness of the conduct of another State which is not a party
65
to the case".
85. Before turning to this issue, two preliminary observations are warranted.
First, the United Kingdom notes that the Marshall Islands has a long-standing dispute
with the United States over claimed U.S. responsibility for and compensation in
respect of radiation-related health issues among Marshal} Islanders. This dispute is
reflected in legal proceedings before U.S. domestic courts, in diplomatic exchanges in
the international arena, and in RMI political engagement with the U.S. Administration
and Congress in Washington D.C. These claims relate to the effects of the U.S.
nuclear testing programme in the Marshal} Islands between 30 June 1946 and 18
August 1958. As is apparent from publicly available U.S. Congressional documents,
in September 2000, the Marshal} Islands submitted a "Changed Circumstances"
request to the United States Congress "seeking additional compensation and remedies
for injuries and losses to the people of the Marshall Islands arising from the U.S.
nuclear testing program at Enewetak and Bikini atolls from 1946 to 1958". 66 Against
this background, press reports citing Marshall Islands officials and political figures
suggest that ''the filing of the cases [before the International Court of Justice] was
driven by a long-held frustration with the United States over its denial of
responsibility for radiation health issues among islanders". 67
86. Second, as noted in openmg, m parallel with its Application instituting
proceedings against the United Kingdom, the Marshall Islands filed eight other
broadly similar Applications instituting proceedings, one against each of China,
France, India, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and the United States. The
Marshall Islands also initiated proceedings in parallel, and on broadly similar
64Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Preliminary Question), Judgment l.C.J.
65ports 1954,p.19 atp. 32.
East Timor (Portugalv.Australia), Judgment, l.C.J. Reports 1p. 90 at paragraph29.
66Report Evaluating the Request of the Government of the Republic of the Marshal/ Islands Presented
to the Congressf the United States of AmeriNovember2004- Annex 8.
67Kyodo News/PacNews report, 11 August 2014, citing Annette Note and Abacca Maddison,
respectively the deputy chief of mission at the Marshall Islands' embassy in Japan and a former
MarshallIslandssenator- Annex 9.
37grounds, against the United States in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.
87. The implication of these parallel filings, which is reflected also in the detail of
the Marshall Islands' claim against the UK, is that the Marshall Islands considers that
the allegations it is pursuing give rise to a shared responsibility on the partof the NPT
nuclear-weapon States and other States that possess or are said to possess nuclear
weapons (collectively referred to herein as "nuclear-weapon States").
88. The United Kingdom is the only State amongst those States against which the
Marshall Islands filed Applications that is both a party to the NPT and has a current
Optional Clause Declaration. It is accordingly perhaps not far from the mark to
suggest that the United Kingdom is the litigation foil for the Marshal! Islands'
frustration with the United States and that, to the extent that the Marshall Islands has
genuine concerns or grievances to air, these are directed more widely than at the
United Kingdom and are properly addressed in the context of the ongoing NPT
review process.
89. What the United Kingdom here refers to, for ease of reference, as the
Monetary Gold principle is the principle that the Court can only exercise jurisdiction
over a State with its consent. The origin of the principle is usually taken to be the
68
Monetary Gold case although it is also evident in earlier jurisprudence. In the
Monetary Gold case, the Court held that it did not have jurisdiction over Italy's claim
to the gold on the basis that:
"... the Application centres around a claim by Italy against Albania, a claim to
indemnification for an alleged wrong. Italy believes that she possesses a right
against Albania for the redress of an international wrong which, according to
Italy, Albania has committed against her. In order, therefore, to determine
68E.g. the PCIJ in its Advisory Opinion on Eastern Carelia (PCIJ, Series B, No. 5) declined
jurisdiction on the basis that the requested opinion related to an actual dispute with Russia, which was
not a Member of the League of Nations and had not submitted to the court, and th"It is well
established in international law that no State can, without its consent, be compelled to submit its
disputes with other States either to mediation or to arbitration, or to any other kind of pacific
settlement." (p. 27).
38 whether Italy is entitled to receive the gold, it is necessary to determine
whether Albania has committed any international wrong against Italy, and
whether she is under an obligation to pay compensation to her; and, if so, to
determinethe amount of compensation ...
The Court cannot decide such a dispute without the consent of Albania ... To
adjudicate upon the internationalresponsibilityof Albania without her consent
would run counter to a well-established principle of international law
embodied in the Court's Statute, namely, that the Court can only exercise
jurisdiction over a State with its consent.
... Inthe present case, Albania's legal interests would not only be affected by
a decision, but would form the very subject matter of the decision. In such a
case, the Statute cannot be regarded, by implication, as authorising
proceedingsto be continued in the absence of Albania." 69
90. In the present case, the Marshall Islands claim, in broad terms, that the United
Kingdom has violated and continues to violate its international obligations under
Article VI of the NPT and under customaryinternational law by:
(a) failing to pursue in good faith and to bring to a conclusion negotiations
leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective
international control;
(b) taking actions to improve qualitatively its nuclear weapons system and to
maintain it for the indefinite future;
(c) failingto pursue negotiations that would end the nuclear arms race;
(d) modernising, updating and upgrading its nuclear weapons capacity and
maintaining its declared nuclear weaponspolicy; and
69Case of the Monetary Gold Removed from Rome in 1943 (Preliminary Question), JudgmentlC.J.
Reports 1954,p.19 atp.32.
39(e) effectively preventing the great majority of non-nuclear-weapon States parties
to the NPT from fulfilling their obligations under Article VI. 70
91. The United Kingdom submits that the Court cannot determine whether the
United Kingdom is in breach of these obligations without inevitably also determining
that other nuclear-weapon States are also in breach of their obligations.
92. In relation to the alleged breach of the obligation to negotiate an end to the
nuclear arms race and/or general nuclear disarmament, the United Kingdom cannot
conduct, still less conclude, nuclear disarmament negotiations by itself. The
requirement for all States to comply with their obligation to pursue negotiations in
good faith in relation to nuclear disarmament, has been repeatedly emphasised by the
71
Security Council. The Marshal! Islands acknowledges this in its discussion of the
nature of the obligation to negotiate at paragraph 176 of its Memorial, in which it
(rightly) emphasises that:
• the essence of negotiations is communication and discussion;
• negotiations are discussions held with a vtew to reaching a mutually
acceptable settlement of some matter in issue between two (or more) States;
• negotiations require a genuine attempt by one of the disputing parties to
engage in discussions with the other disputing party.
93. However, although Article VI of the NPT requires all the States parties to
pursue negotiations in good faith, in practical terms the steps towards nuclear
disarmament must necessarily be undertaken and fulfilled by the nuclear-weapon
States. The Marshall Islands' claim is therefore not based on the relationship between
the United Kingdom and the Marshall Islands but on the relationship between the
United Kingdom and the other nuclear-weapon States collectively. This is evident
70Memorial, paragraph 239.
71See, for instance, Resolution 984 (1995) and Resolution 1887 (2009).
40 from the fact that the Marshall Islands filed materially identical Applications against
all the nuclear-weapon States. The legal interests of those other 8 States consequently
"form the very subject matter" of the Marshal! Islands' claim against the United
Kingdom.
94. In this sense, the allegations made by the Marshall Islands are very different
from those which were at issue in the Nauru case. Nauru alleged that Australia was
responsible for certain breaches of the Trusteeship Agreement under which Nauru
was administered. Australia contended that the Court could not determine its
responsibility without simultaneously determining the international responsibility of
the UK and New Zealand, who were jointly designated as the Administering
Authority. In practical terms, however, the administration was undertaken solely by
Australia, and Nauru's claim was therefore based solely on the conduct of Australia
towardsNauru. The Court was therefore able to distinguish the rights and interests of
the United Kingdom and New Zealand, which would only arise if, for example,
Australiaclaimed that they werejointly and severally liable for any damages awarded
to Nauru:
" the determination of the responsibility of New Zealand or the United
Kingdom is not a prerequisite for the determination of the responsibility of
Australia, the only object of Nauru's claim ... In the present case, a finding
by the Court regarding the existence or the content of the responsibility
attributed to Australia by Nauru might well have implications for the legal
situation of the two other States concerned, but no finding in respect of that
legal situation willbe needed as a basis for the Court's decision on Nauru's
claims against Australia."72 (emphasisadded)
95. In the present case, the United Kingdom is not, in any real sense, the only
object of the Marshall Islands' claim. The Marshall Islandsdoes not allege that it has
been caused harm by reason of the United Kingdom's conduct towards itself but by
reason of the United Kingdom's conduct vis-a-vis the other nuclear-weapon States.
72Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Naurv. Australia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, J.C.J.
Reports 1992p.240 atp. 261.
41For this reason, the conduct and obligations of the other nuclear-weapon States lie at
the very heart of the Marshal! Islands' claim and the Court cannot consider and
evaluate the United Kingdom's conduct of nuclear disarmament negotiations in
isolation from that of the other nuclear-weapon States.
96. The same conclusion is reached by applying the analysis of the Chamber in
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvador v. Honduras). The Court
there held that it did not follow from El Salvador's claim that there was a regime of
condominium in the Gulf of Fonseca that Nicaragua had an interest which formed the
very subject matter of the decision. In reaching this decision, the Chamber focused
on the concept of opposability:
"If Nicaragua is permitted to intervene, the Judgment to be given by the
Chamber will not declare, as between Nicaragua and the other two States, that
Nicaragua does or does not possess rights under a condominium in the waters
of the Gulf ... but merely that, as between El Salvador and Honduras, the
regime of condominium declared by the Central American Court is or is not
opposable to Honduras." 73
97. In the present case, the Marshall Islands manifestly does not seek a decision of
the Court regarding the United Kingdom's obligations under the NPT and/or
customary international law which is merely opposable to itself. A decision which
required the United Kingdom to pursue negotiations on nuclear disarmament solely
with the Marshall Islands would be pointless. What the Marshall Islands seeks - as
evidenced by its nine applications before the Court - is an order which requires the
nuclear-weapon States to negotiate and conclude negotiations inter se.
98. The inextricable link between the United Kingdom and other nuclear-weapon
States is even more evident when the detail of the Marshal! Islands' allegations is
considered. A number of factual allegations are raised in the Memorial, in particular
it is asserted that:
73
Land, Island and Maritime Frontier Dispute (El Salvav.rHonduras), Application to Intervene,
Judgment.l C.J. Reports 1990, p. 92 at p. 122.
42(a) the renewal of the UK-US Mutual Defence Agreement ("MDA") is a breach
of Article VI because it is directed towards the continuation and enhancement
ofthe UK's nuclear capability; 74
(b) the development of a successor nuclear warhead is being facilitated by
research conductedjointly by the UK and France. In 2010, the UK and France
concluded a bilateral Treaty for Defence and Security Cooperation and
cooperation between the UK and France on nuclear warhead research was
subsequently extended under an agreement concluded between Prime Minister
Cameron and President Hollande on 31 January 2014; 75
(c) the UK voted against the UN General Assembly Resolution AIRES/67/56,
which established an Open Ended Working Group ("OEWG") to develop
proposals for progressing multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations. 76 In
ajoint statement with the US and France, on 6 November 2012, the UK stated
that it was unable to support this Resolution, the establishment of the OEWG
or any outcome it might produce; 77
(d) in a Joint Statement issued at the conclusion of the Conference of the P5
Nuclear Weapon States in London in February 2015, the P5 "reaffirmed that a
step-by-step approach to nuclear disarmament that promotes international
stability, peace and undiminished and increased security for all remains the
only realistic and practical route to achieving a world without nuclear
weapons"; 78
(e) the UK has always voted against the UN General Assembly's Resolution on
"Follow-up to the advisory opinion ... on the Legality of the Threat or Use of
Nuclear Weapons"/ 9
74Memorial, paragraph 61.
75Memorial, paragraphs 62-64.
76Memorial, paragraph 76.
77
78Memorial, paragraph 77.
Memorial, paragraph 81.
79Memorial, paragraph 82.
43(f) the UK has officially expressed opposition to the proposed Nuclear Weapons
Convention, submitted by Costa Rica; 80
(g) the UK, in a joint statement with the US and France at the UN General
Assembly High-Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament in September 2013,
welcomed the increased enthusiasm around the nuclear disarmament debate
but expressed regret that energy was being directed towards initiatives such as
the High Level Meeting and the OEWG; 81
(h) the UK has voted against UN General Assembly Resolutions following up the
High Level Meetings in 2013 and 2014; 82
99. These allegations need only to be stated to demonstrate that the allegations
against the UK cannot be ring-fenced from the obligations and conduct of other
nuclear-weapon States- and in particular those of France and the US. In particular:
(a) if the entry into the MDA constitutes a breach by the UK, it must follow that
an equivalent breach has been committed by the US. The same must follow
with respect to the agreements and cooperation with France;
(b) if the Joint Statements made by the UK on behalf of the US and France, in
November 2012 and September 2013 and the statement made on behalf of the
PS in February 2015 constitute a breach of the UK's obligations, they must
necessarily also engage the responsibility of those other States;
(c) if the allegations regarding the UK's voting record in the UN General
Assembly are sustained, that must also hold true for other nuclear-weapon
States which have followed the same voting pattern; and
80Memorial, paragraphs 83-89.
81Memorial, paragraph 90.
82Memorial, paragraph 91.
44(d) similarly, if the United Kingdom's attitude towards the proposed Nuclear
Weapons Convention is a violation of its obligations, then it must follow that
other nuclear-weapon States which have adopted similar or less constructive
approaches must also be in breach of their obligations under the NPT and/or
the claimed rules of customary internationallaw.
100. As the Court has recognised, for example in Land and Maritime Boundary
(Cameroon v.Nigeria;B 3in circumstances where the interests of third parties may be
directly or indirectly affected by a judgment of the Court, the protection afforded by
Article 59 of the Court's Statute will not always besufficient. In the present case, to
the extent that the position of the UK in respect of these allegations mirrors that of
other nuclear-weapon States, it would be illusory to suggest that the rights and
interestsof those third States are effectivelyprotected by Article 59 of the Statute.
1 01. For these reasons, the United Kingdom submits that the interests of other
nuclear-weapon States do "form the very subject matter" of the Marshall Islands'
claim against it and that consequently the claim falls four-square within the principle
laid down in the Monetary Gold case.
102. In any event, the jurisprudence of the Court indicates that the strict application
of the "very subject matter" threshold enunciated in the Monetary Gold case should
be, andhas been, relaxed. In particular:
(a) a number of strong dissenting opm10ns in the Nauru case highlighted a
concern that the approach of the majority was unduly restrictive. The
President of the Court, Sir Robert Jennings considered that it was "surely
manifest" that the legal interests ofNew Zealand and the UK would form the
very subject matter of any decision in Nauru's case against Australia. In
particular, he emphasised that if it were to be determined on the merits either
that Australia's obligations were joint and several or that Australia was only
liable for a proportion of the alleged damage, the Court would unavoidably
83Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v.Nigeria: Equatorial
Guinea intervening), Judgment, IC.J. Reports 2002, p. 303 at paragraph 238.
45 and simultaneously be making a decision in respect of the legal interests of
those States. 84 Judge Ago highlighted the inconsistency between the
acknowledgment in the judgment that a determination by the Court of
Australia's legal responsibility "might well have implications for the legal
situation" of the other States and the assertion that "no finding in respect of
that legal situation" would be required. In his view, a ruling on the claims
against Australia would inevitably affect the legal rights and obligations of the
UK and New Zealand. 85 Similarly, Judge Schwebel stated that, "[w]hat is
dispositive is whether the determination of the legal rights of the present party
effectively determines the legal rights of the absent party" 86 (emphasis added)
and considered that a judgment on the responsibility of Australia would be
tantamount to a judgment against New Zealand and the United Kingdom, in
relation to which the protection given by Article 59 would be notional rather
87
than real.
88
(b) In the East Timor case the Court held that, "Whatever the nature of the
obligations invoked, the Court could not rule on the lawfulness of the conduct
of a State when itsjudgment would imply an evaluation of the lawfulness of
the conduct of another State which is not a party to the case" (emphasis
added). This statement constitutes a significant restatement of the "very
subject matter" threshold and, in the United Kingdom's submission,
encapsulates the criticisms of the dissenting Judges in the Nauru case.
(c) This interpretation of the scope of the Monetary Gold principle is supported
by the approach of the Court to applications by third States to intervene,
pursuant to Article 62 of the Statute, in maritime delimitations. In Continental
Shelf Case (Tunisia v. Libya), the Court rejected Malta's application to
intervene on the basis that Malta could not establish a legal interest which was
directly in issue in the proceedings. However, the Court emphasised that its
84
Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v.Australia), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J.
Reports 1992,p. 240 at pp. 301-302.
85Id. at p. 328.
86Id. ap. 331.
87Id. at p. 342.
88East Timor (Portugal v. Australia) Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1995, p. 90 at paragraph 28.
46 jurisdiction was limited to that conferred upon it by the parties and that it
could therefore make no conclusions with respect to the rights or claims of
other States which were not parties to the case. 89 The Court consequently did
not fix the terminal point of the delimitation line as that would depend upon
the delimitation to be agreed with Malta. 90 A similar approach has been
adopted in other cases, e.g., in Continental Shelf (Libya v. Malta/ 1, Maritime
Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain 92 and
Land and Maritime Boundary (Cameroon v. Nigeria). 93 In all of these cases,
although the Court was able to exercise jurisdiction insofar as the dispute
concerned only the parties before it,there was a clear recognition that it could
not properly make determinations that would potentially trespass upon the
rights or interests of third States that were not party to the proceedings. In this
context it does not appear to have been necessary to establish that a
determination of the third State's rights is a logical or temporal prerequisite to
the delimitation between the parties. Indeed, in Tunisia v. Libya, Libya v.
Malta and Cameroon v. Nigeria the legal interests or rights of the third States
do not appear to have been identified with precision.
103. In light of these authorities, the United Kingdom submits that the rights and
legal interests of third States constitute the "very subject matter" of the Marshall
Islands' claim against it and, afortiori, that a decision of the Court in this case would
necessarily "imply an evaluation of the lawfulness of the conduct of another State
which is not a party to the case". Consequently, in accordance with the Monetary
89Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Application to Intervene, Judgment, 1.C.J.
Reports 1981,p. 3 at paragraph 35.
9° Continental Shelf (Tunisia/Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Judgment, IC.J. Reports 1982,p. 18 at
~aragr a3p.h.3.
1 Continental Shelf (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya/Malta), Judgment, I C.J. Reports 1985, p.13 at
paragraph 21:"...the decision ofthe Court must be confmed to the area in which, as the Court has been
informed by Italy, that State has no claims to continental shelf rights."
92Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain, Merits, Judgment,
1.C.J. Reports 2001,p. 40 at paragraph 221: "[The Court] cannot fix the boundary's southernmost
point, since its definitive location is dependent upon the limits of the respective maritime zones of
Saudi Arabia and ofthe Parties..."
93Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial ·
Guinea intervening), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 20p. 303 at paragraph 238; "The jurisdiction of the
Court is founded on the consent of the parties. The Court cannot therefore decide upon legal rights of
third States not parties to the proceedings..."
47Gold principle, the claim is inadmissible and/or the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction
in relation thereto.
D. The Marshall Islands' claim falls outside
the judicial function of the Court and the Court should therefore decline to
exercise jurisdiction over the claim
104. As the Court observed in the Northern Cameroons case, "[t]here are inherent
limitations on the exercise of the judicial function which the Court, as a court of
justice, can never ignore ... The Court itself, and not the parties, must be the guardian
of the Court's judicial integrity". 94 It follows, therefore, that even if the Court finds
that it has jurisdiction in a particular case, it may decline to exercise that jurisdiction
if it considers that to do so would be incompatible with its judicial function. The
concept of judicial integrity has, in particular, led the Court to decline to exercise its
jurisdiction in circumstances where it would not be in a position to "render a
judgment that is capable of effective application". 95
105. The seeds of this principle of effective application are evident in the judgment
of the Permanent Court in the Interpretation of the Greco-Bulgarian Agreement of
December 9th 1927 case. 96 Two questions had been submitted to the Permanent
Court: first whether there was a dispute between the parties within the meaning of
Article 8 of the Agreement and secondly, if so, what was the nature of the pecuniary
obligations arising out of the Agreement. The Permanent Court answered the first
question in the negative and resisted the parties' requests that it should nonetheless
provide an answer to the second question. It held that the second question was
conditional upon an affirmative answer being given to the first question and that "to
ignore this condition at the request of the Parties would be in effect to allow the two
interested·Governments to submit a question for the advisory opinion of the Court".
94Case Concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections,
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports I963p. 15 ap. 29.
95Id.at p. 33.
96
PCIJ, Series A/B, No. 45, p. 68 at p. 87.
48106. The proper scope of the Court's functionwas raised in particularly clear relief
in the Northern Cameroons case. Cameroon sought a declaration that the United
Kingdom had failed to respect certain obligations arising under the Trusteeship
Agreementas a result, in particular,of the organisationof the plebiscite which had led
to the Northern Cameroons joining the Federation of Nigeria. The Trusteeship
Agreementhad been terminated by a General Assembly Resolution, which came into
effect shortly after the Cameroon's application was filed with the Court. Cameroon
acknowledged that the effect of the General Assembly Resolution could not be
reversed by th~ Court and did not seek any order for restitution or reparation.
Cameroon maintained, however, that the Court could and should give a declaratory
judgment to the effect that prior to its termination, the United Kingdom had breached
the provisionsof the Trusteeship Agreement. In rejecting Cameroon's application, the
Courtemphasisedthat:
(a) it would be impossible for the Court to render an effective judgment, given
that the decisions of the General Assembly would not be reversed and the
territoryof the Northern Cameroons would not be joined to the Republic of
Cameroon;
(b) in accordance with Article 59 of the Statute, the judgment would not be
binding on Nigeria or any other Stateor on any organ of the United Nations;
(c) the Court could only pronounce judgment in relation to concrete cases in
which there was, at the time of adjudication,an actual controversy involving a
conflict of legal interests betweenthe parties;
(d) the Court'sjudgment must have some practical consequence in the sense that
it can affect existing legal rights or obligations the parties, thus removing
uncertainty from their legal relations;
(e) the Court may, in an appropriate case, make a declaratory judgment. In
deciding whether or not it is appropriate to do so, the Court will consider
whether its judgment will have any continuing applicability or "forward
reach";
49(f) although the Court is not generally concerned with the aftermath of its
judgment, there is a difference between, on the one hand, a consideration of
the manner or likelihood of compliance with its judgment and, on the other, a
consideration of whether the judgment "would be susceptible of any
compliance or execution whatever, at any time in the future";
(g) it is not the function of the Court merely to provide a basis for political action.
When the Court adjudicates on the merits of a dispute, one or other or both
parties should, as a matter of fact, be in a position to take some retroactive or
prospective action or avoidance of action which would constitute compliance
with the Court;s judgment. 97
107. The principles enunciated in Northern Cameroons were applied by the Court
in the Nuclear Tests cases. The Court concluded that France's declarations regarding
the effective cessation of nuclear tests caused the dispute between the parties to
disappear. In holding that the proceedings should not continue, the Court again
focussed on the proper scope of itsjudicial functions:
"It does not enter into the adjudicatory functions of the Court to deal
with issues in abstracto, once it has reached the conclusion that the
merits of the case no longer fall to be determined. The object of the
claim having disappeared, there is nothing on which to give
judgment. "98
108. The principle has also been approved by Judge Schwebel in his dissenting
99
opinions in the Lockerbie cases. Judge Schwebel considered that, in view of the
97Case Concerning the Northern Cameroons (Cameroon v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections,
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1963, p. 15 at pp. 33-38.
98Nuclear Tests (Australiv. France) Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 253 at paragraph 59; Nuclear
99sts (New Zealandv. France) Judgment I.C.J. Reports 1974, p. 457 at paragraph 62. .
Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention arisingfrom the Aerial
Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v. United Kingdom), Preliminary Objections,
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 9 at p. 70, and Questions of Interpretation and Application of the
1971 Montreal Convention arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libyan Arab Jamahiriya v.
United States of America), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 115 at p. 161.
50adoption by the Security Council of Resolutions 748 (1992) and 883 (1993), any
judgment of the Court could have no lawful effect on the rights and obligations of the
parties and would therefore not be within the proper judicial function of the Court.
109. In the present case, the Marshall Islands requests the Court (i) to declare that
the United Kingdom is in breach of its obligations under the NPT and customary
international law, and (ii) to order the United Kingdom to "take all steps necessary to
comply with its obligations under Article VI of the [NPT] and under customary
international law within one year of the Judgment, including the pursuit, by initiation
if necessary, of negotiations in good faith aimed at the conclusion of a convention on
nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective control". 100 The
United Kingdom submits that any such declarations or orders would have no practical
consequence and would therefore not be within the proper judicial function of the
Court.
110. As set out above, the United Kingdom cannot conduct negotiations on its own,
still less can it successfully conclude negotiations by itself. It is an obligation that, as
a matter of logic, requires the participation of at least one other State and, as a matter
of practice, requires the participation of at least all other nuclear-weapon States. This
basic fact is clearly acknowledged by the Marshall Islands, which has, of course,
sought the same order in each of its nine applications against nuclear-weapon States.
111. In the present case, any declaration or order by the Court would, in accordance
with the Monetary Gold principle, necessarily have to be limited in its scope to the
United Kingdom. The consequences of this are as follows:
(a) the Court cannot in any practical sense order the United Kingdom to enter into
or conclude disarmament negotiations in the future. Such an Order would be
entirely dependent upon the conduct of third States which would, in
accordance with Article 59 of the Statute, not be bound by the Order. The
Order would consequently not be "susceptible of any compliance";
10Memorial, paragraphs 239-240.
51(b) the United Kingdom is not in a position, on its own, to take any retroactive or
prospective action in order to comply with a judgment of the Court. In this
regard, it is noted that the Marshall Islands (rightly) does not seek any
reparation from the United Kingdom;
(c) a declaration to the effect that the United Kingdom is under an obligation to
conduct and conclude disarmament negotiations in ·the future would add
nothing to any obligation which is currently imposed by the NPT;
(d) a declaration limited to the allegations that the United Kingdom has breached
its obligations in the past would not have any "continuing applicability" or
"forward reach" and thus, in accordance with the approach of the Court in the
Northern Cameroons case, this is not an appropriate case for granting such
declaratory relief.
112. For these reasons, it is submitted that the principle laid down in tNorthern
Cameroons case is directly engaged in the present case. Moreover, the present case is
not simply a situation - as was the position in theNorthern Cameroons case and the
Nuclear Tests cases - where an application has been rendered moot by reason of an
event subsequent to the filing of the Application. On the contrary, it must have been
clear from before the time when the RMI's Application was filed that any judgment
of the Court in this matter would have no practical consequence and that the
Application is therefore hopelessly misconceived. On this basis, if, contrary to the
above, the Court concludes that the Application is otherwise admissible and within
the scope of its jurisdiction, the Court should nevertheless decline to exercise its
jurisdiction in the present case.
* * *
52 IV. SUMMARY AND REQUEST FOR RELIEF
113. In summary of the foregoing, the United Kingdom's objections to jurisdiction
and admissibility,in addition or in the alternative,are as follows:
(a) In consequence of the failure by the Marshall Islands to give the United
Kingdom any notice whatever of its claim, there is no justiciable dispute between the
Marshall Islands and the United Kingdom with the consequence that the Court lacks
jurisdictionto address the claims and/orthe claims are inadmissible.
(b) The Court lacks jurisdiction in consequence of the temporal restriction in the
Marshall Islands' Optional Clause Declaration which, by depriving the Court of
jurisdiction in respect of a substantial part of the period of the breaches alleged by the
Marshal!Islands, has the effect of deprivingthe Court ofjurisdiction over the entirety
of the MarshallIslands' claim.
(c) The Court lacks jurisdiction in consequence of the provision in the UK's
Optional Clause Declaration excluding jurisdiction over any dispute in respect of
which the other Party has accepted the compulsoryjurisdiction of the Court only "for
thepurpose of the dispute".
(d) The Application is inadmissible and/or the Court lacks jurisdiction on the
ground of the absence before the Court of other essential parties whose interests are
directly and unavoidably engaged by the allegations advanced by the Marshall
Islands.
(e) In any event, the Court should decline to exercise itsjurisdiction in this matter
on the ground that any judgment it may give will have no practical consequence and
the matter therefore falls outside the properjudicial functionf the Court.
114. For the reasons set out in this pleading, the United Kingdom requests the
Court to adjudge and declare that the claim brought by the Marshall Islands ts
inadmissibleand/or that the Court lacksjurisdiction to addressthe claim.
53lain Macleod
Agent of the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 15 June 2015
54 LIST OF ANNEXES
The Annexes to the United Kingdom's Preliminary Objections are set out below and
numbered in the order in which they are referred tothe text.
Annex 1 Statement by H.E. Mr Alfred Capelle, Permanent Representative of the
Marshall Islands at the 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation ofNuclear Weapons, 5 May2005.
http:llwww.un.org/en/conf/npt/2005/statements/npt05marshall%20isla
nds.pdf
Annex2· UK Statement to the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review
Conference by Ambassador John Duncan, Ambassador for Multilateral
Arms Control and Disarmament, 21 May 2010.
http://www. un.org/en/corif/npt/20 10/statements/pdf/uk _en.pdf
Annex3
Third report of the Special Rapporteur, Mr. James Crawford (52nd
sessionof the ILC (2000), A/CN.4/507/Add.2 paragraph 235).
Annex4 Summary Record of the 2682"d Meeting of the International Law
Commission, UN Doe. A/CN.4/SR.2682, paragraph 38.
Annex5 Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, vol. II; Part
Two, UN Doe. A/56/10, Commentary to Article 43, paragraph 3.
Annex6 Statement on behalf of France,the UK and the US by Minister Alistair
Burt, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, United Kingdom of
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, at the UN General Assembly High
Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament, 26 September 2013.
http:/!www.un.org/en/ga/68/meetings/nucleardisarmament/pdf/GB _en.
pdf
Annex 7 Selwyn Lloyd, HC Deb 8 November 1957, Cols 472-475
55Annex8 Report Evaluating the Request of the Government of the Republic of
the Marshall Islands Presented to the Congress of the United States of
America, November 2004.
http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rpt/40422.htm
Annex9 "Marshal! Islands seeks support for ICJ cases against nuclear state",
Kyodo News/PacNews report, 11 August 2014.
http://www.islandsbusiness.com/news/marshall-islands/5 994/marshall
islands-seeks-support-for-icj-cases-again/
56 INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
OBLIGATIONS CONCERNING NEGOTIATIONS RELATING TO
CESSATION OF THE NUCLEAR ARMS RACE AND TO NUCLEAR
DISARMAMENT
(MARSHALL ISLANDS v.UNITED KINGDOM)
ANNEXES
TO
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
OF THE
UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN
AND NORTHERN IRELAND
15June2015 [Checkagainstdelivery]
.~,,,....•
:~·~.., REPUBLIC OF THE MAltsHALL ISLANDS
-~~ .. ~~~.·
~;.-' .E-.J'.~
',; ~•r.., StateDteatbyILE. Mr. AlfredCapele, Penaa .. tJlepnseatadw
..~.··-
At CM Z8t5 Rftiew Ceat'enBeeefdt.ePartia
totileTreatyon dieNoa-Prolltend• efNulear Weapon~
Thank you, Mr.President
I havethehcmortospeak onbehalfofthe'RqmblicoftheMarsballlslaads.Weassociate
ourselveswith Chestatementdelivered011behalfof thePacifiIslaudaForum group
earlierthisweekAs aregion oftheworlclwherethreeglobalpowen lavetesteauelear
weapons,I believeourislandDaiionJaavauaiqueanclerodiblvoiceotttheimporrance
andurgency ofnoo-prolifcratioll. ·
Mr. President,
At theoutsetmydelegation.wouldliketoCODgr8tU1y aoeon yourelcetionasPrcsiden1
ofthe2005 Review Conference. Weare bopefuthatwidlyourdedicationad skiDs.dJis
Conference willhave a successtblou~mc. Our small delegation.standsreadyto
participateandcontributowardsasuc:cessftlletsubstantiveoutcome.
The Marshalllslandsbasactivelparticipatedithelastwo ReviewConfCRncesB . oth
Conferencesconcluded on an.optimistic note andrenewehopes for moreprod~tive
effortsiimplementingtheprovisionsoftheNPT.
Mr.President,
My delegation shares the view~ by theDirectoKJencralof the IAEA, Dr.
Mobamed. EIBaradei,thatthecoreof thNPT canbesummed up intwo words:~ty
8DddeVelopment" .ecurityrorallby reducinaand ultimatelyelimioatingtnuclear
threat, and development for all tbrough advanced technology. My delegation
aclalowledp boththedevel.opmeo prtioritiesand seeconcems of States partieI.
wouldlike toexpandonthisnotionsomewha towever,byemphasizingissuesofhuman
rights.Formostpeople inthe world,secmi.mcana healthyland,resourceandbody
not thepresenceofweapODS .loballeadendo nothavethe rightotakethesecurityof
othersawaysotheycan feelnwn: securetbemselves.
More than an.yothernatiointhe world,1beMarshalllslandunderslandswbatnuclear
war means.We experiencednuclearwar in our country sixty-seventimes - more
radiationwas releasedIn thMmball Islandthanany otherlocationon thisplanet~
Needlesstosay,we arestillsufferingfromtheadversonsequencesof n\1cler eapons
testinginthenameof globalsecurity.
1 [Checkagainstdelivery]
NOD-proliferatioonweapcms indleworld isacriticgoalofOlD'nalionbecausethenon~
proliferaUOofweapons alsomeans theDOD-pl'Oiifera oitne illnesforcedrelocation,
enviromneutadlegradationand profounddisturbanceof socialculturaleCOilOJD ie,d
politicalsystems. Unfommatelyw, eknow thisin the Mmhall Islandsbecaulo ofour
filst-hllexperience siththe cft'ecofnoolearweapons.Thenuclearera hasaffcmtd
us so profoUDdlyiD theManiJaiJlslmds thatit haseven affectedour language:our
people hadto develop new words after thabnOspheric testing of nucleweapons
becausewe did notbavewordsin ourlanguageto describtbegrossabnormalitiesinour
eaviroameDt ,ur animals,aDd our bodiestbatbegan toappear afterour exposureto
radiationMr.PresideDtt,be~llsland a ouldnotwish this samfateon any o1her
nationsor peoples1hisis why as a natiowe have dcvo1ed ounclvesto nuclearnoa
proliferation.
Mr.President,
My cieiegatioacallsontheUnitedNationsto addrathedamage inits TrustTerritoryof
the PacifiIsland(ITPI) :fiomwheo1he U.N.admimstrator-detcmat nuclearweapo~r&
The tamina1ionof the 1I'USerritoryrelationshipthatmy countr001;ebad with this
austerebody was based on the former administrator'sreports ththedamages and
iqjmiesfiom thetestinpmgr8lllwere minor,and limitedinscope. We nowknowftom
declassifieddocumeDts that thiis aot the ease. andwe urge thisConference to
recommend to O\Dformer adminisntor tbat it fUladdressaD cJama aad iDjmies
resultingfiomthesixty-sevenatmospheriatoQliat tbennonuclearweapom detoaatccl
onour islands. Mydelegationwilpushstronglyfortheincluskmofsuch languageinthe
fmalreportof thisConference.
1be ManbaJllslands welcomesthecall bythePaclfwIslandsForumleadersin2004for
the United Statesto live up to itsfaD obligationsto provide fair andadequate
c:mnpemmion i,cluding the :fullandfiDarestontionofaffectedareas to eoonomic
produotivity,andto easutbesaferacUlementof displacepopulations.In additiowe
alsouraethenalionsthatteslednudcar weaponsinFrenchPolynesiaand Kiribaaiotake
full msponst"bilfor the impacoftheiractivitieson1belocalpeopleandourregion's
environment.
Mr.Presid~
Whilethe MarshallIslands still ·suff&om tho lingeringconsequencesof radiation
exposure.we arepleasedto note areaswhereprogreshasbeenmade. Today,thereare
fewernuclearweaponsand fewer States thatpossessthemthan 1berewere thirtyears
ago. This s~ce ssuldnothave been achievedwithoutJong-tenncooperationamong
mllllStates, imcludiDgbetweentheUnibl States andthe Russian Federation. Since
1970,theNPT hasbeen impro updatedandextended.
I am also pleased toanno1Ul(l18hatmy counuy has recentlysigned a Safegll8(ds.
AgreementandAdditionalProtocol withtheIAEA.T. heM.arsbalslandsalsorecopizes
the importanceofthe ProliferatiSecurityInitiati(PSI);the provisionsof Security
2 [Cbectagainstdelivery]
CouncilResolutioo 1540 (2004); and the GlobalTbreat ReductionJnitia&iv( eGTRI)
jointlCIOOidlaa tythe UnitedStatesandRussia
Mr. President,
The Heads of State tiom the Pacific Islands bave llllintaiDecldleir sCOl1IDUJDI1
interestin therecluocioand eveatualeliminationof nuclearweapoDS a,ndkeqJiu be
Pacificregiontieeof environmentalpollution. TheMarshalllslandsapplaudstheefforts
ofthe PacificIslandsForum to workwith nuclearsbippingStateson thekey issuesof
prevention, response. 6ability and compensation. The Marshall Islands remaias
wncerned1batthe presentintaualional ammgementsfor liabilityand compcnsatioado
not adequatelyaddressthe risks posedby theshipmeDt of radioadivematc:rials.We
eontinue toseek assurancesfiom theshippins Statesthatill theevent of an incident
involving these shipments, the repon will not be left toc:ury the resultingloss
unsupported. .
The2000NPTReviewConfcmtc:ctook DDteof theconoemsof Small IslandDeveloping
States8lldothercoastalSlateswith rcprd to thetmnsportationof l'lldioaaivcmaterials
by sea. The 2005 Mauritius Strategy for the sustainable development of SIDS
emphasizedthe aeecl forthe "1brrb.erevelopment andstreDgthe:ajllof intemational
.rega)atoryrqimcs" for suchtnmsport. Mydelegationwelcomesopportunitiesto make
progresson thisissuein cooperationwith.otheSIDS.
Mr.President,
Wereeogni2cthe rightof NPT Statespartieto thedewlopmeat.l.'e!KWCp br,oduction
aDduseof nuclearenersyforpeacefulpurposes. However, we are eoncemedaboutthe
useof this provisionof theNPT (ArticleIV) as a justificationfdeveloping unmium
emichm.cn tnd reprocessin capabilitiewhich could be utilizedfor nuclearweapons
produedon and proliferation.We joinothersin &voringrestndntson theuse of modem
tedmologiesfor purposesthatmay beincxmtraVentioo nfnon-prolifendioncommitments
underthe Treaty.
Mr. Pn::siclent.
TheMarsballIslandsslum!!s theview thatglobalsecurityandproliferationchaUengean:
aspoliticallyandtecbnicallycomplex oow as theywere during theColdWar. Wehave
seennew and deadly forms of terrorism .lack markets for nudcar materials,and
i.nstan(lin whichStatescheaton andeven IIIIJlOURtheir wi1hdrawalhm 1beNPT.
These arebutsomeof the challenges we arefacingin thismonth'sConferaacc thatpose
a seriousthreat tthe integrityoftheNPT. We hopethatStatespartieswill uniteand
take this opportunitto fa£ c:oncm etepsto ensure thatthe 1'mlty trulservesits
purpose.
FinallyMr. Presidca Iwouldlike to raisethe issue of aducalion.As th.efonncr
PresidentoftheCollegeof theMarshalllslands,establishedaNuclearInstituteprogram
3 [Checkagainstdelivery]
I
tohelpMarsballue stUdentsandcitizalaUlldentaD dlOIabout 01Dllldion'coDisioD
with the Cold Wm. I bcliewo tbat we have an oblipti.on to improvecidans"
UDdemtad iDo&t DUCleawreapoDIandtheir effects-padicDJarl)'iD -- ....,
citizenshaw beDDadvenelyimpactedby tJaeweapoDI. I lookbwani to worDn w&ith
anyotherpartiet1Jamtighbe .intaestiDexploriJgBSUr eSlatetocducatiOL
'I'hllJOl!'MtPnaidcmt.
4 United Kingdom
Permanent Representation
to the
Conference on Disarmament
UK Statement
to the 2010 Non-ProUferaTreatyReview Conference
by
Ambassador Joha Dunean
Ambassador for Multilateral Arms Cootroland Disannament
NEW YORK, 19 May 2010
Please eheck a1aiut de&very UK propess towards tt.e '"3.practlallaps farthe systemlltlcand propessfve efforts to
lmplemlntArt1claVI•
TheFinalDocumen oftJJe2000ReWiw COnferencseet outthirteenpracticalstepsfor thesystematl'and
proarasslveffortstoImplementArtldeVIoftheNPTl.he followW.g tablesetsoutthe UK'tpr9ln!SStodate
aplnst thtthirteenStepstowardsnuclear dl~~~nta~Mnt.
'l1UICslpledthe eomp,.henalveT8ln T.-ty In
1.l11elmpo111nc1e1urpncv ofsl8nltureaanl'ltlflmlclm,
withoutdeleand\tllthocondltiDnsndInKCOrdancw eith 1991endl'ltlf1tIn1998.We hNt.c:dedonthose
constitutionlmcesses,to achithe.. ,.entryIntforce thlt hinotvetdor. 1010sip andratifythe traty
ofd!eQa+••_.,. Nlldl!ltii.IIDTI•tv, withoudelly.
2.AIIIIRbll'l.IDifllni.llltllIIIfIOSIOIIIorlilY 11leUKhiS• votUn mot't011umInplrM;wehive
othernudeerexpblons pendlns entry Intofofthlt not1311edoutanynu-=• weapon.testexpiQ16orn1ny
Tretty. olhernudettleplglionlfn2991
.a..lha..alty~nept~atDM.IA....eoar. :n,.UI..OIL -A--lleMMM1I c:..off a~1 -
DArmamenton1non-dlscrlrnlnltory, Jitllaterllend jlllclrltydar.peat caledforthelmmedlatil
IMemltlo endele:theJy'lef'll""b..e M M ,.. start nqallltionlthe c:ont.reneeonDIMrmament
...tudJIIDgflll ... ...,......fRI:IIIIiiiiE _,..lllondiebasilothe pqn1mrne ohall: (CD/1.1641
.... r,pplgde .... lnec:cordlncewleh~he---nt adDptedbf COJIM111U2II09•
ofthe5peda1CoordlnltorIn199n tbe mendntcontllned
thlnln, uklnc Intoconsldenmonbothnuc:r111rmament TheUIC hes1 voluntlrmoratoriumontheprocl.lctnf
andnudur non-proltferdoobJect1u TheC.Onflr.a on fissilenate111!nucle~~tw orpohersuclnr
DISII'IIIIftleftttoaarelOeh1pruaqmme ofworll: aplaslw dwlces, anhiSnot produc.ftsilUtlllltl
whiChIncludethelmmedlatltmmmencamentof fornuclearweeponsorotnerru:k!ar ecplodevices
ne&Oiildont.such. trutywith.Yliwtodllllrc:vnduslanJlnce1995.
wltl*lfiyears.
4.Thenecessityoastablllhln1he~on lhe UKsupportedtfteut.ilbllshmeatof• worldnc,poup
OIMrmamenatnepproprllta sublldllryllodywim•ndate on nucleariHI'Iit.mea P=Jof tha propmme of
todealwithnuclearisarmamentTheCDnler l!~~~» work(CD/1864a)doptedbyconsensutathe
DAITIIIJIIIIIrsturpd to.On_1pi'Dinlmmoefworic Confaence onDlslnnamtmt I2009and ailupon tfle
whlcblncW. theImmediateestablishmeofsuc:1body. tonlilrenceonDlarnrrienr to.,rea 1procrammeof
worltfa2010on dtatbills.
s.Jlllldr++tfllnmfftllllllto•PIItonudeer The UIhu notnvened eny of Inucleardl.. rmament
disarmamenJt,Ud.., atldottelltearmscontroland meuures and,_ reclucacall"'fedenversystem,
reductionmeesures. llnlle-wam..deslsnand •hltlaunchplatform.
'
i.AIIM!MIIIpgl...... ldlwb!Jiw•*gm ?... theUK hiSsetoutItunequhiOtlllommitmen o the
a--IIIIIIIIIIIIBtalldm"""" ldM..-1-t"""* 101 of1worldwithoutnucleawatlponInllltklnll
leedlntonuc:IHrdisarmamentto whichStatel*tles are ltltements anmulti.._Idec:larltlCtndulln1he
commll:tMunderAracle VI. 2009L'Aqulll8 ttatement lAdUNSCtetolutlon
1887).
7.TheHrlventryIntron: endfulllmp.lementltoflrMI NotapPIJcldllteothe Ult
IIIIIUIIIaMWanlf DMIIII• SODD• possiblewhile
praerv1nl:an~tranatt hehAeBMTrulyc•• •
comeratano fIU1tt:Fstability.111bullforfuttl.
J'lducdonf1tr1te1oJr.ns1vweapons I, ICCOI'dlWeith
ltl p!OV!slons.a.ThecompletiandImplementatotilJr!!lltlrJ! NotapplicabletUKthe
~the UnitStateofAmerica,Russian
fedemtonandIM InternationalEnef~·
9Sti!ll11t1wnydtw we...5tawleadln&nuclelr TheUKhMtieacOflfereenSeptember2009the
d!Urmemel'l1filthapromateslntematlonalstabiP51DdlscuuconfidencebcJIIdinimeesurestowltds
andbasedonthe prfnof und!mlnbHalritforall: ~r disarrrameTheconfereberouaopther
nude• weaponldentlISwellassenpoky
mabrs frotMnudear-wupon Statesforthefirst
timtoconsidertheconfldance-bulldlnr.verllkallon
andcompileneechllleftlt!Swithachlevtna
furthl)fOIItowardd!s~rma md ntn
prollfentlon,andstepstothose chlllenps.
TheUKhaselsspOnsoredIndepenacademic
researchl~tDconditifora wor1dwlthoutnuclear
WUPGM andsJobalsecurttyIna wolowwith
numberofnucrar weapons.
iii:~.tt;r·ewoiiSt.Y-tt;'ft .iiheU-',i:iiWlUP"Gni.i;SC~ictieii"tei"iiti.f-t-·b·e"-ioT~ik;niirV'·-······
tfttUlta1ryrWI ynllttrtllf IWIItableWlfhuds 10few160ltlexplosive
powerof die UK'snudear artenal hesbHn reducedby
around75" sitheendotheColdw.r.
iii;p;jjijjt;;;m;;;;ii.Yi·i:iier:.WUj;Qftstnt;iC'wrai-ifi8;t0iti"fisiiii".iciii·.-iiS
reprdtothe ftUdweapon•capabllltluandtN andapentloNIIy avallitblewarlleadnumbers.Wehave
.lmplemantltlqreeme,.pursuantto ArticleVIanproducedhistoltall ramrilsof our defenceholcllnpof
voluntaconfldence--buleasureto supfurther bothplutoniandhlahlyenrtcheduranium.
prc~~onnsclelrdisarmament.
·u.;n;e~r-iiiis;,m·arm;n:;q .ni.ei·*"iMCCw.;ui;fn;O,;P:Ci·i-ieii"i~·;;o;~liuC"~;---···-
base01unllatenlltnltlatlvetandaparofthearaweepons.
nudeaarmsredudlon aftddl•rm•rnent process
"iViQinereie•ifta·mu;uieitiiiUithiiirin iiihe-"·u'·
hr.i"illnliice ..Y.·.:edUce'dihi:.4iPi-ri'tiO~ii'Stitiis
_.dgnllltltv•ofnudeaweaponssystems of onudearwupOnsspr.m. Normonlyone
Vanpard clsubmaritsondeterrent paanyl
onetimAlloftheUIsudeaMapons are heldon
sevendaysnoUco fire arenotarpted anv
Dte.
;iA"iiii.iibiM'*;,;"•;m;;;;•;;;;;w;;;,;;;;·ndR··xiW";n;biiCj;/it*ciihai·;;•WC_K_.id.oi.iYe
tminimitherlslcttheM weapoeverbe usedandtocontemplateuSIAJnuclearweapon•Inextreme
f.lclthe proc:ethelrtoUI elimination clrcumstanosd~nce orh\defenoour
aBies.heUICsucleweaponsarendes~& foed
militaryusedurlnt:t utInstodeterand
preventnudur blaclcmdctofaaruslon tplnst
ourvitallntemts thatbemunteredbyothel'
means.
Thl UltstIts polon neptlve securityassurances
1naformalletotfleSecnttary-GeneraloftheUNIn
1995(notll:dInUNSecurlll esolltlon 984).1n
additiOnto this,the UKhtssratithedd
NudewweaponFreeZOneprotoc:olsInrespectofl.atin
Amerfc.lthe C.rlbb(TrelofT1ateloS,Olidi
P•df(TreaofRarotonpandAfri(Trelof
Pelnd•bal.&lvtlltlreaty-baMCUrkytlw
assurancestoalmostonehucounO'In.
...--...-.............·.·..............·......---.-.......·.·-.............-....·¥t)ii1i-•niiitmi.nt:-•;s;o;;;;;.ppn;;,riite01i·ln iieue-.cU;c;i.ir:r
iiiiuitiiiie.iidisiir__iiM__i_ini:ihai
weapon StateInthearamu ludlnRiR lbltataiiii!DIJ!l!trlat.dthlwt1aiMI readyto Includeournuc:lear
oftheirnuclearwtlapons arsenal\nbroadermultllateralnqotlatlons itwill
be usefulto doso.
10.Atrensementsbyallnuclte,..WNpoStltuto pllcle,u The UKhu -.:1arad 4.tonsoffissilematerialJUrtous
soonasprec:tkabl,issilematerialdesllnabyeachof defencerequirementslndudlns0.3tnnneof W8IPOfl$-
them 11nolonpr requiredformllltarypurposesunderIAEA &redeplutonium,haspi~~ tCiedaterialunder
orotherrelevantInternatiOlel'lflclnndarranpments EuropeanAtorulcEnafiYCommunity(EURATOM)
forthedlsposlt\on&uchmatar1alforpeacefulpurpo5e.D sat'epardsandmade iliableto Inspectbythe
ensurethatsuchmateriaremalnspermanentlyoutsideof InternationalAtomicEneravA&encT.heUKalso
militaryproararnmes. announced11'1199tat lwouldc:eu. exen:ISit&
rJshtowithdrawfbslle1111ter1farSlfquard!d
ttocksfonuclearweapons.
11.Rufflrmltlothlttheultimateobjeetlofthe.troruor n. UlCsubscribesto thisprinciplehudastrDIII
StatesInthe disarmamenpmct~~Sis. 111,.1!plltl rea~ ofulfillnItnort-nudear/pneJidisarmament
Sl...._mlll$ undeffectivlntematiOnalcontrol. commitments.
12.Rgy .rI'IR!J!withintheframewcrkoftheNPT T1l2006 WhitePapersetsouttheUIC'nucleardoctrine
stranatnenedreviewprocesbyaD States 'Pironthe ar~danr pesure.TheUK providereculerreportsIn
ImplementatioofArticlVIand paraarap4(c) ofth2w.i ournatlonal~t totNPmTerntComsand RevCons.
DKI51oonn"PrlndplesandObjectivesforNutlearNon-
ProllflrauonandDsrmament", andrecallllllAdviSOry
OpinionofthelnternetlonQlurtofJusticof8July1996.
13.Thefurtherdevelopmenofthe ytdftadloa•""". TheUK Isc:onductlllese~ Int:lbareaattheAtomiC
thatwilberequireto providassuranceoftomplancewith
WeaponsEstablllhmentthrouahatrilateralproJectwith
nuc:ledlprmament apuments for theachlevementaMJ Notw.-,andvane (averificatiNGO on thetechnical
mamtenance ofa nutlea,...we.pon-freeworld. andnon-tethnlca.pectad verlfylnanuclearwarhead
dismantlementWorkIncludeswarheadauthentication,
monitOredstorap, thaofcustodyIssueandensurlna
access10nucleaJltnwithoutcompromisl"lnational
JeCUrlty. STATE RESPONSIBILITY
[Agenda item 3]
DOCUMENTA/CN.4/507andAdd.1-4*
Third report on State responsibility, by Mr. James Crawford, Special Rapporteur
[Original:English]
[1.5M.zrch ,5 June. 1()and 18JulyQM4August2000]
CONTENTS
Page
Multilateralinstrumc:nts·citedinthepresreport..........................................................6........................
\\4Jrkscited Inthepresereport .................................~............................. 7.......................................
p..,.,gr<q>/1&
lNTRoDUCTIQII.I.......................................................................
.....1-11.......11..............................................
A. Programmefurcompletionofthesecolld reading........................................1-4........11............
B. Parts two andlbreeasadoptedon firstrvading:~oral considerations...............................2
C~r
I. PARTTWO.LEGALCONSEQUEliiC0f1 !'ANINTERNATIONALW LRONGFUA LCTOFASTATE.............12-tl9 IS
A. Chapter1. Oeneralprinciples......................................................13-119......15.....
.......................
I.Titleand contentof chapter] ...................................................13-16.................
...................
IS
2. ne generalpriooiplof reparatio.n.........................................................15..............
.........
(a) Currentprovisions............................................................-22..........
.........................
''
(b) Aproposedgeneralprinciple.............................................................17..........
............
(c) Articl42,paragraphs3-4 ...............................................................20........
................3s-43
3. Cessadonaudrelatedissues......................................................44-S9..............
....................
(a) Current provisions....................................................................21...
............................. 44-48
(h) 11leplaceofcessationInthedraftarticles......................:.............49-50.......22...............
(c) Questionofplacetnetlland fonnularioo......................................51-52.......22.................
(d)ASSUI'IIllcansdguaranteesofnon-repetiti..........:.....................,...53-59.......23...........
4. Otherlegalcon.<~eq lnderR c$csOI'JIIyrnationallaw.........................60-65.......24...
s. The injuredState..............................:...............................................................................
.
(a) Article40.Meaningof injuredState......................................................2S..................
{b) Somepreliminaryissues.....................................................82-96.......29......
...................
(c) Optionsforthe reformulationofarticle40................................................32..............
6. Conclusionsasto part twochapter£................................................119.......38.................
...
B. ChapterIf. Theformsofreparafion.........................................................................
.............
I. Generalconsiderations......................~...........................................................
2. Restitution.........................................................................
................................................
(a) Existinm1icle43.........................................................................
.............................
"IPCOI))IIflAgJCN.4/m/Add.I!Con:l, AICN.41S07/Add.2/CoIna:udZaad.AICN.41»7/Add.J/Corr.l.
34 Documentlofthefifty-secondsessi011
Cllnprer PQrug,·upns PQie
(b)Cessation.restitutionandcompensationq : uestionsofclassificationandpriority....130-143 43
(c) Excaptionsto restitution.........................................................................
....................
(d)Theformulationofarticle43.......................................................45-146......46....
..........
3. Compensation........................................................................7-166.....................................
(u) Existingarticl44...................................................................·.·153
......................1
(h) Assessmentofcompensatio11 &:encralprincipl:r detailedcriteria?........................ 48
(c) Limitationsoncompensation.......................................................61-164......SI....
..........
ld.Conclusion..............................,......................................165-166......51......................
........
4. Satisfaction.........................................................................
........52......................................
(a) Existingarticl4S ............................................................167-177.....
.52......................... ..
(b) Thecharacterofsatisfactionas an.>tned........................................178-181.......53..........
(c)Specificfonnsofsatisfaction....................................................182·-192.....54......
............
(d) Limitationsuponsatisfaction:article45,paragraph3.................................193........56.
(e) Conclusionon article45......................................................................56.
.................... 194
s. Interest.........................................................................1..._214.......57.................................
(o) The question ofinterest in thedraft articles..................................195-198.......57............ .
(b) Theroleofinterestin relationtoreparation......................................199-212.......58.........
(c) A provision onintercsl?.......................................................213-214.......60..
.....................
6. Mitigationofrespon&ibilit.y......................................................21.5-222......60..
.....................
(u) Contributoryfault..............................................................16-221.....
61.........................
(b) Mitigation of damage ...........................................................222.........62....................... ..
7. SWllmaryof ed'lclusionsas toparttwo,chapter11......................................223.........62......
11. STRlJCTURO I!.FREMAININGPARTS OFTHEDRAF'lA 'RTJC!.'................. .,..................224-226... ,..63......... .
UI. INVOCATIOO NFRBSI'ONSIBIIJ1B'YANJNJURRD STATE..........................................227-284.......63........
A. Generalconsiderations ...............................................................227-262...
..63..............................
I. Theright oftl1einjuredState10electtilefonnof reparatiom .......................................64
2. Pomtalrequirementsfortheinvocationorrosponsibility ..............................234-238.......64...
3. CertainquestiOill .totheadmissibilityofclaims ...................................23~242........65...... .
(a) F."hautionof local remedies (art22).............................................241.........66............
{b) Nationalityofclaims.............................................................242.........66.........................
4. Limitsontherecoveryof reparation.................................................243-249.......66........
.......
(a) The nonullra pellleprinciple................................................................66.......
...........
(b) The ruleagainstdoublerecovery.................................................248-249.......67.........
.....
S. LossoCtherighttoinvokeresponsibility.............................................25(}-262......68............
(a) Waive.t.·.....................................................................253-256.......68....................................
(b) Delay ........................................................................257-;259......69.................................. .
(c) Settlement....................................................................260-261.......70.................................
(d) Tenninationorsuspensionoftheobligationbreached..................................262.........71
B. Cases involvi11agpluralityofinjuredor responsibleStates..............................263-283.......72....
1. Overviewofthe legalissues.....................................................................72..
....................
(a) PluralityofresponsibleStates...................................................67-278......n.........
.........
(b) Pluralityof injuredStlltcs......................................................9-281......76......
...............
2. Proposedpiovisions...............................:...............................282-283......76............................
C. Conclut asitoparttwobis,chapterI...................................................284........76...........
....
D. CountermeasuresbyaninjuredState........................................................85·. 67.....77...
..........
I. Introduction.......................................................................6-291......77................................ State rupoosihillty
Chop~•· Poruf.rophs l'ag1
2. Reviewofcxistingchapterlll(arts.47-50) ............................................... 292-319.....79
(a) Article47. CoonlmnCB!Ure sy an injuredSlate................................................79....293-297
(b) Article48. Conditionsrelatingtoresortto count-ermeasures...........................98-305.2 80
(c) Article49. Proportionality..........................................................6--310.....82.................3
(d) Article50. Prohibitedcountermeasores...........................................................83.......311-319
3. Recastingthe provisions oncountenncasurcsby an injuredState................................... 386-362
(u) Definitionofcountcrmeaslll'C.i.l..................................................21-333.......86......
.........3
(b) Obligationsnotsubjecttotheregimeofcountenncasures........................................ 334-388
(c) Conditio11 sor taking andmaintainingcountermeasures...........................................391-360
(i)Substantiveconditions..........................................................45-354 .....91.................3
(ii)Proceduralconditions.......................................................................93
................3.55-360
(d) Terminstionofcountennea!IUM.S ...................................................361.........94.......
.......
(e) Fornlulationofarticle 30.......................................................................95
................... 362
4. Coun1llnneasuR: and theexceptionofnon-perfonnanc:.o ...........,..................363-366.......95.
5. Conclusionsas tocountermeasuresbyan iujuredState.......................................367.........96
Iv. fNVOCA110N OFRESPONSIBIUT1 Y0 AGROUP Of STATE ORTOTHI!.iNTERNATIONA CLOMMUNrrY .....• 368-413 97
A. Generalconsidomlions...................................................:..............................97....................... 369-385
I. R.ightof everyStateto invokeresponsibilityforbreachesof obligationsto the interna-
tionalcommunity................................................................
......3.3.........9.........
2. Limitationson therightto invokeresponsibilityonbehalfof another............................ 376-37999
3. Issuesof ponaltyandprocess ...............................................................85....I00.
.........3
B. Collectivecountermeasures..........................................................
.................101...................3..86-405
1. A~icwofStatepr a.c.t....e....................................................91-394
...102................3
2. An assessment......................................................... 395.4.
......104............................................
3. Tentativeconclusion.........................................................................
....lOS......................4..0.1-406
C. Additionalconsequencesof"gross bmlchcs'' ofobligationsto theinternationalcommunity
as a whole....................................................................
..........7-411......I06...............................4
I. AdditionalobligationsforotherStatesfacedwid1grossbreachesof community
obligations?.............................................................
.............10........I07...............................4
2. Leavingscopefor furtherdevelopmentS......................................................
.......8.
D. SummaryofconclusiotlSasto part twochapterIll, andpart l-wobis.......................412-413..... 108
V. PARI'FOUR.GF.NF.RALPR()IJSION ..............................................................414-429..
...109......................
A. .E!Iistingarticleli..........................................................................5-426.....109............................4
I. Article37.Lexspecia/i.v.................................................................-421....
109...................
2. Article39. RelationslliptotheCharteroftbe UnitedNations......................................... 4110426
B. PropOS< aIdditionstopart four............................................................ 7-428...
Ill...................4
C. Summal'yofconclusionsasto part four...............................................................Ill...
........... 429
LISTOFTABLES.
1. Statesentitledto invokeresponsibilitin respectofmultilateralobligations.......................107..... 35
2. &tent 10 whichditl'erentlyatl'octcdStatesmayinvokethelegalconsequencesofthe
responsibilityof a State......._..............................................................116........38.....................;......... 64 Documentsofthe fifty-secondsession
230. The SpecialRapporteurhas alreadyforeshadowed oftheobligation(s)of the responsibleState. 444But in any
that formerarticle40 (new art.40 bis) shouldbe placed ·eventit isdesirable to spell out theright of electionex
atthe beginningof this part.439If,as hasbeensuggested, pressly;themoresosincethepositionofthirdStatesinter·
proposedarticle 40 bis is subdivided into two or three estedin(butnotspecificallyinjured by) the breachwill be
articles, they should be distributed as appropriatewith affected by any valid election of one remedyrather than
in the part In what follows, the focus will be on the anotherbyan injuredState.
"injuredState" as that term is proposed to be defined in
article0bis. 233. The questionwhether there are any limitationson
the right of electionof the injured Statehasalready bee.n
231. In the first place, evidently, each injured State referred to.44'There are certainly cases where a State
on its oWNaccountisentitledto invokeresponsibility. 440 could not, as itwere, pocket the compensationand walk
Howevera numberof issues arise asto the modalitiesof awayfroman unresolvedsituation,especially oneinvolv·
and limitsuponsuchinvocation,and these a~ candidates ingthe lifeorlibertyof individualsortheentitlementofa
forinclusioninafirst generalchapterofthispart. 441They people to their territory oto self-determination.Howev
includethe following: er,such situations on analysis seem toconcernquestions
of cessation,or of the continuingperformanceof obliga
(a) The right of the injured Stateto e~t the formof tions.and not questions of reparationproperlyso called.
reparation(e.g.toprefercompensationto restitution); Reparationisconcernedwiththe wipingoutofpast injury
and hann. Insofaras there are continuingobligations the
(b) Minimumformal requirementsfor the invocation
ofresponsibility(e.g.a demand in writing); performanceof whichare not simply mattersfor the two
Statesconcerned,those Statesmay not be ableto resolve
(c) Questions associated with the admissibility of the situationbya settlement,just as an injuredState may
claims (e.g. exhaustionof local remedies, nationalityof not be able on its own to absolve the responsibleState
claims); from its continuing obligations.These refinements can.
however,be reflected in the language of the text and re·
(d) Limitson the rights of the injured State as con
cerns'reparation(e.g. the non ultrapetila rule, the rule ferred toin the commentary.By analogy with article 29
againstdoublerecovery); (Consent),it issufficientto referto a ..valid"election by
aninjuredStateinfavourofoneoftheformsofreparation
(e) Loss oftheright to invokeresponSt'bility. ratherthananother,leaving theconditionsofvalidityto be
determinedby general international law.Underthe draft
These are dealt with in turn. articles,suchan electionshouldbe giveneffect.
1. THE RIGHTOFTilE INJUREDSTATETOELECT 2. FORMALREQUIREMENTS FORTHE lNVOCATION
THEFORMOFREPARATION OF RESPONSIBll.rlY
232. Jn general,an injured State is entitled to elect as 234. Although the secondary legal relationship of re
betweenthe availableforms of reparation. Thus it may sponsibilitymay arise by operation of law on the com~
prefer compensationto the possibility of restitution, as mission of an internationallywrongfulact, in practice it
442 isnecessaryfor any otherinterestedState(s)to respond, if
Germanydid in theChorzow Factorycase, or as Fin theywisb to seek ce.ssationor reparation.Responsescan
land eventuallychose to do in its settlementof the case
concerningtheGre.aB t elt.3Orit maycontentitselfwith takea varietyof forms, from an unofficial and confiden
declaratory reli generallyor in relation to a particular tial reminderof the need to fulfil theobligation,through
aspectof its claim. In the first reading text, the right to formal protest,consultations,etc.Moreover,thefailureof
electas betweenthe forms of reparationwas accepted. It an injured Statewhich has notice of a breachto respond
was reflectedin the formula "The injured State has the may have legal consequences,including even the even·
tualloss of therighttoinvokeresponsibilityby waiveror
right ...". That formula is not proposed for the various extinctiveprescription:
articleswhichembodytheprincipleof:fullreparation.For
reasonsgivenabove,these shouldbe expressed interms 235. There is an analogy with article 65 of the 1969
4J9Seeparagnphs9and J17-119above. ViennaConvention,whichprovidesthat:
440See paragraphs102 and 107 above. See paragraphs279-281 I, A partywhich.underthe provisionsofthe presentConvention,
b~lo fwr considerationof cawhere "'sponsibilisyinvokedby invokeseithera defectinitsconsenttobeboundbyatreatyoraground
morethanone injuredStateinrespectofthesameact, forimpeachingthevalidityofa treaLyl,erminatingit,wilhdrawlngfrom
441The1969ViemnConvention dealswithanalogousissues sepa itorsuspendingits operation,mustnotifytheotherpaofitsclaim.
ratelyinrebdiontoeachpartic:subjectForexample,theprocedure Thenotifieationshall indk:thGmeiiSUI"roposedto betaken with
reganlingreservatiis dealt wiin al't.icle23, followingthe article$cto the treaty thereasonstherefor.
dealingwiththe fonnulation of reservationsand their lege.!efl'ect.
PartV.sectionl, bringstogethera numberof provisionsdealingwith 2. If, aftheexpiryofaperiodwhich, OKcepn casetofspecial
theinvocationofgroundsforinvaliditys,ul!pen&loonrtenninationof aency,shallnotbelesthanthreemonthsafterthe receiptof theno
treaty{see,forexample,articles44 (Separabilityof treatyprovisficationmaycarryoutinthemannerprovidedin article67tbemeasure
and45(Lossofarighttoinvokea groundforinvnlidating•.. atreaty)which ihasproposed.
FurtherisS\lofproc:edu"'aredealtwithinsection4of thesamepart,
andsectionSdealwiththeconsequencesofsuchinvocation.
442SeepiiJ'II&lllp2h3andfootnote47above.
M-lSeeparagraphs136-137 and fuotllote254 above;aDdfothe
tenns of the scttlCJi,coskennl "e:ffajrdu passage parle 444Seeparagraphs25-26 above.
Grand-Belt",especiallypp.940-947. 445Seeparagraph134above. State responsibiHty 65
3. If,however.obje<:ti()nhas been raised by any other puny.the
partiesshallseek a solutionthroughthemeans indicatedin Article33nications from the claimant, even ifthe evidence
of theCharter ofthe UnitedNations. of those communications took the form of press reports
of speeches or meetings rather than of formal diplomatic
4. Nolhinginthe foregoingparagraphsshall affect the righcorrespondence. But despite its flexibility its reliance
obligationsof thep3rtiesunderanyprovisionsin forcebindinglhon the context provided by the relations between thewo
ties with regtthesettlemenofdisputes.
States concerned, the Court does seem to have had regard
5. Withoutprejudicto artic45,the fact tha State has not to the fact thatheclaimant State had effectively notified
previouslymade the notification prescribedin paragraph l shtherespondent State oftbe claim.
preventit from making such notificat~sw.~neranotherparty
claimingperformanceof the treatyor atltviOiatiO!l.
238. ln the Special Rapporteur's view, this approach is
236. Care needs to be taken not to overformalize the correct asa matter of principle. There mustbe at least
procedure, or to imply that thn ~?nn~ clonsequ of ncesome minimum requirement of notification by one State
the non-performance of an obbgatlon ISthe lodgmg of a
against another of a claim of responsibility, so that the
statement of claim. Imany cases quiet diplomacymay be responsibleState is aware of the allegation and in a posi
more effective in ensuring performanceand even repara- tion to respond tot (e.g. by ceasing the breach and offer
. tion. Nonetheless an injured or interested State is entitling some appropriate form of reparation). No doubt the
to respond to the breach and therst step should be to call precise form the claim takes will depend on the circum
the attentionof the responsible State to the situation, andstances.But the draft articles should at least require that
to call on itotake appropriate steps to cease the breach a State invoking responsibility should give notice thereof
andto provide redress. to the responsible State. In doing so, it would be normal
to specify what conduct on.itpart is required byway of
237. Itis notthe function of the draft articles to specify
in detail the form which an invocation of responsibility cessationof any continuing wrongfulact, and what fonn
any reparation sought should take. In addition, since the
should take. In practice claims of responsibility are raisenormal mode of inter-State communication is in writing,
at different levelsf government, depending on their se it seemsa~opri o require that the notice claim be
riousness and on the general relations between the States 9
concerned. Moreover, ICJ has sometimes been satisfied inwriting.
with rather informal modes of invocation. Forexample,
in the case concerninCertainPhosphateLands inNauru, 3. CERTAINQUESTIONSAS TO THE
Australia argued that Nauru's claim was inadmissible be ADMISSIBILITYOF ClAIMS
cause "it ha[d] not been submitted within a reasonable
time".446 That raised two issues: first, when the claim
239. If a State having protested at a breach is not
hadactuallybeen submitted;secondly, whether the lapse satisfied byany response made by the responsible State,
of time before its submission {or, indeed, the subsequent it is entitled to invoke the responsibilitof that State
lapse of time before Nauru had done anyth _effective
to pursue its claim) was fatal. The Courtd~smts te ed by seeking such measures of cessation, reparation,
etc. as are provided for in part two. Presumably
objection. It referred to the fact that theum had been the draft articles shoutd say so, by analogy with ar
raised, and not settled, prior to Nauru's independence in ticles23, paragraphs 2-4, and 65, of the 1969 Vienna
1968, and to"press reports" that the claim had beem~n
tiooedby the Nauruan He~C dhi en~t~ day of declanng Convention. The question is whether any provision in
part two bis should address issues of the admissibility
independence, as well as.infere11:halmy,sll:bs eoqu~~tof claims of responsibility.
respondence and discussiOns wtth Australian mJmsters.
However the Court also noted that:
240. Iu general the draft articles are not concerned
Itwasonlyon6 October983 that the PresidentofNauru wrotetwith questions of thejurisdiction of international courts
the PrimeMinisterof Austrr~uest himngo"seek a sympathetic and tribunals, or of the conditions for the admissibility
reconsiderationofNauru'sposition". of cases. Rather they define the conditions tor
The Court swnmarized the communications between the establishing the internationall."esponsibility of States,
partiesas follows: and for the invocation of that responsibility by States.
Thus it is not the function of the draft articles to deal
The Court ... takes note of the fact·thatN11uruwasofficiwith such questions as the requirement for exhausting
formed, at the la~etetter of 4 February 1969, of the position of
Australiaon thesubjecrehabilitaof thephosphatelandsworked other means of peaceful settlement before commencing
out bef()Jel July 1967. Nauru tookissue with that position in writings, or such doctrines as lis alip ~ei?d~ns
onlyon6 October 1983.In the meanth~ver as stated N~uru or electa una via as they may affect the JUnsdtctJon
and not contmdictbyAIU~U' the~iUe,$thadonn~ oc~astons of one international tribunal over another.450 By
bee11raisedbythePresidentofNauruw1ththecompe~ustra alian
thorities.TheCourtconsidersthat,giventhenatureofrelattonsbctw44Seethe 1969ViennaConventionarts23 (reservations,express
Australiaand Nauru.as wellas the stepstllustaken,Nautu'sAppacceptancesof reservations and objtotreservations"mube
tionwasnot renderedinadmissiblebypassageoftime. formulatediwriting'and 67 (notificationof invalidity,tennination
orwithdrawalfroma treatymustbwriting).
It seems from this passage that the Court did not attach
much significance to formalities. It was sufficient that ~sFor a discussionof the range of considerationsaffectingjuris
dictionndadmi&sibilityof international claims before courtll,see
the respondent State was aware of the claim as a result of Abi-Saab Leexa!plilmpnUiminairesdcm.fi4 procedurede la Com·
internatidna/e;etudedes nofondamenta/esde proced1!/des
44<i.C.J.Report$!991 (seefootnote307above),p. 253,para. 31.yem de ltur mf.seL'lttzuvre;Fitz:e,he.lal'lQJidProcedure
447Ibid.,p. 254.para.35. oftile International C(1Urtof Jespeciallyvol. 11,chllp. VII,
4-Uitbi.d•pp.254-255, para.36. (CDIUilon"'·ag•) Doeument:
A/CN.4/SR.l(j82
Summary record of the 2682nd meeting
Topic:
State responsibility
Extractfrom theYearbook oftheInternational awCommission:-
2001, vol. I
DownloadedfromthewebslleoftheInternationalLawCommission
(http://www.norgllaw/llcl)
Copyript C UniNdaticms 2682odmeetlne-30 M1y 2011
109
change the position of all the other Statto which the ob 40. The title of article 46 (Loss of the right to invoke
ligation is owedwith respect to the further performance responsibility)had presented problems for some Drafting
of the obligation." Committee members who would have preferred the word
"renunciation" to the word ..loss.. (of a right) in English.
37. The Drafting Committee had amended the tide of The Committee had made that change in the French ver·
the article in ordetorefiect its content more faithfully. It sion,but bad retruned the English title as it stood, since it
had taken the view that the definition of the injured State, considered the word ..loss" better than the word "renun
although not expressly defined in the text, was inferred
from the content of the article. The new title ''Invocation ciation".
of responsibility by an injured State", which was that of
41. With regard to subparagraph (a), the Drafting Com
former article 44, was more fitting for article 43. mittee had examined the proposals by some Govern
ments to exclude the ability to waive a claim arising from
38. Bearing in mind the new title of article 43, the a breach of a peremptory norm or an erga omnes obliga
Drafting Committee had amended that of article 44 to tion.It had felt that, in the context of chapter V of Part
read: "Notice of claim by an injured State", which also One (Circumstances precluding wrongfulness), the word
reflected more closely the content of the provision and ••validly" referred to both the procedural and the substan
would be more in line with article 45 {22] (Admissibil
ityof claims). It had maintained paragraph I as it stood, tive validity of the waiver ofthe claim. In that article, the
since it had not prompted any objections or proposed Committee had been unable to settle the question of the
circUlllBtancesin which a claim relating to a breach of an
amendments by Governments, other than one comment obligatiOnunder aperemptory norm could be waived, for
on the meaning of"invocation", which had already been the reasoris already explained when intro!lucing article
answered. The Committee had studied the suggestion by 42, paragraph 2. The Committee had likewise considered
aGovernment that all the remedies available to an injured a suggestion by one Government that the word "validly"
State should be listed in paragraph 2. It had added the should be deleted, since it was redundant. It had thought
words "in accordance with the provisions of Part 1\vo"
at the end of subparagraph (b) to make it quite clear t~at it essential to uphold the principle that a claim had been
validly renounced, in order to take account of situations
an injured State had all the remedies provided for in Part in which an injured State might waive its claim under
Two. The Committee had also considered a proposal to duress or coercion, because such renunciation should not
expand paragraph 2 by adding··another subparagraph on be regarded asa sufficient waiver. The Committee had
the nature and characteristics of the claim. Nevertheless, also studied the proposal from orte Government to de
in the lightof the view expressed during previous discus lete the words "in an unequivocal manner", which might
sions that the article shouldbe as flexible as possible, it
had believed that it would be unnecessary to elaborate on b.amperthe application of the article. It had noted that the
the characteristics of the claim in tbe body of the tebut expression was not strictly necessary andthat the adverb
..validly" rendered the idea adeq~te Ilhya. therefore
thatthat could be done in the commentary. deleted the expression and agreed. to explain the point in
the commentary. The Committee had maintained sub
39. As for article 45 [22], the Drafting Committee had paragraph (b) without any changes, since no Government
studied a proposal by a Government that the words "by an had submitted any comments on it.
injured State" should be inserted in thechapeau after the
words ..it may not be invoked". It had decided not to do 42. Taking its cue from a proposal by the French Gov
so, for those words would be inconsistent with the scope
of the article, which applied to both injured States and ernment, the Drafting Committee had amended the title
States other than the injured State which were entitled of article 47 to read: ..Plurality of injured States", which
was, in its opinion, more consistent with the content of
to invoke responsibility. With regard to subparagrapb the article itself. The article bad been generally accepted
(a),it had first examined a proposal by a Government to by Governments. The Committee had wondered whether
return to the rule on nationality of claims contained in the article should specify thattates could invoke respon
article 22 adopted on first reading. It had also taken note sibility collectivelynd separately. It had, however. found
of the fact that the issue of nationality essentially related that the word "separately" had·been expressly included
to the admissibility of claims and had decided that, as
the new subparagraph (a) introduced some flexibility, it in the text to show that States could invoke responsibility
would not be appropriate to revert tothe previous text. individually and that it went without saying that injured
States could act together. In such circunu;tances, bow
It had then considered the comment of one Government ever,each State would beacting in its own right and not
that the "nationality of claims" was an unfamiliar con on behalf of any group or community. The provision did
cept in French legal terminology and that the expression not deal with the issue of joint actions, which was gov
should be redrafted to refer to an applicable rule relating erned by a separate body of law. That point could beex
to nationality in the context of the exercise of diplomatic
protection. The Committee had decided to retain the text plained in the commentary.
as itstood,even in the French version. It had recalled that 43. The Drafting Committee had amended the title of
the term "nationality of claims" had been used in 1949 by article 48 to read: ..Plurality of responsible States". In
ICJ in the advisory opinion that itad delivered in French paragraph 1. it had first looked into the question raised
and English in the Reparationfor Injuries case, with the by a Government whether the article recognized the prin
French text being the official text. The Committee had cipleofjoint and several responsibility. It had noted that
also noted that the nationality ofclaims rule did not apply the general rule in international lawwas that a State bore
only in the fieldof diplomatic protection. The Commit responsibility for the wrongful acts itad committed and
tee had made no amendments to subparagraph (b), since that article 48 reflected the rule well. The commentary
Governments had generally endorsed it. would clearly explain that that provision must not be A/CN.4/SER.A/2001/Add.l (Part 2)
YEARBOOK
OF THE
INTERNATIONAL
LAW COMMISSION
2001
Volume I!
Part Two
Report of the Commission
to the General Assembly
on the work
of itsfifty-third session
UNITEDNAltfA\
NewYorkandGeW......,~ State respoaslbUfty 119
consideredforthatpurposeas makingup a communityof arctic Treaty claims sovereigntyover an W1Claimea drea
Statesofa functionalcharacter. ofAntarcticacontrary to article4 of thatTreaty,theother
Statespartiesshouldbeconsideredas injuredtherebyand
asentitled toseekcessation,restitution(intheformofthe
(12) Subparagraph (b)(i) stipulates thaa State is in
juredifitis "speciallyaffected"bythe violationof.acol annulmentofthe claim) and assurances of non-repetition
lectiveobligation.The tenn "speciallyaffected" is taken in accordancewithPartTwo. .
from article 60, paragraph (2) (b),of the 1969 Vienna
Convention.Even in cases where the legal effects of an (15) The articles dealwith obligations arising underin
intefnationallywrongfulact extend by implication to the ternationallaw fromwhateversourceandarenotconfined
wholegroup of States bound by the obligationor to the to treaty obligationsIn practice, interdependentobliga
internationalcommunityasa whole,the wrongfulactmay tions coveredby subparagraph (b) (ii) will usually arise
haveparticu1aradverseeffectson one Stateor on a small undertreatiesestablishingparticular regimes.Evenunder
numberof States.Forexample a case of pollutionof the suchtreaties itmaynot be thecllSethatjust anybreachof
highseas in breach of article 194 ofthe United Nations theobligationhasthe effectof undennining the perform
Conventionon the Law of the Sea may particularly im ance ofalltheotherStatesinvolved, and itisdesirablethat
pacton oneor severalStates whosebeachesmay be pol thissubpaxagraphbe narrow.in itsscope.Accordingly,a
lutedbytoxicresiduesor whose coastalfisheriesmay be ~t~ is onlycon~id enrreddunder subparagraph (b)
closed Inthatcase,independentlyof anygeneralinterest (11)1fthebreach ts of such a characteras radicallyto af
oftheStatesparties to theConvention inthepreservation fecttheenjoymentofthe rightsor the performanceofthe
of the marine environment,those coastal States parties obligationsof allthe other Statesto whichthe obligation
shouldbe consideredas injured by the breach. Likearti is owed.
cle60,paragraph(2)(b),of the 1969ViennaConvention,
subparagraph (b) (i) doesnot derme thenatureor extent
of the specialimpact that a State must have sustainedin Article 43. Notice of daim by fin injured Stllte
orderto be considered"injured...This willhave to be as
sessedonacase-by-casebasis,havingregard totheobject 1. An injured State which invokesthe responsibil
~d purposeof the primary obligation breachedand the ity of anotherState shallgive notiee of its claim tthat
facts of each case. For a Stateto be consideredinjured, State.
itmust be affectedby the breach in a waywhichdistin·
guishesit:fromthegeneralityof other Statesto which the 2. The injured State may speeify io particular:
obligation isowed. {4) the conduct that the responsible State should
take in order totease the wrongful ad, if it is continu
ing;
(13) Incontrast,subparagraph (b) (iidealswithaspe
cial categoryofobligations, thebreach of whichmust be (b) what form reparation should take in accord
consideredas aft'ectingper seevery otherState towhich ance with the provisions of Part Two.
theobligation isowed.Article 60, paragraph 2 (c),ofthe
1969 Vienna Conventionrecognizes an analogous cat
egory of treaties,viz. those "of such a character that a
material breachof its provisions by one party radically Commentary
changes the position of every party with respect to the
furtherperformanceof itsobligations".Examplesinclude (I} Article43concerns themodalitiesto beobserved by
adisarmament treaty,4 anuclear-freezone treatyorany aninjuredState ininvokingthe responsibilityofanother
othertreatywhereeach party'sperformance iseffectively State.Thearticleappliesto the injuredStateasdefinedin
article42,but Statesinvokingresponsibilityunderarticle
conditioned uponand requires the performanceof each 48mustalsocomply with its requirements675
oftheothers.Underarticle60, paragraph2 (c),anyState
party to such a treaty may terminate or suspend itin its (2) AlthoughState responsibilityarisesby operationof
relationsnotmerely with the responsibleStatebutgener
allyin itsrelationswithallthe otherparties. lawonthe commissionof an internationallywrongful act
by a State,in pmctice it isnecessary for an injuredState
(14) Essentially,the sameconsiderationsapplyto obli and/orotherinterested State(s)torespond,iftbey wishto
gationsof thischaracterfor thepurposesof Staterespon seek cessation orreparation.Responsescantakea variety
sibility.The other States parties may have no interestin of forms, from an Wlofficialand confidential reminder
the terminationor suspensionof such obligationsas dis of the need to fulfil the obligation through formal pro
tinctfromcontinuedperi'onnance,and they must all be test,consultations,etc.Moreover,thefailureofaninjured
State which hasnoticeofa breachtorespondmayhavele
consideredas individuallyentitled to react to a breach. gal consequences,includingeven the eventualloss of the
This is sowhetheror not any one of them is particularly right toinvokezesponsibilitybywaiveror acquiescence:
affected;indeed theymay albe equallya:ffected,ndnone thisis dealtwithinarticle45.
mayhavesufferedquantifiabledamage for thepurposes
ofarticle36.Theymaynonethelesshaveastronginterest
in cessationandinotheraspectsofreparation, inparticu· (3) Article43requiresan injuredStatewhichwishesto
larrestitution.orexample, ifone Stateparty to theAnt- invoketheresponsibilityofanotherStatetogivenoticeof
its claimto that State. is analogous tO article65 ofthe
67Theexample giveIntru:commentaryoftheCommissiotowhat 1969ViennaConvention.Noticeunderarticle43neednot
bcatme1111ie6eYearlloo.k.. 19vol.U,p.255,documentA/6309/
Rev.l,para.(8). 6 SSeearticle48,paragraph(3),andcommentary.uo .Reportoftbe Jntematloul Law CoDI.IIllnloa tile work oiU flfty-tbi•eslloa
bein writing,nor is itacondition for the operationof the satisfy theinjuredState; this may facilitatethe resolution
obligation to provide reparation. Moreover,the require ofthedispute.
mentof notification.ofthe claim does not imply thatthe
normal consequenceof the non-perfonnance of an inter (6) Paragraph2 (b) deals with the questionof the elec
nationalobligationis the lodgingof a statementof claim. tionofthe formof reparation by the injuredState.Ingen
Nonetheless,an injured or interested State is entitled to eral. an injured State is entitled to elect as betweenthe
respond to thebreach and the ftrSt stepshould be to call availablefonns of reparation. Thus, itmay prefer com·
theattentionof the responsibleState to the situation.and
pensation tothe possibilityofrestitution,as Germanydid
to call on ittotake appropriate steps to cease the breach in theFactoryat Chorzowcase, 679 orasFinlandeventual
andto provideredress. Ly chose to do initssettlementofthePassagethroughthe
GreatBelt case.680Or it may content itselfwithdeclara
(4) It is not the functi.9nof the articlesto specifyin de tory relief, generally or in relationto a particular aspect
tailthe fonn whichan invocationof responsibilityshould of its claim. On the other hand, there are cases where a
take.In practice,claimsofresponsibilityare raisedat dif
State may not, as itwere,pocket compensationandwalk
ferent levelsof government,depending on their serious away from an unresolved situation, for exampleone in
ness and on the generalrelations between the Statescon volvingthe lifeor liberty ofindividualsor the entitlement
cerned. In the CertainPhosphateLandsirtNaurucase, of a people to theirterritory or toself-detennination.In
Australia argued that Nauru's claim was inadmissible particular,insofaras there are continuingobligationsthe
because ithad "not been submitted within a reasonable performanceof which are not simplymattersfor the two
time" ,67The Court referredto the fact thatthe claimhad Statesconcerned,those Statesmay not be able toresolve
beenraised, and notsettled,priorto Nauru'sindependence the situationby a settlement,just as an injuredStatemay
in 1968.and to pressreports that the claimhad beenmen not be able on its own to absolve the responsibleState
tioned by thenewPresidentofNauru in hisindependence from itscontinuingobligations to a largergroupof States
day speech, as well as, inferentially,in subsequent cor or tothe internationalcommunityas a whole.
respondence and discussions with Australian Ministers.
However,the Court alsonoted that: (7) Inthe lightoftheselimitationsonthecapacityofthe
It wasonlyon 6 October1983 thatthe Pr-esidet fNauru wroteto injuredStatetoelectthepreferredformofreparation,arti
thePrimeMinisterofAustraliarequestinahimto"aeeka sympathetic cle43does notsetforththe rightofelectioninanabsolute
reconsiderationofNauruposition"617 form.Instead,it providesguidance toan injured Stateas
to what sort of information it may includein itsnotifica
The Courtsummarized the communicationsbetween the tion oftheclaimor in subsequent communications.
partiesasfollows:
The Court ... takesnoteofthefthatNauruwasofficiallyinformed,
atthelatestby letterof4 Febrwuy1969,of thepositionofAuslraliaon
therubjcctof~habili tattephonphate lands-workedout before Article44. Admissibilityof claims
1 July 1967.Naurutook issue with that positionin writingonly on
6 ()(;tobcr1983.Ith ~eantime,however,BS statedbyNauruand The responsibility of a State maynot be invoked if:
notcontradictedby Australia,the question011IWOoccasionsbeen
raiseby thePresilblt ofNauruwitthellOIIlpetAUBtmliaaautltori
tiesThe Court coDSidcrthat, givechclllltlof rclatioaabetween {a) the claim isnot brought Inaceordan.eewith any
AustralialllldNauru,• wellas tsteps thutaken,Nauru'sApplica appHcablerule relating to the nationality of daims;
tionwasnotrenderedinadmissibleby passageoftimc.71
(b) the c:lalmIsone to which the rule of exhaustion
In the circumstances, itwassufficient thatthe respondent of local remedies appHes and any available and effec
Statewasawareoftheclaimasaresultofcommunications tive local remedy has not been exhausted.
from theclaimant,even iftheevidenceof those communi·
cations took theformofpressreportsofspeechesormeet
ingsratherthanof fonnal diplomaticcorrespondence.
Commentary
(S) When givingnotice of a claim. an injured or inter
estedState willnormallyspecify what conductin itview (1) The present articles are not concerned with quesR
is requiredoftheresponsibleState by way ofcessationof tions of thejurisdiction of internationalcourts and tribu
any continuingwrongful act, and what form any repara nals,oringeneralwiththeconditionsfor theadmissibility
tion shouldtake, 'Ihus,paragraplt 2 (a) providesthat the of cues brought before such courts or tribunals.Rather,
they defme the conditions for ~lishin theinterna
injuredState may indicate to the responsible State what tional responsibilityof a State and for the invocationof
shouldbe donein order to cease the wrongfulact, if itis
continuing.This indication is not,as such,bindingonthe 679AsPCUnotedin the Factoryat Chonow.Jurisdiction(seefoot
responsible·State.The injured State can only requirethe note 34 above)by1halstageof dledispute,Gc:nnanwu nolonger
responsibleStateto comply with itsobligations,and the scelcinsonbebalfotheGerman compmies conc:emcdthereturnofthe
legal consequencesof an internationallywrongful actare factorin questio01ofiiiiXXIICD(p.17).
681.n tho tmsage throughtheGnat Belt (Finlandv. Denmark),
not forthe injuredState to stipulateor define. But itmay ProvisionalMeaiiii'U,Ordef'D/29 July /99/, LC.J. Reports1991,
be helpful tothe responsibleState to know whatwould p.12,ICJdid I1Citccept Deamark'sargumentastothe impossibility
ofrestitutiOIiIf, onthomeriwasifoundthattheconstruetionofthe
676Certain PhosphateLlmdr In Nauru. PreliminaryObjet:Jtona bridgeac:rosthe GreatBelt wouldresultin a violationof"Demnark's
{seefootnote230above),p.253,para.31. internationalobligations.Forthetermsof thecwutualsettlement,sec
cm Ibid.,p.254,para.35. M. Koskennicmi,"I.:aff.tiredu passparle Grand-Belt",Annuaire
671Ibid..pp.254-255,para36. ~ais de droiinteriUltionvol.38 (1992)p.905,atp.940. United Natlons·Geoeral Assembly B.lgb.Level Meedng on Nuclear Disannament
Sltltelllmon bdillf ofFl'llllcet,iUnltstlKingtlottl
andthe u,itwJ States ~
by Miaister Alstair Burt .
ParUameotary Uader Secretary of State~
Uuited Kiugdem of Great ~rit aolda orthern lrelaad
26 September 2113 : '
MrPresident,
l am taking the floor on bcboffthe govemments·ofFran andethe U~ Sta and my own
governmen he UnitedKiDgdom. ;
Step-b.J..StProceg
Mr PresidentOur threnationswouldlike to see.thisHigb.l:..eveJ·(HLM)u reflecttheprinciple
enshrinedin the Nuclear Non-ProlifeJ'TOreaty (NP1)thattheundertakingof e:ffect:nuclear
disannamentmeasuresis a shared responsibilialStates·PartieNod~ weapon stateandnonw
nudear weapon statemust cooperatto createthc:onditiODaSdenviromnentin whi~ the goalof
disarmamentand non-proliferationcabe pursuedwith respect tthe~les' of.irreversibility,
verifiability,andtiansparency. . . :
c
We sbarethe vi~ that a stroug and effectivenon-proliferationre8nmessentialconditionfor
achievingdisarmament,whilprogresstowardsdisarmamentenban.cesconfilfencein non-proliferation
efforts. SuCQCiS haltintheproliferationof nuclearweapoisamongttie internationalconditions
thawillfurthestepbystepprogresstowardthultimategoalofaudear disaqnament.
,.
For ourCOUDbie. as,pn.ctical step-by-~tep is tbeooly way to m8ke real prosresin our
disarmamenteffortswhile upholdiusglosecUri tnd... 1ity....t.aree s~ortcuts.. Thereis no
otherway to achieve aworldwithout mdear weapous outside omcthodicatand steadyprogress.
Followingthisproceswe are seekingtadvaoc:eegotiatioofanFissilMitcrialCut-OffTreatyand
eutryintforceof the ComprehensiveTestBanTmaty(C'I'B1)AllNFr StatesPartiesconcur tithe
nextprioritysteptowardnucledi&armame unthemultilatercontextii af'MCI'.
~
Shaml R!sponllbiJUt .
~
Mr President,We caunotcouiider disarmamentiiSoJatiofrom our otherJeffotocombatpobal
dan•rs presentebyWeapousofMassDestruction,wbieb'includpoliferati<iaud terrorism.
. t • .
Wearecommittedto strcngtheuinall thrpillarsoftbeNPT: disumament,~n andtne-proliferatioo,
peacefuusesof nucleaenergy.1bey areimportania theiown riA andc:omJJiemcntaryAn states
shouldcontributetdisarmamen totonly throughthepursuit disarmm stepsthenisclvebut
alsobyhelpingtocteate the conditiondi!IWIDamnt. ~
~ Inord o upholdthe integrityof.tJ_lOO-p rr co~lwie f ~ oddress~ issue on~~
wmpliancebya few statwiththeuobligations,whilereoogmzmgtrightofanoplianNPTparties
to1hcpeacefulusesofuuclearenergy. •
lalt!!tivg gd Nep Steps
MrPresid• Our tbrec nationsabreakingnewgroundby·cagagiDg in high-priority,regularized
dialoguemongnudearweaponsstatesondisa1Dl8Dlent-roleduetoanunprecedenteextent.
Wewish toleCallthunprecedenteprogreSsandeffortsmaby thenuclear-weapo1tateinnuclear
irmsreduction,disarmament,confidence-buiand transparentyand.notewith satisfactionthat
stocbofnudearweaponsareDOW at farlowerlevtbaDat antimeiDthepastbalf-:c=entury.
OnStartwhen follyimplemented,the TreatybetwetheUnitedStates of AmericaatheRussian
Fcdcta.tooMeuares for tFurtherReductioandLimitatioofStrategicOffeJIArms (theNew
-STAR-TTreatywill :resmlthelowest1I1IIDer depl&yelludcar-WOapolill-tke--~d-·· ··
Russi&hA tho 1950s. Webelievit tbea significS1qJ~the implcmentadonof Articleofthe
NPT andby promod mnutuatrustopenness,redictabil.ndcoope(ltioncanhelpbuilda stronger
basisforaddressibetbrealSofnudearproliferaandnuclearterrorism.
We ~ and welcomethereductionsby my owncountry(the UK.)theaumbersof warheadsand
missilesonboarditsnucleardeterrentsubmarineswhichwill therequirementfor operationally
availablewarheadsto no moretbao120anda.recfw?n ouroverallnudear weaponstockpiletono
m~tba n80. · .
Wealsowelcometheac;hicvementy FranceoitsobjectivesRSUltiinthemc:lw;tby one-tldrdof
thenumberof nucleaweapons,missilesand ahcraftof tbe a.ircomponentand leadingtoan
meua1toiBlinatodfewertJum300Dudearweapons.
Wecontinueto meeat alapproprialevi.sDlnuclearissuesto furtberpromotedialogueandmutual
co.nfidento advanceour NPT·relategoals.We iDtendtoreport to the Thlrd Session of the
PreparatoO,mmitteein 2014awe havedoaein previousmeerings,andset o~inActionSof the
2010NPTActionPlan.
Mr PresidentTheentryintoforc:eof the CI'BTrcmaia top priority. Weare convinthat the
uatioDaseauitof alstatewillbeenhancedwhen thCI'BT ~at eno forcePenm.g itentry into
forcewe continuetocallon all states to upholdtheir oatioaalmoratoriaon·nuclear weaponstest
aplosions ad all othDUclearxplosionaud we encouragetheremainingAnnex2 stateaadall ·
othestatestomoveforwardtowardratificatwithoutwaitingforsimilaracbyothersta~.
Spport for a fissile MaterCutoft'Tmtty.
Mr ~dent This ·Hig~1 ~eti nrvidesan~to ~ theobjectivof begioning
aegotiatJOon anFMcr withinthe Conferenceon DtsaiDIIDltn the basisof CD/1299anthe mendatecontainedtherein. We are profoundlydisappointed that t~rence continuesto be
preventedfrom ap:cins on a comprehensiveprogramof work,and continto supporttbeimmediate
start of negotiationannFMCf. In tJtisvein, hope thatthe Gov~enta Glroup of Experts
(GGE}to bo convenedin2014 and 20i5win helpspurnegotiationonaFM~ intheCD.
OtheA rPProach tes uclearDlsannement
Finally,MrPresident,few wordsontheotherapproachestoNuclearDisarniament.
We fully understandthe seriOtconsequencesof nuclear weaponuseand wiU continue to githe
highestpriorittoavoiding such a coutinpncy.Our effortin disarma omu-proliferation,and
nuclearsecurityareaimedat avoidingtheuseofnudcar weapons.
We believe that thereare alreadysufficienforu mpecifiedby the~UN Special Session on
Disarmamentin 1978,for discussionon tbeseissues.includiDg:UNO~ First Committee,the UN
DisannamentCommission,aDd theCoufcrenceOnDisarmament_Andwbilerweare encouragedbythe
illereasedenergandenthusiasm aroundtheauclear disarmament deba.w,regretthat this energyis
being directed towarinitiativsuch as this High-LevelMeetimg,the hUmanitarianconsequences
campaign,theOpcu-BndedWorldngGroupaudthepush fora NuclearWeaponsConvention.
We strongly believe that this energy would have much bettc.reffect if channeledexisting
processes,elpingtotackle blockages amaking progresin thepractical,step-by-step approachthat
includesall stares tpossessnuclearweapons. This includetakingsteP&to implement theNPT
ActionPlan thawasagreedby consensusin 2010.This roadmapof actioroffersthebestroutefor
makiq posressoa multilateranudear disarmament. We remaincommitted to thiComprehensive,
slep-by-steapproachto nucleardisarmamentand wiciarron wm:Idnwgithcivil societyandallUN
lllCIDbstatetoward thiend.
Mr President~ isno path toa world withounuclearweaponsother,than dany bardwork on
concretestepstoward that end. This requiresbroad improvement in ·.thinternational security
euvironmcmand the steadypursuitof practistepswitheach stepbuilc:fon thelast Weremain
concernedthaitheSeefforts Wilsbiftthe focuaway from theserioustbreatposed by lhe non-
compliancaendproliferadOnl1allengfsciDus. ·:
Thank you,Mr PresidentHCPP - Full Record Page 1of44
HousEoFCoMMoNs
PARLIAMENTAR PYAPERS
BROWSE INFORMATIONRESOURCES MYARCHIVE
FULLRECORD DurableURL
SEARCHHISTORY
<<Back View HansardBrowsefor this month
MARKEDLIST
Addto Marked List
fiDownload
-- l.llaaveMyArchive
Title: CommonsSitting of Friday, 8th November, 1957
Session: 1957-58
Collection: Houseof CommonsHansard
Regnalyear: Elizabeth 11year 6
Columns: 465-580
SerfesNolume: Fifth Series,Volume 577
Topics
Preamble, Friday, 8th November, 1957 c.465
PRAYERS c.465
NEWWRIT c.465
ATOMICENERGYESTABLISHMENT,INDSCA(ACCIDENT! cc.465-468
BILLPRESENTED
PUBLICWORKSLOANS c.468
ORDERSOFTHEDAY
QUEEN'SPEECH
DEBATEONTHEADDRESS cc.469-568
NORTHERNRHODESI(AFRICAADVANCEMENT) cc.569-580
ABackto top
Preamble, Friday, 8th November, 1957
[465]
The Housemet at Eleveno'clock
ABackto top
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKin the Chair]
ABackto top
NEWWRIT
For Leicester, South-East,in the room of Captain the right honourable CharlesWaterhouse,M.C. (Manorof
Northstead).-[Mr. EdwardHeath.]
http://parlipapers.chadwyck.co. uk/hansard/fullrec.do ?source=config5 .cfg&area=hcp04/06/2015 HCPP - Full Record Page 2 of44
...Backto top
ATOMICENERGY ESTABLISHMENT W,INDSCALE (ACCIDENT)
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, I will make a statement on the accident at
Windscale. I have now had the opportunity of assessingthe Report of Sir William Penney'sCommittee. This
Report was made to the Atomic EnergyAuthority to assistthem in discharging their responsibility for the
management of the Windscale Establishment. I am anxious to give the Houseand the country the fullest
possible information about the accident and the measurestaken to deal with its consequences. For this
purpose, a White Paper hasbeen presented to Parliament and will be available today. lt contains a less
technical version, prepared by Sir William Penney'sCommittee, of their Report on the causeof the accident
and the measures taken to deal with it. The White Paper also contains the Committee's Report on the
measurestaken to protect those employed at the plant and the general public, together with the comments
thereon of a special independent Committee set up by the Medical ResearchCouncil. I informed the House
on 29th October that I had askedfor these comments. This accident occurred during a routine maintenance
operation, which is described in the While Paper. lt was, of course, a serious matter, and caused
disturbance to a large number of people. Hon. Memberswill, however, wish to consider this matter in a
proper perspective. In the last twelve years, we in Britain have built up this new industry without a single
[466]seriousinjury caused by radiation, and there is no evidence that this accident hasdone any significant
harm to any person, animal or property. That this was sois due to the Atomic EnergyAuthority's general
care for health and safety, to the general effectiveness of the safeguards built into the Windscale piles, and
to the courage, energy and resourcefulness of those at the installation after the accident. I believe the
Housewill wish to join me in paying tribute not only to their efforts, but also to the quiet confidence and
absenceof alarm of the general population in the Windscale area. What is important now is that the lessons
to be learned from the accident should be fully digested and applied; on the one hand, to do all that is
possible to ensure that there will never again be a similar occurrence; and, on the other, to see how the
organisation of the Authority can be improved in the light of the Windscale experience. To this end Sir
Alexander Fleck has, at my request, agreed to evaluate the technical data derived from the accident and to
recommend what measuresare needed to remedy the deficiencies in organisation to which the Authority
have called my attention. The termsf reference and constitution of three committees, of which he will be
,the Chairman, are set out in the White Paper. Lastly, I can give the Housethe reassurance that the accident
at Windscale hasno bearing on the safety of the nuclear power stations being built for the Electricity
Authorities. The reasonsfor this are fully set out in a separate Annex to the White Paper.
Mr. Gaitskell: agree with the Prime Minister that it is fortunate that this accident did not have more serious
consequences, and I would wish on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends to join with him in paying our
tribute to the care taken by the Authority and to the bearing of the population in the area. I think the House
will wish to study the Report before engagingin any detailed discussionsthis morning, and I would only ask
one question. I understand that Sir Alexander Fleck is to be chairman of three committees. Doesthe Prime
Minister envisage that these committees will produce reports, and, if so, will the reports be published?
[467]
The Prime Minister: I am sure that the committees will produce reports. I will certainly carefully consider
the question of their publication.
Mr. Grimond: Isit not a remarkable fact that no significant harm has, apparently, been done to any person,
animal or property either by this accident or any other accident in the industry? Nevertheless, presumably
there was some slight damage causedto a considerable number of people, and I wonder whether the right
hon. Gentleman can make any statement about their position in regard to compensation. Hasanything been
decided as to compensation payable?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; of course, the Authority will accept responsibility.
Mr. Robens: In view of the tremendous importance of the export value of atomic power stations to this
country, does the White Paperunderline, in perhaps greater detail, what I understood the right hon.
Gentleman to say this morning, that there could be no possibility of an accident of this character from the
atomic power stations we are building at the present time?
The Prime Minister: I thought that that was a very important point, and I am grateful to the right hon.
Gentleman for underlining it again. I have had prepared a technical appreciation which sets out, in a
separate annex to the White Paper, the reasonswhy this type of military installation, which this is, hasno
connection whatever with the civil nuclear power stations where accidents of this type could not occur
because of the entirely different character of the two processes.
http://parlipapers.chadwyck.co. uk:/hansard/fullrec.do?source=config5 .cfg&area=hcpp... 04/06/2015HCPP - Full Record Page 3 of44
Mr. Harold Davies: I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for missing just the first few phrasesof his
statement. Isit not correct that an unusual experiment was taking place at Windscale and that the people
who understood it and knew what was happening were not anywhere near the place and had to be sent for?
In view of this, in order to assuagepublic opinion if anything like this should happen in the future, will the
right hon.[468]Gentlemanconsider setting up a completely independent committee of worthy scientific and
other people who could be called on to investigate and give the public facts aswell as those which are given
by official representatives and scientists of the Government?
The Prime Minister: I can deal with both parts of that supplementary question. The accident occurred during
a routine maintenance operation. Theparticular operation is called a Wigner release. I have askedSir
William Penney to try to describe, in part of the White Paper, in language which might be understood,
precisely what this operation is. lt is one which is done at intervals. There was no particular or special
experimentation for either civil or military purposesbeing done at the time of this release. I think that all
this will really be easier to understand when hon. Members have had an opportunity of reading the White
Paper, which is quite long and really tries to give ascomplete a picture aswe can of all the relevant facts.
With regard to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am very grateful, as, I am sure, is the
whole Houseand the country, to Sir Alexander Fleck for undertaking this work. On almost every aspect of it,
he is the most suitable man, but I must frankly state that, on the purely highly technical atomic aspectsof
it, I have chosen Sir Alexander because I think that he hassufficient scientific knowledge of a general
character. Oneof the difficulties of meeting the point made by the hon. Gentleman is that all the people
who really are the experts in this are, in one way or another, employed under the Atomic EnergyAuthority.
BILLPRESENTED
ABackto top
PUBLICWORKSLOANS
Bill to grant money for the purpose of certain local loans out of the Local LoansFund, and for other purposes
relating to local loans, presented by Mr. Powell; read the First time; to be read a Secondtime upon Monday
next and to be printed. [Bill 7.]
ORDERS OFTHE DAY
QUEEN'SSPEECH
A Backto top
DEBATEONTHE ADDRESS
[FOURTHDAY]
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [5th November]: That an humble Addressbe
presented to Her Majesty, asfollows: Most GraciousSovereign, We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal
subjects, the Commonsof the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in Parliament
assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speechwhich Your
Majesty has addressed to both Housesof Parliament.·[Lady Tweedsmuir.]
Question again proposed.
11.15 a.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): In the Gracious Speech, Her Majesty referred,
first, to the visit which the President of the Italian Republic is to pay to this country next May. I think that
one of the most satisfactory developments in the post-war era has been the steady improvement in our
relations with Italy. We are firm friends, and our two Governments work closely together with mutual
confidence and understanding.We look forward very much to the visit of the President assetting the seal
upon this relationship. Several references were made also in earlier speechesto the second paragraph in the
Gracious Speechreferring to the visit paid by Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Philip to Canadaand the
United States. I was not present in Canada, but I had the honour of attending Her Majesty in the United
States and I was, therefore, able to witness at first hand the warmth of the welcome she received. I feel
that I should just say to the House,of my own knowledge, that the visit was an outstanding successand a
great personal triumph for Her Majesty and His Royal Highness, and I believe that it was a notable
http://parlipapers.chadwyck.co. uklhansard/fullrec.do ?source=config5 .cfg&area=hcpp... 04/06/2015 HCPP- Full Record Page 4 of44
contribution to good relations between our two countries for wihch we should all be deeply grateful. During
her visit Her Majesty the Queenwent to the United Nations and addressed a crowded General Assembly[470J
there. I want to begin by saying something about the United Nations. In the speechwhich I made there
during the General Debate, I referred to the Secretary-General"sintroduction to the Annual Report on the
Work of the Organisation, June, 1956-June, 1957. In that introduction, there is a passagedealing with the
role of the United Nations, which deservescareful study by us all. lt is a very fair assessmentof the way in
which the United Nations is developing and should develop. The Secretary-General points out what the
United Nations is not, that the Charter does not endow it with the attributes of a super·Stateor of a body
active outside the framework of decisionsof member Governments. The General Assemblyis not a
parliament of elected individual members, and the limits within which its power can develop are set by the
balance of the forces in the world and the facts of international life at any particular time. lt cannot be
transformed· I am dealing with the Secretary-General"sviews-into a world authority enforcing the law upon
the nations. He goeson to say that it is an instrument of negotiation among, and to some extent for,
Governments. lt is a meansof concerting action by Governmentsin support of the goals of the Charter. The
greatest need today is to blunt the edgesof conflict amongthe nations and not to sharpen them. If properly
used, the United Nations, in the Secretary-General"sview, can serve diplomacy of reconciliation better than
any other available instrument. Hisview is that, in spite of temporary developments in the opposite
direction under the influence of acute tension, the tendency in the United Nations is to wear away or break
down differences and thus help towards solutions. On the difficult topic of one vote for one nation
irrespective of size or strength, and consequently, upon the topic of responsibility or irresponsibility, Mr.
Hammarskjold confines himself to saying that the two-thirds rule, which applies to all major decisions of the
General Assembly, should serve as a reasonable assurance.Hewisely points out that enforcement action by
the United Nations under Chapter VII hasnot been constitutionally transferred to the General[471]Assembly
by the ''Unitingfor Peace"resolution. He contends that the processesof debate and vote are an essential
part of the work of the United Nations, but he addsthat, if it is accepted that the primary value of the
United Nations is to serve asan instrument of negotiation, voting victories are likely to be illusory unless
they are steps in the direction of winning lasting consent to a peaceful and just settlement of the questions
at issue. He points that there is plenty of scopein the United Nations for adjustment and negotiation, quite
apart from its public proceedings. He refers to the innovations, sofar as the practices of the United Nations
are concerned, which have been witnessed this year. Oneof these with which we all are familiar is the
United Nations EmergencyForce. He considers that the exploration of such opportunities and the evolution
of emphasis and practice is a more urgent task than formal constitutional changes. I have gone at some
length into these views of the Secretary-General becauseI believe that these opinions are extremely wise
and they form a realistic doctrine round which opinion of all sorts can rally at a time when there hasbeen
some uncertainty in many peoples' minds about the United Nations. I do not think that we can accept the
view that the United Nations should never be criticised, but we have to steer a middle course between
believing in its complete infallibility and automatic condemnation of it. I think that. those views of the
Secretary-General do provide a sound doctrine. The basic point is that the primary purpose in the mind of
everyone taking part in meetings of the United Nations should be to serve what Mr. Hammerskjold describes
asthe diplomacy of reconciliation. If these are the purposesbehind the debates they will help and not
hinder. I am not blaming or criticising any one country, but too often there are discussionsin which it is
quite obvious that the sole purpose of the participants is propagandain the cold war or in some other
dispute between nations. If there is a genuine desire to find common ground I think that the debates serve a
useful purpose. I think that the General Assemblycame extremely well[47l]out of the debate on the Syrian
complaint against Turkey. In that casethe Communist bloc did try to use that debate for cold war
propaganda purposes, but they failed becausethe general feeling of the Assembly, including that of many
Asianand African members, was against giving the affair a cold war slant. The offer to mediate by Saudi
Arabia called the bluff of those who wished only to make trouble, and eventually the debate fizzled out, but
with, I think, a real lesseningof tension, although I think that reconciliation may still be some time off.
Connected with the United Nations there is another matter about which I should like to say a word, and that
is with regard to the International Court of justice-the optional Clauseof the Statute of the International
Court. Questionson that were put down to me by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for
Leicester, North-East (Sir.L. Ungoed·Thomas)which were not reached last week, and I think that it might be
best if I dealt with them in a speech rather than by Question and Answer. The optional Clauseis concerned
with the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court. Very few countries have accepted that Clause
unconditionally. I think that they are in fact three·Haiti, Nicaraguaand Paraguay. Others, about a dozen,
have accepted subject only to reciprocity-China, Colombia, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, Honduras,
Liechtenstein, Norway, Panama, Philippines, Sweden, Switzerland and Uruguay. A further fifteen or so have
accepted with specific reservations varying in their extent·Netherlands, Luxembourg, Australia, Canada,
Salvador, France, Israel, Liberia, Mexico, Pakistan. Portugal, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the
http://parlipapers.chadwyck.co. uk/hansard/fullrec.do ?source=config5 .cfg&area=hcpp... 04/06/2015 HCPP - Full Record Page 5 of44
United States. Finally, there are over fifty countries which have not accepted the optional Clauseat all.
Great Britain has always been in the category accepting with reservations. When our declaration was first
made in 1929 it was limited to future disputes, it was conditioned by reciprocity, and there was a further
condition reserving the right to require the suspensionof any proceedings started before the Court in
respect of any dispute which had been submitted to the Council of the Leagueof Nations.[473]ln addition,
there were three specific reservations. The first was in respect of disputes in regard to which the parties
had agreed to have recourse to some other methods of peaceful settlement; secondly, disputes with other
members of the Commonwealth, and thirdly disputes ""withregard to questions which, by international law,
fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom:· When I examined the position earlier this
year, I became aware, I confess for the first time, of two matters which seemed to me to be quite
unacceptable from our point of view. The first arose from the fact that a country can accept the compulsory
jurisdiction of the Court ad hoc for the purpose of a particular case or dispute. lt can thus take another
country to the Court in that case, another country which has given a standing acceptance of the Court's
compulsory jurisdiction, but when that particular case is over the first country is again immune from
proceedings related to any other dispute becauseit only accepted the jurisdiction of the Court for a
particular case. I do not think that that can possibly be described as accepting the jurisdiction of the Court
on a basis of reciprocity. I am advised that when our standing acceptance was originally deposited, it was
only intended to compel us to appear before the Court at the instance of countries which had likewise
deposited a standing acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction. Accordingly, one of our new
reservations, which was intended to meet this point, specifically excludes disputes in which the other party
has accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court only for the purposesof that particular dispute. lt also
excludes, for basically similar reasons, any casewhere the other party to the dispute has entered a standing
acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction only a comparatively short time before bringing the
matter before the Court, namely, if the acceptance was made less than twelve months before the matter is
brought before the Court. I do not seek to shirk any point upon this, but an example which comes to one's
mind is a matter like nuclear tests. I think that it is agreed between us that there should not be unilateral
cessation of tests. [HON.MEMBERS":"No.""I] think[474]that it was agreed between us all that there should not
be unilateral cessation of tests by this country alone.
Mr. Hugh Gaitskell !Leeds, South): What we have proposed and urged upon the Government is that there
should be a suspension of tests by us for a limited period in the hope that during that period full
international agreement could be reached.
Mr. Lloyd: I said ""cessation. erhapsI wrongly used the word but I think that it was agreed that there should
not be unilateral cessation of tests, although there might be suspensionfor a limited time. I was dealing
with the question of cessation. lt means that therefore an Iron Curtain country could say for the purpose of
some dispute regarding tests that they would accept the jurisdiction of the Court and take us to the Court
and get a temporary injunction. The Court might sit down for a year or two in litigation; and when the case
had been decided one way or another, that Iron Curtain country could get away from the jurisdiction of the
Court-it would no longer be subject to it-and we could not take similar action with regard to it should we so
desire. I think that is a quite intolerable position which cannot be defended on the basisof reciprocity at
all. The second matter deals with disputes about questions affecting our national security. The United States
has made a reservation excluding disputes with regard to matters essentially within the domestic
jurisdiction of the United States asdetermined by the United States. France has a similar reservation, and I
think that India, before she withdrew from the jurisdiction of the Court last year, had a similar reservation.
In a recent case between France and Norway, Norway asserted that the principle of reciprocity gave the
Norwegian Government the same right asFrance to pronounce whether a dispute concerned matters within
her domestic jurisdiction or not. I think that in matters of national security we have to reserve our position
when other countries do. When every country of the Soviet bloc does so and when our principal allies do so,
we also reserve our position.[475] Action was accordingly taken by Her Majesty's Government on 18th April.
The Secretary-General circulated our document to all the member States in May and we also communicated
with the Registrar of the International Court. We followed the same procedure as on the last occasionin
1955when a change in our reservations had been made. We have no wish to weaken respect for the Court.
We believe in it and we believe in the principle behind the Court, but there must be reciprocity. I think that
has always been regarded asa fundamental principle, and that is the way in which we must approach our
acceptance of its jurisdiction.
Sir Lynn Ungoed·Thomas(Leicester, North-East): Doesthe Foreign Secretary suggest that the United States
reservation to which he hasreferred is identical with the one which this Government have made?That is the
tendency of his speech. Doeshe really suggestthat a matter like the legality or illegality of the exclusion of
shipping, for instance, for the purpose of hydrogen bomb tests is a matter entirely for domestic jurisdiction?
http://parlipapers.chadwyck.co. uk!hansard/fullrec.do ?source=config5 .cfg&area=hcpp:.. 04/06/2015ReportEvaluatingthe Requestofthe Governmentofthe Republicof the MarshallIsla... Page1of18
LiiiS+iMWJ
Report Evaluating the Requnt of the Govenvnent of the Republic of the Manshalllaland8 Presented to the Congress of
the Unltad States of America
R8prdlnGCltllnpd~...,. Pftlu.a.Mo-r-. ..lheMinholl.....,.,..,_to_IXof.,._~.._Appnwec~llveo.e-lnPWila
"--
No-:1111114
Eaoct~~ a.~-,
Ellel<oRIInd:188.1I181CIIcl1n77mlle0.of~ AdOCiatlo"n- .. una.d llllllllfMarW. heII-n.lmmentotdleUnifecls-.nln ~far
.,..,.,•..- -.otCllblnl ollheUinhIMndl forlouot dlmiiQIIOIII!1d-1m of... Ciliothe~ ltllnclslltUIIInghm lhellld .. ll111ng,.iheUnlfelll
Slalaoca-nl ea-din lheNGftltmM-IIIencls~ June30\i411QdAuiUII1,1951,ancllheigovemmenii~~ wQNfedtn1 Hponll~ pr'OirillionCt«lhe
julond..... ..aloooMnoliiiiiiUCh.......
llnr CudtjlllCiancllll~.......jlhe"Beollan177 ...,,....""'"""'_ --onlh•-. .ol,o-,1,u.-.Thelluo-- ..-- ... -177
s.tloment~,..,_,..-~~ym..--1116Compool, ..............___.,. olllll-.o,putpouent, lndMn,oJtwo-.,......cHizontoMdlldonllleoflheMattlull
llllndo- .. 11- upon,anMautar, "!'ifllll)'._,.,_tcolheN-IrTelllngl'n>glwn.anclwllldi_..,_.,.Uniled -•.o,llsaa-,.,.1~.-~~~~~
mni_IIW_a,lndof(Htclo x (1)).eq..'UIIIoorq-olorl'lWlill!..llo,_......lll.'ol-clllmlwNdl ,.bfpondlngorwhlcll m..lied In lll)'Ollerjudlcltlor
Aspart<ll811111 1W1W o.......,_.1111111U1.1S1.give..--llloi'M.,_Itl.,dl $11111lliDniD- 1 NlclnrclllrMIMtillThoU.SGowrrmonlhu""
rotolntte Tlllllml'adlclllonaniiiMIIng lheCllstdbulloonflhe lnllll'!"'ndamonadlotlllelftiS!Und,
MloleIXoft.Seclod 177......,_~PIO.rcl "ilauor<~.M..tto-~ lnd,.,_.,.,. alaz-GflleMarot.llalll~llll llamlie~Telling Pmgnm.""""""'
111-- 11eelrec:o11aflli~end....., ...,__notniiGIIId naiNI_. h-beell ideoliluefilllleeftI...ottW A;,....onl,lllldt iniuote•NIIdet
..._.......ofiiU~ _, ~ "tn•MIUyMq~~M~I ..al .SGlmlrniNnlpallfarMICI\il1jlllllllrnillnaIUdiiitoIll•U.c..,._ A_rlicleIXeq!IQifv
- -·· llndemoed-·- ""' comnoi.l.. eon.,......"""_...,to~~~-·-
'fllrou;_..t.lha Rtol- O'llrSSbilInlcldllonlll-.-liolndMlli..._abo¥11111D1e1,ondmopml~e Idlie lleCIIan177Belde..-AQNemenl, IOfltiYlbr"'•nhii!Cid
-•lr.lilh .,..ljlllTlilxnol.-dlforperaollllll'lill'JdllandUMIIIIdhlnllhip, ondlllall-1oawel u- mo"' foroceup~~.. .._.._l) •.,..,1n<1
ExpH- Thoofaotanca<linl,_..,.,_do ,_...,...._..,01-IM'chloged .....__...............-177 f _.._,., lllit.--.lhalllo-iho!o
flr_r.,..offloMI-IOiondl"*tlhe_,.,. ___ IIMII_illllbauool.,._177 _ _..,._...,_1o....,.__af_ily. Tbo""lghtof
IIJP8I .._I_l.a1.oillllill.,....nllmpeOiofrUioolllivet.iloutOIIhllloraNIII-Iallmilecii01h•••,owlilllndAilllough•.itlondt..-IIIIIUblllo
""'"""""' oraod gring lndlllol.ld ..., ... atrllmilo,moll.............,._ill--dollllbfo-~~ ..,., ......OOI\CIIfonT-o.o 177-·•
NIPOflllbior-.ling lie- .cl--- Inlie M....... IOI.ndt.,.CIIedllylleiiiiGINr.,.__llllndotoalc
Htlltii....,'T'IlniiGI hNCIUIII,Ihe RMI1dprimll-.d~ lndtllll--apteml, illlillln!IIIYAIftU--.t. o IIII.MipaptllllionfDr""Y
~·-- 1bo RlltlllllGPellllcollaIll milil1 yearfort11ly J'IIUII,no!Inttavellnd IIOUiingandnoqutlllamillionID- etlllnlte~~jllltll-.
,_p..tcltr--..177.........,. 1~mllal,..,.... vt--I"OIIklld"""'.,.trulllmdta,.......m ec~t~,_,........olllefao... ualea....n'echdelals(!ldrl
AgrMIMIII•nUd 11120n........a-will-.o1tMtihat..,.IIOIMIIlln Ndlliool,Co"ro"int.l!eOiiqNIO!ofi'IW.t.soociiiOitlodat'I!*W.,...cal ..,..,. ...
ro-. -ol .. pCifiUIMloonfRongll• onci\MttocpOHdlo _,.... 10SC.........,._I18111.IIOU~afElletWMII ifPN_,.. ilftpnwldod ihot
opechl.l.cocereconli"'*"lo49,...nInlt.--lhe RMI -en......_ mldiCIION.,...... nollmlleindviduoll.,._lly lie U.S.-pragromtnor.ls nobfollilI«
lleRMI....-IIr.........foriii• .....pcpuiafon.,-.the"cclaaiH~~oi'U.Se1 d7io9ftlli-~
... ..,.nded CQIII. 1Gadmtnlnllllllllleapjlnd!IUN.Ial0tllll1&.9InfY2005lnd n e-lollll!e,!i.•mllf..,FYzooe,tte.e mllklnInFY2ond1111inFY2C08.
lkldlrllllamonCompactU.S.I\Inwill- ap~-..tlllnll<lf-lli!Minclllllrll.
-kjoryQIIIIIF.'TMRMI-12111.8_to_...,_lrljulynlldllalleldy~ll¥11e...._a_T_ .NII'IInd.n_fii
1111U.S.Governtn1111pla'"nin-lllmont<ll.,•NCT's.,....eifGibllllwtllalt_,........lnd_....,........,.. noi_..Uidot U.lll.,........ inJ\1111
CXIIIIflCItnmrem Nar.,.llu.e.a..m-p1ayedq~;n l\ln........-orill_ _.,. .no.u..,.,....edsalflllllll<lbytlew'TII•fll-•lllllingo
ar11111nt.lnd11natdtlluiiiiiu.s.nuoiMrlellpR~Qo~ nc~• mn01.,....do 1bfollllor• fu"cundlrlie "ohlngell.......,..viiaoflhe_,177 hlllamelll
~
http:/1200 1-2009.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rpt/40422.htm 02/06/2015 ReportEvaluatingtheRequestofthe GovernmentoftheRepublicofthe MarshallIsla...Page2of 18
·lend- -• -torhllliiHp.-nlloiiiiNo~k .. Jlllldlniii'GrInUfti"-ol'lolrfg1hiH~-lt,thaflTJ!b..,ll•-dadlhlo.-nl-ofmoney prw1dodlhi'Olies.tt-1'11fllonfct
AgnemoontWtou 9tdaralgatpnlllelTho\lfllle&l...p.., no,.' .......,.lhlllldnlllld an-dolmaorInthoTllbunojlldgtrllonthem.Nor,• nDtool- .. , h• 111e
eo..mm.ntallle.,._- plopd _, 1DiInfu'odONineglllCll'lle ..........,..Olfl'otlil"'-d" ;.no..-dby1hetnlol fund.The mlclol .--~~~aolfloiiiiOifuod ia 111>1
81111buloll11u.s..,..._.....,.... .-rl.lllalnd llllllo for• .......under111"1•h•nood""""'"""".PfOYioioonflle-.ct177lellltiMntAQreemont.
Alall-lllllon: 111Nl<CiurCIIIITrlbunGOnoidondot-gioo ollli,.1000111101111217iii»eu llllllonfor BllclnlandllflllOp4ianofle.-ta-.. T--'".
$251 mlllon10llll!lnlon MII'CIIIIZ,ODIand ••1 m•onon April 13, 2000"10,[11111lo1o1'11!1p1radlll!ll¥et!llle."In II!Ming1heTr1DIInll..-clldh- al
rnon~~Yp lho"'hadel-ntAgreemont. no..1tno"chongad cJ!QUmotlno:a"onwl1~1:.1.1fiiiiOing,......._...... l..llliAIIICIIIX 01111&1ect177S-t
Agnomont ·
1.Ltojpl-
Tll•~=of FroeAs.......(lloCo11111to,gd1erwil\ rei- ogreemenll,lneluelhlAllftllllllllll...Govemnoonloflhll U•H•d- andlhltGofemmenoflie MIIIIMII
Island!forlhll.mentiiiOllec 177 of tCDmplel ol'f'MAseoc:lo(Die t7...,_·;nlnnl),- olgnadll11a-mants Ollhu-- h.....,.
lslandtonMe 25,1883'lheCOmpeel,lncludlngtho-n Ul-JMntAQ•eJMntl'llllon- -,.-lit-Cl, -••ppro¥11 1.,_,._...,O lilf-~an
Ja~M~ 4,1yile8{P~' Nlll.!l710), onctCompacund ha- 1gr.oemtntookelllcl~th untied Stnl&lnlh8Ropublor-- llllndloOCIDINW2111,11111.
1.1 - 177of lhCompoat
Spe-ly. -011177 pmtlll.od....~orh Unitool-ond .. ~ 01111MlrlhoUlolondo·- Qlfo!th in ooep IIIJIIOIIIInlP"'•t.lona fat tM jullond ooloquole
•-nl oflltooclooloimnilt.M.rlooonln .._.tli>I'-Monhall._oandH___ - not11~- compono- .,...,hioh InlhallltuN .,_ llloapltolohlo
ov-.t 1111o1oqonolllocllllmullaneouelywftiii*Coond-llo"'"'oi .""'...-In Heown·leno.-
UTIII_m_A.,_t
1.2.1. Fuii-OIItafAllCilia
Mlote XSeoUon1 oflhelloolla8oHiemoniA4jl,.....,li• o•lit-menlofAI C..lml'.nd-
"Thll AgreementoonaiiiMMJ.. IItatlllntofllllpollp-ond lulln.oltho o .. .-_cma:.n..n.._..of !IlYnllllltllt,.......,-ch upon . oul of,or are In1n1
oon..mo•wllh""""dloimllnoki•nvgofthota Clllhs whidl maybl pendinger WhichmevbIllCOliCll'..juaiciol• admloi&ntftlnlinclUdiIll-o...ortho&bnhd llillndl
and the cooofliUnitedllal1ondHIpolbl subcllvlolono."
'tllosaordllmto..... and-., oflha dtklonoalt""""""ll ....l'llllllllinDtomIll NudlarT8Iilnari11orlo~~-- tho ""oc:tiwodllloAg-t.lo anclouch
lnj n-to-1111111~MM bun-..! u oltho - .. - althls Ao-ant,endls~d qlriu nondor1ha pravioionoollhlsA;reamantmonll'e1111ym.dliquall,lllo
-II!Onlolhlllaroluol...~crln!ooyrequ~~ _,..lelllt.~o- """' I'druchlnJur1t17ubnllliogoooh• ,.qlolhl COIIgl'elloUnilldlillltooof<~rilo
-i<rl. nl..,_odlhol tliMlelecl.afllllcammiiii& U~GlIllI...lilou-anda~p"'p fodl.ia
Clllng111,o.....onuflhl8ocllan1't1S.U.......,.lie-, uflleAepojblloo.f.. Mitlotondloub.- 1nljllllollo the UnlltdC011g,.at&'fllo-orzooo.
tn MIRb ofZII02,CongiiSIIiwll11&AIIIWtlof1heRapolllli: aflhl Mo-lo-.ho Pnsldentforl'ttlull»liea-rla\6 ~~genc1n.
lhlo-nliolhoAdnrlllra6on'oev.luollonofthl-&ttubmiiiMiby1he- ol1hlRapublooftho- --~~~-.,. nq&IIOI-Iho olomontomuUIIIy-d
taloAIIIdoiXoflho8octlon1778ol1tornantA.,..being•-•Nilllor......,loolo""'UIIIteone- rwa....--·-·lhot-.
InanleriO111tneooJ>Jtcotf• requ1111C0OfV81Anlcltxoflie 6eclion1'118111111MAmgrMm,f~lM
1. muolboiDu 01dlmttaeto-1\Y an ,n ofthec1benooftheMarshllllllll!ds;
2. muolnMIIIfromlhl NualoarTodng PlvgJMI;
4. """"btlnjuJIIt11111notondCOOInIdot...AIIIII,t_1' ._... 11"'lhl411c1M dellolleAQ,..,..OI\1{Odo... r21, 1111Go);nd
5. IUCII1r$11t1Smu,_ll.l,.IID'IIoatile leo1"" 177 -IIIIAplllrlll--.ayinodoqllllle.
_.,...._,.eondllillmo1 ho n--1ar lhB-~-· mor Mquutlhl GltwtmmontDI111'o-"iiadS-lpravldoI'Grtuchtlljurlet by oubnilling ola thoiJnllod8taloo
Congnulor no-llidoratilnwllichCI!IIUltlln*llag..........t.,....,-fillH"ltundo,_dlllolhloAIIIdodooo•ot comtlll!hi Coof1MUnilod81aln 1oouthodn .,d
TboPnomlt1olotiii80Ciio!l 177-- AQNtomolllo-lhaltho Gcoem.,.ntoftho UnlS-anolhCicmotm.d !lE!Mlrlhllllllllldoag»lhlllmneotlle~ n~ltatl1iJ
n IIIIIUnttho.,.,., o~-~~on 177ollleCompact nlolnlolhln~c e1l1rprognm" ond"'t-antt~oDoflhloalnldl~lclrft ollleo-.mo~t otlhw......,lllltndllo
pmlclma<IPIIInhlofth .. ,.to allot thl pooploof thoMonhllllllondl".
I Fnulftl...,.•tGonmmlnl Oblig•lon$150 rrilllantGovtllllllol111Mlrtllllllllndiiii~AD. N..elrCI,II.fm.l:
http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rpt/40422.htm 021061201. 5ReportEvaluatingthe Requestofthe Governmentof theRepublicof the MarshallIsla...Page3of 18
~'"~ 8ec·ll8OfUIII- Gbll;ett.aov.......of lhloullol~ >l,lrnf'l""'e"IJ'40tm..,.., • .., odCOMOq-1. ofthenu-tllllnt pcor~ o~-~oh lndiYidultlouot
-•"Vofttl pclllr'(V..p- -*UIIdw8ec:llon1771o.,..._o........,. _.,_., "''"flll" .,'l,u._ (tioleii,IHIIe,--:1). 111~
ll(lmmlollt....,_1111.-.nt ot•ch ofU..Iaur-111 dtalde_lh_flln,._.,. --...d,pi_DI_or01heriiiM -a.·
1111S30mlllon(12111i-n~~lr for16\1811rs)rorheoMn~ f'll\lllldor lorlldl U,lledlolt 1{11anInldpn~e Plfllll'lph,-lAldofditoffleamoum Pf"VVCtedMI'OIIr
lolalloullelro.••,-SIIIuent _......of1hellllonl\llll- undereomp.ctlealiona 218(il)(2.),11,781,011onl~wfoda anlmle-IC-Ipra;nmo, ~-.and
221(b), $10,000,000 IIUIUIH1far eandhllf«ct ~.-11, IIICi1(d)pmldea ferI U.DeporiJMnof~ aupplememllll'oGpcRligram.
Oowemmonl of1M,.,_ Ill- toe.- oa.tM Tllblmlt.
ArtiCleIVfiPIIIoil1778eltlemonl.AgNamenl NqUirH -.nlllllllaoloo-...111 Ullllllllelllmt- ID-llnll<l........,.,.upon1fc1111of1MCI"""""""111end poapla
"far'IIIICIoIr,Jl8ll'llenl"of111,1•.toi1be Clllllln«--lfupiD$2.25ling-~~ mlllonUI!Ig ....I,~_...,sfUl---MCIIR, 8ecofup1D$US111111cMn W1g.,.nul12
,..... 1111-.Ine~,.-"'" "OJnlllhtdon.,..... -.127,Clolllda.or-at. tellTNs........-1,1111-•oran~at1.-~o.
2.Hlllollc.l .............
2.11hoU.S.NuciHI'T-II'ratl.._.1._.
TlleUnl'--CMIIclout .... oni-,IUiflcelllld .........,...nudalr-MIIIIklnlln4i!Mwlll*atdllln11'11-llni'IIIIIII.......18468111ti1iiii,IIICIIon-ohOI
1110_.._.-or Blldn. ..~aofaklnl ~ation Illlie 11me1)nd!no_....,.._. c lleliml~45 IORI- Nllooaledloeto~l• 1ho-.m- pofc~amting.
-..gthlll-. tlnt_.._ll,.npn_IUI, ~ limD,-anled aullll8tiAIGIIGnPlllluery28. 1854. {IJ1ol_,...llt_)The -*lllf)'i111'1'm1b
-ed.-.diano, endllld_...,......__,ladoudflf ........_.............,_.....,_ ___ ~.nocr~-felontlnt--oiRoongolllp(Ril
_...ol 11.1o,ne!ill(157pool*a~~~~~fa-r~ 2-ad.,.-.. -fllhllll_ lln..l rtlonjllein- rorNdloll ....
"-'<<b<A ptllolcloomptelo111ofall87u.a.IWCIll:llcon~ Inllellll1a~~1I.R
..--gavemllenll .,. -- ror lllllnlllrnlng•OCIAioforlllefrNep...U....,..andquali!Jilgin.........,.or-.·~·-...- ... .,.._,flltlnt elall"
""'Y11yjurtldlcllan,lllllrolelto_,. ..... end hl-1laclora- an_.,_, loaclriglllo,llltll--lond r-Hy.
Sol..............ofeoluiii"''I''OIIIic1ltso..f etolltllll19Gflhlaldlt" •• lfJunoo1111&,.........o.giD._d111Q-
1t&l"1tte
Bitlni 1572,181
EnOIWIIIk1<101,561
Aoftawp ae4,3114
Utr1k11172,713
2. ~.&c...,.aalationtftd AMI-•
AmongiiiOijar..........,_oflhfo.....,.._•llld--
- TilDepannwnlctlllelnllrior nu<t- c:llimcompe1111Uo~...,. -•~a •1113,710,110liiloMi,.,_, Aclngellp lUlltk.-.
-The Deplllmonlfll Enlrgy a1'1'1111_, h.,..ld._d _...,.,...,_ hlldll- 1«1111RQngellplnUlrltliMVCn aftlll 1861 111orm0nuclelrlland llldloiOOIOIII
-The u.&.Congna .......,na$20,1100,000111-r-1877mllllry~-rarlfftiCIIIyen.. .....,.end~Oien-fllllloQiftd-twc.....-orD~~~nHtodnlw
uponoiiiC'Medold-· 1Mtlclut!Wnll-ntfor-lle, .........•, .,....wt-
F'RimlhllnmpliorCcq~oelllaonflJ llupIlllulR-Tfnltullll f«IIIPiopleoflllnl.. U.S.-ltMIIad nRI ~.,.,ut•tllltJIICII ~IIO--
a1BleW.AalleiiMin-CIIIilctlheConmillllonf:ll"'and Na1unla. ...... J-~A,IIIicl an.. IIOclrfi.-onsop!Omlml, 1-.: •
11>•*011o1111'1B1lldliillllo~ n IBARCI ·wldld tlntllllorn-loquMiilytlnt~olth l - ...,..CJavernmentiOdMft up e-lllllllllnl.llwufiDI!I
tlhndftnlloetll_..enda.....,.,...end...,...lwllloRhor....or.-lillgolion.Thl~a."'*..IOIIbrthfntlllt.tt11'1111meaiPMUn-.oenl -~~~e&xI!ajc1:'l8l1r1.Ilnd
MniiD...,.. ,....,.._oow,JI_ ia-lnthllulftr ___ .,..,...._lnnofiiiMII'......,..,..,._,..tichweh-forfla--ol
tlo..-ololla.• .n.ue,..,... pr..ldedtollellildnloMIM-fllr,onciiiCIItleU/tlloii-Govumwo..tllbe..._.....l...m~on<ltlnt-.._111-.la
11!olrhonlolon.d... ~lalw 1111111oplomBicllllluponcllll-~•" "...,,_...., ..,._.olnlll-.n oncl-end Pf'Ndofor..,_flll l.A~lldl
doal.....,and .. ..,..,.llilllioalorr'lllltdiiN_IIId .. oelllementaiSIIIInl181twitllle,_,..111B....,..
While1m1nga..,_,oMallnd.....- inNirll.-allll-111>oU121i.,.._~- IICIIU14IdiCIWIIIICG1111110.1..1..l.i.bylie .... .....-, maot-1¥1 inMojuto
Alall,lrdlllinliland{abo1,GOII)o,r-lntlnt ...-1- ~ 1,100prlnCfpdebepon<IKIII._.In<ILII -·
A11.,._...1el8 -ftll A-I!<M'V)' A8oti"-~onNcfiDIOQicC olllll1lilimllooncMiod11111:
{1j-.illllndiiiOUidnAt.,.permM11111J_.IIII_11'1piMinllaiiGioaloolc:antlliDd._..._ _.ll......,__ ;alngtDeii.,..IOCIIil1~d~
{2 lledltl olpeapleol1h1Mo...,.llllendo,lltcl!i4f1gthlpooplo oiBtill, ooniiiMdond ,.OCIII6oMslonliiiJII'OPO 'nloo1111cl-.lrt!pM Aled; I
(4)lhauldouell remeclllae-.l.._rodlatlon-lorpeoplell\lton 8111111.-..J-.klboiOOipllltlel.,.__-,. l'llnii«MMnancl-~~~~.,_.....,.l ,lloquololy
.,..,..._ Uf'OI'D<IuiiOII-..- ..~....-.
U.2-k
02/06/2015
http:/12001-2009.state.gov/pleap/rls/rpt/40422.htm ReportEvaluatingtheRequestofthe GovernmentoftheRepublicoftheMarshallIsla...Page4 of 18
SecllonID3(k)flllle CompactAdlllldiiM.ublldll1111'11....,...,. 11pia INIIfundtorthe En_.ccrranunframEnjelllllldcredlllld10lllefund1heomountof
17110000'WINcl!!J.8. ~ ........ID..Mant.illsllnds~ Umlw... I, oecliallhleIUblld~iMy IIU.. ~ol !newnk lnlml!tjMi -lolllofr
w~~~ do11y01~eselllde&e,hll1hiiAlM nnogerwd~lll tlltundlthepeople10rlllllri8MIIemlnla1Minllvill'IMIIc:he¥lrllei*(UaDIE~hmM~ nEriUiliU..
pMI'tandd1llillcMibulloll oltllecoqiUIthemay~~~~-~ lll.tltilllnlllnt nmM ~... .(udlon &),
cotlllnUH••• !*I ODepanmenoltholnlorlor.flnlodEnOM!IkFood•ndAgria..hurel'l'oQrarn.llla....,.-.n~ewl., __..$1,00,OOO~•IIw-,..,1111111.nting
Duoto• 81"'0populellont,hocropnothoonl)orwd •- forlhopeople-.w.:..., -lmpGfltlooc'II........,.lo-IIJhnlnll 1eu INn ......riMrololl'lloml
.... 1.,_pn>du-. Fotu lclngosthepooOfEn-lot need••blllntlolomounlllorop;Un•-•ded IIJIII U~S. afEtloil)'"u-U- LlboRoloory'•
_ ...... ....,. ... ,...._,.. •• -dfor-~ol oupportinllliotuoh oslhol provifloUnlleci8181HO.porhonlofAa-'ofoodfi"'!IIMondtho
Dopamoonol1llelnltltOI'Iundod..pnoarar. illsnlldwll NllllllnconlllnlevonWlocalfonclprodol.,.llcootlyCUI'IInlotvol&.
2.3.:tRongllop
In111MU,1eNldiul ,.., Cdunalllnuld._ton 'RocloiDgbol~ lW.. R-omool oflllbng'n11•Re~li ollhtrlll.....,llolandl." Ontheboolsa..o........,,
commllllomoadefOiboing •-llltllldll~o:
(1)1 Jooel-foocl.only-1u1ntldlo lood gd1orld an,._...•-,_, al RmltlAtolL.
(2theNlolmi~papul.. "'.sl(!l.c.ll.hol.,.lol-inlliH._i'dotA"""'ool .. pplo~foodllfD wo•lh""lh-gI Rongelop_.-oto.-. V.
.,.ntilloeol"lqlortod-
•iUago..,.olooD [dllolll"""""elf.lfromllevllageenot"" oecll-.p...'-oforwhodoo~elfodd ld-ondl>-""llla _.,l~allon 111~11 !ha
(4)1hllopplicopoll11i..,. o:11lotlilur, an,..,.dloof•gr!QIIu,.,o-o.
t11m11a~1_~~~ $ofsu'Pb1pproprilloulhorizbytheCono,..The~llllello.-.t,$1.-,000, -lncloclodln tlltloCII _Depanmanlvlht -·otoppropllltl..,., 'IIIo
illrlonoeo•-nllundin~-do~vo fdminl.,..leamlngo o-fund. The •.,._....,.,pro.idodlt..l$1,0""••olllllltp11n._1111 Dop- ofN lnloriorond
!hath balanINtpl..,.o!in 1>olnHdllnd.
UA utllk
TheCompactAcdd nollndlldo-rtzooliolot19Mtllomonlfor flo pUlll<.Oflorthan-.,, of orMDnmonlCIIIICiti._irlando,liPIOJ>orUlrill-tholull
Jlgniltthablitationprd>'-showdro<hlovelNg.,..t- ofm-nlamonglhofoii'IIIICiut-dMiocl-
1111U1ni8lol~..~ norda In ,...urlllngp,.oonlod1olhoNTnorlnUTllbunal'ojuolgmonalnothem.'-A8-'77 l'f'OVIcllcoInII.....,OIIIof$1lill
nillion.&o,ondU1eb.,.d dvlolansiiJAtoll,itIJolhT_.,.._lodMdo 1hop-oll..- -•"t~lllolmlnll T.he_.., 177~ p...,........,_.llln
low,IDIIII...,..,II!ol~._,.a Trlbuno"i-.,_jt~ flo-ollhe........loiornin-ghdllonol low,loln-ollow ond,inll!o.abootctomHIIGorilllllmo-
uornplo,llloNCT-""oomponllllllllnfronl$12&,000f0rleukemlo,cetCIll $12,5110farllonignilmlorl. lnlllellrnllnel~hlloo, flocompoM811portOntrI'
alfo*Illrod181nIll'.,. fiOH'IVIIII•Idlo!:le.. INinl CIIWII!pOJIIIIIIIIIMIDFna,rlll8lllple, "D""i'1W1ndll1In"theUnll$60,000 frth~monlmle.-!VIId
of~. w1111.eonsh8Jlllliqlaoa-••Mod-pono tom-875,1100fDI'IIUMmta.
MhoughIIIocllllllllc.....,unlly hoslhui,.,IICII.ponudoorelfecIDIIIo.... nd....In......l..NeT..,.,..,...lllcNWlnnof1molh.-wllo- phy.oico8y
ptloont llthollmoIHUn;- olamountJallarhi genlt8llonclaiM.,...
Allhou~hllo-1 Ge7lhment~lllld o<ilntlftGdlrll.l...lllutpopuinorthomalollo'-~n lein_.., 11111-gJIIIIII'II-montagreememan~tho
-C -do noloupportolalindi'og fat 1homIR ...... 't'--·- filfwldl. Nel'llllheloa, 11dlllniD8110 pe1ramlhrWghouttlle Mllnlhlrlll....,_,
Appondic:• ondDpRMdo.. ovoi'YiowolllleCllledII'diii!OllnlllnRMio,.d••. COI'BPifiAlii1I8IIIL
http://2001w200.9 state.gov/p/eap/rls/rpt/40422.htm 02/0612015ReportEvaluatingthe Requestof theGovermnentof theRepublicof the MarshallIsla...PageSof 18
app!Olljl'1,20lolends.addilitaille NWR81TlpiCIII' ...u,Clhotllclologlcll-dontoftleMottholll-include,fofpast--.~.,.- 1 oongr11tolon•lly
-erwlnmmonlllmt11111Gringi~pellodlcclt(llledo-oltlldlllt-. .,..._,...._..,ll u..,~.,.......,,
l1le ~ DftlleAMICGnUI1Ialol NWRI, ..fllndlPIO*IIbyll1eU.~. ollhe I_. undertie CompoffnleAnoQdan.'llw Rca-n -llfiiiCin1nld
lnWmaGonlllllionlilicldllllary.de guidlnCIM'RSlrw811liao1nc,tibllrUGdtflhelr-'1, 1ldVIU. AMIQ"""'_.t on lhGOncluellftd11-lhl ...,.,.,, Thl
Hliii"""'*/IHIIIIIIIIIIInllliGIOQICI IIMlR~ «MllGYrtlhAldy,
-TheiiiOII .......,.._,_,..,_I'8CIIollclllllra--lac:olodhlheiOIIf2lnohelof ...lnd,.._llf__,._ _ _,.lh.e ....,llw......,6'om
____GI. .......... oacllve-Urne. 8y2002,--70,._of... _OJ!tlnelly....,_... .-olt!Udew_II_Miqet-.
TheNWR&...,.......,_ ICIIIIWp1QIDlnd llmllrsubMncutl•auddlbelwmiUI1ma-d arlnNIIdInIUIIIdetltqullltltyI.nord•lo......or.. --tawhlch
dill'ete allolnlitlly llM~~~MH••m lverbeen~ lheNINRSanlldyUltlllntnd~ 1n1lllu•..-"" hollllwar1,nddillllllrlbuiHGI-graup1
oiM--IIIRiuilhDUIIMI pollorlblly aflecU ..1a.--•IIM filu'li~H-lime.
NWM .........Ihetlle._fJf_~ ____ ....._lntlleR.~ItolelndlllanO,hno.floii""-N,jllaloa ....,KwojoiUIAioll,fdoul._.
_n....,._nllllauta....,. ufallout...,..l,....,.....,.. ReJitlvo_ll_t lldlolldMiy.....,...ur.r-Kwojlloin- '"""lto10.5..,_.N,lhemlcl
klvel-o.lhe~-- ....---.o!v"-"'lotpo•""'-*--·...,.._--Ailolr,"-.IQoololtln .J.JWJJIo.opd,~a4je.
Noot"'""mid·_. ••••· e-·or~in--~ IDtletollloldlofBii<Tl!e_._noot-.-.lldnl,-...- ,n-..c, RoftoNpRo,..nk. .~.d I'MIUI
--- ofthelelneoBldnl£4-ok lftAclngolop-wwld,.qoh lrilld~ol1i oMonIIO'1111dftlonll......,._lil'tlllyle.
IMRS~•tl*llll. DeparWMntofll•~ IIIIC!yGfttongot.piD-Ih••-·•-,.......eciiDMIIIICIIdfOr_.__ID
IIIIJIPOil•-IIIISIJfllan
conlomln*d IIOisallllndlUIK,~Mepand..e . tndAa-n-gi~ol llfNWRSU.8. NIIIGMI~ CiiundDOE a.-c.u..nn.e ~~.and on
ooilteriiOWIIIndpo~umM t<lng..l.pldtinUIIIHIDmflllrnlllrii"..I-....men~.efJfmliilmiOrln...,_.... d.n..dle11111-RiniMIIIIIQnledlllmted
-........ ---. o-.. ......,.._c~~~~....-ol7 6MIIIpltlod.tlead~dletlnl:il•- nomonlhln:zo%foallloodo. eclrilcldvloorsl0111e
-CIIIina Tilbunll-._aao <~ c~1p~-~oin.is- enadfelof~ loCt'oadlaoliftcolailc :._l.~-agAIIMIIIIII fI- ...a.1V....... _...
IINI!Ialnid- chl TtadiiOIIII-- lifh.....,of81•atw of.liybilatl~'!hiduehPiilli.,._m o- , p.-brlll• u.s. Dep..-of
~.
N'MI8meUU111111ntftJfftadiOictlillly ... In dOwl1U.6.1:lopMmnall!lie......,-1. ..._Raen~p~ ercllThl Ronpn 111untor- oxp-nolnllr, ••
..,-to IICpOIInlllllfr-,lftdl&npoilldfaropedtlc-ln-." iiiklivRG.mgenlo-ll!illf....,_...._. fllllcro- p.llut.Ieooe _ _.
oen....,liftlliw._IM-•S
Theu.s. o,....._oflblandEnllliJ, in f98t lesllmonybel'onoh llauM R110urcesComn-. .rtlo11~1r1~1e1111Rongiol8p,lnd Utilkitlllndllotunnrllemtn1
theopecltlccandftloftstiOOinmendedllyNWRS.TheU.S.Nollonii.Nadltn¥ thatooncilllon!WIIqolop, hlnlo~l AIOtrenetw~for Bikini.
1lieNM88ci-oolldolooi)PPeno1-n concliidldtlllnfiiiiUll_,_....., -.¥1 and-.siUI.Theponaiiiii_IM! ....-1-afnllll..- ~ollhil
loiillollh-~~- "poMnorilkal-- ..CIJIh ~ttn-of.....,...o. nd."1erllkaf""""""'V--IO lhiAifuflge-. ofMinhilll'"
ta111nogN....--lhebKI!giOwndda olsdi-Ghollellrtlllcolenyllume n'-~dTowlod!lodiiiiiiNineaotlons-.l~~~~ l'otllpodllca-ondillifdo
lheywwoiGlllinlubftodOt Ulld!Wfoo<l.........._
InRnokillon 151,11~.llle ..........lbnnailycledllldl~"doe1nol_,r'lle Mo1R8fidn0 1 'VIIaraocurate"on Ill-tpVIIIICI•(-11ft
;,_.,..-..,-orcrect•ol-ort.etepCirl'aaullon,ond.....,._._ ...NWRB_ 1111-SCIII!Mii:-.....Pano.......-10- 151lnl"-tollle
Edltotoltll l\hnlilllllllniiiJoum~8 -lUOOMPfil- tne1-nliiiCIIIIy-.
TheNWR8 ~ _.,..._ io• --..t~y _....lo-llllcl61HINilPloy_{...1tll1)..,._jallmai.,IIBHUIPh}lsicsSode111dtlieW reportlllolllen-lliflllon.,.
;me.,.lot _ _._ TillElceoul~<1111\e NWRS R.-tliiNP~-In~E.
~-U ll!llfiIim110ic41-..l-1
In«tfdd10......rlie- a'- d-1111-.1111 iiiSolmpcNrriiDcantldlrlh~iOID. ........ Gf*loK!Iveonollle111illfafPIOIIIIIINMiIIPd~lldiiJ
irni*IGf~tpoill_,..,•ertal....-abcllllllllIOPIlllt~~U~~~yRPMfofl..~,-.arll\eltllliillbllllytarfoodad....., .. ., ... -iaoll--10oidor1 -e
__ ,_,~,..,...,.-·liiwcteraiD-.
MAhpCI._IO,.__,.___. ...........
RMio4llcllllliaw_ned_llill.-ithindudldln ..........lo-}1181c1•end~.._lnlll ......~-----poael-dtk.lftlofillaiiOIIIIIDUI
"""""endlllllrlllewunot-..11lie NWRS.In2COthe.._.._ Ulle-NIIIonllL.ltlorWrr~a..n .. of!IOUIIIII_ctwnlcll_ 1.-.-t- U.B........... -.
Thl_l,lisfoundthatflonlitldioiiCort-chlllicllt,lnc:MIIi11w..reltllnldnlu. ..._nt inamGUnllargeenGUtopoae""'piblo;- ,-...
"',....ctpllmld-flt'lil ~ COdliilllilllllli!dllla.,..,-artne1I.Jirlk's--.~~~au.a ..,...._.,e-.....,,_clocodellllnlllllplnalhl
lllnl ofOXIIGuCiiIGIICUifUI'II-illiPI10plulonlldlidulllndolllllndftllikll -111i_. lplll .~IG~e--e.ln - .....~
ltchllciMalilllne~llllhl~ NlllanalLa__,-been pllllilmiiftlln-~NCII.. Udlgnonlnvlllvll 00!-fiRI"Idllillfr_,.........,.ln•-ot
en-a ani Aqet~J~Itl batnlnlnJnr2ll,alhl AM CIPfllloi~.I'IUI -lf'Un'oIblalnba y....,.._u..n on- h -e_ - .· -Ody,
tneldvmcilil-lfiii'*WMI--.na!O -- Q-II..,_ wllllaw- pooslblil .noctsOOiiVi1lin...c-.
dllil--lhiHilmlltd_.~-br ondo•,111elf•liinldoteplullrilaton lhlnmii'I(IO ii-llle-mtjclriiYolflle oellumdolu II'IIMI bn .Grnmn) per
,....., __ f#_o_ --•1-,Mli-,.IIV-•IIillt.iiiiii•IDinlliv-fa~fiiiiCIIcesone~.~e~a~~nor~Mr~y,unlllllllfl{lodlllld-.........,.,...1118ndL
Alloiiii~Ullellllilnl-utl....r. ....-_..e...,.....,Widtoh!OtlodlntNduen(on~~~.,_a)tolhe RMIMC I tnd Rongell'-1
(IO¥WIII!IInl- llieillllIIIpa!IOdrll'lllllobla(ona--...-IOIIf'lloallncMiul~onu-noeu- ..i..l~b~o.lalofia
,.- ..... _.....,.,_.. _
http:/1200 1-2009.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rpt/40422.htm 02/06/2015 ReportEvaluatingtheRequestoftheGovernmentoftheRepublicoftheMarshallIsla...Page6of 18
NWRSSUl1IJIORrYoportF'lgure9IHID'N):
N\\'RSSummaryReportFitture9
MITDSpll)'slcllno••"'*'•d obout7,200-- fi>LinIdlBlhyrolrlcanaots.Tllhe..,.re cbtllbolt..sotlllpoop.,_-~~the tlmltol.,.lho,_,_ ~-.
u... IM>m- Bravbwl"""" ". 18611..of!heu.anwclurlootlngpnog,.llldlb-bom...,_ IHII-. o-all,""'j)tOpOrtian otl-lneqhid IIJGgrou;.,....Id
with.....opoeltd.AIIIal'llllhHa1the-tiller- lho,...,...1,!-a..., bom..nor -o loul-lhe ondofiHIIntho,. .. .0.8 ~notho ~at oo0.610lorpooplt
loom--in ThllJdloalodlllllllhonllunll,... • ..,...8bauto.a -n-oli ..att. Gmoolllnl•o hallo .... tlvJ~lmethontheno'"'"'M.....,nooo ra!o.
-WIIIIdlll-he-lllkld.-lnfM<DIIII.I_ ______ 111-1- BIIMI_IIIe_,,lllhontworeonnodllor-wleled11dlollnot,lllenllere meyllt OhlrfootD11aotm11l1ontnehecancGr
MlrlhaiiiiiiMd mliii'IIIICFiii*IU....._,Ihyro,.l.d..,..,~p~olndla.lladl.aoopeopleTllollrpllld.,...-1101-~t a.-at..sWih dllllnDIIflliki1111MITD8
graup.. ...-1..., lllldywmedlclllelCIIlllillllpeople bomiiiNMn115011Ne(llom- 8- billbeforeh eodoIKing)-1)'IWoyearw.
Th• Rimcordonollholdlhfrom..,..,....100111 unitoll-lonlznadlall001111ni!WIIy_.o111111tetoentirebody•-..a IDbonine11me1i'MIItln1N8...,lhenoliolian
proto<1lonc:omnun.i.ydliO b11ft1m. '1111o'ouggutlballleo~pniiii WIoo- III mor._be.., lOolowbr- holThlttll.,..RMIesowls..,.""""WOIIbo.-.
g.-rlhwllhololghl-n.,.Compacl-olgnod. Tht RMiboMo n.·--dolman m•Jor-...-. ...fllllllln.Jtlk-foreU ii lol onol,he,_
cllongoo'"""In ,.dloUonprollldionolend___ ·
llla RIMoMrilole"JuJochiiiiiHin lle~1kellinna"loIll Netl-ll'll.o-ldiCouCGnlrelllonlht8lciiDIEllcloflllnizil'lllAIMIIII1(aBnEIIn11110T.Nsreportwas
p.-dod btBEIRIonoiiii!IIn1t72111d!tiD, I'IIPI»C1h1·Wciloo• U.Sc.p.rtmml oer- publcdon'CblilIll Chleon 1hll8pftlntolllliAIDIII"Uial OGII!IInldallblt
domapnt u oolimelooIldlB"TheBE!IRVreportdoes notmake1111o'uchlllllemtnl"TTNlllliin ilci•~ BBRV.. JIO!Iaalfll 1.t111an1o..,..me ti- 11
EollmoiN.,""""PINiloolcomploxMoilhemallclllllodelo,..1110 oxplllnobo1ndlh--llll, oroco-..r,-...,.d _ _....,.,lodllysclanlwouldool_.,.-..
lhoughtbulln1112. Thol'lbMo ....aohl\tlltlnllllnkll'bioloonolfl~llooi-IIHd 10Mlnot.,._i .clldion """""-•· 'IIIo"""11w-•d
•- rill!"""'•11om'ounlo!lonlzIWIIIIItleM:hqod.8ElRV.....,_ ODnol.- lholhlirMW.....,would......," ,.P..abcule-.roldiDlaor-lrn....e olnoot19110
~I!reportBEIRlllonely• ...,,..,......rilll in198D-Ibollthall1117.2.....Tlllre 11'1nlillllt publiohoddoMnarDllicl•olommllllllo tupponof• nine-fold
chllngelllrillk"""' BEIR110BEIRY--all inlNe of-r-.nlmla - andped\lpoto.t..follllarltuqmllco,...BEJRIll.
TheRMIIIIIn_IMII.,.IIIIge-In.,. pubDap- --.1 fa1o111E1ng-llllfl, -.owrrllw30oyl.rl*lod elBEIRl,lun -toro! pvovingkn~ Oltoglrgel~
inenoNidlllno1IDrliQudiolloTiledecliIn llllllldlrdlllllnmen8 m&tlto1msv peryetlllherlllonllma.IDo11rnBY• giVenIll'RMf,111dlho..., fnom1.7m8v(used
I11'"*dNnUpIn'N -lllllandl) to1 m6Vis~CW lllRMI ao~ puiiiPI'CIIICIIDrl-..nltIDpropolld 1984EI'ACllonupguldlillllolme~se ilI'IUdllo,.r_ro:hlnol
do'l......,1b!l oompldl~ninapprGIIdal1Jlaldanlnclll!Oliolllallon0~or Chln!l•n118nllllrdill~~l~lo~poaw. 1oIOIIiradllllon.
e.. rtolftawlll__lerlle --......,_lo~_,..-...,111.-....cl~wilha-IJIJi;hdo;reeolconftdanco.oeolllimellondoni byIIITh•!O,_.,.,......,_,_,.....,_iblo
modobtindlopordonutplnaofoldornalforM811N111eeoeepon dtIoifiiiOIIIwlh lllllphal~p.n
'fob1.c ....padaon oiWbaiNtoDole (r.d),_ BRAVOlllloullltr YltiDUINpDOtoondIn-.......
111Nlilnale~ lii'IIUI and C8SnIIellhlr Inrangen (R} a- ID•lr);
allimatesinwholebodydou (rad)woUdbe 8IIIJI'C)Idma.8lyBIImthllniPOited
vllkl8ll.
http://2001~2009.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rpt/40422.htm
02/06/2015ReportEvaluatingthe RequestoftheGovernmentofthe Republicof theMarshal!lsla...Page7 of 18
4.aa-.yoflhe Alqunth .....AJpuiioftill,...,...,......
lrlflo"dd..,.od_.._.......lleAMlIMksllle-.,
~~Ciailll!l
1.FundIll meet~ claim• aJru~y ll)llhe ........ cum~
C18R11'llilll.mllnaf lhamount pow!declfar puiPOM
~thaiMIIfii'KI
.. ediCIII
~ $50miiOc:apilalfGrirlbRuCllld S461!1ayear far all $2,300.0Pillion
,...faa"sslccinn ~~ ror1110e sedIDl1llhllan
ANDawanleelatIJII'IOI1aldalms.
Prapeny 1-QatU..
3.~=...~~ bylhe NCTfaloelriWI&($244 $217.mliOr
million!end 81-4SOD•!liJs irtenl&lat~.
$311.11M11ior
mtm andll8l'd t33,81-4:_q %.inllreln..tl ofu... ($278
5UtllalaRc:Wmill PNP.,.Iian.
6.Ran!11111111Ruerkclain wJdr....llNCT.
PftlporRahtbllilllllnn
. Enewtlnant afnladydlci11dtle NCTfar RlhoobllitalioanbcM $107.8mllianj
ltla0 milllcn1Nit fUndalrHCiif• lnlerelt 117'1').
Bildn~ oiiiPiicCaIingbaol:lretha NCT. $251.5rnllklt\
.UlrlcatollClaimIn
10. onaerlldl claim~Idem. >S100mllian
Sll'ell'
11R.quell1JIRIQIIImfilrwO!kn irin~llled
n-.
Madlcal~~n~lllanceiM~
12Re<plltlraclia.,....,.monilorllll.....,..,_.....-m
roatkiMtSO -.klrlleflldireRML
Coi!IIIUt<lucdonllllfDevalaan&'lt
~~ an<lldd capaallyIDund~RMicltillllcM U.
oflheU.S.nucloNr I~"
Nuclaar
14.Requeetsa!'ft9WII fa' c:ommunlllastasa~elycoruin
.-..e.aoraa.-.
HIIIII..,.MIVIaoofarlheMatthl~ani'lcludto:
_...._.,..loll~a,.l.f".,-....l.,l,uolgotonoll-llllnd......TM_IN'sPI"CIIIhnllIIOI*IilhUN1l~14••oor......_......11-•flllh ...~Wt
- Tl8iiCIIon117HlC..rePIIIQ, •nd-loyCoftgnoostoptlleacW.lW111e,...<r1111-olll i..oi•.lC~111Qt111npd,Utrlka-qecMd D~ .- ,n~.CIM,r .
lnlilgJIIOItMir.......lndGlh~r~idlllllllod..8 .._CUIIt4yi-M34e11- Tlle,.CipilaaMUII~Ia-USDQ.
-no.o.,...-ntor~ap.cl.rMe" cll-catrCoiiQrlnlntii!W!Cpce11dt......,.. .~~~-torntdi.........,.......__,.,....,......,RonoliiPIIIII
••2,000.ocponciiD'*IIoolltftom.....,18So001piillonla-•loolnlhe..,...d f77Hnfth c-....I'V0118per,.-lllillillh._.dllulwu UID
1llttnlghb._.,...ci_._ ........RNI.....--U.S.--IOIImlfY,_IIJ_.Iofll_,_._..,_..,lrl..__ .....lllniRMI"""~to-1ho-.
RMIpopuldanforfllllTh•RMieiill11181_o..o.,at 143,10%,~.,1rolontdudlooond h~ -· Thi&...•PPI"• -v8por peraor-lOddlicon,
lie RMI...,.....$50,000.0CIOlo---OIPIIII..,.Ia.
TloRNIflll1iiUidaellllll-Nleafll • ..-odCoqlectafAuoelllion ln'1111!liorthl RMiheilhh-dalgnatiiC pIfIr.U~litafU,8, ...RMI,_,
o""""'.-- .-_.mill.orH,Micll- ..-, il'*'lib¥lie l\eec:lo unroorleonnloColqllelliiiiDIIIfiG.t mlllc8lld..-GOI toa.•t8.SmllInft
F'2008.118ml.ianF't2007Md 116In
FV:IOIIII.
S.t 'lllot..,_oeltto.M-.a-iiiHIIIIh.._,
RUI FSIA S•moa u.s.
lil'e~atbll 1he-J
T- pcpulatlon 82.7 ee.& 68.2 77.3
Mal• 81.1 &1.9 66.8 74.8
f ........ 84.6 1!8.1 69.7 79.8
Qllld mllltali1000)
(prlltlolbiUta.meyinG IMor.
...... 411 63 27 9
Fem81a& 37 51 21 7
Aduii.II'ID(per1000)
{PnJbabilI dwttgbeiMW15 and 59)
MIOhls 340 211 235 t-40
Females 288 176 2Q3 83
life~ -duefll pocr'*'l(1')
...... 11.7 12.2 11.3 u
Femalll 13.8 14.2 13.6 10.7
HaallllEliplllcftn
http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rpt/40422.htm 02/06/2015 ReportEvaluatingtheRequestoftheGovernmentoftheRepublicoftheMarshalllsla...Page8of 18
Totalu~of GDP 8.8 1.8 5.8 13.9
Pw c:apl(UN) 1110 172 74 o48IIJ'
'l'heRMiheollh...,...iodmlnilllilll--llrlllot.,_ Gowlm1T181111110uQM i!IIeoHeallh.ThaMlnlllerof Hlian~~~.... .llw.Nij.la orRMI
portlom.1Mt10t1haMinlaU,.llooi:Nialyal' __ .,.dl!t'-I0V4'lonsolfCIUr~cltp.n Pnitn!H.:llh ClfK-teln AlolHid! CIM. ,...uHMpillland
Ad~IIIIIIF1nanoe.
lW! he•""" mojrlo,.. 1-\edal le ,or llbln '*"'raotMoju .. ...1 BulyIUl&, the......, HHpllllhee 1D$1npt1- beds,an•"**II•CI' 100111,-• .The- .....
IIHW11l8l1lYCIIIIRICIdllhll*il-led DOI"IIbotol"lll"'lM.lnisiiYofHelbellvttho..,- ..-........._., -andwoulolllilIDraplfte ._, 11pouibleA,_
a.,e Hoopllope"""inzoott.1Wpl- tho2S.inpollenlbedlolhelwu In"""""d'-u.
,.... 0\Hr llllllidlllalbJ.51disfenurluCurrenlfuQh 1111111•11"r""""luillllnusualylollighschDOlId11C818dwlblhailiehoallh1.-ining.lbue dllfl'tolrio• •.., nnktd
Mlju10oopi!Aol.r......nldlo.PaU.U '111-0nolbet_ID..., ..,,.outerlsllftdiiOIItllt nllheEbl)ll or~ hotpi111TLh-..tcannotbe,..lod lhtre .,.llllomod fllr
hlm.nl_,_ 11l1fonolor.,.~ Son-. 1111..o 111111I0ll hoiJiill.l.l._,n''heRMIlfl'"dop~ety 83'11one-1 heallbudallootr~l ledild
..........
Fund lrn~nlaUyofH....... OpltlliOIIIoomtlfn>mCo"""1e RIIIICov....,.nrlgenMitlmd,.....fapJimalybMII-and~ ......... --.-_ Ullt-81'0
clloogodlorhoellhoervlcoob,ultllor.o 11norrinol,16pervilllllorolll$5,.....,ror......'lhon------18 tKol1.. R1 I'•1 W t
lboiiMI'llnMnolheofth .tyllem(lhMalllllllllllHea.,PI.-.)1oociol..cuily IY!I61rAifllllllnllllfiiVIdllfut..._I•••Y-ne ............ACIf111110
Nquil'lll.oyonlo .;.,lliblllOfU.IrlllafWllll3.01olnglol~ nluwfolfth lllllft10~bid. lbt Aal,.quinaq,~.,.,.l _.>.......I:h Tllell
laterweMincraiMtot.5'w.fth2.!1,.,ll"lnlwllltlmdand7K 1101n1;0llle MllrlmlnttiN. Thlhnlll-IUndlaiiHdiD p_fl-~~~~~ple lrllle Elllye oMMa)~ro
and"""'rilllnd ...... -.11111-10 .._, tiMPllilpplnN1U18AM.
AlllcMILlaeliIta.,.,,a_ 177 8ub11o11A1rJgroen .. eunlMdan..-ditllurMtz,DOO,IIMIII101he""'11111l1o1lGaommonllo "'"" lhol'ouMiHoolhoare
Pqram. Ol'erlhtnt15ye1n1of .Campm, the Fldon1llualoOIIIICuInlhl-cllon-lo lolm180,000,0Willa,4,000,0110-IIAW October1i!DDI. llllnfundl -In
odllllonlotM omounla(IIV¥1o..lwr olulll111hoirolwn111oon.tllvenletoUgo.oflhl ~ofll lie-~~~~~- ondetC""""""-' 218(111(2,1},,791,000 omwU, lor
~oti.. h-ollhandmodlalllPf1llltWIII,lncludlend Ul(b). 'IO,OIII,DilOorwuoly fareoluclll... ,.. Thaoomanl•- 11eon• ....,.,na_... fllr.....,_
11rvlceprovidedby!RMINllnlltfHeellbdoltltbeinooollenU btolow.
Slnoo,....,.,gruponlil101"111177gram, Tllnlly hll -lo ollvtllopIll inlnlolrUI:I\INI..-1......., -loCO/IIIIUCtiOnal.~nicanalldllbove,lllilllulncllldld:
-.......t1w.,.,1111'IIIZCO n,llllllionandI4IQJofaradiooomnanlclllclllsYlnldM~u1 0llheecofV. outerMcllt;
-ln211112_, _ ...,...--and...-.. ..Mljella.l!-- Ulrll;
--lngprDII!dldfll....,_on..,....IIIII-DIIIe_r..,.ID"'-*•-•nd-""ill
l;
- -•pmonl..,..lniNitoiMojunHraol.,.._...to 1OO..II*,d.lllllala1011aokiNIMnllllllltDichandplo~ -...Ion;
- -"'• -lnooUIOIII ..,ryotlh-lhft Uojurod""""ond.lnOIInjullciiDI111I'SMV.~foopi!M•, ph_u_ lormulooy.
~rdngiO 1 Jul, 211021"'1eallhlnlemlloreport..,1ho1771"10gn..,biltllo ond,..,.__ PRid-.la--.wn-111 -mont-11M10n 2CI02..- 2.121110
U,48D.Anonrohlenl .... 1-ln111oZIID2.11)rlhotlmaTmlrepllll-nla.d, lwoiiOIIa'*l-. ·--01141n~lllllor._denroll-nl ._lllwow.d...,....Theole.
enrotl""r;inoligibl8ptonono,.a conoom.
InnoJul2000._t. Tl'lnilevmphuizH 1111''1!beSecllon177Plotlramlafllllll1MIhNIIIIoiaye~1Randhu enimpKI nol onDn the popUaUcll18Ms 11\1\osne..ollhl
lllniiofHelllandelherhea"'-"PIOVIollr" insllt!Gt,lhe1PJDfll"llm: '
TheDlpartmenl ol Energyha .-....tboCon.,...ionlllipftllllllol8d MlrahoD1-Modiil~:"!"~~""lhlrl,.rpooed populoijonoorROIIJielaUl~dAlolconlinuo11or'
lhl •• ,.,...TMCompool.ol- AaDdlllianMir1111B5 -~ .-. nwdical...rar••-&•pedal modii:PfOGnl".'....Tho eo~ Aclprovidld:
lllolwith oatolorpovlQbnOflaw,upon111r1equoltheGlovorrmenolflht Ma,...lllliePresl- (ellhorJwuo.v."""""'rlldoperlmoor- o1111u1.1....ctor11y
....,.wllllUnllld81allo1111l1h\a)l oonll"""opeol_,..,.and IOIIIdcaiiUppan-• ..,..,.1111 114....l..tof,.~ 01Rongotop111U11 lrl<-
upolld 10nodlal""'-glrOm lho11~~llo elotooth.....,nu-"BnvoINI, p-I IDP- La• II0-1Mlllllts-aDIJ.
Thipmgnornoonlin~aol MlCi,n1~a(1)oftheCollli)8CIof AlloclllllonAmenclrneno11003Pl108-1SII.
Portlolpllonlnlle..,.,.-,.. ,....,... .........,.ondDI~ lllllmd...-.. onrallldin.pragromOno hundndelown oft.n- .,.,.lllllnlngaul'oft.original
253people..,.. !2 .d!Udlln pra-onR~-- Ulli""""""lllt&m. allha ,__ 111111.,., orao85-Mvofunle.,., ofoppoxlmololylhe .. ,.1111g1ond8r
111dl-llmOIIIIIhl~-••d 1111U1lrlllpoo,...AIIho""'lhl..volu/dellra-.......pravldodonl)l111annualmedlcol.. emllllllaon-illonoltrutorllllorraiiD1111
- m-e....ro.o;..m.llod-,t.o-DOEpafiotllpopullliDn_......., ___ ......._
doc:no•inorilllcfulcnlor-. anlutleancoi'O~ ooenpredenslwholaeumlnlllonsas,.1111151- -ollullllre iloo~cnal mendll& A~- 111-lollon
Ho- IMojuouK, wofol1ndHom.lulo.. IIIo,_......vfo DOSofurlde.d...-01. H..,lulv. DOPlllnil- 19qUI<IIIIflllfYmldlolllei\IICOIIIlrllhaR118e
n-'"<1• Hona.hl."-11and n••d 11111&1ub alnlc. Wh111po-wllb 111111...1..1..1 prnot11100l- Wltlll!nvo-l'llllodl1111atlaenxp""""' ol'lldiPililledamongDOEpotiellll,
11111'8n1l8ernd 101117loolCln Pn~g~ ~Om!alllllIP~Qvl edmqoncr CIRtlrpullenis Willlfe.lhn...,lnu oonE.miiVI ~lnlll coonllnWllhth177 Heaftcare
Pqram md RMIIIIIIonllhooc:wprogJam.
llinoo1-,.-ool- WiderDOE'oSpiGialMIGicloiCin Progr.rfbtoecloliwidr HanokW·bolldP•l;illc;Heelll"l-""'ln(PHRI)andbaM<lonyllr·I"OI,r>lllllnd pllrnlfY
andoeconciW)tconllo"""'_. ¥01- neldlnIn1111MIandannualph)lllcll-llllll1D.,.UoniSIIvlre01..,..111OI!IInen.lnhod8bo1w,~l<lin oMciol1ecoln
~aloin I.and lndln ....,.....,-MlniiiiiNphfelcl.and nuroeII!PirvlperHNIIII- Mt potientodollfWI~i CtHlorCinlcol Openolianaovo,..(11"011r11 Mlljuro.
Pm. ,.n.,........,.,.._ty,..h m.....,.;C.."'- lndlllfiMI....... •.*I~lII..rIgIusosand.,.,...oolllln'fpa,Of"lteon. PhylloiHOIIOiuu·o
-Ciirllc IOdHoopil1lPo- W11111eoo-1ie Hospilencl11~1of Hew11IiIChlafMolllo...., lo- t ol1hl....,.....•lllllphyllallns1ncl ......_
I, PonoonollfliiHYCllliiM
http:/12001-200 .9tate.gov/p/eap/rls/rpt/40422.htm 02/06/2015Report Evaluating the Request of the Government ofthe Republic of the Marshall lsla... Page 9 of 18
&.1.lhe l\lUCIIuraol111•Trtbunol
TheSection177 eetlemenAQreeme n:OYidedol.ll!lp setllement nllle GOY4mllllntngreed on di\litian oflho praathetelllelll8l'll81"1ongvartouJ PU'l'OIH. Tha 81ocijon177
SttljemoAgree-.! does not p,.aaiaMrillon 10ftilhl Nud- Qllma T~bunl 1olus oompoonoo6o-n. ond!he NCTis notr.qlli,.d tc adlle.. to...,,.. ....b•lll'!'l•d
undo(u.s.lu.Anlongclhorst~e NCT has made 8\Nif<~rtn 11111Mng~riea d clllims.
••Tha Ncrawonls dorllogeoPI"""" tromt.raug lh" h-''holllohontlo-,uminIlia-· allhl U.8.nucloot -•1to~-gonebeyon lhlklurpop<Jialnorth""'atal11u11nthe
oubjeoler lSeelion177S.WO""'nt,r.g_...t
-The IOiontlftc<:QmOUiilyh..rwna tranlla,.nco cf nudur elftothe - a..,e,.aon In...,.., •. H,the Tribunlll has -d tilebiOiogl"d!lldowno111alho"'o W115
pllyslc.llypnuent alimo otiltellli511,.otomountaotr- nm gan-on a.Jmanta.
- Th• NCT hu awaldod """"am..,nt leuthln$2 llillionforclllereondillons nocrebya!!leUnitSllleB11,....OII"nicbut deemed radilbva111e~bun 111cfccndlllon•include
b•nign••••orvondporolll)omideltu~~~ hypmoperathy,..iditm,I!Jpolb}rforhdl>ildualaneton RongellpinMllrd11;and unt~xpl "bineefdaiure."
MostU.S."'<II•Kcn-nrl-oomponoop~~osn ,.~. P.,oclo•frnnlonoll-a_.., at •pllltlwtor-rellll.itile dOleodl"!!notiOqullllt'yfor cam.,....autow.norihody RMI
aiOi1ntthcR tll_.. ""!'oud - ofrect<dylho U.StHiinflprog,.mTha,. ina sinilar bo1\>rrecognizlhl dolmoof chlldnn of oocppusnts or lllaofmiWI•al• I'"" 'utl'f~
IOndegnea n~h laiiiUatthe ttnorlOoting.
Partof fiRMIr.quHI isfer12.6.9mnon topo.vperaonlllnlury awardaalteadv.,.,by111T• rtluftll!ineofll\1111f1u1nd.ThUlilehlaa GowmmenthB pfayodno ""'I lhe
monog"""'ntoflhlfUnd.norIn!he nwllmont decision•afladilleprcceedg-d by the TruS1Fund.Themlxecleornlnr.cord lht TNOIF111disnotllllributallhou.s.nuc:lllrIOSiing
pro;rlnlendd011u•otprc!'Jidoa buiolor • "d\c;,......-,..t.lndlng,.quoet uMerlhe Artlaof11uSoam011177seat ...tAgntament
7.L.,.. of L.&AdUoe- tlo..shlp
7.1 NIICieCl411!11111b..AIIOII'CIS
~- of Land Use:liSla0of use ;,.dgmenlhlTribunalrouonodthat beeouoothU.-...:1S-s"''"" lnttndelo pemanordly precluBii(i ~Uen-akese fromrer..nn;IDthoirhome
•••, !hit......,.,o .,.,.,..,toldno11leTribunaroiadon oxperoppralsal\ lcan1lo~tfsioenti value• of the land porioduf deniedwe, andolfte.....,onoaljpn,.;011s1y
poldtoolalmonts.
ne NUdllarCiolms TribunalmodeIon afllnd use aw.doll'n-•~of$2m4~4lion A pil132tl00ond$:!.7minlantoBiklnlMora. S, 2001.
Hofllohi>IHo Enewelakjudg""""' lhl NCTexplalnodrn~ucff ilwolualilllaldlllclalmt:
The10 demagt whio:wero1ulltNd ona conununilwide baoldiffer...,., th01elyadcii'B•- i!ha p.,..mdOljwprogram,wllich- baacoly radlogenladlseuH ...lholnjurits oU.. u•
hor1taN llloarisinaut of retocallUjolangond theoards~ ondu,.d .,.,by"" people~-.,. •tita ........10ndlockof,....~ NSO U.CM... Tho c!llm_u..1conaoqu...,of IIIo
lou of thohindond O.orelc...UO-ndont to !hotloos~· Trilrunalwill..toappnMICh•UIHI- by clolmontf«quondllcotlool1hoH c!tlm~ by goyn,., ennuolomauntror.
ponronan U"JOiafGr elldlt.irty throe.,be-n. 11147ond11!80tileyeatltpeopleofEnewelalo_..on Ujlllang.
OntN• b..iaIIloNCTde-ad- the damagesfoti!W.,.Ip<lumht -ootiCin 1<1Ujerong111101111110,084.1l00A. ppl)li-prne 1oolrx:a-ncflll<lnllms to Ronond
l<iltheNCTmalle 1 ~.-dzl"ip o.$..,14,r0a IDllild"i.
7.1Com~Hnt
Alloalol..,.damage topropoJlorooo belare llleSO<:tion 177 SeWomontfog-... - inlo larco. The Secticn 177 SIIUiementAQMomonl,_,lhlt lhoi'B- be anindalinibt poriacl
du~n Wl!i<ttaomeofllle •- otoiondlfinllo we'*be unlnhlll>ilal>lo"" ..ondthat in somca-lhllond _,Id no..- be UMable. TIon of land uoo and honlllhip:lomo -mod
oomponubleby tileNCTdo notlnwlwtosso• or dameglo pn1pootyll"coulnOI-sonably ha'Ibean ldenllftad•.The-~nlin goosand c..,-ua to P"'f*do no~pen o funding
""'Uetlunderlhl"changod ....._,mlllprovfoioofthe Seclion17SeUiomoll~ogow.,..nt
lrmoldngillawanls,theTrllunexr.o-d the amounofmoney provi ..e,h 1haoalllementaoreemonltOIl"ass or<lamagproporlTheGovomment of IHUnilllds-s p~ na""" in
flJM.,.,.g.,.ent"tholnves1mondtoc:ioion•aflectinathellfOCell'logby111T11uftfoM. Themldd umin;t ,.corcf11teTruolFun<Ifsno_..,.,~ ltle nlc-a pmgnm anddo.. n01
pmvide. batisfor afi.ndlng NqUMII under Mlcortn.aodi .177 Setli«nantJICI-ment.
&.Ato41flllhobllltUI•n
The NCT'"""'Plodlnepoall<mor!M tt.EAthat "... peand.Olholal\>rrodllli01p1ratactionalpopulatians oubido noliaool,__rsfraol radioactive'"""lancoa "be ofloootaa
lllringent•• thf« tipopulatiowilhin "coun!Jyol-- •The NCT odeptadcutrenU.S.Slonc!anlsBMconJidlllnumorouo - slnllogiesonIPPIOI~ IowIhOo Slandards
c:oouao metThonlnoludod.......1ot...-.tollin81edeppticolianp018oti...,to reduC&planlldtceolumMd phyl4"'madiaHnn, lho u..pl.....uptake tnradiooctioonbmlnsnts
from!M oolton<!oawao~n;.
TheNCTcanli:lt,.d stnllegCMiing- 1217.7mftlllo 11.4blllan Blldnlondaami,.- ofop4jonforl!n-ok. 11leNCT awarded 1261,600,00to Dkinion MardlS,2001,and
$91,710,0000-• an April132000, "1o,...OhOm. tJ•- and~...a ulti.MI
~- ""' rrdtipU.S.fed""" B1anderdoopplodtvor!l>clllonupothot""""' a widerod(do- but Io-rol, tlloy '"""oonlroldOMsto ""for bolot>o1mSvpor'j<Oa•r"*••Ispractl..r.
ttowovor,ht lnllmatanCommiotion on RadiologicalProtecOCRP-G) end Illnt.motionlNuc:looa.r. AdyII""'Y Ornup {INGto lhl lntomatloAtomlol'nO!VAG"""Y""""·--d
boac princlplof...riation p-an and .i'etanwhicltheirpol<!'on lnlarYontJl BotiSolele-. itt>osod.
Oedslont onWl!elhor!O .,_,.,an<!....,., depend on!he elro.tlofind"Mduaelo...._ Quanlilcritlf~Hd h defannlltlngwhetherandwhenon il'lbKvan.,.ould uRiert aree<~
called 1ms--uon lo.-ls oradlon lovelo.
n.... m no agreed-mlltionll~rJi. de.l.ln..o,.nrforcllro .,.l.~......dioet.irantuHirDmavenbiiUCh •• nuclo""'oponoletBn;. -..-. ~~~"" ""ollliohoda.a
Bllic SolelystondardlnrhoroituallonolndiCidooinlarvanlionl-•lhtlmwg._rioholn lho .t!....wtnud--•• IHUn;.
lnt<orvenlon¥elsare d-nlld baMCIC<ltlletll!)eol8dcoaba avoided by • Sl>ecillcl'aei!CI..-11 toll ocrapltopplnewlh=•hell oorolorpo111..un renlllzdo!- .._
lnt<omllllonlly guidanceonQen_..,lr;ootoappliclllltiO anylntaw'"~oqn •lnl,•l)' torchRink:- olllldons,hubean ellali41ohbyfleiAf".A.
,,..rwen bai.xpod..,iolmoot o110111sw dh10r ~pPfOadllema81""lctnhllblllood ordol~ ~alii!.- i11-..high.In-lion WOIIkol.unlike¥~~~ lhennn~ ~..,.,.
do""do.. no obaul 10mS.In onv.,...r. M"'"'""' doteat flan 1mSV15DOnerolIIXIICIIllhedeoalimft1ar lhiiiiUbic.
Oooae fram """"'bacltgiOUIodiBiion.,....ousellllro-...foroomporioon.l~oner peoll,receivea-groun<l dooe ...,., - n<l..ticsouoceoi1he _., 1to20 mSV,Incertoln
IQCOlklno10m0!SoMootpoope ,_..,a fewmSv p..r- ond IMIIIIdotH oi1C mGvIN unuiiUI,utclaoooln.,...er IODmGv doooourin """'pf-. 11leMarll1olllolot>dloo-.nl
backgrounddoMis2.4 mBv.Aboul2 mGv allhe 2. ~Sv nlllurllNckQround-I• •.,.,..by.Hlfn&ln>lftoil.
Inoiluatlano ...,!hOser!heNo11Mm M.-sftalltland;onerleguldonco fmhalifitalionof..of.chRinlctiP08Ureovallcfe. A«Mtttteflodiyedoloofup to10II\Sv{~~ conbeund
as o robuotln..-aomatlca:cllonl.. otlnofd!rontc"""""""o.....belowINslevelr.q•lrcaiWIUconlldoJition.H- ...,..wmoresuch l..elare obleNea genlltllly-be d-rood
ulllwithou! funhretnedlalion.
A P"'""" cfbolonc:ihumen end onv....,monbllp.-n -nnlneo U..formIICIIoandduratidnlholni6Mindon.PrcMdodt~atl phldpleooetoullnlho BoliSofalySlondordohovebeen
·~pie aolulllion Inwh~ronl .., .....,...,.....,raleeotloothan10mll<lpor~··-.Id nonnolly b._rable butm.v not be p,.dlcduolapublic_.iono.
1. Rodiologlca! Jllll"l.tanolCUI'Nirodlologlc:CO- eflhe fourAIIOII•
RodiolonP"'- princ:ipiaohiYI o!Wo.yboo.,. ilmaldngd... ..., d-ns far lnor~M M a'lhaltsla ~ dldnf,en.wet.i<,Rongolopond Ulrikatolls.Abrielhltcl..,..~
aOIIwlltand""""n Jdiatlo• _ ....lewtoore P"'Vid"bol-. Rodioliampa....,dlft't'rlradltlldoll inlhllupoouroo doos •Include infcrn'l81iolheolkctvenesc ol1hradiation
loCliUHbiologlcoltJJtdo,
Bo'kinlltloF:ii<>Mna 19e"lA~ ..-o;icat •.,.,.tnatctotarminthlBilliniandEnou lllondt couldbo reldiJeO""'"'"'•ionP, noLyndonJclln- announoedll1at SiAloll"'uafo
r..I!MiitotAbout 500 l<lofl"lldlooctlvefy-.,IINI-ohod bean rem-d. ,o\glla.j.. 'ltof B-and en...~olo n<ros 1\>uroond_,I-. pandonu• anc1breodfn.it
_.. planteil1869.Ack1111oracallla4oglcaotl<WJ•_..du<UdIn1ml 1te0'<~~<11l Houoa'buding......,.need follothecleanup,witheom•Bmi lamiieo...,.;ng bookto Bllcitllloland
by 11110A1ST IUIWIumpled localfood'""f'&lhhaclbythenpr~~du ••"'ld tnrIDonllyD. DaM predlotlono- on sernplodeJa.-!hat, wll.,foodCI'OP-Iuf8d,the reouiUnG
http://2001~2009.state.gov/p/eapfrls/rpt/40422.htm 02/06/2015 ReportEvaluatingtheRequestof the Governmentofthe RepublicoftheMarshallI... Pagel0of 18
-IIOdydosewll&lld -IIMIIHidlllngLl.8•.......,. .....,.._lnAIrn.oT.-,.ullldll..-.1 lht peo11IGIIIolol.,. mllll)ll8f'Oiin.Furthlrl'emhovebnniono
••illbllfONMI!led~-Tile onlyllftlrtomlll~ell-on.,..,..llllndllllek-o,IUCIIIWIWr ouppliooand lllfraolruotuno.lll•on1I,,.onlyNom""'"Id bo
Thtll!i'AloRoM'oi'I1Mcenmmm..tn 1114t.n Mllon lwl!llf 1.71111''*1,_-o11.8.Ftllnl Rlclltioll PIOIICiioSnllllcWda.',_wdlllatErulullllaldcouldbe
ll>ldlMlm-IIWiimlllll annuli doae11Blknllolondwouldbo4mSVf Bllllnre-1111M,IIIaod110rellledillme-,andoonlinulto 1111almporl-llilonnu'*"'C'•IIId
be ,.duco10.4mavwllllmlledM>lilonpoflhllaP t8lncllloln houafngendlothgo •...., Gllllodfdq.omo~fDods1lG IDtiledllll.~1'int888rapor\diNiciDJ
lheBltdllploo""'thll !lldnlllllndIot pom~anonl,.o lltlmamiinCIlolulld RoiiiiM llllnd- appllodon llllllri..AriOIIIIOinllarnirnonllorlnllnlll
~,.srecommendlcl.
En-11: Inill 1967ow!iDiogioel"""l1o UhrowCommiHtonotoleollhollllklE-en......... ae-.!,- l>fui-~,.-~ onnou.- IMIIIWniAIIIII-IIIoofot
..b . on.A 1973NdlolotiOIIII-menl--odhtllvingpo-ln ... -m -oflhoiiiDIlnaludn~lolaM, -.lllnolli'o......_.....US.-..- T-.
oo-hiW, ~ l!nowllll<lo,ll~Id to1>Nile l~olliiiiMon.,d-agdollll u ii.i.nA.7.,1_.tdMd-m.g.,..8,000CIIblo,..of-ly
conlamlnoloddobrio,IUdluplutoniLim-oon18mlnalEnjotVoliroino~uoothltlollndo.~ln -ltedoel- ..._.- - n• R1811111--ns
Thesllndlflotcl....,p~.., 1mu'llrun~ oonii-IOncd .. 101•• --- ol4aopCJpergramotso(A plc.., 0111-11f11Dntl'llllle,loIll WillofthlIUI'I
numberoiiMIIIIIt lilllnlqnlllontInallpldlquMtty omettlll~..) thlllnl,..tqulvalenlloaumtntmiXImulplfll'llllib• •.,.. .. ,CIIIIDnuID1811ho
levelso1top"""ot111111Cl(npCIpit gtlm Gfsol) IllpnwldllowlofliMy.lleiOItIlllt live!,110sWQ dlemedreq~~ LelIr1I1Cn1.7EPAguldiiMs....,. iuutd, tho
upp• liJMiotljjlicullWllM111180pCI~r graofoeland 18pCIperllflofSOlfiarIICidptho$1g llnd.n,. I!PADUiIOUahiequl'lalllllto•llflOIIPPf'O•IIry4le!
_ ....... .,... t*IGJIIoxpolld orto1 problllllll11l_,~ IMidre~·re-1ng thatthopoplii!IGfofE-IIIk llll~malne oollltlnt
AI.,. ... _ccmo..l..... 116-- boolnbullltDaooo- lhltelumipapuldonShotithe.....,, II)Oojl100pooptoreUjolqtbiCIU• olohorlllolaull11"""food_
-~~~~_.ad~ .. .aqolooouppof_... fard~nldn .rrtotopllnt-on norlhemlllln11~c ttaoou,...ofwaiGpollcdofdf014 plh•~oolobaul22,000trios
bogonln'lt7;.
Fnll-In 1810""""" 19911.,. ,•.,0.111110 popWIIItn.otiiiiiBV per,_.. olhonCllllld-li0.05mSvbyHllng ma~~ ~.VItbc>1leNIIIIOIIAdtldlologlcll
IIIJmoyIn1!111to4ut~oiMV Clo'"hmllldiOIIctlvocooo.n101- o.amev.
en-llllnd Nli.,laho¥1liVIihon-llland monllorln...,dlpa~i ofioalNollvOellioln,lhi'OIIoIIOOtdngot. E,.-'* H.llh Phyllic&t.oob.alllbNieb!IU..
u.s.OepanmentoJE:niJ,o .001,thtM~ragod- llniutivlouium~•loodiO~-- laet lllln O.G01!111pCGmllltldtan~~l~l-nUlII dDIIof1.4 -·
ThatlfoN.Ihe!YPiOIIIOitaaldlllllondo.15mSvporyNr.The En..takpnple h- ~ .., ....""""'-.ntlhollletl Nlfdenllallll:III11fiPIIi,JIIroton.ond
Modron.
InteH, oocionllolrepNMM-AkllltutifiodboloreC-10 111W1ollhllelondootll>ollarelllllod n200G,witll noiUrl.. r181111clloiiwouiCI~sn..... •..
"'Jio•ohelllhproblemh noott,oao,-os.
Roi'QOkiR:ongolopllloB,.lllllltmenlbasot onan •ction1of1m9v Pit yeorltomt.pooutela eoilendincblin-1 ""'*"""ncl, -for..-~ondltlcoal
~dlet..,d thl>l.,_,...lla""'andlm.,..... -IIDCCI'l'twnl\ul'll -lt~ NldttlloncloHIIabaul2.<4msv.TheRontHIIIII-ntolti11¥11_.qnollyt msv
p!!dlc:ll!donU.8.IIclnltl'hllon lll!fiD•ureu..aalwaeclllllnnlnodiMICiull. .o.lbe.J.bon thtl'lllltlltnenlactlon 11¥11.
Fo-..g _lagiall.. .,l-, -In- ·igl-cnoot.doonlfat:1111ngWIIIappllodi'othaviondUJVico.,..o. Apallumlorllaorrellm•-lnhletodtoooclllo.,.
• .-l--allndordforRongolopof0.01 mBwfatlho- end.....-.
-n.- I•-IMIIIY CIIIUIIIlIal11Rong1111lo1lplnd.yeor211Demong1h_........Ill-reae do•wooOJIOImISvFar.. ......,_polloteeN001,t~ eeaauow!ow111ge
-doll fortMIIIIamenl-'tore onRongotaph,mi'IIIIDiotlva -lum tloalf-""'- ... 0.001mllv.Tho.-orptullllland OlhlrolmllorID,..._aubl--.IGIIwas
_..diiiiOng 110~on-agdaulunol watooos--1hl ~poiMtllllotln ofid~l>o-• hidonlnllmollll!figraotorlhllngl-1 fflIornnual- ... .,g.
8lcoulo a.no1ona.....,._ papulotlon Rongolap-ai.IIU-. •• 11111-lllloiOINIIohltill- nnp ofd01o-uld llefarpooplll"""' cllll'enlrlldl..builtofaaloos,
~o.db~obelo0.11111SRaiiGIIIglcll- on-r- arAllrlgollpAIOIenddlpondnuanpiV)Iclo<l"dllllrentactlonllvii•IIIIPIY·
utriRadlolaglcol ialtddollmolllnvlronmenlolremodlofI,IIII!.AiolThe..._in-~~~~ .. _~ doll hm ntelloaciMt_....lnt1.........from
diet11'1i1lwouldbolboUI0.20m11v........,.., at!Weacholtn.ltllndA1"1 ~ Li¥1nnci1N1all~---""'- IIIIIIMIIIIUd.....Clos1111a
ftomoil_.to..,."l81o-,widJ1 di.lncUdlmporlldloocll.-..Id 1>e0.038m8on111olcllfDoolIN~tiiUHIn• doll Dlllboutm11aW.ho!IIIO-.go ror.. Ulrll
hllifCNilndoonllmPQi~lllcholcea118111fe.odcauntinlodilinMrl)ltJuly2DGI.'ltao11111p1o1nnilUbiIDIIIOIIiiDrlhltrlnlllmiiCIIIutoaonllmtffhlit
e.4C<ommont
Ani,.,onont llementundllly1MIn~quefor1lolAehabir.tianlolhouoofr.lfileUnllld..Gawmmoo1 hn adclplod111rllolntdlnll lotdomNtorMICitw,...,laPliteilioo
Unllld$11111ll1noelhl 1Nl PlIQftiBIT!IInl-tiiC1lle GUIIIole il'nlUbY110.SGooflmmantiOJ)I'OI8p-lnno Ill•- ofradlai!MIs1m8vplt,.ar. The
doeellmltllu lleenlllldloguldt .......,_lRMI.,......-~~~~et -•n1D11cl. Ek1enam011illldnQDiindMdllatalo Wlllnoclllnup hll boln lfl'8ctNindical••
aclualdoll• .. -thoNUTlllndlfot0.15mSrperyearClellnup cllcIDdatehiMIeonrtll'lll• degnreofptnal-odlell ••b6 l._fodn as~~ Qll~ti~su wal as lhe
Trillunol'sd"'*-1 Slllldlrcl.ThiiiiiiiiO "cctangeddn:UrMII!ra• on'lllllthI rurning'"'!Uul_, loOtheSection17Seillemenl 1\glllrnonl.
··~-W•il'
InnoroqulltlMopublioollhe Mlrlhlllllllndllllllllhf17 -ddnolflll:llla .,DOCIII*Iaclllllll\Mal'llhiilnd oillltwollenlnvo-.,.;ronmontal retrlldlallonor
cle.. upllfGaA.II-a. -lndDUIIrworlun INup-d ID........1........ Df'*'lallon.ModlcilliiCIIIIllngDlpaolandP1111enraldldl!noduceItlla 111*01n1-l1oY
IIIIIof~-- and-·TII pIgremolhtlle portleooould'IMMn la lncludoln1._flll-moINtlllorychol8 nott~IIINbll trygrema-IInot
-"1:ttongod ..__.,on -•tlrlclln ~equacan~bo-under .. 8eotlon1778elltmtnt Agnaemetht _.,. GovammenD l llll RopublcoMa~~•ll
CDn"mlleefot,..."""""D'V•der 0 Natorgrenl undlrthlt-Coll1>80lrot, -lhloouklllwlwoonoldo~ed111J1ointEconManagemontandrlnlncilll......,ntolllllly
1D.NtoolearSiewtlnllllllp
Inboroquool!,hi RtPIIblcol1hl Manllollllllndlllllel thatnotp111•1dpangromolilrCGriWIIIIIII1lJp'1111Gllelyoonllit.......,anMID nearntdoiCOie
wttlSIOtagl 111'1. •
10-2-Doms
lhla --aondU 11e ct -ld b-Ilunn.ct- -1114111nd '19811poodl1••lnteltoutloorumlna ilendlldlegoonoftheaiOIIWIIItI'llnsoloA
and 8Ciivlprocaa..,.Ulllllllklnodnuctoorlllelln 1172,llloU.S.Gomnllllllll IUdconducta. oloon~onnd opet'IItIIrettil81oltthos-IU peaple.
lborallloloc:lllnup can- '*"'en tm end 1810andfaaUIIdaredUcm111-11111001\af-..n elementsioclon•- oftloltlandstJnight.-lutlly bo1111ofodr
-- otfotllllllilllnCI ag1110cleanupplllncalledfill'reiand-ln;_..,ntlllllnaldebrtoRun•lllandon1111111111p1.1..1.,_.,.8omeofthltOOIIIamlnlr1ocl
IOli-""*'WIIIIoemltllamllll- piiOid .,...,. ll....illtc:ctusc..wro •n-lfo11plotlonIll 1TheNmlllndlrOfloonlllminotod~~~~~~mN~IW~II
concnlland ...-.. gr811011-N -~ lhllhltpoofaclomi.A-arpwas -ructacl- Ill- Dltol.
Coftcemhll boec-" bylhepoaploof~ONrlha~_...... f...l.n,l,n-onlornbod Inh ontllr.ANalioniiAcad..rsdonceocommlleclllllnodthe
domeand..,..,.tr.t .. oo-ont-ure andllsoonllniiiiNnocrediblehlaiiJtltldnltolha ptOIIIooolllornowor-. lhorulbe- ""'IUHIIlhll "otllo51
porol1hlllliooololllltirledlnflle-llavlllllbleforlrtollleGn~tma llMnqutnitothelagoonandlol..,~ olottnD-lhorlhil.....,_moybe • ~
ono."1111re1rtiVIilll~-e IIIMallln'111111n0....P,ollonwlth--doti'IDIIIidy lhl radionuclldlllnsamplu offilh, QlIIIIJC'.I-I•Dallloane
elloelon......,-ivnloundodlr*ld,._rch hll oltownlhlllholond~-tolalnU..dlmehllldifretenlflldlaloglaol''qniilounclalhl-.w;Thls......lllll
hld boenn~~tepqtl dooerlPothlUtre--'"- oaiiMIIdIn2000.
10.3Coremont
_..AIportalh U.8.ao.ornm·-~of Noponob•llll1orcoqoeNIOon CYgcftla,. ollhoMlrsllllllllllnclo ..Jo... .....tl)!ghm 11ton.-IHI!ng
progNor..n.oond...betMienJuno:10,1848,andAlqjull,lheO.,.rt111fCftnN po~ n 111o1llonupolEneorAlotc-OIIIIId .....,wosdlpoell1c-. e-r
on R•nitlolendiii•ArrC/otpoafEngin11.....-odocc-Ciomo-rlho -tfo P.t.- tothllo!meofthl~ofFte~A- Ae.lllooheMta.oltoft
llllndl bl.,. f\111.....-.rll' rormointllin!htlomllnd Rd lllend.
AppoMnglllhl 11111s1oal, Den--. DlredorolIll 0111coeJlA1lan ...DllptltnlelllorllllIMIIIed:
..P.wltopllhl. lllt,'.u.o.i..,n_il t.lcO ndilInRunlllllf1responsillhlllhe E.-.k Gavammentcltlil!ro-. witthu_s. c.port,.a(o.ro11or
http://200 1·2009 .state.gov/p/eap/rls/rpt/40422.htm 02/06/2015ReportEvaluatingthe RequestoftheGovernmentoftheRepublicoftheMarshal!I... Page11of 18
Et!orgr.ThoFepotltlonlotllllt,anhau;hoilh.,orbdofl-edo.._..,."""'"" ,....ID lnspedlhe CQI!d~onalf dama,li1hilbeeeagrda.AslflldVII,
..--,ttflhe8oallonf77~~-:
'lllG...,...ntollUllft8dSIOialls- afanhalno~..,.,_.,.Governme onfeM- lolancll11111, -1lfi-IIOibllilfor,OGnti'GIIInligear.,_,
oren inllleM-Iondo -Cbel tly NudHr Tntlngi"RRgnm.' "
Thi .s.--- ·.,. .aoilloft.
n.oparliel_k....dlaantalnd..klllg-181m_....,,--. irlcWioionllolInllet.d-....m.llul...,._MilD.Tho~ _.._such ....,..,.lllilhllll
a-... N.aJ"" 14,2.001 m-.glhDepoonmerDof~ mdlllelntlfloroQI'.,.AMI o.,...._...!:l:'- -rhflnor-lftlle!M -long-llvea-.
madeUlldlt'tle -.1T7I<onllm1\gnanonL'!hi Q........,oR~aofllllt.,._-,-•-.ldlndlldo....,hprogl'ltllsinIIIoRMondfheCOIIIdlhenaan-11!'mliely
~-Minegomonland~AooaunllllllftltComm-tor~-......,..-llf8fii..,CierlllellllondldConopoct
11.Nucleu l!dueM!Dn
In itlnlqU1111epubllocla.o Uonhll lolorHk-CarrCICefelion17711'0'o-lo _llla...,.lluoeli•onaro<hti-- fioldootlo -loccapldlyWltiiMake
reo-.-...-1-..t-.ar....,_. tlopullllcaboulfM---olhU.S. ~T-. ,......inllleM-..Iflaftdo.
lbapmtiu-h--ID-nudellt-lnlllot.dRitl.......,llulllly-nlllto. TlleN.Imlnlllnlll ..;,dn..,........i_.,c.~.-..._.,.._of
_ ...., doecunalilu•et~en CorGuulllnao"onwllfdlallindlllgnque« canlegllmolof1.,llllc817sealoment A{jl'ln.o0owmmon1 of.,Ropubllflie
Mlltlhll Mlends-lrldurwcllldu- inN RMIDcldgtlt~...Clon.oClllloldonlle.lohEcanomManaaemllllenPlnandll~lltyCammilt ,.-,flcl•
&mde•r aedorpant..the amendldCGmpac:t
~A- c:tuanco~oW -rltUnlS. ltltihl .......dll....
No. 0&11 Site li'P• YWcl(kl) Op~ Te.l
6130'1&48 Bikini Alnlnlp 21.0 CROSSROADS ABLf
2 712..,9411 Blcinl ISnllerwllltr 21.0 CROSSROADS BAKER
3 411411948 EMwellk T_. 37.0 SANDSTONE XAAY
4 413011948 ~ T- 49.0 SANDSTONE YOI<E
5 !11411948 er-et* T- 18.0 SANOSTONE ZE8RA
6 417/1961 en-.tlk r_. 81.0 GREENHClU8E DOG
7 4/2Q/1961 en-tile r-- -47.0 GREEMiOUSE EASY
8 !i/1111951 Ell-'* Tawar 225.0 GftEENHOUSE GeORGE
g
~1951 EnMitllc r..... -45.5 OREENHOUSE ITEM
10 10131111152 e.-tall Suface 10400.0 n/"( MlKE
11 11116111152 ~ NrDRip 500.0 n/"( KING
12 212611954 ailcinl Sulface 15000,0 CASTI.E BRAVO
13 312611954 Btcini Barga 11000.0 CASTLE ROMEO
1'1 41a11954 flldni SUI'- 110.0 CASTLE KOON
15 o41251'1954 l!lln Bllve 8900.0 CASn.£ UNION
18 51411954 Bikini Balll8 13500.0 CAS1l.E YANKEE
17 611311954 En- Blltge 18SO.O CASTLE NECTAR
512/1956 NtDIOp
18 Bldni ' 31100.0 REUWIIIG CHEROKE
19 61o4119&6 ~ ~ o40.0 REDWIMG l-ACROSSE
20 lii'Z711956 Bikini 8\.llllce 3500.0 REDWING ZIJNI
21 512711956 E~ Taw~r 0.2 REDWING YIJMA
22 813011& EneW8IIik T- 14.9 ReOWING ERIE
23 1111!11966 E:nawallk 8\llfla 13.7 REDWING SEMINOLf
24 6111/1956 Bikini Btrge 366.0 REDWING R.AlltEAD
25 611111958 l!rlewe1llk Tower 8.0 REDWING BLACKFOOT
:18 611311956 8lew8tak T- 1.5 REDWING KICICPOO
27 6118fUI!!6 ~ AlrOJOP 1.7 REDWING 08AOE
28 8121119511 EntlwBIIk TCMIIIF 15.2 REDYIING INCA
29 812&119511 Bikini Barge 1100.0 REOWING DAKOTA
30 7D/1958 ~ T- 3110.0 REOWING MOHA'IM<
31 7/fl/19511 en--. Barall 1850.0 AEOV\IINO APACHE
7110119511 IIIG'II o4$10,0 NAVAJO
32 ~ REDWNG
33 7120/19511 Bikini Bqa 5000.0 REO'WING TEWA
34 712111956 ~ Barge 250.0 REDWINO HURON
35 412811958 Ne.-er-tlj( Balloon 1.7 HARDTACK YUCCA
311 51511958 ~ 8ufce 18.0 HARDTACK CACTUS
:r1 611111958 Bikini Barga 1360.0 HARDTACK FIR
3ll 511111958 eneweblk Barge 81.0 HARDTACK BUTT1!RNUT
as 611211958 £newelllk sur- 1370.0 HMDTACK KOA
4C 5/1611958 EniiW8blk Und-- 9.0 HARDTACK WAHOO
41 e/20119511 EntlwBIIk 5.9 HARDTACK H()U_y
a..
42 5121119611 l!ikinj a.. 25.1 HARDTACI< NUTMEG
43 S'281'1968 En-ak Barv- 330.0 HARDTACI< YEU.OWI\0
o44 !i/21V1968 Enewetlk a.. 57,0 HARDTACK MAGNOLIA
46 S/301111611 en.w.ctk a.. 11.8 HARDTACK TOBACCO
92.0
<16 53111968 Bktlf a.. HARDTACK SYCAMORE
47 Bl:m958 en-lit Ba-ue 15.0 HARDTACI< ROSE
48 M/'1!158 er-M Undorwlllllr e.a HARDTACI< UMBRELLA
49 6/10f1958 BikH Barge 213.0 HARDTACK MAPLf
50 6114111158 BikH 3111.Q HARDTACK AsPEN
ll•ru•
51 li/14111158 fnewelak 1111'118 1o450.0 HARDTACK ll'tN..NUT
52 1118111158 E!IMetak Barve 11.Q HARDTACK UNOEN
58 ~11986 Blki'll Barge 412.0 HARDTACK REDWOOD
54 6127/19511 Ellft8t8k Barge 8110.Q HARDTACI< ELDER
55 6'28/1968 E.-Ilk 8900.0 HARDTACK OAk
Bara•
56 612911968 Blki'll ~ 1-4.0 HARDTACK HICKORY
51 71111& EnewMllk a.. 5.2 HARDTACK SEQlJOIA
sa 71211& Bikini Barge 220.0 HARDTACI< CEOAR
5Q 715111158 Enewalak Barge 397.0 HARDTACK OOGWOOD
9800.0
eo 711211& Bldnl llalll8 HAROTACK POPI..AA
6'\ 711411958 Enewaclk llalll8 Low HARDTACK SCAEVOI.A
6:1. 711/1968 en.watlk a.,.. 255.0 HAROTACt< PfSONIA
http://2001-2009.~tate.gov/p/eap/rls/rpt/4042 02/.06h /t0 15 ReportEvaluatingtheRequestof theGovernmentoftheRepublicofthe MarshallI... Page12of 18
83 712211958 Blldnl 811.0 .....RDTACI< JUNIPER
7122/11168 E,_... 202.0 HARDTACK OLIVE
114
85 712BI1111i8 ElliiWelak 2000.0 HARDTACK PINE
BIB/1!158 ~ Fizz HARDTACK QUINCE
""7 811BI1R Enewel1ll< 1!.02 HARDTACK FIG
Sources: U.S.Doparlmlb'111',Ulilldllllllu HuolotltT'l1MIIIfuugh lloplomt.rt!m!. Do.:umonlNo.tlQEIN(llev1ol~;o ....r 1...._ RMIIWGCllllml~ In""lal.
Repo!IIDV. Nftjolaturtho Cllv..r 1t81. Ml)un>: forIll• Cotoor o•1tG8. Mljuro: 1W7•
....... di-.~oe oJIUI. Nucle1TMII~I-RH A"llIIo~ 1md CompeAHIIo~
Tolotllli1,1111,DDO
{follllutl.,..funditaa7,S9D.OOO·.,_ onU.lil.Dep.tmelll ofCo....,.oce, Buroavfit Llborlhlldco'lnlllllon CCl ..tlonsll'elowloonnrv-dueto••• altiMIyurof
llln,.JVtiJroaloulaflonofmulll-y111p..,..mtp•wauton!IIH.)
BildniProJooto
Y11rA"""'nt U8G8........... rpon
111!412.000,DelenaelleHI.,.nlfuao of
lllklnl
1854-0.2837.342,.480Fladlolcgloll
monillftntl
111o.r$2.BB1,oootntorioo1R..,.btlntltion•nd
Rellltlemlnl
11175h,OOO,ODnt.ri(P.LII4-S4)1EIIIIblie
TruiiFund
197Bintorl..-{P.LIIII-i411
M,OOO,tlO/OeHI1llmeJII.IIIII
$3,000,tl/A<Id~I G,lfond
1978$35,000lnlatloriPMdlngJII'OII'Im
1979-1!4e1,7W,OOOAQril:ldllnllllwpluolood
pro~nmZ
19!0 $1,ollllOnt.~(.Lrti74S7)1gtllia
~·nl
1881 MOO,OO Ono!WIHIIhll ptoonJart.....,_nl
oft~diiiJIDnox,_..
19!2$20,100,000lnltllar(P.L.t7·e27)1Biklnl
Re..tllomllll TruolFUid
111121400,00lnl8iarillAloll
RohobilllllonCommiiiM
19D4Ut4,000 lmerlor!BiklnAlIOI
RehallllillllonComrnllll
1111$41,00~ Enoi0JP.L.IIT-267)F"""AIOII
Holfthl'rdg~~~m
1e86-a4Agriculluro/8U1]odaoU
l'"llt,.m
1985$1.01UOOIIUrioriBIIclnAltoll
RehablllilllonCommiiH
1N7 f7$.0DO,OOtnOllriortp.L llllo«311)1Nullloor
c..m• cornponolllicn
1988$2.,300,000lnleriOiialtlnlCcncoptlanPion
198' IJ&,OOD,Ollrior(I>.L1.-)/Bitlni
RoaothmonlTruotFund
1990$22,000,000lntericw(P.L.100-486)/Bidni
Rese111emenTtruotFund
1991121,000,000lntorlot(P.L.100-!18&)/Biklnl
RIStl'leOionl Tnlll Fund
11i82121,OOO,Dlme~ oP.l100-«16)181kinl
RIHIIIemtnl Truol Fund
19D $2.1,000,lnlorior(P10o-.166)11nlni
-mon!Trur.t FUid
Tottl $238,273,000(S3118,0n'03lllndo)
YaatAmountUSGSoui'CI/PupoM
19684175,000lnlorior/ITPII o~DI-k
rigl'lll
http:/1200 l-2009.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rpt/40422.htm 02/06/2015Report Evaluating the Request of the Government of the Republic of the Marshall I... Page 13 ofl8
fileS1,02C,OOlntori,../FundstnonfTTPI
fllrtpoop• orEto-ok
197<1-94Agri..,l!un/SuC:GrJunocllood
~ro.gm
1i77m.ooo.o o r.nn!OI't'l {F.l. 94-387)1
Radiologie1lean-up•nd
RellabilbtionPl':ljo<:l
1i78S1~:400, ln!0rortn,..,En....,tak
Retlabilitl.tfoanndRtutflement
Pl'llgnro
1!180S1,47e,ooolmonormPven ..~a~~
Rehablltdon end Reeettlemont
P1'011f8111
1!180t3.120,COOlnlltklrtTll'lte-ok
Agrjc:ulture!Support
1981$1,3oW,OOlOntoricdTTPlil!nawelak
fqi<>.llluro/BuFPOrl
1982S&1a,OOOinteriodTTPI~
i>qi<:ullui'I/Support
1ges S80Cl,ooonteriDI"ITTPI~E~>awetak
Agria.IL!ure/Sloppott '
111&\IIHJO,OOClnterlor!fTPIIEn.-ak
Agnc:ulture!Support
1984 $1.000,00Enerll(P.L.~7-257) / ollur
HooltlProgram
1965 $682,000 J!lloriodiTPI/Enewo!llll
~lure/Buf!PDrl
19811U18,000 lnlerim'TlPIIo-tak
Agrioulan/SIIpport
1i88 $,\116,0lnlerior/TlPI/Enewetllk
Agrl<lll\l...tllul'f>"'1
1995$18,750,000('*"fe(P.l. 99-239)/NIId
Ciolmsec.,.....ulian
1988$2,750,0001-t (P.L.-9)/Ero.i-bi
ReOOUiemet C!omrn.oriTNit Fund
11181$2,250,00Interi{PL 99..5&1)!!njebl
Ro-mani ccmrrurity TNS11'und
1987 1900,000 lntericn1EIIa-'"k
Agricul\lro/Su~port
18Be$2,500,000lrdari(~.L.89·349)1Enjabi
Roool~... Coonm..nlly TNFun~
1988$1,100.000lnterio~ak
AcJi<:UIIuf11i&J!¥1Crt
191111$1,100.0l0!orior!E-•k
/.griCIII\lJfel&lpporf
1989 S2,~oo. 11o o1(10(w.5t1)'ci1Jel>l
RosatllementCGniiiUIITNIIfltncl
19QO$1,100,000 lnllrloriErlewolbllt
A;ricutluro/Suppcwt
11M1$11,094,000 lnlorlo-k
Agrtwllurei6U!¥1Cr!
1992S1,oa-t,OOlnllrionEn-•k
AQ~cufll.n/Suppon
19g3 tt,C91,000imo~•
A~ricuiii""Suppatt
1994S1,1191,000rlllnorlc,...,.IBII
~18/Support
1ell5 S1,088,0ln-!'l~k
.Agri,..llufo/Suf'PDrt
1~ at,o91,000 lnlollforl!;n-k
AgnCultur«SIJpflcrt ·
1$87$1.091,OOOinlenon'en
Aclr!COJiture/Support
1998$1,191,QOOJnlotioriEn-loll
J\glbJIIu..nlupport
1999$1,578,000lnle<iodf'newalak
Agricullure/Support
2C00$1,101,0001ntenon'enot-'•k
AG~urellkopport
http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rpt/40422.htm 02/06/2015ReportEvaluatingtheRequestoftheGovernmentof the Republicof the Marshal!I... Page14of 18
~RIIlupport
Tola$1•6.167,0(l27U70,000 in'031Undo)
RcmoolapProjoots
Sa<:i!o03iijftheC""'poofFrwoA-n Actof19!5 Bci<nowtoodIIoU.S.Gov.tnmonrsmponsibille'nOion RongelllplolanltothatiCWlbe oar.)!hablted."Mot10>n, INs
oootionoflheCo....,...tAct,ho Congresaau"f5)Ktlmsastre nocessary... ealo 118ptnadv-o thehlltohllliiHyof Ronland~... 11>be mlldii&VtlhoGovommomol
IIIo M81'1hllIslands-'
Y•r Amount USG SouroaiPUrpo•
Trust Fund
111!14-"0·2174.000Rlldloloaleaalnmonlonn;.
tm t,t7o,OOOTlo1;~nlncl u4,t00 fromIilo
FY19112Oo,_,l oll~ol-or-
RelatoAgonc.iApprop~al Aiont
(PL102-154tob9opentlorimpno•ino
t~olivinQconditionsof1hoRongolopooo
on Mljatto,
19931,983,000
19941,983,000
199571!3,0lntori ao~llnto the
•uoo.oo owrvpriai..J in FY tet5
(PL1Drl~•olhal AoMoQelopAioll
LocaGo..,.......,.nt(R)ooo>ciltould
Nn I cornpeleOOUIISelnl,_r...... l!
<>tmanogortopuRALGoY'o
Administtalioninorder,••P•d•IIJ 11:11
lloan<l,.)noorlls,andbolilddeiTIO<RIIIc
inslil&.~tiona.
t911!15,000,QOOOefenll
TOilm;&98.oo!Polus$6,000,00il polon oamin9t'1)
{$71.~. n'00lullll.t)
c.nta
19i88.~110,000
20.000.000Roproorammei19i8
To1all2MOMOC (t31,180,000In '03fUnllo)
1!171>E14or;ylra~ lndleath""l
-·~•ring
1Q7!>-4 g~cull>.l roliJK>diyoo""
Prognm
,984$1,000,000 EM'(P.(..IIT-2li7)/FourAioll
HHI11>Pr1>gl'lm
1985J22.SOO,OOlnOlo<lor(P.L 99-239)/Nucloor
ClaimsCompansalion
iatal$44,190,0{SCI1.810,000'031onos)
DEPARTMENO TFJUSTICE(RADIATION EI<POSURE COMPENSATIOA NCT)
OnOc:lobfi1$, 1GUCon;"""-·u lho R:.d-• E>q>DIW nomp"""'lonARt~ho •Acl"42U.s.c•.2210n'* (1~1•..4,)lltor••ll1"'•!1ionalo peywei•-ulls 'MIOoolltrocltld
certaincanctl'l lillndo1hdiAGMI a1 a NIUttth•iQllcPDBUtrovradiationredl.lringabovt-gtound,Uw.•poW te:t~Oas a fe:tvfllelr expD$Ureto t'Miiatiandwing
~p!oymo L"u.nld~f'O~'m.l.mml.&..r=pla:m :cngLnl~;JGni:Ha·ibJC'"&1-pa~ t4JwlileeendpWJithed in theFederalRegiS, pril10, 1982, establlhlng pro:eduAII
rooolvoeloim•ina reliable,olljocti.. , and non-ocwmariolmanner,will lttlo oanlnlotraho coottoIIIo U"""" etdalmoRo•loiomlo \"'~"-"lnQ1'•bllshll<iln the
FodorolRogiotvorn Morcl2!2,18rved11ur-torusiBI eloi,..nloln ellabllolllngen!I-m.ontot an
on July10,2000,P.L.101J.2-o'RadiationExpotco,...nsalion ActArnendmenllof2000.•waoenact.cl."'ti>O\Wieeprechan1111• .do MWclaimanpopulations,acldllional
oorrpnsable dise.towerrodiat101po~~ tnresholdmodlilldmadicaldocumentatnqulnmonll.andNmc...lofcor1a~iMII rI<~sl~ Totero-nMo. !Mtcahoo,Joaoclalman!J:
uronilml,.,.., uromllors.ore transpOIdclimwlnderl,andonspodicipaniBE. omoateynqulns dmiereliglbicrl!ario:expoWtrodiolionand.xislence Col'lpoon,....la
diJMse.
UraniumMne,.: RECA2000•Pecili••opoymontof$100,tooliqibloindiYiouaitompiO!'OIdnAllabcvo-gJOundorvnd"'iround •nnlum mi>oiD'*odinColoroclMzono. W,ornirlg,
SOI.IInOtll<. loohlrv.Jtalldal>o,No~lal!olOmgon,orodT••• ol ""''tiduring.,. porlO<lI>oglnnllltol nJonuo')'1,1N%,• 1etonber31,1&71.AdditionalmlrinQ-·
m11bii11dudl!fldorcolll'•ns•tion upl)nappflcalion.
A.fl<po..T119clalllmull" b"e"Dposed to40ormono-'<lng 1- monlha(YVUIIIIra<llaj...tGmtlloyodinall'lnlum mii'MI.
B. o;..,.C._mponubtedi..,.,.. incl..- primal'flunandeerllln IIOMBolgnanr.t. piralorydioauoo.
UroniumMile"'F!.EO2A0•peollos pO}'IIIotf•00,000tGligibnndU&Io omployodin on •rontummilllocol6din Colorado, NeArizonaWyo"*'g. ScutPIIIOiWUhlnglon,
UtahIdahoNortDakota, OrogaondT-<11""'' ~-dwlng1p ho~odbagi nnlnuory 1,1!14an~endingonDoCIImllo3r1,1971.
B. DiHooo.Companublo -""" include potrkmo """"'"""rtaln non.rnalignont""Piwlory d"""' .,._,n othercll....,;c '"'""l dlo... a in'*., idnayuballiHue
irjury.
0w Tnnopor1oro:Al!:CA200Q•pecltlpaymentof$100,0il0ollgi ln~t~eYIIlnmp onye\ransportof unolenuet vlll11dium-unoon~!< m>m.. omiltl~ed lnColoradoNew
l\loxlo'"''"""·Wyoming,6oulll Dl,klohln~ Uta",do..,, NorthO..l, .. gon,a~~as at11\lin<bingthll pellodb"fjinniJai!IN1, 11M2,••omlingonDeoern•e31, 1971.
http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eap/rlslrpt/40422.htm 02/06/2015ReportEvaluatingthe Requestof the Governmentofthe Republicof the MarshallI... Page15of 18
Do.milndw"heAd. spoclllp-~~ a!IIC,OOOIllllndl>ldul-~~ ptUenlln ono ofIOI!I-·d-el o!he- Tu! lid\IIW18o,.,ofOimDophOdc
-toollnll.lllld----·opeciled~~
8.OINaa.AIIM*!eh,.,.afplly-1preHnoe, "~olmonl-- oftlofollowIJ"'CCIi- •-• (OINflllldlnll'lle!YmPh...,.,lou-.llllllli$myeloma,
......,-<l..........~.....-(.....,.tlfoinhoolsethep:dtl&ais~._.....,. _ld., ~11. -ln. ll.l. -bl.od_ gd bl.der,..,..........
Onlll~The Ad~ 8PII'fllllnl41fll5.0001DirldMCI-~jMIIICijNIIMCMIIIItla-ln"" .. ...._pIdI~aoprcled.molanu-devioe,
..,............. CIIMIR.
B.cx-.-Monoa.ptlfllc4>ollan,the-~onoofth•-0~-a: IWkornlll(olhorflendvanio~ole ..umullltlpamI, IIIJoon
~(-lhlnttodgldnctl-l, IIICI"""""'.......,oflh•IIIJnlld,.-or prM mrymot<,e..l.p..~~-CN.M.IIIo-.to D"'l'o-.lcler,
umary111-.llillCICII.o,.or llver(exootlt •...-hopeli1~).
VETERAN8.MlMNSTRA110N
VAng~d-oi-.MpollllltiollyiWioQonlc,u....Un-t!lllw~..........,.,..,.,.polloriar_.,......c_;IICWHitiii(Jnlllll~~di
potllillylatd odonomo; and lumeond..,,.......tllln.
DEPARTMeNO TferERGY;
Pdlllc.._ 11l&o39181;4Slit. 1664A-3!1731hlooqJIUmendad IIdioM: (1)CorIIU]Iamio10 ,..-.-&ocllon 3821{17) (sto1IIS4A-I!OiU.8.13141(17u),
(GIIorlllon -~--.e ~~M"A linltlll occ:upllliDnll--.reclllofr-Z1at-IIICIGIIIeiOCICUNdtiiiiNOIIIn IW9!nihl-.....-r41J11i.-•
"-.llaed Gl.-.liodaH NCelvell)'l""''*'l(eIGft1'4""'1'"'>-1.,-nfltlmlat-)ll*ichruJIHy••• uppertper....,t-..,..... ftlep""'llblllV ofCOUIIotion
.,. ~ -pllbtilhedundor-7(b) llftl!e(lCJNoM1(422CU.8.C. 4~ ...--..-be~ under-7(111(3) oloulfiAd.--10-...•
DUoRoqliAid10EllmD f'IGbtlbililoyfCouullon:
DOl........,_2CFRparIll!lloell-ollon.llelerm,_.,of--"""'~ ... _"'... .......,.,_andlllodlell-on proylll4DOl> dlm.m unclor
(aYoorafl*th.
{1) anceriiWiclbyICO.Icode) ferprlm.-ndlry _,_.,
(cl)Gindor.iagriOiil.
(eft~(lffl'l elaii'lll forswn-c•-ndlry-forwhlctllllln-lo alil:otyplnlarr-.,.
(I-inllllillo(fild&inllllor111t~n- a~rlilY cancerforwhidllimg-is1111e1yprimlry OIAGel).
~ lllls lnformalicnwllncludelllllllllforetelSiil""*"I-- inCfllqd, IOMU!tltiCOlillilldlutoM 8UOd8I JIINd--. Daoe- .,.11111
tllllng bUtpe~fn11dal(1law.._ rnlf,_(l.El), ~ nell1r0nl,lt~lOGJ) andbJdole-<-.,.. -CIIIIr- •1111- .-don.
AppomliaDTildeafRMiltiOft~l-- ....,._.,
RMI......_ Cl-T.....u.e.Ye*-~ (VA)u.s.l)opollmo.kdlic(OOJandttu.a.a.-- c1en...wDOl!)
VA
[Tumorsolh I~J
50.110C 1.000
1125.001
!25.001
1511 115(1 175.001
ISO.,IOCe ~
~l(!li 175,001
$50,00CI tl&o,OIX S126,00C
Canarrlb..-11blad®!'
t!:i150,CXll !iii,C ~
1100,001'l tliO,IlO( 7,5QC
ICancaoflie bcina
il50,001 $71
~!I(K $7!
$!0,00CI $150,0DC $126,0011
ti25,00C
http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rpt/40422.htm 02/0612015 ReportEvaluatingtheRequestofthe Governmentofthe Republicof theMarshalll... Page16of 18
--~~- ... on l!lopoood'-110....,..._Ailtp"'_1111,..nnlion-tv-ran..-ond111elnm!vo..-pn
:IJIOI1!onoi11Jlllallll.,-.,lfllllll!l-
-·.._ AlllooUih.llnpoodolo10..... 1 ... ,.....,._ ...-olylhat I _...,..d ,._.._...,,.!baNG,OOOIMifyoarIWOOI IISllldlllonto VAp-oolclld-ceraunder
h -n llllthll""""'""'- v.Mowawho wo-•1-ollba ~ oren.w -DIIIUIIcln P..,...,.oloo....,..IDrUIIpo...,...on'llin -IDOIIJVA,.......IIIion.
TileU.6. Deplllment.111.(DoJ)RadiodiDnElcpOIU'eCOIIIpenlllionAtiAmendmof2GOOupddd tht alaklll..-n lt.pnMdooo....aallon_....., as a llmp.llllll...,..,...t
UraniUmmn"- millofla\CI- Iran.,.,..,. .......,.. u ,...,.. .,.gGWIWinodllheNevodoTosl8ftUl'lniuWOIU,.,.coioingaDoJ poymoml.. oo oUallll.andorcoorUoln
ci~sto raooiMlldlliiiOIIIIMODnliGMIIIOftno!hoILS:~or !nq CGIIII*IIIIillpl'nlogram.
Th• U.S.o.p.rtmonu1E.nor(DOE)I!...,I.,Mo OooupaiOMllnHo~nnliotl PI!>IJI'IImAd.p-aorni*IMJi""'I_lllognoe ..e..o.l_.,.lClllIIit._..,.,..,_
d"'llopH-roftw""""lng olofllcllltyoltle DoplrofEnergy.~~onlompiO --o...; .........T~o ~'s -lojudgoclto bot"od-l10.llelyu
nol,..aled V!atemploymonin .-nlo-with gulololnia...tbylba DoporlmonlHtall\endHwnan .......,The_.., ..,......;la i"**lb.r ..- olllmp-aumpill'nlllnl,--'
poaplowhDon ..in...lllo elgl>lolor-n ........... nonrromthoit..........--....... , ... .......d....... ge..
The -CIIImt Tll>lnol(NCl)WI-~~- U In~ eniiJIIWI111!lpobrocO!he ......llllnda 10ldj- flllli!fradilllonllln- 1111'1-o1ofiMJ_~Ytn
-•rdo ... mldelo pooplt W1pe-d cond~I but.,.pokl aupoMkl~ iac:InI~I~Ymlle..onl. RMIGwlinmtnl g111e111N1Cl'llllllli10dooiormilowhiiiMIIIDII-....ft
-uld-ornllllello~>t roTllakll.-d,lh,utdnatllei......,Difotnp...,rt.
s .... .llopotl,prope...Sforlho CoiiiNIollho Q..oltt.RMI,D<o<:emb1o8r8bvDr.Sieve e!.dy.,ho1<1r
Fora....,_, J18 1!1d11-111l4),RMIG-m hill undollllbnan••- olnHiiDiaglcatcono:tll Tlllaetthlr""" WIISporo"""din•n01t_lh n, tho
Soclon 177Apeemant-.all4edclllcfllt1dilgndialllgicol mOIIaciMIH. Til eMI~ RodlolcllllcaSl tudyllM ,.nldlallonln lhoonvironmontond;alhtl..d ollood
crop;. iOIIaJldWiliiolllCI!tondIII•.. IYisol'"'"'1ic:anlolzo. ,.. ..we..oubHquonllrlnllrZeallhaonviranmonloiiWIIallalnallInM¥on> n....._.,hes .._ntvl""'""
prmouolldentificinlomllltlonaboutlho rudeoonlillladwllholnlllrnotionllllloommlll!.l,l.r.,out.lslllllll _...,lnd hlrllldets-- ""' ........_.,. IM
RonglllopR8101UomoPnlltljeQIl.rlll OKimiflltdlhehMofradiolionoxp-. ellpedalth)llaise••·
Tile Sllldy hes lloieml-.orfil~vily-...i. n.IIonvlronmonllllocllllo,.lh,.,.,_""""'"·T tdieootl•• "'"""'"' 01olumlllhoconlflliiiiM 10r.dation ,..,. .. ,.,
lrcpiG8IIo<olionlsllrauVhwo~dhT.estudyll>ll-.id...Ill loaolnodioacll¥ol'lllloulln.......,ofK""!/IfllnAIOIIIIIIIIIWi..... &tiolmao ond atolof._.ld1
localion•.
From111,e._,.11\'1of-llllle4Nivirlln- t. Btudriloblelooollrlllllll llllllnUllonIldM duom~ighthaw oecolivefdIlianvlronmonollncolbeenollhet.lling
progmm1111151.
TheStudyIIU IIIoestmllecltho _.,.Mlslllot-dbo en<OUnllntdbypeopMIIvlotdillo- .......llroughOU!thellaunby,..,.._ dO•- oniii4Mduol...... .- .. lho
•um artholl\omaldoNlltCIIWdoecllfromtheen-lrcnmlllll end lnlllCGIIinfGlmfoodllld d~nFkrrn111ectl""'llono,"Bludy""-.........- tho ,.of- 111.,.ioiondo1n
fie lour..... ,._dIll_.,_ Bikini,!n-11. RDngollpllld R011118- IIIo-- 1111..1_1.toe:Oivt<llolaut '"'"'tht nu!IIoii'IDunlolracllotolhtiotyel!lalningIntle
ell¥lmtunanlhn4imnllhad ID..... lalnotal..,._..H-. lhepnoill-Is ao-e-1118 pos•'billy!hol_...,IDl'lldaioDiopeoofiodinemar have been of
,.-.,... ooncem 11.1e..r•.PICUiatud ofthyrold..._IIIWJhcUI tho- -•*• impiom-d and lhollfdbotcompiii!MI.
AppendixF:~oencoo
IEC'FIDNSS.tANDU
lloytl!L llllltomoF!olll. Boi'ODeputtAselslonl~of -.1:.1 Aoi11o1ncllhoPocllloA10t.~ of lltate.lrr.The otl'fii:I.-C:1s.Onn and1'48-
EflorleinlhloMo111holllooorinpElofol'l""Conmilloe on ReoouHouoo ol Ropreoontaa-ono HIIM'ed6ialc.._, 1'11'S1e1"'MoJl11, 19N.WlllllngloD.C.
HamllonTF. RongllepRosalllenQ,ppc tnlminoryfllepOrlPori!. ,llflll'ljltolltro"'""IIIWI!Ont1a10wlhoso~ and'lllaa~e 011Rangllapls...IAwronc :Nem10ta
NolianlL~ RIPOitNo.UCRL-143880A,pril!001.
HamiiDII lickmlnD,C"""'doc. !1rDwT,lrLIIJ.Mordle!IIA,CoC.Mll'li.n. R,X.hl B,Al'llbngE.Llnalnb.U.S,IW RT,- G.lnaivi- .......,..._mo.-,.llltht~
llllnU: Ranseill>lellndIUIHiamanlsoppattj1a..2GDI). 'LlvonnentN.- IAIIoraleli)' RopoUCRL.-LR-14a80.0h,lno211DZ.,
HttnlllT.~D, eo.-oc:. -T. -J. MorchalllCox C,lllllllnolKioll-I(, ~My 0,1111RT,Pele,_ G.~radiatlon)IIQiaCiio Inmho.....lolng
lelond: -tak Jqnd ...alemonl•upport (Mo)I-Dooo-r ZOOLawrenoltLlvei!IN'lllonol'-ICilyRlpGnNo.UCRL-ui·1-l, Jll1e 2110211.
1-illflflAIOMiEonll'l'lg...R.ad"DIOQicolDmlilloneaBlldnlA: roepoOfIaIr-'-1. \lloml: IAEA,1B!lll.
loloE!won ~L.81.......oF.TrD1KIR,~ J(, .....HG.'"""' ........onlbaNio ollh1-ntk~ P....tlolho IAanii1IIU- flllllonwl""aiOIICal
Oluclyl.oiNithPhy-1"773(1):28U8t.
D.C:.:NRC.1M:hCounGi,~on Ra~l Well'ill" "111111111111--Rlldiolo-lot-mlll'll olRonat!IP ~!hRapoblloft"" .....llllllndL Walhinoton.
NaliONIIRNHJCh CouncJlE. vlluaUonofEneWIIIIkralf.lyIHIIoinmCtOI!Imilleoon Evlluoe.-.... ~ COnl8in......,Ad\llooronlbadBuien~ COimllallon
onllkldato!MiS,olomo.IMoohlnglon,D.ltlllionai.AcaclemPyre111,1912.
http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rpt/40422.htm
02/06/2015ReportEvaluatingtheRequestoftheGovernmentoftheRepublicoftheMarshaUI... Page17of18
t.aua11o1.1JJII• T-...11 IIMual..Nllliolaforlhend~ryur1 8 !iO1:1eT,1988.
- WL.NOIIII<NE,-on'l1', eonr.oa., 11111 *'..M- oltr._...,. ...,...._....-alsueoclaod ...... U.B.nuol-- .......I~M M-lllando.
1..-.noe ......HalloniiiAII>orldoryR..,ottHcl.UCRI.-I.1,ay21101.
Seli!rnan PJ.IIIIIofDr.Pa&IISdQ..,.,M,.O,M.P.H.. eplj1- llecnolaryforHtSludlesU.8~Of t'll"8)'.1ft!Tho atIIIICIUI'CIIImfal,lti-IM
flle..-.....ntEII...lllrlbdl...,__tt.IMga.llnlhe~anRMOUICh,-oiR....-..,.._CIIIIH~IIbdllc...ao-,Finll.._,lolaytt,111118,~DC.
l!ltnanend Gno!MIItJF-.a• at lie~ AoodleloQiwa,,fllepllbllca-loll-, ~Raflort~ farlhaCII*Ierllha-olfle Rtpullkollht
Mot...llll..-o-.r.lltt1e8Rlol,.,._oftldlofoGielo!~oiFnlan, M l_Nil-llands.
SinonBL--JC.f'llll*llpoiiMflrst~RadlllloglcaiM..-naf'lggnmoi118Rtrpulllicafll .o.3..,_'*'-nda.HNIIhl'flytlca18e7
Simon8L,- Wl. ThameiiC,T-U!. F.... B.llll,_,loI<F,olllngHJ.A~ CIIIPIIIependanlrConduldoM,.._._.IDDIIermlne CclqlloncoPII!Renalemlnl
Opllonsfar1haP.,plaoiRongellpAHeallhl'hytl1981b.1li:133-1S1.
SionoSLIPIIIom- JC.ACCIIII*I- Ofa!lllll....nd-mnllnllllnll of tJ7csln1ha.,_..-· ~~~~-~~~~ and"--1111111, 53:38a-377.
811)1m111N'._.,,...., P.~. OIIIICIDrala..GI......,.Aiab.o..-ntorflelm.tor. befoneTI!eHGunCamnoillottanRe-..- Rea....,~a......_end
.,.Ren111"~ "o"'.~ 1111f1 dk>IDgclelllablltlllionoll, n-h,lnlRot!ger.p Udl Atoll. •11. 19811.
T-..-. T,-MJ, TRillKit- 8L, FujlonK.T~T. T-KR, Al;rnori--N. OMomoH, ~NJ.- BL 1h)9aldia-inflo,_ lliondt:
flndlllgs DWt10 r-wotRI<Somdoi:TohdwUni\Hinllr f'NM.2001.
llplllfandI~~~~- - A.M aeriradlolagicll.-.d jlholog,..pllicOIIII...aPIIIIflllmlVdlnlllllle ncM•r~Mmlal U.,BDlparlmlloll!delg~No. ~11A-
1758,Juno 1981. .
BlhllngH, MouroJllleiiGnrteu.....,.eofACIIRodloaonDaHsAllsoda1odwllhIIIIAVl"'llMtd. ..VA:8.CahoolandA-. Mly 2000.
a.e.liiiAC.niiiNIE.RadiGaclle lllliotiDmOpetadonC.llle. 1111_,.of""' llld P.rti. .llecl81AIDmlaEnlriiYComlnlall, - VCII<petlllont Ofl'lceHand&arely
DMiiaftAviD- -la \&gel: ~and lnlbmllllan c.nl«. 1mili.
DNA.Co~of_-..t_hm_....,._,,945-1982-hn!DMA1211,V-1~U.B.-.......-tovh-I!IHIIIo~TI!MPO.WI"'*""""
o.c.Oe- -·Agency, 11179.
r<:RP.1- R_,.,,.ICiolloMofllo- Comml-on -...opc Po~iMIIonICRPPWiiclllaol~o, ec.m.rtolan.Roclologicol-..rlaOlclan~: f'lotas.1!IGO.
JoilCommiiN on-GEnli!IY (JC:Ae), The NaoiRidloa- Faii-QUiondb Efloon Man,Part1, Wlohlnglllft.D.C.11M7.
-n•f'• HallhlnlanoatoA- of thNIIIGMIUbnryofMoodldn•.eb poge'\11111 hrw1•mo.' AVIIIIothllp:-.nlm.nih.IOYimodlin•lull AoleanOo'Ifol1ldo!Q034~5.111m.
........ 20112.
Na11on1R1to- CounciHeldlh.....ar.....,..tlaw.... ofianlzingradldon:SEIWnldng1an D.C.:NA8.1980:181.
NlllianRtiiHR:hCounc:Th.lt- on~ aft~xpc~IIRIDIII ~W-«1 11~1110.BEIWI81Nftlf(anD.C.-:· ~- ........19811.
Polo.- K.CAIITI.LIIRAVOAirCo-•• ...rlllpoellPollllrftsftSoD~o-n.c. node.UA8G11-%0 ~..CA; La_,., u-....,.N.allontl l..abo1•t.fy,
__, WL,No_,. YE,~CL, l!lriltJlllrJL,- TA.MGUIIIMIf'llllWAa6. ot«/IC-IlL, V\tonItITile ......Uotallal- IWdi""""'*...,..Y' d..d-
-- H-I'IIJIICal'3(1):37-411,1tt7.
ShiiP fCl!- Wl. Repcr10III-nlilc diteclor.Elcp.oiMarai!Iltlllla...Amii1CIInii111pYtroamooltof•lout, WT1p, nllColllf'nlleel4.1Adll...rllm._..MD:
Nallll ICIIGIIResall-ll·h 1857.l!lilverlla,-pll'lforDlfenaNucteoAGen cWy8ahlnglanO,.C.)11110.
a-8L,OnhMIJC.I'1ndltlgooflloN-Ridlologicol ........._~..-tlld101haColllllotoltt. .. ~oolllhaMa-lllllllllk~1119 .4
...,_hn!M'nilllyOfF'ONign.wth, ao-lolflw~ofllle-1lllndl M , I!UN -I..-.!10960.11184.
limon Sl. G,..hJC.FindingofllAro1emr.,-11¥8 fllociCIIaglaiiMonPlggram a1tt RtpldiiMo:llhoMlllllll 1011. Pftyol73(~,_5 t,t7.
-CA. Bond'lP.Pllpialf_.. ...daslmel.l.) .'..'_...., .........Cl.oNiiaCASTLEP.lldfiGI'nlolrlaGnMlddencluno"''"Ktforl'nljWf-838(dela..
~CA: U6.- RadialotlcDltenso~- 1111111.
U.S.Depam1111ofEinRgy. Clollflll 1... llle I(OIIIIotoon:n-...r-~egocyot-.r-• (II'Od•cVInlll•llrlhd-. md wllotllo DepollmonloiEnerw lodolng
lllout1. ool*>glan,D.C.:DOe.1-.
u.a.NudM' RegulllllCaollmiaollll.llldoldt for.,....._..dldOn; Rnll rule,In: 10CfR Pod20, 5&FR2liM1, 141¥21,1811'1.
eo.....,..,,_,....... ..118"",'dlon1011(11)1)-Law•m t1.-· 11511.
011ceOfEIMnlnnlll9afelllllHolllNab of 4MIIeiiiii!VofllndRequHifar ~OM IDdohWipteill m'lliall c:onM-_iiM f- ._ flle(llDr11,2:~48Q!S.73.
oe...- are..tgyiOflor~ Bar.t111111III:tniNollcorAvoir.blllyoll'oPidfllequollforAppll-for1tc.-or~ Mni:olP~ugm in111R.,bicotlhe
Mmlld 11111ma11ed.ftea211125(May:ze,1971.
II!C110N8
http://2001~2009.state.gov/pleap/rlslrpt/40422.htm 02/06/2015 ReportEvaluatingtheRequestoftheGovernmentoftheRepublicofthe Marshall I... Page18of 18
Ocun DiviliOIIIorll.,_B Haula onSe- Cammillou""~-~lclns ...UMIIOPublicl..llwt74Bellc oIl~C,:aiKIIIV1,1987,
ChurohWf. Hillofal- olondiHlolal-1nucle.-tHtan-'dtnl 1181hlllonlllll·l'llldoenlh Tecllnlell-.nge WO!bhop ,.,..lqllt.ewMexico-,blll'12-15,
2DOI.WoiiHngl, .C.:U.DepartmenofEnorg,, orofEnvlrorralllllalM11110111men1.
HllmUIMT...,_~~~ IIIOjlnupllllldatdl.
lnt.moUCI!IIAlllmlcAgenqol.ppne~ lfllnltiCII,'_I principl• Il1IHnUpofconlllllinolld .._IAEA-'I'ECDOC-!III1. Ylennll:IAEA.1881.
lnlemaliOMIAIIElc JWAtencr~-onallliiiMIAtaU: PniiiiiCII-nlr RadlologlaAD.-nt R~ Sllllol.\1118:EA1,-.
lntomolioI om-lon onAadloloQillnMcllanPndKiimai'I!PtlMI:SlluallonsDI R'll_, ExposureI,CRI"&. AnnalsoflheiCRP 2000,2.9(lnues 1&ZJ.
MouroJ. S-...nlbV JohnMaurobeiGretheCommlonRuoones ngonlngthe ollluJnuclNr clll181-ti•nandruantomont...,iltheM111hallltllndau..s..o1_
"'-preuntallves,Ml)'11,1999.
MctWM RR,P-. R,Wl..,. ITheNdlologloel-nupofe-ID .... I. OlllonoiNucl1u9r81. -'r~t•
RDIIIIII l. PllllpsWA,-ME,Cll!lBR,CGIII'Ic;tReulleumllfiiDI~nul-..... doMI forruidonlo,..llltltng E!n-1Ul/etmalNidcroii..JibaRIJ)ONo.
UCJU..53111G,oll1880.
Roili-1'\.GIII'CL PhiMPtWA.Enjtbllolllnd IIM•ment. I.MienoeUvermo.. aliot.IIGnllcNy RNo.UCRL.-63805.ll11117.
-M. BogenKT,ConnodoCI..An....,dDII-·-l oU.Sn t.-...-·-I!IW Atol."l UvemiONNlllonllloiiOIIReportNo.UCRL-JD-1223681,9t5.
RDIIIJDIL.lll- EL'Th...-.on rl(cdll~ll radloi1UillidniiiiiC-lar relildngtllo rediologlcaldooatomumlng popurormorn1~a a1silOu.s.
O.p1rlmenlol Efte'WIIIIIolllral)lln0nl8ympotilim, S..ion 17,19118.
Robllon WL.Conrlc~.BotenI<TUtlfAllldolO--omont, a.--enoU'letmalN....,LaiiD -._otN,oUCRI.-LR·t ~ctobeta-.
-. WL,~C. Bl•ortM, BIDIr ,IIUIIItonl Re-llf l!ildniAklll-•test llftllnlllmaliDnlliS¥1!110mHiclnlllonofenvitonmontR1dloacli¥a"'-llldue •
..._ma_A Eneinglel~.IAI:A-SMo:Ne.AIIIIIglln, VA, N88b.
Si:mmSI..,Cn-JC.I'llldloftilNellono!ROaclioiDvi1ll.Rapublleollhl-1-, ~Report. Mlo)we:-. \eM,
-81mo,.8t.;..Robieon·~cme·MS;'r-ob..,_.~.B;-Bo.....-.K .F.;--IJ'ltUincijIONU.Ho11 *Com" 'iiIilDJiiiiiiiil RoooWiiiiiiit
Optlonof<>rtile PeoplufRoAtoN.Ht111Pbyoio111177,3:1311-161.
U.S.DePirlmontofErlo'.llklogllogades:CDIIng Dllld-111id11' MPOIIMI)CilcdDII-ID lhairIIMronmenbiloon•quono11. W.ehlo.c.:u.sDOE,0111a1Envl.,.,.nlal
MlnlgemenlJ.o,...Y19117,.........
SEC1JON1U
http://2001-2009.state.gov/p/eap/rls/rpf/40422.hnn
02/06/2015MarshallIslandsseeks support for ICJcasesagainstnuclearstate- MarshallIslands ~ ... Page l of 2
l••tetotNew& ·ropia; • l'aclfi<: l'.rchiw
~--<-··-·-·-------·-· _______ ,_._ ....
Marshall Islands seeks support for ICJ ~!.~
cases against nuclear state
l'romn'OOO MAJUAO, Mlmih~ ltalds ---The Marshlllll•landlookin1ocivil society
Nt-;WSIPACNT;WS andthelnhlmationalconununltfoTsupport InlllllaW!~inst nucl~r
weapons stalealth lternali<!ClourtofJustia!ccordingto dlgJlitfroml;
Newa theI"""""• visitHiroshimaMd Nagaokl forthe69thannivenary otile
Muol1l Augltll4 atomk bombings of lhe cities.
Topics 'We-trying togetsupp!WIfrom thegenerapublicandfrom•11the
Ma,.hftUIslands orga•11zarioJuclhaa~lns nuclearweapons: saidAnlll!tleNl>k.dcpl.llychief
cfmifloiooatheMal'llhalIlslondsllmllaasyinJnpan~<:Vnlln "'G\hview
Slwe thllllllllde
l!mail I<yodoNews.
Fll(ebook
Twitter On April 2thePacifiisland natibn:~~ nie ctase9ttiNI.Cone each
ogainsl lheofreoogni7.edm>Cler eapon$1ateo-the United StaBritain,
Frat'IR,uss ln~China - a• W\!1a1s lncli"'P,ki81an, w.el and North 1<orea,fur
th('alle~ t.lluntofulfiiJobUgalloMto punu1~ellminotlouof nuclear
weaponsundertlteNudnt' No!M'roUier.llionTreaty.
The Marshal IIslands, wu,.United~ amducted ~nucle l!rIIet~_, Latestedition
1946and 19.58,dain11 the nint •wntrh!s hawtoliDJIOilbv Nlg~IstJ
"pursPe negotiatiin!jOOCfaIl\leffectivmt'llsures nlito cessatiofl
themtd•r aml!lrac ~t•ntW'Idate and 10nucl-Jisarma~ al.ona trnty
ongeneralandcompletedisarmament under Wkt .and tHoctInternational
control"
IndlaPakistaatldIsr•el are notmembeoftheNPTand North Koreawithdrew
from llrt~gl it2e03.lsrnlhas noadmittedto~ng nucleawupons
butI~'ullp«<edofdoing so, "'illlelndla,Pald"'-nand NortltKoreaha•e
COI1dtldenudl!i!rweapon' ttstB.
MlkedIfany govenunenlShavemnmout in supporoftlwwuntty'scauae,Note
said, "Right now we haven1 really IJOHonany pooitive *POAJII-.but wa'w beel\
~ng supportfromindMdual orgaulzaliOli!iJnWia, NorwBrilllIapa11.
RuS!IiaI.t glws ushope. •
Pasteditions
Noter..preJentth ~ arslutllllll1ndsat Hirosfllrna'sonllualcer.mony marking
the Aug. 6 bombing and NqnsakAu& 9 ceumony. Getthe printeditofu
AccordingtoNoteand AbaccaMadctison,afom111ranl8111slandl-or, the fslmuloBll!lulfi&
II11of tht:aSOwasdriven by.along-heldfrustrationwldtllw UnlhldSmtes delivered""'"")'mouth.
OVH itsdenial oFresponsibility for rM!ialion-h!lated health issues among Finclaal...-....
islanders.
"In Jalli'f1C$lel.le)lhave blIn Marshalft,we have'ribomb,-Maddison
""id of peCipk-afleded by 111dilltil)n.
In MarchtheMarsloalllslilndsll'lllyanesince C...UeB.-.vo,the U.S.
hydrogen bomb Nit believed to have spread llmJ88 tiNnd nation.
Nnte'sand Maddlson'sfamiliesarefromBlldniAtolland l{ongelapAtoll.
""'f>EdEvew,him along willllwwataAtollandUllrlAtoll-tl"' healliest
hit by the Bravo flllloul.
"TTte(fsayingonlyonebomb~ the islllnwhen themw<m ~7atomic
andbyd.ogen bombs,Maddlsonsaid.Many of thWets4N alitocJ
contaminated to inh..bit safuly.
MaddisonvisiteHiroshimaand NagasakitoaKend 1aJfiVCI111oofntheJapan
CouncilagainstAandHBc>mb& on, eoth argestantinudeaacm- 1roupoltn
Japan.
ThoJtwo dlgnltllrlesthey"'""" callon.people oignan onlim-petitiat
nuc:War.zero.ergan~ eurport for lheMarshalllslandll' c:aI.CJ.he Latestraaos
"'we'renotsoh15to t;a loofsupport frocoulllries.lhlndl'l'idualpeop1t! 1. Mm 01MRy·Au&lraiia: PadflcTndeAdviser
<anhelp.1'batif whavea lotonul'llbeno."Mddl5<$11ld".'l'ho>planeEisrth
our.I~d.esn'tbeloltoanlynine•'OlUllries." defends PACBRPlus
2. Tut14 Api'·FiDFATsuppcrt furNRl.'sfadfic
StraNsr
:,\. Tt<t14Af'l'·FIJI:8olnlmarPmo o.,...lns
mlfOili"'! behind pla"Opell UpGovt
_or viewman: artides relatedto th- topics: schools
4. MQn l3 Af'l'• Pi': Mon!excwptsI OGOM
• Marshlllll&lands report:
5. ~~ lJ Apr• Pip:NFPadlson llalni111toaem
·-'"tr1114!rscela;~rtides: attenl'<lnlmteadt!rs Mt!etlng
6. M11113AjlT·Fiji:SomeMOCR.mmmendations
'1.M01•l3Apr-PijiIslandsBuslnaMoreMOG
Recommendation&
8. M01113Apr• r~if:jl's24Electio:vporntow
published
9. Thll09Apr-RelruildingVanuatu AlterTCPvm:
Howdo you prepnc fora monJterttorm?
10. •Wt!l08Apr -Rebuilding VanuatuAfter1'C
Pun: How do youpreparefoaJIIOIIII•stonn1
http://www .islandsbusiness.com/news/marsha ll islands/5994/marshal 02/ 06i /s 0l15ands-seeks-s...
Preliminary Objections of the United Kingdom