Comments of the Marshall Islands on the written reply of India to the question put by Judge Cançado Trindade at the public sitting held on the morning of 16 March 2016

ro ·Page 1 of 3 2016-03-30 15 31'28 31205248246 From: Van Den Blesen Ktoostra Advocate

VANDENBIESEN KLOOSTRA ADVOCATEN

DEGROENEBOCHT

TotheRegistrar ofthe Kelzersgrt 152
I016GD Amsterdam
InternationalCourtofJustice
TheNetherlands
H.E.Mr.PhilippeCouvreur,Registrar
T+31(0)2073718 69
PeacePalace F+31(0)205248246
2517KJDen Haag
lnf«[email protected]
www.vdbkadvoceue.n

alsbyfax:070-3649928

3 pages

Amsterdam, 30 March2016

: D201300l8
Filenumber

Re : Comments onthe written reply to the question put byJudge
Cancado 'frindade submitted byIndia, RMI v.Iodin

Excellency,

1havethe honortoherewithsendyoutheconunentsoftheMarshallIslandsonIndia'swritten

rcplyto the questionpJudgeCancadoTrindadattbe Court'ssittingof 16march2016

at10 am.

Accept,Sir,tassuranceofmyhighesesteem..

~r~~~ ·

Ptp,bnn denBiesen,

db-AgentofthRepublicoftheMarshallIslands

bcforetheInternationalCourtofJustice

·,
•

•:CV.I'IfSPI1JAt~C:HKlFRKOTICHDS6t1A:ffEI'.OfO~llZfM(bS.V.N \~l(AllLlNll l(illlIUJÀi'/l!!
,II~MUr~I.r lt1IT ICN.IOJNT\'1-l!CHIIM'~I'<OWRI1~CI.1\CM.CCO'tRCO
.t.SC'lA1'.KNIRI\tR'111'o~.l17To. Page 2 of 3 2016·03-30 15.31 28 (G31205248246 From; Van Den Blesen Kloostra Advocate

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

OBLIGATIONSCONCERNING NEGOTIATIONS RELATING TO CESSATION OF
THE NUCLEARARMSRACE ANDTO NUCLEARDISARMAi\-IENT

(Marshall Islandv.lndia) (Jurisdic:tion)

Comment! orthe Marshall Islands

to the repsubmitted on 30 Marcb 2016 by IDdiato the questions of

Judge Cançado TriDdade

•

l. India'sresponsetoJudgeCançadoTrindade'squestionconfinnsa pointmadebythe
MarshallIslandsin paragraph9ofits replyto thisquestion,nameiythat"Indiahasnot

squarclacceptedtheobligatio.as setforthby theInternationalCourtofJustiones_
ofcustomaryint.cmationallaw,"asto whichissue"therefore,thereis adisputebetween
theParties."Indeed,iitsresponseIndiadoesnotappeartoacceptanyformof a

customazyinternationallawobligationrelattonegotiationsonnucleardisarmament.

2. Tndia'sresponseismainlydevotedto contcndingthatUNGAresolution,eventhose

welcomingthe AdvisoryOpinionof8July 1996,donot demonstratesufficientopinio
juris tosupporttheexistenceoftheruleof customarylawforwhichtheMarshallIslands

is advocating.TheMarshallIslandsdoesnotacceptthisasthecorrectapproaclo
analysisofthe questionoftherclcvanccofUNGA resolutions.

3. TheMarshallIslandscontcnds,asstatedinthe.firstparag:rof therep1y,thata
customaryobligationto pursueingoofaithandconcludcnegotiationsonnuclcar
disarmamentwasrecognizedbythe Courtin its1996AdvisoryOpinion..Regarding

UNGAresolutions,theMarshallIslandsstatedat paragraph7:"Withregardto the
attitudeofStatestowardstheresolutionsadoptedafter1996,particularlythosewhicb
clearyaf.finnthèexistenceof ageneralobligationtopursueingoodfaithnegotiations

leadingto nucJcdisarmam thinatitudeconstitutesanexpressionofopi1ouri~·
whichsupportsandconfinnstheCourt'srecognitionin its 1996AdvisoryOpinionthat

thisobligationis imposedbyarulehavinga customarystatus."TheMarshallIslands
wouldaddherethatthevotingrecordscitedby Ind i~notprovideevidenceof States
rejectingtheCourt'srecognitionofa customaryobligation.

.,
4. FurtherdiscussionofUNGA resolutionsandothcrfactorsrelatingtotheexistenceand
1
natureoftheobligationofcustomaryinternationallaw,includingNPTArticleVIand the
AdvisoryOpinion,isa taskforthe meritsstageof theseproceed. India·s responseTo· Page 3 of 3 2016·03-30 15 31:28 (GMn 31205248246 From· Van Den Blesen KloostraAdvoCl

does,indeedand undeniablyso,demonstratethatIndiaandtheMarshallIslandshave

opposing viewsastotheexistenceandcontentofsuchanobligation.Thewrittenandoral
pleadingshavealsoamplydemonstratedopposingviewsonanother.relatedfacetof the

dispute,namelywhetherIndia'sconductisinbreachoftheobligation.