Nuclear weapons, conflict resolution and the International Court of Justice

Posted: 7th May 2025

Parliamentarians, youth and other civil society representatives addressed the States Parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at the United Nations on Wednesday last week (April 30).

A number of them, including reps from UNFOLD ZERO partners, urged the governments to reduce the risks of nuclear war and advance global nuclear disarmament by replacing nuclear deterrence with common security. In particular, they called upon governments to enhance the role of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to resolve international conflicts and help provide security through law not war.

Common security, nuclear disarmament and sustainable development

“Enhancing the use of common security mechanisms, such as the United Nations and the ICJ, to bolster national and regional security can enable states to gradually phase out reliance on nuclear deterrence and military defense and redirect resources toward climate protection and sustainable development,” said Hon Ms Rabea Abouras, Member of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament (PNND), a co-founding organization of UNFOLD ZERO.

Ms Abouras is a leading parliamentarian from Libya, a country which relinquished its nuclear weapons program in 2003 and has resolved a number of its international disputes through the International Court of Justice.
 

Role of the International Court of Justice

“The ICJ has proven its value in resolving nearly 200 cases, with all parties to the disputes accepting the court’s decisions in most cases,” said high-school student Mr Rehan Mahmood on behalf of Youth Fusion.

“But many disputes don’t reach the court for resolution because less than half of UN Member states accept its compulsory jurisdiction. We therefore support the declarationmade by Japan, Liechtenstein, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Romania, Spain, Switzerland and 23 other countries calling on all countries to accept ICJ jurisdiction.”

 

“The International Court of Justice has demonstrated in numerous contentious cases and advisory opinions that it can successfully address aggression including the threat or use of nuclear weapons, territorial conflicts and other threats to the peace,” said Ms Sophie Rigg, Strategy Advisor for the World Federalist Movement-Institute for Global Policy, a co-founding organization of UNFOLD ZERO.
 
“Despite its lack of direct enforcement powers, compliance with ICJ decisions is very robust. In 2023, for example, ICJ President Joan Donoghue told the UN Security Council that there has been compliance with the vast majority of cases decided by the International Court of Justice to date,” reported Ms Rigg. “Increased use of the court – and broader acceptance of the jurisdiction of the ICJ – would build confidence in the capacity of common security to replace nuclear deterrence.”
  

The Climate Nuclear Nexus

Jule Schnakenberg, World’s Youth for Climate Justice, promoting the ICJ case on climate change in front of the court.  The ideas and proposals on common security, the ICJ, nuclear disarmament and climate change presented to the NPT plenary meeting were followed up in side-events on May 1 which UNFOLD ZERO cosponsored entitled The International Court of Justice and the Climate-Nuclear Nexus and Common security and nuclear deterrence in a turbulent world.

The climate-nuclear nexus event explored the impact of the 1996 ICJ Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, its relevance to the pending ICJ Advisory Opinion on Climate Change, what we can expect the ICJ to deliver in the climate case and how to maximize its impact.

The ICJ opinion could, for example, strengthen subsequent climate litigation in national and regional courts as well as climate protection action in multilateral forums including the Conferences of States Parties to the UN Climate Convention (COPs). It might also include follow-up contentious cases in the ICJ on climate change, challenging specific states that continue to violate their obligations to protect the climate for current and future generations.
 

Common security and nuclear deterrence in a turbulent world

The second event explored common security alternatives to nuclear deterrence, including enhanced use of the ICJ and good offices for peace and mediation (such as those of the UN Secretary-General and Switzerland), and how to encourage governments reliant on nuclear deterrence to replace this with common security.

In general, the statements and side events held that in our increasingly inter-connected and globalized world, common security mechanisms including the ICJ have the relevance and potential to meet current and emerging security issues, reduce tensions, resolve international conflicts, build accountability for climate protection and ensure sustainable peace (see Common Security v. Nuclear Weapons: How to replace the current reliance on nuclear deterrence with sustainable security for all). Yours sincerely
UNFOLD ZERO