Suchergebnisse

This Article explores the limits of judicial settlement of nuclear-weapon disputes through a case study of the Marshall Islands' cases against India, Pakistan and the UK before the International Court of Justice in 2016. It posits that judicial settlement is limited mainly by the quality of the arguments and evidence submitted by the disputants, not by any limitations inherent in judicial settlement with such politically sensitive disputes. The lawyers in the Marshall Islands' cases should have taken greater care in crafting their arguments and in tying them explicitly to Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and its customary equivalent.