International Conference on Nuclear Weapons and International Law, New York, 1987 August 29-1987 August 31

Online content

Fullscreen

PLAZA 9-4600

LAW OFFICES

WOLF POPPER ROSS WOLF & JONES

845 THIRD AVENUE
NEW YORK, N.Y, 10022

CABLE “"WOPOROW NEWYORK

March 22, 1984

Dear Colleagues:

Enclosed is outline of a possible Soviet-US
Conference drafted by Dick Falk for discussion at the
meeting with the Soviet delegation at my home,

322 Central Park West, Apt. 11A, on Sunday April lst
at 4 P.M. Buffet will be served.

ee | yours,

MP:ml1j
Encl. a
ocr Elliott L. Meyrowitz

John H. E. Fried

Peter Weiss

Jean G. Zorn

Robert L. Boehm

Richard A. Falk

International Law and Nuclear Weapons:
A Conference Proposal

(drafted III/18/84 by Richard Falk)

There exists an opportunity for international law and lawyers to
reinforce and help shape a growing societal consensus around the central
proposition that nuclear weapons are inconsistent with the security and
well-being of society at the state and global level. In this setting,
initiatives within the state have taken place during the last few years.

The Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy is illustrative of an attempt by
lawyers to mobilize support for national and international prohibitions
on all phases of reliance on nuclear weaponry. These efforts were always
receptive to the need for transnational coordination, especially with
respect to the two superpowers. Just as medical specialists from the
United States and the Soviet Union have cooperated to warn the peoples of
the world that there is no medical recovery from nuclear war, it is time
for cooperation between lawyers and jurists of these two countries on
matters of international law. This cooperation should be extended to
other nuclear powers, and beyond, in the spirit of transnational professional
concern and in a mood of urgency.

There should be adequate effort to balance a serious discussion of the
issues, including cross-national differences of approach, with the use of
conference to make an impact on public opinion. Selected journalists and
representatives of professional lawyers’ organizations should be invited
as observers. A small committee should be designated at the outset to draft
a joint statement for approval. A second committee might meet to develop
a joint research and publications program. Efforts should be made to tape
and disseminate proceedings (WBAI, WGBH, etc.). The conference record should
be published rapidly and distributed widely. Existing literature should be
available in some convenient form to participants, including translations of
some leading Soviet writings.

What follows is a proposed outline of a conference between law specialists
from the Soviet Union and the United States on international law and nuclear

policy (weapons, tactics, strategic doctrine, production, testing, research

and development, individual responsibility).

Day One: Introduction and Analysis

Opening Plenary: Welcoming Speech and Response on the Challenge,
Urgent Need, and Political Opportunity (representative leaders

of lawyers' groups in both countries) (also leading figures

should be solicited for statements and participation)

Lunch

Afternoon Plenary: Nuclear Weapons and International Law: An

Introduction (one main presentation from each country on the
general relevance of international law to the use and threat

of nuclear weapons) (relation to wider purposes of United

Nations, including the goal of elimination of war as a social

institution)

Dinner (invited public figure as speaker)

Evening Workshops (optional?)
Workshop I: The Law of War and Indiscriminate Warfare (taking

- account of World War II, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the
absence of a treaty of prohibition; explaining the relevance

of international law under these circumstances)

Workshop II: Nuclear Weapons and Self-Defense (evaluating claims

that deterrence is "defensive"? examining role of nuclear
weapons in post-1945 superpower relations and diplomacy;

can nuclear weapons be safely abolished?)

Day Two: Working Toward Prohibition and Abolition of Nuclear Weapons
Morning Plenary: Taking Steps to Promote the Goals of Prohibition

and Abolition (role of legal experts, calls for official action
to implement No First Use, Freeze, other specific proposals)

(panel of 4-6 speakers dealing with various aspects)

Lunch (call for cooperative efforts by leaders of both delegations)

Afternoon Plenary: Report of Committees on Conference Statement and
on Permanent Joint Working Group for Cooperation by Lawyers to

Achieve an Effective, Total Prohibition on Threats and Uses of

Nuclear Weapons (introductions to discussion by rapporteurs or

chairpersons of each committee)

Conference Conclusions: Descriptive Summary by Conference Rapporteur
and Inspirational Summary by Co-Chairpersons (including research ©

and action programs, including if possible, subsequent follow-up

meeting in the Soviet Union).

fede OO pr

Report a ae Popper to Executive Committee

re Conference Between Association of Soviet Lawyers
and Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Polic

in Moscow July 23 to July 26, 1984

At the invitation of the Association of Soviet Lawyers
three representatives of the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy
were delegated to meet with a committee of the Soviet lawyers to
discuss the possibility of organizing a conference on subjects of
mutual interest.

The reprsentatives from the Lawyers Committee were Martin
Popper, Saul Mendlowitz and Richard Falk. Richard Falk cancelled at
the last moment because of professional commitments in Geneva,
Switzerland. The representatives from the Association of Soviet
Lawyers were Professor Vadim Sobakin, Vice President, Professor
Grigori Tunkin, Vice President, Rafael Saakov, Vice President,
Abraham Jorish, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, Magazine, “Soviet State and
Law", and Sergei Plekhanov, Chief of a Department, Institute of U.S.
and Canadian Studies, USSR Academy of Sciences. The meetings took
place over a three day period and were held at the Headquarters of
the Association of Soviet Lawyers.

The discussions were extensive and lively. Each member
of both delegations took an active part in the discussions. At the
opening session, the representatives from the Lawyers Committee
suggested that the conference take place in 1985 in the United

States on the basis of the proposal which had been submitted at a

prior meeting held in New York City. A copy of that proposal is
attached. We made clear that our proposal was submitted for
discussion purposes only and that we understood that the ultimate
agenda would have to be agreed upon by both organizations.

The Soviet lawyers stated that, in the main, they were in
agreement with our proposal. They emphasized their interest in
making the conference as multilateral as possible. In that
connection, they suggested the value of observers from other
countries and international legal organizations, particularly from
countries possessing nuclear weapons. They also urged participation
by scientists and physicians. To our suggestion that public figures
from both countries should be involved, they agreed to make efforts
to persuade important public figures from the Soviet Union to
participate but were not certain about how successful they would be
in this connection. The Soviet lawyers felt that the conference
should be carefully prepared and suggested the autumn of 1985 as the
earliest feasible time. They urged that both they and _ should
know well in advance of the conference what the positions of the
various participants will be. They suggested that it would be
advisable to exchange papers before the end of this year on the two
major reports to be delivered, one by the American lawyers and one
by the Soviet lawyers.

Our Soviet colleagues stressed that the major reports

should not be considered as the official position of either™
Organization. It was also agreed that the conference itself issue a

statement and that, if possible, a very preliminary draft of such a

statement be exchanged by the end of this year.

At our penultimate meeting the Soviet lawyers proposed the

following agenda for the conference:

1. Norms ne Relations Between the Nuclear Powers.

2. Prohibition of First Use.

3. Total Test Ban.

4. Consolidation of the Regime of Non-Proliferation of

Nuclear Weapons.

5. Freezing Nuclear Arsenals.

6. Preventing the Militarization of Outer Space.

7. Insuring Safety of Nuclear Objects - Power Stations.

8. Increasing the Efficiency of the Principle of Non-Use
of Force.

We added the following items to which the Soviet lawyers

reacted favorably:

|
1. Self-defense, reprisal and retortion. ete

2. Illegality.

4. Crimes against humanity.

5. Individual responsibility.

6. International institutions.

7. War, the abolition thereof.

We agreed to submit the proposals to our Executive

3. Criminality.
Committee at the earliest possible opportunity and to inform the

Soviet lawyers of our views.

It was suggested that the length of the reports be from 10

to 15 pages. There was agreement that simultaneous translation

rf
a

facilities were important and that everything possible should be
done to reach a broader area of the legal community and the public
through the use of adequate press and public relations personnel.

There was considerable discussion of financial problems. |

The Soviet lawyers indicated that they were ready to finance their

travelling expenses to the conference but beyond that sought

information as to how the conference itself and expenses connected

therewith would be financed. There were discussions as to whether a
the. conference should be sponsored by our committee or jointly
sponsored. Our Soviet colleagues were willing to do either and we
said that we would raise this question with our Executive
Committee. There were strong feelings on the part of the Soviet
lawyers that the conference should not be an end to itself but that
it should be thought of as the beginning of an on-going
collaboration among lawyers on a worldwide scale. They suggested
that, based upon the experience of the physicians, the conference
should lay the ground work for the formation of an international
organization of lawyers against nuclear war.

We told our Soviet colleagues that we have given thought
to Princeton or Columbia University as possible locales for the
conference and we emphasized the considerable task we had ahead of
us to raise the necessary funds. We also impressed upon them the
importance of public figure participation both for fund raising and

the impact of the conference.

In addition to the meetings with the Soviet lawyers, we met

with leaders of the Soviet Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear

War, the Scientific Research Council for Peace and Disarmament, the
Science Information Coordinating Council of the State Committee for
Science and Technology of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, and the
Institute of the United States and Canadian Studies.

We were impressed with the level of all of the discussions
and with the efforts which are being made to acquaint the entire
Soviet population about the consequences of nuclear war. As in our
country the physicians have been the leading force in these efforts

and their work in the international field has been extremely

significant.
Conclusions and Recommendations

It is reasonable to draw the following conclusion from the
meetings held in Moscow. The Soviet lawyers have an affirmative
attitute towards participating in a conference such as we proposed
provided that the conference is carefully prepared, that the reports
and papers have a substantial quality, that the organization and
form of the conference are such that it will reach a reasonably
broad audience and that the conference will lay the groundwork for
continued international collaboration, including the possibility of
the formation of an international legal organization dedicated to
the reduction and ultimate elimination of nuclear weapons.

Obviously, the task is a formidable one and we must decide
immediately whether we are up to it and ready to undertake the many

responsibilities involved in organizing it.

I suggest that there be no further delay on the matters of
the agenda and sponsorship. These should be decided at the October
10th meeting of the Executive Committee. I suggest also that a
Conference Committee be established consisting of members of the
International Committee plus such other members as the Executive
Committee decides should be added. It should be composed of people
who are capable of dealing with the scholarly and administrative
tasks which must be undertaken and who have the kind of
relationships outside our Executive which will help to raise the
necessary finances and insure the kind of participation needed to
make the conference a success. In other words, the Conference
Committee cannot be simply a talking and policy making group. It
must be prepared to dedicate a substantial amount of time between
now and a year from now to the organization of the conference. We
must decide whether such a group is available. If not, and I am
serious about this, we should decide now that we cannot pull it
off. Our credibility is at stake. Of course, as you Know, I
believe that a well organized conference can make a very valuable
contribution to the movement against nuclear war.

The matter of finances is crucial. I estimate that between
$50,000 and $100,000 must be raised for the various expenses
involved, including rent, equipment, lodgings, travel expenses,

entertainment, etc., etc.

I do not believe we can raise the necessary funds €@€xcept

through foundations. At present we are not equipped to deal with

that problem without the services of an expert who knows how to

draft effectivce presentations, has some experience as to which
foundations are most likely to respond favorably and, with our help,
will establish the necessary kind of relationships with the right

people. You will note that I said "with our help." That is because
I believe that among us and members of our Consultative Council
there are persons who are in a position to open doors to the right
places.

We must decide also how the Executive Director and

Administrative Secretary are to be involved in all this, keeping in

mind that our organization has many items on its agenda. I ask you
|

to give thought to all of the above before the meeting on October

10th so that our. discussion can be as concrete as possible.

International Law and Nuclear Weapons:
A Conference Proposal

(drafted I1I/18/84 by Richard Falk)

The Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy is illustrative of an attempt by

lawyers to mobilize support for national and international prohibitions

on all phases of reliance on nuclear weaponry. These efforts were always
receptive to the need for transnational coordination, especially with

respect to the two superpowers. Just as medical specialists from the

United States and the Soviet Union have cooperated to warn the peoples of

the world that there is no medical recovery from nuclear war, it is time

for cooperation between lawyers and jurists of these two countries on
matters of international law. This cooperation should be extended to

other nuclear powers, and beyond, in the spirit of transnational professional
concern and in a mood of urgency.

a joint statement for approval. A second committee might meet to develop

a joint research and publications program. fforts should be made to tape

and disseminate proceedings (WBAI, WGBH, etc.). The conference record should
be published rapidly and distributed widely. Existing literature should be
available in some convenient form to participants, including translatiows of
some leading Soviet writings.

| What follows is a proposed outline of a conference between law specialists
from the Soviet Union and the United States on international law and nuclear
policy (weapons, tactics, strategic doctrine, production, testing, research

and development, individual responsibility).

Day One: Introduction and Analysis

Opening Plenary: Welcoming Speech and Response on the Challenge,
Urgent Need, and Political Opportunity (representative leaders

of lawyers' groups in both countries) (also leading figures

should be solicited for statements and participation)

Lunch

Afternoon Plenary: Nuclear Weapons and International Law: An

Introduction (one main presentation from each country on the

general relevance of international law to the use and threat
of nuclear weapons) (relation to wider purposes of United

Nations, including the goal of elimination of war as a social

institution)
° = cs we
Dinzer (invited pebtiic tygure as speaker)

Evening Workshops (optional?)
Workshop I: The Law of War and Indiscriminate Warfare (taking

' account of World War II, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the
absence of a treaty of prohibition; explaining the relevance
of international law under these e4¢cumstances)

Workshop Il: Nuclear Weapons and Self-Defense (evaluating claims
that deterrence.is "defensive"? examining role of nuclear
weapons in post-1945 superpower relations and diplomacy;

can nuclear weapons be safely abolished?)

Day Two: Working Toward Prohibition and Abolition of Nuclear Weapons

Morning Plenarv: Taking Steps to Promote the Goals .of Prohibition

a ae

and Abolition (role of legal experts, calls for official action

to implement No First Use, Freeze, other specific proposals)

(panel of 4-6 speakers dealing with various aspects)

.
4
=

Lunch (call for cooperative efforts by leaders of both delegations)

a
Afternoonm—Pienary: Report of Committees on Conference Statement and
on Permanent Joint Working Group for Cooperation by Lawyers to

Achieve an Effective, Total Prohibition on Threats and Uses of

Nuclear Weapons (introductions to discussion by rapporteurs or

chairpersons of each committee)

Conference Conclusions: Descriptive Summary by Conference Rapporteur

and Inspirational Summary by Co-Chairpersons (including research

and action programs, including if possible, subsequent follow-up

meeting in the Soviet Union).

List of Soviet visitors, members of the Association of
Soviet Lawyers (ASL)

1: aes Saakov, Rafael R. Vice-President of the ASL;
(leader of the group) Head of the Department of Cultural
Affaire,Union of Soviet Societies |

for Friendship and Cultural

° | Relations with Foreign Countries 4

2. Mr. Shakhmuradov,Konstantin F, Executive Secretary of the ASL |
3. Mr. Vlasihin,Vasiliy A. - Member of the Board of the ASL;

Senior Research Fellow (Law),
The Institute of U.S. & Canadian
- Studies (Moscow)

4, Mme. Zhigulenkova,Valentina V. Member of the Board of the ASL;
Judge, Deputy Chairperson of
the Moscow Regional Court (in
charge of civil panel)

renmgprre ine red CO ome vers
a

5. Mr. Plekhanov,Sergey M. - Professor of Political Science;
Head of the Department, The 7A
Institute of U.S. & Canadian .
Studies (Moscow) |

6. Mr. Zhigulin, 2oris F. Vice-President of the Leningred
| Chapter of the ASL; Head of
the Office of Justice, Leningrad
City Council

2, Mme. Krylova,Ninel 5. Professor of Comparative &
Constitutional Law, The Institute
of State & Law (Moscow)

|
.
8. Mme. Tolkunova, Vera N. Professor of Labor Law, Moscow {

Juridical Institute ;
9. Mr. Nikitinsky,Vasiliy I. Professor of Lator Law,The Institu-
te of Soviet Legislation (Moscow) |
A0.Mr. Critsuk,iIgoz P. Advocate,Moscow Regional Coliezge |

of Advocates; Head of the Legal .~\
Aid Bureau, Town of Balashikna~ }

411.Mr. Khuntsaria,Ramaz A. Senior Procurator,Department of }
: | the Procurator of Georgia i
42.Mr. Gukasyan,Georgy K. Professor of Criminal Law,Erevan |
| | University School of Law
Shanzkhmerov, Shar khar . EGeean -
"A eel a Semarkhodsheev;Bityel- Professor of Civil Law eed-of
the Limeade Sasi.
Tashkent University School of Law |
14.Mr. Changuly,Gleb I. Professor of Criminal Law,Kiev |
Institute of State & Law
15.Mrs.Znosko,Tamara N. | Faculty Member,Moscow institute

of International Relations

Association of Soviet Lawyers
Kalinin Prospect 14,Moscow,U.5.5.R.,

te1l.203-67-2

_ = ee — —

Code of lev-duct por

Nucle Gv Weapom Sta tes

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF

THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DEMOCRATIC LAWYERS

Athens, 18 October 1984

DRAFT RESOLUTION:

To establish a code of conduct for the states
owning nuclear weapons

The XIIth Congress of the International Association of
Democratic Lawyers

-~ Expressing its deep concern about the deterioration of
international relations and the growing danger of a nuclear
war, wherever that outbreak may occur;

- Aware that it would have disastrous consequences for the

fate of entire mankind since it would jeopardise the very
existence of life on earth;

~ Noting the incessant growth of nuclear arsenals;

- Expressing its firm conviction that the possession of
nuclear arms entails, for the states owning such arms,
a special responsibility to all humanity;

- Estimating that this state of affairs must reflect on
international law beyond the standards that are presently

in WEES CO [tC -

- Estimating also that the elaboration, adoption .and strict
observance of a code of conduct for the nuclear states
would most certainly contribute to ensure peace and well-

being all over the world and to create legal guarantees
to vrevent a nuclear war;

Decides to create a commission charged with the drawing up
of a code of conduct for the states owning nuclear weapons,

L
NP

°
ne — — —_— —_ ———

CO-CHAIRPERSONS

The Lawyers Committee on
Nuclear Policy, Inc.

225 Lafayette Street, Suite 207, New York, NY 10012 (212) 334-8044

Nuclear Weapons Policies and International Law:

Proposal for a Multinational Conference
Draft

(Daniel Arbess, October 22, 1984)

Since 1981, the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy has
contributed to efforts to reduce the likelihood of nuclear
war by analyzing and publicizing the legal ramifications of
existing nuclear weapons policies. In its initial phase,
the Lawyers Committee helped to reinforce and to shape an
increasingly significant consensus within the United States
that reliance on nuclear weapons is inconsistent with the
security and well-being of the American people, and with
the rule of law on which the American social contract is
constructed.

Recognizing the need for transnational understanding,

in recent years the Lawyers Committee has participated in

conferences and programs with individual lawyers and groups

around the world. These efforts have produced a greater

shut

Se ——_—__—_ —- ~ — —_—___—— —- i

CONSULTATIVE Ann Fagan Ginger

Asbjorn Eide

John Quigley

——— —eo —

Martin Popper
Peter Weiss

VICE-CHAIRPERSONS
Saul H. Mendlovitz

Elliott L. Meyrowitz
Jean G. Zorn

TREASURER
Robert L. Boehm

COUNCIL

Richard Barnet
Institute for Policy Studies

lan Brownlie

Oxford University

Francis A. Boyle
University of lilinors

Goler T. Butcher
Howard University

Anthony A. D'Amato
Northwestern University

Robert F. Drinan
Georgetown University

inst. for Peace Research

Roger Fisher

Harvard University

C. Flinterman

University of Linburg

Ellen Frey-Wouters

City University of New York

John H.E. Fried

City University of New York (Emer)

Richard A. Falk

Princeton University

Martin Feinnider

Nova University

University of Puget Sound
Eric Lane
Hofstra University
Bert B. Lockwood, Jr.
University of Cincinatt:
Sean MacBride
international Peace Bureau
Saul H. Mendlovitz
Rutgers University (Newark)

Arthur S. Miller

George Washington Univ. (Emer)

Ved P. Nanda

University of Denver

Onio State University

Marcus G. Raskin
Institute for Policy Studies
Bert V. A. Roling
Groeningen University
Yoshikazu Sakamoto
University of Tokyo
Sherie R. Schwenninger
institute for Worid Order
Dinah Shelton
University of Santa Ciara, CA
Burns H. Weston
University of lowa

.
understanding of other national and international perspecives
on the legal aspects of nuclear weapons policies as well as
exposing a great necessity for increased coordinaion and
dialogue between non-state professionals, particularly those
of the Soviet Union and the United States. Just as U.S. and
Soviet medical specialists have cooperated to warn the people
of the world of the likely medical and ecological consequences
of nuclear war, lawyers and jurists must fulfill their pro-
fessional responsibility to apply unique skills of conflict
resolution and conciliation to produce agreement on measures
to reduce the risk of nuclear war as well as to forge inter-
national consensus on the relevant principles of law which
all nuclear powers are obliged to observe.

In light of the deterioration of relations between the
two major nuclear powers, the steady drift in the policies
of both states away from adherence to basic principles of
law and morality, and the general increase in the level of
threat to human life and values which has resulted, a con-
ference of prominent Soviet and American lawyers could hardly
be more timely. Such a conference would engage lawyers from
both countries in a serious, business-like discussion of the
issues, including cross-national differences in approach.

Soviet and American lawyers will discuss, in a manner
directly responsive to the policy-making processes and en-
vironments of both powers, a broad range of legal issues

relevant to nuclear weapons, their function in relation to

the pursuit of national interests, and their role in influ-
encing norms of relations between the superpowers. Various
approaches will be considered in analyzing and discussing
the legality of the use of nuclear weapons, as contemplated
by the current doctrines and capabilities of both powers.
Specific attention will, for the first time in such a forun,
be paid to questions concerning the legality of the possession
and threatened use of nuclear weapons, particularly in light
of the claim that such threats are essential to the "deter-
rence equlibrium" by which the balance of superpower re-
lations and hence avoidance of the outbreak of conventional
and illegal nuclear war, are ensured, Finally, the conferees
will consider possible measures to enable the abolition of
nuclear weapons, and specific steps -- a legal regime -- for
their reduction and eventual elimination,

The conference will be designed to engender the advance-
ment of the legal discussions on matters of nuclear policy
and international relations, while at the same time perform-
ing an educational:role with respect to global public opinion,-
and the national political debates. Toward these ends, the
proceedings will be recorded for dissemination via local,
national and international media. During the conference,
existing literature in the field will be available to members
of the media, as well as to participants: and to selected
representatives of professional lawyers organizations who

will be invited to attend as observers. A joint statement,

approved by delegates from both the Soviet Union and the
United States, will be issued at the conclusion of the

conference.

Attached is a proposed agenda of topics to be discussed
at the conference of law specialists form the Soviet Union
and the United States on international law and nuclear
policy (weapons, tactics, strategic doctrine, siodark int,

testing, individual responsibility, and implications).

Nuclear Weapons Policies and International Law:
Proposed Conference Agenda

Draft
- Nuclear Weapons and International Law
1. The Use of Nuclear Weapons: Would nuclear use

ever be legally acceptable?
a) Relationship between jus in bellum and jus ad bellum,
b ) The Law of War in the 1980's: continuing relevance

in light of World War II, Hiroshima and Nagasaki,

and the absence of treaty prohibition,

c ) Contextual analysis: balancing principles of military
necessity and humanity.

fe U.S. and Soviet doctrines and capabilities
17. Some contextual possibilities (first strike,
second strike, counterforce, countervalue,
battlefield escalation and the integration of
nuclear and conventional forces).
-— Manufacture, possession, and threatened use of
nuclear weapons: Under what circumstances (if any) are

threats to use nuclear weapons legally justified?

a) The Nuremberg Principles, Genocide Treaty, U.N.
Charter, Kellog-Briand Pact and criminalization.

b ) The "paradox of deterrence"- threatened use of
nuclear force to dissuade comparable evil.

c ) Offensive versus defensive threats- first use and
basic deterrence

Lis

Lid.

Agenda
Page two.

Individual Responsibility and Superior Orders.

The Arms Control Dimension

Compliance With Existing Arrangements

Ratification of existing agreements and binding
force in absence thereof

Space weaponization and the ABM regime

Obligations to negotiate toward cessation of testing
Obligations to negotiate toward complete and general
disarmament.

Negotiating Principles.

Verification Matters.

Toward a Legal Regime for Nuclear Weapons:

Possible Steps Toward Abolition

Stabilization and Minimilization of Deterrence

A “no-first-use" regime

Fs Norms of relations between the superpowers-
the connection between conventional intervention
and nuclear threats

11. Increasing efficiency of principles of non-
intervention and non-use of force

i111. Nuclear and Conventional force posturing-
elimination of tactical nuclear weapons
and confinement of conventional forces to defense.

Comprehensive test ban

DJA:

Agenda
Page 3.

Comprehensive freeze

Prevention of space militarization
i. Strategic implications of ABM development

11. ASAT development and the safety of satellite
verification mechanisms

Strengthening and consolidating the Non-Proliferation
regime

Reduction and Elimination of Nuclear Weaponry
Negotiated reduction, common security (McCloy-Zorin)

Alternative methods of conflict resolution- aboltion
of the war system

- Strengthening of existing mechanisms

ii. Alternative security systems, possibilities.

22/10/84.

f /

AGENDA FOR US-SOVIET LAWYERS CONFERENCE

In view of the limited time the Conference will have,it seems desirable to consol-
idate the agenda proposed by Dan Arbess' draft of 20 November,perhaps as follows :

DAY ORE
\9 00-9 -30 AM: Opening Speeches by a US and a Soviet speaker.

9.30-noon: THE USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN THE LIGHT OF EXISTING INTERNATIONAL LAW

&)Relation between jus ad bellum and jus in bello (or,less technical: The
Significance of Law for the Maintenance of Peace.

b) Can nuclear warfare (first use, second use, counterforce use, limited or
battlefield use,integrated “conventional” & nuclear warfare) be permissible
in the light of the existing international law on ermed conflict ?

12.30 - 2 00 PM: Lungheon. Invited American speaker (Sagah? Ehrlich? Warnke?) on
Nuclear Arms Control & Disarmament

2.30 - 5.30 PM: ThHEBAT of NUCIBAR WAR as DBTBRRSHCE. Does Nuclear Deterrence
incease natiohal security ? Is the concept e€@lf-contradictory ? Is the
threat compatible with existing internationel lew ?

5.30 PM Ry Reception

DAY Two
9.00 AM - noon: THE PARTICULAR RESPONSIBILITIES OF NUCIZAR-WEAPON STATES
(or: REDUCING, AND ELMINATING THE DANGER OF NUCLEAR WAR)

a) Prevention of First Use (or:Prevention of UnleashingNMuclear War) .
The legal Nature of Unilateral No-First-Use Pledges.

b) Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
c) Freezing Nuclear Arsenals
a) Tightening the Measures for the Prevention of Nuclear oil, Se Proliferation

Noon - SBR rRPOELSBESA°S SBR EAR BoE ACEIOB oF fheVeN.C,AeGoacte! Sesstanson Disarcan.

2.30 5.30 PM: TOWARD A COMPREHENSIVE CODE OF CONDUCT FOR NUCLEAR-WEAPONS STATES.

(JF:this formulation prevents any misunderstanding that at present there
exists no legal regime --no law--on nuclear weepons)

7.00 PM - Dinner. Soviet Speaker on Nuclear A/rms Control & Disarmament.

DAY THREE

9.00 AM - Noon:a)Submission by Conference Committee A of Draft Joint Declaration.
Debate, and Vote

b)Submission by Conference Committee B of Proposal to establish «4
Permanent Jount Working Group of Lawyers for the Reduction and Bliminsation
of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction. Debate, and Vote.

st
Questions to be Clarified : a) Title of the Conference
b)Locale of the Conference
_ ¢) Will all agenda topics be discussed (in prepared papers
and/or oral presentation ?) by both WS & Soviet lawyers, OR will the topics
be distributed between them ? If the letter,should we already now propose

the distribution ?
ad) by whet deadline (if any) prior to the Conference

should papers be exchanged (and if so, also intransletion,respectively, into
Russian and Eaglish?).
e) Very important : Should the Zoint Declaration emenat-

from the Conference contain specific proposals ( such as Freeze, No-First-
Use Pledge,etc.) or will it not be wetter 5 refer in it to the "Program for
Action" (of course, with very brief summary) enshrined, efter most careful

p¥eparation & debate,in the Pinal
, aan Documents of the UNGA Special Sessions?

Some possible points to include in the Fibal Declaration of the

——— eee

US/Sovigt Lawyers Conference on the Prevention of Nuclear War

(perhaps in different sequence

We consider it as our professianal duty to emphasize the crucial role of
which the nations of the world

dieet

International Law - the sum-total of the rules 1

aieeli atc 5 Tete t Sb Gt elk Pe eae esti eg abitte; t mmr
‘

have themselves created for their conduct and for their mutual relations--
for the prevention of nuclear war and of war altogether. —. BS
; N
Special reference to : Art.2(4) U.N.&harter; :
Prohibtiton of (Definition of) Aggression,
(G.A.Res .3314(XXIX) of 14 Dec.1974: oe
_ Declaration on Principles of International Law
concerning Friendly Relations. .among States...(GA Res.2625(XXV)1970 ;
G.A. Resolutions prohibiting and mnfid@antinembat

1961 ;Res. 33/71 B of 14 Dec.1978 ; Res. 34/83 G of 11 Dec .1979 3 >
Res. 35/152 D of 12 Dec. 1960 ; Res. 36/92 of 9 Dec. 1981.;
Res. 37/100 C of 13 Dec.1982 ; Res. 38/75 of 15 Dec 1983 (these

vention in the Domestic Affaire of Stetes and the Protection

of their Independence and Soverignty,Rs.2131(XX) of 21 Dec .1965; etc,

We consider the view that, bezause the use of nuclear weapons has not, been banned

by a spe¢¢ffu international Treaty, such weapons may legitimatezy be used in

be untehable
disregard of the general rules of the internstional law on armed conflict, to

We daaw special attention to the warnings of ,.ofegsionals in other fields (méed-

henurtanebis. ical, mijipary, religicus, ecology, etc.) and of the international
peace movement against the cetastrophic consequences of nuclear war (Mention Cold

We @raw special attention to the condemnation of the use of nuclear weapons and

other weapons of mass destruction,co ntained in the Final Documents of the U.N.

—

G.A. Special Sessionson Disarmament, and tm the numerous constructive proposals

and recommendatéons contained in them for a peaceful future of humanity.

We draw special attention also to the policies and proposals of States and of

Governmental and non-governmental organizations (perhaps as example:Inga Thorssen, |
"In Pursuit of Disarmament Conversion from Military to C ivil Production in Wem
seden" ,2 vols.1984)to this end.

We consider it a major task of jurists ynot to litigate, but. to aid in bringing |
about friendly settlements.

University of Mlinois cates

niversity of Illinois College of Law
~ 4

. at Urbana-Champaign 209 Law Building 217 333-0931
504 East Pennsylvania Avenue

Champaign, IL 61820
Lg ' September 23, 1986

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Revised Proposal for an International Conference on

Nuclear Weapons and International Law
To Be Jointly Sponsored by The Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy

(U.S.A.) and the Association of Soviet Lawyers (U.S.S.R.)

On September 19, 1986 a meeting was held in Moscow between Francis
Boyle, Vadim Sobakin and Konstantin Shakhmuradov to agree upon the details
of the Conference. The following points were agreed upon in principle
subject to final confirmation by the Boards of both organizations:

1. At the request of the Soviet side, the Conference will be held in
Brussels, Belgium. Both sides will endeavor to obtain the cooperation of

the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) in the
organization of the Conference.

2. At the request of the American side, the Conference will be held

sometime during the months of May or June 1987 in order to accommodate the
academic year schedules for our professors. A later time could be
considered at the request of either side.

3. Both sides agreed that the Conference should consist of exactly
three full working days according to a Revised Agenda attached to this
Memorandum. The American side would like to suggest that these three days
be Thursday, Friday and Saturday, in ors2r to accommodate our need for

“trans-Atlantic travel before and after the Conference.

4. The Conference will be jointly sponsored by The Lawyers' Committee
on Nuclear Policy and the Association of Soviet Lawyers. At the request
of the Soviet side, the Conference will be open to representatives from
various organizations of lawyers around the world. Both sides will
prepare proposed lists of such organizations to be invited to the
Conference. Mr. Popper and Mr. Shakhmuradov will discuss these lists at
the IADL meeting in Paris in December 1986. At that time they will

jointly agree upon which organizations shall be invited to send
representatives to the Conference.

3. At the Paris IADL meeting in December, Mr. Popper and Mr.
Shakhmuradov will discuss the financing of the Conference. Before then
the Soviet side will obtain a rough estimate of expenses for a 100
person/3 day conference from IADL in Brussels.
6. Mr. Popper is to telex his acceptance of the above principles to
Mr. Shakhmuradov as soon as possible. A written confirmation of these
matters and this Memorandum of Understanding will be sent shortly
thereafter. The final and authoritative agreement on all these matters
will be reached by Mr. Popper and Mr. Shakhmuradov in Paris. Until that
time, changes to these principles can be suggested by both sides at any
time.

7. Both sides agreed it would be desirable to appoint in advance of
the Conference a Drafting Committee to prepare the Final Communique of
the Conference. The American side would like to suggest the Drafting

Committee consist of the following international law experts:

A. Sean MacBride, Chairman of the Committee (Ireland)

B. Richard Falk (U.S.A.)

C. Francis Boyle (U.S.A.)

D. Igor Blishenko (U.S.S.R.)

E. A Second Soviet Expert from A.S.L. (U.S.S.R.)

F. A Mutually Agreeable Expert from a Third World Country

Mr. Popper and Mr. Shakhmuradov will agree upon the composition of the
Drafting Committee in Paris, or before then if possible. All experts
must be mutually acceptable to both sides.

8. The Drafting Committee will present the Communique to the
Conference at the final session in the afternoon of the third day. After
a plenary discussion of its terms by all members of the Conference and
the making of any generally accepted amendments, the Communique will be
put to a final vote at the end of the session. The representatives of
all organizations who vote in favor of the Communique can attach the
names of their organizations to the Communique. Those organizations
which do not favor the Communique can refrain from attaching their names
to the Communique, but no dissenting votes will be recorded. It is the
intention of the Soviet side and the American side to produce a

Communique that will be signed by both our organizations no matter what
the other organizations do.

9. All panels at the Conference will consist of no more than four
experts, if possible one each from (1) U.S.A., (2) U.S.S.R., (3)
Europe/Japan/Developed Country, (4) Third World Country. Each speaker
shall have no more than fifteen (15) minutes to present his paper, or
twenty (20) minutes if there are only three panelists. Time limitations
will be “ruthlessly” enforced no matter how distinguished the speaker.
At the end of the presentation of the papers a coffee break will occur.
The Conference will then reconvene to discuss the papers in plenary

session. The Chair for the five panels will alternate between Soviet and
American lawyers.

‘

The following is a Revised Agenda for the Conference that has been
agreed upon by both sides in its substantive parts:

1. Welcoming remarks by leaders from the Lawyers' Committee and ASL

2. Morning Panel: Conceptions of Security in the Nuclear Age

3. Lunch Speaker: American International Law Expert

4. Afternoon Panel: The Use of Nuclear Weapons Under International
Law

5. Reception

1. Morning Panel: The Arms Control Dimension Including Star Wars

2. Lunch Speaker: Soviet International Law Expert
3. Afternoon Panel: Nuclear Deterrence and International Law

4. Dinner Speaker: Keynote Address by Sean MacBride

Day Three
1. Morning Session: Toward a Legal Regime for Nuclear Weapons

2. Afternoon Session: Presentation of Joint Communique by Drafting
Committee ._

3. Concluding comments by leaders of the Lawyers’ Committee and ASL

4. Reception

Prepared by Francis A. Boyle
September 20, 1986

Moscow, U.S.S.R.

LAW OFFICES

WOLF POPPER ROSS WoLF & JONES
845 THIRD AVENUE

NEW YORK, N.Y. 10022

(212) 759-4600 CABLE 'WOPOROW’ NEWYORK
TELEX NO. 2395/5

October 8, 1986

Mr. Konstantin Shakhmuradov
Executive Secretary
Association of Soviet Lawyers
14, Avenue Kalinine

Moscow, K-9 USSR

Dear Konstantin:

First, I want to thank you and your colleagues for the
wonderful reception that was accorded to Professor Francis
Boyle. He has made a complete report about his lectures and
his discussions and it is clear that they were constructive and
productive. I am deeply sorry for the initial confusion about
the date of his arrival. I still do not understand how that
happened but I accept the responsibility.

There is one bit of news brought by Professor Boyle
that is disturbing. He informed me that Professor Sobakin had
a heart attack. I ask you to convey to Professor Sobakin my
heartfelt wish for his complete and speedy recovery. His
leadership of your association and his important work in many
fields are needed more than ever and all of the members of the
Lawyers Committee look forward to many more years of his
participation in the movement for peace.

Regarding the discussions between Professor Boyle and
the members of your Association about the conference to be
jointly sponsored by our two organizations, the Executive

Committee of our organization would like to make the following
observations:

1. We propose that the conference be held during the
second week of September 1987. The months of May and June are
impractical for some of us because at that time we will be
celebrating the 50th Anniversary of the National Lawyers
Guild. I happen to be Co-Chair of the 50th Anniversary
Committee and as you can understand, will be one of a number of
lawyers who will be preoccupied with that historic occasion.
Incidentally, representatives of the IADL will certainly be
attending the 50th Anniversary Convention which will take place

oad

WoLtF POPPER ROSS WOLF & JONES

during the latter part of May in Washington, D.C. Our proposed
Suggestion for the second week of September is agreeable to
Professor Boyle.

2. We are disappointed that the conference will not
take place in the United States since it is here that we strive
to influence public opinion and governmental policy. A
conference in Brussels will have little immediate impact here.
Nevertheless, Since we understand the problems confronting
members of your Association, we accept your proposal.

3. We agree enthusiastically with the idea of
inviting representatives from other countries. In fact, we
would like to go one step further by suggesting that one of the
Specific aims of the conference should be the organization of
an international lawyers association dedicated to the ultimate
elimination of nuclear weapons. You may remember that this
idea was first proposed by one of your representatives at our
last meeting in New York. Our Executive proposes that there be
added to the agenda of Day Three the item "Formation of An

International Association of Lawyers" and that this decision
also be made part of the official communique. We believe that

the path for this has been made easier by the success of the
international organization of physicians.

5- We note from Professor Boyle's report that you
will be making a rough estimate of a budget for the
conference. It is important that we receive your estimate at
the earliest time so that we can analyze it in advance of our
meeting in December in Paris.

6. We agree with the idea of a drafting committee

which will prepare the final communique in advance of the
conference. We suggest for your consideration the following

names:

Sean MacBride, Chairman of the Committee (Ireland)
Richard Falk (U.S.A.)

Francis Boyle (U.S.A.)

Igor Blishenko (U.S.S.R.)

A Second Soviet Expert from A.S.L. (U.S.S.R.)
A Mutually Agreeable Expert from a Third World Country

WotLK PopPpER ROSS WOLF & JONES

nha

Professor Boyle also makes the suggestion, and I agree, that a
sub-committee consisting of himself and someone like Professor

Blishenko start to work on a draft as quickly as possible.

I look forward to your observations about the above.
With warmest personal regards,

MP :m1}j

| University of Illinois College of Law

at Urbana-Champaign 209 Law Building 217 333-0931
504 East Pennsylvania Avenue

Champaign, IL 61820
September 23, 1986

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Revised Proposal for an International Conference on

Nuclear Weapons and International Law
To Be Jointly Sponsored by The Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Polic

(U.S.A.) and the Association of Soviet Lawyers (U.S.S.R.)

On September i9, 1986 a meeting was held in Moscow between Francis
Boyle, Vadim Sobakin and Konstantin Shakhmuradov to agree upon the details
of the Conference. The following points were agreed upon in principle

subject to final confirmation by the Boards of both organizations:

rovhe At the request of the Soviet side, the Conference will be held in
(Brussels, Belgium» Both sides will endeavor to obtain the cooperation of
e ational Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) in the
organization of the Conference.

2. At the request of the Amer ide, the Conference will be held
Wo . sometime during the months erent om order to accommodate the
academic year schedules for our professors. A later time could be
considered at the request of either side.

3. Both sides agreed that the Conference should consist of exactly
three full working days according to a Revised Agenda attached to this
|

“Memorandum. The American side would like to suggest that these three days
be Thursday, Friday and Saturday, in order to accommodate our need for
trans-Atlantic travel before and after the Conference.

4. The Conference will be jointly sponsored by The Lawyers' Committee
on Nuclear Policy and the Association of Soviet Lawyers. At the request

of the Soviet side, the Conference will be open to representatives from
various organizations of lawyers around the world. Both sides will
prepare proposed lists of such organizations to be invited to the
Conference. Mr. Popper and Mr. Shakhmuradov will discuss these lists at

the IADL meeting in Paris in December 1986. At that time they will
|
|

jointly agree upon which organizations shall be invited to send
representatives to the Conference.

5. At the Paris IADL meeting ial Decanber, Mr. Popper and Mr.
Shakhmuradov will discuss the financ the Conference. Before then
the Soviet side will obtain a rough estimate of expenses for a 100
person/3 day conference from IADL in Brussels.

‘

6. Mr. Popper is to telex his acceptance of the above principles to
Mr. Shakhmuradov as soon as possible. A written confirmation of these
matters and this Memorandum of Understanding will be sent shortly
thereafter. The final and authoritative agreement on all these matters
will be reached by Mr. Po er and Mr. Shakhmuradoy<in Paris.) Until that
time, changes to these principles can be suggested by both sides at any
time.

7. Both sides agreed it would be desirable to appoint in advance of
the Conference a Drafting Committee to prepare the(Fina [Communique
the Conference. The American side would like to suggest the Drafting

Committee consist of the following international law experts: = '

A. Sean MacBride, Chairman of the Committee (Ireland)

B. Richard Falk (U.S.A.)

C. Francis Boyle (U.S.A.)

D. Igor Blishenko (U.S.S.R.)

E. A Second Soviet Expert from A.S.L. (U.S.S.R.)

F. A Mutually Agreeable Expert from a Third World Country

Mr. Popper and Mr. Shakhmuradov will agree upon the composition of the
Drafting Committee in Paris, or before then if possible. AIll experts
must be mutually acceptable to both sides.

names of their organizations to the Communique. Those organizations
which do not favor the Communique can refrain from attaching their names

to the Communique, but no dissenting votes will be recorded. It is the

intention of the Soviet side and the American side to produce a
Communique that will be signed by both our organizations no matter what

the other organizations do.

The Conference will then reconvene to.discuss the papers in plepary
session. The Chair for theffive panels)will alternate between Soviet and
erican lawyers.

Der. 86

The following is a Revised Agenda for the Conference cnet has been
agreed upon by both sides in its substantive parts:

Day One
1. Welcoming remarks by leaders from the Lawyers' Committee and ASL

p 1 2. Morning Panel: Conceptions of Security in the Nuclear Age
Wel

3. Lunch Speaker: American International Law Expert

4. Afternoon Panel: The Use of Nuclear Weapons Under International
Pome 2 bani 3

5. Reception

Day Two
P z 1. Morning Panel: The Arms Control Dimension Including Star Wars
Crrek

2. Lunch Speaker: Soviet International Law Expert
3. Afternoon Panel: Nuclear Deterrence and International Law

4. Dinner Speaker: Keynote Address by Sean MacBride

Day Three
1. Morning Session: Toward a Legal Regime for Nuclear Weapons

2. Afternoon Session: Presentation of Joint Communique by Drafting
Committee

3. Concluding comments by leaders of the Lawyers’ Committee and ASL

4. Reception

Prepared by Francis A. Boyle
September 20, 1986

Moscow, U.S.S.R.

University of Illinois College of Law

at Urbana-Champaign 209 Law Building 217 333-0931
504 East Pennsylvania Avenue

Champaign, IL 61820
September 23, 1986

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Revised/Proposal for an International Conference on
Nuclear Weapons and International Law

To Be Jointly Sponsored by The Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy
(U.S.A.) and the Association of Soviet Lawyers (U.S.S.R.)

subject to final confirmation by the Boards of both organizations:

1. At the request of the Soviet Side, the Conference will be held in

Brussels, Belgium. Both sides will endeavor to obtain the cooperation of
the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) in the
organization of the Conference.

2. At the request of the American side, the Conference will be held
sometime during the months of May or June 1987 in order to accommodate the
academic year schedules for our professors. A later time could be
considered at the request of either side.

4. The Conference will be jointly sponsored by The Lawyers' Committee
on Nuclear Policy and the Association of Soviet Lawyers. At the request
of the Soviet side, the Conference will be open to representatives from
various organizations of lawyers around the world. Both sides will |
prepare proposed lists of such organizations to be invited to the
Conference. Mr. Popper and Mr. Shakhmuradov will discuss these lists at
the IADL meeting in Paris in December 1986. At that time they will

jointly agree upon which organizations shall be invited to send
representatives to the Conference.

>. At the Paris IADL meeting in December, Mr. Popper and Mr.
Shakhmuradov will discuss the financing of the Conference. Before then
the Soviet side will obtain a rough estimate of expenses for a 100
person/3 day conference from IADL in Brussels.

6. Mr. Popper is to telex his acceptance of the above principles to
Mr. Shakhmuradov as soon as possible. A written confirmation of these
matters and this Memorandum of Understanding will be sent shortly
thereafter. The final and authoritative agreement on all these matters
will be reached by Mr. Popper and Mr. Shakhmuradov in Paris. Until that
time, changes to these principles can be suggested by both sides at any
time.

A. Sean MacBride, Chairman of the Committee (Ireland)
. Richard Falk (U.S.A.)

B
C. Francis Boyle (U.S.A.)

D. Igor Blishenko (U.S.S.R.)

E. A Second Soviet Expert from A.S.L. (U.S.S.R.)

F. A Mutually Agreeable Expert from a Third World Country

Mr. Popper and Mr. Shakhmuradov will agree upon the composition of the

Drafting Committee in Paris, or before then if possible. All experts
must be mutually acceptable to both sides.

Communique that will be signed by both our organizations no matter what
the other organizations do.

session. The Chair for the five panels will alternate between Soviet and
American lawyers.

The following is a Revised Agenda for the Conference that has been
agreed upon by both sides in its substantive parts:

Day One
1. Welcoming remarks by leaders from the Lawyers' Committee and ASL

2. Morning Panel: Conceptions of Security in the Nuclear Age

3. Lunch Speaker: American International Law Expert

4. Afternoon Panel: The Use of Nuclear Weapons Under International

Law

5. Reception

1. Morning Panel: The Arms Control Dimension Including Star Wars

2. Lunch Speaker: Soviet International Law Expert
3. Afternoon Panel: Nuclear Deterrence and International Law

4. Dinner Speaker: Keynote Address by Sean MacBride

Day Three

1. Morning Session: Toward a Legal Regime for Nuclear Weapons

2. Afternoon Session: Presentation of Joint Communique by Drafting
Committee

3. Concluding comments by leaders of the Lawyers' Committee and ASL

4. Reception

Prepared by Francis A. Boyle
September 20, 1986
Moscow, U,§8.8.R.

Endorsement of the Appeal by
Lawyers Against Nuclear War

The Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy and the Association of Soviet Lawyers, having
initiated and sponsored the International Conference on Nuclear Weapons and International Law
and also having agreed that nuclear war is prohibited by international law and is a crime against
humanity, urge all lawyers to sign and disseminate the attached Appeal by Lawyers Against
Nuclear War.

The appeal, already signed by thousands of lawyers throughout the world, was sponsored by the
International Peace Bureau, originated and inspired by Nobel Prize Recipient Sean MacBnide, and
has been of great importance in coalescing the international movement of lawyers against the
nuclear arms race.

A Draft Report on the Principles of
International Law and Nuclear Weapons

Presented at the International Conference on
Nuclear Weapons and International Law
New York City
August 31, 1987

We welcome your responses and suggestions:
The Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy,
225 Lafayette Street, New York, New York 10012

Report on Principles
1

1. Introduction

The human race stands on the verge of self-extinction as a species, and with it will die most if
not all forms of intelligent life on the planet earth. In the hope of preventing a nuclear
Armageddon, we the lawyers of the world have come together to proclaim the following basic
principles concerning the requirements of international law with respect to nuclear weapons. It is
our hope that this document will serve to define in legal terms the stark dilemma of nuclear
extinction that confronts the human race today. We also seek to establish an agenda for our fellow
lawyers around the world to pursue by applying their unique training, skills, and expertise in a
productive and meaningful way toward the progressive yet complete elimination of nuclear
weapons from the face of the earth. Realistically speaking, we do not expect this to happen in the
immediate future. Nevertheless, as lawyers we owe a duty to our fellow men and women around
the world to struggle toward this goal with all the powers of our profession.

It is for these reasons, then, that we hereby adopt this Report on the Principles of International
Law and Nuclear Weapons. Some of these principles represent generally recognized principles of
international law. Other principles represent interpretations of generally recognized principles of
international law that are subject to good-faith discussion. But all of these principles must be taken

into account in any attempt to eliminate nuclear weapons and institute a new international legal
order.

2. Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Any attempt to dispel the ideology of nuclearism and its attendant myth propounding the legality
of nuclear weapons must directly come to grips with the fact that the nuclear age was conceived in
the original sins of Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, 1945. The atomic bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki constituted crimes against humanity and war crimes as defined by the
Nuremberg Charter of August 8, 1945, and violated several basic provisions of the Regulations
annexed to Hague Convention No. IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (1907),
the rules of customary international law set forth in the Draft Hague Rules of Air Warfare (1923),
and the United States War Department Field Manual 27-10, Rules of Land Warfare (1940). The
start of any progress toward resolving humankind's nuclear predicament must come from the
realization that nuclear weapons have never been beneficial instruments of state policy, but rather

have always constituted illegitimate instrumentalities of internationally lawless and criminal
behavior first of all.

3. The Use of Nuclear Weapons

The use of nuclear weapons in combat is absolutely prohibited under all circumstances by both
conventional and customary international law: e.g., the Nuremberg Principles, the Hague
Regulations of 1907, the International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
of Genocide (1948), the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocol I of
1977, etc. In addition, the use of nuclear weapons would also specifically violate several
fundamental resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly that have repeatedly condemned
the use of nuclear weapons as an international crime. For example, on November 24, 1961, the
U.N. General Assembly declared in Resolution 1653 (XVI) that "any State using nuclear or
thermonuclear weapons is to be considered as violating the Charter of the United Nations, as acting
contrary to the law of humanity, and as committing a crime against mankind and civilization." In

Report on Principles
Z

Resolution 33/71-B of December 14, 1978, and Resolution 35/152-D of December 12, 1980, the
General Assembly again declared that "the use of nuclear weapons would be a violation of the
Charter of the United Nations and a crime against humanity." Finally, the International Peace
Bureau's Appeal by Lawyers Against Nuclear War (1986) -- which has already been endorsed by
thousands of lawyers around the world -- declared that "the use, for whatever reason, of a nuclear
weapon would constitute (a) a violation of international law, (b) a violation of human rights, and
(c) acrime against humanity."

We are compelled by the Nuremberg Principles to point out the following inescapable
conclusions of law to all government decision-makers in the nuclear weapons states: First, all
government officials and military officers who might launch a nuclear war would be personally
responsible for the commission of crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, war crimes,
grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and Protocol I, and genocide, among other international
crimes. Second, such individuals would not be entitled to the defenses of superior orders, act of
state, tu quoque, self-defense, etc. Third, such individuals could thus be quite legitimately and
most severely punished as war criminals, up to and including the imposition of the death penalty.

Under article 38(1)(d) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, this Report -- which
has been subscribed to by some "of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations" --
constitutes a ‘subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law." It could therefore be relied
upon by some future international war crimes tribunal. As lawyers, however, our primary concern
is to prevent a nuclear war from ever happening.

4. The Threat to Use Nuclear Weapons

Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits both the threat and the use of force except
in cases of legitimate self-defense as recognized by article 51 thereof. But although the requirement
of legitimate self-defense is a necessary precondition for the legality of any threat or use of force, it
is certainly not sufficient. The legality of any threat or use of force must also take into account the
customary and conventional international laws of humanitarian armed conflict. Thereunder, the
threat to use nuclear weapons constitutes ongoing international criminal activity: namely, planning,
preparation and conspiracy to commit crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, war crimes,
genocide, as well as grave breaches of the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, Additional Protocol
l of 1977, and the Hague Regulations of 1907, inter alia. Here we wish to single out three
components of the threat to use nuclear weapons that are especially reprehensible from an

international law perspective: counter-ethnic targeting; counter-city targeting; and first-strike
weapons and contingency plans.

5. Counter-ethnic Targeting.

It has been reported that various government officials in some nuclear weapons states have
Supervised the construction of war-plans for the threat and use of nuclear weapons systems that
incorporate a philosophy known as "counter-ethnic targeting.” In other words, major population
centers inhabited primarily by members of certain ethnic groups were selected for repeated and
especially severe nuclear destruction because of their constituent ethnicity alone. Whatever the
alleged political justification for this practice, all government officials who were involved in the
nuclear tareting of ethnic groups as such actually committed the international crime of conspiracy to
commit genocide, as s recognized by articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the 1948 Genocide Convention.

Report on Principles
3

6. Counter-city Targeting.

A nuclear attack by a state upon another state's civilian population centers is absolutely
prohibited under all circumstances, and even if undertaken in retaliation for a prior nuclear attack
against the first state's civilian population centers. Consequently, the doctrine of "mutual assured
destruction" (MAD) must be abandoned as an element of any strategic nuclear policy currently
pursued by some nuclear weapons states. Nevertheless, any plan to substitute for MAD the
development of a "protracted nuclear war-fighting" or "war-prevailing" capability is not a licit
direction in which to move under international law. Rather, the correct approach is prescribed by
Article 6 of the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which the
United States, the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom are strictly bound to obey as parties:
"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective
measures relating to cessation of 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."

In the meantime, however, while moving toward the goals set forth in NPT article 6, the nuclear
weapons States are obligated to recognize that in the event of a nuclear or conventional attack upon
them or the members of their respective alliances, they could not under any circumstances lawfully
use their nuclear weapons against civilian population centers. Although this is already the legal
Situation, we consider it desirable to reconfirm it by the nuclear weapons states immediately
concluding an international convention specifically prohibiting both a nuclear attack upon, as well
as the strategic nuclear targeting of, civilian population centers. This treaty would then need to be
implemented by the nuclear weapons states' respective national parliaments making it a serious
criminal offense under domestic law for their government officials or military officers to threaten or
plan to use nuclear weapons against civilian population centers.

7. First-strike Weapons and Contingency Plans

A surprise, preemptive nuclear strike by one country against another would be a crime against
peace and therefore is absolutely prohibited for any reason whatsoever. Consequently, all
first-strike strategic nuclear weapons as well as their concommitant command, control and
communications systems and first-strike contingency plans are prohibited, illegal and criminal. In
order to strengthen that prohibition, we call for the nuclear weapons states to conclude a treaty that
(1) prohibits the further deployment of first-strike nuclear weapons systems, (2) requires the
destruction of those already deployed, and (3) mandates the removal of all first-strike contingency
scenarios from governmental war-plans.

Pursuant thereto, the nuclear weapons states’ respective national parliaments must pass
implementing legislation making it a serious criminal offense under domestic law for government
officials and military officers to design or practice first-strike scenarios during war games or
otherwise. These developments would facilitate the conclusion of an international convention
specifically prohibiting the nuclear weapons states from adopting a "launch-on-warning" nuclear
response doctrine as well as all forms of command, control and communications systems
supportive thereof and any forms of testing incidental thereto. It is our hope that such measures
would lessen the likelihood of any nuclear weapons state feeling compelled by the circumstance of

Report on Principles
4

a severe international crisis to seriously consider being the first to resort to the use of nuclear
weapons. |

8. Strategic Arms Control and Reduction Agreements.

If any new strategic arms reduction agreement is to be reached between the United States and the
Soviet Union, it will have to be based upon the 1972 SALT I Interim Agreement freezing the
number of ballistic missile launchers and the SALT II Treaty of 1979. If the United States
government were to ratify SALT II, then strategic arms reductions could occur by both parties
agreeing to modify such a ratified SALT II by means of lowering its numerical limitations on
strategic nuclear delivery vehicle launchers and its sublimitations on multiple independently
targetable reentry vehicles (MIRVs) by fifty percent (50%) over a period of five years. Next, it
would then be possible for these two nuclear weapons states to create a formal mechanism that
would mandate a percentage reduction in the SALT I and SALT II limitations on launchers and
sublimitations on MIRVed systems on a periodic basis (e.g., 5-10% per annum). The
implementation of such a procedure should be designed to result in the complete elimination of
strategic nuclear weapons systems in the foreseeable future (e.g., by the year 2000 AD).

9. The Strategic Defense Initiative

Unfortunately, the prospects for genuine strategic nuclear arms reductions have been seriously
set back by the 1983 proclamation of so-called Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). The SDI
program will eventually result in the commission of numerous material breaches of the 1972
US-USSR Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM) Treaty, and therefore actually constitutes an
anticipatory repudiation of the ABM Treaty. In addition, SDI would probably violate the 1967
Outer Space Treaty, which prohibits the deployment of some of SDI's envisioned weapons of mass
destruction in outer space. Moreover, field testing some of SDI's proposed technologies (e.g., the
x-ray laser) would violate the pathbreaking 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty, which specifically
prohibits any type of nuclear explosion in outer space.

We call upon the United States government to reaffirm its commitment to the clear language as
well as to its longstanding interpretation of the ABM Treaty, and therefore to immediately terminate
the SDI program. Furthermore, the ABM Treaty must be strengthened by the conclusion of a
Separate international convention that prohibits the development, testing and deployment of
anti-satellite weapons systems, which can also be used for SDI purposes. Finally, the US and the
USSR must clarify the limited scope of permissible "research" under the ABM Treaty by means of
concluding a supplementary protocol for that purpose.

10. The Denuclearization of Europe.

Significant progress in the areas of strategic nuclear weapons and space weapons can facilitate
the complete elimination of nuclear weapons systems at the regional level. The responsive use of
nuclear weapons to repel a conventional attack would be totally disproportionate and indiscriminate
to the threat presented and therefore constitute an impermissible act of self-defense. Therefore,
both NATO and the Warsaw Pact must phase out all of their battlefield, short-range and theater
nuclear weapons systems from Europe as part of a mutually negotiated process. We applaud the
efforts by the United States and the Soviet Union to eliminate so-called theater or intermediate
nuclear weapons systems deployed on that continent. We encourage them to initiate negotiations

Report on Principles
5

over the elimination of so-called battlefield nuclear weapons from Europe. The immediate and
complete denuclearization of Europe by the respective members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact is a
political, legal and moral imperative. However, we emphatically reject the notion that the
denuclearization of Europe will require the increased conventional militarization of that continent.

11. The Demilitarization of Europe

Such negotiations for the complete denuclearization of Europe should be tied into the future
successor to the Mutual and Balanced Force Reduction (MBFR) negotiations, which are currently
taking place at Vienna. In the proposals on the table so far, both sides are in basic agreement on the
principle that NATO and the Warsaw Pact should each reduce to the identical level of 900,000 men,
with no more than 700,000 ground troops. The achievement of a rough equality in conventional
forces at such lower levels between NATO and the Warsaw Pact would materially reduce any
incentive for either to launch a conventional attack while at the same time it would obviate the need
for a massive buildup in European conventional forces. In this manner, an effective conventional
deterrent could be maintained at lower levels of potential violence on both sides without the need
for either to field a nuclear deterrent to a conventional attack.

Nevertheless, we wish to reiterate that such a situation can only constitute a temporary
expedient. All members of NATO and the Warsaw Pact which are likewise parties to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty are under an absolute obligation to "pursue negotiations in good faith...on
a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control." In
regard to the achievement of this goal, we wish to emphasize the continued utility of the US-USSR
Joint Statement of Agreed Principles for Disarmament Negotiations of 20 September 1961, the
so-called McCloy-Zorin Accords.

12. No First Use of Nuclear Weapons

The Soviet Union and China have each already given a unilateral pledge of "no-first-use" of
nuclear weapons that creates a binding international legal obligation on its own accord. The United
States and the concerned NATO members must respond in kind by doing the same, and then
expressing their readiness to conclude an international convention to that effect with the members of
the Warsaw Pact. Considerations of international law would fully support such a "no-first-use"
treaty as a preliminary step toward the denuclearization of Europe. Other nuclear weapons states

could then join this convention for the purpose of initiating a denuclearization of their respective
regions in the world.

13. Nuclear-Free Zones

In this regard, we commend the efforts by governments, statesmen and private individuals
around the world to establish so-called "nuclear-free zones" in Europe, Latin America, and the
South Pacific, etc. We believe it would be a positive development to establish nuclear-free zones at
the national, state, and local levels as well. In addition, building upon existing treaties, that same
principle should be applied on a permanent and universal basis to Outer Space, Antarctica, the Deep
Seabed, the Arctic Ocean, the Indian Ocean, Africa, the Middle East, inter alia. The progressive
development of the nuclear-free-zone movement has the potential to close off large sections of the

world to illegal activities by the nuclear weapons states and to the further proliferation of nuclear
weapons.

Report on Principles
6

14. Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

We call upon all the nuclear weapons states to impose an immediate moratorium on the design,
testing, development, deployment and modernization of all forms of nuclear weapons and their
attendant delivery and communications system. We urge the concerned nuclear weapons States to
return to the negotiations for the conclusion of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), that
were unfortunately suspended in 1980. The successful conclusion of a CTBT under strict national
and international verification would serve as a significant impediment to the faster acceleration of
the nuclear arms race as well as to the further proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world.

15. Nuclear Proliferation

To a significant extent, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the capability to produce them
can be directly attributable to the failure of the concerned nuclear weapons states "to pursue
negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an
early date and to nuclear disarmament..." as required by article 6 of the 1968 Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty. We call upon the concerned nuclear weapons states to discharge their
solemn obligations under NPT Article 6, including by means of implementing the terms of this
Report. We urge those acknowledged nuclear weapons states that have not yet accepted the NPT to
become parties. Finally, we encourage those states which possess the capability to construct
nuclear weapons but have not yet accepted the NPT to become parties and thereby expressly
renounce any nuclear intentions. We believe that the security of states is fatally threatened, not
protected, by the acquisition or development of a nuclear weapons capability. In addition to joining
the NPT regime, the security of non-nuclear weapons states in various regions around the world

can best be promoted by means of the mechanisms envisioned by Chapter VIII of the United
Nations Charter on Regional Arrangements.

16. Civil Resistance

In light of the fact that nuclear weapons systems contradict fundamental norms of international
Jaw, all citizens of the world possess the basic night under international law to engage in nonviolent
civil resistance activities for the purpose of preventing or terminating the ongoing commission of
international crimes. We call upon all the national parliaments of the world to enact implementing
legislation that would expressly affirm this right as a defense to the prosecution for any alleged
breach of domestic laws with respect to nonviolent antinuclear protests. All citizens of the world

community have both the night and the duty to oppose the existence of nuclear weapons systems by
whatever nonviolent means are at their disposal.

17. The Rule of International Law

We reaffirm our unswerving commitment to the rule of international law, to the peaceful
settlement of international disputes, to upholding the integrity of the United Nations Organization,
and to respecting the authority of the International Court of Justice. Pursuant to this commitment,
we hereby urge the membership of the UN General Assembly to give serious consideration to the
conclusion of an international convention banning both the threat and the use of nuclear weapons.
Moreover, the General Assembly must give urgent consideration to further steps that would lead to
the complete elimination of nuclear weapons from the face of the earth. In addition to the agenda

Report on Principles
7

set forth in this Report, the General Assembly should request an Advisory Opinion from the
International Court of Justice on the general subject of Nuclear Weapons and International Law.
We believe that a sound repudiation of the alleged legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons
and of the nuclear arms race by the International Court of Justice would go a long way toward
convincing the entire international community that nuclear weapons are not legitimate instruments
of state policy, but rather manifestations of lawlessness and criminality.

18. Conclusion

We call upon all lawyers and lawyers’ organizations around the world, as well as all men and
women of good faith everywhere, to join us in this endeavor. Otherwise, the human race will

suffer the same fate as the dinosaurs, and the planet earth will become a radioactive wasteland. The
time for preventive action is now!

The New York Anti-Nuclear Declaration

31 August 1987

The Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy and the Association of Soviet Lawyers have agreed to
issue the following document, in the belief that it represents the spirit of the "International
Conference on Nuclear Weapons and International Law."

Convinced that lawyers and the legal profession could contribute to the struggle of the peoples
of the world to end the nuclear arms race and avoid the threat and use of nuclear weapons, The
Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy (USA) and the Association of Soviet Lawyers (USSR)
initiated and sponsored the International Conference on Nuclear Weapons and International Law
between August 29 and 31, 1987, in New York City.

The conference was throughout a serious scientific meeting in which views were exchanged on
the range of problems associated with implementing a legal prohibition on nuclear weaponry.
Many prominent scholars and legal practitioners spoke at the panels and workshop sessions,
prominent personalities active in law and diplomacy gave addresses at luncheon meetings, and
participating lawyers came from many parts of the world, including non-nuclear states and Asian,
African and Latin American countries.

We who participated in this conference were very encouraged by the growing signs of
commitment on the part of influential figures in the legal profession to become a part of the
worldwide movement against nuclearism. Our efforts build upon an earlier momentous
countribution made by the International Peace Bureau, which has obtained the signatures of
thousands of leading international figures on its International Appeal, originated and inspired by
Sean MacBride and called "Lawyers Against Nuclear War."

Our understanding has also been helped by the developing concern of many sectors of public
opinion about the menace of nuclear weaponry and the arms race and by the growing attention
given to these issues on the part of governments seeking to reach negotiated arms control
agreements.

As legal specialists and professionals, we are committed to the ideal of a world free from all
nuclear weapons. We believe this ideal can be reached safely, and that all countries and all peoples
can increase their security through the process of denuclearization. We feel a responsibility as

2
LCNP/ ASL
Declaration

citizens of our particular country and as as an expression of our shared humanity to work toward
such a goal, and we call upon others throughout the world to join us in this momentous work.
We have reached certain fundamental conclusions that guide our work:

That nuclear war would destroy life as we know it, and is therefore contrary to the most
basic of human rights, the right to life.

That the use or threatened use of nuclear weapons would violate existing international law
and would constitute a severe crime against humanity.

That because nuclear war is the ultimate negation of the rule of law, we as lawyers have a

special responsibility to prevent nuclear war and to enforce, develop and strengthen the
international legal order.

International law currently prohibits weapons or tactics in war that fail to discriminate between
combatants and civilians, cause long-term damage to the environment, result in genocide, and

inflict damage that is disproportionate to any legitimate military objective. Any foreseeable use or
threatened use of nuclear weapons would violate these principles.

Our analysis is based on international agreements signed and ratified by many of the world's
nations. These include the Hague Land Warfare Convention of 1907; the Geneva Protocol on gas,
chemical, biological and germ warfare of 1925; the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their
Additional Protocol I of 1977; the Genocide Convention of 1948, the Environmental Modification
Convention of 1977, and the United Nations Charter. The principles embodied in these accords
were confirmed by the Nuremberg Tribunals after World War II, and reflect generally accepted
humanitarian norms. These laws, which were drafted with the horrors of war fresh in mind, are

meant to protect us from unwarranted attack and inhumane cruelty -- and to maintain peace between
nations.

Therefore, we announce today that we are establishing an organizing committee of prominent
lawyers from the United States, the Soviet Union, and other nations, to begin the process of
forming a worldwide organization of lawyers against nuclear war. Its immediate goals will be the
elimination of nuclear weapons and the prevention of nuclear war. It will strive to engender respect

_ [Sr Aer

3
LCNP / ASL
Declaration

for international law and all arms control treaties by all nations, encourage the steady development
of effective mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of international disputes, and promote steps by
way of norms and institutions that will produce a peaceful world. Although our priority is the
avoidance of nuclear war, we recognize that great human suffering is associated with all forms of

warfare and that we can never reliably be rid of the nuclear menace without being rid of the scourge
of war altogether.

As lawyers, we are proud of law as a vocation. The most noble achievement of law is to
promote values, rules, institutions, procedures and structures for peaceful and just relations among
individuals, groups, economic associations and corporations, and sovereign states. We pledge our

commitment to these goals and hope that many others in the legal profession all over the world will
join with us in this exciting and valuable work.

FOR US/USSR LAWYERS JO NT STATEMENT

We wish to mambmimmmiimn point out some salient points :

There is a simplistic,and at first sight seductive throey a(view,)

that the worth or secuiyt of anation depedns on the number & horror of its weapons.

It isaninsult oo the gratuitous cllumny and in sult on the elemtnray

intellkgenece of leaders, to

It is deeply deplorable ,and hardly understdanbale that so shortly after the
worst of history's catastrphe-WWII-- the view is constantly being hammered into the minds
of people that only by an ever more fever ch acculation of ever more fiendish wepons
will the leadres of either of our ntaions deliberatelydecise on their own rspective count

suicide by unleashing a nuclear war. Equally nonsensical is the view thata so-called

conwbicnal war,or a small nuclear war
Nefarious 1)

lina notion is being u critically accepted that relations bewteen sovr.states
or at least of states of diffrent social systems

/ are by their nature relations of force and that

2) peace ful coexistsnce between countreis of different social systems

amamm is i possible. Underlying is the notipn that

FOR US/USSR LAWYERS JO NI STATEMENT

We wish to neahmimmmfimm poim out some salient points :

There is a simplistic,and at first sight seductive throey a(view,)

that the worth or seculyt of anation depedns on the number & horror of its weapons.

Tt isaninsult oo the gratuitous cllummy and in sult on the elemtnray

intellikgenece of leaders, to

it is deeply ceplorable,and hardly understdenbale that so shortly after the

worst cf history's catastrphe-WWIT-- the view is constantly being hammered into the minds
of people that only by sn ever more fever ch secculetion of ever more fiendish wepons
will the leadres of either of our ntaions deliberetelydecise on their own respective count
suicide oy unleashing a nuclear war. Boually nonsensical is the view thata so-called

conWeiocvai wear,or 2 small nuclear var
Nefarious 1)
Ging notisn is being ua critically accepted that relations bewteen sovr.states
or at least of states of diffrent social systems
/ are oy their nature relations of force and that

2) peace ful coexistsnce between countreis of different social systems

ameamm is i possible. Underlying is the notipn thst

ag ALTERNATIVES.

after:it would be amateurish or presumuous..

Whet we should do, is to mmmmmigabamm draw attention (now almost
US
completely lacking) to the positive, constructivemam/pledges and promises

to reduce the theat of nucelar war.

US/Sov.
Illustration: The Nixon-Brezhnevmii@/finmbab “Agreement on the Prevention

of Nurlar War" mf signed in Wash.on 22 June 1973 which ca,e intl force upon signature

Aa -

and is of unlimited duration,obligates the 2 Pywefrsto make the the removal of the
A

danger of nuclear war and of the useof jclweapons on ‘objetive of their policies,'

to practice restarin in their relationsmmsmmm toward each other & towards all

mfinmmm for
countries (i); very significantly, timmmmieim sitations nmvolving the risk of nucelar
USA & USSR or between U.N.Secr-Gen. & the 2 Pwoers

war between th¢éd US BUBBEn any other countries('),the Agmeemanansaaraiihahhaxm

hamandeampthminammm obit pesmbhensmempempomens mithesienihihttyhthihmmendhe toed ymemipeanmmmnpes miommomem its

“shall (')immediately enter into urgent consultations..to avret this risk." inn
(see, iva. ,Alessandro Corr. in UN "Disarmanet"Review,VI/2,summer 83, pp.37/38)
eS ;

(In tinhamamathe prsen atmopshere of deprecating the United Nétions ,8Hm this

A SY °4

acknolwedgment of the Secr,Gen.'s usefulness for def fing such crises mmm snould be
* ;

made more widely known.

*) gne usefulnss has been emprically prgven by U Than$'s role in the soution of
the Cubn missile crisis.Zltogether, the U.N.mam zcted as a last resrot mm in

3 situations where saminnanhmiiaihaan

war between major Powers was imminent:The Cuban missile crisis;the Xuez Caal crisis:
and the Berlin crisis of 1947/8. Corer oe :
This,I believe,should be mentioned in thefiimmh Statement mmm emanating mim
from the ICNP meeting with Sov.jurists.

(aueet! ridetadlediitta ale heisdiinn if

Wicker points out that Reagn"s
"Strtaegid Defense Initiative

"Undoubted sincere ity” that hs

"(ich:the misleading Maidson Ave. false label for Star Ware

"doez not make any the less dismaying his instrctions

is correct to say:the Njkerace has Tarte
Cresed the ever-present danger of ultimate disatser,

the very high probabality of nuclear wer at least 3 times:Cjba Missile crisis:

Sue 4 Canal crisis Berlin crisis 1947/48.

| ee ("Shifting to Defense"
Typical:as thoughful an analyst as Yom Wicker ,in

: fom NYT of Jan.6,85 p. E23 Op Edpage
on eve of Schultz-Gromy,o meeting in Geneva
t e's $ é ?

| Wicker points out that Reagn"s “Undoubted Sincereity" that hs

"Strtaegid Defense Inttistive"(ich:the misleading Maidson Ave.
o fig | A

false label for Star Wars)
i his instrctions to Mr .Shultz

imam "doez not make any "to resist (in the
any Societ proposal to limit

defe se systems" whereas "Just as clearly ,Moscow has

he very Poalbility of “guccess of
leading assertions that the §.D.I.

r weapons ‘obsolete! yit cannot conceivablyde that.
It offers no a at all against low-flying cfuigse

missiles ,manned bombers or
nuclear bombs mug d inte the country by terrorists o

It would be hyperbolic
ike this later a jf ?

seSarat artcle' of the ‘nuke threat,to the U.N is correct to Say:the Njkerace has mim
f / | .
creaed the ever-present danger of ultimate

distateful ana risky as it is,
has PREVENTED NUCLEAR WAR FOR 40 YEARS."

to destroy an adversary,at the cost

Mr. Sherr's statements,I am afraid,are not enpcuraging:
-i-am-afriad-that-the-eairifieatons-given-to-you-by-Mr;-Sherr-are
Three
net-eneouragings-The Coalition bf the dmfsmnmbmamomm (PSR, LANSC & UCS)

intends (a)to devlop an educational program throughout the country(apparently
and ( ) mainly to lobby the Congress
On thehorror of nuclear war) & (b)/#pmmnmnemanane

*
OBRINT PinmmamMmmMMmimm

on specific nuclear weapons legilsation-pparently focusing on the freeze,
oppose first strike weapons (but that cat is already out of the bag and supponp

and at least LANAC will not deal with''--will not even advocate--a no-first

strike pledge)

Amin all the distressing news,there was a somewhat
consoinng apsect in the4-col.article NYT 12/19/83-.6-A by

E.J. DIONNE,JR. ''U.S.-Soviet Contacts Remain Strong at
Lower Level ' starting:

"Sov-Am contacts at the non-govtal level have shown remarkable
r @iliency despite the breakdown in official negotiations in such areas arms
control....' "The remainin g ontacts encompass a broad range of activity
from scholarly exchanges to athletics, and some private Am groups are increa-

sing their excangeg efforts to make up for the delinein officials
programs

Frank tlomene —Tobs withPete 771 Summer Fh

Mark Belkin Lown AFL-Cl> “R98 eg

| ts ta-So}
| or
Feu nik. CHAPMAN Parl, All tance AZ Unton Sq, L)

PAGRtwsT ACSI ST 1, stad. Imbel
| Poltetecal. bE ple DoW Rey's fee |

Susan WANG |WOrk Virquatig 213 Paeoks Mae
Se-tha Freeze | Charkastvo
“\dela i eae taping ce rome UJ AS 3 aa.

- , — — — ane gt aS it
Ae YP vesentattus| > Tre \ ett a
Wet cry cy, | Leansing mt.

| = ‘ve 890g
AGHNST KACIST

Por Ticht. REPLESip/ =
WIL PIF | (v3 RACES)

Para PA 1907)

Yao. EG. Disstew Pax Cruse, jie ean. bal |

Columbia. CanV

royr EERE Ror ayy

Gakyut © ect, lrnniior. 1H oure
¥ f rads Vu, Tr ada Wrae~ ©.

Y) leige Delayed pe ER, OUR eC. uct

Ls, Ot /huy/ $2 o4 Beaman hea, EY f
Pea cy oes a Ata tk ae J hn

Awts Wile, / / ktr. Cy uneA| + Taille, [eee |
Lz Cour: CD

2) G@his is Pan's bee 97

a hus flac, Jay Pro re,

c Vujfeniwny U
Cay le Cres eah +. of feck x ferped_f 2 (ee fi. =f
Slick IWDry Dy baited 4 2 rmypluy 2

Aawkoad (Mae, P2aut Fats

4G r= = Day i) Pract llivs alum face

bueclin,, + Diets Sant / | ?.
; | bh be age ti & Vea

| the . ti, J Verner , Keefe, ag h r
© ut. Var Ug KcAaye
aman

hy: SCO MONE ae Mach be beck EF

DE (36 will Ueore We tuyfers

ok. Olen s + efsi ; Cy er biAry Gan +
P, re Ts! agivatte of C26 eet)

Prt bedut (Hu veniwn gf. ya be plu ed a! of
¥ [duc tie! on ~ tated und — 7S —Cv.A UG.

erm AYA Aeres* ‘ : [ee
ed | hou i ph P~9, ¢

pric wot pale CH rece Tout

Mee ce pda na tras Gore 22 [ke ca

YL <

BESS S 800000

to & »| HN, (do. - Ware Kerdeg oe |
Clee (aes [har 4 = aa
iit, ce eS JO: Ly pete, ‘ e! "e -

P ae yan ety (A Wert cl be
four belle, hoe hue ay/ele

STRIVES = oredr, < fe tly beg fas

hee Ste: aR. peak : lhe de Lic! ~ hear ppt
Labre lowfat bo Ue

tA fai [rede Ui sp oN Aenea
Jevusits ef J neers lif cups nee, ale.

ane ma
—_—_—

At ¢ hey [U, O50 wats oe de:

J 4 4 | kit ii 4
> COPA Ht, ( jealed “a fe

acai ial

toe Lhe Spar pr Qhiug 2/ = tLraum

Bid ‘4 linkidaw -

didi Weed [r Ucore y -

(tad Uti pee (or Secsad nf} lou ct tw
( 0&0 trys bea

(Ue bilieas sit art, Sorur
defaynl)

Cue uj Ae eo lide (0 HU

Oe _ £10- Tt a
< COV a = hive ¢ Leah > poe? LA Wp impee sai
Btir Sou boct rs Lad lye Yay. gl,

P (
. ‘ 4 4
‘i LA Au abbevte SM Ahh Ct ts Chle

- ai ; sen = ,
4 3,040 Unseedaa , ore (0 anit 2 6 Unbfirem yO Ka’ J -
| Vand Aa} i om ( birt &

le Teear

= a + ; — ;
Lg vi Uh— Y wattle f year of i €
| - °¢, 7 per eke t Gtr

fre. 44 jee MLO irk + p44 (A ty [) Utley |
q A dead Slave Cotere= frv Pon ll Pea o over f aan f .

ms Aa le
De ai te
- 2 hat wo ralv onal War Wart

tian a 'G6 4 + Fy?

oun / i Ai.244. Beer
a]
btatwaae” -

(Wlhuy, N ri be, Lt at Corr he fe CF ae LA tes T peat ' ee

/ Croagrertesrentonnnn

ia 5
— Whe carer alent Wtl baw | eel

. meet ee eS een oe

4 i ae . —_ | | _—
My = _ | S . if 7 UF CAB D4 sb eyaet L Uss a Wy as
Siw ot ONDA caer Po he Of A. = Siler lar a :

ce Ne re ELIE OTC At

ccna so ee HEADIN TOON a

Lower Threat Oyaty on

ratnatasspnet it APR TPE

~ NA ewe Cs Yee R be. (/¢ wn Ir+y* A gu
Cy tJ uw
Petree. = ie er clea e ta, 5 Seed Leod
ee a crse/s = ety ove ri
ss - hve wr ol eu pe Coe 4, ge
y ary 1) Wil [oz
6 an uid ~7 OF. Uo Saute Liye ot:
1q9q7 MAT Aeate~ Jo na let i | Gree,
WAS a ' ‘ ianlin | 1v@ al Kt
i? Wn fe ayF
pee or Waa ———
yy ty Ge. C {UD
yALT UT «st ra ttiied e 7
’ “ay ew (
Wreda Ut~ rary f neu = — ie ‘ yu a LHe li
oN ROK Fe Nai a,
UsSs 6 s atm Q (y «~ef aa | / S
te
\ ye"
pack ail qed
Cpe .
Jf

CS Rast &6 Street
New York,NY .10028

21 April 1983

aig Honor
Professor Dr. Josef Ondrej, CSc.
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
of the C.8.8.R.
Union of lawyers of the q.6.8.R.
1160 Praha i
Stare Mesio, Nam. Curieovych 7

Dear Mr. Colef Justice,

Thenk yor inv: iting me to the Worli Assembly for Peace
and Life, agninet Nuclear Var, 21-26 June. TI delisyed my
onswer, hoping thet I could rearrsnge wy summer pleaus in
orjer to come to Prague for thie very importent occasion.
To my sincere regret, thie will not be possibie Yor me.

However, I take the liberty to enclose the Programmatic
Statement of the “awyers Committee on Nacieer Policy, which
aveues thet, under existing internetionali law el War
fare and Ue leer weapons sre illegal; and two " weltding Ss al
mine which discuse the metter more in detail. Please fee
free to make any use of these materials, st the World hase

bly or otherwise, as you wish.

My beet wishes for the success of the World Assembly. If
poseible, I would appreciate receiving the texts of any
Finel Resolutions, and sented of papers, especielly on the
legal aspects of nuciesr and cther venpons of mass destruction.

Respectfully,

Menber "Goneuitatin ive > Garin
lawyers Committee on Nuclesr Policy

INTERNATIONAL PEACE BUREAU

FOUNDED IN ROME 1892 AWARDED NOBEL PEACE PRIZE 1910

APPEAL
by

Lawyers Against Nuclear War

The International Peace Bureau based in Geneva, which is a federation of peace organisations,
has decided to launch an Appeal to lawyers throughout the world to condemn nuclear weapons
and wars as illegal. The Appeal hereunder signed by over 50 eminent lawyers is now being

circulated for signature to lawyers in every country.

The collected signatures will be presented to the United Nations.

THE UNDERSIGNED

Considering that the intensification, both qualitative and quantitative, of the arms race, and
particularly of the nuclear arms race, endangers the very survival of humanity,

Considering that while the world today faces problems of hunger and economic crisis, enormous
material, financial and intellectual resources are wasted on the arms race and in preparing
for nuclear war,

Considering that according to national and international medical and scientific opinion, there are
no means of limiting the disastrous consequences of a nuclear war;! the use of even a limited
amount of the nuclear arsenal would provoke an unprecedented ecological catastrophe which

mankind would not survive,

Considering an increasingly complicated technology, and given the fact that any decision to use
nuclear weapons would be made instantaneously, there is a risk of a nuclear war breaking out
accidentally through human miscalculation or technological mishap,

Considering that international law does not permit states an unlimited choice in the
methods of waging war; it prohibits in particular means of warfare which are intended to cause
unnecessary suffering, those which could severely damage the environment, those which are
incapable of distinguishing between military and non-military objectives or between military forces
and civilian populations; it also prohibits the use of poisonous or asphyxiating or bacteriological
materials, and provides that the territory of neutral states is inviolable,”

Considering that the Martens Clause which, since 1899 has figured in numerous treaties and
international agreements, provides that in situations not covered by such treaties or agreements,
“the populations and belligerents remain under the protection and empire of the principles of
international law, as they result from the usages established among civilised nations, from the
laws of humanity and from the dictates of the public conscience”,

Convinced, as is the General Assembly of the United Nations, that “to avoid the threat of a
world war — a nuclear war — is the most pressing and urgent task of our times”,

CONVINCED THAT LAWYERS CANNOT REMAIN SILENT and have a responsibility

to make known, to develop and to defend the rules of international law, and thus contribute to the
maintenance of peace, to international security, and to the establishment of an international
order which reflects the aspirations of humanity,

Deeply convinced that the moment has come in the history of mankind when there is no alternative
for the survival of civilisation than the acceptance and application of the rule of law in
international relations,

Declare that the use, for whatever reason, of a nuclear weapon would constitute
a) a violation of international law
b) a violation of human rights, and
c) a crime against humanity‘

DEMAND THE PROHIBITION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
AS A FIRST STEP TOWARDS THE ULTIMATE GOAL
OF GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT

Sean MacBride, S.C. Lord Fenner Brockway, L.L.D.

(Nobel Peace Prize; Lenin Peace Prize) (Member of the House of Lords)

Dr. Bruno Kreisky Ahmed El Khawaga

(Former Prime Minister of Austria) (Chairman, Union of Arab Lawyers; President of the
Bar of Eagypt)

Alexandre Soukarev

(Minister of Justice of the Russian Federation;
President, Association of Soviet Lawyers)

Praefallachandra Natvarlal Bwaghati
(Chief Justice of India)

Dr. Gerhard O. W. Mueller

(Chief (Ret.), United Nations Crime Prevention and
Criminal Justice Branch)

Ramsey Clark
(Former Attorney-General, U.S.A.)

Robert Krieps

(Minister of Justice, Luxembourg) Alejandra Serrano Caldera

(Chief Justice of Nicaragua)
Prof. Francois Rigaux

(Professor at the Catholic University of Louvain;
Member of the Council of State, Belgium)

Niall MacDermot, O.B.E., Q.C.

(Secretary General, International Commission of
Jurists)

Joe Nordman

(President, International Association of Democratic
Lawyers)

T.O. Elias
(Judge at the International Court of Justice, The Hague)

Lennart Geijer
(Former Minister of Justice, Sweden)

Dr. Georges Fischer

(Honorary Director of Research at the National Centre
for Scientific Research, France)

References:

Louis Edmond Pettiti

(Former President of the French Bar; President of the
Institute for Human Rights Education; President of the
International Federation of Catholic Lawyers)

Lord Wedderburn of Charlton

(Cassel Professor of Commercial Law, University of
London at the London School of Economics)

Dr. Hans R. Klecatsky

(Chairman, Department of Public Law, University of
Innsbruck; Former Minister of Justice, Austria)

Mohammed Bedjaoui

(Former Minister, Former Ambassador of Algeria;
Judge at the International Court of Justice, The Haque)

Farouk Abu Eissa

(Secretary General, Union of Arab Lawyers; Former
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sudan)

1. Resolution 38/75 of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

2. See in particular the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 1868, the Hague Convention of 1907, the Geneva Protocol of 1925, the
Judgment of the International Tribunal at Nuremberg and Tokyo of 1946 and Resolution 95(1)- 1946 of the General Assembly, the
Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 1977.

3. Resolution 36/81 B-1981 and 40/151 E-1985.

4. General Assembly of the United Nations Resolutions 1653 (XVI)-1961, 2936 (XXVII)-1972, 33/71 B-1978, 34/83 G-1979,
35/152 D-1980, 36/921-1981, 38/75-1983, 40/151 P-1985.

S. Amos Wako

(Hon. Secretary General, Inter-African Union of
Lawyers; Executive Committee Member, International
Commission of Jurists)

Jean Ziegler

(Co-President, International Committee of Scholars in
the Humanities for Disarmament, Development and
Peace; Vice-President, Socialist International)

Joaquin Ruiz-Gimenez

(Ombudsman of Spain; Professor of Law; Former
President, Commission for Justice and Peace, Spain)

Sir Guy Powles

(Former Ombudsman, New Zealand)

Lennart Aspegren
(Judge; Under-Secretary for Legal Affairs, Sweden)

Alexander Yankov
(Professor of International Law, Sofia)

Haim Cohn
(Judge, Israel)

Dr. Hector Negri

(Minister of the Supreme Court of Buenos Aires; Dean
of the Law Faculty)

Bertrand Favreau
(Former President of the French Bar)

Dr. Elliott L. Meyrowitz
(Jurist, U.S.A.).

Dr. Nils Jareborg

(Professor of Criminal Law, Dean of the Faculty of Law,
Uppsala)

Alfredo Etcheberry

(Professor of Criminal Law, University of Chile)

Paul O’Dwyer

(Attorney at Law, U.S.A., President, Brehon Law
Society)

Peter Ingelse

(Barrister, Ban the Cruise Missiles Foundation case,
Netherlands)

Hans Goran Franck
(Parliamentarian and Lawyer)

Monique Chemillier-Jendreau

(Professor of International Law at the University of
Paris)

Leonard Boudin
(Civil Rights Attorney, U.S.A.)

Leo Matarasso
(Avocat a la Cour, France)

Guillermo Figallo
(Attorney, Peru)

Patrick McEntee, S.C., Q.C.

(Former Chairman of the Bar of Ireland)

Bo Martinsson

(Director General, National Prison and Probation
Administration, Sweden)

A. H. J. van den Biesen

(Barrister, Ban the Cruise Missiles Foundation case,

Netherlands)

Professor Francis A. Boyle

(Professor of International Law, University of Illinois in
Champaign)

Jean Salmon

(Director, Centre of International Law at the Free
University of Bruxelles)

Dr. Ikbal Al Fallouji

(Jurist, Switzerland)

Frank Durkan
(Attorney at Law, U.S.A.)

Edward Rees

(Lawyers for Nuclear Disarmament)

Professor Raul F. Cardenas
(Jurist, Mexico)

Paulette Pierson Mathy

(Secretary General, International Commission of
Enquiry into the Crimes of the Racist and Apartheid
Regime of Southern Africa; Professor of Law at the Free

University of Bruxelles)

Lord Anthony Gifford, Q.C.
(Member of the House of Lords)

Nuri Albala

(Avocat a la Cour, France)

Elizabeth S. Landis
(Attorney, U.S.A.)

Antoine Comte
(Avocat ala Cour, France)

Owen Davies
(Lawyers for Nuclear Disarmament, London)

A. H. Schotman

(Lawyer, Ban the Cruise Missiles Foundation case,
Netherlands)

Augusto Conte MacDonell
(Abogado, Buenos Aires)

Lawyers and jurists are invited to join this international appeal of Lawyers Against Nuclear War by
attaching their signatures, address and description overleaf and returning the appeal to:

International Peace Bureau

41 Rue de Zurich

Geneva, Switzerland
Name

Address

Description or Occupation

~-——
- — _ ~~ —
— — —
— _
— _ _ — — :
= a a a 2 =
— =
— ——-- - — —----— — — -
- _ -—- ——_—
nae — — ——-—-
—— oo ——---—-- -_—— — — - — — _
— os - —— —
— — — — — —- —— _
— — —_—_--——— — - ee — a am cones: = =
—_—_—_—— —-- -- on | —
-~— — — -- ~ —_ - -
——-————_— --—— -- — = a — - ——— — —— —_ -_
oo — —- --- ————----- —— — — — : --
— ——
-_— — — —
—— —_ “= —---———- —— — —
— —— ~~ ~---- — —— —- -
’
— — ——-— — — —- — —_
—_——_— — ___——— —— oe — - _
—— — — — —------— — ——-~ —_— ~
— — — — -

The Sponsoring
Organizations ff International

The Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy is a (Conference

national association of lawyers and legal scholars
concerned with legal aspects of the nuclear

weapons and arms control debates. It currently On N uclear

has 600 associates, including a Consultative Coun-

cil comprised of top scholars in the field of nu- Weapons an €
clear weapons law. | .

The Association of Soviet Lawyers is a profes- International
sional association of lawyers in the Soviet Union.

Its leaders are prominent members of the Soviet
legal community.

This conference was made possible through gener-
ous grants from the Louise and Lionel Berman
Foundation, the Boehm Foundation, the Funding
Exchange/National Community Funds, and the
Samuel Rubin Foundation, all of New York City.

August 29-31, 1987

Co-sponsors: The [| 9vers’
Committee on Nuclear Pal
and the Ac<«*ciation of Sovi
Lawyers (USSR)

i: Lawyersa==
Committee on

Nuclear Policy

eee | ae

225 Lafayette Street
New York, NY 10012
(212) 334-8044
OMNI Park Central Hotel
7th Avenue at 56th Street
| New York City
— | (212) 247-8000

The Conference

his is the first conference jointly sponsored

by U.S. and Soviet lawyers to explore the
broad international legal questions related to nu-
clear weapons. Participants include prominent
legal scholars and political figures from the United
States, the Soviet Union, and other nations. Our
goal is to convene influential lawyers from around
the world to discuss legal aspects of the nuclear
arms race and to make a strong, unified statement
against nuclear war.

On the final day, there will be discussion on
the prospects for an international organization or
movement of lawyers against nuclear war. In addi-
tion, the sponsoring organizations intend to issue
a joint communique on the status of nuclear
weapons under international law, which partici-
pants may endorse.

Just as religious leaders, physicians,
scientists, educators, military officials and others
have spoken out against the threat of nuclear war,
lawyers are now applying their particular expertise
and influence to find solutions to the nuclear di-
lemma, based on respect for international law and
the development of nonviolent mechanisms for
the resolution of disputes between nations. We
welcome you to this historic event.

Program

All panel discussions will take place in the Corin-
thian room on the 26th floor. After presentations
by panelists, we have scheduled a brief coffee
break and time for discussion from the floor. Work-
shops will also include time for general discussion.

Saturday, August 29
8:45 a.m.

Registration

9:15 a.m.

Welcoming Remarks

Martin Popper (US)
Alexander Sukharev (USSR)

9:40 a.m.

Panel Discussion: Conceptions of Security in
the Nuclear Age

Chair: Saul Mendlovitz (US)

Panel: Richard Barnet (US)
Vadim Sobakin (USSR)
Yoshikazu Sakamoto (Japan)
Juan Somavia (Chile)

12:00 noon

Luncheon
Oriental Room, $25 per person

Prefatory remarks: Robert Boehm (US)
Chair: Vadim Sobakin (USSR)
Speaker: Paul Warnke (US)

1:45 p.m.
Workshops

(1) The Role of International Institutions
Corinthian Room

Chair: William Epstein (Canada/UN)

Presenters: Silvia Hernandez (Mexico)
Paul Szasz (US/UN)
Gennady Danilenko (USSR)

(2) The Role of the Courts
Park Central Suite (Mezzanine Level)

Chair: Ann Fagan Ginger (US)
Presenters: Anne Simon (US)
A.H.J. van den Biesen
(Netherlands)
David Matas (Canada)
John Burroughs (US)

3:30 p.m.
Panel Discussion: The Use of Nuclear Weapons
Under International Law

Chair: Karen Shatzkin (US)

Panel: Richard Falk (US)
Gennady Ignatenko (USSR)
Ved Nanda (India/US)
Owen Davies (UK)

6:00 p.m.

Reception
Oriental Room

Co-sponsored with New York Lawyers Alliance
for Nuclear Arms Control, with remarks by Diana

Lopez (US)

Sunday, August 30

9:30 a.m.

Panel Discussion: The Arms Control
Dimension Including Star Wars

Chair: Vadim Sobakin (USSR)
Panel: Betty Lall (US)
Boris Majorsky (USSR)
Maj Britt Theorin (Sweden)
Third World participant to be
announced

12:00 noon

Luncheon
Oriental Room, $25 per person

Prefatory remarks: Alex Miller (US)
Chair: Maxwell Cohen (Canada)
Speaker: Roald Sagdeev (USSR)

1:45 p.m.
Workshops
Mezzanine Level

(1) The Right to Peace and the Right to
Development
Tapestry Suite

Chair: Cora Weiss (US)

Presenters: Stephen Marks (US), tentative
Leonid Sukiajnen (USSR)
Another presenter to be announced

(2) The Role of Non-Nuclear Nations
Park Central Suite

Chair: A.O. Adede (Kenya/UN)

Presenters: Aaron Tovish (US)
Miguel Marin-Bosch (Mexico)
Jerome Elkind (New Zealand/US)

3:30 p.m.
Panel Discussion: Nuclear Deterrence Under
International Law

Chair: John H. E. Fried (US)

Panel: Francis Boyle (US)
Gennady Melkov (USSR)
Ulf Panzer (West Germany)
Juan Gomez Robledo (Mexico)

6:00
Reception
Oriental Room

7:15 p.m.

Dinner
Corinthian Room, $40 per person

Chair: W. Haywood Burns (US)

Speakers: Alexander Sukharev (USSR)
Sean MacBride (Ireland)
William Sloane Coffin (US)

Monday, August 31
9:30 a.m.

Panel Discussion: Developing a Legal Regime
for the Control and Elimination of Nuclear
Weapons

Chair: Peter Weiss (US)

Panel: Burns H. Weston (US)
Igor Blishenko (USSR)
Robert Van Lierop (Vanuatu)
Edward St. John (Australia)

1:00 p.m.

Open Discussion
Chair: Martin Popper (US)

On the formation of an international organization
of lawyers for the prevention of nuclear war; and
(over)

on a joint communique to be released by the
Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy and the
Association of Soviet Lawyers at the close of the
conference.

3:30 p.m.

Closing Plenary Session
Speaker: Ted Weiss (US)

Discussion: Presentation of the joint communique
and vote on its endorsement by
participants

Closing remarks: Peter Weiss (US)
Alexander Sukharev (USSR)

| Biographies

A. O. ADEDE is a deputy director of research
and studies, Legal Department of the United Na-
tions, and former legal advisor to the International
Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, Austria.

RICHARD J. BARNET is a senior fellow of the
Institute for Policy Studies, a member of the Mas-
sachusetts Bar, and author of many books, includ-
ing Real Security (Institute for Policy Studies:
1981).

IGOR BLISHENKO is chair of the International
Law Department at Patrice Lumumba University

in Moscow.

ROBERT BOEHM is treasurer of the Lawyers’
Committee on Nuclear Policy and chairperson of
the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York

City.

FRANCIS BOYLE is professor of international
law at the University of Illinois and author of
World Politics and Law (Duke: 1985) and Defend-
ing Civil Resistance Under International Law
(Transnational: 1987).

W. HAYWOOD BURNS is a dean of the City
University of New York Law School and president
of the National Lawyers Guild.

JOHN BURROUGHS is a volunteer attorney at
the Western States Legal Foundation in Oakland,
CA, which represents antinuclear protesters and is
involved in cases against naval homeporting.

WILLIAM SLOANE COFFIN is former chaplain
of Yale University, outgoing senior minister at
Riverside Church in New York City, and president-
elect of SANE/Freeze, the largest peace organiza-
tion in the U.S.

MAXWELL COHEN, O.C, Q.C., is formerly
professor of law and dean of the faculty of law at
McGill University. He is presently scholar-in-
residence at the University of Ottawa and an ad-
hoc judge of the International Court of Justice.

GENNADY DANILENKO is a research fellow at
the Institute for State and Law in the Soviet
Academy of Sciences.

OWEN DAVIES is a barrister with a practice in
non-commercial law who is secretary and a found-
ing member of Lawyers for Nuclear Disarmament

(London).
JEROME ELKIND is senior lecturer in law at the
University of Auckland (New Zealand) and a
visiting professor of law at the University of

Wyoming (US).

WILLIAM EPSTEIN is senior special fellow at
the United Nations Institute for Training and Re-
search (UNITAR) and former head of the Disarma-
ment Division in the U.N. Secretariat.

RICHARD FALK is Albert G. Milbank professor
of international law and practice at the Center of
International Studies, Princeton University.

JOHN H.E. FRIED is professor emeritus of politi-
cal science at the City University of New York.

He served as special legal consultant to the judges
of the U.S. War Crimes Tribunals at Nuremberg.

ANN FAGAN GINGER is president of the
Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute (Berkeley,
CA) and chair of the Berkeley City Commission
on Peace and Justice. She is also a lawyer,
lecturer, and author.

SILVIA HERNANDEZ is a Mexican senator who
is president of the Latin American division of
Parliamentarians Global Action and chair of
Women Parliamentarians for Peace.

GENNADY IGNATENKO is chair of the Inter-
national Law Department at the Sverdlovsk Juridi-
cal Institute (USSR).

BETTY LALL is director of Arms Control Verifi-
cation Studies at the Council on Economic
Priorities and adjunct professor of Peace Studies
at New York University.

DIANA LOPEZ is vice-chair of New York
Lawyers Alliance for Nuclear Arms Control and

an attorney at Debevoise & Plimpton in New
York.

SEAN MACBRIDE received a Nobel Peace Prize
in 1974. He is a former Foreign Minister of Ire-
land, and a founding member of Amnesty Interna-
tional.

BORIS MAJORSKY is an expert on nuclear arms
control in the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

AMBASSADOR MIGUEL MARIN-BOSCH is
Deputy Permanent Representative of Mexico to

the United Nations.

DAVID MATAS is head of the nuclear issues
subcommittee of the Canadian Bar Association
and a member of the legal advisory committee to
the Canadian Nuclear Weapons Legal Action.

GENNADY MELKOV is chair of the International
Law Department at the Moscow Juridical Insti-

tute.

SAUL MENDLOVITZ is professor of interna-
tional law at Rutgers University and co-director
of the World Order Models Project.

ALEX MILLER is executive director of the
Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy.

VED NANDA received his education at Punjab
and Delhi Universities in India and at Northwest-
ern and Yale Universities in the U.S. He currently
directs the International Legal Studies Program of
the University of Denver College of Law.

ULF PANZER is a criminal law judge in Ham-
burg, West Germany, where he currently sits on a
local district court. Since 1982, he has been part
of the German peace initiative Judges and Pro-
secutors for Peace.

MARTIN POPPER is a practicing attorney in

New York City and co-chair of the Lawyers’
Committee on Nuclear Policy. He was a consultant
to the U.S. delegation at the founding conference
of the United Nations, and former executive sec-
retary of the National Lawyers Guild.

JUAN GOMEZ ROBLEDO is professor of public
international law at Pan-American University, a
member of the Latin American Center for
Strategic Studies, and a member of the Mexican
Bar Association.

ROALD SAGDEEV is a prominent academician
in the Soviet Union.

EDWARD ST. JOHN, Q.C., is a former member
of the Australian Parliament, president of the
International Commission of Jurists, Australian
Section, and is currently conducting a study of
nuclear weapons and international law.

YOSHIKAZU SAKAMOTO is professor of inter-
national politics at the University of Tokyo.
ANNE SIMON is a staff attorney at the Center
for Constitutional Rights, New York, who served
as a lawyer in Greenham Women Against Cruise
Missiles, et al. v. Ronald Reagan, et al. and in
New York City homeport cases.

VADIM SOBAKIN is vice-president of the Asso-
ciation of Soviet Lawyers and a professor at the
Moscow Institute of International Relations.

JUAN SOMAVIA is a secretary general of the
South American Commission on Peace, Regional
Security and Democracy, and was formerly Chi-
lean Ambassador to the Andean Group.

ALEXANDER SUKHAREYV is president of the
Association of Soviet Lawyers and Minister of
Justice of the Russian Soviet Federated Republic
in the Soviet Union.

LEONID SUKIAJNEN is a research fellow at the
Institute for State and Law in the Soviet Academy
of Sciences.

PAUL SZASZ is deputy to the legal counsel and
director of the General Legal Division in the
Office of Legal Affairs at the United Nations.

MAJ BRITT THEORIN is Minister of Dis-
armament of Sweden.

AARON TOVISH is executive director of Par-
liamentarians Global Action, which is based in
New York.

A.H.J. VAN DEN BIESEN is a practicing attor-

ney specializing in housing law in Amsterdam.
He is one of two attorneys handling the case
against the cruise missile in the Netherlands.

ROBERT VAN LIEROP is a practicing attorney
who is currently Ambassador to the United
Nations from Vanuatu.

PAUL WARNKE was the chief negotiator of the
SALT II Treaty. He now chairs the Committee on
National Security in Washington, DC.

CORA WEISS is co-director of the Riverside
Church Disarmament Program and a member of
the National Executive Committee of SANE/
Freeze.

PETER WEISS is a practicing attorney in New
York City, vice-president of the Center for Con-
stitutional Rights, and co-chair of the Lawyers’
Committee on Nuclear Policy.

TED WEISS is a Representative to the U.S. Con-
gress from the 17th Congressional District of New
York.

BURNS H. WESTON is Bessie Dutton Murray
Distinguished Professor of Law at the University
of Iowa and author of Toward Nuclear Disarma-
ment and Global Security: A Search for Alterna-
tives (Westview Press: 1984).

Registration

The registration table will be located in the en-
tranceway to the Corinthian Room, and will be
open from Saturday at 8:45 a.m. until the end of

the conference.

Registration Fees

Registration $15
Luncheon, Saturday, August 29 $25
Luncheon, Sunday, August 30 $25
Dinner, Sunday, August 30 $40
Registration for all functions

(reduced rate) $90
Interpretation

Interpretation between English and Russian will
be provided throughout the conference.

Audio Transcripts

Complete or partial audio tape recordings of the
proceedings are available (full set—$150).

Contributions to the Lawyers’ Committee on
Nuclear Policy are tax-deductible. LCNP is a
tax-exempt educational organization under section
501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

Metadata

Containers:: Box 4 (6-Vietnam and International Law and the ), Folder 68
Resource Type:: Document
Rights:: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Date Uploaded:: May 17, 2024

Using these materials

Access:: The archives are open to the public and anyone is welcome to visit and view the collections.

Collection restrictions:: Access to this record group is unrestricted.
Collection terms of access:: The researcher assumes full responsibility for conforming with the laws of copyright. Whenever possible, the M.E. Grenander Department of Special Collections and Archives will provide information about copyright owners and other restrictions, but the legal determination ultimately rests with the researcher. Requests for permission to publish material from this collection should be discussed with the Head of Special Collections and Archives.

About the Archives

Access options

Ask an Archivist

Ask a question or schedule an individualized meeting to discuss archival materials and potential research needs.

Ask a Question Book a Meet

Schedule a Visit

Archival materials can be viewed in-person in our reading room. We recommend making an appointment to ensure materials are available when you arrive.

Schedule a Visit Hours

Collection

John H. E. Fried Papers, 1911-1990

Collection ID	ger014
Total components	2193
Items available online	9
Last indexed	2025-07-29

Schedule a Visit

Collections

International Conference on Nuclear Weapons and International Law, New York, 1987 August 29-1987 August 31

Online content

Metadata

Using these materials

About the Archives

Access options

Ask an Archivist

Schedule a Visit

Collection

John H. E. Fried Papers, 1911-1990

Collection contents