Course Description, Syllabus, Topics for Papers, and Reference Sources

 

NUCLEAR WEAPONS & INTERNATIONAL LAW

 

Professor Charles J. Moxley, Jr.

Fordham University School of Law

Fall 2008

 

          This seminar will address issues as to the lawfulness under international law of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The course will focus upon such matters as the following: applicable rules of international law, as articulated by the United States; the United StatesÕ position as to the application of such rules to nuclear weapons; the 1996 advisory decision of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons; relevant judicial decisions subsequent to the ICJ decision; and generally accepted principles of international law applicable to the analysis. The course will also focus upon the facts that are central to the legal analysis, including the characteristics and effects of nuclear weapons, U.S. policy as to the circumstances in which it might use nuclear weapons, the theory and implications of nuclear deterrence, and identifiable risk factors as to the potential effects of the use of nuclear weapons.  The course will encompass contemporary proliferation issues, including as to North Korea and Iran.  This will be a paper course and students will be required to present their papers in class. The papers may be used to satisfy the writing requirement. The primary text will be Charles J. Moxley, Jr., Nuclear Weapons and International Law in the Post Cold War World (Austin & Winfield, University Press of America, 2000).

Credits: 2

 

 

Prof.

Day/Time

Room

Course No.

Moxley

Monday / 6:00 PM to 7:50 PM

303

ITGL0322051

 

 

Sections:  Syllabus, Topics for Papers, Reference Sources. This Syllabus may be found at nuclearweaponslaw.com.
 

          Following are the class assignments. I have tried to balance the legal and factual materials relating to the issue of the lawfulness of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, so that, when we get to the point of applying the law to the facts, we will have covered both elements.

 

          This will very much be a discussion course. Students will be expected to participate actively and should bring the text book and assigned readings to class.

 

          Set forth below are various topics for papers.1 Students will be expected to present their papers orally to the class in presentations of approximately twenty minutes and to answer questions from the professor and other students and participate in discussion of their topics for another approximately twenty minutes. We start the presentations in approximately the eighth class, although the papers need not be turned in until the fourteenth class. Students are expected to circulate outlines or drafts of their papers a week in advance of their oral presentation to facilitate discussion of the matters presented. Such outlines/drafts will not be graded and may be in rough form, particularly for students presenting early in the course.

 

         In drafting their papers, students are expected to take the analysis to the next step.  The objective is not to write up the information and analysis set forth in the text and assigned readings, but rather to assimilate such materials, identify the open interesting issues –– and address them.

 

          Papers should be approximately twenty-five pages.

 

          Grading will be as follows: class participation (30%); presentation and "defense" of the paper (20%); and the paper (50%). Students may contribute to their class participation grade by serving as a discussion leader with respect to assigned readings or by researching discrete issues that arise in class discussions.

 

          Starting with approximately the eighth class we will primarily be doing student presentations of papers and discussion of the presentations. However, the substantive readings will continue. Students will be expected to draw upon the continued readings both in their papers and in their discussion of other studentsÕ papers.

 

         Please note that legal analysis should make up at least half of every paper and related presentation. A paper may concentrate on one or more legal issues of interest, but should provide at least an overview of the universe of legal issues that may potentially be applicable to the particular topic. As always in legal analysis, issue recognition is at the heart of the matter.

 

         In light of the nature of modern communication in the courtroom and elsewhere, students are encouraged in presenting their papers to use computer visuals and the like.

 

The following syllabus includes various materials available on the internet.
 

Syllabus

 

Class 1 (8/25/08):

á      Focus: Consideration of the strategic role of nuclear weapons; general introduction to law and facts relevant to the questions of whether the use and  threat of use of nuclear weapons are lawful under the law of armed conflict

á      Readings

á      Jack Spencer, Learning to Love the Bomb, Heritage Foundation (August 25, 2003), available at http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed082603b.cfm.

á      1-11 (assignments, unless otherwise noted, are to Moxley, Nuclear Weapons and International Law in the Post Cold War World)

á      George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn, Toward a Nuclear-Free World, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 15, 2008, available at http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120036422673589947.html.

á      Statement of the LawyersÕ Committee on Nuclear Policy, Ending U.S. Reliance On Nuclear Weapons and Achieving Their Global Elimination: Wise Policy and Required By Law, March 2008, available at http://www.lcnp.org/disarmament/LCNPstatement2008.pdf.

á      Federation of American Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council, Union of Concerned Scientists, Towards True Security: Ten Steps The Next President Should Take To Transform U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy, February 2008, available at http://www.fas.org/press/_docs/Toward%20True%20Security%202008%20.pdf.

á      James Jay Carafano, Ph.D., Baker Spring and Mackenzie Eaglen, Providing for the Common Defense: What 10 Years of Progress Would Look Like, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #2108, February 19, 2008 (read executive summary, pages 1-2), available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/bg2108.cfm. (Read portions relating to nuclear weapons and missile defense.)

á      Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: A New Beginning, October 2, 2007, available at http://www.barackobama.com/2007/10/02/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_27.php. (Read portions relating to nuclear weapons.)

á      Remarks By John McCain on Nuclear Security, May 27, 2008, available at http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/Speeches/e9c72a28-c05c-4928-ae29-51f54de08df3.htm.

á      Testimony of Mr. Takashi Hiraoka, Mayor of Hiroshima, and Mr. Iccho Itoh, Mayor of Nagasaki, before the International Court of Justice, 7 November 1995 (22-39), available at http://www.nuclearweaponslaw.com/Hiroshima_Nagasaki.doc.

á      Reference Materials:2

á      John McCain on Nuclear Security, May 27, 2008, available at http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/74797d36-8fe4-449a-b760-ccae5e866c99.htm.

á      Michael Spies, Stagnation and Redundancy: Report on the 2007 UN First Committee, Disarmament Diplomacy No. 87, Spring 2008, available at http://www.acronym.org.uk/dd/dd87/87unfc.htm.

á      President Bush Approves Significant Reduction in Nuclear Weapons Stockpile, White House Press Release, Dec. 18, 2007, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/12/print/20071218-3.html.

á      Hans Kristensen, White House Announces (Secret) Nuclear Weapons Cuts, FAS Strategic Security Blog, Dec 18, 2007, available at http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/12/white_house_announces_secret_n.php.

á      Robert S. Norris & Hans M. Kristensen, Nuclear Notebook: U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2008, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (March/April 2008) 50-53, 58, available at http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/pr53n270241156n6/fulltext.pdf.

á      Robert S. Norris & Hans M. Kristensen, Nuclear Notebook: Russian Nuclear Forces, 2008, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (May/June 2008) 54-57, 62, available at http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/t2j78437407v3qv1/fulltext.pdf.

á      Hans M. Kristensen, Chinese Nuclear Arsenal Increased by 25 Percent Since 2006, Pentagon Report Indicates, FAS Strategic Security Blog, Mar. 6, 2008, available at http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/03/chinese_nuclear_arsenal_increa.php.

á      Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission, Weapons of Terror: Freeing the World of Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Arms, (final report 2006) 60-109, available at http://www.wmdcommission.org/files/Weapons_of_Terror.pdf.

á      Baker Spring, Weapons of Mass Destruction: Current Nuclear Proliferation Challenges, The Heritage Foundation, Heritage Lectures, Oct. 4, 2006, available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/upload/hl_968.pdf.

á      George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger and Sam Nunn, A World Free of Nuclear Weapons, Wall Street Journal, (Eastern edition) New York, N.Y., January 4, 2007, pg. A.15, available at http://www.comeclean.org.uk/articles.php?articleID=278.

á      Norris, Robert and Hans Kristensen, U.S. Nuclear Forces, 2007, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 79 (January/February 2007), available at http://thebulletin.metapress.com/content/91n36687821608un/fulltext.pdf.

á      Hans Kristensen, Status of World Nuclear Forces, 2007, The Nuclear Information Project (March 29, 2007), available at http://www.nukestrat.com/nukestatus.htm.

á      Hans Kristensen, US Air Force Decides to Retire Advanced Cruise Missile, Strategic Security Blog, Federation of American Scientists (March 7, 2007), available at http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/03/ (bottom of page).

á      Mikhail Gorbachev, The Nuclear Threat, January 31, 2007, available at http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2007/01/31_gorbachev_nuclearthreat.htm.

á      Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Preventing Nuclear Catastrophe: Where Do We Go From Here?, International Conference on the Prevention of Nuclear Catastrophe, IAEA, Luxembourg, May 24 2007, available at http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2007/ebsp2007n006.html.

á      John Burroughs, The Legal Framework for Non-Use and Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, Briefing Paper for Greenpeace International, John Burroughs, February 2006, Article VI Forum, The Hague, March 2, 2006, available at http://www.lcnp.org/disarmament/Gpeacebrfpaper.pdf.

á      Shimoda et al. v. The State, Tokyo District Court, 7 December 1963.  Source: www.helpicrc.org; Hanrei Jiho, vol. 355, p. 17; translated in The Japanese Annual of International Law, vol. 8, 1964, p. 231, available at www.nuclearweaponslaw.com/Shimoda_v_State.doc.

á      BBC News, US Adopts Tough New Space Policy, news.bbc.co.uk (October 18, 2006), available at www.nuclearweaponslaw.com/USAdoptsToughNewSpacePolicy.pdf. 

á      Robert M. Sapolsky, A Natural History of Peace, 85 Foreign Affairs 104-120 (January/February 2006), available at www.nuclearweaponslaw.com/Natural_History_of_Peace.pdf.

á      John Burroughs, The Global Threat of Nuclear Weapons (September 10, 2004), available at http://www.lcnp.org/disarmament/GlobalThreatNW.htm.

á      Joseph Circincione, Jon B. Wolfsthal, Miriam Rajkumar, Deadly Arsenals, 2d. Ed., Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (2005), available at http://www.nuclearweaponslaw.com/Deadly_Arsenals.pdf.

á      Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction, Testimony before the Armed Services Committee of the United States House of Representatives, March 17, 2004 (statement of Larry M. Wortzel), available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/tst031704a.cfm

á      Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force on Future Strategic Strike Forces, February 2004, available at http://www.nuclearweaponslaw.com/fssf.pdf.

á      Ariel Cohen, Preventing a Nightmare Scenario: Terrorist Attacks Using Russian Nuclear Weapons and Materials, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #1854 (May 20, 2005), available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/bg1854.cfm.

á      Jack Spencer, Congress is Wrong to Defund Strategic Programs, Heritage Foundation WebMemo # 618 (December 8, 2004), available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm618.cfm.

á      Jack Spencer and Kathy Gudgel, The 2005 Quadrennial Defense Review: The Military Industrial Base, Heritage Foundation WebMemo #761 (June 14, 2005), available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm761.cfm.

á      Bruce T. Goodwin, Frederick A. Tarantino, and Joan B. Woodward, Sustaining The Nuclear Enterprise – A New Approach, (May 20, 2005), available at http://www.nuclearweaponslaw.com/sustainingtheenterprise.pdf.

á      Convention Approach

á      Proposed Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Testing, Production, Stockpiling, Transfer, Use and Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons and on Their Elimination, LawyersÕ Committee on Nuclear Policy, April, 1997, available at http://www.lcnp.org/mnwc/convention.htm.

á      Statement of Purpose and Summary of the MNWC, LawyersÕ Committee on Nuclear Policy, available at http://www.lcnp.org/mnwc/mnwcsumm.htm

á      Commentary on the MNWC (LawyersÕ Committee on Nuclear Policy), available at http://www.lcnp.org/mnwc/mnwccomm.htm.

á      See also the additional materials collected at http://www.lcnp.org/mnwc/index.htm. 

á      Transcript of U.S. oral argument before the International Court of Justice in the "Nuclear Weapons Advisory Case"3 available on the ICJ website at www.icj-cij.org. (Direct hotlink: available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/5947.pdf.) The U.S. oral argument begins on page 55. Extra link to US oral argument.

 

Class 2 (9/8/08):

á      Focus: U.S. nuclear policy; detailed discussion of the topics for student papers (set forth below) to refine them, put them in context, evaluate their significance, and match up students and topics (Students should come prepared with their top two or three preferences as to a topic to pursue)4

á      Readings

á      Middle Powers Initiative, Back from the Margins: The Centrality of Nuclear Disarmament (Briefing Paper for the Fifth Meeting of the Article VI Forum, Dublin, Ireland) March 27-29, 2008, available at http://www.gsinstitute.org/mpi/pubs/A6F_Dublin_brief.pdf.

á      Middle Powers Initiative, Visible Intent: NATOÕs Responsibility to Nuclear Disarmament (Briefing Paper) January 2008, available at http://www.middlepowers.org/pubs/NATO_brief_2008.pdf.

á      Hans M. Kristensen, White House Guidance Led to New Nuclear Strike Plans Against Proliferators, Document Shows, Strategic Security Blog, Federation of American Scientists (Nov. 5, 2007), available at http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2007/11/white_house_guidance_led_to_ne.php.

á      Baker Spring, Nuclear Games: A Tool for Examining Nuclear Stability in a Proliferated Setting, Heritage Lectures No. 1066, Nov. 15, 2007, available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/upload/hl_1066.pdf.

á      Baker Spring, Omnibus Eliminates Funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead Program, Heritage WebMemo No. 1755, Dec. 18, 2007, available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/upload/wm_1755.pdf.

á      2006 National Security Strategy of the United States 19-24, available at www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/nss2006.pdf.

á      U.S. Department of Defense, Strategic Deterrence Joint Operating Concept 1-8, February 2004, available at http://www.wslfweb.org/nukes/foia.htm.

á      Reference Materials:

á      Jack Spencer and Baker Spring, The Advantages of Expanding the Nuclear Navy, Heritage WebMemo No. 1693, Nov. 5, 2007, available at  http://www.heritage.org/Research/homelanddefense/upload/wm_1693.pdf.

á      Michael Spies, Controlling the Nuclear Fuel Cycle, Disarmament Times, Spring 2008, p. 1, available at http://www.lcnp.org/energy/DTspring08.pdf.

á      Global Action Center for the Environment (GRACE), Proposed Model Statute for an International Sustainable Energy Agency, available at http://www.abolition2000.org/atf/cf/%7B23F7F2AE-CC10-4D6F-9BF8-09CF86F1AB46%7D/ISEA.PDF.

á      Jack Spencer, The Nuclear Renaissance: Ten Principles to Guide U.S. Policy, Heritage WebMemo No. 1640, Sep. 26, 2007, available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/upload/wm_1640.pdf.

á      Dr. John Burroughs, Jacqueline Cabasso, Felicity Hill, Andrew Lichterman, Jennifer Nordstrom, Michael Spies, Peter Weiss, Nuclear Disorder or Cooperative Security? An Assessment of the Final Report of the WMD Commission and Its Implications for U.S. Policy, (2007):

á      Introduction, available at http://www.wmdreport.org/pages/NuclearDisorder-introduction.pdf.

á      Executive Summary, available at http://www.wmdreport.org/pages/NuclearDisorder-summary.pdf.

á      Recommendations, available at http://www.wmdreport.org/pages/NuclearDisorder-recommendations.pdf.

á      George Perkovich, Jessica T. Mathews, Joseph Cirincione, Rose Gottemoeller, and Jon B. Wolfsthal, Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security 13-49, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (2007), available at http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/univ_comp_rpt07_final1.pdf.

á      Baker Spring, CongressÕs Critical Role in the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW) Program, Heritage Foundation, Executive Memorandum No. 1026, May 11, 2007, available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/upload/em_1026.pdf.

á      The Secretary of State for Defence and The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, The Future of the United KingdomÕs Nuclear Deterrent, by Command of Her Majesty (2006), available at http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AC00DD79-76D6-4FE3-91A1-6A56B03C092F/0/DefenceWhitePaper2006_Cm6994.pdf.

á      Michael Fordham QC, Naina Patel, Proposed Replacement of Trident, Joint Opinion for Peacerights, available at http://www.nuclearinfo.org/documents/Joint_Opinion.pdf.

á      Rebecca Johnson, Nicola Butler, Stephen Pullinger, Worse than Irrelevant, British Nuclear Arms in the 21st Century, The Acronym Institute for Disarmament Diplomacy (2006), available at http://www.acronym.org.uk/uk/Worse_than_Irrelevant.pdf.

á      The UK Trident System, The Acronym Institute (2007), available at http://www.acronym.org.uk/uk/trident.htm.

á      Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Pub 3-12, Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (15 December 1995), available at http://www.nuclearweaponslaw.com/nukeop3_12_1995.pdf;

á      Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Pub 3-12, Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations (DRAFT ÒFinal Coordination (2) 15 March 2005), available at http://www.wslfweb.org/docs/doctrine/3_12fc2.pdf.5

á      U.S. briefs before the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Case: The U.S. submitted two briefs, one in connection with a request for an advisory opinion as to nuclear weapons by the World Health Organization of the United Nations and the other in connection with a similar request by the U.N. General Assembly, available as follows:

á      Brief re General Assembly request:

á      available at ICJ website: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/8700.pdf.

á      Brief re World Health Organization request:

á      at ICJ website: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/93/8770.pdf.

á      New Zealand, Iranian, British, and Russian briefs before the ICJ:

á      New Zealand: available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/8710.pdf.

á      Iran: available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/8678.pdf.

á      United Kingdom and Northern Ireland: available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/8802.pdf.

á      Russian: available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/8796.pdf.

á      British and Russian oral arguments before the ICJ:

á      British: available at (British oral argument begins at p. 20) http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/5947.pdf.

á      Russian: available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/5939.pdf. (Russian oral argument begins at p. 39).

 

Class 3 (9/15/08):

á      Focus: U.S. nuclear policy; rules of the law of armed conflict applicable to the lawfulness of the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons, as articulated by the United States

á      Readings

á      15-74

á      Testimony of Ms. Lijon Eknilang, Council Member of Rongelap, before the International Court of Justice, 14 November 1995 (24-28), available at http://www.nuclearweaponslaw.com/Rongelap.doc. 

á      Reference Materials:

á      Hans M. Kristensen, Nuclear Safety and the Saga About the Missing Bent Spear, Strategic Security Blog, Federation of American Scientists (Feb. 22, 2008), available at http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/2008/02/nuclear_safety_and_the_saga_ab.php.

á      Thom Shanker, U.S. Air Force Chiefs Face Firing After Nuclear Inquiry, Intl Herald Tribune Americas, June 5 2008, http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/05/america/pent.php.

á      U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe After the Cold War (Presentation To: Nuclear Proliferation: History and Current Problems, Florence, Italy) October 4-5, 2007, available at http://www.nukestrat.com/pubs/Brief_Italy2007.pdf.

á      Vice President CheneyÕs Remarks at the Heritage Foundation Dinner Commemorating the 25th Anniversary of President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative, Office of the Vice President, Mar. 11, 2008, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/print/20080311-9.html.

á      Acronym Institute, NATO and Nuclear Weapons: NATO Summit, Bucharest, 2 - 4 April 2008, http://www.acronym.org.uk/nato/index.htm.

á      Press Briefing by National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley on the President's Trip to the NATO Summit, Office of the Press Secretary, Mar. 26, 2008, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/03/20080326-3.html.

á      Baker Spring, President Reagan's Strategic Defense Initiative Proposal 25 Years Later: A Better Path Chosen, Heritage WebMemo No. 1840, Mar. 10, 2008, available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/BallisticMIssileDefense/wm1841.cfm.

á      Nuclear 9/11: The Ongoing Failure of Imagination, The Continuing Misuses of Fear, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 36, 42 (September/October 2006), available at www.nuclearweaponslaw.com/BulletinAtomicSciNuclear911.pdf.

á      Jacques E. C. Hymans, North KoreaÕs Nuclear Neurosis, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 45 (May/June 2007), available at www.nuclearweaponslaw.com/BulletinAtomicSciNKoreaNeurosis.pdf.

á      Keir A. Leiber and Daryl G. Press, Superiority Complex, Atlantic Monthly (July/August 2007), available at www.nuclearweaponslaw.com/Superiority_Complex_article.pdf.

á      Congressional Hearings on Weapons of Mass Destruction: Current Nuclear Proliferation Challenges, Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and International Relations, Serial No. 109-242, 109th Cong., 2d Sess. (September 26, 2006), available at:

á      Part I: http://www.gsinstitute.org/gsi/docs/SNS_Testimony_PartI.pdf.

á      Part II: http://www.gsinstitute.org/gsi/docs/SNS_Testimony_PartII.pdf.

á      Part III: http://www.gsinstitute.org/gsi/docs/SNS_Testimony_PartIII.pdf.

á      Thirteen Practical Steps: Legal or Political?, Peter Weiss, John Burroughs, Michael Spies, May 2005, available  at http://www.lcnp.org/disarmament/npt/13stepspaper.htm.

á      Presentations to the NPT Review Conference on Article VI Compliance, Civil Society (2005), available at http://www.lcnp.org/disarmament/npt/ArtVIcompliance.pdf.

á      Andrew Lichterman and Jacqueline Cabasso, War is Peace, Arms Racing is Disarmament: The Non-Proliferation Treaty and the U.S. Quest for Global Military Dominance, Western States Legal Foundation Special Report (May, 2005), available at http://www.nuclearweaponslaw.com/warispeace.pdf.

 

Class 4 (9/22/08):

á      Focus: Rules of the law of armed conflict applicable to the lawfulness of the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons, as articulated and applied by the United States

á      Readings

á      74-120

á      Keir A. Lieber and Daryl G. Press, The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy, 85 Foreign Affairs 42-54 (March/April 2006), available at www.nuclearweaponslaw.com/Rise_of_US_Nuclear_Primacy.pdf.

á      Baker Spring and Kathy Gudgel, The Role of Nuclear Weapons in the 21st Century, Heritage Foundation Webmemo #721 (April 13, 2005) available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm721.cfm.

á      Reference Materials

á      Nuclear Exchange, Responses to The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy article, 85 Foreign Affairs 149-57  (September/October 2006), available at www.nuclearweaponslaw.com/NuclearPrimacyCommentary.pdf.

 

 

Class 5 (9/29/08):

á      Focus: Rules of the law of armed conflict applicable to the lawfulness of the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons, as applied by the United States; the ICJ decision in the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Case.

á      Readings

á      120-153; 155-174

á      The ICJ's decision in the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Case, available in Lexis at 35 I.L.M. 809, 809-832 (http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf. (We will start discussing the ICJ decision in Class 6).

 

 

Class 6 (10/6/08):

á      Focus: The ICJ decision in the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Case

á      Readings

á      174-208

á      ICJ Decision: Dissenting opinion of Judge Weeramantry, 35 I.L.M. 880, in the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Case (This cite works in Lexis. Otherwise, try from http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=e1&case=95&code=unan&p3=4) 

 

 

Class 7 (10/14/08):

á      Focus: the ICJ decision in the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Case

á      Readings

á      208-250

á      ICJ decision: the separate opinions of various Judges:

á      dissenting opinion of Vice-President Schwebel, 35 I.L.M. 836,

á      dissenting opinion of Judge Higgens, 35 I.L.M. 934, and

á      dissenting opinion of Judge Koroma, 35 I.L.M. 925. (These cites work in Lexis. The opinions are also available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=e1&case=95&code=unan&p3=4, although some there are in French only.)

 

 

Class 8 (10/20/08):

á      Focus: the ICJ decision in the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Case; student presentations

á      Readings

á      ICJ decision: the separate opinions of various Judges:

á      individual opinion of Judge Guillaume, 35 I.L.M. 1351,

á      declaration of President Bedjaoui, 35 I.L.M. 1345,

á      declaration Judge Herczegh, 35 I.L.M. 1348,

á      dissenting opinion of Judge Shahabudeen, 35 I.L.M. 861,

á      declaration of Judge Shi, 35 I.L.M. 832,

á      separate opinion of Judge Fleischhauer, 35 I.L.M. 834,

á      declaration of Judge Vereshchetin, 35 I.L.M. 833,

á      declaration of Judge Bravo, 35 I.L.M. 1349, and

á      individual opinion of Judge Ranjeva, 35 I.L.M. 1354.

These cites work in Lexis. The opinions are also available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=e1&case=95&code=unan&p3=4, although some there are in French only.

á      Reference Materials:

á      2002 National Security Strategy of the United States, available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/ nsc/nss.pdf.

á      John Deutch, A Nuclear Posture for Today, 84 Foreign Affairs 49 (January/February 2005), available at www.nuclearweaponslaw.com/A_Nuclear_Posture_for_Today.pdf.

á      Papers No. 1, 2, and 3: (The listing of classes in which the various topics will be reached and the topics listed are approximate and subject to what topics students pick this semester.)

á      Paper No. 1: Rule of Necessity 

á      Paper No. 2: Rule of Proportionality 

á      Paper No. 3: Rule of Discrimination

 

 

Class 9 (10/27/08):

á      Focus: Generally accepted principles of law applicable to the issue of the lawfulness of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; student presentations

á      Readings

á      251-311

á      447-63

á      Papers No. 4, 5, and 6:

á      Paper No. 4: Role of Law of Armed Conflict in Target Selection

á      Paper No. 5: Law of Neutrality

á      Paper No. 6: Bases for a Per Se Rule--Level of Certainty as to the Likelihood of Impermissible Effects that Must Be Present to Render the Use or Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons Unlawful

 

 

Class 10 (11/3/08):

á      Focus: Generally accepted principles of law applicable to the issue of the lawfulness of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons; risk factors inherent in U.S. operational policy as to nuclear weapons in the post World War II era; student presentations

á      Readings

á      313-373

á      465-81

á      Papers No. 7, 8, and 9:

á      Paper No. 7: Risk Analysis 

á      Paper No. 8: Mens Rea/Scienter 

á      Paper No. 9: The Case for the Lawfulness of the Use and Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons

 

 

Class 11 (11/10/08):

á      Focus: Risk factors inherent in the policy of deterrence; risks of the limited use of nuclear weapons; risks of the United StatesÕ operational nuclear policy; risks of chemical and biological weapons; student presentations

á      Readings

á      515-553

á      585-632

á      Reference Materials:

á      Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Pub 3-12.1, Doctrine for Joint Theater Nuclear Operations (9 February 1996), available at http://www.wslfweb.org/docs/doctrine/theaternukeops.pdf

á      briefs of New Zealand and Iran before the ICJ:

á      New Zealand: available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/8710.pdf.

á      Iran: available at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/8678.pdf.

á      Alexei Arbatov and Vladimir Dvorkin, Revising Nuclear Deterrence, Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (Oct., 2005), available at http://www.nuclearweaponslaw.com/arbatov_dvorkin.pdf.

á      Papers No. 10, 11, and 12:

á      Paper No. 10: Lawfulness of the Arsenal of Nuclear Weapons Maintained by the United States

á      Paper No. 11: Mininukes 

á