BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:-//Session events Calendar//IBA//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
VERSION:2.0
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTAMP:20260404T000953Z
DTSTART:20181010T111500Z
DTEND:20181010T123000Z
SUMMARY:Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation: what can lawyers do?
DESCRIPTION:In 1996\, the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of 
 Justice concluded\, by majority\, that the threat to use nuclear weapons
 \, including as affecting civilian populations\, was not\, as such\, ill
 egal under present international law. But it held that nuclear weapons s
 tates were obliged\, as a matter of urgency\, to enter genuine negotiati
 ons towards the reduction and destruction of nuclear stockpiles. Such ne
 gotiations have not occurred in the 22 years since 1996. On the contrary
 \, in 2018 the two major nuclear powers have committed to increasing and
  enhancing their nuclear armoury. However\, in July 2017\, a treaty to b
 an the use\, possession and threat of use of nuclear weapons was introdu
 ced into the General Assembly of the United Nations. It is now open for 
 signature and eventual ratification. The civil society organisation that
  triggered this move\, International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
  (I-CAN)\, was later named laureate of the 2017 Nobel Prize for Peace.\n
 \nGiven the ongoing  proliferation of nuclear weapons\, despite the Non-
 Proliferation Treaty\, the failure of negotiations of the kind required 
 by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion and the per
 il to human survival demonstrated by the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) and
  the Soviet (Petrov) Warning Error (1983)\, should lawyers engage with  
 the urgency of dismantling the huge stockpiles of nuclear weapons? Is it
  time for this existential challenge to humanity return to the ICJ? Does
  the law have anything to say about such dangers? In the presence of suc
 h catastrophic dangers\, need the law fall silent?
LOCATION:Session Room T\, Level -1
UID:9e8963d0-48c8-44a7-831a-3cace6b5ee3e
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR