@article{oai:bunkyo.repo.nii.ac.jp:00004025,
 author = {山田, 寿則 and ヤマダ, トシノリ and Yamada, Toshinori},
 issue = {2},
 journal = {文教大学国際学部紀要, Journal of the Faculty of International Studies},
 month = {2016-01-01, 2016-02-04},
 note = {2015 NPT Review Conference ended without any concrete outcomes. Now several approaches to nuclear disarmament are contested each other: step-by-step, comprehensive, building-block, humanitarian consequences, humanitarian pledges, NWC, or BAN treaty approach. Common focus has been placed on “effective measures” relating to nuclear disarmament in Article VI of NPT during its last Review cycle. Obligations concerning negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament are too vague to unit all approaches asserted by different states with different interests.
　　The cases instituted by the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) against Nuclear Weapons States in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have possibility to cast light to confusion among approaches to nuclear disarmament. Our purpose here is taking a look at RMI’s application against the United Kingdom, viewing some possible issues in the case, and examining some implication of the Obligations concerning Nuclear Disarmament Negotiations Cases.
　　These case are now on the proceedings of jurisdiction and admissibility. If moving into the Merits,  the cases are expected to bring some guidance into negotiation relating to nuclear disarmament in the real world.},
 pages = {93--111},
 title = {核軍縮交渉義務事件と核軍縮へのアプローチ： マーシャル諸島共和国対英国事件を手掛かりに},
 volume = {26},
 year = {}
}