@article{oai:bunkyo.repo.nii.ac.jp:00006780,
 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 Bunkyo University},
 month = {2017-01-31},
 note = {On 5 October 2016, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered its Judgments in the cases
regarding Obligations concerning Negotiations relating to Cessation of the Nuclear Arms Race
and to Nuclear Disarmament, instituted by the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) against nine
Nuclear Powers in 2014. Defendants in those cases are three powers, India, Pakistan and the United
Kingdom all of whom accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ through their declarations under Article 36
(2) of the ICJ statue. The Plaintiff, the RMI based its claim mainly on Article 6 of the Nuclear Non-
Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and its corresponding customary rule, alleging a failure to fulfil obligations
concerning negotiations relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to
nuclear disarmament.
This article exams those Judgements, considering its implications on realizing process of
obligations to negotiate nuclear disarmament, and the role of the ICJ in nuclear disarmament. The
ICJ has dealt with some issues regarding nuclear weapons so far like nuclear tests and legality of the
threat or use of nuclear weapons. In its 1996 Advisory Opinion the Court unanimously declared that
“[t]here exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to
nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control”.
In the 2016 Judgments, however, the Court upholds the objection to jurisdiction raised by the
Defendants, based on the absence of a dispute between the Parties, rejecting the complaint of
the RMI. In doing so, it adopted the “awareness” test which would decrease in disputes rising but
increase in new applications coming. Judges opposing to the decisions by the ICJ criticize strongly
this point based on the judicial economy and the sound administration of justice. Through those
judgments, the Court showed self-restraining attitude to its role in realizing process of obligations to
negotiate nuclear disarmament.},
 pages = {67--87},
 title = {核軍縮交渉義務事件（マーシャル諸島共和国対英国）判決（先決的抗弁）の検討 : 核軍縮交渉義務の実現過程と国際司法裁判所の役割の視点から},
 volume = {27},
 year = {}
}