Nuclear disarmament
Posted by Ali Gledhill on 1 January, 2007
The government are making attempts to replace our nuclear weapons system – trident – with a new brand of missile. If implemented, the new system will be more murderous than Trident, and in the current climate is far more likely to be used than Trident ever was. And we are committed to nuclear disarmament.
It seems a fairly simple concept: you are bound to a treaty to disarm, so you should disarm. You attract aggressive action by possessing these weapons, so you should disarm. You undermine any idea of setting an example of liberal democracy by possessing these weapons, so you should disarm. And this government – many of whom were originally elected to parliament campaigning for unilateral nuclear disarmament – are pushing for its replacement.
It is vital to the future of our “liberal democratic” values that we remove this awful blot on our nation. We are bound by international law to disarm. You know it makes sense…
The New Constitution 
alabastercodify said
This is def an excellent idea for a blog, all congrats on setting it up.
I don’t know what level of consensus you’re working towards tho – on nukes you don’t even ackowledge there may be any other side to the question.
More importantly, we are NOT “bound by international law to disarm”. International treaties signed by UK governments have no legal force in this country, and there is no other framework within which they could have legal effect. In our legal system, which is duallist, we can only be bound by English law, and an English law can only be created by an Act of Parliament. For the various treaties to become binding, they must be passed by Parliament.
I’m really sorry to nitpick, but i thought on such a blog it’s good to get these things right. I’m just starting to learn about the constitution (first year of law degree), so will watch this space with a lot of interest. Good luck.
thenewconstitution said
Hi – glad you like the blog. Just a couple of comments on your response, though…
“In our legal system, which is duallist, we can only be bound by English law, and an English law can only be created by an Act of Parliament.”
I bring into question, therefore, the European Parliament, which passes well over half of the UK’s legislation on our behalf.
International law does exist. Treaties such as the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty are part of International law, and anyone who breaks it is subject to a trial at the International Court of Justice. It was under these grounds that Milosevic was tried for war crimes in The Hague.
alabastercodify said
The EU is of course central to this issue. But the way in which its laws have legal effect in the UK is simply that the 1972 Act says all laws passed by the EU have effect in the UK. If that Act was repealed, then the laws would cease to have effect, despite our having signed the treaties.
On the subject of the ICJ, I’ll admit I don’t know, but I would think as a matter of realpolitick it cannot be said to be a meaningful court. Otherwise, we wouldn’t dare to replace trident.
thenewconstitution said
We are bound to disarm, but with no timescale. One can therefore argue that disarmament is necessary now, or that we will disarm in due course. The latter is, of course, the line that the government takes.