"THE ultimate evil." That was the description by the World Court in The Hague of nuclear weapons in a landmark ruling this week which opens up a new chapter in the nuclear debate. It will also be seen as providing an important, although partial, vindication of Ireland's stand, alone among EU members, on the side of those making the case against nuclear weapons.
The court found that the use of nuclear weapons is "generally" against the principles of international law although it was not able to completely rule out their use if "the survival of a state was threatened".
But what is clear is that the use of or threat to use nuclear weapons as instruments of coercion or tactical weapons of war is now illegal.
Initial press reports suggesting the ruling was a defeat for the anti- nuclear lobby have been strenuously denied. A delighted Sean Dunne of Irish CND says the ruling is an important new weapon in its armoury and calls into question entirely the legality of the small "theatre" weapons that have become central to much of the recent strategic thinking of the nuclear powers.
Even if this is so, the reality is that the advisory character of the ruling gives it more moral than legal standing.
By seven votes to seven, on the casting vote of the court's Algerian president, Judge Muhammad Bedjaoui, the court ruled that "the threat or the use of nuclear arms was generally contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflicts, and in particular, the principles and rules of humanitarian law".
But it added that it could not "definitely conclude whether the threat or the use of nuclear arms would be legal or illegal in an extreme circumstance of self-defence during which the actual survival of a state would be threatened".
The narrowness of the decision is misleading, however, as three judges voted against the ruling because it did not go far enough. Peter Weiss of the Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms says, "it is really 10-4 for illegality".
The court did find the threat or use of nuclear weapons "unlawful" if it contravenes the UN Charter provisions on territorial integrity and political independence. And it found unanimously that international law provides 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".
The court was giving an "advisory opinion" on questions put to it by the UN General Assembly at the end of 1994.
The ambiguity of the decision on the self-defence issue has led France to claim the decision as upholding its position of only using the weapons in self-defence.
But New Zealand's Prime Minister, Mr Jim Bolger, said France was "kidding itself" if it saw the ruling as a victory for its nuclear deterrent. Mr Bolger said the court's ruling was "tremendous" and a watershed decision. It clearly tipped the balance strongly in favour of nations undertaking complete and absolute nuclear disarmament, he said.
Mr Bolger said the nuclear powers - the US, Britain, France, Russia and China - could not ignore the ruling and the thrust towards nuclear disarmament was moved forward. "They have been quite clear in their thinking, not absolutely precise in the final judgment as to whether they're legal or illegal but 'please world get rid of those weapons because there is no real justification'," he said.
The Japanese Prime Minister, Mr Ryutaro Hashimoto, said he hoped the judgment could speed up the move towards nuclear disarmament. "Our ultimate goal is the total elimination of nuclear arms in the world. Towards that end, we must first strive for the early conclusion of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (CNTBT)," he said.
Current CTBT talks are stalled in Geneva because China and Russia are insisting that "threshold " nuclear powers have to sign up before the treaty can become binding on the five permanent members of the Security Council. Delhi is refusing to sign up until the five commit themselves to a specific timetable for complete nuclear disarmament.
Ireland's submission to the court in support of the case for a declaration of illegality was made at the instigation of the Tanaiste and Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Spring, and the then Minister for Health, Mr Howlin. It continues the longstanding tradition of Irish international opposition to nuclear weapons which goes back prior to the "Irish resolution" to the UN in 1961 which set out the basic principles of the Non- Proliferation Treaty.
Sean Dunne pays particular tribute to the "fantastic work" done by diplomats on the issue.
The court submission, arguing for an internationally policed ban on the production of all nuclear weapons and then their elimination, warns of the "incalculable consequences to mankind and the environment" which would result from the use of strategic weapons. And it cautions that the use of small-scale tactical weapons, although possibly less indiscriminate, threatens to provoke escalation to strategic weapon use.
The court's decision is also likely to have a significant effect on the domestic debate in Ireland in the next few years on the future of European security.
Although the amalgamation of the Western European Union, NATO's European arm, into the EU is unlikely to be a serious runner in the current Inter- Governmental Conference, there are some, mostly in Fine Gael, who would wish to see Ireland reconsider its opposition to the merger.
They argue, with some justice, that we should be prepared to defend a Union from which we draw substantial benefit if it faces external threat. In essence, the argument goes, we are taking a free ride on the security front.
The problem is that the WEU and NATO are the only substantial game in town any commitment to common European defence must realistically be made through participation in either of them. But they are both committed to a nuclear-based strategy with no prospect of changing their line on the issue.
Any proposal to abandon the country's neutrality then, it appears, will embroil Irish politicians in what, one suspects, would be an even more emotive debate about the morality of involvement in a nuclear alliance. And the court has this week given powerful new ammunition to Irish CND.
