France, Nuclear Weapons Policy, and the Right to Life
List of Issues Prior to Reporting | Submission to the United Nations Human Rights Committee During its Periodic Review of France
132nd SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE 28 JUNE TO 23 JULY 2021
Submitted 5 May 2021 by:
LAWYERS COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR POLICY
www.lcnp.org | arianasmith@lcnp.org
220 E. 49th St., 1B, New York, NY 10017 USA
+1 (212) 818-1861
Founded in 1981, LCNP is a nonprofit educational association of lawyers and legal scholars that engages in research and advocacy in support of the global elimination of nuclear weapons and a more just and peaceful world through respect for domestic and international law. LCNP serves as the United Nations office of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms.
SWISS LAWYERS FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
www.safna.org
Founded in 2014, SLND encourages all efforts towards general and complete disarmament, in particular nuclear disarmament. SLND is an affiliate of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms.
WESTERN STATES LEGAL FOUNDATION
www.wslfweb.org
655 13th Street, Suite 201, Oakland, CA 94612 USA
Founded in 1982, WSLF is a nonprofit organization that seeks to abolish nuclear weapons as an essential step in making possible a more secure, just, and environmentally sustainable world. Grounded in commitments to nonviolence and international law, WSLF provides independent information and analysis to a wide range of audiences. WSLF is an affiliate of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms.
JAPAN ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS
⽇本反核法律家協会 (hankaku-j.org)
20-4-906 Araki-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 160-0007, Japan
Founded in 1994, JALANA aims at abolition of nuclear weapons, support for the Hibakusha (victims of all nuclear activities including those of the 1945 Atomic Bombings and the 2011 Fukushima Disaster), and creation of a society independent of nuclear energy. JALANA is an affiliate of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LAWYERS AGAINST NUCLEAR ARMS
www.ialana.info
Marienstrasse 19/20, 10117 Berlin, Germany
Founded in 1987, IALANA is an international association of lawyers and lawyers’ organizations working for the elimination of nuclear arms, the strengthening of international law and the development of effective mechanisms for the peaceful settlement of international disputes.
Introduction
The use and threat of use of nuclear weapons is incompatible with multiple rights enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). For practical reasons, however, this submission concentrates on the non-derogable right to life (Article 6)—the most fundamental human right.
Article 6 of the ICCPR defines the right to life in its paragraph 1 in the following terms: “Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”
We will demonstrate in this submission that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would constitute an “arbitrary deprivation” of life and amount, as a result, to a breach of ICCPR Article 6.
In 2018, in General Comment 36, the United Nations Human Rights Committee addressed nuclear weapons, finding among other things that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons "is incompatible with respect for the right to life." The general comment is considered the Committee’s authentic interpretation of the right to life within the meaning of Article 6 and the relevant practice thereto.
In this submission, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP), Swiss Lawyers for Nuclear Disarmament (SLND), Western States Legal Foundation (WSLF), Japan Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (JALANA), and International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), drawing on the general comment, maintain that the policy and practice of France in relation to nuclear weapons contravenes the right to life under the ICCPR in multiple ways. We address: France’s nuclear arsenal; the illegality of threat or use of nuclear weapons; the obligation to negotiate to achieve nuclear disarmament; adequate reparation to victims of nuclear explosive testing; and the least diversion of resources. Finally, we offer suggested questions, including one regarding a recent report concerning the inadequacy of compensation to victims of testing.
We have previously submitted comments to the Committee concerning the nuclear weapons policy of the Russian Federation and the nuclear weapons policy of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and have also made a submission to the Human Rights Council concerning the nuclear weapons policy of the United States of America.
In paragraph 66 of General Comment No. 36 on the right to life set out in Article 6 of the ICCPR, 5 this Committee found:
The threat or use of weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, which are indiscriminate in effect and are of a nature to cause destruction of human life on a catastrophic scale, is incompatible with respect for the right to life and may amount to a crime under international law. States parties must take all necessary measures to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including measures to prevent their acquisition by non-state actors, to refrain from developing, producing, testing, acquiring, stockpiling, selling, transferring and using them, to destroy existing stockpiles, and to take adequate measures of protection against accidental use, all in accordance with their international obligations. [264] They must also respect their international obligations to pursue in good faith negotiations in order to achieve the aim of nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control, [265] and to afford adequate reparation to victims whose right to life has been or is being adversely affected by the testing or use of weapons of mass destruction, in accordance with principles of international responsibility. [266]
Under the ICCPR, Article 4(2), the right to life is non-derogable, to be observed in all circumstances, even in the event of a “public emergency which threatens the life of the nation.”
France is a state party to the ICCPR and as a result is obligated to implement its provisions in good faith according to Article 26 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (pacta sunt servanda). Though the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Committee is limited to the ICCPR, in interpreting the ICCPR the Committee must take into account other relevant sources of international law. We accordingly refer in this submission to several treaties in the field of arms control and to international humanitarian law.
Read the entire document here.