In Canada a unique opportunity exists. The Supreme Court of Canada recently decided, in
a landmark decision, that it did have jurisdiction to examine the legality of Canadian foreign
policy. This is perhaps the most important result of the cruise missile case, brought to the
Supreme Court by Operation Dismantle, the World Federalists of Canada and a number of
other organizations. Although at the time we were unsuccessful in our attempis to halt
testing of the cruise missile, the courts did rule that government decisions on foreign policy
and defence must be consistent with Canada's new constitution and could be reviewed by
the courts. Justice Brian Dickscn wrote at the time:

"T have no doubt that disputes of a political or foreign policy nature may be
properly cognizable by the courts."

This has given us an opening in Canada to try other cases. It gives us in Canada a special
role to play in the global effort to seek a worid free from the threat of nuclear destruction.

The Legal Arguments

The Nuclear Weapons Legal Action is not seeking a political decision from the courts, but
rather a straight-forward ruling on whether NATO's first use Strategy is compatible with
international law. Our case will rely on the well-established principles of international law
which make up the "Humanitarian Rules of Armed Conflict." They are:

Rule | - It is prohibited to use weapons Or tactics that cause unnecessary or
aggravated devastation and suffering.

Rule 2- It is prohibited to use weapons or tactics that cause indiscriminate harm as
between combatants and non-combatants, military and civilian personnel.

Rule 3- It is prohibited to use weapons Or tactics that cause wide-spreaci, long-term
and severe damage to the natural environment.

Rule 4- it is prohibited to effect reprisals that are disproportionate to their
antecedent provocation or to legitimate military objectives, or disrespectful
of persons, institutions and resources otherwise protected by the laws of
war.

Rule 5- It is prohibited to use weapons or tactics that violaie the neutral jurisdiction
of non-participating states.

Rule 6- It is prohibited to use asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and
analogous liquids, materials or devices, including bacteriological methods
of warfare.

We will also rely on the "Martens Clause" of the Hague Convention of 1907:

" Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, ... in cases not
included in the regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents
remain under protection and the rule of the principles of the law of nations, as they
result from the usages established among Civilized peoples, from the laws of
humanity, and the dictates of the public conscience."

21