Dear Heads of Government,
Dear Ambassadors to the United Nations
The humankind had to pay a price of more than 60 million people killed in two World Wars before agree-ing on International Law. With the founding of the United Nations and after defining the principles of In-ternational Law, a general ban of the use of force as a political measure was promulgated. There are but two exceptions: the right of self-defence if an armed attack occurs and the enforcement measures of the Security Council. Beyond those exceptions, all countries have lost the right to wage war against other countries, no matter what claims are made for the justness of the goals.
Make sure that the UN is not deprived of its power as a peacekeeping organisation between individual nations and resist any attempt to weaken the strict adherence to and implementation of the ban of the use of force in International Law!
Lend your support to making your country part of those nations which are prepared and willing to en-shrine a ban on the use of force and war as a means for political action once more.
From the very first resolution adopted by the UN General Assembly, the international community has attempted to grapple with the threat of nuclear annihilation. In 1996, at the request of the UNGA, the International Court of Justice considered place of nuclear weapons in the rule of law and human rights. They unanimous found that there exists a universal legal obligation to “pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all it aspect under strict and effective international control.”
Never forget the experiences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki! 2005 was the 60th anniversary of the bombing, despite this, cities everywhere are still at risk.
Begin negotiations in 2005 in good faith and conclude them in 2010 so that the agreed measures can lead to nuclear disarmament in all its aspect by 2020, as the Mayors for Peace have proposed.
* Leading experts in International Law agree that a preventive war as waged by the coalition of the willing constitutes a clear breach of current International Law. It also bears the potential to be taken as precedent so that ”preventive war” may become international customary and thus an acknowledged form of state action. That means that the total ban on any war of aggression as enshrined in International Law would be suspended and individual nations would be granted the opportunity to declare a war of aggression in accordance with International Law, as long as they manage to justify it as a preventive “defensive” war (regard-less of the insubstantial nature of the reasons and “evidence” they adduce).
** The International Court of Justice also found that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in arms conflict, in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law.” Within seconds 70,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and 40,000 in Nagasaki in August 1945. By the end of the year over 200,000 had suc-cumbed to injuries and radiation. Nuclear weapons and humanity cannot co-exist.