The ruling by the three judges flies in the face of Scottish public opinion. A recent poll showed clearly that the majority of Scots supported protests against nuclear weapons. 51% of those questioned supported the sit down demonstration at Faslane on 12 February, and only 24% opposed it. The poll was conducted by System Three.

The Scottish court has thumbed its nose at the International Court of Justice and presented a very biased interpretation of the Advisory Opinion on the threat of use of nuclear weapons which the ICJ made in 1996. Lords Prosser, Kirkwood and Penrose made no mention the real arithmetic behind the ICJ ruling - in particular the fact that three judges had dissented because the opinion was not strong enough. They exaggerated the significance of the views of the US judge and dismissed the approach taken by the Sri Lankan judge, Weeramantry, who had given by far the most detailed opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons.

"Trident is capable of destroying large parts of the planet and it dishonours our country by its presence. It is wielded by a government that refuses to deal seriously with disarmament while condemning anyone else who dares develop nuclear weapons. That's why Scottish CND will redouble its campaign to scrap Trident, starting with a rally at the gates of Faslane on Saturday 7th April at 11 am and continuing with a mass festival in Glasgow on 2nd June."
Said Tony Southall, Joint Secretary, SCND.

The full judgement is available from the High Court

Further details

The Appeal court has misrepresented the view of the International Court of Justice. In particular they failed to note the real arithmetic behind the position of the 15 ICJ judges. This had been clarified in an article by former Scottish High Court judge Lord Murray. Eight judges agreed with the final formulation in the ICJ opinion, 3 dissented because they felt that it should have been stronger and clearly outlawed all use. Lord Murray concluded "On the arithmetic of the opinions rather that the votes it could be contended that the weight of the court's judgement was against affirming the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons" (Scots Law Times 2 1997)

The Appeal court says:

"Vice President Schwebel's analysis of the law followed the same lines as the majority opinion". (para 83)

While with regard to the opinions expressed in great detail by Judge Weeramantry the Appeal Court says:

"It is clear .. that his dissenting opinion does not reflect either the opinion of the court or the existing law." (para 84)

The Appeal court judgement has omitted any reference to when it might be appropriate for the individual to act to prevent nuclear war. On the first day of the LAR hearing, 9th October 2000, Lord Prosser had said:

"Suppose I was in the Government Headquarters of some super power and I saw a person of authority press a red button, about to press it and I know that this is directed at let's say some huge city in the heart of some other super power and what you are talking about is normal human responses .. I would have thought the normal human response would indeed be to knock his hand away and stop that happening"

This sort of approach is completely absent in the final opinion.

It is interesting that Lord Prosser was not wearing his wig when the judgement was delivered, which was most unusual. Was this just oversight - or a reflection of his unhappiness with their final verdict ?