‘World Court’ Hears Pleas on Nuclear Weapons Issue

A Provisional District World Court convened for the first time in history Saturday in a Los Angeles hotel.

The International Court of Justice at the Hague traditionally requires the consent of all parties--plaintiffs and defendants--before it can hear or decide a case. But the 28 defendants in the case considered Saturday--whether nuclear weapons are illegal and should be banned--didn’t consent to being judged, and didn’t bother to show up.

Hardly any of the plaintiffs, described as “the people of the Earth,” even knew they were involved, and very few of them showed up either.

No matter. The hearing proceeded, and a decision ultimately will be written.

The exercise was the brainchild of an Encino bankruptcy attorney, Leon Vickman, who was motivated to crusade against nuclear warfare by a lecture of anti-nuclear activist Helen Caldicott. So he filed suit, offering his services free to his fellow citizens.

“Four or five years ago, most people put me down pretty hard,” Vickman said. “But then the nuclear freeze movement got going. Now people are very seriously thinking that these weapons may be illegal. And we are a nation of laws.”

Previous attempts to try the nuclear arms question in U.S. federal courts were rejected by judges as too “political.” Thus he chose as his forum a world court provided in the constitution of the Federation of Earth, a proposed utopian world government headquartered in Lakewood, Colo.

Vickman duly filed his documents in his created court at his office address, mailed the suit to the defendants in care of the U.S. State Department and the Washington embassies of 27 other countries which have or could get nuclear weapons, and is paying “several thousand dollars” in filing fees so the court can pay for the temporary courtroom and justices’ travel expenses.

The three law professors enlisted to hear arguments and to write a formal opinion later were Burns Weston of the University of Iowa, considered somewhat middle-of-the-road on nuclear arms; Francis Boyle of the University of Illinois, an anti-nuclear spokesman, and Alfred Rubin of Tufts University, who has a military background and is considered pro-nuclear.

Vickman’s hardest task was to find an attorney to argue against him. He finally tapped Seattle labor and personal injury lawyer Gaither Kodis, a former Spokane city prosecutor.

“I believe nuclear weapons are illegal. I don’t think any rational mind would think nuclear weapons are a good idea,” said the former Strategic Air Command pilot, clearly aligning himself with the plaintiffs.

His primary argument in the defendants’ favor Saturday was jurisdictional rather than philosophical. He said the proposed world constitution had not been ratified, so the court was not yet legitimate.

Basis in Conventions

Vickman, who considers his court perfectly legitimate, argued that nuclear warfare is illegal by reaching back to the Geneva Convention of 1949, prohibiting inflicting unnecessary suffering on civilians in war, and the Hague Convention of 1907, banning bombing of undefended cities without military targets. Although his suit has prompted a few raised eyebrows and chuckles over the last few years, Vickman is convinced it will have a serious impact.

“This opinion will become at least one source of law on nuclear weapons, and I will have it placed in legal journals around the world,” he said. “It will have an impact on public opinion, and in international law that is usually the only way things are enforced.”