Press Releases & Updates 2010

Commodore M P Wareham Royal Navy Naval Base Commander (Clyde)

Mr Brian Larkin 10 May 2011

I was extremely disappointed that you chose to protest illegally this morning and wish you to be absolutely clear that while I fully support your right to legal protest, illegal protest is entirely unacceptable and will, invariably, result in police intervention. It may be helpful to clarify that I wished to provide a detailed response to your March letter, so took the time to prepare a comprehensive response which was, coincidentally, to be sent today.

I should like to start by assuring you that I am committed to discharging my responsibilities as a serving Royal Navy officer within the law. I can confirm that I am content that my role as Naval Base Commander is entirely consistent with this principle, and that the Naval Base’s work in support of the UK’s strategic deterrent has a sound legal basis.

As you will be aware, the UK is recognised as a Nuclear Weapons State in accordance with the definition in Article IX(3) of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). It is important to state that the UK Government is confident that our nuclear deterrent is consistent with international law, that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) Advisory Opinion of 1996 does not require any change in British or NATO nuclear policy, and that those who operate and support Trident submarines are acting lawfully.

As you highlighted in your letter, the ICJ said in its Advisory Opinion that "the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles of the rules of humanitarian law. However, in the view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of facts at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake."

Therefore, while the Court confirmed that the use, or threat of use, of nuclear weapons is subject to the law of armed conflict, it did not conclude that such use would necessarily be unlawful. Legality can only be determined in the light of the specific circumstances applying when such use is being contemplated and we would not use our weapons, whether conventional or nuclear, contrary to international law. It is worth noting that the ICJ made no distinction between types of nuclear weapon in its Advisory Opinion. The UK is recognised as the most forward-leaning of the nuclear weapon states on nuclear disarmament. Neither the NPT nor the ICJ Advisory Opinion set out any timetable for the fulfilment of NPT Article 6, nor do they preclude the UK from maintaining its existing capabilities. The security of the UK’s strategic deterrent has been and continues to be given the very highest priority and we take our responsibilities to protect UK nuclear weapons and material very seriously. As a result, I do not accept the assertions in your letters over the legality of Trident. I do recognise, however, that you hold a different view which is, of course, your right, as is your right to protest, although I stress once more that any such protest must be within the confines of the law.

Yours Sincerely,

Mike Wareham

Printer friendly version

Home | Top