A/HRC/27/51 20. In this context it is useful to recall the Nuremberg Judgment of 1946 holding that “To initiate a war of aggression … is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”31 In the post-nuclear world, a war of aggression would not only be a crime, but quite possibly would mean the destruction of any and all international order.32 The existence of zero nuclear weapons may sound utopian, but the effort is required in the name of humanity. We must not forget the sword of Damocles still suspended over our heads.33 C. Obstacles 21. In previous reports, the Independent Expert has identified multiple obstacles to the realization of a democratic and equitable international order. In the present report, he turns to the issue of spending imbalances prevalent in many countries, which privilege the military sector at the expense of peoples’ basic needs. 22. Military spending is driven by a range of factors, including threat perceptions, which may be real or imagined, and which are exacerbated by warmongering and propaganda. During the cold war the superpowers justified almost any level of spending by the “missile gap” numbers game. Today a new all-purpose enemy has been identified: national and international terrorism. This adversary gives military alliances and defence contractors a new lease on life. Yet, it would seem obvious to everyone, not only economists, that the law of diminishing returns applies, and that there is a level beyond which further militarization is futile. Focusing on the root causes of human insecurity is more important than trying to apply stopgap solutions here and there.34 23. Notwithstanding the jus cogens obligation to settle disputes by peaceful means as stipulated in article 2, paragraph 3, of the Charter of the United Nations, the demonization of adversaries and sabre-rattling is practised by media and politicians alike, resulting in an atmosphere hardly conducive to fruitful negotiation. In fact, the prevalent culture of fear and paranoia adds oil to the fires of distrust and hostility among peoples and artificially creates a perceived need to buttress “security” by increasing military expenditures. This in turn provokes the designated “enemy” to reciprocate in kind, unleashing a spiral of armament and rearmament. The media could play a calming role in this cycle by encouraging solutions consistent with the Charter35 and with article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which specifically prohibits war propaganda, but the opposite is frequently the case. This culture of hostility appears to be nurtured by the 31 32 33 34 35 10 See www.roberthjackson.org/the-man/speeches-articles/speeches/speeches-related-to-robert-hjackson/the-crime-of-waging-aggressive-war/. A first strike would certainly be incompatible with the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. See www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf. See also the United States deterrence fact sheet, available from www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/19/fact-sheet-nuclear-weapons-employmentstrategy-united-states; Francis Boyle, The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence (Atlanta, Georgia, Clarity Press, 2002): see www.claritypress.com/files/BoyleI.html; and www.nytimes.com/2014/06/14/upshot/the-lack-of-major-wars-may-be-hurting-economicgrowth.html?_r=1. Cicero, Tusculan Disputations. See Colin Archer, Warfare or Welfare (see footnote 13), p. 35. See www.usip.org/publications/the-news-media-and-peace-processes-the-middle-east-and-northernireland www.globalresearch.ca/stop-the-disinformation-war-machine-support-independentmedia/5311094.