A/HRC/27/51 are seen by States as a liability, not an asset.”56 In December 2013, the United Nations High Representative on Disarmament observed: “any high-level meeting on nuclear disarmament advances nuclear disarmament, simply because it underlines the urgency of what needs to happen. The cornerstone of the whole architecture is clearly the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which has three pillars. One of them is nuclear disarmament. But when you look at how much disarmament has actually taken place, it really isn’t there. There’s an increasing urgency on the part of those countries that do not have nuclear weapons to say to the nuclear weapons powers: you need to disarm, you need to fulfil your side of the bargain. Having a high-level meeting with many ministers underlined the fact that more needs to happen.”57 C. Role of the International Court of Justice 40. Bearing in mind the dangers inherent in the mere existence of stockpiles of nuclear weapons, the Republic of the Marshall Islands filed applications before the International Court of Justice, on 24 April 2014, against nine nuclear-armed States for their alleged failure to negotiate in good faith for nuclear disarmament, as required under the NonProliferation Treaty.58 41. Many civil society organizations, including the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, applauded the initiative of the Marshall Islands to engage the World Court in an overdue action against the nuclear-armed nations and the stagnation of negotiations. It should be remembered that the people of the Marshall Islands continue to suffer today from the effects of nuclear weapon tests that took place on their territory in the 1940s and 1950s, and they want to ensure that such devastation is never brought on anyone ever again.59 Moreover, it is important to have a pronouncement of the International Court of Justice concerning the international legal obligations assumed by nuclear weapons States pursuant to article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.” 42. While the current applications are of a contentious nature, the General Assembly could consider, pursuant to Article 96 of the Charter of the United Nations, referring a pertinent legal question to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion: What are the legal consequences of the non-respect of article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty? D. Arms trade and zones of peace 43. On 2 April 2013, the General Assembly adopted the Arms Trade Treaty. As of July 2014, 118 States have signed the Treaty and 41 have ratified it.60 Fifty ratifications are necessary for its entry into force. However, the mere existence of the Treaty provides an example of good international practice that slowly but surely can bear fruit. 44. On 28 and 29 January 2014 the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) held its second summit in Havana and adopted a declaration on 29 January 2014 56 57 58 59 60 See www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=47417. See www.un.org/apps/news/newsmakers.asp?NewsID=100#sthash.T597InnU.dpuf. See www.icj-cij.org/presscom/files/0/18300.pdf. See www.wagingpeace.org/the-nuclear-zero-lawsuits-taking-nuclear-weapons-to-court/. See www.un.org/disarmament/ATT/, www.un.org/sg/dsg/statements/index.asp?nid=514. 15