memorial of the marshall islands - home - nuclear age ... · 3! list of annexes annex 1 – the...

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

OBLIGATIONS CONCERNING NEGOTIATIONS RELATING TO CESSATION OF THE NUCLEAR ARMS RACE AND TO NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT

(Marshall Islands v. India)

MEMORIAL OF

THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

16 DECEMBER 2014

!2!

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF ANNEXES 3 PART 1 – INTRODUCTION 4

General Observations 4 The Nuclear Sword of Damocles 5 India’s Letter to the Court 7

PART 2 – THE EXISTENCE OF A DISPUTE 8 PART 3 – THE INTERPRETATION OF DECLARATIONS ACCEPTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT 14

General observations 14 India’s Reservation Regarding Interpretation of Multilateral Treaties 15 India’s Reservation Regarding Self-Defence 17

PART 4 – CONCLUSION 22

!!!

!3!

LIST OF ANNEXES

Annex 1 – The 2014 Report on the Effects of Regional Nuclear Fallout Between India and Pakistan. Report by: Michael J. Mills, Owen B. Toon, Julia Lee-Taylor, and Alan Robock, “Multidecadal Global Cooling and Unprecedented Ozone Loss Following a Regional Nuclear Fallout”, in Earth’s Future Annex 2 – The Map Series Demonstrating the Global Spread of Smoke from a Regional Nuclear Fallout Between India and Pakistan, and Selected Maps from the 2014 Report Submitted as Annex 1 Annex 3 – The Republic of India’s Letter to the Court of 6 June 2014 Annex 4 – The Republic of India’s Letter to the Court of 10 June 2014 Annex 5 – The Republic of India’s Article 36 Declaration Annex 6 – The Republic of the Marshall Islands’ Article 36 Declaration

!4!

PART 1

INTRODUCTION

General Observations

1. In this Memorial the Republic of the Marshall Islands will, in accordance with the Court’s Order of 16 June 2014, focus exclusively on the question of the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the issues that are before the Court in the present case.

2. The subject matter of the present dispute brought before the Court by the Republic of the Marshall Islands (also referred to as ‘Marshall Islands’ or ‘RMI’ or ‘Applicant’) is the failure of the Republic of India (also referred to as ‘India’ or ‘the Respondent’) to honour its obligation towards the Applicant (and other States) to pursue in good faith, and bring to a conclusion, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. This!obligation!to!negotiate!a!nuclear!disarmament!includes,!in!the!first!place,!the!obligation!to!negotiate!in!good!faith!to!cease the nuclear arms race by each of the States that are in possession of nuclear weapons.

3. On 24 April 2014 the RMI submitted nine Applications to the Court. Each

Application, filed against a different Respondent State, presented a different general background and was based on a different set of facts. The subject matter of all Applications related to a similar failure of each and every one of these nine States to live up to their obligation to pursue in good faith, and bring to a conclusion, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.

4. Only three of the nine States involved currently recognize, as compulsory and without

special agreement, the jurisdiction of the Court by means of a declaration under Article 36, para. 2 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. Those three States are India, Pakistan and the United Kingdom. Each of those States recognizes the Court’s jurisdiction on its own terms and conditions. In the Applications relating to the other six States the RMI has included an invitation as foreseen in Article 38, para. 5 of the Rules of Court.

5. To date, only the People’s Republic of China has formally notified the Court that it

does not consent to the jurisdiction of the Court. The other five States – the United States of America, the French Republic, the Russian Federation, the State of Israel and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea – have not formally!responded to the RMI’s Applications.

!5!

6. The fact that not all of the nine States are accepting to actually appear in theses respective cases before the Court cannot be deemed an obstacle for the Court to consider and adjudge each one of the three cases that are actually continuing (the present case against India as well as the cases against Pakistan and the United Kingdom). Each of the six States may be able to frustrate the case against itself by not appearing before the Court. However, it would not be acceptable to allow this non-appearance of third States to have a negative impact on the RMI’s right to pursue the enforcement of the obligations involved by submitting a case to the Court.

The Nuclear Sword of Damocles

7. This case involves obligations of an erga omnes character, engaging RMI as a member of the international community. RMI’s interests – even its existential interests - are also engaged by the issues at stake in this case. In particular, the potential threat of devastation caused by India’s nuclear forces resulting in a substantial drop in temperature combined with the depletion of the global ozone layer. One or a few nuclear explosions, anywhere in the world, certainly in urban areas, would have devastating humanitarian effects,1 which given its experience with the health and environmental consequences of nuclear testing the Marshallese naturally desire to prevent, as RMI emphasized in its written submission in Legality of Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons.2 Any such explosion would also have adverse effects on the global economy and likely on the nature of global political and legal order,3 and therefore on the Marshall Islands. Beyond that, a nuclear exchange involving detonations in dozens of cities would have severe effects on the climate directly and substantially affecting the Marshall Islands. That risk is a stunning illustration of the Court’s finding, quoted in para. 1 of the Application, that “the destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time”.4 The size of this threat has rather recently been demonstrated in a study in which the outcome of a nuclear exchange – between India

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 See Tilman Ruff, “The health consequences of nuclear explosions,” in Beatrice Fihn, ed., Unspeakable suffering – the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons (Reaching Critical Will, 2013), http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Publications/Unspeakable/Unspeakable.pdf [accessed on 11 December 2014]. Tilman Ruff is Associate Professor, Nossal Institute for Global Health, University of Melbourne, and Co-President, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. 2 Letter dated 22 June 1995 from the Permanent Representative of the Marshall Islands to the United Nations, together with Written Statement of the Government of the Marshall Islands, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/8720.pdf [accessed on 11 December 2014]. 3 Cf. President Barack Obama, Prague speech, April 5, 2009: “One nuclear weapon exploded in one city – be it New York or Moscow, Islamabad or Mumbai, Tokyo or Tel Aviv, Paris or Prague – could kill hundreds of thousands of people. And no matter where it happens, there is no end to what the consequences might be for our global safety, our security, our society, our economy, to our ultimate survival”. http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-President-Barack-Obama-In-Prague-As-Delivered [accessed on 11 December 2014]. 4 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons at para 35.

!6!

and Pakistan – has been tested (Annex 1).5 This study demonstrates that the effects of such a nuclear war, using only 0.03% of the world’s nuclear arsenal, would be global and devastating. If each side detonates fifty 15-kiloton (kt) weapons it could produce a large amount of smoke that would rise into the atmosphere, spreading globally and causing a drop in temperature on the Earth’s surface, whilst heating up the stratosphere.

8. The vast cities in both India and Pakistan not only are housing millions of people, but also provide fuel for fires post-detonation. Therefore a nuclear war between the two States would not only directly kill millions of people, but would also result in massive amounts of dark smoke rising into the atmosphere indirectly signing a death warrant for the rest of the Earth’s inhabitants. The smoke from the fires will absorb sunlight; as a result the temperature on Earth’s surface will be much cooler. As the smoke absorbs the sunlight it will heat up and damage the ozone layer, which will result in harmful UV rays reaching the surface. The damage to human health, agricultural and sea life would be immense. The study suggests a number of detrimental consequences, including the global food supply being threatened.

9. The Marshall Islands’ reliance on the ocean for food supplies is exacerbated by the lack of suitable farming soil.6 It relies on imports for a large part of its food supply, especially animal products.7 Any change in the Earth’s atmosphere affecting farming in countries that the RMI relies on for food support, for example the United States, would cause a widespread food shortage. Even a slight amount of damage to the aquatic ecosystem as a result of the ozone layer deteriorating could do away with their only real accessible food source. The Marshall Islands have a limited amount of food production, and changes in temperature and rainfall will directly impact that production. The lack of viable food sources could mean that the RMI would find themselves starving, and most likely before the rest of the world. As mentioned, the study referred to above provides an in-depth analysis of the devastating global effects of a nuclear fallout. The maps – to which the Applicant has added its own explanation in italics – taken from the report of this study and the related website show the speed at which resulting smoke spreads across the globe and up into the atmosphere and the changes in the surface air temperature and growing seasons as a result of such nuclear fallout (Annex 2).!!

10. The maintenance and expansion of this threat, while at the same time not living up to its central obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!5 M.J Mills et al., “Multi-decadal Global Cooling and Unprecedented Ozone Loss Following a Regional Nuclear Conflict”, Earth’s Future Research Paper 2014, at p. 161. 6 http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Counprof/southpacific/marschall.htm [accessed on 11 December 2014]. 7 http://atlas.media.mit.edu/profile/country/mhl/ [accessed on 11 December 2014].

!7!

control, in itself is a clear demonstration of the scale and the nature of the dispute that exists between the two Parties to the present case.!

India’s Letter to the Court 11. By a letter of 28 April 2014 the Court invited the Applicant and the Respondent to

meet with its President for the purposes set out in Article 31 of the Rules of Court. On 6 June 2014 India sent a letter to the Court informing the Court of its position with respect to the RMI’s Application (Annex 3). By a letter of 10 June 2014 India informed the Court that it would not be able to attend the meeting with the Court’s President scheduled for 11 June 2014 (Annex 4).

12. In its first letter India raised several issues that led it to conclude that the Court “[…]

does not have jurisdiction in the alleged dispute” (para. 4 of the letter). On the basis of this claim the Court decided in its Order of 16 June 2014 “that the written pleadings shall first be addressed to the question of the jurisdiction of the Court”. The Applicant respects the Court’s Order. Therefore, at the present time it will not submit a Memorial that conforms to Article 49, para. 1 of the Rules of Court. Instead, the Applicant is submitting a Memorial exclusively focused on the jurisdictional issues raised by India in its letter of 6 June 2014. The RMI wishes to underline that it is, indeed, restricting its observations to issues effectively raised by India since!the!Applicant!cannot!be!expected!to go beyond what the Respondent has raised in its letter. It is up to the Party raising objections to fully specify and define those objections. Moreover, it is not for the Applicant to divine what the objections of the Respondent may be. A different approach would be contrary to rules of proper proceedings. In any case, the RMI reserves the right to supplement the present Memorial in writing or at the oral stage of the proceedings after it has had the opportunity to study the Counter-Memorial of India on this phase of the case.

!8!

PART 2

THE EXISTENCE OF A DISPUTE 13. This section responds to India’s statement that “[t]he Application of Marshall Islands

against India fails to establish any dispute between the Marshall Islands and India with regard to the non-fulfillment of any treaty or customary international law obligations”.8 This objection is groundless. There is a legal dispute between the RMI and India within the meaning of Article 36, para. 2 of the Statute. The dispute concerns India’s compliance or non-compliance with its obligation under customary international law to pursue in good faith, and bring to a conclusion, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.

14. The Court has identified clear parameters for determining the existence of a dispute.

According to the established case law of the Court, “[a] dispute is a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or of interests between two persons.”9 Moreover, “[w]hether there is a dispute in a given case is a matter for ‘objective determination’ by the Court”10 and “[t]he Court’s determination must turn on an examination of the facts. The matter is one of substance, not of form.”11 In particular, what must be shown is “that the claim of one party is positively opposed by the other”.12 However, the opposition to the claim of one party may also be inferred from the attitude taken by the other party in respect to such claim. As the Court has stated, “a disagreement on a point of law or fact, a conflict of legal views or interests, or the positive opposition of the claim of one party by the other need not necessarily be stated expressis verbis. In the determination of the existence of a dispute, as in other matters, the position or the attitude of a party can be established by inference, whatever the professed view of that party”.13

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!8 Letter of 6 June 2014. 9 Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions, Judgment No. 2, 1924, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 2, p. 11, and, most recently, Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 84, para. 30. 10 Interpretation of Peace Treaties with Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania, First Phase, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1950, p. 74. 11 Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 84, para. 30. 12 South West Africa (Ethiopia v. South Africa ; Liberia v. South Africa), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1962, p. 328, and most recently Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 442, para. 46. 13 Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 315, paras. 89 ff.,

!9!

15. These criteria are fulfilled in the present case. The statements and conduct of the

parties reflect the existence of a legal dispute between India and the RMI over whether India is complying with its obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiation leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.

16. As set out in its Application and in the introduction to the present Memorial, the RMI

has a particular awareness of the potentially dire consequences of nuclear weapons and in recent years has enhanced its commitment to promoting greater global progress to nuclear disarmament. On several occasions, and in different fora, it has asked States possessing nuclear weapons to abide by their obligations to take action towards nuclear disarmament. For instance, on 26 September 2013, at the occasion of the UN High Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament, the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the RMI urged “all nuclear weapons states to intensify efforts to address their responsibilities in moving towards an effective and secure disarmament”.14 On 13 February 2014, at the Second Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, the RMI reiterated such demand and expressly stated that the failure of States possessing nuclear weapons to engage in negotiation leading to nuclear disarmament amounted to a breach of their international obligations. It observed that:

“(…) the Marshall Islands is convinced that multilateral negotiations on achieving and sustaining a world free of nuclear weapons are long overdue. Indeed we believe that states possessing nuclear arsenals are failing to fulfill their legal obligations in this regard. Immediate commencement and conclusion of such negotiations is required by legal obligation of nuclear disarmament resting upon each and every state under Article VI of the Non Proliferation Treaty and customary international law.”15

17. This statement illustrates with perfect clarity the content of the claim of the RMI. The

claim was unequivocally directed against all States possessing nuclear arsenals, including India. The contested conduct was clearly stated – the failure by these States to seriously engage in multilateral negotiations leading to a nuclear disarmament. The legal basis of the claim was also clearly identified to include the legal obligation resting upon each and every State under customary international law.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!14 Statement by Hon. Mr. Phillip Muller, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, 26 September 2013 (available at http://www.un.org/en/ga/68/meetings/nucleardisarmament/pdf/MH_en.pdf). 15 Marshall Islands Statement, Second Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons Nayarit, Mexico, 13-14 February 2014 (available at http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/nayarit-2014/statements/MarshallIslands.pdf)

!10!

18. By this unequivocal statement, made in the context of an international conference in which India participated, India was made aware that the RMI believed that its failure to seriously engage in multilateral negotiations amounted to a breach of its international obligations under customary international law. This public statement, as well as the overall position taken by the RMI on this issue over recent years, is clear evidence that the RMI had raised a dispute with each and every one of the States possessing nuclear weapons, including with India. The subject matter of this dispute is the same as that later submitted to the Court through the RMI’s Application. In its judgment in the case concerning the Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation) the Court recognized that “[w]hile it is not necessary that a State must expressly refer to a specific treaty in its exchanges with the other State to enable it later to invoke that instrument before the Court (Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, pp. 428‑429, para. 83), the exchanges must refer to the subject‑matter of the treaty with sufficient clarity to enable the State against which a claim is made to identify that there is, or may be, a dispute with regard to that subject‑matter”.16 While this statement refers to a dispute with regard to compliance with a treaty, the same also applies to disputes under customary international law. In the present case there is no doubt that the RMI referred to the subject matter of its claims against India with sufficient clarity to enable India “to identify that there is, or may be, a dispute with regard to that subject-matter”. Thus, India cannot now seriously contend that the RMI failed to raise a dispute with India over India’s non-fulfillment of its customary international law obligation to engage in negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament.

19. It can hardly be denied that the RMI’s claims have been positively opposed by India.

India’s opposition to such claims can be inferred, in the first place, from its conduct. While in public statements India has frequently reaffirmed its commitment to the goal of a nuclear weapon free world,17 its conduct, which continued unchanged despite the RMI’s claims and requests, reveals that India is not fulfilling its obligation under customary international law to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. Instead, India continues to engage in a course of conduct consisting of the quantitative build-up and qualitative improvement of its nuclear arsenal, which is contrary to the objective of nuclear disarmament. In its Application, the RMI has already set out India’s current plans for the expansion, improvement and diversification of its nuclear arsenal.18 There is no reason to return to this issue here. At this stage, what must be emphasized is that India’s conduct provides clear evidence of its opposition to the RMI’s claims. As the

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!16 Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 84, para. 30. 17 For references see RMI Application, paras 36-37. 18 RMI Application, paras 29-34.

!11!

Court said, when it comes to determining the existence of a dispute, “[t]he matter is one of substance, not of form”.19 And the substance is that India continues to engage in conduct that is contrary to its customary international legal obligation to pursue in good faith, and bring to a conclusion, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.

20. Not only can India’s opposition to the RMI’s claims be inferred from its conduct,

India has also explicitly disputed that the claim is well-founded. In its letter to the Court of 6 June 2014, India denied the existence of “any dispute between the Marshall Islands and India with regard to the non-fulfillment of any treaty or customary international law obligations”. Its view on this issue was based on the following argument:

“India has not accepted, ratified or acceded to the NPT. The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which codified prevailing customary international law, provides that States are bound by a treaty based on the principle of free consent. Given India’s consistent objection to the NPT, the obligations arising from it cannot selectively apply to India as a matter of customary international law. A global approach is inherent in the nature of the subject of the Application, namely nuclear disarmament, and a selective remedy cannot be sought against a State or a few States.”20

21. India’s argument is based on two propositions: a) that the obligations set forth in the

NPT do not apply to it since India is not a party to that Treaty; and b) that, even assuming the existence of an obligation as a matter of customary international law – a point which India does not concede, at least not expressly – this obligation cannot be selectively invoked against India because “[a] global approach is inherent in the nature of the subject of the Application”. As regards the first proposition, it is clear from the Application that the RMI’s claims against India rely only on customary international law. As to the second proposition, India’s view on this point is clearly incorrect. Under customary international law, every State is under an obligation erga omnes to pursue in good faith negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament. This obligation applies to India, as it applies to each and every State, irrespective of the attitudes of the other States in respect to the same obligation. In other words, the fact that other States may have breached the obligation to negotiate does not and cannot exclude the possibility for the Court to assess independently whether India is complying with the same obligation. There is no reason to believe that this obligation is of such a nature that it cannot be invoked against a single State, or against a few States. The possibilities of seeking remedies against one State, or of bringing the question of that State’s compliance with this obligation before an international tribunal, are not

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!19 See supra footnote 18. 20 Letter of 6 June 2014.

!12!

excluded just because other States are under the same obligation to negotiate nuclear disarmament. As it has been observed, “should the presence of all responsible States be required, the need for the existence of a jurisdictional link between the claimant State and all the respondent States would be likely to lead to the consequence that all the latter States would enjoy immunity from judicial scrutiny”.21

22. While any question concerning the content of the obligation to negotiate invoked

against India is to be left for the merits phase of the case, what has to be stressed at the present stage is that India’s statement only goes to confirm the existence of a dispute between itself and the RMI. By the very act of setting out its disagreement with the RMI’s positions over the existence of an international obligation that can be invoked against it, India itself demonstrates the existence of a dispute between the Parties. This Court has the obligation, and jurisdiction, to hear the dispute and to declare what customary international law requires. In its judgment in the case concerning Certain Property (Liechtenstein v. Germany), the Court observed that “in the present proceedings complaints of fact and law formulated by Liechtenstein against Germany are denied by the latter. In conformity with well-established jurisprudence (…), the Court concludes that ‘[b]y virtue of this denial, there is a legal dispute’ between Liechtenstein and Germany”.22 To the same extent it may be said that in the present proceedings, complaints of law formulated by the RMI are denied by India and that therefore, by virtue of this denial, there is a legal dispute between the RMI and India.

23. The fact that these elements are sufficient to prove the existence of a dispute is

confirmed by the Court’s established case law, according to which:

“[…] the manifestation of the existence of the dispute in a specific manner, as for instance by diplomatic negotiations, is not required. It would no doubt be desirable that a State should not proceed to take as serious a step as summoning another State to appear before the Court without having previously, within reasonable limits, endeavoured to make it quite clear that a difference of views is in question which has not been capable of being otherwise overcome. But in view of the wording of the article, the Court considers that it cannot require that the dispute should have manifested itself in a formal way; according to the Court's view, it should be sufficient if the two Governments have in fact shown themselves as holding opposite views in regard to the meaning or scope of a judgment of the Court”.23

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!21 G. Gaja, ‘The Protection of the General Interests in the International Community. General Course on Public International Law’, Recueil des cours, vol. 364 (2014), p. 118. 22 Certain Property (Liechtenstein v. Germany), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 19, para. 25. 23 Interpretation of Judgments Nos 7 and 8 (Factory of Chorzow), Judgment No. 11, 1927, P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 13, pp. 10-11.); also Application for Revision and Interpretation of the Judgment of 24 February 1982 in the Case concerning the Continental Shelf (Tunisia v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya),

!13!

24. With regard to this finding, it has been observed that “[t]his amounts to saying that the

establishment of a dispute presupposes a claim by one side, opposed by another, but that the opposition does not have to be the result of prior negotiations or prior contact between the disputing States”.24 The same author also noted that, in order for a conflict to give rise to a dispute, “it is necessary that one of the States concerned should ‘activate’ the conflict by formulating claims that the other will have to resist. This can happen through prior diplomatic negotiations or through declarations to the Court itself”.25 Moreover, while obviously, as the Court put it, the “dispute must in principle exist at the time the Application is submitted to the Court”,26 the existence of the dispute as defined in the Application may also be evidenced by the positions of the parties before the Court. Indeed, in several cases the Court has accorded evidentiary value to the Parties’ statements before the Court for the purposes of determining the existence of a dispute.27

25. It may be concluded that the RMI and India, by their opposing statements and conduct

both prior to and after the submission of the Application, have manifested the existence of a dispute over India’s non-compliance with its obligation to pursue in good faith, and bring to a conclusion, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. India’s objection in this respect must therefore be rejected.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Judgment of 10 December 1985, I.C.J. Reports 1985, p. 218, para. 46. While this case satisfies even this standard, which is a reference to a dispute required under Article 60 of the Statute, a dispute under Article 36 may encompass a much broader range of differences of fact and law. 24 R. Kolb, The International Court of Justice, Hart Publishing, 2013, p. 314. 25 Ibid., p. 306. 26 Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Georgia v. Russian Federation), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2011 (I), p. 85, para. 30; Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2012, p. 442, para. 46. 27 See, among others, Land and Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria), I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 315, para. 93; Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Yugoslavia), I.C.J. Reports 1996 (II), pp. 614- 615, para. 29; Certain Property (Liechtenstein v. Germany), I.C.J. Reports 2005, p. 19, para. 25.

!14!

PART 3

THE INTERPRETATION OF DECLARATIONS ACCEPTING THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

General observations 26. The Court has jurisdiction over the present dispute by reason of the respective

Declarations made by India and the RMI under Article 36, para. 2 of the Court’s Statute. India signed its Declaration on 15 September 1974 and deposited it on 18 September 1974 (Annex 5). The RMI’s Declaration was deposited on 24 April 2013 (Annex 6). Both Declarations were in force when the RMI submitted its Application to the Court.

27. As stated by this Court, “[i]t is for each State, in formulating its declaration, to decide

upon the limits it places upon its acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court”.28 When a Party places such limits, “the interpretation of declarations made under Article 36, paragraph 2, of the Statute, and of any reservations they contain, is directed to establishing whether mutual consent has been given to the jurisdiction of the Court”.29 While both Parties have made reservations to their respective Declarations under Article 36, para. 2, a plain reading of the text of these two Declarations makes clear that the Parties have given their mutual consent to the Court’s jurisdiction in relation to the dispute submitted by the RMI, since neither of these two Declarations places a limit on the Court’s jurisdiction in relation to the present case. In particular, the reservations contained in their respective Declarations are simply not pertinent for the purposes of the present case.

28. In its letter of 6 June 2014, India did not mention the Declaration of acceptance of the

Court’s jurisdiction made by the RMI on 24 April 2013. This is not surprising as the few limitations on the Court’s jurisdiction contained in that Declaration clearly do not concern the dispute brought by the RMI against India.

29. In the same letter, India argued that “the International Court of Justice does not have

jurisdiction in the alleged dispute”.30 In support of this argument, it invoked two reservations contained in its Declaration of acceptance of the Court’s jurisdiction, namely reservations (4) and (7). None of the other reservations contained in India’s Declaration was referred to in the letter of 6 June 2014. Therefore, there is no reason

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!28 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998, pp. 452-453, para. 44. 29 Ibid. 30 Letter of 6 June 2014, para. 4.

!15!

to enter into an examination of these other reservations. Indeed, that would be an exercise of little utility, as it is clear from the outset that they also do not limit the Court’s jurisdiction in relation to the present dispute.

30. The next sections of this Memorial will show that neither of the two reservations

invoked by India creates a bar to the Court’s jurisdiction. The interpretation of these reservations leaves no doubt as to the existence of the mutual consent of the Parties to the Court’s jurisdiction. Before examining them, it is useful to recall the rules of international law that apply to the interpretation of unilateral declarations made under Article 36, para. 2 of the Court’s Statute and of the reservations contained therein.

31. According to the well-established case law of this Court, a declaration “must be

interpreted as it stands, having regard to the words actually used”.31 Moreover, “the Court cannot base itself on a purely grammatical interpretation of the text. It must seek the interpretation which is in harmony with a natural and reasonable way of reading the text”.32 When interpreting a declaration, the Court gives due regard on the intention of the depositing State at the time of its acceptance:

“The Court will thus interpret the relevant words of a declaration including a reservation contained therein in a natural and reasonable way, having due regard to the intention of the State concerned at the time when it accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court”.33

The Court has also observed that “where an existing declaration has been replaced by a new declaration which contains a reservation, as in this case, the intentions of the Government may also be ascertained by comparing the terms of the two instruments”.34

India’s Reservation Regarding Interpretation of Multilateral Treaties 32. Reservation (7) excludes from India’s consent to the Court’s jurisdiction “disputes

concerning the interpretation or application of a multilateral treaty unless all the parties to the treaty are also parties to the case before the Court or Government of India specially agree to jurisdiction”.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!31 Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (United Kingdom v. Iran), Preliminary Objection, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1952, p. 105. 32 Ibid., p. 104. 33 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 454, para. 49. 34 Ibid., p. 454, para. 50.

!16!

33. The words used in this reservation indicate that the application of this reservation is subjected to two conditions. The first condition relates to the subject matter of the dispute. Thus, the reservation applies to disputes over the interpretation or application of a multilateral treaty. In other words, the existence of a dispute having this subject matter presupposes that the claims put forward by the applicant are based on a multilateral treaty that is applicable in the relationship between the applicant and the respondent. The second condition is that all the parties to the treaty are parties to the case brought before the Court or, in absence thereof, that India has specifically agreed to the Court’s jurisdiction. The intention underlying the adoption of this text is that of excluding the possibility that a dispute concerning a multilateral treaty to which India is a party may be brought against India alone, without the other parties to the treaty also being parties to the case and therefore also being bound by the Court’s interpretation of that multilateral treaty.

34. This reservation cannot serve to exclude the Court’s jurisdiction in relation to the dispute submitted by the RMI for the obvious reason that there is no dispute between the RMI and India over the interpretation and application of a multilateral treaty. It is true that the obligation to engage in good faith in negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament is also contained in Article VI of the NPT. However, the dispute between the RMI and India cannot concern the interpretation or application of the NPT, because India is not a party to that treaty. What is before the Court in this case is a dispute exclusively concerning India’s compliance with the obligation under customary international law to pursue in good faith, and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. The fact that the rule set forth in Article VI of the NPT may have the same content as the customary international rule on which the RMI bases its claims does not and cannot transform the present dispute into a dispute over the interpretation and application of the NPT.

35. India’s objection runs squarely counter to the position held by this Court in its Judgment in the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) case. While the wording of the reservation of the United States differed slightly from that of India, the view held by the Court in that case also applies to the present case. The United States had argued that, if the claims of the applicant merely restate its claims based expressly on certain multilateral treaties, the reservation also applies to disputes that are formulated in terms of customary international law. The Court rejected this argument by observing:

“The Court cannot dismiss the claims of Nicaragua under principles of customary and general international law, simply because such principles have been enshrined in the texts of the conventions relied upon by Nicaragua. The fact that the abovementioned principles, recognized as such, have been codified or embodied in multilateral conventions does not mean that they cease

!17!

to exist and to apply as principles of customary law, even as regards countries that are parties to such conventions”.35

It also observed:

“[…] the effect of the reservation in question is confined to barring the applicability of the United Nations Charter and Organization of American States Charter as multilateral treaty law, and has no further impact on the sources of international law which Article 38 of the Statute requires the Court to apply”.36

36. It must be noted that in the Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) case the invocation of the multilateral-treaty reservation had been prompted by the fact that the dispute submitted by Nicaragua was in fact a dispute under both multilateral treaties and customary international law. However, unlike that dispute, the present dispute between the RMI and India is, and can only be, a dispute exclusively under customary international law. This is so because India is not a party to the NPT. This renders the invocation of this reservation by India, if possible, even more groundless.

37. For all these reasons, the objection raised by India through the invocation of the multilateral treaty reservation must be rejected.

India’s Reservation Regarding Self-Defence

38. Reservation (4) excludes the Court’s jurisdiction over disputes relating to or connected with “facts or situations” of hostilities involving India. The first part of the reservation refers to “disputes relating to or connected with facts or situations of hostilities, armed conflicts, individual or collective actions taken in self-defence, resistance to aggression, fulfilment of obligations imposed by international bodies”. The second part of the reservation, introduced by the conjunction “and”, excludes in addition “other similar or related acts, measures or situations in which India is, has been or may in future be involved”. It is apparent that the two parts of the reservation are strictly connected. As the Court put it in a recent case where it noted that “[t]he wording of the second part of the reservation is closely linked to that of the first part”, “[t]he reservation thus has to be read as a unity”.37 The same applies to the interpretation of the present reservation.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!35 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1984, p. 424, para. 73. 36 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America), Merits, I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 38, para. 56. 37 Whaling in the Antarctic (Australia v. Japan: New Zealand intervening), Judgment, para. 37.

!18!

39. The reservation must first “be interpreted as it stands, having regard to the words

actually used”.38 Here we can leave aside the reference to the “fulfillment of obligations imposed by international bodies”, which is clearly not pertinent for the purposes of the present case. As a whole, the words “[f]acts or situations of hostilities, armed conflicts, individual or collective actions taken in self-defence, resistance to aggression” naturally and reasonably refer to particular uses of force, i.e. to specific situations involving India in which force is used. The inclusion among the listed “facts or situations” of “individual or collective actions taken in self-defence” means that the exclusion of the Court’s jurisdiction operates in case of disputes concerning “actions taken” in self-defence. The word “taken” reinforces the reading according to which the first part of the reservation operates if the dispute between India and another State concerns a specific situation of use of force, including cases of self-defense.

40. The second part of the reservation must be read in the light of the first part. When the

exception under (4) is interpreted “as a unity”, it becomes clear that the second part also refers to particular situations of use of force. This is confirmed by the words “similar or related acts, measures or situations” (italics added). The particular situations of use of force to which the reservation refers may also be ones in which India is not currently involved but in which it “may in future be involved”. It remains, however, that the application of the reservation clearly requires that two conditions be satisfied: that there exists a specific situation of use of force (or related acts and measures) in which India is, has been or may in future be involved; and that the dispute between the Parties relates to, or is connected with, that particular situation.

41. India’s Declaration of 14 September 1959, which, on 18 September 1974, was

replaced by the Declaration currently in force, contained a similar reservation. It provided as follows:

“Disputes concerning any question relating to or arising out of belligerent or military occupation or the discharge of any functions pursuant to any recommendation or decision of an organ of the United Nations, in accordance with which the Government of India have accepted obligations.”39

If one compares the terms of the two reservations, it can be observed that the new reservation differs from its precedent by being both broader and more precise. It is broader since it covers other situations in addition to “belligerent or military occupation or the discharge of any functions pursuant to any recommendation or

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!38 Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. (United Kingdom v. Iran), Preliminary Objections, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1952, p. 105. 39 Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War (Pakistan v. India), Correspondence, p. 142.

!19!

decision of an organ of the United Nations”. It is also more precise because, instead of using the generic word “question”, it refers to “fact or situations”.

42. In regard to the objectives that the new reservation was intended to achieve, it can be

observed that the new Declaration was deposited by India a few months after the filing by Pakistan of the case concerning the Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War (Pakistan v. India). Significantly, Pakistan had sought to base the Court’s jurisdiction over that case also on the Declarations of the Parties under Article 36, para. 2 of the Statute.40 This circumstance suggests that the purpose of the new Declaration was to prevent the Court from exercising its jurisdiction over particular situations of the use of force involving India or over related acts and measures, including obviously the treatment of prisoners of war. In other words, the close temporal link between Pakistan’s Application and the modification of India’s Declaration provides support for the view that the new reservation was intended to cover disputes relating to, or connected with, particular situations of the use of force, such as the dispute submitted to the Court by Pakistan. Thus, the historical context of this modification of its reservation seems to provide evidence for the intention of India “at the time when it accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court”.41

43. It is apparent that the dispute between the RMI and India does not fall within the ambit

of reservation (4), included in India’s current Declaration under Article 36, para. 2. All the reservation is designed to cover is particular uses of force involving India or similar or related acts, measures or situations. The present dispute is not related to, nor is connected with, any such acts, measures or situations.

44. In its letter of 6 June 2014, India alluded to the existence of a link between the

possession of nuclear armaments and its right of self-defence. It observed that, “pending global nuclear disarmament, India is committed for reasons of national security and self-defence to building and maintaining a credible minimum nuclear deterrent”.42 With regard to this statement, the RMI incidentally notes that it strongly opposes the view that the right of self-defence per se may justify the possession or the use of nuclear armaments. At this stage, however, it confines itself to observing that this statement fails to establish any link between the possession of nuclear armaments and the application of reservation (4) to the present dispute. This is hardly surprising.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!40 Trial of Pakistani Prisoners of War (Pakistan v. India), Minutes of the Public Sittings held at the Peace Palace, The Hague, 4 June 1973 (Request for the indication of interim measures of protection), Argument by Mr. Bakhtiar, CR 1973, p. 54. 41 Fisheries Jurisdiction (Spain v. Canada), Jurisdiction of the Court, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 1998, p. 454, para. 49. In the same judgment it is said that “[t]he Court will thus interpret the relevant words of a declaration including a reservation contained therein in a natural and reasonable way, having due regard to the intention of the State concerned at the time when it accepted the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court. The intention of a reserving State may be deduced not only from the text of the relevant clause, but also from the context in which the clause is to be read, and an examination of evidence regarding the circumstances of its preparation and the purposes intended to be served.” Ibid. 42 Letter of 6 June 2014, para. 2.

!20!

As it has been shown, only the existence of a particular situation of armed conflict may trigger the application of such reservation and the present dispute does not relate to, and is not connected with, any such situation. But even assuming, arguendo, that a dispute over India’s possession of a nuclear arsenal might be regarded as falling within the ambit of the reservation, this would not exclude the Court’s jurisdiction over the present dispute.

45. The subject matter of the RMI’s Application does not concern the question of whether

India has a right to possess a nuclear armament. Nor does the RMI claim that India is under a duty to unilaterally dismantle its nuclear arsenal. The RMI claims that, particularly by engaging in a program of quantitative build-up and qualitative improvement of its nuclear forces, India is not complying with its obligation to pursue in good faith negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. However, this does not mean that a dispute over the obligation to negotiate nuclear disarmament, including cessation of the nuclear arms race, in good faith is a dispute over the possession of a nuclear armament. The subject matter of the dispute brought before the Court by the RMI concerns the obligation to negotiate, not the possession of a nuclear arsenal. Consequently, any decision the Court may take on the dispute submitted by the RMI would not directly affect India’s possessing – for whatever reason – a nuclear arsenal. What the Court is called upon to do is to ascertain whether India has complied and is complying with its obligation to pursue in good faith, and bring to a conclusion, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its Order os under strict and effective international control.

46. The legality or illegality of the possession and threat or use of nuclear weapons and

States’ compliance or non-compliance with the obligation to pursue in good faith negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament are two separate aspects of the complex question concerning “the legal status of weapons as deadly as nuclear weapons”.43 The Court expressly acknowledged the difference between these two aspects in its Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. The Court drew a clear distinction between “the eminently difficult issues that arise in applying the law on the use of force and above all the law applicable in armed conflict to nuclear weapons” and “one further aspect of the question before it, seen in a broader context”,44 namely the existence of an obligation to negotiate in good faith a nuclear disarmament. The separate nature ofseparate nature of these two different aspects is also reflected in the operative part of the Court’s opinion.45

47. The dispute between India and the RMI does not relate to, nor is it connected with, a

particular situation of the use of force. This is sufficient to exclude the applicability of reservation (4). Ex abundanti cautela, it can be added that, more broadly, this dispute

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!43 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 263, para. 98. 44 Ibid. 45 Ibid., para. 105.

!21!

does not concern the question of India’s right to possess a nuclear arsenal or to use nuclear weapons in self-defence. The present dispute, as defined in the RMI’s Application, is about whether India has complied and is complying with its obligation to pursue in good faith, and bring to a conclusion, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. Given its subject matter, this dispute is unrelated to the disputes that are covered by reservation (4).

!22!

PART 4

CONCLUSION !!48. In accordance with the Order of the Court of 16 June 2014, this Memorial is restricted

to questions of jurisdiction raised by India. As for the merits of the case, the Applicant maintains its Submissions, including the Remedies requested, as set out in the Application of 24 April 2014. For further stages of the procedure the Applicant reserves its right to clarify, modify and/or amend these Submissions.

49. On the basis of the foregoing statements of facts and law, the Republic of the Marshall

Islands requests the Court to adjudge and declare that it has jurisdiction with respect to the present case.

16 December 2014 ___________________________ _________________________ Tony A. de Brum Phon van den Biesen Co-Agent of the Republic of Co-Agent of the Republic of the Marshall Islands the Marshall Islands before the International Court of Justice before the International Court of Justice

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

OBLIGATIONS CONCERNING NEGOTIATIONS RELATING TO CESSATION OF THE NUCLEAR ARMS RACE AND TO NUCLEAR

DISARMAMENT (Marshall Islands v. India)

ANNEXES TO

MEMORIAL OF

THE MARSHALL ISLANDS

16 DECEMBER 2014

LIST OF ANNEXES

Annex 1 – The 2014 Report on the Effects of Regional Nuclear Fallout Between India and Pakistan. Report by: Michael J. Mills, Owen B. Toon, Julia Lee-Taylor, and Alan Robock, “Multidecadal Global Cooling and Unprecedented Ozone Loss Following a Regional Nuclear Fallout”, in Earth’s Future.

Annex 2 – The Map Series Demonstrating the Global Spread of Smoke from a Regional Nuclear Fallout Between India and Pakistan, and Selected Maps from the 2014 Report Submitted as Annex 1 Annex 3 – The Republic of India’s Letter to the Court of 6 June 2014 Annex 4 – The Republic of India’s Letter to the Court of 10 June 2014 Annex 5 – The Republic of India’s Article 36 para. 2 Declaration Annex 6 – The Republic of the Marshall Islands Article 36 para. 2 Declaration

ANNEX 1

THE 2014 REPORT ON THE EFFECTS OF REGIONAL NUCLEAR FALLOUT BETWEEN

INDIA AND PAKISTAN. REPORT BY: MICHAEL J. MILLS, OWEN B. TOON, JULIA LEE-TAYLOR, AND ALAN ROBOCK, “MULTIDECADAL GLOBAL COOLING AND

UNPRECEDENTED OZONE LOSS FOLLOWING A REGIONAL NUCLEAR FALLOUT”.

Earth’s Future

Multidecadal global cooling and unprecedented ozone lossfollowing a regional nuclear conflictMichael J. Mills1, Owen B. Toon2, Julia Lee-Taylor1, and Alan Robock3

1NCAR Earth System Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado, USA, 2Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics andDepartment of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA,3Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers, State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick, New Jersey, USA

Abstract We present the first study of the global impacts of a regional nuclear war with an Earth sys-tem model including atmospheric chemistry, ocean dynamics, and interactive sea ice and land compo-nents. A limited, regional nuclear war between India and Pakistan in which each side detonates 50 15 ktweapons could produce about 5 Tg of black carbon (BC). This would self-loft to the stratosphere, whereit would spread globally, producing a sudden drop in surface temperatures and intense heating of thestratosphere. Using the Community Earth System Model with the Whole Atmosphere Community Cli-mate Model, we calculate an e-folding time of 8.7 years for stratospheric BC compared to 4–6.5 years forprevious studies. Our calculations show that global ozone losses of 20%–50% over populated areas, lev-els unprecedented in human history, would accompany the coldest average surface temperatures in thelast 1000 years. We calculate summer enhancements in UV indices of 30%–80% over midlatitudes, sug-gesting widespread damage to human health, agriculture, and terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Killingfrosts would reduce growing seasons by 10–40 days per year for 5 years. Surface temperatures would bereduced for more than 25 years due to thermal inertia and albedo effects in the ocean and expanded seaice. The combined cooling and enhanced UV would put significant pressures on global food supplies andcould trigger a global nuclear famine. Knowledge of the impacts of 100 small nuclear weapons shouldmotivate the elimination of more than 17,000 nuclear weapons that exist today.

1. Introduction

In the 1980s, studies of the aftermath of a global nuclear conflict between the United States and theSoviet Union predicted that airborne particles, such as fine soil and smoke resulting from explosionsand fires, could circle the globe, producing “twilight at noon,” and cooling the surface for years, in whatbecame known as “nuclear winter” [Crutzen and Birks, 1982; Turco et al., 1983; Pittock et al., 1985]. Fur-ther studies looked at perturbations to atmospheric chemistry, predicting that odd nitrogen producedby the largest nuclear weapons could loft to the stratosphere, resulting in significant ozone loss, and an“ultraviolet spring” to follow [National Research Council, 1985; Stephens and Birks, 1985]. Leaders in theUnited States and the Soviet Union became aware of the global environmental damage of nuclear warand subsequently negotiated treaties that have significantly reduced their nuclear stockpiles from theirpeak near 65,000 in 1986 to less than 20,000, a decline that continues with further negotiations in recentyears [Robock et al., 2007a; Toon et al., 2007, 2008]. Nevertheless, significant numbers of weapons remain,and the number of nuclear-armed states continues to increase.

Since 2007, studies have revisited the issue of global nuclear conflicts with modern global climate mod-els, confirming the severity of the climatic impacts that had been predicted with simple climate modelsor with short simulations of low-resolution atmospheric general circulation models in the 1980s [Robocket al., 2007a], and raising new concerns about severe global climatic impacts of regional nuclear conflicts[Robock et al., 2007b; Toon et al., 2007; Mills et al., 2008; Stenke et al., 2013]. Even the smallest of nuclearweapons, such as the ∼15 kt weapon used on Hiroshima, exploding in modern megacities would pro-duce firestorms that would build for hours, consuming buildings, vegetation, roads, fuel depots, and otherinfrastructure, releasing energy many times that of the weapon’s yield [Toon et al., 2007]. Toon et al. [2007]estimated the potential damage and smoke production from a variety of nuclear exchange scenarios,and found that smoke would initially rise to the upper troposphere due to pyroconvection. Robock et al.[2007b] examined the climatic impact of the smoke produced by a regional conflict in the subtropics in

RESEARCH ARTICLE10.1002/2013EF000205

Key Points:• Impacts of a regional nuclear war are

simulated with an Earth systemmodel

• Global cooling following a regionalnuclear war could persist for morethan 25 years

• Global ozone loss unprecedented inhuman history is confirmed

Corresponding author:M. J. Mills, [email protected]

Citation:Mills, M. J., O. B. Toon, J. Lee-Taylor, andA. Robock (2014), Multidecadal globalcooling and unprecedented ozone lossfollowing a regional nuclear conflict,Earth’s Future, 2, 161–176,doi:10.1002/2013EF000205.

Received 30 SEP 2013Accepted 31 JAN 2014Accepted article online 7 FEB 2014Published online 1 APR 2014

This is an open access article underthe terms of the Creative CommonsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivsLicense, which permits use and distri-bution in any medium, provided theoriginal work is properly cited, the useis non-commercial and no modifica-tions or adaptations are made.

MILLS ET AL. © 2014 The Authors. 161

Earth’s Future 10.1002/2013EF000205

which two countries each used 50 Hiroshima-size (15 kt) nuclear weapons, creating such urban firestorms.Using the global climate model GISS ModelE (Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York), they cal-culated that nearly all the 5 Tg of smoke produced would rise to the stratosphere, where it would spreadglobally, reducing the global average temperature by 1.25∘C for 3–4 years and by more than 0.5∘C fora decade. This effect was longer lasting than that found in previous “nuclear winter” studies, becauseolder models could not represent the rise of smoke into the stratosphere. Mills et al. [2008] then useda chemistry-climate model to calculate that the concurrent heating of the stratosphere by up to 100∘Cwould produce global ozone loss on a scale unprecedented in human history, lasting for up to a decade.

Recently, Stenke et al. [2013] used a third independent model to confirm the major findings of these twoprevious studies. That study used the chemistry-climate model SOCOL3 to assess impacts on climate andstratospheric ozone for a range of inputs and particle sizes. The study coupled a mixed-layer ocean witha depth of 50 m and a thermodynamic sea ice module to a high-top atmospheric model, which calcu-lated chemistry effects in agreement with Mills et al. [2008]. Unlike Robock et al. [2007b], the study did notconsider active ocean dynamics, and hence could not incorporate the climate effects of changing oceancirculation. The inclusion of only the top 50 m of ocean limits the thermal inertia effects that occur in thepresence of a deep ocean, making surface temperature responses too rapid, as the heat content of thedeeper ocean is not considered.

Here we present the first study of this scenario with an Earth system model, coupling a chemistry-climatemodel to interactive ocean, sea ice, and land components.

2. Model Description2.1. CESM1(WACCM)We revisit the scenario of nuclear war between India and Pakistan, each side using 50 Hiroshima-sizeweapons in megacities on the subcontinent, using the first version of NCAR’s Community Earth SystemModel (CESM1), a state-of-the-art, fully coupled, global climate model, configured with fully interactiveocean, land, sea ice, and atmospheric components [Hurrell et al., 2013]. For the atmospheric component,we use the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model, version 4 (WACCM4), which is a superset ofversion 4 of the Community Atmospheric Model (CAM4), and includes all the physical parameterizationsof that model [Neale et al., 2013]. WACCM is a “high-top” chemistry-climate model that extends from thesurface to 5.1× 10−6 hPa (∼140 km). It has 66 vertical levels and horizontal resolution of 1.9∘ latitude× 2.5∘longitude. WACCM includes interactive chemistry that is fully integrated into the model’s dynamics andphysics. Heating the stratosphere, for example, feeds back onto chemical reaction rates. Photolysis ratesare calculated based on extinction of exoatmospheric flux from overhead ozone and molecular oxygen,and are unaffected by aerosol extinction. WACCM uses a chemistry module based on version 3 of theModel for Ozone and Related Chemical Tracers (MOZART) [Kinnison et al., 2007], tailored to the middleand upper atmosphere. The chemical scheme includes 59 species contained in the Ox , NOx , HOx , ClOx ,and BrOx chemical families, along with CH4 and its degradation products; 217 gas-phase chemical reac-tions; and heterogeneous chemistry that can lead to the development of the ozone hole. For our simula-tions, CESM1 includes the active land, ocean, and sea ice components described by Lawrence et al. [2011],Danabasoglu et al. [2012], and Holland et al. [2012], respectively. The full ocean model extends up to5500 m in depth, and includes interactive, prognostic ocean circulation. The nominal latitude-longituderesolution of the ocean and sea ice components is 1∘, the same as in CESM1(WACCM) simulations con-ducted as part of phase 5 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project [Marsh et al., 2013].

2.2. CARMAWe have coupled WACCM with version 3 of the Community Aerosol and Radiation Model for Atmospheres(CARMA3), a flexible three-dimensional bin microphysics package that we have adapted for the treat-ment of black carbon (BC) aerosol. This allows the BC to experience gravitational settling, and obviatesthe implementation of molecular diffusion, which the gas-phase tracers in WACCM experience at highaltitudes. CARMA originated from a one-dimensional stratospheric aerosol code developed by Turco et al.[1979] and Toon et al. [1979] that included both gas-phase sulfur chemistry and aerosol microphysics.The model was improved and extended to three dimensions as described by Toon et al. [1988]. Extensiveupdates of the numerics continue to be made. For this study, we limit BC to one size bin of fixed radius.



As described below, we performed an ensemble of runs assuming a microphysical radius of 50 nm, to beconsistent with the optical properties of BC assumed in the model’s radiative code, which are derived fromthe Optical Properties of Aerosols and Clouds (OPAC) software package [Hess et al., 1998]. Our previousstudies of BC in the stratosphere from nuclear war and space tourism used these same optical properties,but with a radius for sedimentation that was twice as large [Mills et al., 2008; Ross et al., 2010]. We also con-ducted one perturbation run using the same 100 nm radius for sedimentation as those previous studies,for comparison in the coupled model.

We do not allow calculated particle populations to change radiatively or microphysically other than byrainout, sedimentation, and transport. The particles are assumed to be completely hydrophilic from thestart, and hence are subject to rainout in the troposphere. We assume a mass density of 1 g cm−3 for eachBC particle, consistent with measurements of atmospheric BC particles collected on filters, which are com-posed of smaller, denser particles aggregated in fractal formations with spatial gaps [Hess et al., 1998].As Toon et al. [2007] point out, coagulation of BC is likely to form chains or sheets, which would have thesame or higher mass absorption coefficients as smaller BC particles. Drag forces would decrease sedimen-tation of such chains or sheets compared with aerosols that grow as simple spheres. Our neglect of coag-ulation, assuming a monodisperse distribution of 50 nm radius spheres, should more accurately predictstratospheric lifetime under conditions with fractals than a treatment of growth into larger spheres withfaster sedimentation. Toon et al. [2007] also indicate that the BC is likely to become coated with sulfates,organics, and other nonabsorbing materials, which could act as lenses, refracting light onto the BC. Thiseffect might increase absorption by ∼50%, leading to potentially greater impacts than those we modeled.

2.3. Model SetupWe have performed an ensemble of three “experiment” runs initialized with 5 Tg of BC with 50 nm radiusover the Indian subcontinent. A fourth experiment run includes the same mass and spatial distributionof BC, with 100 nm sedimentation radius. We compare these experiment runs to an ensemble of three“control” runs without this additional BC. Each of these seven runs simulated the time period from 1 Jan-uary 2013 to 1 January 2039, with concentrations of greenhouse gases and other transient constituentschanging with time according to the specifications of the “medium-low emissions” Representative Con-centration Pathway (RCP4.5) scenario [Meinshausen et al., 2011], a baseline for climate projections. Wealso tried starting the simulated conflict on 15 May, as was done by Robock et al. [2007b] and Stenke et al.[2013], and found that the different season did not significantly affect the stratospheric distribution or cli-matic impact of the BC. Because of the prolonged surface cooling that we calculated, we extended ourruns beyond the 10 year span used in previous studies to 26 years.

In the experiment runs, 5 Tg of BC was added to the initial atmospheric condition in a constant mass mix-ing ratio of 1.38× 10−6 kg/kg air between 300 and 150 hPa in a horizontal region spanning 50 adjacentmodel columns roughly covering India and Pakistan. The BC heats the atmosphere to extreme conditions,requiring a reduction of the model’s standard time step from 30 to 10 min. Because this reduction in timestep produces a significant increase in cloudiness in the model due to dependencies in the cloud param-eterization, we reduced the time step consistently in the experiment and control runs. We also tried analternate approach of increasing the dynamical substepping in the model, but found that the 16-foldincrease in the number of substeps required to produce a stable result produced a similar increase inclouds to our original approach. We diagnose the effects of reducing the model time step in section 2.4.

The three members of each ensemble were configured with different initial conditions for the ocean, land,and sea ice components, derived from the ensemble of three RCP4.5 CESM1(WACCM) runs conductedas part of CMIP5 [Marsh et al., 2013]. These components interact with the atmosphere, producing arepresentation of natural climate variability among the three runs in each ensemble. As we will show,the variability that we calculate within each ensemble is small compared to the differences between theexperiment and control ensemble averages, indicating that the effects we calculate are not attributable tomodel internal variability.

2.4. Model ValidationTo understand the effects of changing the model time step on our conclusions, we diagnosed the cli-mate of one of our control runs for years 2023–2038, 16 years starting 10 years after the change in time



step, with reference to the climate of the same years from one of the CESM1(WACCM) CMIP5 runs forRCP4.5, the same forcing scenario used in our runs. The effect of increased low clouds is to change theglobal shortwave (SW) cloud forcing from −55 to −62 W m−2. Observations from Clouds and Earth’s Radi-ant Energy Systems (CERES) Energy Balanced and Filled (EBAF) put this forcing near −51 W m−2, so thechange produces a more reflective planet than is observed (A. Gettelman, personal communication). Thismay lead to an underestimation of the surface cooling anomaly in our calculations, because the effectof extinction in the stratosphere would be reduced if less SW radiation reaches the surface in both ourcontrol and experiment runs. At the same time, global longwave cloud forcing increases from 30 W m−2

in our CMIP5 run to 34 W m−2. Observations from CERES EBAF put this forcing near 26–27 W m−2, so thechange is toward more greenhouse warming from high clouds than is observed. This 4 W m−2 increase incloud forcing partially offsets the surface cooling effects of the 7 W m−2 decrease in the SW. The changesin cloud forcing occur mostly in the tropics.

Because we started from an RCP4.5 scenario in 2013, the initial atmosphere is not in radiative balance,but is warming in response to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The radiative imbalance at the top of themodel is 0.977 W m−2 in our CMIP5 run for years 2023–2038. The effect of increased clouds is to reducethis by a factor of 10 to 0.092 W m−2, bringing the model close to the radiative balance that would be seenin a steady state, such as the static conditions used for previous nuclear winter calculations. We ran anadditional case in which the 5 Tg of BC is added in year 10 of the control run. These calculations confirmthat our calculated BC mass, and surface anomalies in SW flux, temperature, and precipitation are notsignificantly affected by any transient adjustments after the initial change in time step.

We also diagnosed effects on stratospheric chemistry by comparing the ensemble average column ozonefrom our control runs to the ensemble average from the CESM1(WACCM) CMIP5 runs for the first 6 yearsafter we introduced the change in time step. We found no significant differences in either the global meanor latitudinal distribution of column ozone due to the change in time step. The effects of changing themodel time step are relatively minor compared to those of 5 Tg of BC in the stratosphere, which is thefocus of our study.

3. Results3.1. BC Rise and Meridional TransportAs in previous studies of this scenario [Robock et al., 2007b; Mills et al., 2008], the BC aerosol absorbsSW radiation, heating the ambient air, inducing a self-lofting that carries most of the BC well above thetropopause. CESM1(WACCM) has 66 vertical layers and a model top of ∼145 km, compared to 23 layersup to ∼80 km for the GISS ModelE used by Robock et al. [2007b] and 39 layers up to ∼80 km for SOCOL3used by Stenke et al. [2013]. As Figure 1 shows, we calculate significantly higher lofting than Robock et al.[2007b, compare to their Figure 1b], penetrating significantly into the mesosphere, with peak mass mixingratios reaching the stratopause (50–60 km) within 1 month and persisting throughout the first year.This higher lofting, in conjunction with effects on the circulation we discuss later, produces significantlylonger residence times for the BC than those in previous studies. At the end of 10 years, our calculatedvisible-band optical depths from the BC persist at 0.02–0.03, as shown in Figure 2. In contrast, Robocket al. [2007b] calculate optical depths near 0.01 only at high latitudes after 10 years, a level that ourcalculations do not reach for 15 years.

3.2. BC Burden, Rainout, and LifetimeDuring the first 4 months, 1.2–1.6 of the 5 Tg of BC is lost in our 50 nm experiment ensemble, and 1.6 Tg inour 100 nm experiment, mostly due to rainout in the first few weeks as the plume initially rises throughthe troposphere (Figure 3a). This is larger than the 1.0 Tg initially lost in the study of Mills et al. [2008],which used a previous version of WACCM. This is likely due to the difference in our initial distribution ofBC compared to that previous study, which injected 5 Tg into a single column at a resolution four timesas coarse as ours. The more concentrated BC in the previous study likely produced faster heating and riseinto the stratosphere, mitigating rainout. Our calculated rainout contrasts with the lack of significant rain-out calculated by the GISS ModelE [Robock et al., 2007b], which assumes that BC is initially hydrophobicand becomes hydrophilic with a 24 h e-folding time scale. The mass burden reaching the stratosphere andimpacts on global climate and chemistry in our calculations would doubtless be greater had we made



Figure 1. The time evolution of BC mass mixing ratio (kg BC/109 kg air) is shown for the average of the 50 nm experiment ensemble.The horizontal axis shows time in years since the emission of 5 Tg BC at 150–300 hPa on 1 January.

Figure 2. The time evolution of zonal mean total column BC optical depth in the visible part of the spectrum is shown for the 50 nmexperiment ensemble average. The vertical axis shows latitude. The horizontal average shows time in years.

a similar assumption to the GISS ModelE. Stenke et al. [2013] calculate an initial rainout of ∼2 Tg in theirinteractive 5 Tg simulations, which assumed BC radii of 50 and 100 nm in two separate runs. After initialrainout, the mass e-folding time for our remaining BC is 8.7 years for the average of our 50 nm experimentensemble and 8.4 years for our 100 nm experiment, compared to the 6 years reported by Robock et al.[2007b], ∼6.5 years by Mills et al. [2008], 4–4.6 years reported by Stenke et al. [2013], and 1 year for strato-spheric sulfate aerosol from typical volcanic eruptions [Oman et al., 2006]. Due to this longer lifetime,after about 4.8 years the global mass burden of BC we calculate in our ensemble is larger than that cal-culated by the GISS ModelE, despite the initial 28% rainout loss. After 10 years, we calculate that 1.1 Tg ofBC remains in the atmosphere in our 50 nm experiment ensemble and 0.82 Tg in our 100 nm experiment,compared to 0.54 Tg calculated by the GISS ModelE and 0.07–0.14 Tg calculated by SOCOL3.

The long lifetime that we calculate results from both the very high initial lofting of BC to altitudes, whereremoval from the stratosphere is slow, and the subsequent slowing down of the stratospheric residual cir-culation. The Brewer-Dobson circulation is driven waves whose propagation is filtered by zonal winds,



Figure 3. The monthly global mean time evolution is shown for (a) the mass burden of black carbon (Tg), (b) the shortwave net fluxanomaly at the surface (W m−2), (c) the surface temperature anomaly (K), and (d) the precipitation anomaly (mm/day). The dark bluedashed line and light blue shading show the average and range of our 50 nm experiment ensemble. The gold line shows oursimulation assuming a 100 nm aerosol radius. The dark red dashed line and pink shading show the ensemble average and range forRobock et al. [2007a, 2007b] (data courtesy L. Oman). The grey and green lines show results from two 5 Tg BC simulations from Stenkeet al. [2013] (data courtesy A. Stenke), with assumed aerosol radii of 50 and 100 nm, respectively. Ensemble anomalies are calculatedwith respect to the mean of the respective control simulation ensembles. Time 0 corresponds to the date of the BC injection (1January in this study and 15 May in the other studies).

which are modulated by temperature gradients [Garcia and Randel, 2008]. As explained by Mills et al.[2008], the BC both heats the stratosphere and cools the surface, reducing the strength of the strato-spheric overturning circulation. Figure 4 shows the vertical winds in the lower stratosphere, which bringnew air up from the troposphere and drive the poleward circulation, for the control and BC runs. Themiddle-atmosphere heating and surface cooling reduce the average velocity of tropical updrafts by morethan 50%. This effect persists more than twice as long as in Mills et al. [2008], which did not include anyocean cooling effects.

3.3. Global Mean Climate AnomaliesThe global climate anomalies shown in Figure 3 respond very similarly in our 50 nm experiment ensembleand our 100 nm experiment; here we discuss the 50 nm calculations. The 3.6 Tg of BC that reaches themiddle atmosphere and spreads globally absorbs the incoming SW solar radiation, reducing the net SWflux at the surface by ∼12 W/m2 initially or about 8% (Figure 3b). This anomaly tracks the evolution ofthe global mass burden of BC proportionally, similar to those calculated by GISS ModelE and SOCOL3.The SW flux in SOCOL3 seems to be more sensitive to BC than CESM1(WACCM), calculating comparableinitial flux reductions with significantly lower BC burdens. In contrast, GISS ModelE and CESM1(WACCM)have similar sensitivity, producing very comparable flux anomalies in years 4 and 5, when the global massburdens match most closely for the two models. After 10 years, our calculated SW flux anomaly persists at



Figure 4. The time evolution of the tropical lower stratospheric vertical wind (mm/s) is shown for (a) the control, (b) the 50 nmexperiment, and (c) and the experiment minus the control. Values are ensemble averages for latitudes 22∘S to 22∘N. The horizontalaxis shows time in years. The left vertical axis shows pressure in hPa, and the right shows approximate pressure altitude in km.

−3.8 W/m2, comparable to the maximum forcing of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption [Kirchneret al., 1999]. This is 2.7 times that of the flux anomaly calculated by GISS ModelE, with 2.0 times the massburden. SOCOL3 fluxes have returned to normal after 10 years as BC mass burdens become insignificant.CESM1(WACCM) takes twice as long (20 years) to do the same.

Our calculated global average surface temperatures drop by ∼1.1 K in the first year (Figure 3c). Thisresponse is initially slower than that calculated by the GISS ModelE, due to the large initial rainout, butcomparable to SOCOL3. The initial temperature anomalies for the three models correspond proportion-ately to their initial SW anomalies. Our temperatures continue to decrease for 5 years, however, reachinga maximum cooling of 1.6 K in year 5, 2–2.5 years after GISS ModelE and SOCOL3 begin warming fromtheir maximum cooling of comparable magnitude. After a decade, our calculated global average coolingpersists at ∼1.1 K, two to four times that calculated by GISS ModelE and SOCOL3. For CESM1(WACCM)and GISS Model E, this difference is roughly proportional with the ratio of mass burdens calculated. Ourcalculated cooling lags the recovery in mass burden and SW flux, however. Global average temperaturesremain 0.25–0.50 K below the control ensemble average in years 20–23, after SW fluxes have returnedto the control range. The thermal inertia of the oceans, which have experienced more than a decade ofprolonged cooling, is responsible for much of this lag.

Precipitation rates drop globally by ∼0.18 mm/day within the first year after the conflict. This 6% lossin the global average persists for 5 years, during which time our calculated response is not as strongas that calculated by either GISS ModelE or SOCOL3. The fairly constant precipitation anomaly that wecalculate over the first 5 years is explained by the opposing trends in surface temperature and SW fluxover this period, which tend to cancel each other out. In year 5, however, precipitation drops further as



temperatures continue to fall, reaching a maximum reduction of 9% in global precipitation while precip-itation in the other two models is in their second year of recovery. At the end of a decade, our calculatedglobal precipitation is still reduced by 4.5%, and more than five times the reduction calculated at that timeby GISS ModelE or SOCOL3. After 26 years, global average temperature and precipitation both remainslightly below the control ensemble average.

3.4. Ocean and Sea Ice ResponseAs Figure 5 shows, sea ice extent expands significantly over the first 5 years in the Arctic, and the first10 years in the Antarctic. Sea ice extent is defined as the total area of all surface grid points in the ocean

Figure 5. Change in sea ice extent (%) for the 50 nm experiment is shownrelative to the control. Sea ice extent is defined as the area of all sea surface gridpoints with ice fraction greater than 15%. The red line shows the ensembleaverage anomaly for the Southern Hemisphere. The blue line shows the same forthe Northern Hemisphere. Shading around each line shows the range of theexperiment ensemble runs with respect to the control ensemble average. Thehorizontal axis shows time in years. The vertical axis shows relative change in iceextent area, 100% × (experiment− control)/control.

model with sea ice coverage greaterthan 15%. Both hemispheres expe-rience an earlier onset of sea ice for-mation in the autumn, as revealedby the seasonal maxima, consistentwith Stenke et al. [2013]. In the Arc-tic, sea ice extent increases peak at10%–25% in years 4–7. Antarctic seaice extent peaks at 20%–75% largerthan the control ensemble in years7–15, and remains 5%–10% largerthroughout the years 20–26. Thesevast expansions of sea ice affect notonly transfer of energy between theatmosphere and the oceans but alsoenhance planetary albedo, furthercooling the surface by reflecting moresunlight to space. Expanding sea icewould also have large impacts onocean life, strongly impacting therange of organisms that are in equi-librium with the current climate [e.g.,Harley et al., 2006].

We also find that the upper layer of the ocean experiences a prolonged cooling that penetrates to hun-dreds of meters depth. Figure 6 shows the monthly global average ocean temperature anomalies at vari-ous depths for the 50 nm experiment ensemble, including ensemble variability, compared to the controlensemble average. As the figure shows, average cooling exceeding 0.5 K extends to 100 m depth throughyear 12. The upper 2.5 m of the ocean has the same heat capacity per unit area as the whole depth of theatmosphere [Gill, 1982]. Hence, this significant cooling down to 100 m depth creates a long-lived ther-mal deficit that maintains reduced surface temperature for decades. The temperature response takeslonger to penetrate to deeper waters, with temperatures at 1000 m continuing to drop for all 26 yearssimulated.

3.5. Stratospheric Ozone LossThe absorbing BC not only cools the surface but also severely heats the middle atmosphere (Figure 7). Asin Mills et al. [2008], we calculate initial global average temperature increases in excess of 80 K near thestratopause (50–60 km). As in Robock et al. [2007b], we calculate global average stratospheric heating inexcess of 30 K for the first 5 years. Figure 7 also reveals the surface cooling discussed above, as well as acooling of the atmosphere above the BC layer, consistent with Robock et al. [2007b].

As in Mills et al. [2008], we calculate massive ozone loss as a consequence of these extreme stratospherictemperatures (Figure 8). Consistent with that work, we calculate a global average column ozone loss of20%–25% persisting from the second through the fifth year after the nuclear war, and recovering to 8%column loss at the end of 10 years. Throughout the first 5 years, column ozone is reduced by 30%–40% atmidlatitudes and by 50%–60% at northern high latitudes.



Figure 6. The time evolution of the global average ocean temperatureanomaly at various depths is shown. The lines show the monthly average of theexperiment ensemble temperatures minus the monthly average of the controlensemble. Shading around each line shows the range of the experimentensemble runs with respect to the control ensemble average. The horizontalaxis shows time in years. The vertical axis shows temperature in K.

As Mills et al. [2008] discussed, thisozone loss results primarily from twotemperature-sensitive catalytic losscycles involving odd oxygen and oddnitrogen, which accelerate at hightemperatures. In addition, analysis ofour current results shows that heat-ing of the tropical tropopause allowsup to 4.3 times as much water vaporto enter the lower stratosphere. Theenhanced water vapor has a twofoldeffect on depleting ozone. Photolysis ofwater vapor produces both odd hydro-gen and excited-state atomic oxygen,O(1D), depending on the wavelength ofdissociating sunlight. O(1D) is responsi-ble for the production of odd nitrogenin the stratosphere via reaction withN2O. Odd hydrogen has its own cat-alytic cycle destroying ozone. We calcu-late that odd hydrogen in the tropicallower stratosphere is enhanced by fac-tors of 3–5.5 over the first 2 years after

the nuclear war. Similarly, O(1D) is enhanced in the same region by factors of 4–7.6. O(1D) is not the majorloss mechanism for N2O in the stratosphere, however, and N2O levels are initially slightly elevated in thetropical stratosphere, likely due to uplift by the initial rise of the plume, as described by Mills et al. [2008].Subsequent slowing of the stratospheric circulation produces reduced N2O levels, as increased age of airresults in increased chemical loss.

Ozone production rates are highest in the Tropics, where losses are dominated by transport of ozone tohigher latitudes. As air is transported poleward, the chemical losses accumulate, leading to higher col-umn losses at higher latitudes. At southern high latitudes, ozone losses are mitigated by the elimination

Figure 7. The time evolution of the vertical profile of global average temperature anomaly is shown. Values are for the 50 nmexperiment ensemble average minus the control ensemble average. The horizontal axis shows time in years. The left vertical axisshows pressure in hPa, and the right vertical axis shows approximate pressure altitude in km. Contours show temperature anomaliesin K.



Figure 8. The time evolution of the change (%) in zonal mean column ozone is shown. The change in the 50 nm experimentensemble average is shown relative to the control ensemble average: 100% × (experiment− control)/control. The horizontal axisshows time in years. The vertical axis shows latitude.

of the seasonal Antarctic ozone hole, which normally results from heterogeneous chemistry occurring onpolar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) only at the extreme low temperatures present in the Antarctic strato-sphere. We do not include effects of heterogeneous chemistry on BC aerosol, which is less understoodthan chemistry on sulfates and PSCs.

3.6. Changes in Surface UV RadiationWe used the TUV (tropospheric ultraviolet-visible) model [Madronich and Flocke, 1997] to calculate theimpacts of this massive ozone loss on fluxes of damaging UV radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. TUVsimulates the attenuation of sunlight on its journey through Earth’s atmosphere. The model has beenused to study a wide range of topics including chemistry of the remote [Walega et al., 1992] and urbanatmosphere [Castro et al., 2001], chemistry within snowpacks [Fisher et al., 2005], incidence of skin cancer[Thomas et al., 2007], methane emissions from plants [Bloom et al., 2010], and potential changes to UVresulting from asteroid impacts [Pierazzo et al., 2010] and geoengineering [Tilmes et al., 2012]. The methodused in this study is based on that described by Lee-Taylor et al. [2010].

We used TUV to calculate UV fluxes for clear sky conditions, based on the monthly average column ozoneand absorbing BC distributions calculated for the control and experiment ensemble averages of ourCESM1(WACCM) runs. To reduce computational overhead, we precalculated lookup tables of UV variationwith respect to ozone, solar zenith angle (!), and surface elevation, using the full 80 km atmosphericcolumn considered by TUV. We then constructed global distributions of UV from the modeled WACCMozone distributions using Beer’s law to account for the slant-path absorption by the stratospheric BC,performing the calculation daily to account for varying !. We express the monthly averaged UV results interms of the international UV Index (UVI) [WHO, WMO, UNEP, and ICNIRP, 2002], which weights noontimeUV fluxes by an “action spectrum” to account for the wavelength dependence of the effectiveness of solarradiation at causing skin damage [McKinlay and Diffey, 1987].

Figure 9 shows UVI in the peak summer months of June for the Northern Hemisphere and December forthe Southern Hemisphere. The World Health Organization recommends that sun protection measures betaken for UV indices of 3 and above, and characterizes UVI values of 8–10 as “very high,” warranting extraprotection measures to avoid exposure to sunlight during midday hours. UVI greater than 11 is consid-ered “extreme.” We calculate UVI increases of 3–6 throughout the midlatitudes in summer, bringing peakvalues off the charts at 12–21 over the most populous regions of North America and southern Europe inJune. We find similar increases for Australia, New Zealand, southern Africa, and South America in Decem-ber. Skin damage varies with skin type, with burn times inversely proportional to UVI. Hence, a moderatelyfair-skinned North American who experiences a painful, noticeable sunburn after 10 min in the sun atnoon in June for a UVI of 10 would receive an equivalent level of damage after 6.25 min for a UVI of 16.



Figure 9. UV index in June (left) and December (right) is shown for the control (a, b), the experiment (c, d), and the experimentminus the control (e, f ). Values are ensemble averages for year 3.

Stenke et al. [2013] calculate similarly dramatic increases in UV radiation due to ozone loss. They alsoreport that the attenuation of solar fluxes from BC absorption was significant enough in high-latitudewinter to reduce UV levels by 30% when they are most needed for vitamin D production. In contrast, wedo not find that BC attenuation is significant enough to offset the UV increases from ozone loss.

The calculations shown in Figure 9 include absorption of UV by the BC, but not scattering, which presentsan additional source of uncertainty. We performed a sensitivity test at 305 nm using a nominal single-scattering albedo of 0.31 for a 1 km depth soot layer centered on 27 km and a total ozone column of200 DU. We calculate that BC scattering produces small reductions in ground-level UV irradiance, rang-ing from 4% for overhead sun and soot optical depth of 0.05 to 12% for ! of 88∘ and soot optical depthof 0.1. Hence, scattering would only marginally offset the 30%–100% increases in UV irradiance that wecalculate for summer in the extratropics.

3.7. Effects on Vegetation and AgricultureThe severe increases in UV radiation following a regional nuclear war would occur in conjunction with thecoldest average surface temperatures in the last 1000 years [Mann et al., 1999]. Although global averagesurface temperatures would drop by 1.5 K (Figure 3c), broad, populated regions of continental landmasseswould experience significantly larger cooling, as shown in Figure 10. Winters (JJA) in southern Africa andSouth America would be up to 2.5 K cooler on average for 5 years, compared to the same years (2–6) inthe control run. Most of North America, Asia, Europe, and the Middle East would experience winters (DJF)that are 2.5–6 K cooler than the control ensemble, and summers (JJA) 1–4 K cooler.

Similarly, the 6% global average drop in precipitation that persists through years 2–6 (Figure 3d) trans-lates into more significant regional drying (Figure 11). The most evident feature is over the Asian monsoonregion, including the Middle East, the Indian subcontinent, and Southeast Asia. Broad precipitation reduc-tions of 0.5–1.5 mm/day would reduce annual rainfall by 20%–80%. Similarly, large relative reductions inrainfall would occur in the Amazon region of South America, and southern Africa. The American South-west and Western Australia would be 20%–60% drier. Robock et al. [2007b] predict a broadly wetter Sahelregion as a result of a weaker Hadley circulation. Stenke et al. [2013] do not find such increased precipita-tion, and nor do we, despite some increase in precipitation near Morocco.

Following Robock et al. [2007b], we have calculated the change in the frost-free growing season, definedas the number of consecutive days in a 1 year period with minimum temperatures above 0∘C (Figure 12).



Figure 10. Change in surface temperature (K) for (a) June to August and (b) December to February. Values are 5 year seasonalensemble averages for years 2–6, experiment minus control.

Because our globally averaged surface temperatures continue to cool until year 6, we show the averagechange in the growing season over years 2–6. The length of the average growing season is reduced by upto 40 days throughout the world’s agricultural zones over these 5 years. This is similar to the results thatRobock et al. [2007b] report for their first year, with significant regional differences. We find more signif-icant decreases in Russia, North Africa, the Middle East, and the Himalayas than the previous study, andsomewhat smaller effects in the American Midwest and South America.

The land component in CESM1(WACCM) is CLM4CN, a comprehensive land carbon cycle model [Lawrenceet al., 2011]. CLM4CN is prognostic with respect to carbon and nitrogen state variables in vegetation, litter,and soil organic matter. Vegetation carbon is affected by temperature, precipitation, solar radiation (andits partitioning into direct and diffuse radiation), humidity, soil moisture, and nitrogen availability, amongother factors. We calculate an average loss of 11 Pg C from vegetation (2% of the total), which equatesto an increase in atmospheric CO2 of about 5 ppmv (5× 10−6 molec/molec air). We also note a significant(42%–46%) increase in C loss from fires in the Amazon over the first 8 years in two of our three 50 nmexperiment ensemble. The third run showed Amazon fire loss 13% higher than the control average, butwithin the variability of the control ensemble. Our runs do not account for the atmospheric effects of CO2

or smoke emissions from the land component, but the smoke from the Amazon-kindled fires would be apositive feedback that would enhance the cooling we have found.

4. Discussion

Pierazzo et al. [2010] reviewed literature considering the effects of large and prolonged increases inUV-B radiation, similar to those we calculate, on living organisms, including agriculture and marine



Figure 11. Changes in (a) absolute (mm/day) and (b) relative (%) surface precipitation. Values are 5 year seasonal ensemble averagesfor June to August, years 2–6, experiment minus control.

Figure 12. Change in frost-free growing season in days for (a) January to December in the Northern Hemisphere and (b) July to Junein the Southern Hemisphere. Values are 5 year seasonal ensemble averages for years 2–6, experiment minus control.

ecosystems. General effects on terrestrial plants have been found to include reduced height, shoot mass,and foliage area [Caldwell et al., 2007]. Walbot [1999] found the DNA damage to maize crops from 33%ozone depletion to accumulate proportionally to exposure time, being passed to successive generations,and destabilizing genetic lines. Research indicates that UV-B exposure may alter the susceptibility ofplants to attack by insects, alter nutrient cycling in soils (including nitrogen fixation by cyanobacteria),and shift competitive balances among species [Caldwell et al., 1998; Solheim et al., 2002; Mpoloka, 2008].



The ozone depletion we calculate could also damage aquatic ecosystems, which supply more than 30%of the animal protein consumed by humans. Häder et al. [1995] estimate that 16% ozone depletion couldreduce phytoplankton, the basis of the marine food chain, by 5%, resulting in a loss of 7 million tons offish harvest per year. They also report that elevated UV levels damage the early developmental stages offish, shrimp, crab, amphibians, and other animals. The combined effects of elevated UV levels alone onterrestrial agriculture and marine ecosystems could put significant pressures on global food security.

The ozone loss would persist for a decade at the same time that growing seasons would be reduced bykilling frosts, and regional precipitation patterns would shift. The combination of years of killing frosts,reductions in needed precipitation, and prolonged enhancement of UV radiation, in addition to impactson fisheries because of temperature and salinity changes, could exert significant pressures on food sup-plies across many regions of the globe. As the January to May 2008 global rice crisis demonstrated, evenrelatively small food price pressures can be amplified by political reactions, such as the fearful restrictionson food exports implemented by India and Vietnam, followed by Egypt, Pakistan, and Brazil, which pro-duced severe shortages in the Philippines, Africa, and Latin America [Slayton, 2009]. It is conceivable thatthe global pressures on food supplies from a regional nuclear conflict could, directly or via ensuing panic,significantly degrade global food security or even produce a global nuclear famine.

5. Summary

We present the first simulations of the chemistry-climate effects of smoke produced by a nuclear warusing an Earth system model that includes both stratospheric chemistry and feedbacks on sea iceand deep ocean circulation. We calculate impacts on surface climate persisting significantly longerthan previous studies, as a result of several feedback mechanisms. First, BC absorbs sunlight, heatingambient air, and self-lofts to the upper stratosphere, a region treated with greater vertical resolutionin CESM1(WACCM) than in the model used by Robock et al. [2007b]. Second, the BC spreads globally,absorbing sunlight, which heats the stratosphere and cools the surface. This has the effect of reducingthe strength of the stratospheric circulation and increasing the lifetime of BC in the stratosphere. Third,the reduction of surface temperatures cools the upper 100 m of the ocean by >0.5 K for 12 years, andexpands ice extent on sea and land. This lends inertia to the surface cooling due to both thermal massand enhanced albedo, causing recovery in surface temperatures to lag the recovery in BC by a decade ormore. As a result, we calculate that surface temperatures remain below the control ensemble range even26 years after the nuclear war.

The global average temperature increase in the stratosphere following the BC injection initially exceeds70 K, and persists above 30 K for 5 years, with full recovery taking two decades. As in previous studies, thistemperature increase produces global ozone loss on a scale never observed, as a result of several chemicalmechanisms. The resulting enhancements to UV radiation at the surface would be directly damaging tohuman health, and would damage agricultural crops, as well as ecosystems on land and in the oceans.

These results illustrate some of the severe negative consequences of the use of only 100 of the smallestnuclear weapons in modern megacities. Yet the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, China, andFrance each have stockpiles of much larger nuclear weapons that dwarf the 100 examined here [Robocket al., 2007a; Toon et al., 2007]. Knowing the perils to human society and other forms of life on Earth ofeven small numbers of nuclear weapons, societies can better understand the urgent need to eliminatethis danger worldwide.

ReferencesBloom, A. A., J. Lee-Taylor, S. Madronich, D. J. Messenger, P. I. Palmer, D. S. Reay, and A. R. McLeod (2010), Global methane emission

estimates from ultraviolet irradiation of terrestrial plant foliage, New Phytol., 187(2), 417–425, doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2010.03259.x.Caldwell, M. M., L. O. Björn, J. F. Bornman, S. D. Flint, G. Kulandaivelu, A. H. Teramura, and M. Tevini (1998), Effects of increased solar

ultraviolet radiation on terrestrial ecosystems, J. Photochem. Photobiol. B: Biol., 46(1), 40–52.Caldwell, M. M., J. F. Bornman, C. L. Ballaré, S. D. Flint, and G. Kulandaivelu (2007), Terrestrial ecosystems, increased solar ultraviolet

radiation, and interactions with other climate change factors, Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 6(3), 252–266, doi:10.1039/b700019g.Castro, T., S. Madronich, S. Rivale, A. Muhlia, and B. Mar (2001), The influence of aerosols on photochemical smog in Mexico City,

Atmos. Environ., 35(10), 1765–1772, doi:10.1016/S1352-2310(00)00449-0.Crutzen, P., and J. Birks (1982), Twilight at noon: The atmosphere after a nuclear war, Ambio, 11, 114–125.Danabasoglu, G., S. C. Bates, B. P. Briegleb, S. R. Jayne, M. Jochum, W. G. Large, S. Peacock, and S. G. Yeager (2012), The CCSM4 ocean

component, J. Clim., 25(5), 1361–1389, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00091.1.

AcknowledgmentsWe thank Luke Oman and AndreaStenke for providing us with datafrom their simulations. We thankJean-François Lamarque, Ryan Neely,Charles Bardeen, Andrew Gettel-man, Anja Schmidt, an anonymousreviewer, and associate editor fortheir constructive input on this work.Simulations conducted for this workwere conducted at NASA High EndComputing Capability’s Pleiades clus-ter, with computing time supportedby NASA grant NNX09AK71G. AlanRobock is supported by NSF grantAGS-1157525. The National Center forAtmospheric Research is supportedby the U.S. National Science Founda-tion. The CESM project is supportedby the National Science Foundationand the Office of Science (BER) of theU.S. Department of Energy. Computingresources for CESM CMIP5 simula-tions were provided by the ClimateSimulation Laboratory at NCAR’s Com-putational and Information SystemsLaboratory (CISL), sponsored by theNational Science Foundation and otheragencies.



Fisher, F. N., M. D. King, and J. Lee-Taylor (2005), Extinction of UV-visible radiation in wet midlatitude (maritime) snow: Implications forincreased NOx emission, J. Geophys. Res., 110(D21), D21301, doi:10.1029/2005JD005963.

Garcia, R. R., and W. J. Randel (2008), Acceleration of the Brewer-Dobson circulation due to increases in greenhouse gases, J. Atmos.Sci., 65(8), 2731–2739, doi:10.1175/2008JAS2712.1.

Gill, A. (1982), Atmosphere-Ocean Dynamics, Academic Press, San Diego, Calif.Häder, D. P., R. C. Worrest, and H. D. Kumar (1995), Effects of increased solar ultraviolet radiation on aquatic ecosystems, Ambio, 24,

174–180.Harley, C. D. G., A. Randall Hughes, K. M. Hultgren, B. G. Miner, C. J. Sorte, C. S. Thornber, L. F. Rodriguez, L. Tomanek, and S. L. Williams

(2006), The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems, Ecol. Lett., 9, 228–241, doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2005.00871.x.Hess, M., P. Koepke, and I. Schult (1998), Optical properties of aerosols and clouds: The software package OPAC, Bull. Am. Meteorol.

Soc., 79, 831, doi:10.1175/1520-0477(1998)079<0831:OPOAAC>2.0.CO;2.Holland, M. M., D. A. Bailey, B. P. Briegleb, B. Light, and E. Hunke (2012), Improved sea ice shortwave radiation physics in CCSM4: The

impact of melt ponds and aerosols on Arctic sea ice, J. Clim., 25(5), 1413–1430, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00078.1.Hurrell, J. W., et al. (2013), The community earth system model: A framework for collaborative research, Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 94,

1339–1360, doi:10.1175/BAMS-D-12-00121.1.Kinnison, D. E., et al. (2007), Sensitivity of chemical tracers to meteorological parameters in the MOZART-3 chemical transport model,

J. Geophys. Res., 112, 20,302, doi:10.1029/2006JD007879.Kirchner, I., G. L. Stenchikov, H.-F. Graf, A. Robock, and J. C. Antuna (1999), Climate model simulation of winter warming and summer

cooling following the 1991 Mount Pinatubo volcanic eruption, J. Geophys. Res., 104(D), 19,039–19,056, doi:10.1029/1999JD900213.Lawrence, D. M., et al. (2011), Parameterization improvements and functional and structural advances in Version 4 of the Community

Land Model, J. Adv. Model. Earth Syst., 3(3), 45, doi:10.1029/2011MS000045.Lee-Taylor, J., S. Madronich, B. Mayer, and C. Fischer (2010), A climatology of UV radiation, 1979–2000, 65S - 65N, in UV Radiation in

Global Climate Change: Measurements, Modeling and Effects on Ecosystems, edited by W. Gao, D. Schmoldt, and J. Slusser, pp. 2–20,Springer, Heidelberg, Germany.

Madronich, S., and S. Flocke (1997), Theoretical estimation of biologically effective UV radiation at the Earth’s surface, in SolarUltraviolet Radiation— Modeling, Measurements and Effects, NATO ASI Ser., vol. I52, edited by C. Zerefos, pp. 23–48, Springer, Berlin,Germany.

Mann, M. E., R. S. Bradley, and M. K. Hughes (1999), Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium: Inferences,uncertainties, and limitations, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26(6), 759–762, doi:10.1029/1999GL900070.

Marsh, D. R., M. J. Mills, D. E. Kinnison, J.-F. Lamarque, N. Calvo, and L. M. Polvani (2013), Climate change from 1850 to 2005 simulatedin CESM1(WACCM), J. Clim., 26, 7372–7390, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00558.1.

McKinlay, F. A., and B. L. Diffey (1987), A reference action spectrum for ultraviolet induced erythema in human skin, in HumanExposure to Ultraviolet Radiation, edited by F. W. Passchier and B. Bosnjakovic, pp. 83–87, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Meinshausen, M., et al. (2011), The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300, Clim. Change,109(1–2), 213–241, doi:10.1007/s10584-011-0156-z.

Mills, M. J., O. B. Toon, R. P. Turco, D. E. Kinnison, and R. R. Garcia (2008), Massive global ozone loss predicted following regionalnuclear conflict, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 105, 5307–5312, doi:10.1073/pnas.0710058105.

Mpoloka, S. W. (2008), Effects of prolonged UV-B exposure in plants, Afr. J. Biotechnol., 7(25), 4874–4883,http://www.ajol.info/index.php/ajb/article/viewFile/59692/47971.

National Research Council (1985), The Effects on the Atmosphere of a Major Nuclear Exchange, National Academy Press,Washington, D. C.

Neale, R. B., J. H. Richter, S. Park, P. H. Lauritzen, S. J. Vavrus, P. J. Rasch, and M. Zhang (2013), The mean climate of the communityatmosphere model (CAM4) in forced SST and fully coupled experiments, J. Clim., 26, 5150–5168, doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00236.1.

Oman, L., A. Robock, G. L. Stenchikov, T. Thordarson, D. Koch, D. T. Shindell, and C. Gao (2006), Modeling the distribution of thevolcanic aerosol cloud from the 1783–1784 Laki eruption, J. Geophys. Res., 111, D12209, doi:10.1029/2005JD006899.

Pierazzo, E., R. R. Garcia, D. E. Kinnison, D. R. Marsh, and P. J. Crutzen (2010), Ozone perturbation from medium-size asteroid impacts inthe ocean, Earth Planet. Sci. Lett., 299, 263–272, doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2010.08.036.

Pittock, A. B., T. Ackerman, P. Crutzen, M. MacCracken, C. Shapiro, and R. Turco (1985), The Environmental Consequences of Nuclear War,vol. 1, Physical and Atmospheric Effects, SCOPE, vol. 28, pp. 359, John Wiley, Chichester, U. K.

Robock, A., L. Oman, and G. L. Stenchikov (2007a), Nuclear winter revisited with a modern climate model and current nucleararsenals: Still catastrophic consequences, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D13107, doi:10.1029/2006JD008235.

Robock, A., L. Oman, G. L. Stenchikov, O. B. Toon, C. G. Bardeen, and R. P. Turco (2007b), Climatic consequences of regional nuclearconflicts, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 2003–2012, doi:10.5194/acp-7-2003-2007.

Ross, M., M. J. Mills, and D. Toohey (2010), Potential climate impact of black carbon emitted by rockets, Geophys. Res. Lett., 37(24),L24810, doi:10.1029/2010GL044548.

Slayton, T. (2009), Rice crisis forensics: How Asian governments carelessly set the world rice market on fire, Center for GlobalDevelopment Working Paper No. 163., http://www.cgdev.org/sites/default/files/1421260_file_Slayton_Rice_Crisis_Forensics_FINAL.pdf.

Solheim, B., U. Johanson, T. Callaghan, J. Lee, D. Gwynn-Jones, and L. Björn (2002), The nitrogen fixation potential of arctic cryptogramspecies is influenced by enhanced UV-B radiation, Oecologia, 133(1), 90–93, doi:10.1007/s00442-002-0963-z.

Stenke, A., C. R. Hoyle, B. Luo, E. Rozanov, J. Gröbner, L. Maag, S. Brönnimann, and T. Peter (2013), Climate and chemistry effects of aregional scale nuclear conflict, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 9713–9729, doi:10.5194/acp-13-9713-2013.

Stephens, S., and J. Birks (1985), After nuclear war: Perturbations in atmospheric chemistry, BioScience, 35(9), 557–562.Thomas, N. E., et al. (2007), Number of nevi and early-life ambient UV exposure are associated with BRAF-mutant melanoma, Cancer

Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., 16(5), 991–997, doi:10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-1038.Tilmes, S., D. E. Kinnison, R. R. Garcia, R. Salawitch, T. Canty, J. Lee-Taylor, S. Madronich, and K. Chance (2012), Impact of very

short-lived halogens on stratospheric ozone abundance and UV radiation in a geo-engineered atmosphere, Atmos. Chem. Phys.,12(2), 10,945–10,955, doi:10.5194/acp-12-10945-2012.

Toon, O. B., R. P. Turco, P. Hamill, C. S. Kiang, and R. C. Whitten (1979), A one-dimensional model describing aerosol formation andevolution in the stratosphere: II. Sensitivity studies and comparison with observations, J. Atmos. Sci., 36, 718–736,doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1979)036<0718:AODMDA>2.0.CO;2.



Toon, O. B., R. P. Turco, D. Westphal, R. Malone, and M. S. Liu (1988), A multidimensional model for aerosols: Description ofcomputational analogs, J. Atmos. Sci., 45, 2123–2143, doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1988)0452.0.CO;2.

Toon, O. B., R. P. Turco, A. Robock, C. G. Bardeen, L. Oman, and G. L. Stenchikov (2007), Atmospheric effects and societal consequencesof regional scale nuclear conflicts and acts of individual nuclear terrorism, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 1973–2002,doi:10.5194/acp-7-1973-2007.

Toon, O. B., A. Robock, and R. P. Turco (2008), Environmental consequences of nuclear war, Phys. Today, 61(12), 37–42,doi:10.1063/1.3047679.

Turco, R. P., P. Hamill, O. B. Toon, R. C. Whitten, and C. S. Kiang (1979), A one-dimensional model describing aerosol formation andevolution in the stratosphere: I. Physical processes and mathematical analogs, J. Atmos. Sci., 36, 699,doi:10.1175/1520-0469(1979)0362.0.CO;2.

Turco, R. P., O. B. Toon, T. P. Ackerman, J. B. Pollack, and C. Sagan (1983), Nuclear winter: Global consequences of multiple nuclearexplosions, Science, 222(4), 1283–1292, doi:10.1126/science.222.4630.1283.

Walbot, V. V. (1999), UV-B damage amplified by transposons in maize, Nature, 397(6718), 398–399, doi:10.1038/17043.Walega, J. G., B. A. Ridley, S. Madronich, F. E. Grahek, J. D. Shetter, T. D. Sauvain, C. J. Hahn, J. T. Merill, B. A. Bodhaine, and E. Robinson

(1992), Observations of peroxyacetyl nitrate, peroxypropionyl nitrate, methyl nitrate and ozone during the Mauna Loa ObservatoryPhotochemistry Experiment, J. Geophys. Res., 97, 10,311, doi:10.1029/91JD02288.

WHO, WMO, UNEP, and ICNIRP (2002), Global Solar UV Index: A Practical Guide, WHO, Geneva, Switzerland.


ANNEX 2

THE MAP SERIES DEMONSTRATING THE GLOBAL SPREAD OF SMOKE FROM A REGIONAL NUCLEAR FALLOUT BETWEEN INDIA AND PAKISTAN, AND SELECTED

MAPS FROM THE 2014 REPORT SUBMITTED AS ANNEX 1

Figures 1-3 demonstrate the global spread of black carbon (“BC”) as a result of India and Pakistan detonating 50 15Kiloton (“kt”) nuclear weapons on May 14. They are taken from the website of Alan Robock of Rutgers University (http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear/BCabsoptdaily.gif). Figures 4 and 5 demonstrate the change in surface air temperature and frost-free growing seasons following an almost identical scenario – the exchange takes place on January 1st 2013. These figures are taken from the report submitted as Annex 1. Figure 1 Figure 2 shows 5Tg of smoke rising into the atmosphere as a result of India and Pakistan detonating 15kt of nuclear weapons the day before. Shown here is 5 teragrams of smoke (BC) rising into the atmosphere as a result of India and Pakistan detonating 50 15kt of nuclear weapons beginning 14th May. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear/BCabsoptdaily.gif accessed on 11 December 2014 at 12.38pm.

Figure 2

Shown here is the dramatic rise of BC into the atmosphere and it’s spreading globally. You can see that within 10 days of the fallout the Marshall Islands will be experiencing the detrimental effects of thick smoke in the atmosphere. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear/BCabsoptdaily.gif accessed on 11 December 2014 at 12.38pm.

Figure 3 Figure 3 you can see that in two months the effect is global.

Here it is shown that after two months the BC has spread globally. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/nuclear/BCabsoptdaily.gif accessed on 11 December 2014 at 12.38pm.

Figure 4 Change in Surface Air Temperature

Shown here is the change in surface air temperature for June-August in the top map, and December-February in the bottom. The Marshall Islands will face cooling towards -1 degrees. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/MillsNWeft224.pdf accessed 11 December 2014 at 12.40pm.


Figure 10. Change in surface temperature (K) for (a) June to August and (b) December to February. Values are 5 year seasonalensemble averages for years 2–6, experiment minus control.

Because our globally averaged surface temperatures continue to cool until year 6, we show the averagechange in the growing season over years 2–6. The length of the average growing season is reduced by upto 40 days throughout the world’s agricultural zones over these 5 years. This is similar to the results thatRobock et al. [2007b] report for their first year, with significant regional differences. We find more signif-icant decreases in Russia, North Africa, the Middle East, and the Himalayas than the previous study, andsomewhat smaller effects in the American Midwest and South America.

The land component in CESM1(WACCM) is CLM4CN, a comprehensive land carbon cycle model [Lawrenceet al., 2011]. CLM4CN is prognostic with respect to carbon and nitrogen state variables in vegetation, litter,and soil organic matter. Vegetation carbon is affected by temperature, precipitation, solar radiation (andits partitioning into direct and diffuse radiation), humidity, soil moisture, and nitrogen availability, amongother factors. We calculate an average loss of 11 Pg C from vegetation (2% of the total), which equatesto an increase in atmospheric CO2 of about 5 ppmv (5× 10−6 molec/molec air). We also note a significant(42%–46%) increase in C loss from fires in the Amazon over the first 8 years in two of our three 50 nmexperiment ensemble. The third run showed Amazon fire loss 13% higher than the control average, butwithin the variability of the control ensemble. Our runs do not account for the atmospheric effects of CO2

or smoke emissions from the land component, but the smoke from the Amazon-kindled fires would be apositive feedback that would enhance the cooling we have found.

4. Discussion

Pierazzo et al. [2010] reviewed literature considering the effects of large and prolonged increases inUV-B radiation, similar to those we calculate, on living organisms, including agriculture and marine


Figure 5 Change in Frost-Free Growing Season Days

Shown here is the change in frost-free growing season days for January-December in the Northern Hemisphere in the top map, and July-June in the Southern Hemisphere in the bottom map. From this it can be determined that the United States, where the RMI get a large amount of their food imports from, is expected to have a 15-30% shorter growing season. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/MillsNWeft224.pdf accessed 11 December 2014 at 12.40pm.


Figure 11. Changes in (a) absolute (mm/day) and (b) relative (%) surface precipitation. Values are 5 year seasonal ensemble averagesfor June to August, years 2–6, experiment minus control.

Figure 12. Change in frost-free growing season in days for (a) January to December in the Northern Hemisphere and (b) July to Junein the Southern Hemisphere. Values are 5 year seasonal ensemble averages for years 2–6, experiment minus control.

ecosystems. General effects on terrestrial plants have been found to include reduced height, shoot mass,and foliage area [Caldwell et al., 2007]. Walbot [1999] found the DNA damage to maize crops from 33%ozone depletion to accumulate proportionally to exposure time, being passed to successive generations,and destabilizing genetic lines. Research indicates that UV-B exposure may alter the susceptibility ofplants to attack by insects, alter nutrient cycling in soils (including nitrogen fixation by cyanobacteria),and shift competitive balances among species [Caldwell et al., 1998; Solheim et al., 2002; Mpoloka, 2008].


ANNEX 3

INDIA’S LETTER TO THE COURT DATED 6 JUNE 2014

Annex 4

ANNEX 4

THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA’S LETTER TO THE COURT 10 JUNE 2014

ANNEX 5

THE REPUBLIC OF INDIA’S ARTICLE 36 PARA. 2 DECLARATION

ANNEX 6

THE REPUBLIC OF THE MARSHALL ISLANDS ARTICLE 36 PARA. 2 DECLARATION

Attention: Treaty Services of Ministries of Foreign Affairs and of international organizations concerned. Depositary notifications are issued in electronic format only. Depositary notifications are made available to the Permanent Missions to the United Nations in the United Nations Treaty Collection on the Internet at http://treaties.un.org, under "Depositary Notifications (CNs)". In addition, the Permanent Missions, as well as other interested individuals, can subscribe to receive depositary notifications by e-mail through the Treaty Section's "Automated Subscription Services", which is also available at http://treaties.un.org.

Reference: C.N.261.2013.TREATIES-I.4 (Depositary Notification)

DECLARATIONS RECOGNIZING AS COMPULSORY THE JURISDICTION OF THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE UNDER ARTICLE 36,

PARAGRAPH 2, OF THE STATUTE OF THE COURT

MARSHALL ISLANDS: DECLARATION UNDER ARTICLE 36 (2) OF THE STATUTE

The Secretary-General of the United Nations, acting in his capacity as depositary, communicates the following:

The above action was effected on 24 April 2013. In accordance with paragraph 4 of article 36 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice,

… the authentic English text of the declaration and the French translation are transmitted herewith.

30 April 2013

(I.4)

Attention: Treaty Services of Ministries of Foreign Affairs and of international organizations concerned. Depositary notifications are issued in electronic format only. Depositary notifications are made available to the Permanent Missions to the United Nations in the United Nations Treaty Collection on the Internet at http://treaties.un.org, under "Depositary Notifications (CNs)". In addition, the Permanent Missions, as well as other interested individuals, can subscribe to receive depositary notifications by e-mail through the Treaty Section's "Automated Subscription Services", which is also available at http://treaties.un.org.

- 2 -

“His Excellency Ban Ki-moon Secretary-General 760 United Nations Plaza United Nations New York, NY 10017 Your Excellency:

Declaration of Consent to the Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice

I have the honor to declare on behalf of the Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands that: 1) The Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands accepts as compulsory ipso facto and without special convention, on condition of reciprocity, the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, in conformity with paragraph 2 of Article 36 of the Statute of the Court, until such time as notice may be given to terminate the acceptance, over all disputes arising after 17 September 1991, with regard to situations or facts subsequent to the same date, other than:

(i) any dispute which the Republic of Marshall Islands has agreed with the other Party or Parties thereto to settle by some other method of peaceful settlement;

(ii) any dispute in respect of which any other Party to the dispute has accepted the

compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice only in relation to or for the purpose of the dispute.

2) The Government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands also reserves the right at any time, by means of notification addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, and with effect as from the moment of such notification, to add to, amend or withdraw either of the foregoing reservations or any that may hereafter be added. Done at Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands this 15th Day of March, Two Thousand Thirteen. (Signed) The Honorable Tony A. deBrum Minister in Assistance to the President and Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs”

memorial of the marshall islands - home - nuclear age ... · 3! list of annexes annex 1 – the...

Documents