THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
The Hague, Netherlands
G A R R Y D A V I S
Stateless World Citizen
President of the Supreme Soviet
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
RONALD WILSON REAGAN
President of the United States
Address of Petitioner: Garry Davis
2 Forest Road Petitioner Pro Se
Sorrento, ME 04677
THIS PETITION HAS BEEN REFILED WITH THE
INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE
HAGUE ON MARCH 15, 1985 CITING THE NEW
PRESIDENT OF THE SOVIET UNION, MIKHAIL
GORBACHEV, RESPONDENT IN PLACE OF
THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR CONSIDERATION
1. In consideration of articles 1, 2, 6, 7, and 10 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, applicant, a
stateless person, having been denied legally from entering
the United States of America, therefore having access to no
national court which can offer redress of international
grievances, respectfully seeks from this Court a writ of
(world) habeas corpus in order that this petition be duly
accepted by the Court on its merits;
2. Under the threat of nuclear extinction, imposed
deliberately by the overt national policies of the
respondents, therefore a violation of the applicant's
fundamental rights as defined by the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, art. 3, applicant seeks from
the Court a declaratory judgment citing respondents as
"war criminals," in that both the threat of
nuclear war and the act, should the threat be carried out,
resulting in applicant's death, represents "war
crimes," "crimes against the peace," and
"crimes against humanity," as cited by the
Nuremberg Principles inter alia;
3. Given the total destructive potential of the nuclear
weapons at their personal control, applicant seeks an
indictment of respondents under articles II, III, and IV of
the Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide.
4. Applicant, invoking article 38 of the statute of this
Court, specifically 1(b)(c) and (d) 2, seeks a declaratory
judgment against the respondents to cease preparations
for a war which would destroy humankind.
5 Given the legitimacy of fundamental human rights
and the accepted judgment as enshrined in the U.S.
Declaration of Independence and the Preamble of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights that human rights
must be protected by a regime of law, applicant seeks a
court order for the implementation by respondents of
article 28 of the said Declaration.
"TABLE OF CONTENTS "
THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR CONSIDERATION i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR CONSIDERATION WITH 1
THE BACKGROUND FACTS LEADING TO PETITION 3
1. THE INDIVIDUAL IS A SUBJECT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 5
a. The Court's judges by statute are pledged
exclusively to and bound primarily by
international law; therefore that law becomes ipso
facto an independent legal instrument of personal
allegiance and affiliation to which the individual
(judge) is subject.
b. Stateless persons by definition as well as
convention likewise are directly affiliated to
international law "via "international
instruments" defining war crimes inter alia "
and thus can and must avail themselves of the ICJ
for judicial redress of international grievances. To
deny their legal standing before the ICJ would be to
reject the judges' affiliation to the same legality.
c. Nazi and Japanese leaders were indicted, tried
and convicted as war criminals subject to
international law defined by the Nuremberg
II. A STATELESS PERSON HAS ATTRIBUTES OF STATEHOOD 9
Applicant is legally stateless. Statelessness, a
legitimate status recognized both by United States
law and codified by international convention,
confers a sovereign character on the individual
outside state constitutive framework. Such a
person thus enjoys the essential characteristic of a
state itself "individual political will and choice "
therefore, eligible as litigant to the ICJ under
article 34(1) of its statute.
III. HUMAN RIGHTS ENJOY A LEGITIMACY PER SE
Human rights, being inalienable and innate in
humans, enjoy legitimacy per se. To construe
otherwise would be to deny law itself as a contract
between sovereign humans. A fundamental
human right is to be recognized everywhere as a
person before the law. The issuance of the legally
recognized instrument of world habeas corpus is
therefore enjoined to bring applicant, now
existing in a legal limbo, before the Court.
IV. WAR AND ITS PREPARATION ARE ILLEGAL
War is the antithesis of law and order. Its very
nature is anarchic. From the most ancient times to
modern day, enlightened leaders have espoused
peace under the rule of law. From 1945, with the
introduction of nuclear weaponry, the outlawry of
war has become a literal absolute for human
V. THE RESPONDENTS ARE WAR CRIMINALS
ACCORDING TO NUREMBERG PRINCIPLES
The crime of omnicide cannot be tried after
the fact. Preparation of war is a crime under the
Nuremberg Decisions. Whatever their allegations,
both respondents are overtly preparing for war.
Hence they are war criminals according to the
Nuremberg Principles. Furthermore, the
principle of reciprocity permits applicant, bound
by Convention exclusively to international law, to
cite respondents as such.
VI. REPONDENTS ARE ALSO INDICTABLE UNDER
Given nuclear weaponry, "war"
becomes holocaust. The threat or utilization of
thermonuclear weapons is genocidal. Therefore,
respondents are indictable under Genocide
VII. PEACE IS RESULT OF LAW AND ITS INSTITUTIONS
Peace is a result of law and its institutions.
World peace is, therefore, a result of world law and
its institutions. Each and every citizen of the
world has the right and duty to exercise his
sovereignty to evolve such law and its institutions.
a. Statement of Beliefs of Applicant, May 25,
b. Memorandum Opinion, Judge Thomas
Flannery, US District
Court, December 19, 1979
c. Petition for writ of certiorari No. 81-427 to US
Supreme Court by
Petitioner, August 28, 1981
d. Petition for rehearing No. 81-427 to US
Supreme Court by
Petitioner December 22, 1981
(For (b), (c), and (d), see Chapter 11, World
Government, Ready or Not! by Garry Davis, Juniper
Ledge Publishing Co., POB 381, Sorrento, ME 04677)
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Act of 27 July 1868, U.S. Congres 6
Chapter 249, 15 Stat. 223
Prof. Francis A. Boyle, The Relevance of International Law 14
To The So-Called Paradox of Nuclear Deterrence, U. of Ill.
School Charter and Judgment of the Nuremberg Tribunal,
Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of
Art. I 16
Art. II i,1
Art. III i,1
Art. IV i,1,16
Convention Relative to the Status of Stateless Persons 7
Chap. I, Art.1(2) 23 Sept., 1954
Declaration of Independence i,2
Declaration of St. Petersburg, 1868 17
Paul Ehrlich 14
Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2nd 876 (1980) 11
Senator J. W. Fulbright, 90th Congress, Senate 13
Foreign Relations Committee, 90th Congress, 1st Session 26
Geneva Convention, 1949 11
Hague Conference for the Codification of International Law
Hague Convention, 1907 10
Regulations, No. IV 10
"Martens Clause" 11
International Military Tribunal of the Far East, 8
"Tokyo Judgment" 8
Japanese Showa Constitution,1945 8
Art. 9 8
Thomas Jefferson, 1801 Presidential Address 7
Kellogg-Briand Pact, 1928 11
Luis Kutner, World Habeas Corpus, Oceana 6
Publications, 1962, p. 129
Lichter v. U.S., 334 U.S. 742, 1948 Per Burton J. 13
Lillich/Newman, International Human Rights, Little, Brown
McDougal, Lasswell, Chen, Human Rights and
World Public Order, Yale University Press, 1980. p. 178 7
Arthur s. Miller, Presidential Power In A Nutshell 13
West Publishing Co., 1977
Arthur S. Miller, The Constitutional Challenge On 15,17
Nuclear Weapons ,B'klyn Journal on Int'l. Law. vol.
IX, No. 2, 1983
Nataraja Guru (Dr.), Memorandum on World Government 15 Values Magazine, 10 June, 1956
New York Times, Oct. 22, 1981 16
Nuremberg Principles 1, 7, 9, 16
Principle I 11
Principle II 11
Thomas Paine, TheRights of Man, 1790 10
Emery Reves, Anatomy of Peace, Harpers, 1945 3
Carl Sagan 14
Secretary-General, U.N. (SupplementaryReport, 24 Oct., 1946) 9
Statute of the International Court of Justice i, ii, iii, 7, 8
Chapter 1, art. 2 5
Art. 34(1) 9
Art. 38 a(c), (d) and 2 i,2
Telford Taylor, Robert Jackson and the Nuremberg Trials, 5
Columbia Law Review, April 1955, Vol. 55
Title 8 U.S.C. 1401 3
Title 8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5) 3
Title 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(20) 4
Title 8 U.S.C. 1252 4
Resolutions 488 49(v), 1950 9
Resolution 1053 (XV), 24 Nov., 1961 11
Resolution 33/71, 14December, 1978 11
Resolution 35-152-D. 12 December, 1980 11
Resolution 96(I), 11 December, 1946 16
United States Department of the Army 1956 Field Manual 4
27-10, The Law of Land Warfare
United States Naval Department, 1955 Field Manual 14
NWIP 10-2, The Law of Naval Warfare, para. 13
U.S. Court of Appeals 4
U.S. Supreme Court Writ ofCertiiorari 4
Petition ForRehearing 4
U.S. constitution 23, 24
Art. 2 20
U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220, 1882 13
U.S. v. Williams, N.Y. 1904, 2 S.C. 119, 194 U.S. 295,48 L. Ed. 979 13
Universal Declaration of HumanRights 4
Preamble i, 2, 17
Art. 1 i, 1,9
Art. 2 i,1
Art. 3 i,1
Art. 6 i,1
Art. 7 i,1
Art. 10 i,1
Art. 28 i,1,17
Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall, 231 per Chase J. 13
Harold Willens,The Trimtab Factor, Wm. Morrow, 1984 16
JimWright, U.S. Representative, Christian Science 14
Monitor, Jan. 30, 1985
THE ISSUES PRESENTED FOR CONSIDERATION WITH
1. In consideration of articles 1, 2, 6, 7, and 10 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, applicant, a stateless
person, having been denied legally from entering the United
States of America, therefore having access to no national
court which can offer redress of international grievances,
respectfully seeks from this court a writ of (world) habeas
corpus in order that this petition be duly accepted by the
Court on its merits.
2. Under the threat of nuclear extinction, imposed
deliberately by the overt national policies of the
respondents, therefore a violation of the applicant's
fundamental rights as defined by the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, art 3, applicant seeks from the Court a
declaratory judgment citing respondents as "war
criminals," in that both the threat of nuclear war and
the act, should the threat be carried out, resulting in
applicant's death, represent "war crimes,"
"crimes against the peace," and "crimes
against humanity," as cited by the Nuremberg
Principles inter alia.
3. Given the total destructive potential of the nuclear
weapons at their personal control, applicant seeks an
indictment of respondents under articles II, III, and IV of the
Convention of the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime
4. Applicant, invoking article 38 of the statute of this
Court, specifically 1(b)(c) and (d) and 2, seeks a declaratory
judgment against the respondents to cease preparations for a
war which would destroy humankind.
5. Given the legitimacy of fundamental
human rights and the accepted judgment
as enshrined in the U.S. Declaration of
Independence and the Preamble of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
that human rights must be protected by a
regime of law, applicant seeks a court
order for the implementation by
respondents of article 28 of the said
The present petition has not been previously before this
Court. Applicant is aware of no other petitions now pending
before this or any other Court related to this.petition.
THE BACKGROUND FACTS LEADING TO PETITION
Applicant was born on July 27, 1921 in Bar Harbor, Maine,
U.S.A., and thus acquired United States citizenship by birth.
(8 U.S.C. 1401). Both of his parents were U.S. citizens.
On May 25, 1948, he voluntarily renounced his United
States citizenship before the U.S. Consul at the United States
Embassy in Paris, France, pursuant to then Section 401(f) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (now Section 349(a)(5)
of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5). At that time, applicant signed
an Oath of Renunciation which read, in relevant part, as
I, S. Gareth Davis, a national of
the United States, solemnly
swear...That I desire to make a
formal renunciation of my
American nationality, as provided
by Selection 401(f) of the
Nationality Act of 1940, and
pursuant thereto I hereby
absolutely and entirely renounce
my nationality in the United States
and all rights and privileges
thereunto pertaining and abjure all
allegiance and fidelity to the United
States of America.
Also, on May 25, 1948, applicant filed a statement of his
beliefs with the United States Consul in Paris and
surrendered his United States passport.
A new social and political compact, applicant asserted,
of a global character was essential in order to provide the
institutions required to outlaw war between nations.
In a worldly sense, applicant considered himself in a
"state of nature" in relationship to his fellow
humans which had to be transformed by a willful exercise
of natural rights into positive world law.
As a stateless person without papers, he was ordered to
leave France by September 11, 1948. He entered upon
United Nations territory in Paris September 11, 1948
claiming "global political asylum." He
petitioned the Secretary-General for a review conference
of the U.N. Charter under art. 110.
On September 18, 1948, at the request of the U.N.
Secretariat to the French Ministry of Interior, French
police forcibly ejected him from U.N. territory.
Since then, applicant has been without or has had
minimal rights or protection from the various nations in
which he found temporary residence.
He has been incarcerated over thirty times for the
"crime" of not possessing "valid"
In order to protect by law his and other world citizens'
rights and freedoms against violation by national officials,
on September 4, 1953 at Ellsworth, Maine, he declared a
world government based on" common world
law" and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
On May 13, 1977, applicant attempted to re-enter the
United States identified by a passport issued by the
administrative agency of the global government, the
World Service Authority. United States Immigration
and Naturalization Service refused to recognize the
document as valid and classified him as an
"excludable alien," under Title 8, U.S.C.
Despite this determination the INS took no appropriate
action as provided for in Title 8 U.S.C. 1252:
"Apprehension and Deportation of Aliens — Arrest
and Custody; Review of Determination by Court," with
regard to the petitioner.
On July 17, 1979, he petitioned the United States District
Court for a writ of habeas corpus. (civil Action No. 79-
1874). In a Memorandum Opinion of December 19, 1979,
Judge Thomas Flannery presiding, petition was denied.
On May 17, 1980, he appealed to the United States Court
of appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. On March
31, 1981, appeal was denied.
On August 28, 1981, he petitioned the United States
Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. On October 19, 1981,
the petition was denied.
On December 22, 1981, he filed a Petition for Rehearing
with the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 25, 1982, the
petition was denied.
One of the respondents, President Reagan, therefore
constitutional executor of the laws duly legislated by the
U.S. Congress, has failed to enforce Title 8 U.S.C. 1252,"
Apprehension and Deportation of Aliens — Arrest and
Custody," in conformity with Department of Justice
allegations upheld by U.S. courts, with regard to petitioner.
Applicant, therefore, remains in continuum under the
threat of either incarceration or deportation. According to
U.S. law, his legal position is determined by Title 8 U.S.C.
1252 which effectively places him perpetually at the
A R G U M E N T
1.THE INDIVIDUAL IS A SUBJECT OF
a. The Judges of the ICJ are subjects of
The word "international" appears forty-
eight times in the Charter of the United Nations.
The phrase "international peace and
security" appears twenty-five times in the same
This petition, however, does not argue the case for the
existence of international law as such. As the United
Nations now has 159 nations as Member-States pledged to
"maintain international peace and security,"
and "to bring about by peaceful means, and in
conformity with the principles of justice and
international law, adjustment or settlement of
international disputes or situations which might lead to a
breach of the peace...." It accepts, as each and all
Member-States, the concept of international law per se.
The honorable Judges here addressed, duly elected
"regardless of their nationality from among persons
of high moral character..." and "...are
jurisconsults of recognized competence in international
law..." are bound by "solemn declaration in
open court that (they) will exercise (their) powers
impartially and conscientiously."
Your applicant claims therefore that the honorable
Judges, by their very official status and exercise,
adjudicating "impartially and conscientiously"
under the aegis of international law, are necessary and
exclusive subjects of that law. Otherwise, their
impartiality invoked in their statute would be compromised
rendering their verdicts ipso facto partial or unjust.
Moreover, their very exclusive and personal fealty to
international law confers on it an independent character
external to national law. Otherwise such an oath of fealty
would be legally meaningless at best and a travesty at
Furthermore, the requirement of a person "of
high moral character" itself connotes an acceptance
of moral laws of right and wrong transcending the
relative grievances of nation versus nation. We must
conclude then that international law as conceived by the
honorable Judges is grounded in the moral teachings
which have guided humanity throughout the ages to the
present. Otherwise the quality of "high moral
character" would have no practical application in
The nations which devised the Court's statute and
subsequently adhered to it were at once restricting their
own sovereignty by obligating the elected Judges
exclusively to international law and conferring on that
law a sovereign status independent of national law. To
argue otherwise would be to deny the very concept of
international law and this Court's application of it to
This applicant then must conclude that the Judges now
addressed cannot but be subjects of the law which they are
by statute and by oath called upon to practice.
b. Stateless Persons Are Equally Subjects of
As noted in the foregoing background facts leading to
this petition, your applicant is legally stateless, having
expatriated himself in 1948. Thus he personifies both
expatriation from exclusive nationalism and legal status
distinct from national constitutive law.
The United States Congress determined in 1868 that
expatriation was a basic human right.
At the 1930 Hague Conference for the Codification of
International Law, the United States delegation made a
strong plea for the incorporation of the principle of
voluntary expatriation with these words:
"For a century past, it has been the
policy of my country that the right of
expatriation is an inherent and natural right
of all persons. It is true that allegiance is a
duty, but it is not a chain that holds a person
in bondage and he carries with him to a new
life in a new land.....This principle is not a
small matter. It is not a question of language
or of formulae, or of phrases. It is a principle
of the rights of man and of the liberty of
the human race." (Emphasis added).
The reference to "the rights of man" and
"the liberty of the human race" vividly
identifies the anomaly presented by the limitations of
national law. For the rights of man and the liberty of the
human race connote their protection by positive law
transcending that of the exclusive nation, in other words,
international or world law encompassing the human race
The collective nations, however, recognized that
voluntary expatriation condones anarchy. For, in the
Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness adopted
August 30, 1961, Article 7(1) states:
"If the law of the Contracting
State permits renunciation of nationality
such renunciation shall not result in loss
of nationality unless the person
concerned possesses or acquires another
There are no known statistics on the number of
stateless persons in today's world. Since the UNHCR Office,
however, publishes a figure for refugees exceeding
sixteen million and the connection between refugee and
stateless is a dynamic, if tragic one, we may conclude that
the stateless population numbers in the millions.
As the Court is aware, the stateless person does not exist
in a vacuum, legal or actual. The very world
"stateless", though, connotes the arrogant
assumption that only states enjoy legitimacy. On the
contrary, the right of expatriation is in reality the right to
return to a "state of nature," that pristine state
anterior to the organization of human societies into states
or nations. It must be, therefore, the state where
The legitimacy of the status of statelessness itself,
however, was recognized by the Convention Relative to the
Status of Stateless Persons of September 23, 1954 and
adopted September 28, 1954 by an ECOSOC Conference of
Plenipotentiaries. It entered into force June 6, 1960.
But not only was a legal status recognized outside the
national framework by national officials "raising the
entire question of sovereignty "but it was given
international character in that very Convention. Chapter
I, art. 1(2) provides that ‘"This Convention shall not
apply: [iii] to persons with respect to whom there are
serious reasons for considering that, a] They have
committed a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime
against humanity, as defined in the international
instruments drawn up to make provision in
respect of such crimes..." i.e., the Nuremberg
Decisions (Emphasis added).
Your applicant therefore concludes that he is as
equally subject to international law as the honorable
Judges he presently addresses. In sum, either
international law accepts the individual as such as its
subject or it does not. I respectfully submit that for your
Honors to reject my petition only because I am an
individual, though stateless, while you yourselves
personally are affiliated to that same law, is, in effect, a
denial of that solemn avowal and furthermore a rejection
of international law itself as a legal instrument per se.
Moreover, if the individual is not a subject of
international law, then only states are. But in that states
claim exclusive sovereignty, thus condoning a condition of
anarchy between them, lacking any higher legal
restraint, war becomes inevitable between them as a final
test of strength. In that case should the war be fought
with nuclear weapons, this court will cease to have either
a judicial or a de facto existence.
Your applicant urges, therefore, with due respect, that
the Court, in the interests of its own self-preservation not
to mention mandate inter alia, cannot but consider the
individual as having standing before it with access to its
c. The Nuremberg Principles Confer
International Legal Status On The Individual
The clear and precedent-shattering imperative of the
Nuremberg Decisions is that the individual has a sovereign
choice in his actions vis-a-vis the nation-state to which he
owes allegiance in certain transnational areas defined as
The "Tokyo Judgment" also of the
International Military Tribunal of the Far East extrapolated
from Article 9 ""Renunciation of War - of the 1945
Japanese Showa Constitution" likewise accorded the
individual national citizen a sovereign choice in the same
area by removing from the state the sovereign right of
Thus, for the first time in judicial process, an
international tribunal, whether ad hoc or not, confirmed
the traditional concept of individual or popular
sovereignty as directly opposed to state sovereignty.
Both your applicant and respondents are thus equally
subject to the Nuremberg Decisions which entered into
international law by U.N. General Assembly Resolution 488
It would be inconsistent with the evolution of
international law itself that, whereas the Nuremberg
Decisions and trial exercised jurisdiction over the
individual in the context of what later and is presently
identified as "international law," that the very
Court founded to adjudicate that law cannot consider
today's individual equally a subject.
I would suggest that to deny access by an aggrieved
individual having no national but international status to
your jurisdiction within the context of those Decisions
would first be to deny implicitly their validity, secondly,
the trials themselves, and finally, the inalienable rights of
the individual to be considered as a person before the law.
2. A STATELESS PERSON HAS ATTRIBUTES OF
As the willfully stateless person already enjoys a
legitimacy beyond the state framework as stated in 2(b),
and since there exists no stateless "government"
to which he can affiliate "which by definition would be
worldly in character "he must enjoy the attributes of
statehood-in-microcosm as an individual. In other words,
his very legitimate status, while defined by the state, is
neither dependent on it nor subservient to it but
originates from his innate humanness and right to choose,
Under Article 34(1) of your statute wherein your
jurisdiction applies only to "states," a petition
from a stateless person yet who enjoys legitimacy as such,
such as the instant petition, seemingly must be rejected
without consideration of its intrinsic merits.
However, if the major attribute of a "state"
lies in its sovereign character, then I submit that our
applicant comes within the definition of a
"state" however small. Indeed, the first article
of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights supports this
"bottom line" concept of individual sovereignty
Everyone is born free and equal in dignity
and rights. They are endowed with reason and
conscience and should act towards one another
in a spirit of brotherhood."
If the state claims sovereignty, then those who found
the state may claim prior sovereignty.
3. HUMAN RIGHTS ENJOY A LEGITMACY PER SE
If human rights were not legitimate in themselves,
then their claim by humans would likewise not be
legitimate. But since the very exercise of the inalienable
right to choose one's political allegiance is the sine qua
non of the founding and maintenance of government,
obviously that exercise itself is the coping-stone of
Your applicant here claims the right to be treated as a
person before the law. However, having exhausted his
legal remedies on the national level, and under the
continual threat of detention or deportation by local
authorities, he is obliged to utilize what legal means
remain to him to obtain redress of immediate grievance.
‘ His access to this Court, however, is not guaranteed nor
indeed foreseen by the court's statute.
He petitions the Court therefore for a writ of world
habeas corpus which would enable him to present his
arguments pro se or by counsel.
4. WAR AND ITS PREPARATION ARE ILLEGAL
Ever since the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 1868, the
"principles of humanity" have been asserted as
a constraint upon so-called military necessity. Two ground
rules of the "laws of war" were then formulated:
1. "The right to adopt means of injuring
enemy is not unlimited;"
2. "The only legitimate object which
should endeavor to accomplish during a war
is to weaken the military forces of the
In the Hague Convention of 1907, the Regulations, No.
IV, prohibit "wanton or indiscriminate
destruction"; and forbids "The attack or
bombardment, by whatever means, of towns, village,
dwellings or buildings which are undefended.
The 1907 Regulations provide a general yardstick
intended for situations where no specific treaty exists to
prohibit a new type of weapon or tactic. In such cases
"...the inhabitants and the
belligerents remain under the protection and
the rule of the principles of the laws of
nations as they result from the usages
established among civilized people
from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of
public conscience." (Martens Clause)
The Kellogg-Briand Pact of 1928 "outlawed"
war as an instrument of national policy.
The United Nations was founded "to maintain
international peace and security..." and "...to
bring about by peaceful means, and, in conformity with
the principle of justice and international law, adjustment
of settlement of international disputes or situation which
might lead to a breach of the peace..." among other
purposes. (U.N.Charter, Preamble)
The U.N. Charter further enjoins all Member-States
(art. 56) to promote "universal respect for, and
observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms
for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or
The illegitimacy of war-making as well as war
preparation was further affirmed by the Nuremberg
Decisions of 1945 wherein "any person who commits
an act which constitutes a crime under international law is
responsible therefor and liable to punishment."
(Principle 1); and that "crimes against peace, war
crimes and crimes against humanity are punishable as
crimes under international law." (Principle VI)`
In addition, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, while not considered by certain states as law per
se, nonetheless defines universally accepted norms of the
"customary international law of human rights and
the law of nations." (Filartiga v. Pena-Irala, 630 F. 2d
879, 1980, USA)
The Geneva Conventions of 1949 updated and
strengthened the 1907 Regulations particularly with
regard to the "protection of Civilian Persons in Time
of War" requiring belligerents "to ensure the
essential requirements for the health, safety and
sustenance of the civilian population."
On November 24, 1961, the General Assembly of the
United Nations declared in Resolution 1653 (XV):
"...any State using nuclear or
thermonuclear weapons is to be considered as
violating the Charter of the United Nations, as
acting contrary to the laws of humanity, and
as committing a crime against mankind and
In Resolution 33/71 of December 14, 1978, and in
Resolution 35/152-D of December 12, 1980, the General
Assembly declared "the use of nuclear weapons
would be a violation of the Charter of the United Nations
and a crime against humanity."
The illegitimacy of war-making and war-preparation is
sustained and supported by the foregoing which, in their
turn, affirm the moral codes of all major religions from
This argument would not be complete without taking
into consideration respondents' space policies with regard
Space, by definition, is vertical to nations and humans
living on the planet. It is literally 80 miles from every
National law is horizontal, that is, it deals with
relationships between humans on earth. It cannot deal
with space as such which is vertical to earth. Should
extra-terrestrials land on earth for instance, national law
could not define their status, prosecute them for entering
illegally or legally prevent their leaving.
Law concerning human relations in space,by
definition, must obviously be global agreed to by the
citizens of the world bound by the constitutive process.
For the respondents to arrogate to their separate nations
"ownership" of the space surrounding our
common planet is to assume the extension of national law
beyond its constitutional limits. There exists no
constitutional mandate, however, for either respondent to
make such an assumption. Obviously, if the reverse were
true, any and all states could make the same claim of space
"ownership." Moreover if national law can
justify extension to the space surrounding the planet, then
international law, presumably of a higher order, is a
Your applicant, as a stateless person, "owns"
space in legal terms as respondents, as Heads of State, do
not. For national law obviously cannot encompass space
surrounding our planet whereas international law,
binding him, if independent, as previously argued, can
In sum, your applicant here reasserts the fundamental
illegality of war and its preparation both of which
constitute international crimes.
5. THE RESPONDENTS ARE WAR CRIMINALS
ACCORDING TO NUREMBERG PRINCIPLES
a. The Duality of Heads of State in Anarchic World
The Respondents enjoy the official dual role of Heads of
State vis-a-vis other states and executors of the national
laws of the United States and the Soviet Union respectively.
The President of the United States, when acting as head
of State, enjoys constitutional "discretionary
powers" under Article 2.
This dichotomy in the U.S. law between presidential
discretionary power as Head of State and his limitations as
Chief Executive is exposed by judicial opinions, to wit:
"No man is so high that he is above
the law. All...officers are creatures of the law
and are bound to it."
(Justice Samuel Miller, U.S. v. Lee, 106 U.S.
196, 220, 1982); and
The powers the people have given the
general government are named in the
Constitution, and all not there expresssly or
by implication are reserved to the people and
can be exercised only by them or upon
further grant from them.
(U.S. v. Williams, N.Y. 1904, 2S.C. 119,
194 U.S. 295, 48 L. Ed.979).
Moreover, war, in U.S. law, to be legitimate must
"The war powers of Congress and
the President are only those to be derived
from the Constitution...the primary
application of a war power is that it shall be
an effective power to wage war
Also, the war-making power must be
accompanied by its opposite: peace-making power:
"The authority to make war of
necessity implied the power to make peace, or
the war must be perpetual..."
(Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall, 231 per Chase, J.)
The United States and the Soviet Union together
"possess more than 40,000 nuclear warheads, with a
total destructive capacity 1 million times as great as the
bomb that devastated Hiroshima." Eminent scientists
Carl Sagan and Paul Ehrlich together with their
counterparts in the Soviet Union predict a "nuclear
winter" of mortal consequences to the human race
should either state begin a nuclear attack.
Whether nuclear "war" is
"winnable" or not is essentially irrelevant to
the fundamental illegality of war itself. However, when
the potential for total annihilation exists through use of
nuclear weapons, such use renders imperative its being
outlawed before the fact and its potential perpetrators
declared war criminals.
The present rationale of the U.S. government
concerning the permissibility of using nuclear weapons
for "legitimate self-defense" is continued in
paragraph 35 of the 1956 Department of the Army Field
Manual 27-10 on The Law of Land Warfare:
"The use of explosive ‘atomic
weapons' whether by air, sea, or land forces,
cannot as such be regarded as violative of
international law in the absence of
customary rule of international law or
international convention restricting their
The U.S. Naval Department in its 1955 Field Manual
NWIP 10-2, The Law of Naval Warfare, paragraph 613,
likewise justifies the use of nuclear weapons with the same
classical philosophy that that which is not prohibited is
"There is at present no rule of
international law expressly prohibiting
States from the use of nuclear weapons in
warfare. In the absence of express
prohibition, the use of such weapons against
enemy combatants and other military
objectives is permitted."
Furthermore, the official position of the present U.S.
administration regarding a "first-strike option"
involving nuclear weapons is affirmative. The geo-
dialectical position of the Soviet Union vis-a-vis the United
States imposes a like response. But in that neither nation
would be in a position to retaliate fully after a first
nuclear strike, both states must entertain the option of a
pre-emptive strike. This in turn threatens the civilian
population of both countries including, of course, your
applicant. The argument therefore that the applicant is
protected by the respondent's policies is fallacious. The
contrary is true.
Indeed, considering the Preamble to the U.S.
Constitution: "to form a more perfect union, ensure
domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, etc.", given that
nuclear war, in its totality, is incontrovertibly the
contradiction and antipode of such goals in that it would
eradicate each along with the American people, the 18th
century ambivalence of the U.S. Constitution in today's
anarchic world has become a legal deathtrap.
The same, of course, holds true for the Soviet
Constitution which provides relatively speaking the same
high goals for its people.
In short, in that the United States president, along with
his counterpart in the Soviet Union, (not to mention other
heads of states possessing nuclear arsenals) enjoys the
legal power to "wage" not war but holocaust,
this power cannot but be declared illegal despite its implied
if dubious constitutional sanction.
Given the status of the Nuremberg Decision as part of
international law, a primordial question then supposes
with regard to procedure. Who may institute proceedings
against alleged war criminals? Indeed if individuals are
held solely responsible for the international crimes
defined by them, then reciprocally individuals likewise
should not only be permitted to bring indictments for such
crimes but obligated to do so. Otherwise, the premise of
individual responsibility for the crimes themselves would
have been denied.
In short, if individuals are responsible for war crimes
and crimes against humanity, then individuals likewise
must be considered legally responsible for their
The principle of "citizen arrest" applies here
as well as that of civic reciprocity and rights. Just as in
any civilized society, rights and duties are the two sides of
the same coin of justice.
It is with this reasoning in mind that applicant
personally cites respondents as war criminals.
6. RESPONDENTS ARE ALSO INDICTABLE UNDER
In Resolution 96(I) of December 11, 1946, the General
Assembly declared "that genocide is a crime of
international law..." Article I of the Genocide
Convention confirms that genocide committed in time of
peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law
which they [Contracting Parties] undertake to prevent
and to punish."
Article IV of that Convention provides that
"Persons committing genocide...shall be punished,
whether they are constitutionally responsible rulers,
public officials or private individuals."
There is no disagreement between the respondents that
nuclear "war" would be genocidal in its
consequences. The U.S. President is quoted as stating that
"In a nuclear war, all mankind would lose."
President has made similar statements regarding the
totality of nuclear war.
Wherefore, applicant seeks from the Court an
indictment of respondents under the relevant provisions
of the said Convention.
7. PEACE IS RESULT OF LAW AND ITS INSTITUTIONS
From the Decalogue to the present-day national
constitutions, humanity's precious heritage of wisdom has
served the cause of peace by defining both moral and civic
codes for society's use and well-being.
The Preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights affirms the rule of law as the protector of human
rights. Article 28 of that Declaration asserts the right of a
"social and international order" so that the
rights and freedoms of the Declaration "can be fully
A strengthened international law can only derive from
the fuller recognition of the individual human "for whom
all national constitutional law itself is ostensibly
conceived "as its subject. This growth obviously in turn
requires international legislative and enforcement
procedures without which "international law"
Finally, applying the same raison d'źtre that both
respondents do in their present nuclear policies, namely
that state conduct which is not expressly prohibited by
international law is therefore permitted, the claim of your
applicant as a subject of international law being likewise
unprohibited is therefore permitted. And once the
individual is recognized as a subject of international law,
he then can and must with his fellow international
citizens expressly forbid by positive law not only the use of
nuclear weaponry but war itself.
In conclusion, since the dimension of war has changed
from relative to absolute as of 1945, the dimension of the
law to deal with it obviously must likewise be absolute. In
other words, when the survival of the human race is at
stake, the law must encompass the modalities of that total
Wherefore, in his own name as well as in the name of
humanity, applicant therefore seeks a Court Order
enjoining the respondents to implement article 28 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Implicit in this petition is the following question: Is
the mission of this Court simple to defend the nation-state
system "which must end in nuclear holocaust for
humanity "or does it have a larger uncodified mandate to
protect humanity against the illegality of war itself? The
question may appear paradoxical in that war is the result
of anarchy between equally sovereign units whereas the
court was created and supposedly functions to eliminate
that lawless condition. The question seems equally absurd
since, if the former premise is true, then the Court
condemns itself along with the nations for which it
presumes to adjudicate.
However, if the latter premise is true, then it must of
moral imperative and absolute necessity extend its mandate
beyond its present statute to include the legal protection of
fundamental human rights as already defined by the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. For only by so
doing can international law serve the cause of world
The present petition, introduced pro se by one having
no legal status "or indeed any formal legal training "in
any national court in the world yet nonetheless affected in
stark survival terms by the policies of the respondents,
can serve to extend rationally and legitimately the Court's
jurisdiction in the vital area of protection of fundamental
human rights for the promotion of world peace, which
incidentally, alone can guarantee peace for your applicant
Contrarily, rejection of this petition will be a clear and
outright denial of the individual's right to legal standing
before his Court, thus a rejection of the Nuremberg
Decisions as well as the human rights allied with
international law alluded to in the aforementioned
Finally, it would be absurd as well as irreverent to
argue that the exclusive character of the state was absolute
and eternal. Such an argument would be a denial of the
evolution of law itself "not to mention all moral codes "
from which resulted this present High Court. Indeed the
apparent need for and justification of this court "if it is
not merely an illusion of due process founded to preserve
the fiction of national sovereignty "implicitly argues for
the limitations and therefore non-sovereign character of
the states having access to it.
If the Court, therefor, is not a creature unto itself
resting solidly on a moral imperative as well as customary
international law transcending the state, then it is as
frivolous as the law it presumes to adjudicate since the
illusion of judicial authority can only impede the true
evolution of world due process.
For the forgoing reasons, your applicant prays that this
Court grants the several requests set forth herein.
a. Statement of Beliefs, Garry Davis, May 25, 1948:
In the absence of an international government, our
world politically is a raw, naked anarchy. Two interglobal
wars have shown as long as two or more powerful
sovereign nation-states regard their own national law as
supreme and sufficient to handle affairs between nations,
there can be no order on a planetary level. This
international anarchy is moving us swiftly toward a final
I no longer find it compatible with my inner
convictions to contribute to this anarchy "and thus be a
party to the inevitable suicide of our civilization " by
remaining solely loyal to one of these sovereign nation-
states, to the whole community, and to the international
vacuum of its government "a vacuum into which the rest
of the world must be drawn if it would survive, for therein
lies the only alternative to this final war.
I should like to consider myself a citizen of the world.
All history has shown "and especially American
history "that peace is not merely the absence of war, but
the presence of a superstructure of law and order, in short,
government, over non-integrated political units of equal
sovereignty. The world today is split by seventy to eighty
of these sovereign units. Therefore, without the immediate
creation of this superstructure of world law and order,
each unit must continue the idiotic, suicidal, unchristian
and undemocratic anarchy of Nationalism, and the
resulting atomic-biological war will then level all political,
economic, religious and personal differences by death.
The real question seems to be: World Citizenship or
One leads to peace. The other to oblivion.
And the choice is ours.
World Government of World Citizens
Global Representation of Registered World Citizens
March 9, 1985
Thank you for having shared this legal distillation of
over thirty-five years of intensive commitment to global
peacemaking and rejection of war-making.
The two respondents, Presidents Reagan and
Chernenko, are, in nationalist terms, seemingly the two
most powerful men on earth. In worldly terms, however,
their power is illusory, transient, and ironically, totally
dependent on each other. Their political era, bypassed
by technology and sheer awareness, is doomed by failure
to provide even minimum security for their own citizens
much less humankind.
Since world-class leadership has become imperative to
survival itself, political power is passing rapidly and
inevitably to those boldly claiming to represent humanity
The petition you have just read defines humanity's
legal right to that representation. It also defends your
legitimate world citizenship.
For consider this: If humanity is in danger of
annihilation, then humanity as itself exits.
Your very life and humanity's then are dynamically
linked. If humanity dies, you die. But the reverse is not
If you were offered, therefore, the choice of
humanity's death or your own, which would you choose?
The question obviously answers itself.
Yet that is the choice the respondents are
today offering you.
Both Reagan and Chernenko enjoin your exclusive
national allegiance at the expense of humanity's
This insidious treason is, however, couched in the
hypnotic and deceitful phrase "national
The petition you have just read "duly filed with the
Registrar of the International Court of Justice at The Hague
on February 12, 1985 "challenges the very legitimacy of
If you support its premises, then I enjoin your legal
allegiance to our common humanity already united in
primal need and divine sanction.
The forces of war, however, have the momentum of a
juggernaut. No crisis in human history matches that
facing you and me NOW, this very moment. Eyes in
subterranean rooms are staring at bulbs which if lighted
can mean humankind's total and practically instant
destruction,. Microchips in mainline computers, if
speckled with dust, can signal the launching of
Only a quantum leap in awareness can save us. Only a
total dedication to humanity's survival can ensure your
survival...and mine. Act now!
This petition is my latest contribution to that holistic
survival. It is dedicated to you, for you too are the
microcosm of humankind.
P.S. A WORLD CITIZEN LEGAL FUND has been
established to receive contributions for the promulgation
of this petition. Please send your check to WC Legal Fund,
c/o World Service Authority, 1012 14th St., NW, Washington,
Return to WSA Legal Department