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


President of the United States  


Address of Petitioner:                  Garry Davis
2 Forest Road                           Petitioner Pro Se
Sorrento, ME 04677



	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 AUTHORITIES                                                                                                   


ARGUMENT         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 

	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.

	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.

	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 

	 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.

	Given nuclear weaponry, "war" 
becomes holocaust. The threat or utilization of 
thermonuclear weapons is genocidal.  Therefore, 
respondents are indictable under Genocide 

	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)


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, 
1949      8
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
Decalogue                       17
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 
(1930)            6
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 
1979            16
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
United Nations
	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


	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 
of Genocide.

	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.


	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" 

identity papers.
	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. The Judges of the ICJ are subjects of 
international law

	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. 
(Emphasis added)
	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 
their judgments.
	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 
national grievances.
	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 
International Law

	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 
as such.

	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 
sovereignty begins.
	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 
international "crimes."
	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 
self defense.

	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 
48(v), 1950.
	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.


	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, 
i.e., sovereignty.
	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 
in that
	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.


	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.


	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 " 
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 
its civilization."
	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 
time immemorial.

	This argument would not be complete without taking 
into consideration respondents' space policies with regard 
to legality.
	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 
and does.
	In sum, your applicant here reasserts the fundamental 
illegality of war and its preparation both of which 
constitute international crimes.


a. The Duality of Heads of State in Anarchic World 
Is Illegitimate

	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 
be winnable:
	"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.


	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.


	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" 
remains theoretical.
	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 
world war?
	One leads to peace.  The other to oblivion.
	And the choice is ours.

World Government of World Citizens
Global Representation of Registered World Citizens 
since 1953
March 9, 1985
Dear Reader,

	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 
as such.
	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 
that treason.
	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.
			/s/Garry Davis

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,
DC 20005.

Return to WSA Legal Department

Quote of the day