Agenda: If people power, unplanned, can bring down the Berlin Wall, then why not bring about nuclear disarmament at a stroke?

Despite this I judged it to be against International Law, a view not well received by my fellow soldiers. Since then I have always used my best endeavours to promote the fullest, most formal and solemn judicial condemnation of all nuclear weaponry on the basis that only such a condemnation is likely to carry universal conviction that these weapons are utterly beyond the pale of civilisation and, once abolished, can never be resurrected or used as a so-called defensive arm in any strategic theory of balanced defence, such as mutually assured destruction.

As Labour Lord Advocate in the 1970s, I was one of the Government,s top three law advisors, along with the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General for England and Wales. We were advising on the International Law of the Sea.

We were aware, as the general public was not, that it was proposed to upgrade the nuclear deterrent at vast expense. I raised the question whether it would not be wise to seek an opinion as to the legality of these weapons before taking that step. The other law advisors felt that it was not an appropriate time to raise that issue. This opportunity was therefore lost.

In the next few years, however, a worldwide campaign to obtain the opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) was undertaken.

In 1996 the ICJ issued an advisory opinion that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons was generally illegal but there could be exceptional circumstances that would justify their use. This was a big step forward, but not big enough.

The year 2016 is another important nuclear anniversary. Thanks to the courage and bravery of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the nuclear weapons states are being called to account for their failure to comply or to comply fully with the mandatory requirements of the International Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation Treaty 1966.

The Marshall Islanders territory includes what is left of Bikini and Enawotak atolls, which were destroyed by nuclear weapons tests causing the inhabitants grievous radiation injuries including genetic effects to future generations.

There is a reasonable prospect in my view that the ICJ may take a serious grip of the case and rule nuclear weapons to be completely illegal. They may indeed set a mandatory timetable for worldwide nuclear disarmament, with a set date by which all nuclear weapons must be eliminated.

In parallel with this case, this country as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council could propose the establishment of an international convention to negotiate nuclear disarmament, with the same objective of reaching a set date for the permanent elimination of these weapons.

Once this decision has been reached, its enforcement in law arises. The ICJ, as the world court, is fully entitled to enforce its decisions. But the possibility arises of procrastination and delay by those authorities who have served the world population so ill in the past.

Maybe the time would come for the people of the world to take control of their own fate and, by direct action, take control of the disarmament process to ensure the complete and permanent abolition of these weapons.

People could perfectly legally enter, take over and demilitarise all nuclear weaponry in a co-coordinated single act. Such a worldwide movement, giving rise to what could be called the “Global Act To Eliminate Nuclear Arms” would require widespread and dedicated public effort by huge numbers of the world's population.

It would require extreme self-discipline and accurate planning and timing, and would of course have its dangers, as the industrial-military establishments are armed and would be reluctant to lose their power. They might well resist by force. But if people power, unplanned, can bring down the Berlin Wall, then why not bring about nuclear disarmament at a stroke?

Lord Murray was Lord Advocate from 1974 to 1979 and is a former Labour MP and judge.