International Court of Justice: Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

doi:10.1017/S0020782900023913

* [Reproduced from the text provided by the International Court of Justice. International Legal Materialshas reproduced all Declarations, Separate Opinions and Dissenting Opinions in English. French text-omissions are noted in the I.L.M. Content Summary and in the body of the text.

[The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, July 1, 1968, appears at 7 I.L.M. 809 (1968); the Final Document on Extension of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, May 11, 1995, appears at 34 I.L.M. 959 (1995); the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, January 27, 1967, appears at 6 I.L.M. 386 (1967); the Treaty on Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor and in the Subsoil Thereof, February 11, 1971, appears at 10 I.L.M. 145 (1971); the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Underwater, August 5,1963, appears at 2 I.L.M. 883 (1963); and Security Council Resolution 255 (1968), June 19, 1968, on security assurances for parties to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, appears at 7 I.L.M. 895 (1968). [The Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone Treaty, December 15, 1995, appears at 35 I.L.M. 635 (1996); the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty, June 21-23, 1995, appears at 35 I.L.M. 698 (1996); the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America (Treaty of Tlatelolco), February 14, 1967, appears at 6 I.L.M. 521 (1967) and information on its status as of May 2, 1989 appears at 28 I.L.M. 1400 (1989); the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Raratonga), August 6, 1985, appears at 24 I.L.M. 1440 (1985); the Treaty on the Final Settlement with respect to Germany, September 12, 1990, appears at 29 I.L.M. 1186 (1990); and the Antarctic Treaty, December 1, 1959, appears at 19 I.L.M. 860 (1980). [Additional Protocols I and II to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, June 1977, appear at 16 I.L.M. 1391 (1977), and the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, October 10, 1980, appears at 19 I.L.M. 1523 (1980).

[The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, December 19, 1966, appears at 6 I.L.M. 368 (1967), and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, December 9, 1948, is contained in the U.S. Genocide Convention Implementation Act of 1987, November 4, 1988, which appears at 28 I.L.M. 754 (1989).

[The Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, May 18, 1977, appears at 16 I.L.M. 88 (1977); the Stockholm Declaration of 1972 appears at 11 I.L.M. 1416 (1972); and the Rio Declaration of 1992 appears at 31 I.L.M. 818 (1992).]

1 Resolution 2826 (XXVI), Annex.

3 Resolution 44/23.

4 A/47/277-S/24111

1 This agenda item remains until the present day at every session of the General Assembly but with the addition of sub-item “Convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons: Report of the Committee on Disarmament” from the 38th Session until the 42nd Sessions, inclusive. From the 43rd Session the subitem simply referred to the Convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons without making any mention of the Report of the Committee on Disarmament.

2 From 7 February 1984, the date of commencement of its annual session, the Committee on Disarmament was to be known as the Conference on Disarmament.

3 The wording “as a matter of policy” was dropped since the 49th Session (1994) and the word “possible” was added so that it read “as a possible basis” since the 48th Session (1993).

4 In the resolutions of the 48th and 49th Sessions, the preambular part, as quoted in the text, was simplified to read “was not able to undertake negotiations on this subject,”.

2 See Official Records of the 47th Session of the General Assembly. Supplement No 27(A/47/27), Appendix I.

1 Peter Michelmore. The Swift Years. The Robert Oppenheimer Story(New York. 1969). p. 110. Oppcnheimer could read the verse in the original Sanskrit of the BhagavadGita.

2 For the possibility of a rule of customary international law being modified by later inconsistent State practice, see Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua. Merits. I.CJ. Reports 1986. p. 109. para. 207.

3 Ibn Khaldûn. The Muqaddimah. An Introduction 10 History,tr. Franz Rosenthal, edited and abridged by N.J. Dawood (Princeton. 1981). p. 40.

4 Javez Pérez de Cuéllar. Statement at the University of Pennsylvania. 24 March 1983. in Disarmament.Vol. VI. No. 1. P 91

5 See. for example. Roberto Ago. Addendum to the Eighth Report on State Responsibility, para. 50, in Yearbook of the International Law Commission.1980. Vol. II.Part[pp. 35-36.

6 The dilemma recalls that which confronted the learned judges of Persia when, asked by king Cambyses whether he could marry his sister, they made prudent answer “that though they could discover no law which allowed brother to marry sister, there was undoubtedly a law which permitted the king of Persia to do what he pleased”. See Herodotus. The Histories,tr. Aubrey de Sélincourt (Penguin Books. 1959). p. 187. So here, an affirmative answer to the General Assembly's question would mean that, while the Court could discover no law allowing a Slate to put the planet to death, there is undoubtedly a law which permits the State to accomplish the same result through an exercise of its sovereign powers.

7 The idea is evoked by the following remark of one writer: “Pour certains auteurs l’exislence d'un corpus jurisrégissant une société décentralisée et horizontale relève du miracle. Je dirais plutõt quelle relève de la nécessité. Ce n'est pas en dépit, mais a cause de I'hétérogénéité des Etats dans une société de juxtaposition que le droit international a été créé et s'est developoé. Si le droit international n'existait pas.faudrait l'inventer”. Prosper Weil. Le Droit international en quete do son idenlitéCours général de Droit international public. Recueil des cours. Vol 237 (1992-VI). p. 36.

8 Charles De Visscher. Theory and Reality in Public International Law.revised edition, tr P.E. Corbett (New Jersey. 1968). p. 104.

9 [T]he projectile known under the name of ‘dum-dum’ was made in the arsenal of that name near Calcutta”. See The Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences The Conference of 1899(Oxford. 1920). p. 277. perGeneral Sir John Ardagh

10 For “usages of war” maturing into rules of customary international law. see L. Oppenheim. International Law A Treatise.Vol II. 7th edn. by H Lautcrpacht (London. 1952) p. 226. para. 67. and p. 231. para. 69.

11 Sean Mc Bride. “The Legality of Weapons for Societal Destruction”. in Christophe Swinarski (ed.). Studies and Essays on International Humanitarian Law and Red Cross Principles in Honour of Jean Pictet(Geneva. 1984). p 402

12 For differences between the 1949 Martens Clause and its classical formulation, see Georges Abi-Saab. “The Specificities of Humanitarian Law”, in Christophe Swinarski (ed.). Studies and Essays on International Humanitarian Law and Red Cross Principles in Honour of Jean Pictet(Geneva. 1984). p. 275.

13 The Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences. The Conference of 1899(Oxford. 1920). pp. 54 and 419

14 The Gulf of Maine. ICJ. Reports 1984,p. 385. para. 41, dissenting opinion. But sec J.C.J. Pleadings. Northern Cameroons. 1963,p. 352, M. Weil. ”… il est parfois bon. pour exorciser les démons, de les appeier par leur nom”, i.e.. “le spectre du Goverment des juges”.

l5 See l.C.J. Pleadings. South West Africa.Vol. VHI. p. 258. argument of Mr. Gross; Fisheries Jurisdiction. ICJ. Reports I974.pp. 56-57, footnote 1. separate opinion of Judge Dillard; and Julius Stone. Legal System and Lawyers’ Reasonings(Stanford. 1964). at pp.59.68. 263-264. 299. 305-306. 320 and“346.

l6 “For whatever is not deduc'd from the phaenomena. is to be called an hypothesis”. See Sir Isaac Newton. The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,book HI. Vol. II. tr. Andrew Motte (London. 1968), p. 392: and Derek Gjertsen. The Newton Handbook(London, 1986), p. 266.

17 “Of Innovations”, in J. Spedding, R.L. Ellis and D.D. Heath (eds.). The Works of Francis Bacon(London. 1890). Vol. VI. p 433.

l8 See argument of M. Yasseen in I.C.J. Pleadings. Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between WHO and Egypt.pp. 298-299.

19 Statement of the Government of the United Kingdom, in Legality of the Use by a Slate of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (Request for Advisory Opinion),para. 24.

20 The Listcase. Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuernberg Military Tribunals Under Control Council Law No. 10.(Washington. 1950), Vol. XI. p. 1272: and see. ibid.pp. 1236 and 1254. See also the remarks of the United States Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in Krupo'scase. Annual Digest and Reports on Public International Law Cases.1948. p 62S

21 Cicero. Selected work.tr. Michael Grant (London. 1960). p. 36.

22 C.W Jenks. The Common law of Mankind (London. 1958) p 416

1 The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary,3rd ed., 1987. Vol. I. p. 840.

2 In a memorandum responding to an inquiry regarding the number of signatures received, the Archivist observes that: “To be precise in this matter is to count the stars in the sky.“

3 The sponsors of a Declaration of Public Conscience from Japan have stated, in a communication to the Registrar, that they have stored in a warehouse in The Hague,757.signatures, which the Court had no space to accommodate, in addition to the 1.564.954 actually deposited with the Court. Another source, based in Europe, has reckoned the declarations it has received, in connection with the current applications to the Court, at 3.691.899. of which 3.338.408 have been received from Japan.

4 Albert Schweitzer. Letters 1905-1965.H.W. Bäher (ed). I.Neugroschel (tr.). 1992. p. 280. letter to Pablo Casals dated 3 Oaober 1958. emphasis addled

5 Shimodav. The Japanese Stale.(i963) Japanese Annual of International Law.pp. 212-252.

6 Robert Oppenheimer. quoting The Bhagvadgita.See Peter Goodchild. Robert Oppenheimer: Shatterer of Worlds.1980.

7 Proceedings of the Canadian Conference on Nuclear Weapons and the Lau. published as Lawyers and the Nuclear Debate.Maxwell Cohen and Margaret Gouin (eds.). 1988. p. 29.

8 22 Trial of the Major War Criminals before the International Military Tribunal.1948. p. 464.

9 Hiroshima Diary: The Journal of a Japanese Physician August 6-September 30. 1945.by Michihiko Hachiya. M.D.. translated and edited by Warner Wells. M.D.. University of North Carolina Press. 1955. pp. 14-15.

10 “The Medical and Ecological Effects of Nuclear War” by Don G. Bates. Professor of the History of Medicine. McGill University, in (1983) 28 McGill Law Journal,p. 717.

11 J.B. Scott. “The Conference of 1899”. The Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences.1920. pp. 506-507: emphasis added.

12 This aspect is addressed in a volume of contemporary philosophical explorations of the problem of war. The Critique of War,Robert Ginsberg (ed.), 1969. See, in particular. Ch. 6. “War and the Crisis of Language” by Thomas Merton.

13 Cited in Robert S. Hartman, “The Revolution Against War”, ibid.p. 324.

14 “They serve to build these figments of hell into the system of power politics, and to dim the minds of the nuclear citizens.” (Ibid,p. 325.)

15 N. Singh and E. McWhinney. Nuclear Weapons and Contemporary International Law.1989. p. 29.

16 Bates, op. cit..p. 719.

17 The Final Document of the First Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly devoted to Disarmament (1978) unanimously categorized nuclear weapons as weapons of mass destruction, a conclusion which was adopted by consensus (CR 95/25. p. 17).

18 Effects of Atomic Weapons,prepared by the US Atomic Energy Commission in co-operation the Department of Defense, 1950. cited in Singh&McWhinney, op. at.,p. 30.

19 On environmental law. see further section III.10(e) below.

20 World Commission on Environment and Development (“the Brundtland Commission“), Our Common Future(1987). p. 295. cited in CR 95/22. p. 55.

21 Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia.1992 ed.. Vol. 9. p. 893.

22 Source: Radioecology.Holm ed.. 1995. World Scientific Publishing Co.

23 For further references, see Edith Brown Weiss. In Fairness to Future Generations: International Law. Common Patrimony and Intergenerational Equity:1989.

24 Géza Herczegh, Development of International Humanitarian Law.1984. p. 93. “ABC weapons” refer to atomic, biological and chemical weapons.

25 Science,December 23, 1983. Vol. 222, p. 1283.

26 The movement of a cloud of dust particles from one hemisphere to another, with the resultant effects resembling those of a nuclear winter, are not futuristic scenarios unrelated to past experience. In 1815. the eruption of the Indonesian volcano, Tambora. injected dust and smoke into the atmosphere on a scale so great as to result in worldwide crop failure and darkness in 1816. The Scientific American.March 1984, p. 58. reproduced a poem. “Darkness”, written by Lord Byron, thought to have been inspired by this year without a summer. At a hearing of the US Senate on the effects of nuclear war, in December 1983, the Russian physicist, Kapitza. drew attention to this poem, in the context of the effects of nuclear war. referring to it as one well-known to Russians through its translation by the novelist Ivan Turgenev. Here are some extracts, capturing with poetic vision the human despair and the environmental desolation of the post-nuclear scene: “A fearful hope was all the world contain'd; Forests were set on fire - but hour by hour They fell and faded - and the crackling trunks Extinguish'd with a crash - and all was black. The brows of men by the despairing light Wore an unearthly aspect as by fits The flashes fell upon them: some lay down And hid their eyes and wept: … … The world was void. The populous and the powerful was a lump, Seasonless. herbless. treeless, manless. lifeless - A lump of death - a chaos of hard clay. The rivers, lakes, and ocean all stood still. And nothing stirr'd within their silent depths: Ships sailorless lay rotting on the sea …“

27 Wilfrid Bach. “Climatic Consequences of Nuclear War”, in Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). Cologne. 1986. published as Maintain Life on Earth'.,1987. p. 154.

28 Singh&McWhinney. op. at.,p. 123.

29 Herbert Abrams. “Chernobyl and the Short-Term Medical Effects of Nuclear War”, in Proceedings of the IPPNW Congress, op. cit..p. 122.

30 Ibid.,p. 120.

31 Ibid.,pp. 122-125.

32 Ibid.,p. 121.

33 Among the internationally known contemporary accounts are John Hersey, Hiroshima(to which The New Yorkerdevoted its whole issue of 31 August 1946, and which has since appeared as a Penguin Classic, 1946): Hiroshima Diary: The Journal of a Japanese Physician August 6 - September 30. 1945.by Michihiko Hachiya. M.D. (University of North Carolina Press. 1955): and The Day Man Lost: Hiroshima. 6 August 1945(Kodansha. 1972) They are ail part of a voluminous documentation.

34 Over the effects of radiation, see. generally. Nuclear Radiation in Warfare.1981. by Professor Joseph RotblaL the Nobel Laureate.

35 Bates, op. cit..p. 722. Cf. the reference in The Bhagvadgita. “brighter than a thousand suns”, which was widely used by nuclear scientists - as in Robert Jungle. Brighter than a Thousand Suns: a Personal History of the Atomic Scientist.Penguin. 1982. and Oppenheimer's famous quote from the same source.

36 Ibid.p. 723.

37 Record of the 13th Plenary Meeting, Forty-Sixth World Health Assembly. 14 May 1993. Doc. A46/VR/13. p. 11. furnished to the Court by WHO.

38 See diagram appended from Effects of Nuclear War on Health and Health Services.World Health Organization. Geneva. 2nd ed.. 1987, p. 16.

39 New York Times Service,reported in International Herald Tribune.30 November 1995.

40 Henry A. Kissinger. “NATO Defense and the Soviet Threat”, Survival.Nov./Dec. 1979. p. 266 (address in Brussels), cited by Robert S. McNamara in “The Military Role of Nuclear Weapons: Perceptions and Misperceptions”. (1983-1984) 62 Foreign Affairs.Vol. I. p. 59; emphasis added.

41 Robert S. McNamara. op. cit..p. 71. 42 Bates, op. at.p. 726.

43 Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth.1982. pp. 69-70. cited in Bates, op. cit..p. 727.

44 On state responsibility to protect the cultural heritage, see Article 5 of the World Heritage Convention. 1972 (The Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage).

45 See Hiltrad Kier. “UNESCO Programme for the Protection of Culture in Wartime”, in Documents of the Sixth World Congress of IPPNW. op. cit.. p. 199.

46 Original French text: “impulsion électromagnétique, impulsion nucléaire (forte impulsion d'energie électromagnétique rayonnée par une explosion nucléaire dans I'atmosphère) (est due aux collisions entre les rayons gammas emis pendant les premières nanosecondes de 1'explosion el les électrons des molécules de I'atmosphere) (I'impulsion électromagnétique produite par une explosion nucléaire de puissance moyenne a environ 400 km d'altitude peut mettre hors service instantanément la majeure partie des appareils électroniques à semi-conducteurs d'un pays grand comme les Èlats-Unis et une grande partie de ses réseaux de distribution d'énergie sans que d'aulres effets soient ressentis au sol. avec des conséquences militaires faciles a imaginer.”(Michel Fleutry. Diclionnaire Encyclopédique d'Électromque (Anglais- Franҫais).1995. p. 250.)

47 Gordon Thompson, “Nuclear Power and the Threat of Nuclear War”, in Documents of the Sixth World Congress of IPPNW, op. cit..p. 240.

48 William E. Butler (ed.). Control over Compliance with International Law.1991. p. 24.

49 Bates, op. cit.p. 720.

50 See Herbert Abrams. op. cit..pp. 122-125.

51 SCOPE publication 28. released at the Royal Society. London, on January 6. 1986. Vol. I. p. 481.

52 As referred to in Singh and McWhinney, op. cit.p. 124.

53 Ibid.p. 122

54 See further, on this aspect section V. 1 below.

55 Bates, op at.p 721.

56 Resolution 36/100 of 9 December 1981.

57 Winston Churchill. The Second World War,Vol. 6. “Triumph and Tragedy”, 1953. p. 63.

58 H.G. Wells. The First Men in the Moon and the World Set Free,the Literary Press. London, undated reprint of 1913 ed.. p. 237. See. also, the reference to Wells in R.J. Lifton and Richard Falk. Indefensible Weapons.1982. p. 59.

59 Address of the President of the United States at a Joint Session of the Two Houses of Congress. April 2. 1917. reprinted in (1917) 11 American Journal of International Law.Supp.. p. 144. The President was speaking in the context of the indiscriminate German submarine attacks on shipping which he described as “a warfare against mankind”.

60 Speech of June 16. 1983. referred to by Robert S. McNamara. op. en.,p. 60.

61 I note in this context the sad demise of our deeply respected Latin American colleague. Judge Andres Aguilar Mawdsley. six days before the hearings of the case commenced, thus reducing the Court to fourteen, and depriving its composition of a Latin American component.

62 As observed in a contemporarv study of the development of international humanitarian law. there is evidence “ofefforts made by every people in every age to reduce the devastation of war” (Herczegh. op at.,p. 14).

63 The Ramayana.Romesh Chunder Dun (Ir.).

64 See Nagendra Singh. “The Distinguishable Characteristics of the Concept of the Law as it Developed in Ancient India”, in Liber Amicorum for the Right Honourable Lord Wilberforce.1987. p. 93. The relevant passage of The Ramayanais Yuddha Kanda (Sloka),VIII.39.

65 Manusmrti.vii. 91. 92.

66 C.350BC - C.290BC - ancient Greek historian and diplomat sent on embassies by Seleucus I to Chandragupta Maurya. who wrote the most complete account of India then known to the Greek world.

67 Megasthenes, Fragments,cited in N. Singh, Juristic Concepts of Ancient Indian Polity.1980. pp. 162-163.

68 Mahabharatha. Udyog Parva.194.12. cited in Nagendra Singh. “The Distinguishable Characteristics of the Concept of Law as it Developed in Ancient India”, op. cit.p. 93.

69 Manusmriti.VII.90. cited in N. Singh, India and International Law.1973. p. 72.

70 See Y. Diallo. Traditions africaines et droit humanitaire.Geneva. 1978. p. 16: E. Bello. African Customary Humanitarian Law.ICRC. Geneva. 1980. both referred to in Herczegh, op. cit.p. 14.

71 Bello. op. at,pp. 20-21.

72 Resolutions of the Second Lateran Council. Canon XXIX. cited by Nussbaum, A Concise History of the Law of Nations.1947. p. 25. “-

73 Ibid.p. 26.

74 See N. Singh, India and International Law. op. cit.p. 216.

75 Qur'an.11.205.

76 Ibid.LXXVII.8: emphasis added.

77 S.R. Hassan. The Reconstruction of Legal Thought in Islam.1974, p. 177. See. generally. Majid Khadduri. War and Peace in the Law of Islam,1955. For a brief summary of the Islamic law relating to war. see C.G. Weeramantry, Islamic Jurisprudence: Some International Perspectives,1988. pp. 134-138.

78 Walpola Rahula. What the Buddha Taught,1959. p. 84.

79 On Buddhism and international law. see, generally, K.N. Jayetilleke. “The Principles of International Law in Buddhist Doctrine”, 120 Recueil des Cours(1967-1), pp. 441-567.

80 See L.S. Wolfe. “Chemical and Biological Warfare: Effects and Consequences”. (1983) 28 McGill Law Journal.p. 735. See. also, “Chemical Warfare” in Encyclopedia Britannica.1959. Vol. 5. pp. 353-358.

81 Grotius. Prolegomena,para. 28. tr. Whewell.

82 For Martens’ speech, see The Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences, op. cit..pp. 505-506.

83 The Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907. Art. 25: the Hague Convention (IX) of 1907. Art. 1; League of Nations Assembly Resolution of 30 September 1928: UNGA Resolutions 2444(XXIII) of 19 December 1968. and 2675(XXV) of 9 December 1970: Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Arts. 48& 51.

84 See V.2. on “The Aims of War”.

85 See D. Fleck [ed.The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts.1995. p. 29.

86 First Geneva Convention 1949, Art. 63, para. 4; Second Geneva Convention. Art. 62. para. 4; Third Geneva Convention. Art. 142, para. 4; Fourth Geneva Convention. Art. 158. para. 4; Inhumane Weapons Convention. 1980. Preamble, para. 5.

87 At the last meeting of the Fourth Commission of the Peace Conference, on September 26, 1907. Mr. Martens summarized its achievements in terms that, “If from the days of antiquity to our own time people have been repeating the Roman adage ‘Inter arma silent leges',we have loudly proclaimed. ‘Inter arma vivant leges'.This is the greatest triumph of law and justice over brute force and the necessities of war.” (J.B. Scott. “The Conference of 1907”. The Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences.1921. Vol. Ill, p. 914.

88 M.S. McDougal and F.P. Feliciano. Law and Minimum World Public Order: The Legal Regulation of International Coercion.1961, p. 657.

89 International Declaration Respecting Expanding Bullets, signed at The Hague. 29 July 1899.

90 International Declaration Respecting Asphyxiating Gases, signed at The Hague. 29 July 1899.

91 See section III110(a), infra.

92 Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals.Vol. 10. p. 133.

93 Foreword by Lord Wright to the last volume of the Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals.Vol. 15. p. xiii. See. further, the discussion of the Martens clause in Singh&McWhinney, op.err., pp. 46 et seq.,referring, inter alia,to the two passages cited above.

94 West Rand Central Cold Mining Co., Ltd v. R(1905). 2 KB. p. 407.

95 On this aspect see further section VI.6. infra.

96 See. on these organizations, section VI.3 below.

97 Resolution 1653(XVI) of 24 November 1961 (“Declaration on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear and The nuclear Weapons“); resolution 2936 (XXVII) of 29 November 1972 (“Non-Use of Force in International Relations and Permanent Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons“); resolution 33/71B of 14 December 1978 (“Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons and Prevention of Nuclear War“): resolution 34/83G of 11 December 1979 (“Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons and Prevention of Nuclear War“); resolution 36/921 of 9 December 1981 (“Non-Use of Nuclear Weapons and Prevention of Nuclear War“); resolution 44/1I7C of 15 December 1989 (“Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons“); resolution 45/59B of 4 December 1990 (“Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons“); resolution 46/37D of 6 December 1991 (“Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons“). See. also, e.g., resolution 36/100 of 9 December 1981 (“Declaration on the Prevention of Nuclear Catastrophe“), paragraph I States and statesmen that resort first to the use of nuclear weapons will be committing the gravest crime against humanity“).

98 Resolution 2936(XXVII) of 29 November 1972 (“Non-use of Force in International Relations and Permanent Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons“), preambular paragraph 10.

99 Bums H. Weston. “Nuclear Weapons and International Law: Prolegomenon to General Illegality”. (1982-1983) 4 .NewYork Law School Journal of International and Comparative Law.p. 252 and authorities therein cited.

100 Ibid p 242

101 See, also. Section III.10(f), infra.

102 GA Res. 38/75 of 15 December 1983 (“Condemnation of nuclear war“), operative para. 1.

103 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its twenty-eighth session. Yearbook of the International Law Commission.1976. Vol. II. Part II. p. 109. para. 33.

104 D Fleck, op cit.p. 28. basing this principle on The Martens clause.

105 Dias. Jurisprudence.4th ed.. 1976. p. 287.

106 (1971-III) Recueil des Cours.p. 324. fn. 37; emphasis added. See. also, the detailed study of various peremptory norms in the international law of armed conflict, in Lauri Hannikainen. Peremptory Sorms (Jus Cogens) in International Law1988. pp. 596-715. where the author finds that many of the principles of the humanitarian law of war are ius cogens.

107 Examples are the Lieber Code of 1863 (adopted by the United States for the Government of Annies in the Field): the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 1868: the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907; the Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare of 1925: the Hague Rules of Air Warfare of 1923; the Nuremberg Charter of 1945: and the four Geneva Conventions of 1949.

108 On the importance of validity of military manuals, see Singh McWhinney. op.at.,pp. 52-53.

109 General Orders 100. Instructions for the Government of the Armies of the United States in the Field,s. 14.

110 Singh&McWhinney. op. cit..p. 59.

111 Ian Brownlie. “Some Legal Aspects of the Use of Nuclear Weapons”. (1965) 14 International and ComparativeLaw Quarterly,p. 445

112 Nagendra Singh, fn. 67. supra.

113 On the eminent juristic support for this proposition, see Section III.11 infra.

114 (1969) 53 Annuaire de VID1.Vol. II, p. 377. para. 8: Iran, CR 95/26. p. 47. fn. 45.

115 See. further, section 111.10(f)below on Human rights law

116 Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its 28th Session. Yearbook of the International Law Commission.1976. Vol. II, Part II, p. 109, para. 33.

117 Draft Article 19(3)(d)on “State Responsibility” of the International Law Commission, ibid.p. 96.

118 See the references to these principles in my Dissenting Opinion in Request for an Examination of the Situation in accordance with Paragraph 63 of the Court's Judgment of 20 December 1974 in theNuclear Tests (New Zealand v. France) Case. I.C.J. Reports 1995.pp. 339-347..

119 A. Timoshenko. “Ecological Security: Global Change Paradigm”, (1990) 1 Columbia Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy,p. 127.

120 Timoshenko. supra.

121 A. Gore. Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit.1992. p. 295, cited in Guruswamy, Palmer and Weston. International Environmental Law and World Order,1994. p. 264.

122 Jonathan Schell, The Fate of the Earth.1982. p. 186.

123 A submission to this effect was made by the Solomon Islands in the hearings before the Court - Sands. CR 95/32. p. 71.

124 See, for example, the phraseology of Principle 21 of the Stockholm Declaration and Principle 2 of the Rio Declaration, referring to the duties of States to prevent damage to the environment of other States.

125 See. also, Section III.6. supra.

126 Gen. C 14/23. reproduced in M. Nowak. United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.1983. p. 861.

127 GA Res. 38/75, “Condemnation of Nuclear War”, first operative paragraph.

128 (1969) 53 Annuaire de I’IDl,Vol. II. p. 377, para. 7.

129 See Bums H. Weston, op. cit..p. 241: E. Castrtn. The Present Law of War and Neutrality,1954, p. 207; G. Schwarzenberger. The Legality of Nuclear Weapons.1958. pp. 37-38: N. Singh. Nuclear Weapons and International Law.1959. pp. 162-166; Falk, Meyrowitz and Sanderson, “Nuclear Weapons and International Law”, (1980) 20 Indian Journal of International Law,p. 563: Julius Stone. Legal Controls of International Conflict,1954. p. 556; Spaight Air Power and War Rights.3rd ed.. 1947. pp. 275-276; H. Lautcrpacht (ed.) in Oppenheims International Law,Vol. 2. 7th ed.. 1952. p. 348.

130 Singh& McWhinncy, op. at.,p. 120.

131 The McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Termsdefines poison as “A substance that in relatively small doses has an action that either destroys life or impairs seriously the functions of organs and tissues.” (2nd ed.. 1978. p. 1237.) The definition of poison in the Oxford English Dictionaryis that poison is: “Any substance which, when introduced to or absorbed by a living organism, destroys life or injures health, irrespective of mechanical means or direct thermal changes. Particularly applied to a substance capable of destroying life by rapid action, and when taken in a small quantity. Fig. phr. to hate like poison. But the more scientific use is recognized in the phrase slow poison,indicating the accumulative effect of a deleterious drug or agent taken for a length of time.” (Vol. XII. p. 2. 1989 ed.)

132 The Legality of Nuclear Weapons,1958. p. 35. He remarks very severely that they “inflict death or serious damage to health in. as Gentili would have put it, a manner more befitting demons than civilised human beings”. The reference is to Gentili's observation that, though war is struggle between men. the use of such means as poison makes it “a struggle of demons” (De Jure Belli Libri Tres(1612). Book II. Ch VI, p 161. tr J.C Rolfe.

133 3rd ed.. 1987. Vol. II. p. 1738.

134 See Encyclopedia Britannica Macropaedia.Vol. 26. pp. 471 ft on “Radiation”.

135 The definitions of radiation in the McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Physics and Mathematics(1978. p. 800) is “a stream of particles. … or high energy photons, or a mixture of these”.

136 Op cit.p. 38.

137 OP cit..p. 126.

138 See. to this effect. Schwarzenberger. op. cit..pp. 37-38. in relation to chemical and bacteriological weapons.

139 See Singh&McWhinney. op. at.,pp. 127 and 121.

140 Singh&McWhinney. ibid.p. 121

141 McNamara. op. cit..pp. 71-7

142 On this, see further Section 11.3(n), supra.,and Section VII.6 infra

143 For example. Risks of Unintentional Nuclear War.United Nations Institute of Disarmament Research (UNIDIR). 1982.

144 June 1982. Vol 3S. p. 68.

145 Op. cit.p 72

146 Henry Kissinger, Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy.1957. p. 167.

147 Ibid., p.175.

148 See Section III. 10(d). Supra

149 Yearbook of the International Law Commission.1980. Vol. II. Part I. p. 69. para. 121.

150 Already noted in Section III.11, supra.

151 H.L.A. Hart. The Concept of Law.1961. p. 188: emphasis added.

152 Ibid

l53 Ibid.,p. 189: emphasis added.

154 B.S. Chimni. “Nuclear Weapons and International Law: Some Reflections”, in International Law in Transition. Essays in Memory of Judge Nagendra Singh.1992. p. 142: emphasis added.

155 Nagendra Singh, Nuclear Weapons and International Law.1959. p 243

156 John Rawls. A Theory of Justice.1972.

157 Aristotle. Politics,tr. John Warrington. Heron Books. 1934. p. 212

158 The Antelopecase. [1825] 10 Wheaton.p. 122. Cf. Vattel. “A dwarf is as much a man as a giant is; a small republic is no less a sovereign state than the most powerful Kingdom “ [Droit des Gens.Fenwick trans in Classics of international Law.S. 18.)

159 Weston, op. cit..p. 254.

160 (1982) 3 Kansai University Review of Law and Political Science,p. 77.

161 See Bums H. Weston, op. at.,p. 252, fii. 105.

162 See Conn Nugent. “How a Nuclear War Might Begin”, in Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War. op. cit..p. 117.

163 Article 4 of Decision number 2 on the Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament, adopted by that Conference, stipulated as an obligation of States Parties which was inextricably linked to die extension of the treaty', the following goal, inter alia: “The determined pursuit by the nuclear-weapon States of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goals of eliminating those weapons” (para. 4(c)).Also the Conference on Disarmament was to complete the negotiations for a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test- Ban Treaty no later than 1996 (para. 4(a)).

164 See fn. 97. supra.

165 For example. Brownlie. Principles of Public International Law.4th ed . 1990. p. 14. re resolution 1653(XVI) of 1961 which described the use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons as such a “law-making resolution”.

166 John Polanyi. Lawyers and the Nuclear Debate, op. at.,p. 19.

167 R.C. Karp (ed.). Security Without Nuclear Weapons? Different Perspectives on Non-Nuclear Security.1992. p. 251.

168 Ibid. p.250. citing Hollins. Powers and Sommer. The Conquest of War Alternative Strategies for Global Security.1989, pp. 54-55.

169 “Some Legal Aspects of the Use of Nuclear Weapons”, op. at.,pp. 446-447.

170 Ibid.p. 445.

171 For further discussion of the concept of intention in this context, see Just War. Nonviolence and Nuclear Deterrence.D.L. Cady&R. Werner (eds.), 1991. pp. 193-205.

172 For the philosophical implications of deterrence, considered from the point of view of natural law. see Cady and Werner, op. cit.,pp. 207-219. See. also. John Finnis. Joseph Boyle and Germain Grisez, Nuclear Deterrence. Morality and Realism(1987). Other works which present substantially the same argument are Anthony Kenny. The Logic of Deterrence(1985), and The Ivory Tower(1985); Roger Ruston. Nuclear Deterrence - Right or Wrong?(1981). and “Nuclear Deterrence and the Use of the Just War Doctrine” in Blake and Pole (eds.), Objections to Nuclear Defense.(1984).

173 Michio Kaku and Daniel Axelrod. To Win a Nuclear War.1987. p. 5: CR 95/27. p. 48.

174 D. Bowett. “Reprisals involving Recourse to Armed Force”. (1972) 66 American Journal of International Lav.p. 1. quoted in Weston. Falk. D'Amato. International Law and World Order.1980. p. 910.

175 “Some Legal Aspects of the Use of Nuclear Weapons”, op. cit.p. 445.

176 Op cit..Vol. II. p. 565.

177 Ibid,pp. 563-565.

178 See the list of German authors cited by Oppenheim. op. cit..Vol. II. p. 231. fn. 6.

179 Ibid p 232

180 Westlake. International Law,2nd ed.. 1910-1913. pp. 126-128; The Collected Papers of John Westlake on Public International Law.ed. L. Oppenheim. 1914. p. 243.

181 See. on these cases. Oppenheim. op. at.,pp. 232-233.

182 Bums H. Weston, “Nuclear Weapons versus International Law: A Contextual Reassessment”, (1983) 28 McCill Lav. Journal,P- 578.

183 General Colin Powell. A Soldier's Way.1995, p. 324): “No matter how small these nuclear payloads were, we would be crossing a threshold. Using nukes at this point would mark one of the most significant military decisions since Hiroshima. … I began rethinking the practicality of those small nuclear weapons.“

184 See Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.May 1985. p. 35. at p. 37. referred to in Malaysian Written Comments, p. 20.

185 See the UNIDIR Study. Risks of Unintentional Nuclear War. Supra

186 National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year (FY) 1944. Public Law.103-160. 30 November 1993.

187 “Some Legal Aspects of the Use of Nuclear Weapons”, op. cit..p. 438. emphasis added.

188 Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan,ed. James B. Randall, Washington Square Press, 1970. p. 86.

189 For example. The Nuclear Predicament: A Sourcebook.D.U Gregory (ed.). 1982.

190 Ruth Sivard. in World Military and Social Expenditures. World Priorities(J993. p. 20). counts 149 wars and 23 million deaths during this period.

191 See Charles Allen. The Savage Wars of Peace: Soldiers’ Voices 1945-1989.1989.

192 Alvin and Heidi Toffler. War and Anti-War: Survival at the Dawn of the 21st Century.1993. p. 14.

Article contents

International Court of Justice: Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

Abstract

Access options

References

This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.

Article contents

International Court of Justice: Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

Abstract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests