Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons
1996 International Court of Justice case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons [1996] ICJ 3 is a landmark international law case, where the International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion stating that while the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to international humanitarian law, it cannot be concluded whether or not such a threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful in extreme circumstances where the very survival of a state would be at stake. The Court held that there is no source of international law that explicitly authorises or prohibits the threat or use of nuclear weapons but such threat or use must be in conformity with the UN Charter and principles of international humanitarian law. The Court also concluded that there was a general obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament.[1]
Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict | |
---|---|
Court | International Court of Justice |
Full case name | Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons - Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996 |
Decided | 8 July 1996 (1996-07-08) |
Citation(s) | [1996] ICJ 3, ICJ Reports 1996, p 226; |
Case history | |
Prior action(s) | Denial of initial request for opinion submitted by the WHO [1996] ICJ 2, ICJ Reports 1996, p 66; |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Bedjaoui (President), Schwebel (Vice President), Oda, Guillaume, Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Flesichhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Ferrari Bravo, Higgins |
Case opinions | |
There is no specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons nor is there any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such.
A threat or use of nuclear weapons contrary to the United Nations Charter is unlawful and such a threat or use should be compatible with the requirements of the international law of armed conflicts and nuclear weapons treaties. Therefore, the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to international law applicable to armed conflicts, particularly humanitarian law, however, the Court cannot conclude whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake. There exists an obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. | |
Decision by | Court |
Concur/dissent | Guillaume, Ranjeva, Fleischhauer |
Dissent | Schwebel, Oda, Shahabudeen, Weeramantry, Koroma, Higgins |
Keywords | |
The World Health Organization requested the opinion on 3 September 1993,[2] but it was initially refused because the WHO was acting outside its legal capacity (ultra vires). So the United Nations General Assembly requested another opinion in December 1994,[3] accepted by the Court in January 1995. As well as determining the illegality of nuclear weapon use, the court discussed the proper role of international judicial bodies, the ICJ's advisory function, international humanitarian law (jus in bello), and rules governing the use of force (jus ad bellum). It explored the status of "Lotus approach", and employed the concept of non liquet. There were also strategic questions such as the legality of the practice of nuclear deterrence or the meaning of Article VI of the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
The possibility of threat outlawing use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict was raised on 30 June 1950, by the Dutch representative to the International Law Commission (ILC), Jean Pierre Adrien François [nl], who suggested this "would in itself be an advance".[4] In addition, the Polish government requested this issue to be examined by the ILC as a crime against the peace of mankind.[5] However, the issue was delayed during the Cold War.