Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T04:04:07.597Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2010

Hisakazu Fujita
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The Advisory Opinion handed down by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on 8 July 1996 concerning the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons contains many elements that are of fundamental interest from the standpoint of international humanitarian law. Indeed, humanitarian law, which has developed to a remarkable extent since the Second World War, has always lacked an express ruling on nuclear weapons.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Review of the Red Cross (1961 - 1997) , Volume 37 , Special Issue 316: The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons and international humanitarian law , February 1997 , pp. 56 - 64
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Decisions of the Tokyo District Court, 7 December 1963, in Japanese Yearbook of International Law, No. 8 (1964), pp. 212–251 Google Scholar (English translation). Fujita, H., “Reconsidération de l'affaire Shimoda. Analyse juridique du bombardement atomique de Hiroshima et Nagasaki”, Revue de droit pénal militaire et de droit de la guerre, Vol. XIXX–I–2, pp. 49–120.Google Scholar

2 The United States declared: “It is the understanding of the United States of America that the rules established by this protocol were not intended to have any effect on and do not regulate or prohibit the use of nuclear weapons”. American Journal of International Law, Vol. 72, No. 2, 1978, p. 407 Google Scholar. Great Britain and France issued similar statements. Official Records of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law applicable in Armed Conflicts, Geneva, 1974–1977, Vol. VII Google Scholar, CDDH/SR. 56, para. 3.

3 See Fujita, H., International regulation of the use of nuclear weapons, Kansai University Press, Tokyo, 1988, pp. 161–185.Google Scholar

4 See for example the Declarations of Judges Shi and Ferrari Bravo, and the Dissenting Opinions of Judges Schwebel and Weeramantry.

5 See for example Article 53 of the 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War: “(…) except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations”. See also O'Brien, W.V., “Legitimate military necessity in nuclear war”, World Polity, II (1960), p. 48.Google Scholar

6 International Law Association, Report of the Thirty-eighth Conference (1934), p. 1 Google Scholar ff.; Institute of International Law, Yearbook, 1963–II p. 340 ff. and I, p. 13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See Provisional Report by M. François, ibid., 1957–I, p. 322 ff, p. 393 ff. and Final Report, ibid., p. 491 ff.

7 See Schwarzenberger, G., “Report on self-defense under the Charter of the United Nations and the use of prohibited weapons”, in International Law Association, Report of the Fiftieth Conference, 1963, p. 192 ff.Google Scholar