Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T03:54:41.670Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 January 2010

Eric David
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Of the 51 opinions handed down by the Court of the Hague (28 by the Permanent Court of International Justice and 23 by the International Court of Justice), there is little doubt that the two delivered on 8 July 1996 in response to requests submitted by the WHO World Health Assembly and the United Nations General Assembly will become landmarks in the history of the Court, if not in history itself.

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. 21 - 34
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.)

Footnotes

1

The author of this commentary served as an adviser to the government of the Solomon Islands in connection with the two requests for an opinion; the views expressed here are purely personal and do not necessarily reflect the views of the government of the Solomon Islands.

References

2 International Court of Justice, Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, Opinion of 8 July 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “Opinion”), Dissenting Opinion of Schwebel, p. 1. Since the Opinion has not been published in the Court's Reports at the time of writing, the references relate to either paragraph numbers in the Opinion or page numbers in the statements and separate or dissenting opinions of the judges in the mimeographed edition.

3 Separate Opinion of Guillaume, para. 1.

4 Resolution WHA 46.40 of 14 May 1993.

5 A/Res. 49/75K of 15 December 1994.

6 In favour of legality: see inter alia the written and oral statements of the United States of America, France, the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation. Against legality: see inter alia those of Egypt, India, the Solomon Islands, Malaysia and Nauru.

7 See the written and oral statements by those States and the Court's reply Opinion paras. 10–19.

8 For references to these various arguments, see David, E., Principes de droit des conflits armés, Bruylant, Brussels, 1994, p. 295 ff.Google Scholar

9 International Court of Justice, Legality of the use by a State of nuclear weapons in armed conflict, Opinion of 8 07 1996 (WHO), para. 20 ff.Google Scholar

10 Opinion, paras. 54–57.

11 Ibid., para. 57.

12 Ibid., para. 55 (our emphasis).

13 Ibid.

14 A/Res. 2936 (XXVIII) of 29 November 1972; 33/71 B of 14 December 1978; 35/152 D of 12 December 1980, etc.; more recently, 50/71 E of 12 December 1995.

15 League of Nations, Records of the Conference for the Supervision of the International Trade in Arms and Ammunition and in Implements of War, Geneva, 4 05–17 06 1925.Google Scholar

16 Opinion, para. 55.

17 Ibid., para. 35.

18 Comprehensive study on nuclear weapons, Report of the Secretary-General, UN doc. A/45/373 of 18 09 1990, para. 327.Google Scholar

19 See Chemical and bacteriological (biological) weapons and the effects of their use, Report of the Secretary-General, UN, New York, 1969, pp. 5–6.Google Scholar

20 Written observations on the written statements concerning the WHO's request for an opinion on the legality of the use by a State of nuclear weapons in armed conflict, written observations of the Solomon Islands, 20 June 1995, para. 4.21 (mimeographed).

21 Opinion, p. 58.

22 Lechat, M., Errera, M. and Meessen, A., in “Dangers pour les populations civiles, de la pollution inhérente à l'emploi des armes nucléaires”, Actes de la réunion de l'Académie royale de médecine de Belgique, 25 09 1982 Google Scholar, cited by Andries, A. in “Pour une prise en considération de la compétence des juridictions pénales nationales à l'égard des emplois d'armes nucléaires”, RDPC, 1984, p. 43 Google Scholar. See also: Effects of nuclear war on health and health services, WHO doc. A/36/12, 24 03 1983.Google Scholar

23 Protocol III to the Paris Agreements of 23 October 1954 on Arms Control, Annex II.

24 Opinion, para. 71.

25 Ibid., para. 73.

26 Ibid., Dissenting Opinion of Shahabuddeen, pp. 25–28.

27 Opinion, para. 35.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid., para. 43.

30 Ibid., para. 94; cf. para. 43.

31 Ibid., para. 86.

32 Ibid., para. 87.

33 Ibid., para. 89.

34 Ibid., para. 95.

35 Ibid., para. 96.

36 Ibid.

37 Ibid.

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid., para. 105 E.

40 With the exception of Judges Shi and Ferrari Bravo, all the judges commented on this provision in one way or another: Statements by Bedjaoui, p. 2, Herczegh, p. 1, Vereshchetin, p. 1; Separate Opinions of Guillaume, p. 3, Ranjeva, p. 3, Fleischhauer, p. 3; Dissenting Opinions of Schwebel, p. 8, Oda, p. 37, Shahabuddeen, p. 1, Weeramantry, p. 3, Koroma, p. 1 and Higgins, p. 1.

41 For more substantial developments, see the written observations of the Solomon Islands on the written statements submitted in connection with WHO's request for an advisory opinion, 20 June 1995, paras. 4.67–4.71 (mimeographed).

42 Yearbook of the Institute of International Law, Vol. 50, Part II, 1963, p. 368 Google Scholar; Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Protocol I), Preamble, para. 5, and Article 96, para. 3. See also: Opinion, Separate Opinion of Ranjeva, pp. 6–7, and Dissenting Opinion of Shahabuddeen, p. 30.

43 Opinion, para. 35.

44 Ibid., Dissenting Opinion of Shahabuddeen, p. 34.

45 Opinion, paras. 35 and 89.

46 Permanent Court of International Justice, Lotus, ruling of 7 09 1972 Google Scholar, PCIJ, Series A, No. 9, p. 19.Google Scholar

47 Opinion, paras. 73 and 96.

48 Ibid., Statement by Vereshchetin, p. 1; Dissenting Opinions of Schwebel, p. 8, Shahabuddeen, p. 10 and Higgins, p. 1.

49 International Court of Justice, Namibia, Advisory Opinion of 21 06 1971 Google Scholar, ICJ Reports 1971, p. 23, para. 29.Google Scholar

50 Opinion, para. 18.

51 Opinion, Dissenting Opinions of Shahabuddeen, p. 1 ff., Weeramantry, p. 1 ff. and Koroma, p. 1 ff.

52 Ibid., Dissenting Opinion of Oda, especially paras. 25, 44 and 51.

53 Ibid., Declaration by Bedjaoui, para. 9.

54 Opinion, para. 83.

55 Ibid., para. 79.