Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T15:23:06.375Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The General Assembly's Request for an Advisory Opinion From the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 July 2009

Martin Lailach
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On 15 December 1994, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 49/75K by which it decided:

to request the International Court of Justice urgently to render its advisory opinion on the following question: ‘Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law?’

Keywords

General AssemblyInternational Court of JusticenegotiationsNon-Aligned Countriesnuclear weapons.
Type
Hague International Tribunals International Court of Justice
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , Autumn 1995 , pp. 401 - 429
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 1995

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. UN Doc. A/RES/49/75K (1994).

2. UN Doc. A/C.1/49/PV.15, at 8 (1994).

3. UN Doc. A/C.1/49/PV.24, at 5 (1994).

4. Id., at 10.

5. Id., at 5. Such a no-action motion is admissible according to Rule 116 of the General Assembly's Rules of Procedure which reads as follows:“[d]uring the discussion of any matter, a representative may move the adjournment of the debate on the item under discussion. In addition to the proposer of the motion, two representatives may speak in favour of, and two against, the motion, after which the motion shall be immediately put to the vote.” Reproduced in B. Simma (Ed.), The Charter of the Uniced Nations 1219 (1994).

6. Id.

7. UN Doc. A/C.1/49/PV.24, supra note 3, at 6 (1994).

8. Id., at 7.

9. The composition of the various regional groups is listed in New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, United Nations Handbook 1994, at 18 (1994).

10. Argentina, Japan, Mali, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Morocco, Republic of Korea, Senegal, and Sierra Leone.

11. Iran, Un Doc. A/C.1/49/PV.24, supra note 3, at 9.

12. Mexico, in id.

13. Morocco, in id., n 6; Russian Federation, at 7; France, at 8; United Kingdom, at 9; and Australia, at 14.

14. Morocco, in id., at 6; Russian Federation, at 7; France, at 8; Malta, id.; United Kingdom, at 9;Benin, at 10; Canada, at 14; Australia, id.; and Sweden, id.

15. Morocco, in id., at 5–6; Germany, at 6; United Kingdom, at 9; and Canada, at 14.

16. Germany, in id., at 6; France, at 8; and United Kingdom, id.

17. Malta, in id., at 8; and Benin, at 10.

18. Canada, in id., at 14; Australia, id.; and Sweden, id

19. Russian Federation, in id., at 7; and France, Id.

20. France, in id., at 8; and United Kingdom, at 9.

21. Russian Federation, in id., at 7.

22. Sweden, in id., at 15.

23. Id., at 13.

24. Report of the First Comittee, UN Doc. A/49/699, at 29 (1994).

25. Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Belarus, Canada, Japan, Marshall Islands, Norway, and Ukraine, which had voted in favour of the no-action motion, now abstained; El Salvador and New Zealand abstained on the no-action motionand voted in favour of the draft resolution;and Mali and Sierra Leone voted in favour of both the no-action motion and the draft resolution.

26. See Canada and Australia, supra note 18.

27. Report of the First Committee, supra note 24.

28. UN Doc. A/49/PV.90, at 25 (1194). For the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, See 729 UNTS 161 (1970).

29. The wording is identical to that of Rule 116 of the General Assembly's Rules of Procedure: See note 5, supra.

30. UN Doc. A/49/PV.90, supra note 28, at 27.

31. Id., at 26.

32. Id., at 28.

33. Id.

34. Id., at 28.

35. Malaysia and Iran, Id.

36. United States of America, Id.

37. France, Id.

38. Id.

39. Id., at 29.

40. Id., at 36.

41. Id., at 39.

42. See Section 2.2., supra.

43. Armenia, Australia, Belarus, Bhutan, Cameroon, Canada, Congo, Eritrea, Guatemala, Haiti, Japan, Kazakhstan, Maldives, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, Saudi Arabia, Togo, and Vanuatu.

44. Armenia, Australia, Belarus, Canada, Congo, Eritrea, Gambia, Guatemala, Haiti, Japan, Kazakhstan, Maldives, Marshall Islands, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, San Marino, SaudiArabia, Togo, Ukraine, and Venezuela.

45. With regard to the reasons for these votes, See Section 2.2.3., supra.

46. For the way of voting of the regional groups, See Section 2.1.2., supra.

47. Held in Cairo, June 1994, and New York, October 1995.

48. Malaysia, supra note 28, at 27; and Indonesia, Id.

49. Cambodia, Comoros, Cote ďlvoire, Djibouti, Gabon, and Mauritania.

50. Benin, Cambodia, Comoros, Djibouti, Eritrea, Gabon, Mauritania, Togo, and Vanuatu.

51. Marshall Islands and San Marino.

52. Chile, Guinea, Maldives, Swaziland, and Trinidad and Tobago.

53. Argentina.

54. Antigua and Barbuda, Mali, Marshall Islands, San Marino, Sierra Leone, and Ukraine.

55. Bhutan, Cameroon, Chile, Cote ďlvoire, Guinea, Haiti, Maldives, Peru, Saudi Arabia, and Swaziland.

56. Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, Order, 1993 ICJ Rep. 468.

57. Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict, Order, 1994 ICJ Rep. 109.

58. Constitution of the World Health Organization, 14 UNTS 185.

59. UN Doc. A/RES/348(IV) (1947).

60. See Malaysia, supra note 28, at 27.

61. G. Fitzmaurice, The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice 115 (1986); K.J. Keith, The Extent of the Advisory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice 127(1971);and Sh. Rosenne, The Law and Practice of the International Court 715 (1965).

62. Fitzmaurice, supra note 61, at 565.

63. Interpretation of Peace Treaties, Advisory Opinion, 1950 ICJ Rep. 71.

64. Judgments of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Labour Organization, Advisory Opinion, 1956 ICJ Rep. 86.

65. Id.

66. Id.

67. Fitzmaurice, supra note 61, at 565.

68. Id., at 122.

69. Morocco, UN Doc. A/C.1/49/PV.24, supra note 3, at 5; and Canada, at 14.

70. France, UN Doc. A/49/PV.90, supra note 28, at 25; Germany, at 26; and Hungary, id. Morocco, UN Doc. A/C.1/49/PV.24, supra note 3, at 6; and United Kingdom, at 8.

71. See Section 3.3., infra.

72. See the preambular para, of Resolution 49/75K, supra note 1.

73. See Id., third preambular para.

74. Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) Notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion,1970 ICJ Rep. 16, at 23.

75. Rule 103 of the Rules of Court reads as follows: “[w]hen the body authorized by or in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to request an advisory opinion informs the Court that its request necessitates an urgent answer, or the Court finds that an early answer would be desirable, the Court shall take all necessary steps to accelerate the procedure, and it shall convene as early as possible for the purpose of proceeding to a hearing and deliberation on the request.” Reproduced in Sh. Rosenne, Documents on the International Court of Justice 271 (1979).

76. Rule 82 of the 1946 Rules of Court reads as fellows: “[i]f the Court is of the opinion that a request for an advisory opinion necessitates an early answer, it shall take the necessary steps to accelerate the procedure.” Reproduced in Rosenne, supra note 75, at 201.

77. With regard to Rule 87 of the 1972 Rules of Court which is, in this respect, identical with Rule 103 of the 1978 Rules of Court, See G. Guyomar, Commentaire du Reglement de la Cour Internationale de Justice 468 (1973).

78. UN Doc. A/RES/42/229B (1988).

79. For a summary of the history of this dispute, See Lee, R.S., A Case for Facilitation in the Settlement of Disputes, 34 GYIL 155 (1991).Google Scholar

80. Applicability of the Obligation to Arbitrate Under Section 21 of the United Nations Headquarters Agreement of 26 June 1947 (hereinafter PLO case), Order, 1988 ICJ Rep. 5.

81. Id., at 12.

82. ECOSOC Res. 1989/75, UN Doc E/1989/89 (1989).

83. Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, Order, 1989 ICJ Rep. 10.

84. ICJ Pleadings, Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, at 229 (1989).

85. Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, 1989 ICJ Rep. 177.

86. Hungary, UN Doc. A/49/PV.90, supra note 28, at 26.

87. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Order, 1995 ICJ Rep. 4.

88. See Section 3.3., supra.

89. Id.

90. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, supra note 87.

91. Hungary, UN Doc. A/49/PV.90, supra note 90, at 26.

92. France, in Id., at 25 and UN Doc. A/C.1/49/PV.24, supra note 3, at 8; Hungary, UN Doc.A/49/PV.90, supra note 28, at 26; Morocco, UN Doc. A/C.1/49/PV.24, supra note 3, at 6;Russian Federation, at 7; United Kingdom, at 9; and Australia, at 14.

93. France, UN Doc. A/49/PV.90, supra note 28, at 25.

94. T.O. Elias, The International Court of Justice and Some Contemporary Problems 27 (1983);and H. Mosler, Article 96, in Simma (Ed.), supra note 5, at 1013.

95. Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, Paragraph 2, of the Charter), Advisory Opinion, 1962 ICJ Rep. 155.

96. Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter), Advisory Opinion, 1948 ICJ Rep. 57.

97. See, e.g., Competence of Assembly Regarding Admission to the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, 1950 ICJ Rep. 6; and Certain Expenses of the United Nations, supra note 95.

98. Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations, supra note 96, at 61;and P. Daillier, Article 96, in J.-P. Cot & A. Pellet (Eds.), La Charte des Nations Unies 1286 (1985).

99. Fitzmaurice, supra note 61, at 122.

100. Id., at 574.

101. Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations, supra note 96, at 61;Mosler, supra note 94, at 1013.

102. Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, Advisory Opinion, 1951 ICJ Rep. 21.

103. Keith, supra note 61, at 62.

104. Fitzmaurice, supra note 61, at 575.

105. United Kingdom, UN Doc. A/C.1/49/PV.24, supra note 3, at 9.

106. Benin, in Id., at 10.

107. Keith, supra note 61, at 65; and Daillier, supra note 98, at 1288.

108. Daillier, supra note 98, at 1286.

109. Id., at 1287; and Mosler, supra note 94, at 1011.

110. Interpretation of Peace Treaties, supra note 63; Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, supra note 85, at 188.

111. Application for Review of Judgement No. 273 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion, 1982 ICJ Rep. 347.

112. K. Hailbronner & E. Klein, Article 11, in Simma (Ed.), supra note 5, at 245.

113. Id., at 243.

114. Id., at 245.

115. For a list of such resolutions, See Resolution 49/75K, supra note 1, third preambular para.

116. Rosenne, supra note 61, at 708.

117. Certain Expenses of the United Nations, supra note 95; and Mosler, supra note 94, at 1013.

118. See Section 3.1., supra.

119. Interpretation of Peace Treaties, supra note 63.

120. Application for Review of Judgement No. 273 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal,supra note 111.

121. Interpretation of Peace Treaties, supra note 63.

122. Id.; and Applicability of Article VI, Section 22, of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations, supra note 85, at 188.

123. Western Sahara, Advisory Opinion, 1975 ICJ Rep. 25.

124. Request for an Advisory Opinion Concerning the Status of Eastern Carelia, Advisory Opinion,1923 PCIJ Collection of Advisory Opinions (Ser. B) No. 5, at 6; for a brief summary, SeeFitzmaurice, supra note 61, at 120.

125. Fitzmaurice, supra note 61, at 566.

126. Id., at 115.

127. Keith, supra note 61, at 111.

128. Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia, supra note 74, at 24.

129. Reservations to the Convention on Genocide, supra note 102, at 27; and Western Sahara, supra note 123, at 27.

130. For relevant resolutions, See note 115, supra.

131. Iran, UN Doc. A/C.1/49/PV.24, supra note 3, at 9; and Mexico, id.

132. A. Lewin, Article 18, in Cot & Pellet (Eds.), supra note 98, at 395.

133. R. Wolfrum, Article 18, in Simma (Ed.), supra note 5, at 320.

134. Lewin, supra note 132.

135. Wolfrum, supra note 133, at 324.

136. Lewin, supra note 132, at 394.

137. Rule 86 of the General Assembly's Rules of Procedure reads as follows: “[f]or the purposes of these rules, the phrase ‘members present and voting’; means members casting an affirmative or negative vote. Members which abstain from voting are considered as not voting.” Reproduced in Simma, supra note 5, at 1215. With a view to interpreting the same phrase in Art. 18 of the Charter, this definition applies as well; See L.M. Goodrich, E. Hambro & A.P. Simons, Charter of the United Nations 171 (1969); Lewin, supra note 132, at 394; and Wolfrum, supra note 133, at 321.