Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-01T13:27:19.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

India’s nuclear force doctrine: Through the lens of jus ad bellum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2019

Isha Jain  and
Bhavesh Seth
Isha Jain*
Affiliation:
B.A. LL.B. (Hons.), National Law School of India University, Bangalore
Bhavesh Seth
Affiliation:
B.A. LL.B. (Hons.) student, National Law School of India University, Bangalore
*
*Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Nearly three decades after the Cold War, the present-day hostilities between India and Pakistan have shifted the focus of the threat of nuclear escalation to South Asia. It is in this context that this article seeks to assess the legality of India’s military nuclear doctrine under international law.

Academic literature on the use of nuclear weapons has largely shied away from discussing the legality of specific military doctrines or ‘policies of deterrence’ of the nuclear weapon states, treating them as issues of military strategy that are beyond the realm of international law. This article hopes to challenge that dichotomy.

Though several branches of international law are relevant to any discussion on nuclear weapons, this article shall only examine India’s nuclear doctrine through the lens of jus ad bellum. Specifically, this article shall focus on whether India’s nuclear doctrine constitutes a threat to use force, and if so, whether such threat is lawful. The article concludes that India’s nuclear doctrine can be construed to be a specific threat to use force against Pakistan, and that such threat may be unlawful for contemplating the disproportionate use of force.

Keywords

Indiajus ad bellummilitary policynuclear weaponsPakistan
Type
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 32 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 111 - 130
Copyright
© Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2018 

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 This article shall use the term ‘nuclear weapon states’ loosely, to refer both to the nuclear weapons states that are parties to the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons as well as the de facto nuclear weapon states (those known, or widely believed, to be possessing nuclear weapons).

2 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, [1996] ICJ Rep. 226, at 541 (Judge Weeramantry, Dissenting Opinion).

3 Ministry of National Defense (China), Press Release, ‘China’s Military Strategy’, 26 May 2015, available at eng.mod.gov.cn/Press/2015-05/26/content_4586805.htm.

4 Heginbotham, E. et al., China’s Evolving Nuclear Deterrent: Major Drivers and Issues for the United States (2017), at 17CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 ‘China Reiterates Non-First-Use Principle of Nuclear Weapons’, Xinhua, 18 February 2018, available at www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-02/18/c_136982260.htm.

6 Chinese Academy of Military Sciences, The Science of Military Strategy (2013); Kulacki, G., ‘The Chinese Military Updates China’s Nuclear Strategy’, Union of Concerned Scientists, March 2005, available at ucsusa.org/ChinaNuclearStrategyGoogle Scholar.

7 T. Zhao, ‘Strategic Warning and China’s Nuclear Posture’, The Diplomat, 28 May 2015, available at thediplomat.com/2015/05/strategic-warning-and-chinas-nuclear-posture/.

8 Chinese Academy of Military Sciences, supra note 6, at 19.

9 R. Kazi, ‘Article No 2361 Pakistan’s Nuclear Doctrine and Strategy’, Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, 23 August 2007, available at www.ipcs.org/comm_select.php?articleNo=2361.

10 National Defence College (Pakistan), Nawaz Sharif, Prime Minister of Pakistan, Remarks of the Prime Minister of Pakistan on Nuclear Policies and the CTBT, 20 May 1999, cited in Chakma, B., Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons (2009), 48Google Scholar.

11 ‘Pakistan Says Indian Nuclear Plan Threatens Global Stability’, The News, 26 August 1999.

12 Narang, V., Nuclear Strategy in the Modern Era Regional Powers and International Conflict (2014), at 56Google Scholar.

13 K. Iqbal, ‘India and Pakistan’s Nuclear Doctrines and Posture: A Comparative Analysis’, Criterion Quarterly, 9 September 2016, available at www.criterion-quarterly.com/india-and-pakistans-nuclear-doctrines-and-posture-a-comparative-analysis/; A. Sultan, ‘NCA’s full spectrum response’, Express Tribune, 7 November 2013, available at tribune.com.pk/story/628052/ncas-full-spectrum-response/; Parliament of India, Lok Sabha, Unstarred Question No. 974 No First Use of Nuclear Weapons, 6 March 2002, available at www.mea.gov.in/lok-sabha.htm?dtl/13333/q+0974no+first+use+of+nuclear+weapons; Parliament of India, Lok Sabha, Unstarred Question No. 1997, Declaration on ‘No First Use’ of Nuclear Weapons, 21 March 2002, available at www.mea.gov.in/rajya-sabha.htm?dtl/9808/q+1997++declaration+on+no+first+use+of+nuclear+weapons.

14 K. Gannon, ‘Pakistan Warns India of Retaliation’, AP NEWS, 28 May 1998, available at www.apnews.com/8865892b258367a976e9004d5c4fd605; President General Pervez Musharraf (Pakistan), President Address to the Nation, BBC, 27 May 2002, available at news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/monitoring/media_reports/2011509.stm.

15 US Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review Report, February 2018, available at media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872886/-1/-1/1/2018-NUCLEAR-POSTURE-REVIEW-FINAL-REPORT.PDF.

16 Ibid., at 20.

17 Ibid., at 21.

18 Ibid., at 20.

19 Ibid., at 54.

20 US Department of Defense, Summary of the 2018 National Defense Strategy of the United States of America, January 2018, available at dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2018-National-Defense-Strategy-Summary.pdf.

21 US Department of Defense, National Security Strategy of the United States of America, December 2017, available at www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/NSS-Final-12-18-2017-0905.pdf.

22 Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, Comment by the Information and Press Department on the new US Nuclear Posture Review, 3 February 2018, available at www.mid.ru/en/diverse/-/asset_publisher/zwI2FuDbhJx9/content/kommentarij-departamenta-informacii-i-pecati-mid-rossii-v-svazi-s-publikaciej-novoj-adernoj-doktriny-ssa.

23 R. Merrick, ‘Theresa May Would Fire UK’s Nuclear Weapons as a “First Strike”, says Defence Secretary Michael Fallon’, Independent, 24 April 2017, available at www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-nuclear-weapons-first-strike-michael-fallon-general-election-jeremy-corbyn-trident-a7698621.html.

24 Prime Minister’s Office (UK), National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review, November 2015, para. 4.68, available at assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/478933/52309_Cm_9161_NSS_SD_Review_web_only.pdf.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid., para. 4.69.

27 de Champchesnel, T., ‘The United States, France, and Nuclear Deterrence post NPR’, European Leadership Network, 19 March 2018, available at www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/commentary/the-united-states-france-and-nuclear-deterrence-post-npr/Google Scholar.

28 Ministry of the Armed Forces (France), Defence and National Security Strategic Review, 2017, at 6, available at www.defense.gouv.fr/layout/set/popup/content/download/520198/8733095/version/2/file/DEFENCE+AND+NATIONAL+SECURITY+STRATEGIC+REVIEW+2017.pdf.

29 Ministry of the Armed Forces (France), French White Paper on Defence and National Security, 2013, at 127, available at www.defense.gouv.fr/.../White%20paper%20on%20defense%20%202013.pdf.

30 Ibid.

31 ‘France “Would Use Nuclear Arms”’, BBC, 19 January 2006, available at news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4627862.stm.

32 Ministry of the Armed Forces (France), Strategic Review, supra note 28, at 52.

33 Schneider, M., ‘Escalate to De-escalate’, (2017) 143(2) Proceedings Magazine 1368Google Scholar; US House of Representatives, Robert Work and James Winnefeld, Testimony before the Committee on Armed Services, 25 June 2015, available at docs.house.gov/meetings/AS/AS00/20150625/103669/HHRG-114-AS00-Wstate-WinnefeldJrUSNJ-20150625.pdf.

34 US Department of Defense, Nuclear Posture Review Report, supra note 15; Prime Minister’s Office (UK), National Security Strategy 2015, supra note 24, para. 3.20.

35 European Parliament, Directorate-General for External Policies, Policy Department, ‘Russia’s National Security Strategy and Military Doctrine and Their Implications for the EU’, January 2017, at 15, available at www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2017/578016/EXPO_IDA%282017%29578016_EN.pdf.

36 ‘Russia to Broaden Nuclear Strike Options’, RT, 14 October 2009, available at www.rt.com/news/russia-broaden-nuclear-strike/.

37 Sokov, N.N., ‘Why Russia calls its limited nuclear strike “de-escalation”’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 13 March 2014, available at thebulletin.org/2014/03/why-russia-calls-a-limited-nuclear-strike-de-escalation/Google Scholar.

38 Ibid.; J. Stowell, ‘The Problem with Russia’s Nuclear Weapons Doctrine’, 20 August 2018, Global Security Review, available at globalsecurityreview.com/nuclear-de-escalation-russias-deterrence-strategy/.

39 President of the Russian Federation, Presidential Address to the Russian Federal Assembly, 1 March 2008, available at en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/56957.

40 K. Ven Bruusgaard, ‘The Myth of Russia’s Lowered Nuclear Threshold’, War on the Rocks, 22 September 2017, available at warontherocks.com/2017/09/the-myth-of-russias-lowered-nuclear-threshold/.

41 President of the Russian Federation, Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, 2014, para. 27, available at www.offiziere.ch/wp-content/uploads-001/2015/08/Russia-s-2014-Military-Doctrine.pdf.

42 O. Oliker and A. Baklitskiy, ‘The Nuclear Posture Review and Russian “de-escalation” – A Dangerous solution to a non-existent problem’, War on the Rocks, 20 February 2018, available at warontherocks.com/2018/02/nuclear-posture-review-russian-de-escalation-dangerous-solution-nonexistent-problem/.

43 M. Kofman, ‘What Actually Happened During Zapad 2017’, ERR News, 23 December 2017, available at news.err.ee/650543/michael-kofman-what-actually-happened-during-zapad-2017.

44 O. Oliker, ‘Russia’s Nuclear Doctrine – What we know, what we don’t, and what that means?’, Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2 May 2016, available at www.csis.org/analysis/russia%E2%80%99s-nuclear-doctrine.

45 President of the Russian Federation, Presidential Address, supra note 39.

46 M. Kroenig, ‘The Renewed Russian Nuclear Threat and NATO Nuclear Deterrence Posture’, Atlantic Council, 1 February 2016, at 2, available at www.jstor.org/stable/resrep03450?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents; Oliker, supra note 44.

47 S. Loiko, ‘Russia Says It Has a Right to Put Nuclear Weapons in Crimea’, Los Angeles Times, 15 September 2014, available at www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-russia-nuclear-crimea-20141215-story.html; B. Waterfield, ‘Russia Threatens NATO with Military Strikes over Missile Defence System’, Telegraph, 3 May 2012, available at www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/9243954/Russia-threatens-Nato-with-military-strikes-over-missile-defence-system.html.

48 S. Smith, ‘North Korea’s Evolving Nuclear Strategy’, US-Korea Institute at SAIS, August 2015, available at www.38north.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/NKNF_Evolving-Nuclear-Strategy_Smith.pdf.

49 ‘Law on Consolidating Position of Nuclear Weapons State Adopted’, Korean Central News Agency, 1 April 2013, available at kcnawatch.co/newstream/1451896124-739013370/law-on-consolidating-position-of-nuclear-weapons-state-adopted/.

50 White House, Joint Statement of President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea at the Singapore Summit, 12 June 2018, available at www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/joint-statement-president-donald-j-trump-united-states-america-chairman-kim-jong-un-democratic-peoples-republic-korea-singapore-summit/.

51 B. Barrett, ‘All the Times North Korea Promised to Denuclearize’, Wired.com, 12 June 2018, available at www.wired.com/story/north-korea-summit-denuclearize-history/.

52 UN Security Council, Statement by the President of the Security Council, UN Doc. S/PRST/2009/7, available at undocs.org/S/PRST/2009/7.

53 ‘North Korea Conducts Nuclear Test’, BBC, 25 May 2009, available at news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8066615.stm.

54 A. Quinn, ‘North Korea Agrees to Nuclear Moratorium’, Reuters, 29 February 2012, available at www.reuters.com/article/us-korea-north-usa-talks/north-korea-agrees-to-nuclear-moratorium-iaea-inspections-idUSTRE81S13R20120229.

55 ‘North Korea Confirms “Successful” Nuclear Test’, Telegraph, 12 February 2013, available at www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/9864069/North-Korea-confirms-successful-nuclear-test.html.

56 J. Borger, ‘North Korea Accuses US of “Gangster-Like” Behavior After Pompeo Talks’, Guardian, 8 July 2018, available at www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jul/07/north-korea-calls-us-denuclearisation-talks-regrettable.

57 J. Borger, ‘The Truth About Israel’s Secret Nuclear Arsenal’, Guardian, 15 January 2014, available at www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jan/15/truth-israels-secret-nuclear-arsenal; United States Department of State, Office of the Historian, Bureau of Public Affairs. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968 (2001), vol. XX Arab-Israeli Dispute, 1967–1968, Document 349.

58 L.R. Beres, ‘Between Pyongyang, Washington and Jerusalem: Intersecting Nuclear Nightmares’ IsraelDefense, 13 August 2017, available at www.israeldefense.co.il/en/node/30692.

59 Prime Minister’s Office (India), Press Release, Cabinet Committee on Security Reviews Progress in Operationalizing India’s Nuclear Doctrine, 4 January 2003, available at www.mea.gov.in/press-releases.htm?dtl/20131/The+Cabinet+Committee.

60 Salman Khurshid, Minister of External Affairs of India, Statement: High Level Meeting of the General Assembly on Nuclear Disarmament, the 68th United Nations General Assembly, New York, 26 September 2013; ‘India ready for nuclear no-first-use agreements’, Times of India, 22 October 2014, available at timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-ready-for-nuclear-no-first-use-agreements/articleshow/44906401.cms.

61 ‘India Should Not Bind Itself to a No-First-Use Nuclear Policy, Says Manohar Parrikar’, Scroll.in, 10 November 2016, available at www.scroll.in/latest/821251/india-should-not-bind-itself-to-a-no-first-use-nuclear-policy-says-manohar-parrikar; V. Som, ‘Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar’s Nuclear Remark Stressed as “Personal Opinion”’, NDTV, 10 November 2016, available at www.ndtv.com/india-news/defence-minister-manohar-parrikars-nuclear-remark-stressed-as-personal-opinion-1623952.

62 Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Speech by NSA Shri Shivshankar Menon at NDC on The Role of Force in Strategic Affairs, 21 October 2010, available at www.mea.gov.in/Speeches-Statements.htm?dtl/798/Speech.

63 Menon, S., Choices: Inside the Making of India’s Foreign Policy (2016)Google Scholar.

64 Nagal, Lt. Gen. B., ‘India’s Nuclear Strategy to Deter: Massive Retaliation to Cause Unacceptable Damage’, Winter 2015 CLAWS Journal 1, at 2Google Scholar.

65 Tkacik, M., ‘India Nuclear Weapons: No First Use or No First Disclosure?’, (2017) 17 Defence Studies 84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

66 F.-S. Gady, ‘India Tests Most Advanced Nuclear-Capable ICBM’, The Diplomat, 18 January 2018, available at thediplomat.com/2018/01/india-tests-most-advanced-nuclear-capable-icbm/.

67 Ministry of Defence (India), Press Release, Successful Fifth Flight Test of Agni-5 Ballistic Missile, New Delhi, 18 January 2018, available at pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=175717.

68 Narang, V., Nuclear Strategy in the Modern Era: Regional Powers and International Conflict (2014), 103Google Scholar; S. Aroor, ‘New Chief of India’s Military Research Complex Reveals Brave New Mandate’, India Today, 3 July 2013, available at www.indiatoday.in/india/story/indias-nuclear-counterstrike-response-time-to-be-in-minutes-drdo-chief-169019-2013-07-03.

69 Tkacik, supra note 65, at 7.

70 Kristensen, H. and Norris, R., ‘Indian Nuclear Forces’, (2017) 73(4) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, at 205CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

71 Sundaram, K. and Ramana, M.V., ‘India and the Policy of No First Use of Nuclear Weapons’, (2018) 1 Journal for Peace and Nuclear Disarmament 152, at 162CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Narang, supra note 68, at 100.

72 UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/RES/984 (1995), para. 1.

73 H.M. Kristensen and R.S. Norris, ‘Status of World Nuclear Forces 2017’, Federation of American Scientists, June 2018, available at fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces/, with the caveat ‘the information available for each country varies greatly, ranging from the most transparent nuclear weapons state (United States) to the most opaque (Israel). Accordingly, while the estimate for the United States is based on “real” numbers, the estimates for several of the other nuclear weapon states are highly uncertain’.

74 Greenwood, C., ‘Self-Defence’, in Wolfrum, R. (ed.), Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (2011), para. 7Google Scholar.

75 Gray, C., International Law and the Use of Force (2004), 95Google Scholar.

76 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment of 27 June 1986, [1996] ICJ Rep. 14, at 102.

77 Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, [1996] ICJ Rep. 226, at 263, para. 97.

78 Ibid., at 244, para. 39.

79 2017, Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, CN.475.2017.TREATIES-XXVI-9 (opened for signature 20 September 2017), Art. 1, available at undocs.org/A/CONF.229/2017/8.

80 Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Response by the Official Spokesperson to a media query regarding India's view on the Treaty to ban nuclear weapons, 18 July 2017; ‘UN adopts global treaty banning N-weapons; India skips talks’, Hindu, 8 July 2017, available at www.thehindu.com/news/international/un-adopts-global-treaty-banning-n-weapons-india-skips-talks/article19239800.ece.

81 North Sea Continental Shelf (Germany v. Denmark, Germany v. Netherlands), Merits, Judgment of 20 February 1969, [1969] ICJ Rep. 3, at 42–3, paras. 3–4; ‘Statement of Principles Applicable to the Formation of General Customary International Law, Report of the 69th Conference’, 2000, at 20, International Law Association, available at www.law.umich.edu/facultyhome/drwcasebook/Documents/Documents/ILA%20Report%20on%20Formation%20of%20Customary%20International%20Law.pdf.

82 North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Press Release, North Atlantic Council Statement on the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, 20 September 2017, available at www.nato.int/cps/ua/natohq/news_146954.htm; ‘US Leads Boycott of UN Talks on Nuclear Weapons Ban’, Al Jazeera, 28 March 2017, available at www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/03/leads-boycott-talks-nuclear-weapons-ban-170327191952287.html.

83 United States Mission to the United Nations, Permanent Representatives to the United Nations of the United States, United Kingdom, and France, Joint Press Statement following the adoption of a Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons, 7 July 2017, available at usun.state.gov/remarks/7892; ‘Nuclear Ban Treaty Doesn’t Contribute to Customary International Law: India’, The Wire, 18 July 2017 available at www.thewire.in/159057/nuclear-ban-treaty-customary-law/?mkt_tok=.

84 See Roscini, M., ‘Threats of Armed Force and Contemporary International Law’, (2007) 54 Netherlands International Law Review 229, at 243–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

85 Brownlie, I., International Law and the Use of Force by States (1963), 364CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

86 Hayashi, N., ‘Legality of Nuclear Weapons under Jus ad Bellum’, in Nystuen, G., Casey-Maslen, S. and Bersagel, A. Golden (eds.), Nuclear Weapons under International Law (2014), 31, at 51CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 Grimal, F., ‘Jus ad Bellum: Nuclear Weapons and the Inherent Right of Self-Defence’, in Black-Branch, J.L. and Fleck, D. (eds.), Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law Volume II: Verification and Compliance (2015), 337, at 347Google Scholar.

88 Stürchler, N., The Threat of Force in International Law (2007), 259CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, [1996] ICJ Rep. 311, para. 92 (Vice-President Schwebel, Dissenting Opinion); Government of Solomon Islands, Written Observations submitted by the Government of the Solomon Islands to the International Court of Justice, 19 June 1995, at 24, available at www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/95/8724.pdf.

89 Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, supra note 77, at 246, para. 47.

90 Hayashi, supra note 86, at 53.

91 Sadurska, R., ‘Threats of Force’, (1988) 2 The American Journal of International Law 239, at 242CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

92 Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Draft Report of National Security Advisory Board on Indian Nuclear Doctrine, 17 August 1999, para. 2.3(b), available at mea.gov.in/in-focus-article.htm?18916/Draft+Report+of+National+Security+Advisory+Board+on+Indian+Nuclear+Doctrine.

93 Prime Minister’s Office (India), 2003 Nuclear Doctrine, supra note 59, para. III.

94 Interview of External Affairs Minister Shri Yashwant Sinha with Rediff.Com, Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, 4 June 2003, available at www.mea.gov.in/interviews.htm?dtl/4698/interview+of+external+affairs+minister+shri+yashwant+sinha+with+rediffcom.

95 S. Saran, ‘Is India’s Nuclear Deterrent Credible?’, 24 April 2013, India Habitat Centre, New Delhi, available at www.armscontrolwonk.com/files/2013/05/Final-Is-Indias-Nuclear-Deterrent-Credible-rev1-2-1-3.pdf.

96 Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion (Vice-President Schwebel, Dissenting Opinion), supra note 77, para. 90.

97 Hayashi, supra note 86, at 52; See Korb, L.J. and Rothman, A., ‘No first use: The way to contain nuclear war in South Asia’, (2012) 68(20) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, at 34CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ghoshal, D., ‘India’s recessed deterrence posture: prospects and implications’, (2016) 39 The Washington Quarterly 159CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Shankar, M. and Paul, T.V., ‘Nuclear doctrines and stable strategic relationships: the case of South Asia’, (2016) 92 International Affairs 1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ahmed, A., ‘Furthering “No First Use” in India-Pakistan Context’, (2009) 3 Journal of Defence Studies 117Google Scholar; Lange, K., ‘India and Pakistan: Some crude thoughts on the complex nuclear problem’, (2014) 27(1) Indian Journal of Asian Affairs (2014) 82Google Scholar.

98 Parliament of India, Lok Sabha, Unstarred Question No. 5318 Nuclear Doctrine, 9 May 2012, available at www.mea.gov.in/lok-sabha.htm?dtl/19823/q5318+nuclear+doctring; Parliament of India, Unstarred Question No. 974, supra note 13; Parliament of India, Unstarred Question No. 1997, supra note 13.

99 Korb and Rothman, supra note 97, at 36; T. Dalton and G. Perkovich, ‘India’s Nuclear Options and Escalation Dominance’, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, May 2016, at 10, available at carnegieendowment.org/files/CP_273_India_Nuclear_Final.pdf.

100 Government of India, Ministry of External Affairs, Transcript of Weekly Media Briefing by Official Spokesperson, 22 September 2016, available at www.mea.gov.in/media-briefings.htm?dtl/27434/transcript+of+weekly+media+briefing+by+official+spokesperson+september+22+2016.

101 Parliament of India, Rajya Sabha, Unstarred Question No. 173 Isolation of Pakistan due to its alleged support to terror elements, 17 November 2016, available at www.mea.gov.in/rajya-sabha.htm?dtl/27634/question+no173+isolation+of+pakistan+due+to+its+alleged+support+to+terror+elements; F. Bukhari, ‘India blames Pakistan as Kashmir attack kills 17 soldiers’, Reuters, 18 September 2016, available at in.reuters.com/article/india-kashmir/india-blames-pakistan-as-kashmir-attack-kills-17-soldiers-idINKCN11O04F.

102 F. Bukhari, ‘Indian soldiers kill suspected militants in clashes at Kashmir frontier’, Reuters, 20 September 2016, available at in.reuters.com/article/india-kashmir-uri/indian-soldiers-kill-suspected-militants-in-clashes-at-kashmir-frontier-idINKCN11Q1HD.

103 F. Bukhari, ‘Two militants, 8 policemen killed in 2017's deadliest Kashmir attack’, Reuters, 26 August 2016, available at in.reuters.com/article/india-kashmir-militants/two-militants-8-policemen-killed-in-2017s-deadliest-kashmir-attack-idINKCN1B60DN; Parliament of India, Lok Sabha, Unstarred Question No. 4422 Issue of Demarche, 14 December 2016, available at www.mea.gov.in/lok-sabha.htm?dtl/27830/question+no4466+issue+of+demarche.

104 S. Unnithan, ‘We will cross again’, India Today, 4 January 2017, available at www.indiatoday.intoday.in/story/lt-general-bipin-rawat-surgical-strikes-indian-army/1/849662.html.

105 A. Kliegman, ‘The World’s Most Dangerous Arms Race Is Escalating—Rapidly’, Free Beacon, 31 January 2017, available at freebeacon.com/blog/worlds-dangerous-arms-race-escalating-rapidly/; A. Panda, ‘Pakistan Pledges a Hot Finish for “Cold Start”’, The Diplomat, 22 January 2017 available at thediplomat.com/2017/01/pakistan-pledges-a-hot-finish-for-cold-start/.

106 ‘India-Pakistan cross-border shelling hits Kashmir’, Al Jazeera, 23 May 2018, available at www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/05/india-pakistan-shelling-kashmir-continues-unabated-180523142813165.html.

107 ‘India should be ready for years of low intensity conflict with Pakistan: Rajyavardhan Singh Rathore’, India Today, 26 May 2018, available at www.indiatoday.in/india/story/-india-should-be-ready-for-years-of-low-intensity-conflict-with-pakistan-rajyavardhan-singh-rathore-1242483-2018-05-26.

108 See Roscini, supra note 84, at 242, observing that ‘the Greek Prime Minister’s declaration of 27 March 1987 according to which the Greek armed forces could “teach the Turks a very hard lesson” if Turkey continued with her “aggressive acts” assumed a threatening character if seen in the context of the escalation of the crisis in the Aegean Sea’ (emphasis added).

109 Myers, M.A., ‘Deterrence and the Threat of Force Ban: Does the UN Charter Prohibit Some Military Exercises?’ (1999) 162 Military Law Review 132, at 142Google Scholar.

110 Hayashi, supra note 86, at 54–5.

111 Stürchler, supra note 88, at 159.

112 Quinlan, M., Thinking About Nuclear Weapons: Principles, Problems, Prospects (2009), at 138–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

113 Saran, supra note 95, at 16.

114 Brownlie, supra note 85.

115 Ibid.

116 Stürchler, supra note 88, at 39.

117 Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, supra note 77, at 246–7, paras. 47–9.

118 Sadurska, supra note 91, at 267.

119 Hayashi, supra note 86, at 56.

120 Shaw, M., International Law (2018), 868Google Scholar; Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, supra note 77, at 245, para. 41: ‘The submission of the exercise of the right of self-defence to the conditions of necessity and proportionality is a rule of customary international law.’

121 Nicaragua Judgment, supra note 76, at 55, para. 95. Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Counter-claims, Judgment of 6 November 2003, [2003] ICJ Rep. 161, at 191–2, para. 64; Eritrea–Ethiopia Claims Commission, Partial Award: Jus Ad Bellum Ethiopia’s Claims 1–8, 19 December 2005, paras. 1–12, available at legal.un.org/riaa/cases/vol_XXVI/457-469.pdf; Kretzmer, D., ‘The Inherent Right to Self-Defence and Proportionality in Jus ad Bellum’, (2013) 24 European Journal of International Law 235, at 242CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

122 Greenwood, supra note 74, para. 12.

123 See Deeks, A.S., ‘Taming the Doctrine of Pre-Emption’, in Weller, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (2015)Google Scholar.

124 Shaw, supra note 120, at 867.

125 The Caroline incident, in which Britain destroyed a ship in US territory in anticipation of an imminent attack to be carried out by that ship, is often cited as an instance of anticipatory self-defence that was accepted as lawful by the international community. The international military tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo cited the Caroline test, which further indicates that the right of anticipatory self-defence existed pre-Charter. Even post-Charter, a number of states have sought to justify their use of force on the grounds of anticipatory self-defence and several UN reports support this approach.

126 Brownlie, I., Principles of Public International Law (2012), 750–2Google Scholar.

127 See Bowett, D.W., ‘The Use of Force for the Protection of Nationals Abroad’, in Cassese, A. (ed.), The Current Legal Regulation of the Use of Force (1979), 39, at 40Google Scholar; Dinstein, Y., War, Aggression and Self-Defence (2011), at 191CrossRefGoogle Scholar: ‘It would be absurd to require that the defending State should sustain and absorb a devastating (perhaps a fatal) blow, only to prove the immaculate conception of self-defense.’; Greenwood, C., ‘International Law and the Pre-Emptive Use of Force: Afghanistan, Al Qaida, and Iraq’, (2003) 4 San Diego International Law Journal 7, at 14–15Google Scholar (listing Franck, Waldock, Fitzmaurice, Bowett, Schwebel, Jennings, Watts, and Higgins as supporting anticipatory self-defence).

128 Rajagopalan, R., ‘India’s Nuclear Policy’, in Boei, B. (ed.), Major Powers Nuclear Policies and International Order in the 21st Century (2009), 95, at 102Google Scholar.

129 Prime Minister’s Office (India), 2003 Nuclear Doctrine, supra note 59, para. III.

130 Saran, supra note 95, at 16.

131 Ibid., at 7.

132 Gray, supra note 75, at 150; Cheng, B., General Principles of Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals (1953), 95Google Scholar; Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, Judgment of June 27 1986, [1996] ICJ Rep. 14, at 363 (Judge Schwebel, Dissenting Opinion).

133 Green, J., The International Court of Justice and Self-Defence in International Law (2009), 84Google Scholar; Dinstein, supra note 127, at 262.

134 Hayashi, supra note 86, at 20.

135 See Kretzmer, D., ‘The Inherent Right to Self-Defence and Proportionality in Jus ad Bellum’, (2013) 24 European Journal of International Law 235CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

136 Grimal, supra note 87, at 344.

137 Panda, supra note 105.

138 Brownlie, I., ‘Some Legal Aspects of the Use of Nuclear Weapons’, (1965) 14 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 437, at 446–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

139 Gray, supra note 75, at 151.

140 Bowett, D., ‘Reprisals Involving Recourse to Armed Force’, (1972) 66(1) The American Journal of International Law 1, at 3CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Lietzau, W.K., ‘Old Laws, New Wars: Jus ad Bellum in an Age of Terrorism’, in Wolfrum, R. and von Bogbandy, A. (eds.), Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, vol. VIII (2004), 383 at 495–9Google Scholar; Levenfeld, B., ‘Israel’s Counter-Fedayeen Tactics in Lebanon: Self- Defence and Reprisal Under Modern International Law’, (1982–1983) 21 Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 1, at 37Google Scholar.

141 Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, supra note 77, at 246, para. 46; Barsotti, R., ‘Armed Reprisals’, in Cassese, A. (ed.), The Current Legal Regulation of the Use of Force (1986), 79, at 81Google Scholar; Bowett, supra note 140; Darcy, S., ‘Retaliation and Reprisal’, in Weller, M. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law (2015), 879, at 886Google Scholar; Kelly, M.J., ‘Time Warp to 1945: Resurrection of the Reprisal and Anticipatory Self-Defence Doctrines in International Law’, (2003–2004) 13 Journal of Transnational Law and Policy 1, at 12Google Scholar; O’Brien, W.V., ‘Deterrence and Self-Defense in Counterterror Operations’, (1989–1990) 30 Virginia Journal of International Law 421, at 426–69Google Scholar (specifically setting out state practice to support the unlawfulness of armed reprisals).

142 Ghoshal, supra note 97, at 161.

143 Kristensen and Norris, Federation of American Scientists, supra note 73, noting that none of India’s nuclear weapons are presently deployed.

144 Rajagopalan, supra note 128, at 102.

145 Green, supra note 133, at 27.

146 Bowett, supra note 140.

147 Green, supra note 133, at 35.

148 Prime Minister’s Office (India), 2003 Nuclear Doctrine, supra note 59, para. III.

149 Sagan, S.D., ‘The Commitment Trap: Why the United State Should Not Use Nuclear Threats to Deter Biological and Chemical Weapons Attacks’, (2000) 24 International Security 85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.