Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:35:57.076Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice and the Fundamental Distinction Between the Jus ad Bellum and the Jus in Bello

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2004

Terry Gill
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The 1996 Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion of the International Court has been both hailed and criticized on various grounds. However, one area, namely the Court's treatment of the distinction between the law regulating the use of force and the humanitarian law of armed conflict, has received relatively little attention. This author is convinced and concerned that the Court's treatment of this issue misconstrued the relationship between these two branches of the law, and in doing so potentially weakened any restraining influence the law of armed conflict might have on the potential use of nuclear weapons.

Keywords

International Court of Justicenuclear weaponsthe right to use force (jus ad bellum)the (humanitarian) law of warfare (jus in bello)
Type
HAGUE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS: International Court of Justice
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 12 , Issue 3 , September 1999 , pp. 613 - 624
Copyright
© 1999 Kluwer Law International

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.)