As a professor of international humanitarian law (IHL), I have noticed that preliminary lectures on the means and methods of warfare evoke a familiar debate, with a number of students arguing for the need for more States to develop or acquire nuclear weapons in order to maintain or achieve international relevance. Every drop of energy exerted in fighting for a world free of nuclear weapons is important. The Court found, by eleven votes to three, that it was not able to give the advisory opinion requested by the World Health Organization on the question of the Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict. of Petroleum Exporting Countries, 353 F.3d 916 (11th Cir. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists reported in 2020 that the Trump Administration’s 2018 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) followed the broad outlines of the Obama administration’s 2010 NPR, to modernize the entire nuclear weapons arsenal, including several important changes. The 191 State parties to the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty remain under treaty obligation to achieve nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. Accountability for use of nuclear weapons under international law 7 3. Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (Request for Advisory Opinion by the World Health Organization) - Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Request for Advisory Opinion by the General Assembly of the United Nations) - Hearings of the Court opening on 30 October 1995 Available in: English French 16, 2.2 Effect of Awards of Compensation Made by the United Nations Administrative Tribunal Advisory Opinion [1954] ICJ Rep 47, 2.3 Certain Expenses of the United Nations (Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Charter), International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion, [1962] ICJ Rep 151, 2.4 Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, [1996] ICJ Rep 66, 3 Institutional Structure and the Position of Members, 3.1 Case Concerning Questions of Interpretation and Application of the 1971 Montreal Convention Arising from the Aerial Incident at Lockerbie (Libya Arab Jamahiriya v United States of America), Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Order of 14 April 1992, [1992] ICJ Rep 114, 3.2 Prosecutor v Duško Tadić, Decision on the defence motion for interlocutory appeal on jurisdiction, IT-94-1-AR72, Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, 2 October 1995, 3.3 Conditions of Admission of a State to Membership in the United Nations (Article 4 of the Charter), Advisory Opinion, [1948] ICJ Rep 57; Competence of the General Assembly for the Admission of a State to the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, [1950] ICJ Rep 4, B Focus on the Security Council’s primary responsibility, 4.1 Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970), Advisory Opinion, [1971] ICJ Rep 16, A Roles of UN organs and their relationship with one another, B Dissolution and succession of international organizations, C Reinforcing the moral authority of the international organization, 4.2 Solange I, BverfGE 37, 291, 29 May 1974; Solange II, BverfGE 73, 339, 22 October 1986; Solange III, BverfGE 89, 155 12 October 1993; and Solange IV, BverfGE 102, 147, 7 June 2000, Solange II, BverfGE 73, 339, 22 October 1986, Solange III, BverfGE 89, 155 12 October 1993, Solange IV, BverfGE 102, 147, 7 June 2000, 4.3 Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America), Merits, Judgment, [1986] ICJ Rep 14, 4.4 Youssef Nada v State Secretariat for Economic Affairs and Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Administrative Appeal Judgment, Case No. Culled from the Anadolu Agency Website, reported by Peter Kenny on 02/08/2020. I have voted in favour of the Advisory Opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons given this same day (Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, I.C.J. [...] “Every human being has the inherent right to life. The most significant change is a recommendation to increase the types and role of US nuclear weapons. The Court held by eleven votes to three that it did not have jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion ‘which was requested of it’. No. Accessed 14/09/2020. (c) Oxford University Press, 2015. 45036/98, European Court of Human Rights, 30 June 2005, B Open questions and post-Bosphorus case-law, 6.6 Agim Behrami and Bekir Behrami v France, App. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion: Publisher: International Court of Justice (ICJ) Publication Date: 8 July 1996: Topics: Genocide | International armed conflict | International humanitarian law (IHL) / Geneva Conventions | Jurisdiction | Right to life: Citation / Document Symbol: I.C.J. [5] In its preamble, the treaty relates the dangers of nuclear weapons to the real-life experiences of survivors, or hibakusha, of the 1945 nuclear attack against Japan. October 1, 2020, Analysis / Humanitarian Action / Law and Conflict 10 mins read content. Some of the proponents of the illegality of the use of nuclear weapons have argued that such use would violate the right to life as guaranteed in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Despite the popularity of the treaty, however, answers to questions on its implementation remain uncertain, as none of the Nuclear Weapons States and their allies are parties to it, nor have they shown any indication of supporting it. 5.2 Interpretation of the Agreement of 25 March 1951 between the WHO and Egypt, Advisory Opinion, [1980] ICJ Rep 73, 5.3 Case No. Outside a situation of armed conflict 7 4. A common thread of thought is gleaned from the often-asked question: ‘if the superpowers persist in maintaining their nuclear weapons, what is the justification for preventing other States from acquiring theirs?’ Arguments that support this view are heavy, deafening and exhausting for an IHL teacher; all the more so as this is a recurring cycle in every academic session. IT-95-9-PT, Decision on the Motion for a Judicial Assistance to be Provided by SFOR and Others, Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, 18 October 2000, 6.1 Westland Helicopters Ltd v Arab Organization for Industrialization, United Arab Emirates, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, State of Qatar, Arab Republic of Egypt, and Arab British Helicopter Company, Arbitration, 5 March 1984, 80 ILR 600, 6.2 Arab Organization for Industrialization and others v Westland Helicopters Ltd, Swiss Federal Supreme Court (First Civil Court), 19 July 1988, 80 ILR 652, 6.3 Matthews v United Kingdom, ECtHR, App. 4553, 121, 7.2 Abdi Hosh Askir v Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Joseph E. Connor et al., US District Court SDNY, 29 July 1996, 933 F. Suppl. Source: www.icj-cij.org. 10750/03, Admissibility Decision, European Court of Human Rights, 12 May 2009, 6.8 Mukeshimana-Nguilinzira and ors. No. On 7 July 2017, a landmark treaty banning nuclear weapons – the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons – was adopted by 122 Member States of the United Nations. The court's "advisory opinion" can be requested only by specific United Nations organisations, and is inherently non-binding under the Statute of the court. Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (Request for Advisory Opinion by the World Health Organization) - Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Request for Advisory Opinion by the General Assembly of the United Nations) - Hearings of the Court opening on 30 October 1995. They are not taking action towards nuclear disarmament. an advisory opinion on whether the use of nuclear weapons by a State in war or other armed conflict would be a breach of its obligations under international law, including the Constitution of the World Health Organization, resolution 46/40 of 14 May 1993 of the Assembly of the World Health Organization, in which the organization requested the This right shall be protected by law. Once hearts and minds are awakened to the chilling reality of nuclear weapons, students eventually reach the point where they naturally feel the need to carry a banner and spread the word. ww.aa.com.tr. There is no doubt that any use of nuclear weapons in war between States or in indiscriminate attacks by non-State actors would create catastrophic situations for humankind and the natural environment. As always in these never-ending debates, there are attempts to balance, on the one hand, the inclination to possess nuclear weapons for reasons of military superiority and, on the other, the role of international humanitarian law in preventing the use of weapons with catastrophic humanitarian consequences. In its recent opinion, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the International Court ofJustice (ICJ) considered the legality of nu-clear weapons in the context of environmental law and the law of armed conflict.' Tags: hiroshima, IHL, international humanitarian law, nagasaki, Nigeria, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, nuclear weapons, TPNW, Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. D Critical reception and doctrinal debates, 7.5 League of Arab States v T M., Belgian Court of Cassation, ILDC 42 (BE 2001), 12 March 2001, 7.6 Prewitt Enterprises, Inc. v Org. Users without a subscription are not able to see the full June/July 1998. No. A great number of students do not even have the slightest awareness of the catastrophic effects of these weapons. Source: ICANNPA -BRIEFING-NPT-COMPLIANCE1.pdf Icanw.org Accessed 14-09-2020, [4] On 8 July 1996 the International Court of Justice handed down its advisory opinion regarding the request made by the General Assembly of the United Nations to determine the question: “Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law?” Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996. It identified a number of customary and treaty rules and principles applicable to all weapons, including under international humanitarian law. To many people in Nigeria and elsewhere, nuclear weapons constitute a faraway tale of dormant weapons in the arsenals of only a handful of States[1], serving as a topic for international debate every now and then. No. [5] Preamble to the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty. No. Source: Hans M. Kristensen & Matt Korda (2020) United States nuclear forces, 2020, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 76: 1, 46-60, DOI: 10.1080/00963402.2019.1701286, [3] International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) briefing paper of 19 April 2018 reported that the five nuclear-weapons states parties to the NPT (China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States) are sabotaging the Treaty. In class we seek to shift the paradigm, through deeper orientation into the spirit of international humanitarian law, the consequences of nuclear weapons’ use and the prevailing effects of the production, modernization, storage and disposal of nuclear weapons and nuclear waste. African States have played a pivotal role in supporting treaties that outlaw weapons which contravene the principles of international humanitarian law, and they have consistently demonstrated a strong commitment to banning nuclear weapons, as evidenced by the overwhelming endorsement of the Nuclear Weapons Free Zone Treaty of Pelindaba. Fatima Alkali. 2003), 7.7 Entico Corporation Ltd v UNESCO, 18 March 2008, [2008] EWHC 531 (Comm), [2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 97, 7.8 Western European Union v Siedler, Belgian Court of Cassation, 21 December 2009, 7.9 OSS Nokalva, Inc. v European Space Agency, United States Third Circuit decision, 617 F.3d 756 (3d Cir. The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected to nine year terms by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council.