As is often the case in trials relating to such actions, the defendants attempted to establish that their actions were necessary, in that they had prevented what they saw as "nuclear crime". The court then considered the legality of the possession, as opposed to actual use, of nuclear weapons. Does the belief of an accused person that his or her actions are justified in law constitute a defence to a charge of malicious mischief or theft? 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. A weapon that is already unlawful per se, whether by treaty or custom, does not become lawful by reason of its being used for a legitimate purpose under the Charter.". The first, commissioned by Peacerights,[35] was given on 19 December 2005 by Rabinder Singh QC and Professor Christine Chinkin of Matrix Chambers. Jeutner, Valentin; "Irresolvable Norm Conflicts in International Law: The Concept of a Legal Dilemma" (Oxford University Press 2017), McNeill, John; "The International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion in the Nuclear Weapons Cases--A First Appraisal" (1997) 316, Mohr, Manfred; "Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Use of Nuclear Weapons Under International Law--A Few Thoughts on its Strengths and Weaknesses" (1997) 316, Moore, Mike; "World Court says mostly no to nuclear weapons," 52(5), This page was last edited on 4 October 2020, at 14:28. Secondary Sanctions: A Weapon out of Control? [43], The acquittal of the Trident Three resulted in the High Court of Justiciary, the supreme criminal court in Scots law, considering a Lord Advocate's Reference, and presenting the first detailed analysis of the ICJ Opinion by another judicial body. Christopher Greenwood is Professor of International Law at the London School of Economics. The Court subsequently fixed 20 June 1995 as the filing date for written statements. [4] In addition, the Polish government requested this issue to be examined by the ILC as a crime against the peace of mankind. [41], Finally, with reference to the NPT, Sands and Law found that, A broadening of the deterrence policy to incorporate prevention of nonnuclear attacks so as to justify replacing or upgrading Trident would appear to be inconsistent with Article VI; b) Attempts to justify Trident upgrade or replacement as an insurance against unascertainable future threats would appear to be inconsistent with Article VI; c) Enhancing the targeting capability or yield flexibility of the Trident system is likely to be inconsistent with Article VI; d) Renewal or replacement of Trident at the same capability is likely to be inconsistent with Article VI; and e) In each case such inconsistency could give rise to a material breach of the NPT.[42]. Is it a general defence to a criminal charge that the offence was committed in order to prevent or bring to an end the commission of an offence by another person? Holdstock, Dougaylas; and Waterston, Lis; "Nuclear weapons, a continuing threat to health," 355(9214) The Lancet 1544 (29 April 2000). In particular, with respect to "the argument [that] has been advanced that nuclear weapons should be treated in the same way as poisoned weapons", the Court concluded that "it does not seem to the Court that the use of nuclear weapons can be regarded as specifically prohibited on the basis of the [...] provisions of the Second Hague Declaration of 1899, the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV of 1907 or the 1925 Protocol" (paragraphs 54 and 56)". The only requirement being that their use must be in conformity with the law on self-defence and principles of international humanitarian law. After considering the case the Court refused to give an advisory opinion on the WHO question. Synopsis of Rule of Law. There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons; There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such; A threat or use of nuclear weapons should also be compatible with the requirements of the international law applicable in armed conflict, particularly those of the principles and rules of international humanitarian law, as well as with specific obligations under treaties and other undertakings which expressly deal with nuclear weapons; It follows from the above-mentioned requirements that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law; However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake. In our view, the ‘vital interests’ of the UK as defined in the Strategic Defence Review are considerably broader than those whose destruction threaten the survival of the state. ), Ph.D Candidate, Nuclear Weapons, Unclear Law? ", Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (General List No. (paragraph 97), The court undertook seven separate votes, all of which were passed:[21]. The Charter neither expressly prohibits, nor permits, the use of any specific weapon, including nuclear weapons. Customary international law also provided insufficient evidence that the possession of nuclear weapons had come to be universally regarded as illegal.[19]. The General Assembly had considered asking a similar question in the autumn of 1993, at the instigation of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which ultimately did not that year push its request. It identified a number of customary and treaty rules and principles applicable to all weapons, including under international humanitarian law. The author was one of the counsels for the United Kingdom before the International Court of Justice in the proceedings concerning the Advisory Opinions on nuclear weapons. There were also strategic questions such as the legality of the practice of nuclear deterrence or the meaning of Article VI of the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. If you originally registered with a username please use that to sign in. An advisory opinion on this issue was originally requested by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 3 September 1993:[6], In view of the health and environmental effects, would the use of nuclear weapons by a state in war or other armed conflict be a breach of its obligations under international law including the WHO Constitution? Most users should sign in with their email address. [19] The Court looked at various treaties, including the UN Charter, and found no treaty language that specifically forbade the possession of nuclear weapons in a categorical way. [15][16] Of the five declared nuclear weapon states only the People's Republic of China did not participate. (Judgement paragraphs 37–50). Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons [1996] ICJ 2 is a landmark international law case, where the International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion stating that there is no source of law, customary or treaty, that explicitly prohibits the possession or even use of nuclear weapons. By a letter dated 19 December 1994, filed in the Registry on 6 January 1995, the Secretary-General of the United Nations officially communicated to the Registry a decision taken by the General Assembly, by its resolution 49/75 K adopted on 15 December 1994, to submit to the Court, for advisory opinion, the following question : “Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under … The World Health Organization requested the opinion on 3 September 1993,[2] but it was initially refused because the WHO was acting outside its legal capacity (ultra vires). 266. 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. Private International Law, About British Yearbook of International Law, Receive exclusive offers and updates from Oxford Academic. [The Southeast Asia Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone Treaty, December 15, 1995, appears at 35 I.L.M. The three women had boarded Maytime, a barge moored in Loch Goil and involved in scientific work connected with the Vanguard-class submarines berthed in the nearby Gareloch, and caused £80,000 worth of damage. The ICJ fixed 10 June 1994 as the time limit for written submissions, but after receiving many written and oral submissions, later extended this date to 20 September 1994. The possibility of threat outlawing use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict was raised on 30 June 1950, by the Dutch representative to the International Law Commission (ILC) J.P.A. The only requirement being that their use must be in conformity with the law on self-defence and principles of international humanitarian law.[1]. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons [1996] ICJ 2 is a landmark international law case, where the International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion stating that there is no source of law, customary or treaty, that explicitly prohibits the possession or even use of nuclear weapons. Deciphering the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion of the International Court , British Yearbook of International Law, Volume 68, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 165–217, https://doi.org/10.1093/bybil/68.1.165. (Ife), LL M (Lond. In 1999 a legal case was put forward to attempt to use the ICJ's Opinion in establishing the illegality of nuclear weapons.