Zeîiedsde 1dJune1995hm.the MuiisteforForeignAnill a.s
oftheNetheGovernmenotftheNetherlandsementfthe MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS
The Hague, 16June 1995
In response to your invitation, on the basis of the &cles of the Charter of
the United Nations and of the Statute of the Coun,1 enclose the
observations of the Govemrnent of the Kingdom of the Netherlands with
regard to the advisory opinion requested by the General Assembly of the
United Nations.
The Minister for Foreign Affairsai.
of theKingdom of the Netherlands
H.F. Dijkstai
The Regimar of the
International Court of Justice
Peacepalace
Carnegieplein 2
2517 KI The Hague Ministry of Foreign Affairs
TheHague
THE NETHERLANDS GOVERNMENT,
Having regard to Resolution49-75K adopted on 15 December 1994 by the
General Assembly of the United Nations, whereby the General Assembly
decided to request the International Court of Justice urgently to give an
advisory opinion on the following question:
"1s the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circurnstance permitted
under international law?";
Having regard to the Order of the Court of 1 February 1995, by which the Court
designated 20 June 1995 as the time-limit within which writtenstatements
might be subrnitted to the Court by the United Nations and by States which are
entitled to appear before the Court, in accordance with Article 66(2) of the
Statute of the Court;
Having regard to the fact that the Netherlands is a mernber State of the United
Nations and by virtue of Article 92 of the Charter of the United Nations also a
party to the Statute of the Court;
Wishing to avail itself of the opportunity given by the Court's Order of 1
February 1995 to States entitied to appear before the Court to rnake a written
statement on the above-rnentioned request by the General Assembly of the
United Nations for an advisory opinion from the Court;
Has the honour to present the following statement: 2
I OBSERVATIONS ON THE COMPETENCE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY
OF THE UNITED NATIONS TO REQUEST, AND ON THE COMPETENCE
AND DISCRETION OF THE COURT TO GIVE, THE ADVISORY OPINION
1. According to Articl96 of the Charter of the United Nations
"(1)The General Assembly or the Security Council may request the
International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion on any
leaal auestion.
(2).......(Ernphasis added)
2. According to Articl65 of the Statute of the International Court of
Justice which forrns an integral part ofthe UN Charter:
"(1) The courtmav give an advisory opinion on anles aulstion
at the request of whatever body rnay be authorized by or
accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to rnake such a
request.
(2).......(ernphasis added)
3. While Article 96 of the UN Charter determinewho iscornoetent to
reauest an advisory opinionrorn the Court, Artic65(1) of the Court's
Statute deterrnines the cornoetence of the to aiv en advisory
opinion. According to Artic96i1 iof the UN Charter only the UN General
Assernbly or Security Council may request the Court to give an advisory
opinion onanv legal question.
4. The question subrnitted to the Court foan advisory opinion concerns
the permissibilitv of the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any
circurnstanceunde iternational law, and therefore constituteslesal
question. 3
5. In the opinion of the Netherlands Government, the General Assembly of
the United Nations must be deerned cornpetent to request an advisory
opinion on the question subrnitted to the Court.
6. If the Court considers the General Assernbly of the United Nations
competent to request, and itself cornpetent to give,the advisory opinion
concerned, the Netherlands Government would nevertheless draw
attention to the fact that the Court's power to give advisory opinions is a
discretionary one, As stated by the Court itself in the Peace Treaties case
(ICJ Rep. 1950, p. 71):
"Article 65 of the Statute is permissive. Itgives the Court the
power to examine whether the circumstances of the case are of
such a character as should lead it to decline to answer the
Resuest".
7. Although the Netherlands Government is in general very much in favour
of the exercise by the Court of its cornpetence to give advisory opinions,
itbelieves that there are good poiicy reasons why, in this particular case,
the Court should decide to abstain from giving the advisory opinion
requested.
8. The Netherlands Government attaches great value to the Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT), the operation of which has been indefinitely extended by
the NPT conference on May 11 1995 in New York. By their decision to
extend this treaty indefinitely, the parties to the treaty reaffirmed the
importance of this treaty as the international instrument for preventing
theproliferation of nuclear weapons.
9. The universal application of the norm provided by the NPT has recently
been enhanced by the accession to the treaty of a number of States,
making the NPT one of the treaties with the most universal adherence.10. As is well known, the Non-ProliferationTreaty acknowledges the legality
of the possession of nuclear weapons by certain States, i.e. the five
recognized nuclear weapon States, while other States parties to the
treaty have undertaken not to develop'ar otherwise acquire nuclear
weapons (Article IIof the NPT).
11. A judgment of the Court declaring the threat or use of nuclear weapons
illegal might jeopardize the operation of the Non-Proliferation TreaOn.
the other hand, a judgment of the Court declaring the threat or use of
nuclear weapons legal might induce a number of States to withdraw their
support for the treaty or encourage other States to refrainfrom acceding
to the treaty, thereby undermining its universal application.
12. Another important provision of the NPT regards disarmament. In Article
VI of the NPT each of the NPT parties undertakes to pursue negotiations
in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear
arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament. This undertaking
has guided the international community in its disarmament efforts. and
was reconfirmed during the recently held NPT conference.
13.
The Netherlands Government believes that the risks involved in the threat
or use of nuclear weapons will be more effectively countered by further
negotiations in the field of disarmament and non-proliferation ofnuclear
weapons. in line with the provisions of the NPT. Any judgment of the
Court in reply to the request submitted by the General Assembly would
create a real danger of undermining the ongoing process of nuclear non-
~roliferation and disarmament.
II OBSERVATIONS ON THE MERITS OF THE LEGAL QUESTION
SUBMITTED TO THE COURT FOR AN ADVISORY OPINION
14. Should the Court decide to consider admissible the request of the General 5
Assembly of the United Nations for an advisory opinion contained in
UNGA Res. 49175K of 15 Decernber 1994 and should the Court be
willing to examine the merits of the legal question submitted by the
General Assembly, the Netherlands Govemment would like to rnake the
following observations.
15. The legal question subrnitted by the General Assembly is couched in
extremely general terms, i.e. "1sthe threat or use of nuclear weapons in
any circurnstance permitted under international law?" Theoretically this
question could be answered either in the negative or in the affirmative.
An answer in the negative would mean that the threat or use of nuclear
weapons would under no circurnstances be perrnitted under international
law and hence be unlawful oer under international law. An answer in
the affirmative would mean that there would be at least certain
circurnstances under which the threat or use of nuclear weapons would
be perrnined and hence not unlawful under international law. lis clear
that a rejection of the first answer necessarily irnplies the acceptance of
the second answer. Moreover, itshould be kept in rnind that the request
for the advisory opinion submitted by the General Assernbly to the Court
does not compel the Court to give an answer to the question of under
circurnstances, if any, the threat or use of nuclear weapons would
be perrnitted under international law.
16. As already observed in the staternent made by the Netherlands
Government in connection with the request for an advisory opinion
submitted to the Court by the Forty-sixth World Health Assembly of the
WHO in its resolution WHA 46.40 of 14 May 1993, the question of the
illegality of the use of nuclear weapons put in general ter-ni.e. the
question of whether the use of nuclear weapons would in a
circumstances be unlawful -can only be answered in the negative. As
already indicated above such a negative answer to the request for an
advisory opinion subrnitted bythe WHA irnplies necessarily a positive answer to the request for an advisory opinion submitted by the General
Assernbly of the United Nations. Henceforth the legal reasoning set forth
bythe Netherlands Government in respect of the WHA request for an
advisory opinion can be foilowed likewise in respect of the request for an
advisory opinion subrnitted by the General Assembly of the United
Nations.
The fact that the WHA request referred merely to "the use of nuclear
weapons by a State in war or other arrned conflict" while the UNGA
request refers to "the threat or use of nuclear weapons
circumstance" does not lead to a different reply.Itrnay be recalled in this
connection that in setting lirnits onthuçe of force by mernber States of
the UN - of which the use of nuclear weapons is only one form -Article
2(4) of the UN Charter also sets limits on therhre oafsuch force. lndeed
where the use of force is deerned unlawful, the threat of such use of
force rnust, in principle, be deerned equally unlawful.
17. As stated by the Netherlands Government on other occasions - e.g.
during the debate in the Netherlands Parliament on the approval of the
1985 Agreement between the Netherlands and the United States on the
Stationing of Ground-launched Cruise Missiles in the Netherlands (Tieaty
Series of the Kingdom of the Netherlands 1985 No. 145) -with regard to
the question of the legality or otherwise under international law of the
possession or even use of cruise missiles,such possession or even use
does not inevitably constitute a violation of the rules or principles of
international humanitarian law in arrned conflict or of otherles or
principles of the jus in bello which more particularly concerthe
permissibility of certain types of weapons in war or other arrned conflict.
18. Thus, according to the Netherlands Government, Article 23(a) of the
Hague Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land
annexed to Convention IV concluded at the 1907 Hague Peace
Conference 12AJlL 1908 Suppl. p. 90). which prohibits the employment of "poison" or "poisoned weapons" andlor the 1925 Geneva Protocol for
the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous and other
Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare (94 LNTS p. 65). which
condemns the (firsti use of "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and
of al1analogous liquids, materials or devices" do not entail a prohibition
oer of the use ofnuclear-weapons.Indeed, the use of poison and
poisonous gas is generally categorized under chemical warfare and
nuclear weapons are usually distinguished from chemical or biological
weapons which are the concern of the provisions referred to here.
Article23(a) of the Hague Regulations and the 1925 Geneva Protocol
were intended to apply only to weapons whose principal effect was
poisonous and not to those where poison was only a secondary effect. It
should be noted that the prirnary effects of the use of nuclear weapons
are the enormous blast wave and thermal radiationthey produce, effects
which are not covered by the said provisions.
19. The Netherlands Government rejects the view that the use of nuclear
weapons would be unlawful oer on the grounds that such use would
necessarily lead to a violation of the rule laid down in Article 23(ei of the
1907 Hague Regulations which forbids belligerents "to ernploy arms,
projectiles, or rnaterial calculated to cause unnecessary suffering "
lemphasis added). The question to be raised here iswhen suffering
caused by a certain weapon can reasonably be called "unnecessary".
20. Itseems that suffering rnay be called "unnecessary" when its infliction
was not necessary to attain a lawful military advantage or greatly
exceeds what could reasonably have been considered necessary to attain
that military advantage.
21. The availability of considerably less harmful means to attain the military
advantage or the causing of suffering out of proportion to the military
advantage to be gained therefore appear to be the essential yardstick for determining whether the use of certain weapons rnust be deemed to
cause "unnecessary" suffering. This approach has governedthe
developrnent of rules with regard to rneans and rnethods of warfare since
1868.
22. Hence, in the view of the Netherlands, the use of nuclear weapons
cannot in abstracto be deemed unlawful. The question of whether a
specific useis in contravention of the said obligation cannot therefore be
weighed untilthe exact implications, both at the level of rnilitary
advantage gained and with regard to the injury caused, are known. .
23. The Netherlands Government further wishes to emphasize thatthe
drafting history of the 1977 Additional Protocol I(Int. Corn. Red Cross,
Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,
Geneva 1977, p. 3)to the 1949 Geneva Conventions (75 UNTS pp. 33,
85, 135 and 287) makes clear the intention of the negotiating States that
the rules introduced by that protocol, in so far as they relateto the use of
weapons, should not cover warfare with weapons of mass destruction
such as nuclear weapons. As the restriction to conventional weapons
was not explicitly laid down in that protocol. the Netherlands -like
several other parties to the protocol - made a declaration on the occasion
of its ratification thaitwas the understanding of the Netherlands
Government that the rules introduced by Protocol Irelating to the use of
weapons were intended to apply and consequently would apply solely to
conventional weapons without prejudice to any other rules of
international law applicable to other types of weapons.
24. The drafting history of Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva
Conventions, rnoreover, indicates that in any event the majority of States
acknowledged, explicitly or tacitly, that the use of nuclear weapons is not
already unlawful under international hurnanitarian law.25. In this connection the Netherlands Government also wishes to note that a
general prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons de leoe lata cannot be
deduced from UNGA Resolution no. 1653 (XVI) entitled "Declaration on
the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear and Thermo-nuclear Weapons"
which was adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 24
November 1961. Thisresolution which, it is true,declaredtheuse of
nuclear weapons illegal, as it would be contrary to the Charter of the
United Nations, the rules of international law and the laws of humanity,
cannot in the view of the Netherlands Government be considered as
embodying an already existing rule or principle of general internation.l
law.The very fact that the resolution was adopted with 55 votes for, 20
against (including the nuclear weapon States the United States, Great
Britain and France) and 26 abstentions proved the absence of a general
o~inio iuris on the part of States that the use of nuclear weapons is
unlawful e.
UNGA Resolution 2936 (XXVII) on the Non-Use of Force in International
Relations and Permanent Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons,
which was adopted by the General Assembly on 29 November 1972 -
this time with 73 votes for,4 against (including China) and 46
abstentions (including France, the United Kingdom and the United States)
-inter alia again solemnly declared "the permanent prohibition of the use
of nuclear weapons".
Considering the special weight to be anached to the position of the
nuclear weapon States among the States voting against or abstaining and
the very high number of States which abstained, itwould, the
Netherlands Government believes, still be very difficult to conclude that
the resolution codified or gaverise to a generally recognized rule or
principleof international law.
It is also relevant in this connection that the UNGA Resolution 1653 (XVI) 1O
of 1961 referred to above invited the Secretary-General of the United
Nations to examine the possibility ofa conference being convened where
participating States would sign a convention on the prohibition of nuclear
weapons, but that this attempt, as well as many later attempts to
prornote the conclusion of such a convention, remained without success
due to disagreement on the matter among States.
26. According to the Netherlands Govemment the use of nuclear weapons
need not - as is sometimes alleged -necessarily amount to genocide in
terms of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
Crime of Genocide (45 AJlL 1951 Suppl. p. 7). Indeed, as long as the use
of nuclear weapons, or for that rnatter of any weapons. remains directed
at the combatants of the other belligerent and is not directed at the
population (which may be considered as a national group) as such, with
the intent to destroy that population in whole or in part as such, i.e.
whether having the status of cornbatant or not, there can be no question
of genocide within the meaning of the 1948 Genocide Convention.
27. The Netherlands Governrnent is, rnoreover, of the opinion that the use of
nuclear weapons cannot be considered in itself to be in violation of the
right to life, as enshrined inter alia in Article 6 of the 1966 International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(Annex to UNGA Res. 2200 (XXI)
of 16 December 1966) or in Article 2 of the 1950 European Convention
for the Protection of Hurnan Rights and Fundarnental Freedoms (Eur.
Treaty Series. No. 5). According to the Netherlands Government, these
articles do not create an absolute right to life. Thus, the travaux
préoaratoires of Article 6 of the International Covenant make clear that,
instead of listing the circurnstancesn which the deprivation of life would
not be considered contrary to the right to life, the drafters decided to
agree on the formulation that "No one shall be arbitrarily deprivedof his
life"(emphasis added). One of the instances mentioned in this connection
by the drafters as an example of a deprivation of life which is not arbitrary was "the performance of lawful acts of war". Explicit support
for such an exception, as far as Article 2 of the European Convention is
concerned, can also be found in Article 1512) of the European
Convention, which provides that "No derogation from Article 2, except in
respect of deaths resultina from lawful acts of war ...shall be made
under this provision." (emphasis added).
28. The Netherlands Government is aware of the existence of certain treaties
which prohibit the deployment of nuclear weapons in Antarctica (1959
Antarctic Treaty, 402 UNTS p. 71 ),outer space or on celestial bodies .
(1967 Outer Space Treaty, 610 UNTS p. 205). or on the deep seabed
(1971 Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons
and other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Sea-Bed and the Ocean
Floor and in the Subsoil thereof, 995 UNTS p. 115) or most of Latin
Arnerica and certain adjacent waters and islands (1967 Treaty of
Tlatelolco, 634 UNTS p. 326, or its First Protocol, idem p. 3601, or in
certain parts of the South Pacific (1985 Treaty of Rarotonga, 24 ILM
1985 p. 1440, or its First Protocol, 28 ILM 1989 p. 1600 ),but such
treaties impose such obligation only on parties to those treaties and,
moreover, -except of the Rarotonga Treaty - only in respect of certain
areas. The existence of a general prohibition under general international
law on the use of such weapons anvwhere cannot be concluded from
such treaties. lndeed the contrary conclusion can more readily be
deduced from thern. The same applies to the 1963 Partial Test Ban
Treaty which prohibits the parties from conducting nuclear test is certain
areas (i.e. in the atrnosphere, under water or in outer space) but does not
purport to restrict their use of nuclear weapons in the course of
hostilities.
The Netherlands Government believes that the unlikelihood of a general
prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons under existing international law
would, also follow from the fact that there are certain treaties which 12
reoulate the possession of nuclear weapons, such as the 1968 Non-
Proliferation Treaty referred to above. Indeed, the fact that certain States
are permitted, subject to certain conditions at least, to possess nuclear
weapons also would seem to be difficult to reconcile with the idea that
the use of those weapons is unlawful in itself.
29. The Netherlands Governrnent further believes that even if it were to be
assumed that the (first) use of nuclear weapons by a State were unlawful
under present international law - ouod non -,this woutd not
neceçsarily exclude the permissibility of the use of nuclear weapons by
way of belligerent reprisa1against an unlawful use of inuclear) weapons,
provided of course the retaliating State observed the conditions set by
international law for the taking of lawful reprisals. i.e. satisfies, inter alia,
the requirement that the retaliation is proportionate and serves as an
ultimum remedium.
30. The view held by the Netherlands Government that existing international
law does not in itself prohibit the use of nuclear weapons does not, of
course, mean that in the opinion of the Netherlands Government every
use of nuclear weapons would necessarily always be lawful.
31. Thus the use of weapons. and hence of nuclear weapons, is permissible
only in the case of the lawful exercise of the right of self-defence or
under a mandate conferred bythe UN Security Council in the exercise of
its powers under Chapter VI1of the Charter. In this connection it should
also be pointed out that the presently existing variety of nuclear weapons
creates. in principle, a possibility for States to take necessary and
proportionate action with such weapons in self-defence against an armed
anack with or without nuclear weapons.
32.
Moreover. according to the Netherlands Governrnent, the general
principles of internationalhumanitarian law in armed conflict also apply to the use of nuclear weapons. Two principles, inparticular, which form part
of that law are the prohibition on making the civilian population as such
the target of an attack and the prohibition on attacking rnilitary targets if
this would cause disproportionate harrn to the civilian population. The
applicability of general principles of international humanitarian lawin
armed conflict - arnong which rnust also be counted the principle laid
down in Article 22 of the 1907 Hague Regulations that the right of a
belligerent to adopt rneans of injuring the enerny is not unlimited- to the
use of nuclear weapons was also confirmed as long ago as 1965 in
Resolution XXVlll of the 20th International Conference of the Red Cross
(Vienna) which was passed unanimously. Consensus on this point was
also reached at the diplornatic conference on Additional Protocol I to the
1949 Geneva Conventions.
The Hague, 16 June 1995
Letter dated 16 June 1995 from the Minister for Foreign Affairs a.i. of the Netherlands, together with Written Statement of the Government of the Netherlands