Written Statementof the Government ofthe UnitedKingdomLEGAtITY OF THE USE BY A STATE OF NUCLEAR WEAPOlis
IN AWED CONFLICT
STATMPPT OF THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE UWITED KINGDOM CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1 - THE LiORLDHEALTH ORGANISATION'S INTEREST IN THE
USE OF t:UCLEARI.:EAPOKS
CHAPTER 11 - II<TERN.~.?IONEkLFORTS TO COGTROL WCCLEAR WEAPONS
CHAPTER III - THE QIESTIOI; CF FD!.:E2S:15 Ti::XEQCEST INTW
VIRES TUE k.'ORLDUEhL?? OR~S.:.;:IS.kTIOt~?
CHAPTER IV - THE QEESÏIOIiOF PROPRIETY: IS ISE REQUEST ONE
\<HICH,IG ALi THE CIRCUYSTANCES, ?SE COURT SHOULD
DECLIME ?O AIJSXER?
CHAPTER V - THE PRI::CIPLESOF Lhi' RAISED BY THE QUESTION TERPISOF THE REQUEST AND STANDING OF THE UNITED KINGDOU
-
1. The terms of the request made by the Forty-sixth World
Health Assernbly are as fo1lows:-
"The Forty-sixth World Health Assenbly ....
1. DECIDES, in accordance with Article 96(2)
-
of the Charrer of the Enited Nations, Article 76 of the
Constitution of tne Korld Health Organization and
Article X of the Agreexent beiween the L'nited Nations
and the l,:orlàHealth Orqanization approved by the
General Assenkly of the CniteZ :!arionson 15 Novenber
1947 in its resolution 1 ro request the
Internarional Zourr of justice :o give an advisory
opinion on zhe foliouinq quesrion:
In vie\: of the health and environmental
effects. would The use of nuclear weapons by a State in
war or orner araed conflict be a breach of its
obligations :nier -nternational la* including the WHO
Cons:itution?"
2. The Court, Dy izs Cràer of 13 Septernber1993, fixed 10 June1994 as the tine linit vithin which vritten statenentsRay be
submitted to the Court by the h'orldHealth Organisation and by
those of its Member States vho are entitled to appear before
the Court, in accordance with Article 66, paragraph 2 of the
-
Statute of the Court. That Order of the Court was notified to
the Governnent of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom has
been a member of the iiorldHealth Organisation since the entry
into force of its Constitutionon 7 April 1948, is an original
Member of the United Nations and by virtue of Article 93 of the
United Nations Charterioso facto a party to the Statute of the
Court. 1: is in these circunstances aState to nhich the Court
is open under Article 35 of the Statute of the Court and
entitled to appear before the Cour:. MAIN POINTS OF THE UNITED KINGWM SUEMISSION
.-
1. As Chapter 1 of this Statement makes clear, the interest of
the WHO in the leualitv of the use of nuclear weapons is very
recent indeed. The principal international efforts to control
the manufacture, use and proliferation of nuclear weapons have
not taken place in the WHO, but elsewhere - in the United
Nations, in bilateral talks (SALT 1 and II), and in
multilateral negotiations over nuclear-free zones etc - and a
number of agreements have been reached. These are described in
Chapter 11. Significantly, The Sïates involveà .have not
regarded ans.xeringthe queszion as to Che ?eoa?itv of the use
of nuclear weapons as central =O zheir task, or as likely to be
productive. ,
2. The present requesz b:,the KHO raises serious doubcs over
whether the request is intra the Orqanisation, and these
doubts are explainea in Chapter III. It is difficult to see
how the issue of lesalirv of the use of nuclear weapons is a
legal question within the cozpetence of the WHO, and certainly
no provision in :ne C3nst-tution can be found which would
suggest that such use by a Menber State violates its
constitutiona? obliqations.
3. The requesr also raises an issue of propriety - evenassuming the request is other..dise intra vires - and there are,
in fact, cogent reasons why the Court should decline to answer
this request. In Chapter IV it is suggested that this request
for an Opinion in fact invites the Court to enter into an
.-
essentially political debate. Moreover, any Opinion from the
Court would be unlikely to affect the constitutional
obligations of Members, and would otherwise be of no practical
effect. Any effect an Opinion might have could be highly
detrimental both to the WHO and to the on-going negotiations
for reducing the threat of nuclear war.
4. If notwithstanding these doubts as to the vires and
propriety of the request, the Court should nevertheless decide
:O respond to it, it is likely that no clear, unequivocal
answer could be given. Chapter V contains a prelininary survey
of some of the legai questions ,".'hic arise, an3 shoxs that the
issue is conplex and ki.h!. facr-depenoe~r; in these
circunstances no ans,.,$ercan be given in abstract terms.
Legality xi?: depenà on the facts cf each case, parzicularly
because any assessaent of the valiaity of a plea of
self-defence will depend on those facts. In view of the
complexity of these questions, the United Kingdon reserves the
right to nake further sub?issions with regard Co the request,
should the Court decide to respond to it.
- THE WHO INTEREST IN THE USE OF HUCLEAR WEAPONS
-
1. A Review of WHO activities in this matter
1. The WHO interest in nuclear weapons, prior to the passing
of h7HA 46.40 in 1093, was confined to the effects of nuclear :
weapons testing or porencial use on health and health services.
2. Three resoiutions vere passed in the 1960's and early
1970's ;!hich focusseà spezifically on the health risks
associated rith rhe in.crease?ar7,osphericra3iation produced by
such testing - [.:HAi;.5C (i961), \,:SA19.20 (1566) ana WHA 26.57
(1973) .' Thereafrer nuzlesr i;'eaîonx sero no: Se-1: i:i:h again
by the IiHh untii the 1980's. .;:ne? fsur reso1u:ions here passed
concerning rne effocrs of nuclezr .~.ea?îns în heelrb and health
services - \,:H>;.2: ô , K.. 6.2 (15ô>), b:H.:35.19 (1966)
and WHA 40.24 (1567).
There 2:eresa~o pre:.iousrosolutions on the healrh risks of.
radiatior,, bu: :hose ai6 no: speci:ically mention nuclear
testing - P.'S0.3; :1G53j, KX;.1C.21 (19571, NHA 11.50 (1958)
and \<HA 13.56 (1ÇGOj.3. WHA 34.36 (1961) was passed by 56 votes in favour to ;3
against with 11 abstentions. It requested the Director-General
to establish a committee of experts to study the consequences
of thermonuclear war for the life and health of the peop.es of
-
the world. In responsean International Committeeof Experts
in Medical Science and Public Health was -establishedto prepare
a report. The report was presented to the WHA in 1983. Its
main conclusion was that, in view of the disastrous
consequences of a nuclear conflict for human health and
welfare, "the only approach to the treatment of the health
effects of nuclear explosions is primary prevention of such
explosions, that is the prevention of atomic war."
4. CHA 36.26 (1963) nas passed by 07 votes to 12 against with
9 abstentions. It thanked the International Conzittee for its
report, noted it xith grave concern, and endorsed the
conclusion that "it is inpossible :a prepare health services to
deal in any systematic way aith a catastrophe resulting from
nuclear warfare, and tnat nuclear weapons constitute the
greatest inmediate threat :O the health and we.lfare of
mankind". The resolution a?so requested the Director-General
to publish the report, to.give it vide publicity and to
transmit it to the Secrezary-General of the UN. Finally, it
recommended that the KHO, "in cooperazion with the other United
Nations agencies, continue-. the work of collecting, analysing
and regularly publishina accounts of activities and further
studies on the effects of nuclear war on health and health
services". S. The WHO duly published the Conmittee's report in 1964 under
the title "Effects of Nuclear War on Health and Health
Services' (Geneva, KHO, 1964). In addition, in order to
continue work on this subject in accordance with WHA 36.26
-
(1963), the Director-General established a WHO Management
Group. This Group prepared a progress-report on its activities
in 1985 (A.38JINF.DOCJ5). NHA 39.19 (1986) subsequently
requested the Director-General to continue to take appropriate
measures to implenent WHA 36.26 (1963) and to submit a report
to the fortieth \<HA.
6. For this purpose the WHO Management Group prepared a revised
version of the 1983 report, drawing on additional material from new
studies undertaken since then. Folloi%.intghis, KHA 40.2: (1967)
was passed by 66 votes :D 13 sith 26 abstenrions. It thanked the
Management Group for irs work, expressed deep concern at the
report's conclusions. urgec Mezner S:aces =O Cake it into
consideration, requesced its publication, and called for health
aspects of the effects of nuclear xar that were not reflected in
the report to be further investigated in collaboration with
inrerested UN bodies and other international organisations. The
revised report was subsequently published under the title "Effects
of Nuclear War on Health and Health Services, Second Edition"
(Geneva, WHO, 1967). ?ne WHO Kanagenent Group has since continued
its work in this area, and in 1991 produced a report on its
activities since 1561 (A;</I~:F.DOC/~).
7. None of these resolutions or reports was concerned with thelegality of the use of nuclear weapons. During the eighties,
however, there vas a grocing interest among cerrain
non-governmental organisations in the possibility of obtaining
an advisory opinion from the InternationalCourt of Justice on
.-
legal questions relating to nuclear weapons. This idea was
supported, for example, by a non-governmental-eventcalled the
London Nuclear WarfareTribunal, held in 1965. Subsequently an
effort was made to persuade thezAustralian and New Zealand
Governments to take the initiativewithin the United Nations to
have the General Assenbly request such an Opinion, but without
success. The conclusion fron this experience seens to have
been that instead of persuadingan individual state to take up
this campaign, it vould be easier to persuade the United
Nations General Ass~~D?~ airectly or an international
organisation to do so. (See "The Korld Court Reference
Prûject", a leaflet pro?2=e3 by zhe Institure for Law and
Peace, 1990) .
8. In August 1987 an inrernazionalconference of non-governmental
organisations on nuclear weaponsand internazional law was held ir
New York, sponsorsd by the Lawyers Connittee on Nuclear Policy
(USA) and the Association of Soviet Lawyers. This decided to four
a world-uide organisation of lawyers opposedto nuclear weapons.
This organisation, the International Associationof Lawyers againc
Nuclear Arns (IALAIdA), xas founàed in April 1986 a: another NGO
-
meeting in Stockholn. In Septenber 1989, at The Hague, the IALANP
adopted itsHague Declaration on the Illegality of Nuclear Weapons
It also appealed to al1 ze-ber States of the United Nations "to
take inmediate steps toward obtaining a resolutionby the United Nations General Assenblp under Article 96 of the Cnited Nations
Charter, requesting the International Court of Justice to render an
advisory opinion on the illegality of the use of nuclear weapons"-
-
(see "The World Court Project on Nuclear Weapons and International
Law1',2nd edition, 1993, p.xiii and -Appendix 1).
9. Subsequently, in January 199.2, IALANA, together h'ithtwo other
NGO's (the International Peace Bureau and International Physicians
for the Prevention of Nuclear War) established the World Court ..
Project. International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear
War had previously suggestedthat the WHO as vell as the United
Nations General Assenbly night provide a route Co the International
Cour: of Justice. In !.!a-??cl Che Inrernational Peace Bureau
organised a neeting in Goneva rc pronulgate the Prcjeit's ideas
("The World Courr Projecr sr ;:uzleariieapcnsanS Inrornational
iau", 2nd edition, above ).
10. Also in .la? 1952, ar -.ie "n, ~tself. a nurber of states
proposed a draf: resolurion on the "Heaich and Environmental
Effects of Nuclear i<eapons1( 'A:5/A/Conf.?aperNo.2). This resol-
ution would have requestedthe Director-General "Co refer the
natter to the Executive Board to study and fornulate a request for
an advisory opinionfroz :ne 1nterna:ional Court of Justice on the
scatus in internarionai iax of - Che use of nuclear weapons in view
of their serious effecrs on health and the environment." The Gen-
eral Coxittee reconnende?, ho;.?evert ,hat the WHA take no action onthe draft and this recon~endation was endorsed by consensus in a
Plenary Session of the Assenbly.
11. Subsequently, at the request of some states the item "Health
-
and Environmental Effects of Nuclear Weapons" was included on the
provisional agenda of the 1993 WHA. .Asbackgroundthe
Director-General of the SHO, in consultation with the WHO
Management Group, prepared a.report on this subject, reviewinq
previous WHO work on the matter since 1981 and sumnarising its
conclusions (A46130). This did not make any reference to the
question of the leqality of usinq nuclear weapons. ~owever.,the
draft resolution tabled by certain st-tes did so; it was
introduced in ComrnitteeB. and adopted there on 12 May (by 73 in
favour to 31 aqains: kith 6 absrentions).
12. The debate borh in Cazzittee 9, ani subsequently in
Plenary Session, cenrrec cr rie coz?erence of te WHO to
address such an issue, a?? rhe pzssihle costs it h.ouldentail.
The Leqal Counsel to :ne 1.30sspke to Che resolution in the
Plenary Session on, inter alia. the question of competence:
"It is not kithin the nornal cornpetenceor mandate of
the WHO to deal with the lawfulness or illeqality of
the use of nuclear weapons. Inconsequence, it is also
not within the noya1 coinpetenceor mandate sf the WHO
to refer the la.~:fulneso sr illeqality question to the
International Court of Justice.
The question of illeqality of nuclear weapons falls squarely within the nandate Of the United Nations and
is being dealt with by it, and in consequence it is
clearly within the mandate of the United Nations
General Assembly, should it wish, to refer the question
-
of illegality to the International Court of Justice for
an advisory opinion." (WHA-ProvisionalVerbatim
Records: A46/VR/13: p13)
13. In his address to the Plenary Session, the Director
General of the \<HO,Dr Nakajina, reiterated these concerns, and
nade clear his h'orriesover the financial inplicationsfor the
Organisation.
"\Ge nust recsgnise che prinary rnandaceof Che United
Natïons to àeal uizh nuclear xeapons, disarnament, and
related issues of la;,a'nd àiploza~y ... Furzherrnore,in
viev of the diffizulz bu3getary an6 financial position
of the 0 an3 =ne neec for prioricised use of
resources, . .. ; ..oulà not be acle to incur
expenditures froc b:iCninexisting appro?riations, and
would hsve cc rely on recei?: cf sufficien: additional
volunrary con:ribu:ions in order to take the actions
requested by chis resolurion". (NHA Provisional
Verbatin Rezcrds: A&G/VR/l3: pl5)
1;. In che aebate ouring zhe Tlenary Session, speakers from
the United Staces, t3e Cniiej Kingdo?, France and Russia argued
against the resoluri3n. chiefly on the grounds that it
dealt with natcers outsiae the cornpetenceof the KRO. Speakersfrom Mexico, Vanuatu, Zanbia, Tonga and Colonbia arqued for the
resolution, suqgestinq that the question of coTpetence had been
decided by the previous discussion in Connittee B.
-
15. In the event, the resolution was passed in the Plenary
session on 14 May 1993 by 73 in favour to 40 against with 10
abstentions. On 27 Auqust 1993, the WHO Director-General
formally wrote to the International Court of Justice to request
its Opinion on the question of the leqality of the use of
nuclear weapons.
2. A reviev of World Health Assembly Resolution 46.40
16. World Health Assezbly Resolurion 46.40 of 1; May 1993
refers to five previous \<HAresolutions.
17. In the third prea~~bular paragraph ic recalls resoiutions
WHA 34.38, WHA 36.2~ anc W5.2.40.2; on ïne effeccs of nuclear
war on health and healïh services. In fazt, these resolutions
deal with, or recite, a nurber of ?ac:ers, none of :hem however
relatinq to the legality of the use of nuclear weapons under
international law, or the consistency of the use of nuclear
weapons with Member Stafes' obligations under the WHO
Constitution. These resolutions cover the followinq ground:
-
(1) the relationship between the preservation of peace in
general terns and the preservation or inprovenent of
health (NHA 3:.3ô, preanbular paraqraphs 1 and 2 and
operative paraqraph 1; NHA 36.26, preanbular paragraph 1; WHA 40.24, preaabular paragraphs 1 and 2);
(ii) the relationship between peace and developzent (WHA
34.38, preambularparagraphs 3 and 4) ;
-
(iii) the role of physicians and health workers (NHA 32.38,
preanbular paragraph4, and 36.28, preanbular paragraph
2) and their views on the effects of nuclear war (WHA
34.38, preanbular paragraph 6);
(iv) concerns regarding rhe effects of nuclear xar on health
and health services:-
(a) \<HA 34.36 cires concern that the unleashing of
nuclear Yar "in any for; and on any scale" will
lead ro destruction of the environ?onr, rridespread
deaths, and tr grave consequences for the life and
health of the population of al1 countries
(preanbularparagraph 5); and requests the
Director-Genera? to create an international
conzittee conposed of eninent experts in science
and nedical health to study and elucidate the
threat of nuclear war and its consequences for
life and heaith;
-
(b) KHA 36.28 considers the 1963 report of that body
and notes it xith concern (preambularparagraph
3, operative paragraphs 1 and 2), in particular
its inplicationsfor health services and the health of mankind (operative paragraph 3),
commends it to Menber States (operative paragraph
4), requests the ~irector-~eneral to publicize it
(operative paragraph 5) and recommends that the
-
WHO continue its work in this field (operative
paragraph 6) ;
(c) WHA 40.24 follows WHA 36.28 in its consideration
of the 1987 report of the WHO Management Group on
the effects of nuclear war on health and health
services.
18. In sunmary, the above resolutions express concern over the
effects of nuclear aar on heal:h and nealth services, but the
issue of the legaliry cf the use cf nuclear i,,eapons,or any
possible inconpatibiliry Dez...:et ehneir use an2 a !.!e=berState's
obligations under the i,:!Chzrzer. are never nen:ioned. The
concern of rhese resolutio~i 1s :ne effects cf nuclear war on
health services an6 rhe hea?r5 of .zanJ:ind irrespecrive of its
legality, or of the le?a?:ty of :ne use cf nuclear weapons
therein.
19. In its fifth preanbclar paragraph, WHA 46.40 recalls WHA
22.26 (WHO'S contribution :O international efforts towards
sustainable develo~?ect) -an2 i:HR 45.31 (effects on health of
environmental ae?redazion). These tno resolutions cover thefollowing ground:
(i WHA 42.26 considers the implications of sustainable
development for health, but makes no specific - mention
.-
of nuclear weapons, or the possible effects of their
use. Indeed, other specific threats to.the environment
and to sustainable developmentare singled out, in
particular "uncontrolled development and the
indiscriminate useof technology" (preambularparagraph
6 and operative paragraph 3(2)); diseases resulting
froo uncontrolled development (operative paragraph
3(2)); anthropogenic influences one~0logi~al systems
(operative paragraph 3 ) and the effects of
hazardous and toxic substances, industria! processes
and produc-s, aoricultüral and food processing
pracrices an? cli~ace chanoe (c?erarive paraqraph
5(l) (a));
(ii) KHA 45.31 addresses the effeczs on health of
environnenta? degradacion, bur again nakes no specific
mention of nucleor ueapons, or the possible effects of
their use. Inscead, the resolution addresses
environmental deqradation specifically in the context
of (for exazple) concerns over chemical safety
(prear,bularparaqyaphs 1 and 5, operative paragraph
4 (2)(b)), rarer and sanitation (preambular paragraph 1
and opera~ive paragraph i (2)(c)), and the expanding
population cf urban areas (preambular paragraph 4 and
operative paraqraph i(2)(d)) .20. While both of the above resolutions consider the effects
of environmental degradation, and some of its causes, they do
not address the possible effects of the use of nuclear weapons,
or its legality. The reference in WHA 46.40, preambular
-
paragraph 5, to the environnental consequences of the use
of nuclear weapons, does not fo.110~ directly from any
specific concern expressed in these two resolutions.
21. While WHA resolutions adopted prior to WHA 46.40 indicate
grave concern over the health and environmental effects of the
use of nuclear weapons, none of the resolutions cited in WHA
46.40, or any other \<HAresolution, expresses concerns over the
legality of their use, or indicates hou or why this is relevant
to their possible health or environnental effects; or how the
effects of lawful use ~iqnt àiffer fron the unlavful use of
such weapons. Rather the focus of such previûus \<!IOaction as
has taken place in this area r~asboen on the effecrs of nuclear
war on public healtn an3 :ne enuironzonz; concerns also
recited in preanbular paragraphs 1-7 of \<HA46.;0. The issue
of legality has not previously been taken up by \MO.
22. Preambular paragraph 9 of \.:E46.40 asserts that "the
primary prevention of the health hazardsof nuclear weapons
requires clarity abouc the status in international law of their
use." This is the first tine in which a reference to this
-
requirement appears in \<HAresolutions. \<hileWHO'S concern
over the hea1:h and environnental effectsof nuclear weapons is
well-docunented, no previous resolution indicates why the
lawfulness or ctheruise of the use of nuclear weapons has any
18 relevance to their effects on health if they are used; and \<HA
46.40 offers no such explanarion.
23. Preambular paraqraph 9 recites also that "over the last 48
-
years marked differences of opinion have been expressed by
Member States about the lawfulness of the use of nuclear
weapons". Khile it is crue that such differences of opinion
between States have arisen, WHA 46.40 marks the first time that
such differences have been the subjec~ of action by Member
States of the L'HO. Indeed internationalefforts to control the
manufacture, use an3 proliferation of nuclear veapons (which
ante-date the coninq into force of the \<HO Constitution on 7
April 1948) have, as set ocr in Chapter Li, taken place in
quite differenr or92:isari3ns and insrirurions. 46.40 is
the first instance in xnich =ne leqality of the use of nuclear
xeapons has been the sïz;ocr cf :,::2cri3.r,an2 is thus an
entirely nec develop~ozz.
24. . It is ass3~ze5 rhzr Zr.? C3crZ h-C. zftoss :O all the
Resolutions lis-ea aosve. If tiis is ncr rhe case, copies can
be supplied if requesceà. INTERNATIONALEFFORTS TO CONTROL NUCLEAR WEAPONS
1. The concern overthe effects of.nuclear weapons which is
reflected in the roquest by the World Health Assembly for the
Court's Opinion is not now, and never has been, confinedto the
WHA. It nay therefore be helpful for the Court to provide a
short account of the accivitiesof the international community
in this field.
2. Efforts to control nuclearweapons began inmediatelyafter
the Second World Kar. The firs: resolution of the first United
Nations General issezbly establisheda United Nations Atomic
Energy Commission '%.hicchonsiàered a nunber of proposals for
eliminaring nuclear xeapons.'In Januar).1952 aqreement was
reached on disçolvinq the Cnited Nations Atomic Energy
Commission, and creatino, in Ehe place of both it and the
United Nations Com,ission for ConventionalArmanents, a single
United Nations ûisarnsnentConnission to consider al1 aspects
of disarmamenttoqetner.'
3. Making proqress renained difficult, despite the
Commission's subsequen: creation of a Five Power Sub-Committee
in 195e3. In 1039 a ?en Nation Disarmament Committee was
1 Resolution l(1) of 2; January 1946.
2 Resolution 502(7:iJo: 11 January 1932.
3 DC/S9 of 15 npri? 193;.established outside the framework of the United Nations but
with the intention of keeping UN bodies informed of its
progress (a point welcomed by the Disarmament ~ommission).'It
met once in 1960. Subsequent discussions in1961 between the
-
United States and Soviet Union led, with the endorsement of the
United Nations General Assembly, to the -establishmentin 1962
of an Eighteen Nation Disarmament Cornmittee.' In parallel,
separate tripartite negotiations betweenthe United States; the
Soviet Union, and the United Kingdom eventually led to the
conclusion in 1963 of the Partial Test Ban Treaty (PTBT),
banning any nuclear weapons testexplosion, or any other
nuclear explosion, in the atmosphere, in outer space and under
water.
4. The conclusion of the PTBT was followed by efforts to
prevent the further proliferacion of nuclear weapons. On 14
February the Latin American scates opened for signature the
Treaty of Tlatelolco and its two Additional protocols7,which
were designed to create a nuclear weapon-free zone in that part
of the world. At the same time the Eighteen NationDisarmament
Committee focussed on the negotiationsthat led to the Nuclear
L The origins of the TNDC are in the Four Power Communiqueon
Disarmament Negotiationsof 7 September 1959 (US State
Department Press Release 637 of 7 September 1959). The UN
Disarmament Commission's welcome for it is in its resolution
of 10 September 1959 (UN document A14209 of 11 September 1959:
5 For the discussions betw-eenthe United States and the Soviet
Union, see the Statements by the American and Soviet
representativesto the First Committee of the General
Assembly on 13 December 1961 (AIC.llPV1218,pp4-10, and
A/C.l/PV.1218, pp.10-12). For the endorsement by the United
Nations General Assembly, see Resolution 1722 (XVI) of
20 December 1961.
6 480UNTS43.
7 634 UNTS 281. Non-Proliferation Treaty(xPT).'The NPT drew a distinction
between the five states which had already exploded a nuclear
device by 1 January 1967, which it designated nuclear weapon
states, and al1 other states, which could onlyjoin the treaty
-
as non-nuclearweapon states. - Thetreaty's basic purpose was
thus to draw a line under the proliferationthat.had already
occurred. It was opened for signaturein 1968 and entered into
force in 1970.
5. After the conclusion of the PTBT and NPT the nain focus of
nuclear arns control effortssvitched toward limiting the size
of American and Soviet nuclear forces. The Strategic Arms
Limitation Talks (SALT] betxeen the United States and the
Soviet Union began in riove-~er19G9. The first phase ofthese
talks (SALT Il lasied un-il 1972 and produced tno important
agreemenzs, the ~nti-?al~isric?:issiie Treaty (.A~CITaJn~d the
Interim Agreenenï on Offensive Szraiegic !,lissiles.T"hey were
immediately followed by a ne;,,>.L;II negotiacion aimed at
concluding amore cozprehensi\~e treaiy on offensive strategic
nuclear weapons. .~.l:nouqan S>.LTII agreemen: as signed in
1579, it never encered inzo force. The resulrs of the SALT
process which are sïi?l in force today are the ABMT and its
1974 Protocol."
6. Subsequentlyno,:E :S/So-iet talks during the 1980's led to
separate agree>en:s on tneatre nuclear weaponsand strategic
8 729 UNTS 1Gi.
Ç 944 U!!TS13.
1:944 W:Ts 3.
1;1042 CRTS 42;.nuclear weapons. The Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF
Treaty) was signed in Decenber 1987 and entered intoforce in
June 1988". It provided forthe elimination of al1 American
and Soviet land-based missiles with rangesfrom 500 to 5500
-
kms. In accordance withthe treaty these missiles have now
been eliminated. The Strategic Arms Reductions Treaty (START 1
treaty) was signed in July 1991'~,but difficulties'over its
implementation arose when the Soviet Union was dissolved in
December 1991. Agreements on this subject were reached at
Lisbon on 23 May 1992 with the signature of a START 1 Protocol
involving Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine as !.:elas the United
States and Russia". Shortly -afterwards in June 1992
Presidents Bush and Yeltsin agreed a Joint Underszanding on the
framework for another treary providing for furrher reductions
12 27 ILM (1988) 84.
13 CD11192 of 5 April 1993 for the Treaty, its Protocols, the
Memorandum of Undersranding and related documents. Also to
be found in"Arms Control and Disarnament Agreements:START"
(Washington DC: United States Arns Control,and Disarmament
Agency). The Treaty (but not its Protocols, the Memorandum
of Understanding or the other related documents) is also
reprinted in the UN Disarmanent Yearbook, volume 16, 1991,
Appendix 11, pp450-476 (New York: UN Office for Disarmament
Affairs) . -
1; CD11193 of 5 April 1993. Also to be found in the UN
Disarmament Yearbook, volume 17, 1992, Appendix II,
pp328-330 (New York: UN Departnent of Political Affairs,
1993). beyond those required by START I'~. This led to the SThaT Ii
treaty, a bilateral Russo/American treaty signed in January
199316.1tsentry into force is dependent, however, on the prior
entry into force of SIART 1, which has no: yet occurred.
-
7. Since the PTBT was signed in 1963 there have also been
further efforts to restrict nuclear testing. In 1974 the United
States and the Soviet Union agreed to restrict the yield of
their underground nuclear weapons tests to no more than 150KT,
and to negotiaïe a similar limit on underground nuclear
explosions for peaceful purposes. The bilazeral Threshold Test
Ban Treaty (TTBT)of 1974" and the bilateral Peaceful Nuclear
Explosions Treaïy (PIiET) of 19761Ei,.ereChe result. In the
.evenr these were no: irrteàiarely razifieà, bui in 1977 new
negotiations began for a Corprehensive Tes: Ban Treaï). (CTBT).
These tripartite negoriazions includeû :ne Unireci Kingdom as
well as the United Siares and Sovio: Cnion. 'ne- foundered,
however. in 1980, and hy this ce àsu5rs about the
verifiabilicy of ihe TT91 en5 ?1:51F.23raiseû ne...:uesrions
about the desirabili~y cf raTifyinç Cn~se ïreazies. Bilateral
\5 CD11162 of 17 June 1952
16 CD/1194 of 5 hpril 1953 for the Treaty, its Protocols, and
the Menorandur of Lnderscan5inç. h!so to bo found in the UN
Disarmament Yearkook, voluze 16, 1002, Appendix III.
pp314-336 (Ne,,ï;ori::~ili'cenïrfeor Disarmament Affairs,
1994).
17 13 IL!? (1974j $06.
1 15 1iI.i(1576) Col.US/Soviet talks on testing resumed in 1986, and were followed in
1988 by neqotiations which led in 1990 to the ratification of
the TTBT and PNET with new Verification rotoc cols'^.
-
8. Given the essentially bilateral course of nuclear arms
control efforts since 1969, the sucoessors to the fighteen
Nation Disarmament Committee, which have provided the main forum
for neqotiating multilateral arms control agreements, have until
recently focussed on non-nuclear issues. Shortly after the
conclusion of the NPT, the Eiqhteen Nation Disarmanent Committee
was expanded to becone the Conference of the Committee on
Disarmament, and it was this forum which neqotiated the
Biological Weapons Convention, openea for signature in 1972".
The Conference of the Connittee on Disarnament was later
expanded and rechristened the Corzitcee on Disarnanent, which
was itself later renanei the Conference on Disarnanent2'. Much
of its work until recenzly has been concerned with the
negotiation of the Chezical Keapons Convention, opened for
signature in 1993~'.
9. Like al1 its predecessors, however, the Conference on
Disarmament has also continued to discuss nuclear arms control
and disarmament issues. 1: has, for example, taken a
continuinq interest in a ban on al1 nuclear testinq. In Auqust
IV CD/1066 for the TTBT and its new Protocol; CD11067 for the
PNET and its nea Prctocol.
20 1015 UNTS 163.
21 For a short accoun: of the CD and its predecessors, see the
UN Disarnament Yearbook, volume 13, 1988. pl0 (New York: UN
Departnent for Disarzanen: kffairs, 1989).
22 32 ILM (1993) 804.This resolution was passed by 55 votes to 20 vith 26
abstentions. It declared that the use of nuclear weapons was
unlawful on various grounds, anà'requested the Secretary-General
to consult the Governments of Member States to ascertain their
-
views on the possibility of convening a special conference for
signing a convention on the prohibition of the use of nuclear
and thermonuclear weapons forwar purposes. This resolution,
which is of course not binding on Member States, and which has
been followed by other resolutions requestinq a similar
convention, is discussed in more detail in chapter V. However,
there has been no conclusion of any convention imposinq a
qeneral prohibition on the use of nuclear weapons, although the.
CD regularly discusses the possibility of a Convention by which
nuclear weapons States ao,dlà undertake no: Co use nuclear
weapons aqainst non-nuclear k:eaponscates.
12. Despite the iack cf any açree:,o~~si:.posinq a general
prohibition on the use of nuciear ceapons, there have been more
limited agreements and asscranzes asoc: cheir non-use in
specific contexts:
(i) Al1 five NWS have signed and ratrifled(with reservations)
Additional Protocol II to the Treaty of ~latelolco~~.Under
Article 3 of tha: Protoco? the NKS undertake not to use or
-.
27 28 ILM (1965) 1400ff. The reservations are reprinted in
"Status of Mu?tilaterai krns Requlation and Disarmament
Agreements, 4th edition, 1992, volume 1, pp55-109 (New York:
UN Departnent of Political Affairs, 1993). threaten to use nuclear weapons against the Contracting Parties
of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin
America.
(ii) ~11 five NWS took the 0;portunity of the United Nations
first Special session on Disarmament in MayjJune 1978 to give
unilateral assurances about the circumstances in which they
would not use nuclear weapons2'.
(iii) The Soviet Union and China have signed and ratified
Protocol II to the Treaty of ~arotonga" ,vhich provides that
NWS will not use or threaten to use any nuclear explosive device
against:
(a) Parties to the Treacy; and
(b) any territory aichin :he Sou:h Pacific Cuclear Free Zone.
These agreements and assurances are discussec in rore detail in
Chapter V. They deztonstratethar, n.hilearbitious efforts at
global multilateral prohikiti~z on rhe use of nuclear weapons
have been unsuccessfïl, ucre specifiz s:eps have led to
concrete results.
28 These assurances, and sùbsequent ones, are reprinted in the
UN Disarmanent Yearnook, volune iS, 1989, pp179-180 (New
York: Department of Disarnanent Affairs, 1990).
29 CD1693 and Corr 1. hlso to be found in UN Disarmanent
Yearbook 1995, volune 10, kppendix \'IIpp531-341 (New York:
UN Departnenr for Disarzazent Affairs, 198G). CHAPTER III
THE QUESTION OF POWERS : IS 'l'HEREQUEST INTRA VIRES THE WORLD
HEALTH ORGANISATION?
-
The extent of Dover qranted to WHO
1. There is no doubt that, for the purposes of Article 65(1)
of the Court's Statute, the WH0 is a "body ...authorised by or
in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations ..."to
request an kdvisory Opinion. That authorisation was granted by
the General Assenbly in concluding the Agreenent of 10 July
1946' between the United Nations and WHO. However, as Article
X(2) of that Agreener.:szipalaZes, the authorisacion by the
General Assenbly recuire3 ünder >.r=icle 96!2)' of the United
t:acionsCharter is ..-1..-a-- .
"1. ...
2. The General .:.ssez=ly auzn3rises cko k:cridHealzh
Organisation :c reques: advisory opinions of the
inrernatis~a? Coïrt cf Jusrize on iegai questions
arisinq nickin :ne scûpe of irs cozpetence other
than quesrions ccncerning the nucual
relationships of Che Organisation and the United
Nations 3r ocher specislised agencies."
The Agreenent Kas accrovel by the General Assenbly in Resol.
124(II) or. 15 I:o..,e:.> 1-7, an3 by the Iv'orin Health
Assenbly on 10 J-ly ?94E: Of:. Rec, World Health
Organisacion, 13, Z?, 321.
2 This provides chat spezialised agencies, so authorised by
the General Asse-ci?, nay reques: advisory opinions "on
legal quescions orisinq aichin the scope of their
activities."This limitation is faithfully reflected in Article 76 of the
WHO Constitution which States
Il...the Organisation may request the International
- -
Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on any legal
question arising withinthe competence of the
Organisation."
Thus the limits on the power granted to WHO are expressed both
positively and negatively. In the positive sense the opinion
must raise "legal questions arising within the scope of its
competence " and, in the slightly different terms of Article
96(2) of the Charter, "legal questions arising within the scope
of lits] activities." In the neqative sense the questions must
net concern mutual relationships of \?HOand the C.N.
2. A breach of these iizits ?eons :na: fhe reques: is olcra
vires, and, if the Court should fin? that tc be Che case,3 the
Court has no option bu: fo decline zhe requesz: the linits
operate as an absolute bar tc rhe request. This is therefore
quite different fron those cases - ro be considered in the next
Chapter - in which the Court exercises a discretionto either
grant or refuse the requesz.
~ -- -- - -
-
3 It is clear from the :asla Case (Application for Review of
U.N.A.T. JudgmenC No. 15ô), Advisory Opinion 12 July 1973:
I.C.J. Report, 1973, p. 166 at pp. 172-4 that the court is
entitled to make its own assessnent of what,
constitutionally, are the proper limits ofan organ's
"activities". Whether, in the present case, the reqUeSt by WHO transgresses
those limits requires an analysis of both the terms of the
request and the competence (or scope of activities) of WHO. It
is to this analysis that we now turn.
-
Analvsis of the reauest and KHO cornpetence
3. The terms of the request, and the circumstances in which
it was made, have been outlined in Chapter 1 above. It may be
convenient to set the terms out here.
"In vie3 of the health and environmental effects, would
the use of nuclearweapons by a State in war or other
armed conflict be a breach of itsobligations under
international lax inciudinq the WHO Constitution?"
The preliminary phrase is an assertion :ha: the use of nuclear
weapons has effects on numan health and on the environment.
That cannot be doub:eo.- Eiorcan it be doubted that WHO has a
legitimate concern over health. 1:s funttions under Article 2
of its Constitution xoula properly embrace assisting
Governments, pronoTing co-operation amongst scientists,
providing information, developing public opinionand so forth.
WHO might properly study both the immediate and the
longer-term effects of nuclear radiation, blast and heat on the
hunan body, or :ne nedical risks associated with the
production of fissile naterials - whether for use in peaceful
- -
L See generally rne Reporc by the Director-Generalof WHO,
Health a.rdZnvirsnne.rta1 Effects of Nuclear iieapons,
A 46/30, 26 kpril 1953.purposes or for use in nuclear weapons. And WHO might
legitimately study whar medical science could do to alleviate
such risks, or to deal with radiation injuries.
-
4. Yet, clearly, none of this has anything to do with the
leaalit~ of the use of a nuclear weapon. Whether the weapon is
used lawfully or unlawfully is, as it were, irrelevant to al1
these legitimate concerns of WHO, for the medical and health
problems which rnayarise will arise whether the use be lawful
or unlawful.
5. Thus it is essential to distinguish between the questions
of fact which are the proper concern of medical knowledge -
i.e. what effects will the ex?losion of a nuclear üeapon have?
- and the-question of la^- i.e. is the use of that weapon
lawful? The first is properly a carter cf concern to WHO; the
second is irrelevanr to that concerp fcr, b:hetherused la~fully
or unlawfully, the e:fects cn healzh cil1 be the sane. -
6. The importance of this distinction lies in the fact that
WHO is authorised to reques: an advisory opinion only on leqal
ouestions arising within the scope of its -cornpetence and
activities. It is no: enough for WHO to denonstrate that the
use of nuclear weapons gives rise to concerns that are within
its cornpetence. That can be adnitted. WHO has to show that
-.
the leqal auestion of the leqalitv of the use of nuclear
weauons arises vithin its conpetence. That the WHO cannot
show, for the concerns of KHO arise irrespective of the legality or illegality of the use of a nuclear i.:eapo n.
7. As drafted, the quesrion put to Che Court by \\'His a leaal
question but the question does not identify the manner in which
that question arises "within the scope of its conpetence"-Othe?
-
than by posing the question whether the use of a nuclear weapon
by a Stace would be "a breach of its obligations under
international law including the WHO Constitution". Those
terms raise a larger .issue - i.e. whether the use would be a
breach of international law - and a narrower issue - i.e.
vhether the use would be a breach of the WHO Constitution.
These merit separzte creatnen:.
a) Use as a breach of international law
8. This is certainly a legal question, and i: will be
discussed in Chaprer Y cf rhis Ile~oria?.but Che issue relevant
here ish'hethertnis is a q,dosrionarisinq xirkin the scope of
MHO competence. ?ri.% :=rie it is nt: 223, as suogesred above,
it is entirely falseto arque rnar Secause an activlty poses a
threat to health, therefzre the leqalify of char activity
arises within the cozpe:en=e of KHC.
5 Significantly, the 2irector-Yeneral'sreporc (supra, note 4)
nowhere discusses iegallty of use. His support for the
elinination of al! nuclear weapons (para. 53) is not based
upon a vie\:of the legaiity of their use. One night equally
support the elizinario~ O: ail fast-breeder reactors,
because of the risilsassociatea with the use of plutonium,
fast-breedern.reaccors.stioning the legalityof the use of9. In fact nany activizies, xhether Szate-sponsored or
resulting fron private enterprise, create risks to health.
This would be true of the emission of COz into the atmosphere,
of the dumping of toxic vastes, of the disposa1 of sevage, of
-
motor car nanufacture, of coal-mining, or de-forestation and so
on. But it is patently false to argue that because the
activity involves a health risk therefore the legality of that
activity is properly within WHO competence. On that basis WHO
vould become the guardian of legality over a vide range of
State activities, entitled to question the legality of those
activities before the International Court sirply on the basis
that the activity involved a health risk.
-
b. Use as a breach of a Member State's Constitutional
obliaations
10. The constitutional oùligations of Xe-ber Siates are spelt
out in the Constitution icse:f a53 can be seen :O be limited in
nature. For the prizary e7,phasisin the LHO Constitution is on
the funczions of tne various K3O organs, and most provisions in
the Constitutio~ deal xith such aatters. Relatively feu
provisions embody a direct constitutional obligationinposed on
States, or even an obligation arising by way of inference from
the functions or po:.%.earssigned to the WHO organs. However,
the constitutional cbligations, stricto sensu, seem to be the
-
following.
(i) The obligation :O neet the budgetary contribution
allocated to that Yenber by the Assembly (Arts. 7, 56) (ii) The obligation :O no:.inatedelegares of technical
conpetence (Arts. 11, 24).
(iii) The obligation to cake action relative to the
-
acceptance of a convention of agreezent (Art. 20).
(iv) The ~bligation to comply with regulations in respect of
which a Member has given no rejection or nade no
reservation (Art. 22).
The obliqation to respect the exclusively
international character of the Director-General and
his staff (Art. 37).
ivi) The obligation to submit reports, comnunicate
documents and transrit inforzation (ArZs. 61-65).
(vii) The obligation r= qrazr leqal capaziry tc the
Orqanisation in the !.:ezbeS rt8:e's cerriczry (Art. 66).
(viii) The obliqaticz :z cocfor srivileqes an2 i~~a~itieson
the Organisatis? and rc the Re~reser=3rivec of Menbers
(Art. 67).
11. - If these, rhen, are the csnstit,~:i-,na oln?iqa:ions on each
Mexber State. it is Sifficul: to sèe ho...the use of a nuclear
weapon can be a breach of those obliqations. The obligations
sinply do no: cover such conduct. It would therefore seem that
the assertion =ha: the use of a nuclear weapon nay be a breach
of constitutional cbliqations - an assertion inplicit in the
fox of the auestic- 3.2::c :ne Cour: - is sinply a device to
give credence ro rt:eiàea :na: the legaliry of such use is
"xithin the cozperence" of ::!O. In fact the assertionis quite
spurious, for none cf the constirutional obligations has any
relevance to =ne use of nuclear weapons, uhether lawful orunlawful.
12. There is ample evidence in the KHO's oun conducr that this
is, indeed, the case. It is significant that, although
-
internationalconcern about the use of nuclear weapons has been
widespread since 1955, it was not until 1993 thar the Health
Assembly in adopting resolution WHA 46.40 first implied that
such use may be a breach of the WHO Constitution. As shown in
Chapter 1 above, no previous resolution had even hinted at
this possibility. Nor had the Director-General'sReport of 26
April 1993 (A 4Gf30) menzioned this as a possibility. It is
thus remarkable that conduct by Member States, which-has been
possible, and a cause of great concern, for ;5 years, should
only be thought as capable of breaching the b:HO Cons=itution in
1993. This fact alone supports the viehtchat chere is, in
reality, no relationship bet:.:eenhe Stace c~nducz in question
and a State's obligarions uE5er zhe \,:ECons-izufion.
3 So far as the KHO Conszitution is concerneà, it is a
treaty which must be interpreted in accordance ~.:ith the rules
governing interpretationof treaties; and paranount amongst
these is the principle of good faith. As expressedby one
distinguished conmentator
"Or, si le traité ooit étre exécutée de bonne foi, il
doit nécessairnentetre interprété de bonne foi.
L'exécution dépend de l'interprétationet, sans se confondre, cesdeux opérationsjuridiques sont
intimement liées. "'
It would lack good faith to interpretthat Constitutionnow, in
1993, so as to enbody in it-an obligation for Menber States
relating to the use of nuclear weaponswhich was never intended
and which for 45 years no Member State has ever thought to
exist. Indeed, for the Court to adopt so expansive a view of
those treaty obligations would be highly damaging to
international institutions, for States would be wary about
takinq on mesbership i.!hen this niqht inply legal obligations
not spelt out in the constituenttreaty, and not discernible by
-
any acceptedmeans of treaty interpretation.
14. Nor should there be any douot as to the nature of this
obligation vhich it is sougr,: =O inply in the [.:HOconstitution
by this request. The use of nuclear xeapons hpouldarise eirher
in the context of a use O: force involving an act of
agqression, cr in a use O: force involving self-àefence. It
would be a singularly poin:less exercise :O construe the WHO
Constitution as prohibizinq aqqression by means of nuclear
weapons. This is no: sirply because it would be a perverse and
ill-founded interprecazion,bu: Decause it rqouldbe pointless
and unnecessary. Inrernationallaw contains a quite
--
6 Yasseen, "L'in:erprë:a:ionàe traités d'après la Convention
de Vienne sur le Drol: des Traités" 151 Recueil des Cours
(1976 - III), 221.sufficient legal basis for condenning aqqression - whether
nuclear or non-nuclear - without resortinq to the WH0
Constitution.
15. Thus, if some useful obligation were to be extracted fron
the WHO Constitution, it must.have.been assumed to be useful by
those responsible for drafting this question because it was an
obligation prohibiting even the use of nuclear weapons in
self-defence. Yet that interpretationof the Constitution
defies belief.
16. There is first the objection that no'thingin the travaux
oréparatoires - and certainl) in the text of the Constitution
itself - can be focnd ro scp;srt Thar vie;,..Equally, there is
nothinq in the subsequent pracrice of \<HOto support it, and,
so far as can be ascertaine2, no Me~ber has ever suoaested such
an interpretation of its oSlioz:ior.s. Clearly those Menbers
who possess nuclear weapons did nsr believe there was any
inconpatibility beiween ?eZSers??ip an3 rhe possession of
nuclear weapons for use in self-aefence; the) have combined
menbership with nuclear capability for nany years. And,
lastly, there is the argu7enr ïhat if, under Article 51 of the
U.N. Charter "nothing in the presen: Charter shall inpair the
inherent right of individual or collective self-defence ...", it
would be astonishin? if the b3 Constitution did sa. It is
-
scarcely to be believed rhat, at San Francisco, States took
such care to preserve their inherent right of self-defence but
yet, in accepting the \,:HOConstituïion, abandoned al1 claim to
use nuclear weapons in self-defence. To assert that Statesdid in fact do so would require the clearesz proof of such an
intention, backed by express wordinq to tha: effect. The
assertion could not possibly rest on mere inference, based upon
a fanciful interpretationof constitutional obligationswhich
-
make no reference eitherto self-defence ornuclear weapons.
17. The conclusion must be, therefore, that whether raisedas
a question of a breach of international law or as a question of
a breach of theWHO Constitution, the issue of the legality of
the use of nuclear weapons is a "within the scope of its
conpetence. ''
16. There renains that par: of the General Assembly's
authorisation hi chexc?uàes the \<HOfroz referring to the
Court leqal questions "concerninq the nutual reiazionships of
the Organisation and :ho Cnited Kaziûns ..." It is nst thouqht,
on balance, thac tiis exclusion is reievanz to the present
case, prinarily for the reasoc rh~a:there is no evidence to
suqgest thar the issue of rhe leqa?i:y of the use of nuclear
weapons was ever the concern of \<HO,and therefore thar it was
involved in theconplex relationship becween WHO an3 the United
Nations. That the possession and proliferation of nuclear
weapons has been the concern of the C.N. cannot be doubted.
That the effects of nuclear weaponson hunan health has been
the concern O: L:HOcannot be doubted. But the issue of the
leaalitv of the use of such weapons has not beena matter on
which any relationship bezween the U.N. and WHO has ever
existed. CHAPTER IV
THE QUEÇTION OF PROPRImY : IS THE REQUEÇT ONE WHICH, IN ALL
THE CIRCUnSTANCES, THE COUR% SHOULD DECLINE TO ANSWm?
-
1. It is clear chat the Court is not bound to give an advisory
opinion, even if the requesting organ or organisation is fully
intra vires in requesting it: the language of Article 65 of
the Statute is permissive rather than mandatory.
As the Cour: said in zhe I.?te-retation of t.be?eace Treaties ..
Case:
"Article 65 of the Statute is permissive. It gives the
Court the power to exanine whether the circumstances
of the case are of such a character as sh~uld lead it
to decline cû ansser zhe Rejaes:.. zhe Cour: possesses
a large anount of discrezion in che razter." (Advisory
Opinion of 3O I.:arc; i550, 2 . Ftep.1-50. pp.
71-72). .
The poinc sas re-irersre5 t:.z5e ;z-r: in izs .;5v~soryOpinion
on Reservatir.?s tr :.te Ge.izc:jeC-.?:re.?:l?.i an'2 aqain in the
Certai.? Ex.De.?ses Cass.'
2. This being ssl2, r3e CDurr has neverzhe?ess indicated that,
as the principal js2icial rrgan of the United tJations, its
opinion on a legai quos-iîn ??se2 by an organ or specialised
agency of the UnizeS ;:atisnsoucht nornally to be given when
reques:ed.
: Advisory Opinion cf 2s !.:a} .531: I.C.J. Rep. 1951, at p.19.
2 Advisor)'Opini~n cf 20 Jsly ?9G2: I.C.J. Rep. 1962, at p.155.
:-,3=v;! "But, as the Court also said in the same Opinion [viz.
Interpretationof tne eace Treaties, I.C.J. Reports
1950, p.721 Ithe reply of the Court, izself in Iorgan
of the United Nationst, represenzs its participation in
the activities of the Organisation, and, in p rinciple,
.shouldnot be refusedl-(ibid. , p.71) . Srill more
emphatically, in its Opinion of 23 October 1956, the
Court said that only compelling reasons should lead it
to refuse to.give a requested advisoryopinion
(Judgmentof the Administrative Tribunal of the I.L.O.
upon complaints made ayainst UNESCO, I.C.J. Reports
1956, p.86)."3
That position of principle is clearly right, and the desire of
the Court to play a constructive role in assisting organs of
the United Nations in the pursuit of their constitutional
activities can be haraly supported. But, cf course, the case
would be entirely differentif :he request b:ereultra vires.
It would also be differect if a resconse to the request was in
fact unlikely to provide en- ccnsrru=tive assis=an=e to the
Organisation subnirtinq =ne reques:, bu:, on rhe conrrary,
likely to prove detrinenzai tc az:ivlties undertak:en by the
Cnited Nations fanilu at larqe. A: tnis pain: the issue is one
of pro~riety, rather :han powers.
3 Certain Zxpenses 2: the C.S., Advisory Opinion of 20 July
1962, I.C.J. Reporzs 1562, a: p.155. 3. In fact the CourK1s ok.n jurisprudence qives extremely
useful guidance on the mazter of propriety. A careful analysis
reveals the categories of cases in which opinions to be
qiven - and the reasons therefor: and also the categories of
-
cases in which an opinion ouaht not to be given, as a matter of
propriety.
1. The Cateuories of Cases in which. as a matter of
pro~rietv, an ooinion ouaht to be aiven
4. Al1 the categories exanined below show a common
characteristic. They areal1 cases in which the opinion vas
likely to make a positive contribution to the work of the
requesting organ, and to the well-being of the United Nations
as a whole. That is to Say, k.hilstthere were groups of States
whc might have had difficulties ._th Che opinion (and the
matter mus: be assuxed ro have oenerated sone disagreement to
merit reference to rhe Courr), cne iikelihood chat these
difficulties would have ha5 e-fects Jerri~entai Co the work of
the United Nations .":as:.all; and, c3nverse?y, the benefits to
the United Naticns of setrling a disputed iegal question were
considerable. In short, the positive advantages to the United
Nations clearly outweighed the possible negative consequences.
a) Cases vhere the legs! auestion involved the
inter~retationof a canç?itutional~rovision xhich had
beco-e the subiect of disoute
5. Many of the cases fall into this category. For example,in
43the Conditims of Admissioz' and Cornpetence' cases the
essential question raised was the proper interpretation of
Article 4 of the Charter, specifically whethera Member State
in voting on an application for admission could takeinto
-
account conditionsnot expressly providedfor in paragraph 1 of
Article 4. And, follohring on from that, in the second opinion,
whether paragraph 2 of that sarneArticle allowed the' General
Assembly to proceed to vote on an application for admission in
the absence of a prior, favourable recomrnendationof the
Security Council. The Court dealt with both questions in
abstract terns, unrelated to the disputes surrounding
particular candidates for admission, and, although the Court
was well aware of the highly political, and acutely
controversial, nature of the disputes in zhe United Nations
which had led to these requeszs,6 its Opinions proved highly
~0nStr~~tive. The irr.?asso ever the admission of new Menbers
was renoved, and the Organisari~n>ove3 rapidly csüards its
goal of universaliry.
~Advisory Opinion of 2ô Piay1946: I.c.2'.Reports 1946, p.57.
s Advisory Opinion of 3 March 1950: ï.C.2. Reports 1950, p.4.
a See Higgins, "Policy Considerationsand the International
Judicial Process" 17 I.C.L.Q. (1968) 58 at p.76 who
supports the Court (co.?tra Greig, "The Advisory
Jurisdiction of the I.C.J. and the settlement of disputes
between States" 15 I.C.L.Q.(1966) 323) in the view that most
issues raised in requests for opinionswill have given rise
to disputes wizhin the C.N., but that this should not, per
se, prevent the Court fron responding.The IMCO (Composition of tne .:sritime Safety ~on,zt itee)' case
vas similar. Although controversial, the issue of the proper
interpretationof Article 28 of the Constitution,once settled
by the Court, made a highly positive contributionto th -e future
-
well-being of IMCO.
6. Certainly the present case has nothinq incommon with these
cases. The request frornWHO identifiesnot a single
constitutional provisionin the interpretationof which WHO
seeks the guidance of the Court.
b) Cases where the leaal auestion involves matters on-which
the reauestino oraan or aaencvseeks auidance in the
7. There is a broaà range of cases.in >:hichthe question posed
related, not to the incerpretazionof a constituzionalprovision
directly, but rather to the nanner in wnich an organ should
carry out itsfunctions,or to a ques~ion of law xhich needed
to be clarified in oràer than an organ shouid be anle to carry
out its functions.
8. Thus in the Re-~arari3.? case8the UnitedNations soughtto
know whether it might bring a claim against a State in respect
of injuries sufferedb, an -agent of the Organisation. And,
although the interpre=azionof Charter provisions was involved,
7 Advisory Opinion of 8 June 1960: 1.C.J.Reports 1960, p.150
8 Reparatizzs f=.r Izjcries scffereci ln the Service of the
G.h7., Advisory Opinion of 11 April 1949, I.C.J. Reports,
1949, p.171.this was as part of a broader question of whether the
Organisation possessed such international personalityas vould
justify the power to bring an internationalclaim.
-
9. In the Peace Treaties case9 the General Assembly soughtto
know whether disputes under the Peace Treaties existed, and, if
so, whether under the provisions of those treaties the
Secretary-Generalwas entitled to nominate the third member of
the Treaty Commissions,notwithstanding thatthe Government
concerned had failed tû appoint a party member. The Opinion
related more to the interpretationof the Peace Treaties than
to the Charter, but it was the Secretary-Generalwho required
-
legal guidance.
10. The Reservatio.?~ tg :he Ge.?ocileCo.?ve.?:incasei0was
somewhat similar. The Secrerary-Generalneeded to know how to
deal vith such reserva:ions in order :û carry out his duties as
Depositary under that Conve-:ion. And in cases such as the
Effect of Awards of the C.K. AdcinistraCiveTribcnal," or the
series of cases dealing with South-West ~frica'~it was the
General Assembly xhich sought guidance: i.e. was the General
Assembly legally bound to give effect to awards of compensation
9 Interpretationof Peace Treaties with Bulyaria,Hungary
and Romania, Advisory opinion of 16 July 1950, I.C.J.
Reports 1950, p.221.
IO Advisory opinionof 26 !+.ay 1951, I.C.J. Reports 1951, p.15
ii Advisory opinion of 13 July 1954, I.C.J. Reports 1954,p.47.
12 International Status of S.k:.Africa, Advisory Opinion of 11
July 1950, I.C.J. Reports 1950,p.126; Voting Procedure on
Questions relating to the Reports andPetitions concerning
the Territory of S.li7.Africa ,dvisory Opinion of 7 June
1955, I.C.J. Reports 1955, p. 67; Admissibilityof
Hearings of Petitioners by the Committee on S .W.Africa,
Advisory Opinion of 1 June 1956, I.C.J. Reports 1956,p.23.by the U.N. Adninistrative Tribunal, vas the Assenbly enzitled
to assume supervision over the nandated territory of
S.W.Africa, and by what neans couid that supervision be
exercised? And the various cases referred to the Court for an
opinion under the Statutes of the U.N. Adninistrative Tribunal
or the I.L.O. Administrative Tribunal are of the same
character, for the Court is essentially advising these
subsidiary, judicial organs on the exercise of their powers or
functions.
11. It is cerzainly true that in the S.K. Africa cases, or the
Western Sahara caseI3the Opinion sought by the Assembly had a
bearing on the legal obligations of Menber Szates (thus, for
example, it necessarily foliowed froz Che S.k;.Africa opinions
that, as a- Menber Stare, South Rfrica xas bound CD accept U.N.
supervision) . But, as Che C,?~rre:.;kiesiseà ir.;:'es:erSahara,
the primary rotivatioi?for ihe opinicr aas ro qive guidance to
the Assembly.
"...The opinion is sou3k.Zfcr a prazrica? anà
conteaporary ?~rposo, nanely, in oràer char the General
Assenbly shocld be in a berter posirion to decide a:
its thirtieth session on the policy to be followed for
the decolonisarion of \<esrernSahara.
...
the object of che request is ... to obtain from the
Court an opinion which the GeneralAsse~bly deems of
1 Advisory Opinion of 16 October 1575, I.C.J. Reports 1975,
p.12 assistance to it for the proper exercise of its
functions concerning the decolonisation of the
territory.""
12. In the present case it is difficult to see how the reques,
by WHO could come within this category. It is inpossible to see
-
at least from the Health Assemblyls resolution 46.40 (1993
containing that request, how the Court's-opinion could in any wa:
guide the Assembly in the performance of its functions.. Thi
Assembly has managed to function for 45 years without the benefi'
of the Court's clarification of this legal question, and ther~
appears to be nothing in the written record to suggest some ne1
problen has arisen, so that the Assembly is nou hampered ii
carrying out its functionsby the lac)<of an answer to th1
question posed.
C) Cases where the !eaa! auescian invslves +he
inter~retation of acree-o?cs betveon f5e Croanisation
and a Menbor Szate
13. This has long been regarûed 2s an appropriace case for usi
of the Court's advisory jurisdiczion. As early as 1946, in th1
1946 U.N. Convention on Privileges and Inmunities, ''section 31
of that Convention provided for reference of disputes to th1
Court by way of a request for an advisory opinion.
1; At pp. 20.27. 50, too in Certain Expenses of the U.N.
(Article 17 (2) O: :he Charter), 1. C.J. Reports 1962,
p.151, although giving guidanceto the Assembly on its
budgetary functions, the Opinion carried necessary
implications for zhe legal obligations of ~e~ber States.
15 1 UtiTS15. 14. More recently, in the WHO Regional -office caset6the Cour:
was asked two questions by the World Health Assenbly, the firsr
asking whether section 37 of the WHOJEgypt Agreement of 1951
applied in the event of either Party wishing to transfer the
-
WHO Regional Office from Egypt, and the second asking what were
the consequential legal responsibilities of the two Parties.
Obviously, since there was no question about the validity of
the 1951 Agreement, to which WHO was a Party, the further
question as to the legal obligations thereby imposed on both
WHO and Egypt was entirely proper.
15. The present case is markedly different. There is no
-
agreement concerningthe use of nuclearweapons, to which WHO is
a Party (not surprisingly,since this has never been regarded as
an area of legitimate concern for WHO), and therefore the
quesrion now posed by V?HO as to :he obligationsof menber States
does not arise as a nacura? conseauenceof a Drooer ouestion
reaardina an aareenen: bindina on \<HO.
d) Cases vhere the leaa? aueszion concerns the obliaations
of Member States conseauential uDon decisions or
resolutionsof the Co-Detent or-.
16. In the h'anibiacase" the question putto the Court did
involve the legal obligatipnsof Menber States, but, of course,
16 Advisory Opinion of 20 December 1960, I.C.J. Reports 1960,
IJ.73.
17 Legal Consequences forStates of :he Continued Presence of
South Africa in h'anibia(S. b:.Africa)notvithstanding
Security Counci?Reso1u:ion 276 (1970). Advisory Opinion
of 21 June 1951, I.C.J. Reports 1971, p.16.in the specific context of action by both the General Assembly
and the Security Council with regard to the territory. The
Assembly, by Resolution 2145 (xx~ )ad terninated the Mandate
under which South Africa held the territory, and Security Council
-
~esolution 276 (1970) endorsed that decision, confirmed the
illegality of further acts by South Africa in the territory, and
called on Menber Stares to refrain from dealing with South Africa
contrary to paragraph 2 of the resolution. It was these
decisions which created the legal obligations which the Court was
asked to advise on.
17. In the present case the natrer is enrirely different. There
were, prior :O the requesr for an opinion, no resolutionst8
direccly addressing :ne 1eqa:::y sf :ne use of nuclear weapons by
Menber States. Therefore =ne ques:ion of the leqality of such
use cannot possinly Be .,-...:3as csnseqaencial upon prior
..
resolutions. Moreover 50~25-(.es:Afriza ha5 over nany years been
treated as a proper res3onsibili:y of =ne Lniced Kacions. The
Court itself had endsrsec :>a: \<i~_.< 1-. z3.1:ras:,:ne issue of
the legaliry of the use cf nuziear .'sapanshad never a: any stage
been viewed as a natter of !egitina=e cîncern to \<HO.
1s See above, Ch.1. T3 za11 sn Srates to try :O achieve
disarmanent (WH; 34.2;); or to consider a report (XHA
36.28 and WHA SC.2;); or-to reviek.their policies (WHA
42.26) is not the sa-e as resolving that the use of modern
weapons is, or nay te, inconparible vith the WHO
Constitution.18. If these rhen are the cacegories in ?:hich the Court s
practice suggests it is proper to exercise its discretion in
favour of giving anOpinion - and the present request falls into
none of these categories - it may be useful to address the
obverse question: are there càtegories in which it is proper for
the Court to decline?
II. The Cateaoriesof Cases in which. as a matter of
p p
19. Following theprinziple laid docn DY the Pernanent COurK in.
the Sastern Carelia case" rhe present Court has endorsed this
principle, designed :O preserve rhe reccire:en: of consent, but
a: the same tine has refusec ro exren3 i to cases vhere,
although arguably there is a dispuce De,.,een Scates, the
primary or sole purposes of e 0-inior.1s to provide guidance
to the requesting organ.
"The circums:ancesof the presen: case are profoundly
different fromthose which were before the Permanent
Court of InternarionalJustice in the Eastern Carelia
19 Status of Zasrer.7 Care?ic, Advisory Opinion, 1923,
P.C.I.J. Series 3, ):o. 5. Rosenne, The Law and Practice
of the Internati~na?C3~rt (1985), Vol. 11, pp. 709-711
treats thisas an il1uç:ra:ion of the Court's adherence to
an essential principle of the judicial process: audi
alteram partez. case (AdvisoryOpinion No. 5) when that Court declined
to give an Opinion because it found that the question
put to it was directly relatedto the nain point of a
dispute actually pending betweentwo States, so that
answering the question would be substantially
equivalent to deciding-the dispute between the parties,
and that at the sane tine it raised a question of fact
which could not be elucidated withouthearing both .
parties... In the present case the Court is dealing
with a Request for an Opinion, the sole object of which
is to enlighten the General Assernbly..."20
It is probable that the present request does not fa11 into this
category, so as to be excluded as a matter of propriety by thr
Zastern Carelia principle. For, while disputes as to the
legality of the use of nuclear weapons are clearly possible,
they are happily hyporheïical and no actua?, pending disputc
exists.
20In:erpreta:ion of ::?e?eace Treafies: First Phase.
Advisory Opinicn of 30 March, 1950: I.C.J. Reports 1950,
p.72. In the h'arnibia(S.i\'Africa) Case, Advisory Opinion
of 21 June 1971: I.C.J. Reporcs 1971 the Court rejected
South Africa's objection tothe propriety ofthe Opinion-,
based on E. Carelia, on the ground that, whereas in E.
Carelia the State Party to the dispute was not a member of
the League, South Africawas a nenber of the U.N. and had
participated throughoutin any "dispute" over S.W. Africa.
Moreover, no actual disputewas pending, and the fact that
differences existed - cofimonin al1 requests for an Opinion
- was irrelevant. See also the Western Sahara Case,
Advisory Opinion of 16'0ctober 1975, I.C.J. Reports 1975,
p.13 at pp.22-27 xhere the Court also stressed that, in
-.Carelid, one Party Kas neither a Menber of the League nor
a Party to the Courz's Stature. >
>
g
the oruan or Oruanisation
-
20. In this category of cases to be excluded on qrounds of
propriety, the truo basis of the exclusion does not lie simply
in the fact that politicalmotives lie behind the request. As
the Cour: said in the Adnlssions Case
uT- has neverthelessbeen contended that the question
put nust be regarded as a political one and that, for
this reason, it falls outside the jurisdiction of the
Court. The Cour: cannoz a:tribüre a polizi=al
character tc a reguesr chic.5,fra7ec in abstract terms,
invites it to uncierrakean essenïially juziicialtask,
Che isterprezaticn cf a treat:. --aï'-sic;.".'.
Thus, a request tc interpret O ,.ezry provision, a
constitutional text, rezains a 'leqal cuestion' within the
Court's CO-petence, ,::haze\retrhe rîliri==? differences vhich
nay have led :o the re?uest. Injeet. as tne Csürt noted in the
Zx?e.?sesCase, a Sari:---., cf psliriza? differences is to be
expected :
-- ~~
21 Conditions of A2-issi3~. etc, Aduisory Opinion of 28 May
1948, I.C.J. Re?orrs 1343, p.Gl. Followed and approved in
Conpetence of :ne teneral Assezbly, etc., Advisory Opinion
of 3 March 145C. I.C.2. So33rts 1550, p.& "It is true that most interpretationsof the Charter of
the United Nations vil1 have political significance,
great or small. In the nature of things it could not
be otherwise. The Court, however, cannot attributea
-
political characterto a request which invites it to
undertake an essentially judicial task, namely,.the
interpretationof a treaty provision.^^^
21. Summarising its position, based on its jurisprudence, the
Court said this in the rt7H0Regional Office Case.
"That jurisprudenceestablishes that if, as in the
present case, a question submitted in a request is one
that otherwise falls within the normal exercise of its
judicial process, the Court has not to deal ~ith the
motives whichnay have inspiredthe requesz ... Indeed,
in situations in vhich political considerations are
proninent it nay be particular?y necessary foran
international organisation to obtain an advisory
opinion from the Court as to the leqal principles
applicable with respect :O the natter under debate,
especially when these Zay include the interpretation
of its constit~tion."~~
These dicta are revealing when applied to the present case,
for they serve to highlight what the present case is m.' It
is not a request forthe interprezationof any particular
-
22 Certain Expenses of the United Nations etc., Advisory
Opinion of 20 July 1962: I.C.J. Reports, 1962, p.155.
23 Advisory Opinion of 20 Decenber 1980, I.C.J. Reports
1980, p. 73 at p. 67. constitutional or treaty text. The request conspicuouslyfails
to identify any constitucional provision which the Healt?
Assembly considers may forbid the use of nuclear weapons by a
Member State. True, it invites the Court to consider whether
-
there may be such provisions, relying, as it were, on the
Court's ingenuity precisely because it has itself failed to
find any such provision. The invocation of a State's
obligations under general international law is patently a
"fall-back", a recourse to principles which might apply in the
event - as the Assenbly must be assumed to contemplate - that
no relevanr consïi:ï~ionaltext or obligation can be found.
22. It is rhis which places the present case in a different
category. There is a worid of difference between requests on a
matter of genuine treaty in~erpretation,identifying the treaty
provision in ques:lon, albei: on an issue th political
inplications: and a request such as =ne present request where
the invocation of legal principles is general and unspecific
precisely because the leaal ouesricn, as it affecrs the WHO, is
auite s~urious.
23. It is here, where the "legal question", as framed in the
request, is used arcificially, as a device to rempt the Court
into an involvenenr in an essentially politicaldebate, that
the issue of propriety arises.
The spuriousness cf the invocation of the WHO Constitution as
the legal basis upon :.!hichthe use of nuclear weapons can be
held to be unla;:f.al is apparent not only fron the failure, in
55the Request, to identify any particular constitutional
provision but also fron the vhole genesis of this Request.
24. As demonstrated in Chapter 1 above, the genesis of this
-
Request lies in the so-called "World Court Proje~t",~~ a
project in which the International Physicians for the
Prevention of Nuclear a have joined. The legal memorandum
explaining this project contains not one sinale reference to
the WHO Con~titution.~'
25. The essential ain of the sponsors of this project is
political. It is to seek the total abolition of nuclear
weapons." That is a leqitinace politica? air: but it is not a
"legal question arisinq virhin the scope of (\,:Hc)onpetence." It
is said in the nenoranduc describing the project that an advisory
opinion would reaffir: "...the obligation of each party to the
treaty [theNon-Proliferatio~Treaty; to 'pursue neqotiations in
good faith on effective seasures relaring to cessation of the
nuclear arms race... an3 to nuclear disarr.a~ent."~'
zThe World Court Project on tJuclear Weapons and
International Law, 2nd edition, 1993.
25Ibid. , Chapter 11.
26Ibid., p-xi. "The day for the abolition of nuclear
weapons has arrived."
27Ibid., P.X. The Menorandun suggests a variety ofsources
to support its arqunenrs on the illegalityof the use of
nuclear weapons. hpartfron custom, the other trearies cited
are the Declaration of St Petersburg 1868. the Hague
Conventions 1ô95 and 1907, the Geneva Gas Protocol 1925,the
U.N. Charter 1945, =ne ::ure;bergPrinciples 1945, the Geneva
Conventions 1949, the InternationalCovenant onCivil and
Political Rights 196G, and Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva
Conventions of 1949. For the Court to spell out tne obligations of Parties to the
Non-ProliferationTreaty nay well be a "legal question", but it
has nothing whateverto do with the WHO Constitution.
.- .
26. TO pursue negotiations,or to seek to persuaae States to
pursue negotiations, is, again, a political aim and, however
laudable, it has nothing whatever to do with the WHO
Constitutionor the activities and functions of WHO.
27. The specific use of the legality ofthe use of nuclear .
weapons is seen in the Menorandum simply as a step in the wider
p.rocess of pursuing this political objective of nuclear
disarmament. The sequence O: ideas seems to be the following:
(1) Al1 uses are illeqa? (i.e. rhere is no riant of use in
self-defen~e).~'
(ii) Therefore Che possession cf such weapons is 3er se
an illega?rbrear cf f~rce. 2;
(iii) Therefore, since any possessionis illega?, the goal
must be thatof totalnuclear dis arma men^.^"
28 Ibid., pp. 5, 12-14.
29 Ibid., p.1:.
35' Ibid., 'p.16.28. The validity of those propositions is a natter to be
examined later in Chapter V. 'The point to be nade here is that
they raise questions of law entirely extraneous to the WHO
Constitution and they are raised as incidental in what is
avowedly a political campaign. This present request is
therefore entirely different.fromthose previously dealt withby
the Court, and discussed above. The conclusion nust be that
here, if only as a matter of propriety, the request should be
declined.
(C) Cases where the Court's Ouinion would have no effect on
the ConstitutionalObligations-of Menber States
29. In the h'srinernCaser>î.?sCase the Court called attention
to its duty to safeguard the integrity ofthe judicial function.
"There are inheren: linitationson the exercise of the
judicial function xhich the Court, as a court of
justice, can never ignore ... The Court itself, and not
the parties, nust be tne guardian of the Court's
judicial inregrit), "3'
The Court stressedthe fact chat this àuty applied equally to
both its contentious and advisory ju~isdiction.'~Accordingly,
the Court ought no: to pronounce an Opinion vhich will be
brutum fulmen, without practical effect, or incapable of
"effective applicatior. .13
-
3 h'orthernCa.zeroo.?s ,udgnent of 2 Decenber 1963, I.C.J.
Reports 1963, p.13 at p.29. See also the Free Zones Case,
Judgment of 7 June 1932 P.C.I.J. Series A/B, No. 46, p.161.
32 Ibid., p.30.
33 Ibid. ,p. 33. 30. If, therefore, the Court vete to accede to the reauest and
render an Opinion containing a positive and absolute finding,
i.e. that the use of nuclear weapons & illegal in al1
circumstances,of what practical effectwould that be?
-
Assuming the finding of illegalitywere based upon a breach of
internationallav generally (and not the WHO Constitution
specifically),there would appear to be no effect so far as hTlO
is concerned. Nothing in the WHO Constitutionprovides for
sanctions or renedial measures against a Menber in breach of
international las.
31. Even if the finding of illegality were based upon a breach
of the WHO Constitution,there would still be no effect, for the
only sanction provitied by the Conszir~tionrelates to the
failure of-a Menber rc nee: its financialcbliqatisns
(Article 7)."
22. And, if the Cour: were CO zake n3t an absolute finding of
iliegality,but only a quailfie9 one - i.e. the use 56,0ulbde
illegal exceptin the exceptional circunstances O: self-defence
- that finding wouldDe eaually ineffectual (as well as
unreïardingto the sponsors of the request). For, in the event
of the actual useof a nuclear weaponthe deterninationof
illegality wouldhave to axait the assessnentof al1 the facts
- --
3i The \,:HCOonsrirutioncîntains no provision for expulsion.
An amendnenrto Arzicle 7 aciopredin 1965, allowing for
expulsion for 9elibera:e racial discrimination, hasnever
entered into force.surrounding its use in order to decide whether there vas a
justifiable plea of self-defence. Andthat assessment would be
a matter for this Court, or the Security Council in the first
instance, but not for the WHO. -
33. Thus, in whatever way the.court.respondedpositively to the
questions posed, the Opinion would be of no practical value,
and incapableof implementationby WHO. It is difficult to see
how the renderinq of such an Opinion could be compatible with
the Court's judicial function.
d Cases where the Court's Ouinion would be unlikelv to
assist eitherthe WHO. or the United Nations communitv
generallv, and nav ever Drove detrinental to their
efforts to achieve ni=?ear disarnament.
34. The recurring there found throuqh the Court's jurisprudence
is that the Court will exercise its discretion to give, or not
to qive, an Opinion in the ligh: of its duty to assist the
orqans and organisations of the United Nations fanily. In
Chapter II of this Statenent the range of efforts to limit the
manufacture, spread and use of nuclear weapons has been
described and it is apparent that a conscious decision has been
taken to permit the negotiations to become embroiledin
debates about the legality-ofthe use of nuclear weapons. That
decision must be respected. There seems to be little point in
the Court reachinq a different decision, contrary to the
experience accunulated by the neqotiating States over many
years. 35. Al1 the evidence suggests that the Court's intervention
would not help, and could infact prove counter-productive.
Certainly if the Court were to rule in favour of an absolute
prohibition, excludingeven the use in self-defence (as the
-
World Court Project would wish), the effects couldbe highly
damaging, as the followingsection will show.
36. For it is clear that several of thekey treaties in the
international effort to control and limit nuclear weapons - the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Protocol 11 to the Treaty
of Tlatelolco and the Partial Test Ban Treaty and othèr
treaties liniting nuclear tests for example - are built on the
assumption thatthe possession of nuclear weapons, and their use
in self-defence,is laaful. These partial neasures towards the
goal of nuclear disareaxent have been welconed wichin the United
Nations. If, hoïever, zhe Coÿrr vere ro rejecc Che ïhole
premise upon which such measnres have been based, negotiations
on nuclear disarnanentbased cn exzending sc=h xeasures would be
seriously jeopardised, as Stazes ~ould not thenceforth be able,
consistently xith sucn an opinion, to cake parc in such partial
disarmamentmeasures. CHAPTER v.
THE PRINCIPLES OF LAW RAISED BY THE QUESTION
1. The question asks the Court whether the use of nuclear
weapons by a State in war or other armed conflict would be a
breach of that Statels obligations under international law,
including the WHO Constitution. Despite the terms in which it
is framed, this question does not admit of a simple answer. In
parzicular, there is no foundation for the view that the use of
nuclear weapons would automatically contravene- international
law. The international community has never adopted in binding
forn any general prohibition on :he use of nuclear weapons:
Indeed, those treaties \:hichhave been adopted regarding nuclear
weapons presuppose :ha: there are circu~srances in which such
weapons might lawfullybe usec. b!oreover.an examinazion of the
principles of internarional lax c?overningrhe use of force and
the conduct of hostilities reveals 'ha:, hile nuciear weapons
(like al1 methods and neans of warfare) are subject to
limitations on their use, those limitations areno: such as to
render the use of nuclear aeapons unlawful per se.
1. Provisions specificallyreferring to nuclear weapons
-
2. No treaty specifically prohibitingthe use of nuclear
weapons has been adop:ed since 1945. Nor is the use of nuclear
weapons outlawed by any provision contained ina treaty of more
general application. As Chapter III has demonstrated,the WHO Constitution, the only internationalagreement to vhicb
reference is made in the question submitted to the Court,
contains no provision regarding the use of nuclear weapons.
More importantly, the Charter of theUnited Nations makes no
-
reference to nuclear weapons. Nor is there any suggestionthat
the use of nuclear weapons is in itself contrary to the
principles of the Charter elaborated in the Declaration on
Principles of InternationalLaw Concerning Friendly Relations
and Co-operation amongStates in accordance with the Charter of
the United Nations (UNGA Resolution 2625(XXV)), the Resolution'
on the Definition of Aggression (UNGA Resolution 3314 (XXIX)) or
the Declaration on the Enhancement of the Effectiveness of the
Principle of Refraining fron the Threat or use of Force in
International Relations (ü::GAResolution 42/22)."
3. On the contraru, the inzernational ccnmunity has
consistently declinedto address the question whether the use of
nuclear weapons is ur.:a:.:fulerse. Although in 1961 and in
subsequent years the Oniïed Rations General.:.ssemblyproposed
the conclusion of a treaty prohibiting the use of nuclear
weapons,2 that proposal has not been followed up and no
conference to consiaer such a treaty has been convened. In
-.
i Resolution 42/22 refers to nuclear weapons only in the
context of statenents about the importance of avoiding armed
conflict and contains no s;atement about whether the use of
such weapons would be unlawful.
2 Resolution 1653 (XVI). This resolution and subsequent
resolutions on the sane subject are discussedbelow. another context, the Diplonatic Conference hri-.ic hdopted the
four Geneva Conventions of 59 rejected a proposa1 that 1:
adopt a resolution on the illegality of using nuclear weapons as
being outside the terms of reference of the C~nference.~
-
4. The Diplomaric Conferenceon the Development of Humanitarian
Law 1471 to 1977, which adopted the two Additional Protocolsto
the Geneva Conventionsof 1949 and which had broader terms of
reference than the 1944 Conference, also did not discuss the
legality of nuclear weapons. ThInternational Connitteeof the
Red Cross naàe clear that in subnitting draft protocols for
consideration by the Conference it did not intend to.broach the
subject of nuclear weapons. During the four sessions of the
Conference, :ne Cnitee Kingàoz anà a nuaber of ozher States made
scatements to the effect chat rhe subject of nuclear weapons was
not being discusse*.' . ' ber of Scates also made
declararions to chat effecr or siqnarure or ratificafion of the
Protocols.' hlthou?5 ss?e States cainzaine? tnat :ne Conference
should consiàer a Dan on so.zeor al; uses of nuclear weapons,no
fornal proposal k:as p-c sef~re rhe Canference and Khf?Commentary
on the Proroco?~ published 5).rhe ICRC con=?uàes that 'there is
no doubt thaï àuring rhe f~ur sessions of the Conference
agreement was reached no: to discuss nuclear weaponsl.'
-. .
3 ?i.?alRecor5 cf :.?s-:r:;ra:ic C-?.?iere.?c ce Geneva,
vol. XIA, pp. 6û2-5.
L Cfficia? Xecîrfs, "21 .:;... 4 ) 121 (USSR).
89 (Sweden), 174 (Arqenrina),vol. \'II.pp. 192 (France),
295 (ESA).
5 See belox.
a C. Pilloud et al, C;.:is.~:ary cr: t.5eAdditional Protocols
of 6 June 1977 (ICEC, 15ô7). p. 553.The Protocols thus contain no reference to nuclear weapons'.
5. Those treaties which have dealt expressly withthe subject
of nuclear weapons have notaddressed the question whether suc-
-
weapons are unlawful per se but have concentrated upon issues
regarding possession, deploymentand testing. The effect of
these treaties may be summarised as fo1lows:-
(a) Possession
6. By beconing parties to the Non-ProliferationTreaty, 1968,'
as non-nuclear-weapon States or by ratification of a regional
treaty, such as the Treaty of Tlatelol~o,~nost States have now
undertaken not to manufacture or acquire nuclear weapons. The
Peace Treaties concludod at the end of the Second World War also
bind a nunber of States not :O psssess nuclear weapons." In the
case of Gernany, this obligation vas reaffirzed in the Treaty on
the Final Settlement with respect to Gernany, 1990." The
disarmament treatiesconcluded bezneen scze of the nuclear powers
limit the nunber and types of nuclear weapons xhich those States
may possess. 12
7 The possible effecton the use of nuclear weapons of the more
general provisionsof hddirional Protocol 1 is considered
below.
8 729 UNTS 161. -
9 634 UNTS 281.
10 Treaties of Peace xith Bulgaria, Finland, Hungary, Italy
and Romania.
11 29 ILM (1990) llôG, Article 3.
12 See, eg. The Anti-Ballistic MissilesSystems Treaty, 1972
(944 UNTS 13) and the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces
Treaty, 1967, (27 ILK (1983)ôÇ) between the Soviet Union
and the United States. (b) Deploynent
7. The deployment of nuclear weapons is prohibited in
Antarctica,I3in outer space or on celestial bodies" and on the
deep seabed. l5 For those State? which have becomeparties to the
Treaty of Tlatelolco or its 1st Protocol, the deployment of
nuclear weapons is prohibited withinthe areas covered by that
agreement16. Similarly, those States which are parties to the
Treaty of Rarotonga or its 1st Protocol have undertaken not to
deploy nuclear weapons within the areas covered by that
agreement. 17
13 Antarctic Treaty, ?$5$, Article 1 (402 i'l:T71).
IL Outer Space Treaty, 1967, Article IV (610 UNTS 205).
15 955 UNTS 115.
16 The areas covered by the Treaty of Tlatelolco comprisemost of
Latin America and certain adjacentwaters and islands. The
United Kinqdom is a party to Protocols 1 and II to the Treaty.
17 The Treaty of Rarotonga applies to parts of the South Pacific.
The United Kingdoz has no: become a party to the protocols to
that treaty but the United Kingàon Government has statedthat
it is ready, as a natter of policy, to respect the intentions
of the regional States-3ndthat it has no intention of testing
nuclear weapons in the SouTh Pacific or of basing nuclear
weapons on Brizish territories in the South Pacific (statement
by the i4inis:erof Szate, Foreign and Comnonwealth Officein
the House of Connons, 20 March 1987; HC Debs, vol 112, Written
Answers, co1.639; 28 SYIL (1967)635).8. Those States parties to the Partial Test Ban Treaty, 1963,"
have agreed not to carry out atmospheric nuclear tests in the
atmosphere, under water or in-outer space. Bilateral agreements
also restrict underground nuclear testing by -someof.the nuclear
powers. In addition, testing in certainparts of the world is
restricted by agreements such as the Antarctic Treaty.'
Negotiations currently taking place with a view to the adoption of
a comprehensive test ban treaty are described in Chapter II.
9. The treaties, ho~dever,say little about the possible use of
nuclear weapons by those Szares i.:l-.:hahve no oblioation not to
possess ther. The Partial Test San Treaty, for exanple, while
prohibiting the parties fro: c i at~ospheric tests, does
not purport to restricz zheir use cf nuclear weapons in the course
la 480 UNTS 53.of hostilities. " Sinilarly, the Sea Bed Treaty prohibits the
emplacement of nuclear weapons on the sea bed bur does no-
restrict the use of nuclear weapons fired fron other locations.
-
-
10. The Treaty of Tlatelolco is an exception. Article3 of
Protocol 11 to the Treaty contains an undertaking by those
nuclear-weaponStates which are.partiesto the Protocol not to use
or threaten to use nuclear weapons againstthe States party to the
Treaty of Tlatelolco. Al1 five permanent membersof the Security
council are now parties to this Protocol and have thus accepted.
this obligation, although each made a declaration on becoming
party in which it indicated the circumstances in which it would
regard itself as free to take nilitary action involvingthe use of
nuclear weapons. Thus, Che Cnitea Kingdos declared that:
1s That the Partial Tes: 3an Trea:)';as not intended to apply to
the use of nuclear weaponsin an arned conflict vasmade clear
by the United Stayes Secrezary of S=ate in his reportof 8
August 1963 to the President, in which he said:
'The article [Article Il does not prohibit the use of
nuclear weaponsin the event of war nor restrict the
exercise of the right of self-defenserecognized in
Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.'
(Documents onDisarmament, 1963, p.297.)
See also the advice of the StateDepartment Legal Adviser,
op.cit. pp.313-4. The Governnentof the Soviet Union took a
similar approach in a st-tementon 21 August 1963, in which it
said:
'the treaty alsodoes not prohibit the Soviet Union, if
need be, fron holding underground nucleat rests, from
increasingthe stockpilesof nuclear arms, and even from
using these weapons against the imperialistaggressors if
they unleash a k:arin a fit of insanity.' (0p.cit..p.456.) 'the Governrnent of the uniced Kingdon would, in the
event of any act of aggression by a Contracting Party
to the Treaty in vhich that party vas supported by a
nuclear-weapon State, be free to reconsider the extent
to which they couldbe regarded as committed by the
provisions of Additional Protocol II.12c
20 28 ILM (1989) p.1400 at 1422. The United States made a'
sirnilarstatement on ratification (1oc.cit. p.1423). On
signature of the Protocol, China repeated its general
undertaking that it would not be the first State to resort
to the use of nuclear weapons (p.1414);France statcd that:
"The French Governnent interpretsthe undertakings set
forth in Article 3 of :he Protocol as no: presenting an
obstacle to the full exercise of rhe riqht of self-defence
confirmed by Arricle 51 of the United Nations
Charter.' (p.1415).
The Soviet Union statodthar:
"Any actions carried out by a State or States party to the
Tlatelolco Treaty tha: are inconpaciblewith its statute
of denucleariza~ionas xell as the perpetration by one or
several States party to the Treaty of an act of aggression
with the support of a State possessing nuclearweapons or
together with such State, shall be considered by the Soviel
Union to be incompatiblewith the obligations of those
countries under the Treaty. In such cases the Soviet Unioi
reserves the right to review its obligations under
Additional Prorocol II.'(p.l4lô). 11. Although the Non-ProliferationTreaty contains no comparable
pr~vision,~'in 1978 the United Kingdom and the United Stazes
each gave to non-nuclear-ïeapon States unilateral securit>.
assurances which.referred to the Non-Proliferation Treaty.The
United ~ih~domassurance was in the following terms:
'1 accordingly give the following assurance, on behalf of mp
Government, to non-nuclear-weaponStates which are parties to the
Treazy on the Non-Proliferation ofNuciear Weapons or to other
internationally binding commitments noz to manufactureor acquire
nuclear explosivedevices: Britain undertakes notto use nuclear
weapons against such States except inthe case of an attack on the
United Kingdor.,its dependent terricories, irsarmed forces, or
its allies by such a Srate in associarior;ûr alliance with a
--
nuclear-weaponState."'
21 The Preamble to the Treatp nakes clear that the Treaty was
designed to contribucero rhe prevenrion ofnuclear war by
preventing thedisseninazionof nuclear weapons, chat in doing
so it vas a response co the calls from the UnitedNations
General Assenblyfor the-adoprionof an agreement on the
spread of nuclearueapons and thar it was a critical step in
the process O: concludingaisarmamen' agreements.
22 Statement to the United fGarions Special Session on
Disarnanent, 26 June 1476; Ut!DisarnamentYearbook, 1989,
p.180.The United States assurance vas in substantially the same terns.
China, France and the Soviet Union have als0 given assurances CO
23
non-nuclear-weaponStates.
-
In addition, sone of the treaties discussed prohibit any use'of
force (whether with nuclearor conventional weapons) within a
defined area ."
23China gave an assurance that it would not use nuclear weapons
against non-nuclear-weaponStates or nuclear-free zones and
that it would not be the first State to use nuclear weapons.
France has declared:
"qu'elle n'utiliserapas d'arnes nucléaires contre un Etat
non doté de ces armes et qui s'est engagé à le demeurer,
excepté dans le cas d'une agression nenée, en association
ou en alliance avec un fta: àoté d'arnes nucléaires, contre
la France ou contre un Etat envers qui celle-ci a contracté
un engagement de sécurité".
The Soviet Uniongave an undertakina not to be the first
State to use nuclear xeapons (ER Dlsarzazent Yearbook, 1989,
179-80). More recently, -ne Russian Federation has stated
that it:
'will not enploy its nuclear weaponsagainst any State party t'
the Treaty on the Non-Proliferationof Nuclear Weapons, dated
1st July 1968,which does nct possess nuclear weapons excepti
the cases of: (a) an arned attackagainst the Russian
Federation, its territory,armed forces, other troopsor its
allies by any State which is connectedby an alliance agreemen
with a State that does possess nuclearweapons; (b)joint
actions by such a State vith a State possessing nuclearweapon:
in the carrying outor in support of any invasion or armed
attack upon the Russian Federation, its territory, armed
forces, other troops or its allies.'('The Basic Provisionsof
the Military Doctrine cf the Russian Federation' adopted by
Presidential Decree flo.1633 on 2 November 1993. )
2i Eg. The Antarctic Treaty, 1929, and the Moon Treaty.12. The treaties reviewedhere and in Part II, togerher with
the absence of a general treaty prohibition on the use of
nuclear weapons, show that the international community has
addressed the question of nuclear weapons throughthe medium of
-
practical measures of disarmamentand non-proliferation, rather
than an attempt to outlaw nuclear weapons or to achieve a
definitive statementon whether theyare unlawful per se. The
preambles, substantiveprovisions anddrafting historiesof the
various treaties which have dealt with the question of nuclear
weapons clearly place those treaties in the context of
disarmament,as steps on the road to the goal of a more general
disarmament. ~either expressly nor impliedlydo they attempt
-
to outlaw al1 uses of nuclear ueapons. Nor do they support the
inference that the use of nuclear weapons is regarded as
unlawful under existing international law.
13. On the contrary, nany of the provisions ofthose treaties
make sense only on the assunprionthat sone uses of nuclear
weapons are conpatible xich existing international law. The
cornnitment nade by the nuclear-weaponScates in Protocol 11 to
the Treaty of Tlatelolcowould be entirely unnecessaryif the
use of nuclear weapons was in any event prohibited by general
international law. Moreover, the declarationsmade by the
nuclear-weapon States at the tine of signing or ratifying the
Protocol, which were no: challengedby the parties to the
-
Treaty ofTlatelolco,indicate that those States consider there
are circunstancesin xhich resort to nuclear weapons would be
lawful.14. The Non-Proliferation Treaty and the security assurances
offered by the nuciear-weapon States rest on the same
assumption. Although the Non-Proliferation Treaty is concerned
with possession, rather than use, of nuclear weapons, it is
-
based upon a balance of responsibilities between nuclear and
non-nuclear weapon States, whichthe agreement treate as two
distinct categories. Thus, States possessing nuclear weapons
are subject to markedly different obligations under the Treaty
from those which do not possess such weapons and undertake not
to acquire them. To treat the nuclear-weapon States in this
way is incompatible i.:itthe total prohibi:ion of the use of
n.uclearweapons. The entire structure of the Non-Pro.liferation
Treaty shows that the parties did not regard the use of nuclear
weapons as being proscrite2 in a?? circo3s:ances. Moreover,
the security assurances souqht bu non-nuclear-weapon States and
given by the nuzloar-;:earj:ntafês CS? on!y be reqarded as
having any significance 23 :ho assa,n---; chat there are
circunstances in i:hichnuciezr b:eacansnight be used - without
violating international ?ax.
15. The only iocunents ahich do treat nuclear weapons as if
they were unlawful ?er se are a number of resolutions of the
United Nations Genera! hssenbly, starting vith Resolution 1653
(XVI), paragraph 1 of rhich declared that:
'(a) The use of nuclear and thernonuclear weapons is
contrary :O the spirit, letter and aims of the United
Nations and, as such, a direct violation of the Charter of
the Unired !:ations;
(b) The use of nuclear and thernonuclear weaponswould exceed even the scope of var and cause indiscriminate
suffering and destructionto nankind and civilizationand,
as such, is contrary to the rules of internationallaw and
to the laws of humanity;
-
(c) The use of nuclear and thermonuclear weaponsis a war
directed notagainst an enemy or enemies alone but ais0
against mankind in general, since the peoples of the world
not involved insuch a war will besubjected to al1 the evils
generated by the use of such weapons:
(d) Any State using nuclear and thermonuclear weaponsis to-.
be considered as violating the Charter of the United Nations,
as acting contrary to the laws of humanity and as committing
a crime against mankind and civilization.'
However, the resolution :.:en: on :O request the
Secretary-General tc consulr States abor: the pcssibility of
convening a conferenre todiscuss 2 ~l?,\~on:ioprotibitingthe
use of nuclear weapons.
16. This resolurion nas f~lloxed by resolution 2936 (XXVII),
paragraph 1 of vhich solemnly àeclared
'on behalf of the States members of the Organization,
their renunciationof the use orthreat of forcein al1
its formsand xanil'esz-arion in internationalrelations
in accordance zizh the Charter of the United Nations, and
the permanent prohibirionof the use of nuclear weapons.' l
A series of subsequent resol~tions*~declared that the use O: 1
nuclear weapons would be unlauful and called upon States to adcp:
a convention prohibiting their use and the threat of their use.
-
17. These resolutions are not, of course, legally bindinq
instruments. Moreover, there are several.reasons for rejecting
I
any suggestions that they are declaratory of a rule of
customary international lawforbidding al1 use of nuclear
weapons. First, an analysis of the voting figures reveals that
the resolutions were controversial. Resolution 1653 (XVI)was
adopted by 55 votes to 20, with 26 abstentions. Of the nuclear
powers, France,the United Kingdom and the United States voted
aqainst the resolution,vhile the Soviet Union voted in favour.
Resolution 2936 (XXYII) üas adopted Dy Cj votes to 4, with 56
abstentions. The SovietLnion was one of the sponsors of the
resolution and voted in its favour; France, the United Kingdom
and the United States abszained. The iater resolutions also
failed to command the gener+l support which characzerisedthose
resolutions vich have ofzen Deen treazeû as declaratory of
cuszomary internationallaï.
18. Secondly, it is evident that many of those States which
voted for the resoluzions concerneddid not regard them as
statinq such a custcaary law principle. In the case of
Resolution 1653. the iink between the assertion of the illegality
-
of nuclear weaponsin paragraph 1 and the request thatthe
2s Resolutions 33/71 B, 351152 D, 3G/92I, 45/59B, 46/37D and
57/53C.
26 10'3-16-18; 112-15-15; 121-15-6; 125-17;lO; 122-16-22; and
126-21-21 respectively. Secretary-General consult States about the conclusion of 2
convention to prohibit the use of nuclear weapons raises the
question whether those States which voted for the resolution
regarded the use of nuclear weapons as lawful in the ab5ence of
-
such a convention. statenents by a number of States, including
some of the sponsors of the resolution, suggest that they did not
take such a positi~n.~' The later resolutions also refer to the
adoption of a convention prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons.
19. Thirdly, in Resolution 2936 the prohibition of nuclear-
weapons was expressly linked to the renunciation of the use of
force 'in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations'. The
resolution thus leaves open the possibilicy that nuclear weapons
might lah'fullybe used in self-defence, since the renunciation of
the use of force was clearly no: intended to preclude the exercise
of that right. Thaï .%.asza3e clear by Che Ssviet Union, one of
the sponsors of the resolütion;'e ahose subsequent securicy
assurances given :O the Conference on Disarnament made clear that
it regarded the usecf nuclear aeapons as lanfui nhere that was a
necessary neasureof self-defence.
20. Finally, the significance of the General Assemblyresolutions
has to be seen in the light of State practice as a whole,
including the conclusion of zhe agreements discussedabove, the
failure to adop: a conventi-n of the kind suggested by the General
Assenbly, the decision no: to discuss nuclear weapons at the
27See, eg, the szatemez: by Ceylon GAOR, 17th Sess., 1st Ctee.,
1266th Mtg, para ô. See also the discussion in UN Doc A/9215,
vol.1. pp.147-5;.
28See the çcarenent by the Soviet Union at AJPV.2040, pp.26-33.Diplomatic Conferenceon the Development of Humanitarian Law an;
the statements and security assurances made by the nuclear pover!
in the 1978 and in connectionwith the Treaty Of Tlatelolco, al:
of which indicatesthat there is no consistent Statepracti-e fror
-
which a customary law prohibition of nuclear veapons might hava
developed.
II. Nuclear veapons in the light of the general laid on the
use of force and conduct of hostilities.
21. In the absence of a rule of international law
specifically prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons, the
legality of their use has to be assessed by reference to the
principles of law applicable to an- use of armed force.
According to these principles, Che use of force is lawful only
if it is in circunstances in ..,:nirchsort Co force is
permissible under the principles enshrineà in Che Cnited
Nations Charterand if it neers the reauirenenCs of the law of
armed conflict regardinqthe conducr of hostilities. The
ar.qumentswhich follov are based on the assunption that the
general laws on the conduct of hostilities areapplicable;
they are however without prejudice to the position of other
States which may argue that this general law is not
applicable.
(1) The United Naticns Charter and the Use of Nuclear Weaoons
22. The use of nuclear weapons by one State against anotherwould amount to a violation ofthe prohibition on the use of
force in Article 2(4) of the Cnited Nations Charter unless
that Stace could justify its action by reference ro the
right of self-defence or amandate conferred by the Securlty
-
Council in the exercise of its powers under Chapter VI1 of the.
Charter. Since the employment ofnuclear weapons.under the
authority of the Sesurity Councilis improbable, this
submission will concentrate upon the question whether, and in
what circunstances, the use of nuclear weapons might
constitute a legitimate exerciseof the right of self-defence.
23. For a State's use of nuclear weapons to constitute a
legitimate exerciseof the right of self-defence it would have
to conply with al1 cne requirenenzs of the riqht of
self-defence. Those requirezents are well kno.xnand need not
be rehearsed here.?'If those requireaencs xere mer, :ben the
use of nuclear weapons would no= violace tne Cnarter. It has,
however, been arqued chat the use of nuclear weapons could not
comply with tne requirenenï chat neasïres taken in
self-defence nus: be necessary and proporzionate to the
29 They are discussea a: lèngth in the Coure's judgment on
the merirs in the Case concerning Militaryand Paramilitary
Activiries in an3 againsc Nicaragua, ICJ Reports, 1986,
P.3danger which they are designed to neet." This view is based
upon the thesis that the effects of any use of nuclear weapons
would be so serious that it could not constitute a necessary
and proportionate measure, at least if taken in response to a
purely conventional attack and, in the view of some
commentators, even if taken in response to an attack by an
aggressor which itself employednuclear weapons
24. It has never been denied that recourse to nuclear weapons
would be a step of the utmost gravity and one only to be taken
in a case of the greatest necessity. The fact that none of
the Statespossessing nuclear weapons has used those weapons
in any of the conflicts in !%.hich it has been involved since
1945 testifies to the caution .:ith !.;hich the use of these
weapons is-regarded. Yet it is nût difficult to envisage
circunstances in whizh a 5za:e .hich is the victin of
agqression can protect itself only by resortinq to the use,
or the threatened use, of nuclear ~eapons. That would
particularly be the case ahere the aqqressor itself employed
nuclear weapons ro further izs atzack, since even a Scate with
a considerable superiority in conventional forces would be
likely to be overwhelned in such circunscances. It could also
be the case, however, xhere a Stace sustains a massive
conventional attack xhich it has no prospect of successfully
resisting unless it ressrts to nuclear weapons. To deny the
-.
victim of aggression the riqht to use the only weapons which
33 The World Court Project on PJuclearVeapons and
Internationai La,,?,eoa? Mezorandum (1993), p.13; Brownlie,
'Sone Legal Aspects of the Cse of Nuclear Weapons' 14 ICLQ
119651, p.437 at p.416. might Save it would be to make a mockery ofthe inherent right
of self-riefence.
25. The contention thatthe use of nuclear weapons w-uld
-
never be a necessary andproportionate measureof self-defence
also rests upon assumptions regarding.thelikely effects of
resort to nuclear weapons which are unfounded. Those
assumptions take little account of the variety of nuclear
weapons which have encered use in the iast twenty years and
which afford to some States at least the possibility of a vide
range of nuclear responses to attack. In addition, those who
maintain that any resort to nuclear weaponsby a State' which
is attacked will inevitably lead to an escalation in the
conflict and the use of further nuclear weapons by the
aggressor are guilty of acioptinga sinplistic approach to the
highly difficult task of assessing the likely reaction of one
State to the actions of another.
26. Finally, this approach to rhe licits of the right of
self-defence cannot be reconciledxith the practice of States.
While those States possessing nuclear weapons have differed
over the circunstancesin which resort to those weapons would
be legitimate,al1 have taken the viev that their use would be
a lawful response to aserious act of aggression against them
or rheir allies %'hichthey were unable to resist by other
-
means." This approach has been endorsed by many non-nuclear
States. Moreover, the srarenent of their positionsby the
31 See the securitg assurances givenby the nuclear powers
(above) .
ôOnuclearpowers in such contexts as adherence to Protocol 11 to
the Treaty of Tlatelolco and the 1978 security assuranceshave
not encountered opposition fron the international connunity.
-
27. Once it is accepted that resort to nuclear weapons could
fa11 within the scope of the right of self-defence, it would
be inappropriate for the Courtto attempt, in the context of
an advisory opinion, to enter into detail about the
circumstances when it would be legitimate. At one level, al1
that the Court would be doing would be to repeat the
conditions which any use offorce must meet if it is to
constitute a legitimate actof self-defence. If, on the other
hand, the Court were to attempt to give more detailed
guidance, it would run the risk of aztenpting to legislate in
the abstract for the caking of neasures the legality of which
could be deternined only by reference to concrete factual
circumstances. Al1 that can really be said is chat resort to
nuclear weapons in a particular case xi11 be compatible with
the Charter if, in all the circunstances, it meets the
requirements for the exercise of the right of self-defence.
(2) The Law of Armed Conflict
28. Assuming that a State's use of nuclear weapons mets the
requirements of self-defence, it must still conform to the
fundamental principlesof fhe lau of armed conflict regulating
the conduct of hostilities. 29. It nust however be recalled that not al1 of the
provisions of ~dditional Protocol 1, 1977,apply to the use of
nuclear weapons. It has already been shown that the
Conference on .the Development of ~umanita'rian Law which
-
adopted Protocol 1 proceeded fromthe outset on the basis that
it would not discuss the use of nuclear weapons.as such and
that any innovations in the Protocol would be applicable only
to the use of conventionalweapons. Those rules of customary
international law which were codified in the Protocol and
which were already applicable to nuclear weapons, however, '.
continued so to apply. On signing Additional Protocol 1, the
United Kingdon therefore recordedits understanding that
'the new rules introauced by the ?rotocol are nor intended to
have any effect on and do not reguiate or prohibit the use of
nuclear weapons. lX2
Similar declararions have been zaàe on siqninq or ratifying
Additional Protocol 1 b)'9e?gicz, Canada, Gernany, Italy, the
Netherlands, Spain and the United States. That these
declarations accurately reflect the applicabiliry of the .
provisions of the Proroco? has nowbeen confirmed by most
Commentators. 33
32 UK Nisc.19(1577), ~:.nd.-6927.
33 This is the viev raken in the ICRC Commentary, note 6
above at p.593. See also Boche, Partsch and Soli, New
Rules for Vicrims o: *ned Conflicts (1962), p.191,
Kalshoven, 'Ar-s, Arnanents and International Law' 191
Rec.de Cours (1985-11) p.183 at 262-3, and Rauschning,
'Nuclear Rarfare and kjeapons',in Bernhardt (ed),
Zncyclopaedia of ?rblic I~ternacional Law, vol.IV, (1982), p.49.30. It has been argued that the use (or at least some uses)
of nuclear weapons would violate various principles of the lau
of armed conflict. These arguments will nov be considered in
turn.
-
(a) The Principle that the parties to a conflict do not have
an unlimited choice of the methods and means of warfare.
31. It has been suggestedY that the use of nuclear weapons
would violate the principle that the parties to an armed
conflict do not have an unlimited choice of the methods and
means of warfare, a principle stated in Article 22 of the
Hague Regulations, 1907,3sand reaffirmed inArticle 35(1) of
Additional Prococol i. Vhile thar principle is undoubtedly
well established as par: of customary internazional law,
however, it cannot srand alone as a prohibizion of a
particular category of veapsns. T- is necessary co look
outside the principle in order to deriersinewhat limitations
are inposed by customary or conventional lak upon the choice
of methods and means of i.:arfare.The arguTent thus begs the
question whether there exists sone other principle of
international law which linits the right to choose nuclear
weapons as a means of warfare.
31 Singh and McWhinney, Puclear Weapons and Contemporary
InternationalLaw (1909).p.115.
35 Regulations annexed to Hague Convention No.IV, Respecting
the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 1907, UKTS 9 (1910),
Cd.5030. 32. The same is true of the argument based upon the #Martens
Clause1 which appeared in the preamble to Hague Convention
No.IV respecting the Laws and Customs of war on Land, 1907.
A most recent versionof this c-ause appears in Article l(2)
of AdditionalProtocol 1, 1977, which provides that:
'In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other
internationalagreements, civiliansand combatants remain
under the protection and authority of the principles of
international law derived from establishe custom, from
the principles of humanityand from the dictates of
public conscience'.
While the Martens Clause clear that the absence of a
specific treaty provision onrhe use of nuclear weapons is
not, in itself, sufficienr to establish tha: such weapons are
capable of lawful use, cne Clause does not, on its own,
establish their illegality. The cerns cf rhe Martens Clause
themselves make it necessary to point to a rule of customary
international la- vhich nighr ourlav the use of nuclear
weapons. Since the existenceof such a rule is in question,
reference to the Martens Clause adds little.
(b) The r i of Poison, Chenical Weapons and
-
Anaisgous Li~cids are i.fateria?s.
33. The use of nuclear weapons has been said to violate the
long estahlished prohibition on the use o poison and poisonedweapons, 36 because the effects of radiation are described as
a form of poisoning. In addition, some commentators have
invoked the provisions of the Geneva Protocol for the
Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonousor
-
Other Gases and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, 1925,
which applies to 'the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous
or other gases, and of al1 analogous liquids, naterials or
devices,' on the ground that the effects of radiation make
nuclear weapons analogousto asphyxiating or poisonous gases.
34. The prohibitions in both Article 23(a) and the 1925
Protocol, however, were intended to apply only to weapons
whose principal effecz vas poisonous and not to those where
poison was a seconàary effecr.2~ one leadinq connentator says
of the 1925 Protocol, its draftinq history nakes clear that
'the scope ratione cazeriae of the ?rococcl is rescricted to
weapons the prinarv effecr of a?.ichrs :c asphyxlate or poison
the adversary.'" In :ne case of alzcs: al1 nuclear weapons,
the primary effects are =lasr an- hea:.
36 Article 23(a) Hague Requlacions,1907.
37 Singh and Mcwhinnoy, noce 34 above, p.127,
Schwarzenberqer, Ti?,€Se?ali?y of Nuclear Weapons (1958). .
38 Kalshoven, note 33, above, p.264. See also McDougal and
Feliciano, Law a,?-:'.'i..?lza'orldPublic Order (1961) , p.663. 35. Moreover, when the Unized States became partyto the 1925
Protocol in 1973, thirty years after beconing the worldfs
leading nuclear power,it made no reservationof its right to
use nuclear weapons. It is inconceivable that a major nuclear
-
power would inadvertentlyassume a treaty obligationwhich
prohibited it from usingone of the.most-i;lipcu.tant.weap ons
its armoury. Moreover, none of the other parties to the 1925
Protocol suggested,at the time of.United States ratification,
that the United States had assumed newobligations regarding
the use of its nuclear weapons. It would appear, therefore,
that the subsequent practice of the parties to the 1925
Protocol does not sustain the interpretation placed upon its
terms by those who argue that it applies co the use of nuclear
weapons.
(c) Tne unnecessar:~sufferi~.z-" "-'?;e
36. Article 23(e) of the Haque Regulations prohibits the use
of 'arms. projecziles or naterial calculazed to cause
unnecessary ~uffering.'~' This principle is designedto
protect combatants fror, the use of weapons ühich are
gratuitously crueland, in the hfOrdsof the St Petersburg
Declaration, 1868, 'uselessly aggravate the sufferings of
disabled men, or render their death ine~itable.~'~It has
-
39 An updated versionof Chis provision appears in Article
35(2), Additione? Protocol 1, 1977.
do The declaration, hovever, only prohibits the use of
projectilesof a weigh: belov 400 grammes which are
explosive or are charged vith fulminatingor inflammable
substances. Itoes no: prohibit the use of explosive
artillery shells.sometimes been argued that the use of nuclear weapons would
invariably violate this principle."
37. The principle, however, prohibits only the use of weapons
which cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury. It
thus requires that a balance be struck between the military
advantage which may be derived fromthe use of a particular
weapon and the degree of suffering which the use of that
weapon may cause. In particular,it has to be asked whether
the same military advantage can be gained by using alternative
means of warfare which will cause a lesser degree of
suffering. The use of a nuclear weapon may be the only way in
which a State can concentrate sufficient military force to
achieve a particular o~jecrive. In those cir=ums:ances, it
cannot be said tha: the use cf such a neapûn causes
unnecessary suffering, ho.xeverarea: the casuaities idhich it
produces anong enezy =czbazar.:s.-'
(d) The princi=le th== :ne civilia? ?z?~la?iîr nust rot
be made the oSject of a.?a-tack.
38. The sponsors of the present request have also argued
that any use of nuclear weapons would inevitably cause
widespread casualties anongsi the civilian population and
would thus violate zhe principle thar an enemy's civilian
-
~~-
LI Brownlie, note 30 above, at p.450.
42 Kalshoven, note 33, above, p.264; Green, The Contem~orary
Law of Arne? Conflic: (19931, p.126; McDouqal and
Feliciano, note 38 above, p.660. population is not a legitimatetarget in its ovn right.')This
principle is a part of cus:onary internationallaw and vas
codified in Article 51(2) of ~dditionalProtocol 1, 1977. The
essence of this argument is that nuclear weapons cannotbe uçed
-
in a way which enables a distinctionto be drawn between
combatants and military .objectives on the .one hand and
civilians and civilian objects on the other. They are thus
said to be inherently indiscriminate weapons.
39. It is cerzainly the case that nuclear weapons could be
directed against centresof civilian population or used in an
indiscriminate way. 1: Is not true, however, that nuclear
weapons cannot ne use3 in any other üay. Modern nuclear
weapons are capanle of precise :arge::ing and nany are designed
for use againsz miLicary objec:ives of quire snall size. The
legality of a parzicular useof a nüclear weapon vould depend
upon whether it satisfieehe ccrirerionof proportionality,
namely tha: :ne likely civilian casualcies ana damage to
civilian objezrs rere -3: excessive in relarion co rhe military
advantage expecreS r= resu:: from rhe attack.--Once again, it
is not possible :O generalize,since the legality of an
individual instance of the use of a nuclear weapon would depend
- -- -- --
43 Brownlie, noce 30 acove; Psrld Court Project, note 30.
&L Kalshoven, no-e 33 above, p.265;upon the exact circumstances in which it vas used. I
40. The same answer has to be made to two related arguments.
First, it has sometimes been said that the use of nuclear
-
weapons would be unlawful because it would make it impossible
for a State to discharge its obligations towards persons and
objects protected under the Geneva Conventions, 1949, such as
the sick, wounded and prisoners of war or hospitals, as such
persons and objects would inevitably be anongsc the casualties
of any nuclear exchange. The deliberate targecting or
protected persons and objects would indeed be unlawful,
irrespective of the weapons used, but the Geneva Conventions do
not require the suspension of large scale hostilities merely
because of the proxi~ity of protected persons or objeccs.
Moreover, the argupent overiooks Che drafting hisïory of the
Convencions, and in par:icular, the rejeztisn of proposals to
discuss the legality of nuclear aeapons at the 19;9 Conference.
As one cornmenratorhas pur ir, 'z3 arque ?ike this is to lay a
heavier burden on the Gene';aConvenrions cian the).were ever
meant to sustain. "'
il. Secondly, it has been argued that the use of nuclear
weapons would inevitably cause so nany civilian casualties
that it would anounr to the conzission O: genocide." The
Court has stressed char oenocide is a crine which 'shocks the
-
LS Kalshoven, op.ci:.
~6 World Court Pr3iecz, note 30 above. conscience of mankind, results in losses to hunanity ... and is
contrary to moral law and to the spirit and ains of the United
Nations.'" Genocide is, however, a crime of intent and Article
II of. the Genocide Convention, 1948, requires 'intent to
-
destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or
religious qroup, as such.' To assume that the use of nuclear
weapons must be accompaniedby such intent would clearly be
unfounded. The rule is not directed at collateral casualties
resulting from an attack against a military objective.
(el The protection of the environment
42. Another argument is that the use of nuclear weapons
should be regarded as prohibited because of the effect that
it would have upon the natural environnent. ' This argument
rests on two sets of treat) provisions. Article 1 of the
United Nations Convention on the Prohibition of Military or
any other Hostile Environmental!,:oàifica:io nechniques, 1977,
17 Case concerningthe kpplicarionof the Convention on the
Prevention and Punishnentof the Crime of Genocide, Order
of 13 Septenber 1993, para 51.
48 World Court Projecc, note 30 above.prohibits 'military or other hostile use of environmental
modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or
severe effects as the means of destruction, damage or injuryl
to another State. Article 35(3) of Additional Protocol 1
prohibits the employment of 'mèthods or means of warfare which
are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread,
long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.'"
43. The Environmental ~odification Techniques Convention,
however, is not really applicable to most cases in which ..
nuclear weapons might be used. That Convention was designed
to deal withthe deliberate manipulationof the environment as
a method of war. Thus Article II of the Convention defines
the term 'environmental aoàification technique' as 'any
technique -forchanginq - ihrough the àeliberate manipulation
of natural processes - the aynanics, co~position or structure
of the Earth, including its iioTa, lithosphere, hydrosphere
and acmosphere, or O: ou:er space'. The effects on the
environment 3f the use of nuclear neapons ho..,reverw,ould
normally be a siàe-e:fecc of znose weapons. Article 35(3) of
Additional Protocol 1 is broader in scope, in that it is
applicable to the incidental effects on the environment of the
use of weapons. It las, however, an innovative provision. 50
LV See also Article 55.
50 See the statenen: Dy the Feàeral Republic of Germany,
Official Records, I'I,p.115.It is therefore subject to the understanding, which Kas
discussed above, that the new provisions created by Protocol 1
would not be applicable to the use of nuclear weapons.
.
44. It has been suggested that the use of nuclear weapons
would inevitably have such catastrophic effects on the
territory of neutral States and States not party to a
conflict that it would violate the principle laid down in
~rticle 1 of Haque Convention No V, Respectinq the Rights and
Duties of Neutra1 Powers and Persons in case of War on Land,
1907, which provides that 'the territory of neutralPowers is
inviolable.' Whether the use of nuclear weapons would deposit
radioactive fall-out on the territory of States not party to
the conflict would, however, àepend upon the type of weapon
used and the locacion a: ..,:hicit nas used. The assumption
that any use of nuclear xeap-ns nould inevizably have such an
effect is unfounded. !.!orejverH,ague Convention No V was
designed to protect the zerri:~r).of neutral States aqainst
incursionsby belligeren: forzes or the deliberare bonbardment
of targets located in :haï territory, no: Co guarantee such
States against the incidenzaleffects of hostilizies.
$5. fven if a parzicular use of nuclear weapons is contrary
-
to the lavs of arnod conflict, it remains necessary to
consider whether that use3iqht be justified as a belliqerent
reprisal. A belligerent reprisa1 is an action, taken by a
party to a conflict, which would normally constitute aviolation of the laws of arned conflict but which is lawful
because it is taken in response to a prior violation of thar
law by an adversary. To be lawful, a belligerent reprisal
must meet two conditions. First, it must not be directed
-
against persons or objects against which the taking of
reprisals is specifically prohibited. Secondly, it must meet
the criteria for the regulation of reprisals, namely that it
is taken in response to a prior wrong, is proportionate, is
undertaken for the purposes of putting an end to the enemy's
unlawful conductand for preventing future illegalities,and .
is a means of last resort.
46. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 prohibi: the taking of
reprisals against persons or objects protected by the
Conventions." That, however, would have little relevance
here, since it is difficult :O conceive of the use of nuclear
weapons against such persons or objec~s.~~ The Conventions do
not preclude the taking of reprisals against the enemy's
civilian population or civilian cbjects in eneDy territory.
57. Additional Protocol 1, on the other hand, prohibits the
taking of reprisals againstthe civilian population (Article
51(6), civilian objects (Article 52(1)), historic monuments
(Article 53(c)), objects indispensable :O the survival of the
51 Convention No.1, Article 46, Convention No II, Article 47
Convention No. II, Arricle 13, Convention No.IV, Art.33.
s2 See section (d)above. civilian population (Article 5<(<)), the natural environment
(Article 55(2)) and works and installations concaining natural
forces (Article 56(4)). Again, however, these provisions are
widely regarded as innovative and thus as inapplicable to the
-
use of nu-clearweapons. 53
48. 50 far as the second condition for the conduct of lawful
reprisals is concerned, it has been argued chat the use of
nuclear weapons could never satisfy the requirements of
proportionality and preventiveness. This argument, however,
suffers fron the same flahvsas the argument chat the use of
nuclear weapons could never satisfy the requirements of
self-defence. Nhether the use of nuclear weapons would meet
zhe requirements of propcrrionaliry cannot De answered in the
absrract; it :<ou?ddepenà ~pzr. rhe natrre and circunstances
of the wrong ahich crcr.preci tne air sf reprisal action.
Nor can it be ruled oui rhar rne reialiarcr) use cf nuclear
weapons night have the effet: ci pcz::nç a stop to a series of
violations of the laa by an ai\,ersary.
53 Kalshoven, note 33 anovë, p.263. The ICRC Commentary,
note 6 above, dses no: include the reprisals provisionsin
the list of provicicns nhich it expressly regards as
applicable to nuclear aeapons, 0.545. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, it is subnittedthat:
1. The legal question whichf~rms the subject-matterof the
request by the WHO for an advisory opinion in this case is not
one arising within the conpetenceof the Organisation as
required by Article 76 of the WHO constitutionand Article
X(2) of the Agreement betweenthe United Nations and the WHO,
and does not arise within the scope of its activities as
required by Article 96(2) of the United Nations Charter.
While the health effeccs of nuclear weapons are a legitimate
subject for the Organisation'sactivities,the issue of
legaliry of the use of such weapons has no relevance to those
activities,or to the obligationsof Menber States under the
WHO Constitution.
2. Alternatively,in rhis case the Cour: should decline to
give an advisory opinion as requested, because
(1) the legal question put to the Court does not
involve the interpretation of any
constitutionalprovision,decision or
reso1u:ion that is the subject of a dispute;
(ii) the KHO doej not require the advisory opinion
to assis: itcarry out its constitutional
functions; (iii) the request is notivated by political factors
which are extraneous to any requirement to
seek guidance as to the functions of the WHO;
and
-
(iv) any opinion given by the Court would be
unlikely to find general acceptance, and might
even prove detrimental to efforts to achieve
nuclear disarmament.
3. As regards :he principles of lav raised by the question,
it is submitted that:
(i) :ne -se cf n-clear aeapons ar-aldno: involve a
breack cf S:2tes1 obliqations under Che KHO
Consrirï:i~n:
(ii) there is c- :-le c=c:aineciin eitner customary
interna:irnal ?au or rreazy .*,hizn expressly
-- ..---s a:: use cf nuciear xeapons.
Moreover, S:z:e pracrice reqardinq Che
possession of nuclear weapons
necessarily izplies that the use of nuclear
weapsns rrouidbe laaful in proper circumstances;
-.
(iii) the leqali-y of the use of nuclear weapons must
znerefors be assessed in the light of applicable
principles of international law regardingthe us
of force ana the conduct of hostilities, as for other methods and neans of warfare;
i iv) the use of nuclear weapons will not be
contrary to the Charter of the United Nations
-
if it meets the criteria for the exercise of
the right of self-defence. Vhether the use of
nuclear weapons meets those criteria will
depend upon the circumstances cf each
individual case; and
(V) nuclear weapons are not prohibited per se by
the law of armed conflict. Their use will be
lawful providedthat it complies with the
general principles of the lau regarding
unnecessary sufferinq and Zhe protec:ion of
the civilian prpulazion. Their use in
circur.stances;ikichaould o:her.'isebe illegal
nay noreover Oe lanful if it constitutes a
legizinaze belliqeren: reprisal.
Written Statement of the Government of the United Kingdom