Written Statement ofthe Covernmentof Nauru INTERNATIONAL COURTOF JUSTICE
LEGALITY OF THEUSEBY A STATEOF NUCLEAR WEAPONS lN
ARMED CONFLICT
(Request for an AdvisoryOpinion)
-.
MEMORTAL
OF THE GOVERNMENTOF
THE REPUBLIC OFNAURU
1
September 1994 T3ble.of Contents
-
iable of Authorities and Cases .................................... iv
Question Presented ............................................. I
Introduction .................................................. 1
1. The Medical Dimension .................................... 3
II. The Cornpetence of the World Health Organization to Bring
This Maaer Before the InternationalCoun of Justice .............. 12
II. The Law of War (JIU inBello) ............................... 13
IV . The Law of War (JIU inBello)Prohibits the Use of Nuclear
. Wapons ............................................. 24
A . The Principle of Discrimination ........................... 24
B . The Principle of Pmponi5ïialiry ......................... 26
C . The Principle of Nevssity ............................... 29
'D. The Principle of Humai N ............................... 33
E . The Principle of Neunality .............................. 35
-F . The Principle of Envimnmencal Security ..................... 36
'....as an intepi pari of the international juin bel10
relevant trcaties and other instnimenrs ........
2....as pan of conventional international envimnmental law ..... 42
...... 44
3....aspari of customary international environmental law
G . The Principle of Non-Toxicity ............................ 46
V. The Use of Nuclear WeciponsViolates the lntenationally
Guaranteed Rizht to Life andHealth ........................ 48
VI . The "Nuclear Undenrandings" Issue .......................... 51 Tlie ProliiDirionofrlirUse of Nuclev Wupons Applies to Nuclex
\Ill.
Wespons of al1Sizes and in Al1 Circumstances .................. 53-
A. "Micro-nuket," "mini-nukes,"and "tiny nukes" are not exempt ....... 53
B. Dererrence is not a defense to the illegaliry of the use of
nuclear weapons ...................................... 54
Opinio Juris Suppors the Prohibition ofthe Use of Nuclear
VIII, .............................................
Weapons - 58
A. The international.humanitarian~les of med.conflict arewidely
misundemood and accepted to prohibit the use of nuclear weapons _
as a maner of law .................................... 59
1. Opinio Jurir as expressed in United Nations General Asernbly
resolutions and similar expressions of public polic......... 61
2. Opinio Jmis as expmsed in judicial dacisions ............. 64
-
3. Opinio JIU&as expressed inthe writings of "highly quaiificd
publicists"........................................ 65
4. Opinio Jurir as expressed in the "dimes of the pubIic
conscience" ...................................... 68
B. The physical use of nuclearw-ns at Hiroshima and Nagaraki, together
with their psychologicalusein the exexciseof major power daemnce
policy, has not edcd the opinio juris that the use of nuclear wapons
wouid violate the humanitaian rula of med wnflict ..... , .... 69
1. The practice of the nuclear weapon States retonfirms the
opinio juris that the useof nuclear weapons would violate the
humanitarian mla of med confiict .................... 70
2. The non-nuclear weapon States have not aquiesced in, or consented
.to, the practice of the nuclear weapon State............... 73
Conclusion .................................................. 75
Appendix A - Resolution Adopted by the Thirry-Fourdi World Health ~sscmbiy.
22 May 1981
Appendix B - United NationsGcneral Assembly Resolutions which wnclude thar the
use of nuclear weapons isa crime against hurnaniry and a violation of
the U.N. Chancr. -. .
IiiDES OF AUTHORITIES AND CASES
Page No.
INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS
African Charter on Humm and People'sRighü.Concluded 16 December
1966. Entcred into force, 3 Januap 1976. 993 U.N.T.S. à. .........
Agreement Goveming the Activities of States on the Moon and Orher Celesrial
Bodies, 5 December 1979, U.N.G.A..Res. 34/68 (XXXIV). 54 U.N.GAOR Supp.(No.46) 77,
U.N.Doc. Al341664Annexes(l979) .................................................. 71
Agreement Between die United Statesof America and the Union of Soviet Socialisr
Republics on the Rcvenrion of Nuclcar War. Concluded 22Junc 1973. Entered
into force 22 June 72. 917 U.N.T.S. 85 .............................................. 10
American Convention onHuman Righu, Concluded 22 Novcrnber 1969. Entered
into force 18 July 1978 0.A.S.T.S.No. 36. O.A.S. Off Rec. OWSer. WnI.23
doc. 21 rev.6 (1979) ........................................................... 49
htanic Treary, 1December 1959,402U.N.T.S. 71 ..................................... 71
Consrinition of the World Health Organization, Concluded 22 July 1946.
Entercd into force 7 April 1945. 14 U.N.T.S. 185. ...............
Convention for rheAmclioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick
in hies in the Field. Adopted 6July 1906, Entered into force 9 August
1907, II L.N.T.S.440 .....................................
Convention on Biological Diversiy, Concludea 5 June 1992. Entered into
force 29 December 1993 ..................................
Convention on the Prohibition of Militap or Any Other Hostile Use of
Environmencal Modification Techniques. Adopted10 Decrmber 1976. Entered
into force 5 Onober 1978. 1108U.N.T.S. 151 ......................
....
Convention on the Prohibition of the Developmcnt, Production and Stockpiiing
of Bacteriological (Biological)and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction,
concluded 10 April 1972, entered into force26 March 1975, 1015 U.N.T.S.163
Convention for the Protection ofCultural Prope- in the Event of &cd
conflict. and Regulations for the Excccution of theConvention forthe
Protenion of Culmral Propeny in the Event of Armed Conflict. adopted
14 May 1954, cntered into force7 August 1956.249 U.N.T.S. 214 ....
Convention on Maritime Neutraiin.. Concluded 20February 1929, entered
into force IZ Januap 1931. 135 L.N.T.S. 187 ................... Convention on the Righrs of the Child. Concluded 20 November 1989.
Entered inro force 2 September 1990.G.A.Res 41/25 (Annex), U.N.GAOR
44th Sess., Supp.No.49, at 166, U.N.Doc A/RESIMl49 (1990) .............................. 49
Declaation Renouncing the Use in Time of War of Explosive Projectiles
Under 400 Grammes Weight. AdoptedatÏ~t Petersburg by the International
Miliruy Commission, 11 December 1868. 128 C.T.S. 297'(French), 1 AM. J.
MT'L L. SUPP. 95 (1907) ................................................... :.. 15
Declamion on Principles of International iaw Concerning Friendly
Relations and Co-operation Among States in Accordance With rhe Chaner
of the United Nations. adopted by the U.N. General Assembly. 24October
1970, G.A. Ra. 2625, U.N.GAOR 25th Sess., Supp. No. 28, ar 121,U.N.
Doc. Al8028 (1971) ............................................................ 28
Declararion (TV, I) to Prohibit, forthe Tcrm of Five Years, rhe
Launching of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons, and Orher .-
Methods of Similar Nanue, adopted 29 July 1899.reprinted in 1 AM.
J.MT'L L. SLJPP. 153 (1907) .................................................... 15
-
Declararion (N, 2) Respecting the Prohibition ofthe Use of Projectile
Diffusing Asphyxiaring Gases, adopted 29 July 1899, reprinred in 187 C.T.S.
456, 1 AM.J.MT'L L.SüPP. 159 (1907) ...............................
Declmion (TV ) Respecting rhe Prohibitionof the Use of Expanding
~ulle&, adopted 29 July 1899,reprinted in 187C.T.S. 459,
1 AM.J.NT'L L.SUPP.155 (1907) ................................................. 16
Ewopean convention. for the Protection of Human Rigbrs and Funamental
Freedoms, concluded 4 November 1950,entcred into force3 Seprem~er 1953,
- 213 U.N.T.S. 221 ............................................................ .4S
Framework Convention on Climat: Change. concluded29 May 1992,
entered into force 21March 1994, reprintedin 31 MT'L LEG.iUTS. -.
849(1992) .................................................................. 43
Geneva Convention (No. 1)for the Amelioration of the Condition of
the Woundcd and Sick in Amed Forces in the Field, concluded12
Augwt 1949, entercd into force 21 Ouober 1950,75 U.N.T.S. $1. .......................... 16
Geneva Convention (No. II) for the Ameliorationof the Condition
of the Wounded, Sickand Shipu~eckedMembers-ofthe Amed Forces
atSeq concluded 12 August 1949, enteredinto force 21 Ocrober
1950. 75 U.N.T.S. 85 ........................................................... 16
Geneva Convention (No. III) Relativeto the Treatment of Prisoners
of.War, concluded 12 August 1949,entered inro forc: 21 October 1930,
75U.N.T.S. ljj .............................................................. 16
--
Geneva Convention (No. IV) Relative to the Protection oC f ivilian
Persons in Time of War. conciuàed 12 Augus; 1949.enterra inro force
21 October 1950. 75U.N.T.S. 287 .................................................. 16 -.
~ague Convention (No. IV) Respectingthe Laws and Customs of War on
Land with Annexed Regulations, concluded 18 October 1907, entered
into force 26 Januay 1910. 205 C.T.S. 277 (French). 2 AM. J. MTL L.
SUPP 90 (1908) ........................................
Hague Convention (No. V) Respecting the Righü and Duties of Neuaal Powen
ad Persons inCase of War on Land. concluded 18 October 1907c .nrcred into
force 26 Januaq 1910, reprinted in 205 C.T.S. 209 (French), 2 AM.L
MT'L L. SUPP 117 (1908) .;-r................................................... j5
Hague Convention (No. XII) Respecting theRighu and Duties of Neunal
Powcrs in Naval War,t5included 18 October 1907,enterd into forte26
Janu~y 1910, reprintcd in 205 C.T.S. 395 (French), 2 AM. 1.MTL L.
SUPP 202 (1908) .......................................
International Covenant on Civil andPolitical-Rights,concluded 16 December _
1966, entercd into force 23 March 1976. 999 U.N.T.S. 717 ...............
International Covenant on Economic. Socialand Culmral Righü,
concluded 16 Deceinber 1966. enteredinto force; January 1976.
993 U.N.T.S. 3. ............................................................. .42
Legal Principla for Environmental Protection and Sustainable Devclopment
of the Experts Group on Environmenul Law of the 1986 Commission on
Environment ad Develapment, adopted by the WCED Experts Group on
Environmental Law, 4 August 1987.U.N. Doc. WCERDIS6I7-31Add.l(1986) ................... 45
Memomdum of Undemanding Benvecn the UnitedStatcs.of America and
t!.e Union of Soviet Socialin Rcpuolio Regarding the Establishment
of a Direct Communications Link.Concluded 20June 1963. cntered into
force 20 June 1963. 472e.T.S. 163. ..........................
Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiaring, Poisonous
or Other Cas«, and of Bac~criologicalMethods ofWarfarc. concluded 17
June 1925, entered intoforce 8 February 192s. 94 L.N.T.S. 63. reprinted
in 14 MT'L LEG. MATS. 49 (1975). .............................................. 18
Resolution on Basic Principles for rhe Protection of Civilian Populations
in Armed Conflicts, C.A. Res. 2675. 25U.N. CAOR,Supp. No. 25, at 76,
U.N. Doc. Ai8028 (1970) ......................................................... 64
Resolution 1653 (XVI), Declararionon the Prohibition of the Use of
Nuclcar and Thermonuclear Wcapons, U.N. GAOR 16th Sers.Supp. No. 17.
at 4 U.N. Doc. M5100 (1962) .................................................... 62
Raolution on the Non-use of Force in International Relationsand
Permanent Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons, C.A. Rcs 2936,
U.N. GAOR, 20th Sess., Supp. No. 31, at 5. U.N. Doc. Ai87j0 (1972) ......................... 62 Resolution on Non-use of Nuclenr Weapons and Prevention of Nuclea
Weapons, G.A. Rcs. 33nlB, j; U.N. GAOR, Supp. No. 45;at 48,
U.N. Doc. AD3145 (1978) ..............................
Reso\urion on Non-use of Nuclear Weaponsand Prevenrion of Nuclear
Wu, G.A. Rcs. 34/83G, 54 U.N. GAOR, Supp NO.46, at 56, U.N.
Doc. Al34/46 (1979) ..................................
Resolution on Non-use of Nuclear Weapons and Prcvention.of Nuclear
WC, G.A. Res.;SlljZD, 35 U.N. GAOR, Supp. No. 4S, at 69. U.N.
Doc. A/j5/48 (1980) ........................................................... 61
Resolution on Non-use of Nuclear Weaponsand Prevention of Nuclear . .
Wu, GA. Res. 36/92I, 36 U.N. GAOR, Supp. No. 51, at 64, U.N. Doc.
A/36ljl(1981) .............................................................. 62
Resolution on the Convention ontheProhibition of the Use of Nuclear
Wcpons (with annexed Drafi Convention on the Prohibitionof the Use
of Nuclear Weapons), G.A.Res.45fj98, 45 U.N. GAOR, as117,U.N.Doc.
Al451779 (1990) .............................................................. .62
...
Resolution or. the Convention on the Prohibitionof the Use of Nuclear
Wezpons (with anncxe draft Convention on the Pronibition of the Use
of Nuclear weapons), GA.Res. 46/37D, 46 U.BLGAOR.at 117,
U.N.Doc.A/46/674 (1991) ....................................... : ............... 62
Resolution on Respect for Human Ri$iü in Armed Conflicts. 23 U.N
GAOR Supp. No. 18' at 50, U.N. Doc N7218 (1968) ..........
Resolution on the Protection of Civilian PopulationsAgainn Bombing
fiom the Air in Case of War, adopted30,September 1938, 1938Leque
of arions Official Journal, 19th Session(12-30 September 1938).
Special Supp--182 at 15. .................................
Resolution on Protection of Civilian PopulationsAgainst the Danger
of Inaiscriminate Wariare. 20th InternationalConference of the Red
Cross, Rcsolution 21 (1965). .....................................
Rio Dcclaration on Envuonment and Development,adopred by the
U.N. Conference on Environment and Development at Rio de Janeiro,
12 June 1992. U.N.Doc. A/CON€.ISIR6 (Vol.1)(1992), reprinted
in MT'L LEG. MATS. 874 (1992) ................................
South Pacific Nuclear Free ZoneTreary, concluded 6August 1985,
entered into force II December 1986. U.N.Doc. CD1623(1985),
U.N. DOC.CDl6;3lCom.2 (1985) and U.N. Doc. CDl6jjlAnnex 4IRev.l
(1987). 24 MTL LEC. MATS. 1442 (1985) .......................................... 26
vii Stockholm Declaration of the United NationsCon-rence on the
Human Environment. adoptedby the U.N. Conferencc onthe Human
Environment at Stockholm, 16 June 1972.Repon of the U.N. Conference
on the Human Environmen&Stockholm. 5-16Junc 1972, U.N. Doc.
A/CONF.48/14/Rev.l at j (1973). U.N. Doc. AICONF.48/14 al 2-65, .........................
and Con. l (1972), reprinted in 1I MT'L LEG. MATS. -1416 (1972) jg
Trerry Banning Nuclear WeaponsTests in the Amospherc. in
Outer Space and Under Water, concluded5 August 1963. entered
into forcc 5 Ocrober 197s. 480 U.N.T.S. 43 ...............
Treary Beween the United Statesof Amcrica and the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics ondie Limitation of Anri-Ballistic
Missile Systems, 26 May 1972, 25 U.S.T. 3435, T.1A.S. No. 7503,
reprinted in II INT'L LEG. MATS. 784 (1972) ........................................ 71
Treary Between the United Statesof America and the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics on theLimitation of Smegic Amis
and Protocol Thereto, 18 June 1979. rcprinted in 18 Mf'L LEG.
MATS. Il58 (1979) ..... .............................
Treaty Benven the United Statesof America andthe Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics on the Elimination of Their Intermediare Range
and Snonn Rang Missiles, 7 Deccmber 1957,reprinted in INT'L LEG.
MATS.90(198S) ............................................................. 71
Treary Between the United Statesof America andthe Union ofSoviet
Socidisr Republics on the Reduction and Limitationof Smegic
Otiensive Arms. jl July 1991, S. Trcary Doc. 102-20, 102nd Cong.
1st Sess. (1991)......................................
Treary for the Prohibition of Nuclcar Weapons in Latin America.
concluded 14 February 1967,entered into forcein accordancc with
article 28. 634 U.N.T.S. 281 ...........................
Treaty on Principlcs Goveming the Acrivities of States in the
Exploration and Use of Outer Space. Includingthe Moon and Other
Celesrial Bodies. 27 January 1967, 610 U.N.T.S. 205, repnnted
in 6 WL LEG. MATS. 386 (1967) .............................
Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplaccmenrof Nuclear Weapons and
Other Weapons of Mass Desnunion on the Seabed and the Ocean Floor
and in the Subsoil Thereof, 11 February 1971,955 U.N.T.S. 115,
- re-rinted in 10 MT'L LEG. MATS. 146 (1971) ........................................ 71
Treaty Relating to the Use of Submarines and Noxious Cases in Wm-me, -
Concluded 6 February 1922. not in force for other reasonslj L.N.T.S. 202. ..
United Nations Convention onthe Law of the Sca concluded 10 Dccember
1982, entered into force 22 September 1985.26 INT'L LEC. MATS. 15160987)
-
-.
viii Universal Declmtion of Human Ri~hts,adoprrd.IO Dccernber 194s.
G.A.Res.Z17A, U.N.GAOR, 3rd Sess..h.1. Resolutions, at 71, U.N.Doc. NSIO (1948)
Universal lslamic Declanrion of Human Rights. Adopted 19 Seprember
1981. 4 EU% HUMAN RTS. REp.4ji (1982) ........................................... 49
Vienna Convention for the Prorecrion of the Ozone Layer, Concluded
22 March 1985. Entercd inro force 22 SepremDe1988. 26 IN7"LLEC.
bl~TS.1516 (1987) ....................................
-- .
World Charter for Nature. Adoored by the U.N. General Assernbly, 2S
Ocrober 1982.G.A.Ra 35/48. U.N.GAOK 33th Sess., Supp. No.4S.
at 15, U.N.Doc. Nj5/48 (1981) ...........................
CASES
Cerrain &penses of rhe United Nariom (Advisov Opinion) 1962 I.C.J. 151 ..................... 28
Condifions oj'Admission of a Slare 10Memoershipin fhe UniredNarioru
(Advisory Opinion) 1948 1.C.J.57 ................................................. 57
ln Re von Manstein, 16 AM. Digesr Pub. lnr'l Law Cares 509
(1949) .......................................................
Noulilaa lncidenr Arbirrarion, 2 Reports of Int'l Arb. Awards 1011,
(1928). ...........................................
North Seo Conlinenral Sheif: (Fedcral Repubiicof GemanyIDenrnark and Fcderal
......................................
Republic of GermanyMetherlands), 1969 I.C.J. 5 57
Shimodo Case, (Shimoda and Othen v. The Srate,Tokyo Disr.Cr., ~eiy-7, 198j),
Reprinteu in [1964] Jap. Ann.lnr'l L.212 (Enslish Translation), 32 Int'l L. Reps. 626 (1964)........ 65
Sourh Wesr Afica, (Eth. V. S.Afr) (Lïoer.V. S.Afr.) (Second
Phasc),1966 I.C.J. 6 ..............................
Temple ofPreah Yihear (Cambodia V. Thziiand).1961 I.C.J. 6 ............................ 57
Teraco Overseas Perroleum Co. Y.Lib.vanArco Re~uoiic,Award on the
rnerits of 19January 1977. 17 Inr'l Lezal Mars. 1(1978) ................................. 63 Memorial
in support of the
Application by the World Health Organkation
for an
Advisory Opinion by the-International Court of Justice
on the Legality of the Use of ~uclear Weapons
Under International Law, including the W.H.O. Constitution"
Question Presented
In view of the health and environmentaleffects, would~the.useof nuclear.weapons by a State in
war or other anned conflict bea breachof its obligations under international law includingthe WHO
Consritution?'
. . .. .. ... .
Summary
This Memorial will answer the question presented in the affirmative. It will argue that, because
of the uniquely deadly nature of nuclear weapons,their use would violate fundamental pnncipies of
jus in bello,as embodied in both widelyratifiedtreatiesand customaryinternational law, includingthe
principles ofdiscrimination,proponionality,necessity,humanity, neutralitye ,nvironmentalsecurity,and
non-use of poison or analogous materials.
.-
Introduction
Two clusten of issuesdominate inquiry into thequestion presentedto the Court for an Advisory
Opinion: (1)Shouldthe Coun respond tosuch a questionbearingso centrallyon the securitypolicyof
nuclear weaponStates,consideringthat its sourceisthe WorldHealth Organization(WHO)? In effect,
-doesthe WHO possess the legal authority to raise such a question, and isthis authonty well enough
grounded thatthe Court should notrely on its discretion anddecline to make a response? (2) Should,
the Court, satisfied that it is appropriate--evenmandatory-to respond to the question posed by the
WHO, reachthe conclusion thatthe useof nuclearweapons is inherentlyviolative of international law,
rherebymaking any and every use illegal? The alternativeview is that in the absence of an explicit
treaty of prohibition,the legalityof nuclear weaponsdependson the contextof their use, andthat their
use cannot be categoric* declaredto be illegal.
These are complex and weighty concerns, butthis Memonal will seek to convince the Court that
existing international lawrequires a full response to the WHOquestion as posed and that the proper
response is for the Court to advise that any and everyuse of nuclear weapons, certainly any known
anticipated use of such weapons, would violate internationallaw.
The argumentsto support these two points areset forth in derail below. However, each-anbe
briefly prefigured,in this introduction, in theirssential amibutes at this stage.
By virtue of its Constitution, the World Health Organizationis entmsted with the centraltask of
promotingand protectingthe health of humanity, including theavoidance of present and future health
'This Mcmorial ilsargelybasedupona studyconductcdby an internationag lroupof lawycrslcadby Pcter
Weiss(Esq.),Prof.BurnsH.Wcston.Prof.Richard A. FalkandProf.SaulH.Mendlovia.
'I.C.J.Ordcr,GcneralListNo. 93, 13Scptembcr1993,citingrequestfor advisoryopinionin Rcsolution h'HA
46.40a.doptcdby theForty-SixthWorldHealthAsscmblyon 14 May 1993.amphes. There is no doubt thai mon wnternplatcd and charanerinic uses of nuclur weapons pose
carzs;-ophic health probiems, and on an unpdenrcd s&le. Of wune. it is possible to wnceive of
uses of nuclear weapons that might not pose such a challenge to bealth-for exarnple, the detonation of
an 25 ver uninventcd "clean" nuclcar devicc in anemely iimitcd ditional banlefield sening. But,
as will be aqued, the disposition of nuclear weapons tocause mass dmction and long-range life-
dcsnoying radiation is SO ovcnvhclming as Io rnake the prospects for medical caramophe vimlly
inevirable and wnsquently supportive of tbe nemq linkktwan the WHO mandate to protect
human health and cmy use of nucicar weapons. To insin that'legal~~asscssrncn.tmus mit umil &a .
nuclev wc2pons have ben physically usCapovs such a hi& risk of cat2suopbe as to be unacccprabie.
hd to dwell on the possibitiry thai some awntiaily isoiatuxs of nucleu weapo11~ e.rpcrminible
or that thcy may bepcrmissible in c& mwly defincdcircumstances is tomviaiize arguably the
paren of al1threats to human civilhion and plana Earthioelt;making the question ouse a matter
of mulriple, separate governrnental interpdons,wi<h the wnscqucnt pdents king almostcerrainly -
undernocd in a variery of self-serving ways. Only an absolute ban on use provides any rcîsonable bope
of protcaing bumanity againn the cvcntualiry of baving health synems fundamentally4ven
imaievably-disruptcd and overwbclmed.
Yet, we ml& that itisnot enough to claim anabsolute prohibition only on the basis of likcly
poli- wnsequenccs. It is neccssary togmrmd thisclaim inlaw as well, andnotwitbnanding thaf at
the omet, thm is the dificulty of ovemming tbc rcsolve of wvcral States, now stretching ovcr haif
a ccntury, to rely on nuclcar weapons for their ~curity. The nuclear wcapon States, isme, mot
be prrntmed to have givm their conskt tosucb a legai prohibition ouse. But the issue for tCourt
is whaher, despitethis practicc of "nucicar dcîcmna" by a minority ofSratesand despite the ahcc
of an cxplicit mty ban, intemational law prohibits the use of nuclear wcapons, either hm the
inceetion of the nuclear age or as a nuit of formation during its coune.
This Mernorial contcnds that such a nile antedatt1945,but in any evenf that a specific nile of
prohioition has emergcd withr=sptctto theuse of nuclur weapans in the wune of the last fifry-.
Irwill bC argued that the customary intcmarional law of war (jusin bello), cmbodying at itscon a
notion of moderateness in relation to tinstruments ofwaq prohibits the use of my weapon or&c
that posscsses the pmperria that nuclearwqmns, in ail theirvariery,characteristically possas-namely,
indiscriminatencss, failure of pmponionality, inhumaniry, uiviro&ënta~inwcuriryand toxicity. Such
fearures makeany use of nuclear wcaponry, ccrtaidy any hown anticipated use, per se illegai under
international law.
It will beargucd also, both in rcinforczmcnt and in the alternative, that the O-anized internarional
wmmunity has passcd definitive legaljudgmcnt on nuclear wuponry in tbru main fons. FksS in a
lengrhy series of Genwal Asscmbly rcx>lutionsthai bave wnfirmcd the illegality of any use of nuclcar
weapons. Second, intbe weigbt of wholarly opinion hm al1pansof the world which bas supponçd
tbe existence as well as the unergence of suao absolue nom of prokibition. ?hirb in the "dimes
of the public conscience" by way of divme expressions of some of tbe mon significant elcrncnts of
civil society.
It is significant that this evidcncc of illegality bas ken accumulated largely during the Cold War
when the docaine of nuclear detcnncc held sway, guiding the policies of both supcrpowm~iüïd bascd
on an irnplied dirat of use.1tis our view that the dininction berwŒn possessioo end use isrelevant
to the cmt starus of intemational law. making uw inhmtly illegal. while 'the legstafu of
possession remains to be de~cnnined. Tne question presnted be- conzrns use_only. Several linkcd dcvelopmenrs men-&en the lezal argument that any use oinucic3- wapons would
be illegal under international law:
(a) the ending of superpower con6onrarion. climinating the mztegic rationale for muniel
detcrrence;
(b) the mounting dangm of nuclear prolifemion, adding u>mplexiry io efÏom to pmmt nuclm
war and thercfore givingrcnewcd imponance to confming the exinencc of a clur prohibition
on use as already cmtcdicd in international law;
(c) the inc-ing mlization of wmplexity and hgili&arising hm the growing interdependence
and interpeneaation of intcrnaOonailife, makingn prudent and beneficiai, asin manen of
environmental protenion,iodcvelop uncondirional mlcs of ~rohibition (partas a seflexion
of uriceminry of the effa associated withml use, pmly huse of the difiiculties of
relying on inrerpretatinahighly dacn~aihA and diverse communicyofsovccign States);
(d) the accumularing widencc that the ncgativc propcrtia of nuclear weapons. cannot be
sufiiciently controllcd to escapelegal condannation, as rcflatcd in pwing mti-nuclear
consensus arnong the majority of States, in rtic "tcachings of the most highly qualificd
publicins of the various nations" aninthe "dictata of thc public conscience"asexpressai
by the leading clcmenu of civil scxiay, and
(e) the mident daerm~ation of the worldcommunity to abolisb al1weapons of mrss demucrion.
Jointly and sevcrdly, these dwelopments heip to establisb a soiid legal foundation for a hding that
use of nuclcar weapons is and should now be prohibitcd in imernational law, aithou& mcb a
finding canbeclarified and made more alnhoritative by a nzav or by a decision by thisCoun that
~ches similar conclusions.
No piague, no cpidemic, no environmental hcaith bazard in the bistory of the world ha risCO
the lcvel of risk posed by a nuclcar holo~aust Tbe nuclcar quenion, the question of bow toprevcnt
.c holocau~ is, as Lord Russell said in1955,"the mosr impona~t question men have ever bad to
dccide in the whole hinory of the human race.""
Tne first session of the United Nations Genml Asscmbly, held in bnd0n in January1946,just
four months aftcr the only two nuclcar bombs evcr used in carncstwere druppedon Hiroshimaand
Naguaki, recogniird this cenuai factoftbe.cumnt era by addrtssing iu fir nubstantive rrsolution to
the danger of nuclear war." The World HcalthChganizarion, at whose rqum the question ofthe
QUOI& in E.P. Thompson. OUT OF APAW (1960).
' G.A. Res. a([)U.K. GAOR. In Sns. (1946).
. -
-legaliry of the use of nuclcar w-nsis penaing bcforc this Cou& has rcpuredly expresscitconmm
about the efïccu of nuclcawar on the hult';and. indd, the survival of the human race.''
ne inuoduction to WHO'S classic midy, Effecfsof Nuclem Wm on Healrh md Healrh Services
(Zd cd.1987). summarizts the nmre and cffccts of nuclcar wcapons in the following rems, ac
p. 7: Quantitatively. nuclear weapons arcvmiy morc powcriul than conventional wcapons. Atom
bornes of the &pc usai at Hiroshima and NGardci rcprcscnred an inme hm tons of
niniuoroluenc to the quivalent wci-t of thowds of tons @ilotons,kt). Hydrog.cn
bombs, devcloped about a decade latrr. rcprcsentan-inrreasc hm..thousan& of tons to millions
of tons (rncgatons, Mt). Nuclear wapons have now ban amassed throughout the world to an
mimatcd total of some 15,000 megatons ad carry anffplosivc powcr 25-50fima asmuchas in
the 1960s. The dcmuaive power of these bombs isnich tha! a single bomb may have an
explosive power equal to that of al1the conventional aplosivuscdin al1wam since gunpowder
was invented. The explosive power of ail the nuclrar arsenals of the worlisnow about 5000
rimes grcatcr than that of ail the rxplosuscd in the Ssand World Wu.
Qualitatively, the diffemce betwm nuclcar and conventionai weapons is of cvcn -ter
sipificanc: than the quantitative diffcmcc. In conventional weapons the two mon lethal
agents arcblast and hai Blasî and hear botbcauseinjury and death wbcn nuclcar wcapons
arc use& but to ment thousands of tima pter. Nuclcar wcapons, howevcr, also produce:
additionai lcthal cffats by radiation. Ahmrt the dina effccn of radiation, the radioactive
materials 5om a nuclcar bomb can be tnnsporrcdro a grta! distancchm the site of the
explosion, as has-tly ban demonmatcd on a vcry much smallcr scale by the accidentat
the nuclcar power plant a! Cbcmobyl--Morcover, radiationhm the fallout may bc an
obstacle torescuc operations and effectcart ofinjurrdsumivon and have hmful or lettial
eEecrs longafccrthe explosion.lu delnaious effm may indd continue to befelt infuture
gmcntions, long aftcr hostilitia would have cnded.
Las quantifiable cîÏm of nuclear warinclude amiosphcric changes dehimentai toagiculnirc
and the aonomy not only in the counuies wbnr tbe war taka place but alsoin dm not
engased in honilities. Morcovcr, since the world has nwcr cxpcrienced a large-scale nuclcar
war, orher~unprrdictable direct and indirtct effats canbetexcluded. Any assessrnent of
the efÏa of a nuclcar war mun thmforc be artcnded by a high degrce of uncmainty.
Howcver, on the bais of the information dmved hm the explosions at Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, the testsof nuclear weapons and accidents rdnuclear powcr plants. rrscarçhin
radiation physics and biology. and eanhquakes,fire fl,ods, volcanic eruptions, and other
naml disaners, it ispossible to prcdia with rrasonaactucq the main e5as on pc~ple
and thek environment. Those cffw would no< belimitd to the pple of îbe arunàm tbc
bombs fell; some of thcm would be felt by people ~ughout mon of the world.
Sec WHA RaoluÙoas 3438.3628 md 4024, and WorldHcalm -0% Effa of NuclarWu On
Hc!:h and Hd:h Scrvics (Zdcd.1987). hoihc: authorirarive smdy, by die Intcnrrional Physicians for ihc Prcvcntion of h'uclur War,
simer of die 1985 Nobel Prize, describesthemedical effcc~ of nuclcar explosions asfollow~:~
-
Our understanding of theprcntial human devvtarion of a single nucl- cxplosion is rooird
in die temble expcnence of Japanesc citizcnin Hiroshima and .Nagasaki. But the weapons
used in 1945 were tiny in cornparison to mon of the tcns of thousands of warheads thar will
=main intoday's nuclear anenais even if ail of the STMT and 199111992initiative to duce
the supe;powers' nuclur arsenals arc fulfillcdA single modem weapon, exploded eiihcr
inrenrionally or accidentally over a large city, is capable of slaughtaing more than one million
peopl:. If a larger nurnbcr of wczpoarccxplcded in warf- tbe ovdl conscquencs will
includ: not only shorr- and medium-tmn medical injdes but dso xvm cnvirotpnmral
e~&, disniprion of nansponarion and the deiivny ofcd, fuel andbasic medical supplies,
andpossïole famine and mus starvation on a global level.
-
Acwrding to a summary of the 1986 Reporr on the Medical Impiicarions of Nuclev War,
published by the Institue of Medicine of the U.S. NationalAcademy of Sciences, "hh
successivemidy of the possible buman dcsûuction tha!would rcsulr hm a nuclcar war-eitba
a lirnited exchange (were .bat possible) or a rotai exchange of existing stockpiles-draws a
pjmrncr conclusion about what the burnan costs wouid be: htd of speculating that.the
wualries mi&( amouni to only a few tens of millions, i-unit -diehave indicalai thar the
c~ualtics arcmort likcly to numberabillion or more, and evcn the survival of human bcmgs.
on csnh haskn quesiioned."
The following dacnptioni summarizconly thc immediate injuries hnilting hm a smglc
explosion of a one-mcgaton wahcad de~onatedon the grnund-the cquivdcnt of 1,000,000
tons ofMT, but lcss than 118000of the dcsmictive force mat wilrcmain aftera11cumnt
anus dunion plans arcimpla~ented The immediate human dtia srcm hm thme
dificmnt sources of injury: the bl& en& of fbe explosion itwlt tbe brnnrcniltingboth
from direct exposure to the intense hcai gencratcd bythe explosion ahm the raulting
massive fies; and the radiafion released bya nuclcar daonation, delivcnd in ùie fom of
fallour of radioactive marerial down wind hm the explosion inelf. The most knponant &or
in prrdicring mosi of these injuries is the distance of human hmingthe cxplosion itself,
although othcr fanon including the wcather may be critical (on a rainy&y the moist
amosphere will absorb more of the hcat cnergy relwsed by Theexplosion, and bum injuries
rnay beduced).
To cnimate the cfiects of a nucicar explosion in your own city or rown, take any map,pick
a locationatwhich the nuclear daonarion might Qke place, and drawfour concenmc cizcles,
widi a radius of 1.S'km,5 km.-10km, end 20 km raptcrively.Tùe summary below desm'bcs
the nature of the dmnion and injuria that wiIi take pl=within cachof those cirtles.
Toul numbcrsof aualties will range hm me uns of tùousands to more than a million,
depending on the popularion dcnsity within tbe circles.
lotmarional Physicianfsrtbc Pmmrioo ofNucler Wax. B ~ G BOOK ON NUCM WU (1992). . .
DISTANCE MEDICAL EFFECTS
Gmund Zero: At ground zero. the explosion cmtes a aater92 mnm dc=p and 367
m«CK in diarnaer. AI1lifc and mucnircs arc obliteratcd.
O - 1.5KM: Within one secona, the annosphm itrclf in effcct imitain10 a firrball
more than 1 km in diameter. The surface of the fmbail (mla than its
center) radiates nearly ihre times the Iight and heat of a wrnparablc am
on the surface of-the sun. Tne firrball rises to a height of sixmiles or
more. A11life bclow is cxtinguishcinwconds.
The flzsh and heat hm the explosion radiaoutwardai the spd of li&
1.5 -5 KM:
causing inmintanecus scvm burns. A blast wave of comprawd air
follows slightiy more slowly, rçaching a distance of 5 kinabout 12
seconds. Frorn the blast wavc alone, mon factoria and commcrciai
buildings wllapy and srnall he and brick residenccs arc dcmoyed.
Dcbris &ed by auids of 470Maur inflicts lethal injuria tiyoughout
this am. At lean 50 pcrunt of people die immcdiatcly, prioto any
injuries hm radiation or the dcveloping fitom.
5-1OIM: The dirut heat radiating hm the explosion causes immcdiatc thirddcpe
burns to cxposcd skin, aiid the cxpanding blan wave dmysmany mal1
buildings. The combination of heat and blacaws fuelstoragetank ts
explode. A fircnorm bcgins to dcvelop, awinds and intcnw hcaîswap
individuaifm togethcr inta single ragiDg confiagration. The firarom
consumes ail nearhy oxygcn, suckingitolrtof any undcrground dons
and asphyxiating the octupants. Sheitms kame ovq and ovcr the
cnniing minutes to hours, fkditiarclikelytoapproach 100 perrcnt
10 - 20 KM: The shock wave harhes a distance of 15 km apprnimakly 40 seconds
after ihe initial explosion. People aidcxpased to the elo=tromagnnic
radiation (intbe form of intense Iight)grneratcd by tbe orpwarbcad
suffcr scconddep bums. Depending on the abiliry of protedvc
mucnucs to withrand blbn andmis1 îk, totalcariy cantaltics (killed and
injund) may range hm 5-50 percent
Radiation Casualties
in the irnrncdiatc pmximiry of the explosion (10 km or las). injuria rcsulring 6orn radiaoon
exposure have linle significancc, beause mon @einaps)di) susc-ptible individuais will have
died from the morc rapidly farai bum and blan injuries. At grcarcr disances, radioactive
failout becomes a major souru of short-umi and medium-mm hcalth problcms. A-tc
prcdictions about the location and extcnt of radiation injuria arcmuch more difftcult for bum
and blan injuries. the effmof radioamive failom aiIl dcpcnd on such factors aswhcrt the
nuclear explosion taka place (an cxplosion in thairhve a ciry will cmc much las
radioactive debris and rcsulting failoutanhexplosionaiground levcl), whethcr the 1 4
wind panerns that &y arc carrying failout ova bçavily populatarcas,and local wcatbcr
conditions (on a &y &y, radioactive debris will be washcd out of the air more rapi.ly,
resulrin~ in more intnise fallout ove: a morc localara). ûther imparrant fanon arc wnether individuals in thara of fallout aieable to main carefully sheltercd, especially
during the inirial days of mon intense radioactivity.
For those without effective shielding £romfailout, a one-megaton nuclur explosion taking
plac: ncar the pround will crcate a lethal radiarion zone (450 raddosesfLs 48ehoun)
of approximarely 1300 square ki1ome:ers. serious-dialioexposurq producing illiesr but
not generally de?&, will occur oveataï several thes lqcr.
-. -
The mosr imponant medical pmblcrns rcniitihm acute radiation exposurc include: mual
nervous syncm dysiunction (espcciaila! vny high doses); nausca,vomiting and diarrhea
60m damagc to &~cgastminteseind 'q -feadingto potc~.riallfata dehydmtion and
numtionai problcms; and desmidion of tùc body's capaciry w producenew bld ctlls,
resulting in unconmlled bleding (bccause of the absencc of platclas) and Iifc-htening
infections (beçause of the absence of white blood cclls). Maffect icdividuals will not
be awarc that diey have receivea potrntially lethai radiation dos udays to week after-
the explosion, when the damage to theu blood sysehma dent lhrough bleafingihrn
rhe gums or wirhin theu skin, or hugh unconwlled i-foxions or unhcalingwounds.
Medical Carcin the Mennath of a Nuclcar Explosion
Enimates of the ultimatc casualties eom amcdicai disaster oh depend as much on the
resources thatarr available toPeat the vicrkns ason the source of the onginai injm-a
thcmselves. Inthe case of nuclear explosionsncar human populations, the barrieffective
mcdical care will be enormous. The mon imporiant of thex are the sha numbm of
crsualtia and the fact tha! die explosionkclf will bave damiytd hospitais and other mcdical
facilies and killcd or injundmon mtdical one el; The reportof the U.S. ins?ifuof
Medicine dated, for examplgthat in the United Stats burinjuria alone would rcquirc
142 thes as many intensivecarcuniu as would beavailabie.
Even foimost of those wirh lessmm injuria,howcvcr, effective mcdical carwill Iikcly
be impossible. for example, many people in the aftermath of a nuclear explosion will have
severe nausea and vomiting. Even if highlymincd medicd personnel arc available, thce will
be no clear way for tbem CO damnine whaher thae sjmptoms arcrhe mit of lethd
radiation exposure (in which case bospitalijatwith innavcnous fluids and antibioti~ is
mandatory), or sevcrc psychological mas with no significant radiation cxponiaiail(LI
which case cmotional suppon alone is indicated). Effectiverrx of the scaru medical
resources thaare available will simply not bedistic.
Conclusion
An undemanding of the massive Ievelsof dath and irrcmcdiable &&g rbatwould mit
hm anexplosion of cvcn a single nuclcaarbead ncu a populatcd arcacompels a simple
conclusion: nosuch explosion musteverbappen-whahcr by acciden~ bu& amrin ac5
or in war.
--
PrierIOthe Chmobyl nucl- disanet, expm nuclur wienri~ &ated thatrheprobabiliry
of an accident at thai facility was las dian one chance in 10,000years. Evcn if die odds of
any sinele nuclcar warhud exploding oeaa city we~ as low as that unrcalinic aimate, tùe -
wntinucd exinence of tens of-thousands- of such wariieads would make the wrnoincd
likclihood of such a disastinthe yex aheada neai &ry.
Tne environmc<ral eEŒu of nuclcar wupons, dirtctly afiming thc health and well-king of the
world's populations, have wme to beassociatcd in thc-popuiar imagination wirh the thcory of "nuclcar
winter," propounded sorne tcn ycan ago by a group of distinguishcd scienrins.'This theory. bascd
on mathematical models, assuma a major nuclcar exchange on the order of 10,000 megarons benvan
the United States and rhe then Sovin Union. It prcdins thaI this would rrsult in a mcan dunioof
50 pmnt of the ozone laycr--%the northern hanisphvc and 30 pncent in the southcm hemisphcx.
This, inluru,would rcsult in an incrcasc in ultraviola radia(UV-B) by afmr of fivcor mom."
A 1975 reportLong-Term WorIdwide Effecuof MuiripIeNudear WeoponsDetomions, by the United
Stares National Academy of Sciences, daaibes the biologieac'ffcctof nich an oc~timnce in the
iollowing tems:
Ifthe upper limits of ozone dcplnion -shouldbc dirtd(70% rufuctions), imvmiblc injury
to sensitive aquaiic speria mighOCLITduring the ycan of in-c in UV-B following the
d~-onallons....
-
W-B cxposurc inhibits plant pwdi and dcvclopmcnt . .. duces photosynthesis, and
influences the pllination bchaviorof insm spezics.
Agriculmral crops @car,beans,tomatog nigar bars, lemice and onionr) arcamong the mon
sensitive plant specics Wo radiarion.... Dac] would be scvcrely "scaided" and evcn
killcd by a 5-10 fold in-e inUV-B.
,b increase inUV-B would probably lcad to an incrascd incidence of mdipnant skin tumors
in whitc-watcd or picbald animais. The incidence O-fWcanccr-eyein Herefocade is bown
to in-e with both length and intcnsiryof cxposurc.
For its pq the U= Nations GeneralAssmbly, in 1958, adopttd the Rcpon of the United
Nations Scientific Comminr on theEffecu of Atomic Radiation which obscrvcd that
[rladioactive contamination of the environment multing hrn explosions of nuclw weapons
connitutesa growing incmncnt to worldwide radiation exposure. This involva new and
largeiy unknown hds for currcnt and future populations;thcse hazards by their vcry narurc
are beyond the wneol of me cxposed pesons. The Cornmittee wncludcs that al1 seps
designed to prcvent irradiKion of humanpopulations mlaa to the bcncfit of human health."
* P.Ehrlichu al.,NU- W[M.3( (1984).
' Intmiational PhysiciansfrbcRcvmuon of Nucl= Wax.MT AD 282(1982)
..
' Reroluriononrk Emrs ofAlomicRadiarion.GA. Rcs.1147(XIT) U.N.GAOR l2tbSas..Supp. NO
18. Y 3. (1958). Laer, in 1986, in iu own words end kferring to the possïoiliry of a "nuclur winter" as a
conscqucncc of nuclear wax, the Gcneral Assembly has obsmred that the "climatic e&u of nucl-
wx pose an unprŒedented peril to ail nztions. cven thosfu mnovd kom the nuclear explosions,
which would add immeasurably to îhe prcviouslykno+ dangm of nuclear war, wichoutcxcludiDgthe
possi~iliry of al1thEanh king ûansfomed into adarkcned, fiozen plane* wherc conditions would
beconducive to mzss exrinaion.""
An exchange of the magnitude wniernplatcd in-the nucleu hter scena.0 is now cxaenelv
unlikcly, the planet rnay no longer be duccd in Amcrican essayin Jonathan Schcll's memonbie
words, to "a republic of inscu and ps."" Nevenhcless, the projecrions of the nuciear +ter
scientins wnvey some notion of the swerirymd dmtion of the ~ECN of nuclear war on the human
and narural environment and, as a conquace, on the hcalthand well-king of humanklid NeIf. Even
in the absence of ozone layer depletion, radioanive faihmut a single small-rc-mediumsirc duclear
detonarion is bound to afkt advmely, in scvere ways, not only flora and fauna but the human
environment as wcll.
Sincc the end of the cold war, a pmx'ptionbasatism tha the danger that nuclear wcapons may..
again be used is past,Unfomnately, this perception parraka more of mydi than Airy. As of mid-
.-
1993, closeto 27,000 nuclear warhcads maincd inthe stoekpila of tbc dŒld nuclcar wcapon States
(Belanis, China, FranceK,asakhnan,Russia, Ukraine.ibc United Kingdom, and the United States)not
wunting those in the menais of suchundalad Statn as India,Isracl,and Pakistan.'" Public
assurances by the leaden of the former Soviet rcpublicsarcof course enwuraging. But men afrcr
completion of the ducrions wnumplatbd by the arms wnml agcancnts currcntly ia effabman
the Unitcd States and the former Soviet Union ihm ni11will sin a nockpile of 10,000 to 20,000
nuclev w-arhead~q ,re~cn~g dmctivc power of an aiormous magnitude (%ah not wunting
whatevcr wezpons may beproduccd in the iatcrim by 0th- undtcld States). Add to this t5c wllqse
of mual authority and discipline, military danoraiization, hmh aconornic reforms, and ahnünrrst
evnywhcre in the wake of the temination ofthe Soviet Union, and he potcntial for a Yugosiavia aith
nukcs," as former United States Szrctary of Statc JamesBakerput i~' s apparcnr.
' Rcrolurianon fhc CiimoricE@s oo/Nuclcm U'm, lncludinnu cl^ WifalerGA. Rcs.41186H.U.N.
GAOR. 41s Sas., Supp. No.53. al93.(1989)(140 infavor,1 again% OabnainiBg). Ser alsoRdoiurion on
theClimaticEff- ofNuclcar War. LncludinNuclcarWintcr(notingtheUN ScmcmyCcncral's Rcponon tbe
Smdy on rheClimaticand Othcr EficcÜofNucler WK). 7 -ber 89,GA. Rcs.43178D.U.N. GAOK 43rd
Sas.. Supp.No. 49. at95, U.N. h. A143149(1989)(145 infavor.O aga*+ 9 abraining).
laJ. SchcllïH.EFAE OFTwr Eu% ch.l(1982).
' Ccntcr forDefcnsc lnfomt~ion.12 TE DFNSE MOmR No. 1 (1983)
IIA? quoredNiT. Friedman S.viet Disa-rm: Noring Ummainryin New Union, Waii*gionTarirsCmufioui
Parh. X.Y. Ti~s. 10 DccernMr 1991. a:p.A1.col.4. Tnus, the danger posed by ihc existencof these ornnicidal"' wcapons mains asgear ii not
grerrer &an cvcr."' It rakcs essentially tionns:
- An accidental launch, mggcringa rrspons ickind by the target Sra~e.'~ The 1963 Hot Line
~~rccmenr"' and ihc 1973 Accidcnu Mcasuris Agxummt'u tenify to the recognition of chis
risk by the UniteStatesand the Soviet Union(as it thewas).
" It is notknom who mincd the apt adjmive "omnicidal"(ie,'dcmoycv-g") to dcscibc nucler
wapns. Tic minait British hirianE.P. Thompscnusedtbc cquaily fining word 'cncnnÿiim.Se E p.
Tbompson, No'orrrnfi'oruminism. rniusrSiagc of CivifirmionExrnuiINlS~ AND COD WAR (1982).
-.
" Writc McGmrge Bundy, William 1. Crowc,Jr, wd Sidney D. &II in REDU~G Nu- Dmm
(1993) at 2: "[It] wbcldmgemusly mg to mppox thathe md of the ColWar mans an md tonuclcar
danger ..- hdtcd. itisnot al1clcad~;nthe ovcra1eve.of nuclcahga hasgooc dom ..- mhm arr
ncw visïolehazards both in-the Mp of the old %via Union and in the dcmomed w&cn of
mrcrnuional cffons to limit nuclspritad M.'Gmrge Bmdy isforma Nmonal Sdry ~dvisa to U.S.
Prcsidcnt JohF. Kennedy. William1. Crowe,Ir, is a formUS. Chairman of the Joint ChicG SM and
currcorly Ambassado10 theCoun ofSL lama. Sidney D.DeII is a lading nuclv wcaporÿ scia& md
adviser to the UnitSuiesGovcrnmcot on naional wnrriry issues.
&anid crime in Russiahar kcn syneniancally d g conuol of 15,000 tacrical nuclcar
warhcads asaway to "hijack rbc natc.' an invenigrcponin The Atlantic Monthly say'.* * The
rcpon is wrincn by Seymour MHmh. a PulitreRite-uinn(ng -a.
It saythat 13pou& of highlymricheduraniums. "coough to make thrce wg;>ons of Hishima
six," wcrc seiztd in Apnl by tbe Russcarirymin* in thev* 600 miles cm of Moxow.
. .
"Ofequaliy pt conccm.m. inrelligcnrcponr,y6 to bconKrmed bat weapoas-pde plutonium
_ wa smugglcd kom a norage dqmt inRussiau>No& Km' theqn says.
Do R'ariiurds Tmpi RusiaiMobsius?. N.Y.ThfES ,6 May 1994.a~W. col. 4.
''SeLSwaiish Layes forPecc, NUCLUR WAR BY MSTAKE L.WEV~AB LREPRFTCFTABL( S?tdolm
108% -
" Mmorandum of Und-ding ùc~~acn the UnircdSmes of Ammca and t&:Union of%vin Saidin
RcpublicsRcg~ding tbc Enablishmnt ofaDLm CommuniczrionsLiDk Coociudsd 20 lune 196End inro
forcc 20 Junc 1963. 47U.N.T.S 1.3.
"
Agrecrnml Bma bie Unirrd Stara oAmma piitbc Union of Sovia Socialkt Rcpublics on thc
Rcvcniion ofNucicar War. Concludcd 22 Junc 1973. Eotcrcd inIoforce 22 lune 75. 917 U.N.T.S. 85.
-.
-O - Dcliber;?rercson to nuclear wcapons asa miliw tactic. Whilc it is dificulr to hqiany
govemmenr laking such a fatehl decision, it =mains a facr tha~ of the five avowed nuclear
powers, only China roday adhercs oficially to a poiicy of no-k-use."'
Use of nuclear weapons by a "terorin" Stare or poup of individuais, es a form of
blackmail, i.e.IOachievc a political objective." It should benoted, howcvcr, thar any
use of w-ns of mass dexniaion is inrmded to tmrize the population againn which
they arc uscd and thatmany Stareswhich do no1pos~ss nuclear weapons thmforr: regrd
those which do asamai or potmtial terronscs.
During the days of the cold waras t6e two.superpowm cornpcted with cach other in out-equipping
thcmwlvcs with nuclcar wcapons, the world lived litdly on the briak of caramophc.'"Fomrnarcly,
carvrrophe ncver came to pars.
. .
During that drcadful paiod, the rcality of the nuclcar standoff-of the W poli.. of "murual
arsuiu-demucrion"-made itdifficult for Iqal arguments concçraing the use of nucliar wcqtofïnd
an audience. Today we live in a diffcrnit world, one in which reliance on nuclear wcapons es
insmunents of policy has becnrcplaed by unccnainry asIO theu osefulnas and, in manyquarters,by
a desire to eliminatc thcm once and for ail. this climatc of opinion, thc tcachings of inwrrdonal
iaw, which at dicir ben give voie to the common moraliry of humaniry, caa makc an important
conmoution to the diration of the h of a nuclear-wupons fne world. They cannot rcplsce
disarmament n~~otiatiors; they can, howcvc, provide the guidelines to bc followed and wt tbe
paraneters within which such ncgotiations canoccur andtmr bit
This Memoriai mites and disnrrsa the principles of intemationai law =levant to nuclw w+ns
and warfarr. I<argues tha&under the gniuaily acçcpted laws of war, the use of nuclcar wqns would
be,under dl ckumstances, ille@ and prohl~itd. Howcvcr, before miewing these principla of
international law, it is ri- toaddms the cornpetencc of the World Health Organization toscek
this honorable Court's advisory opinion on the ux of nuclear wcapons under inremational law.
" See OficialDoclrinaPositionsoftheNuclur-Wcpon Stata,inN~CW~NS: A COmRWNsNE
SNDY Appendix1 (U.S. SalaNo. E91lX.10, 1991).Rlrrsiaapparariys don cd itno-h-use dohe lan
Novembcr 1993. as repned in Mascow Ovflina -Dccrri~" for IlsFuwe Milifmy Use. N. Y. TIKES.?
Novcmbe:1993, atAl 1. FrancetheUnird Kingdom,sod theUnited Smn have nodificdbutncva abandonai
tbeirdocuincof fyn useuoda cm& cbumsmm. Otba nuclcarwcxpomSatahaveneva rmounad &-SI
use, since thes have nevcradmindposwrsing nichwapons.
a IIisfashionableforthedald miclgrwqn Steta toncfa toorbe SW wfth nuclcarmùitiom (cg..
Nonh KOTA andLibya)as "tmrin" or 'rogue'Srna. Irmm of wunc bcrocognizd batanyuseof a w-n
of mass dcmucrionis uiad ofmr. md thacthelinguisic rablwilllikclbc aimd olhcnthcnuclm lave-
norr"arc wriouslythn=ucnd by the nuclcar'havez.-
1,Thcpcuption of impendingcsranmpùc wzs wellvoicedby UnifcdSza hidcnr Jimmy Ca-m. in bis
farewclladdros to theAmcricannzrionm 1981:'Ir inow ody amana of ùmc bdoie madues. dmioa
md or miscal~la~iooIc.looserhiserriilc[nuclcar]force.'Çuorea' inN. Himiphq. tom MDRmS TD
MID~IG'S 4 (1982). Under Article 96(2) of the United Nations Chaner, specializtd agcncics of the United Narions may
"rcqurst advisory opinions of the Couri on-legal questions arising within the swpe of thcu aaivities."
- hicle 76 of the Constitution of the World HcalthOrgankationw and hicle X of the A--ment
bewcen the UnitedNations and the WHO(appmvcd by the Gaicd Azscrnbly on 15Novcmber 1947)
wn;lms the righrof WHO to makc such a requcS+which, purniant toResolution 46.40 of the World
Health Assembly, WHO'S goveming body, R has
Thar the qumion hm prcscntai is a lepl one is evident hm ir ormulation andhi the niniing
discussion. It aiso clcarly ariscs within the xope of WHadvitia. From N carlim daysW , HO,
the conninition of whichstata,in itPsmmblc, that "[tlhc hdth of ail pcoplcs is fundamairtothe -
anainment of pcace and scurity and-is dependent upon the fullm w-opdon of individuais and
States," and, ints Anicle 1, tbat "[tlhe objective of the World Hdûrganbtion ... shailk the
anainment by dl pcoplcs of the highcstpossible lcvcl ofhdth,"'" has becn conccmed with the
rclationship bcrwttn hdth and pcaw in gend, and the hdth dangerposai by ihcrmonuclcar war
in p~icular.
Thus Resolution WHA34.38, adoptcd by the Th*-Fou6 Wodd Health hsembly on 22 May
1981, is cntitled "The Role of the Physician and Otber Hdîh Workm in the Prrscrvation and
Promotion of Peace as the Most Sipnificant Factor for the Attainmcnt of Heaith for M." This
molution, the full text of which isreproduced in Append4x rrquats the DLtaor-Gcncrai of WHO
to enablish "a broad and authoritative inrernational cornmince of sciaitins and ecperts for
comprchensive midy and clucidation of the mi-carof thcrmonuclcar war and itspotentialiy baneful
consequcnces for the life and hcalth of peoplesthewo'rld."Iircfcn, init smble, totcn carlia
WHA rcsolmions wnccrncd wirh, mler di4 "the rolc of the physician in the preservarion and
pmmotion of peace" and Zhc protaion of mankind'against nuclcar radiation," andirnotes "che
growing wnccm of physicians and otha hcaith workas in many wunma at the mouuting dangerof
thermonuclear war as the most serious tIvm fo the lifmzd hd~h ofa11populmions, Pinichisan
inaication of their incrca~~as of theu moral, professionai and social duty and raponsihiliry
to safeguard life, to improvc human health, and to use al1means and rcsourccs for atlaining bdtb for
a1l."ly
" Concluded7.2July 1946.Entd iutoforce7 Apnl 1948. 14UN.T.S. 185.
.-
" LiadopringRaolution 46.40,bc WorldHdth hsenbly may have ka mindfulof thewordsof rhc
Sccrc'aryCcnd of the UnitcdNationinhis.or.to thc 47th Grnial Assembly: '1raommmd tha! thc
Sicrrtuy-Gcncrabc authorid ...to takedvantage of thc adviso--cc ofthc [intcmarionalCoun of
Junice] and tha! ocha UnitedNdons organsth aLQdy mjoy such ainhorirauonam tobe Corntmore
&equenrlyforadvisoryopinions."
'' hphasis added,
r<
Emphasis addd. As mcd by Dr.EgilAm Chairmanof the Nomegian Nobcl Commi-, on tbc
-ion of theawardofthe 1985NobelPw RLc tothe InternarionalPhysiciansfortheRvcnrioo ofNuclcar
Wu. %e ancicntHippric O& . .dcmands s dcdirationairbomcompromise to rbcprotation of Mcmd
heairn ..,[includingprotmionqainn] thedangers O lifcand bcaitwhich arornicwqns qrrscnr.' Ar Resolurion WRA 34.38 Icd Io thepublication. in 1984, offimemition of the Reporr of ihe
In~erno~ionoClornmirieeofL7erü inMedicnlSciences ad Public Heairhon E#ea ojh'ulem Fm
ana HeairhmidHealrhServices. in arccpting this repon the WorldHealrbAsmbly, iaRcsolution
WHA 36.28 of 16May 1983, endoncd "the Cornmine's conclusion that iris impossible to prcpare
health services to dcal in any systematic way with acatamophe rcniiting hm nuclcar wariyc, and thar
nuclcar wcapons connirute rhegrearerr immeriimerhien!fo zhe kalrhad welfme ofmmrkinr?"'"
~dditiondly, the Assemhly nsqucntd the DktorClencraof %%O togivewidc publicity to repon.
and to nansrnit ir to the Secrewy-Gencral of the Unitcd Nations "witb a vie& to its conbyd-.on
the appropriate United Nations.and othcr Mies.Funhcr,ir rrcomrnmded that WHO continue the
work iniriared by RTL4 Rtsolurion 34.38. TIdsto the publication. in 1987,of the saonri, updatd
cdition of Eyecrr of NucleWm onHea[ih.azà Heulfh Sewiccs.
--
ThusWHA Resolution 46.40, which foms tbe basisWHO'S quat for the advisory opinion
pending bcfore this Coq is nor the mu11 of srne passinfancy,~wus toWHO'S principal
concerns. Ir conninita,nthcr, the culmination of a long line of prcvious resolbwdonson the
mgition. in theWHO Constinnion, of tbe inninlinkbctweni and hcaith. Icqirasa the
conviction of the World Hcalth Asscmbly that nuclcaisnot only a hcalcon- brnrk patcn
threatr the heaith and welfare of humankind. It implcmenu the "moral, profasionai anduiy"i .-
of the woild's hcalth workw to "use meansand reso-" toprwmt thamonuclcar disasta and
the Assembly's dcsire to have the conclusions of the LnternationalCoof Expers w&id& by
"the appropriate Unircd NaUons bodies and othcr organidonsaf whiçhthe international Courtof
justices one.
From the beeinnings of mrdcd hinory, thnï is evidenct of a desire cornmonmany uilnires
and religions to place somc limitations on the inmmenof war. It mana lirile wbmhc; t3acsirc
ernanates hm an innate rcvulsion againstexcessive crucityor hma miiitaryvariantothe Goldm
Rule: do not do unto your mcmy as you would not have your enerny do unto you. ïhe fan is thai,
long befoti the codification of the laws of war isuchinmumcnts as tbc Hague and Ceneva
conventions and protocols,~mn prohibitions qainn the use of certainrypc of wcapons and
ammunition wercend inmany parts of the world.
Thus, theSeventh Book of Manu, the Iegcndary Hindu lawgiver, provides that "[wlhen the king
fibu with his fou in banle. let him not mike with weapons mnccalcwwd, nor with such as arc
barbed, poisoncd, or the points of which are blazing wfm."" Similarprohibitionsoiined in
mcient Gmce and RomeLYand arcfound also in the Koran."' fhe notion of chivalry, dcvcloped
quoredin iumarionalPhysiciansfotbcRevcnrionof Nuclçar WarNOS= PRin SPEXHS AND LECiUF.ES
4 (Oslo:Novnibcr 1985).
' As quotcdinLcon Friedmancd.TWEL4w OF Wm A !XZt.mCmY HISTORY 3 (1971)@acinafter
-FRLEDhtAN").
" Se Roman aurhon ckcd by Hugo Grotiusin DJm Bw Ac PACS (1925):arBk. Ln.Ch.IVIXV],
p.652.by the Catholic church during the Middle Axes,= is but anodier rnmifcstation oi the norion of
moderation in amcd conrlict. ïhe Latcm Council of 1139. for innancc, pprohïoiicdthe use of
crossbows, calling such use "hatehl toGod and unfit for Chrinians."'"
Aczording to John Ke.gan, himklf a disinguished rnilitary historian, the fascinatiIOmilie
'.
histoeans of thc Anccs. Whowerc formidablewmiors; "mida in the emordinary limitations on their
czoaciry for wmaking that Lnposed on thcrnsclva, through their rcligious bcliefs, and the
te-ints thosc beliefs imposed on ther~waniors inbanf~."'~Anc +capous wcrc desiped to wound ~.
but not ro kill.'"
Grotius. in Chaptcr XIBookIII, of De hue BelliAc Pu~it,~ wiich is catitled "Mode.rationwith
Rupcct to the Ri@ of Killing ina Lawful War", quotes witb approval Cicrro's view ha! "[tlhercart
cenain dutics which mun bc pefiomicd nien toward ihow hrn whom you have rscivcd an injury"
and lays dom the following rula, mong othcrs: "[olnc musttakc cq as far asispossible, toprevcnt
the dcath of innocent pcrsons, cven by ac~idrnt";'~ "[cJhildm should aiways bc spd: womcn,
unlas thcy have ben guilry ofan cx!mnely seriou offuise; and old men";"' [alIl uselas fighting
snould bcavoided."'
-
The ncxt significant devclopment in the niolution ofjus bel10 was the promul-don by Unitcd
States President Abraham Lincoln in Washingtoh D.C.,on 24April 1863, during the AmcricanCivil
War, of Jmmrriom for rhe Govemmenr ofAnniesofihe Unite Sdtmei intheField,prcpad by Francis
Liebzr and better known as "the Lieber Code"w This documcn~ which nibsequrntly b c the
2e Se E. Mcyrowia PROHBiTiO ONFNUCLEU. W~NS 2 (1990)(hcririnaftTr MMfiowm'). See dso
rhc bi~liopphy on Chehinory of the lawofwar pmvidcdbythc aÿthor at209 n2.
'O "Losdoaora ozlaiAsticos.dcdc Tomds dcAquino si1266 hw Francka deVitoria a 1557m,szüaron
lanccaidad dccvitartodaouclfa imailclrrspmo a lasmujeresyninary a loshabirmvespcificm a gmd"
me doaon of rhc church. hm Thomas Aquiuasin 1266 to Franciscodc Vitoriam 1557taughtthe nd to
avoid al1unnecessarycruelr and to womm and chil&m and penchl UJm6irar~s ingmcd). D.
Antokolcq DWCHO IN-ER~ACIONM PLlLlUW 434 (4th cd1944).
" Id.
" J. Kegan, A Hinory of Warfare, 1993,p. 108.
" Id. .lvII]
'"Id, XJp], --
II
Id. ,I[XIX] G.rotius cxplak -8srhcGmks Say,'ancxhibitiooof sucogrhrarhcthan acombat
againn rhc mmy' [is] incompatï~icborwidirhc durof a Chrini= and wirhhumaniryirsclf.- buis for the adoption of milituy manuals by many Stares'", constirutcd tfim dtuiled codification
of the laws ofwzr. Irdeclares that rniliÿlrynmsirdocs not admit ofcniclty. nor of the use of poison
or "the wanton devasiarion of a dimict" (ArticleXw); itinsisu on die dimnaion bcfwccn private
citixns and "men in'arms^ (Articles XXlJandXWJ). and proclaims thaq in modern wm, "protection
of the inoffensive citizen of the hostile counay is the-nile" (hXXV) and tha: "[u]mccessuy O;
revengehl desmiction of life isnot lawful" (.kiclLXVllI);w
Tne Liebcr Codc was followcd tiveycan later by thefLn multilaterajur in bel10inmmcnq th:
1868 Detlantion of St pet ers bu^,"'signe. by the rcprcsenrafiva of sact&a Exopean Sutes4"
plus Pcrsia. This legal inmument, intendcd "m rsoncile the n-siua of war with the laws of
humaniry," fohade the use "of any projeaile of less weight than fourhundrrd gammes, which is
explosive, or is chargcd widi fuiminatingor inflammable substancesItdeclared that "the pmms of
civilization should have the effect of allcviasimuch aspossible, the calamiticsof war," tbat "the
only legitimare object whicStat esould mdeavor to acmmpikh durfng war istoweaken the milicary -.
force of the cnemy," and "that this objst would be exceaJed by the cmploymcnt of amis wiiich
uselessly aggravate the sufferings of disabled men, or rcndcr theu dath incvirable."
The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 went considerably bcyond rhc ~sIarGion of St ...
Petersburg in the spaificirjof thcir proscriptionas well asin the geographic divmiry of their
signatones. Of these conventions, the most imponant arc the 1899 ConventionRes&g the Laws
and Custorns of War on Land (1899Hague il) and rhc sirnilariy titlcd aod vimially identical convention
of 1907, cornrnonly kn0wn.a~ "Hague
The 1899Hague Pcacc Confercnce adoptcd threehlaiations pmnibiting: (1) for a pcriod of five
yen, the launching of projectiles and explosives 6om balloons, or by other methds of a similzr
nrrure;"' (2) the.use of projectiles, the only object of which isthe difiionof asphyxiallng and
For thetm ofthe Liebcr Codc,se FRIEDMA 192.
" Decl~ationRmomcing rheUsc in Tic of War of ExplosiveProjmilcs Unda 400 Grzmmes Wcight.
Adopted a1SI.Pctmburg by die InternationalMilitaryCommissionII kmbcr 1868. lj8 C.T.S. 297
Fmch), 1 AM.1. LKT'LL. SWP. 95 (1907).
- '1
Gra Britain, Auha-Hungary., Bavari& Bclgium.bar* France.G-. Iraly, tNchcriuldr,
Pomgal. hssia and rheNonh Gman Fcdcrazion,Russi& Swcdq Swkslan& Twkey, andWumanbuq.
" Convention(No. N) Rqaing UICLawt uid Cwtom of War on Lm4 wi& hnnexed Rcglexioils(Ithe
1907Uaguc Rcgulrtions"). Concluded 18 Ocrok 1907. Entercd intofoc 26 Jaouary 1910. 205C.T.S2.77
(French); 2 AM.J.lhT'LL. SUPP9.0 (1908).Fore sidc-by-sidecomparWn of tbcrwo rcas, srD. ScOiodlc
and J. Toman eb., THZ hws OF Amm CONFUCIS A: COmON OF CO~~NS, RESOL~ONS hM)
OTWER DOCVMDsrS 69 (3rdrcv.andwmplned cd.,1988)(bcreinaft'SCHINDLER-TOW").
"
Declaration(IV, 1) to Prohibiq for the Term of FivY-, the Launchino, of Projecrilcs and
Explosives 6orn Balloons, and Othe: Merhods of SimilarNanim. sdoptcd 29 July 1899,reprinred in
1 AM. J. 1b-r'~L.SLPP.153 (1907). delnerious gases;'% and (3) the use of bulles which cxpand or flanen casily in the hurnan body
(comrnonly known as "dumdum b~llers").~
The Pmble to Hague IV natcstha~ in rcvising and defrning the general laws and customs of
war, the High Connacting PaNes arc "animaîed by the dcsirc tosme . ..the inter- of humanity and
the ever progessive ne=& of civilkation' and th% aithough it has not becn found possible "to ancert
Reglarions covering al1 the circumnances which ariw inpraciice. ..[they] clcarly do not htend that
unioresten cases should, in the absence ofa wrinen undertaking, k'left-to-the arbitmy jud-pmt of
miliiary commandes." This is followed by the famous "de Martens Clause" (named after the then
Foreign Minisrer of Rirssia, Fedor de Mens):
Until a more wmpletc code of the laws ofwar has bcen issucd,the Hi& Conhg Panics
dbcrn it cxpedicnt10 declarc th& incasa not included in the Regulations adopted by hem,
the inhabitants and the beliigercnfmain under the prothon and the nile of the principles
of the law of nationsas they rcsult hm the usago cnablished among civilid pcoplcs, hm
the laws of humanity, and the dictatrs of the public conscience.
The de Manms Clause, itshould bc noted, was not an hinoncal abmation. Numerou modern-day
anvcnrions.on the laws of war have cnnirrd its continuing vitality.'"
The salient fcaw of the "ihguc Regulations" anncxcd to 1907 Hague Convention No. IV arc
worrhy of quoration:
'' Delamion (IV. 2) Rqxaing the Fmhibinon of the Use of Roje5le Diffushg AsphyU~ing Gasa,
adoptcd 29 luly 1899reprinkd in 187 C.TS. 456, 1 AM. J. ML L SUTP.159 (1907).
Y Daladon (TV,3) Rspccting the hhibmon of the Use of Expanding Buileu, adopted 29 July 1899,
rqrinfcd in187C.ïs. 459. 1 AM 1.ih7'L L SWP. 155 (1907).
" For the 1949 versions of the ~'mcns Cl- SC Article 63 of Gen- Convcntion (No. I)for the
Amcliorarion of the Condition of fhe Wounded wd Sick in Ar;nd Fom in the Field, cancludcd 12 Augun
1949. enrucdinto force 21 October 1950, 75 U.N.T.S. 31; Amclc 62 of Ceneva Convention (No.II)for the
Amcliorarion of the Condition of the Woundcd. Sick and ShipwreJtcd Membm of Armcd Forces st Se4
wncludcd 12 Augun 1949, entd in10 forcc 21Onober 1950. 75 U.N.T.S. 85; Amcle 142 of hcva
Convention (No. iiiJ Relatinthe Treamicntof PNonas of War,wncludcd 12Augun 1949.cntcrcd into fora
21 ûaobcr 1950,75 U.N.T.S. 135; and Article 158 of Gcneva Convention (No. N) ReMve to the Rotmion
ofcivilian PcrsoninTie of War. wncludcd 12Augun 1949.cntd into fore 21 Onobcr 1950, 75 U.N.T.S.
.287. For the 1977vvmions. secArticle 1of Rotocol Additionai (NoI)inthe Gcneva Conventions of AuguS
12. 1949. and Relating to the Rotaionof Vie* of IntemaLion+hcd Coanins. wncludcd 8 June 1977.
entucd into force7 Dtccmber 1978, 1977UNJ.YB. 95, 16ML LEG.MATS. 1391 (1977) (hacinaRa '1977
Gcneva Rorwl Additional No. 13; AMcIc 1 of Rotocol Addmonal (-No. LI)in tbe Gcnc~ Conventions of
Augus 12. 1949.and Relating tothe Rotdon of Viaims of Non-Intnmional Atmd Conflicq concludcd 8
June 1977, entercd into forcc 7 wbc 1978. 1977 UNJ.YB. 135, 16 LKT'L LEG. mn. i4.u (1977)
@crcinafin '1977 Gcneva Rotocol AddirionalNo. II") Sac &O the hble of the 1972 Conventionon the
Rohïoition of the Dcveloprnen&Produdon and Stockpiling of Bauciological (Biological) md Toxin Wquns
and on Thcir Damiction. wncluded 10 April 1972.md intoforct 26Maid 1975. 1015 U.N.T.S. 163. the
pc;iulrimatwntniccs of which rrad: Vacmiinai, for the de of ail mznkin4 to cxclude wmplnely the
possioiliry of bancriolog(biologid) qnrr and in* king usd as wupons' and 'Convincd baxsuch use
would be rcpugnant to me canwicnce omankind aud that no effon shou~dbe sparui to minimise th3 risk.' Id.
ai166. Arricle 22. The right of klliecrenti to adopt means of injuring the nemy is not
unlimited. .~
Rrricle23. in addition to the prohibitionsprovided by spsial Conventions, it isapaially
-
foroiddcn:
(3) To employ poison or poisoned weapons;
@) To kill or wound nrrachemusly individuals belonging to the honile nation or
-y,' * * . ..
(d) To deciarc bat no quancrwill begivai;
..
(e) To mploy ms, projcaila, or matcrial calculad to cause unnecasary
sufiering; -
(2) To de.my or seize the enemy'spropeny, unlas nich demuction or seinir be
imperatively demanded by the necessiries of war. . ..
Article25. The attack or bombardmcncby whateva means,of toms, villqq dwellings,
or buildings which arcundefendcd is prohibired.
ArricIe26. The oficcr in command of an altackingforcc mus before commencing a
bombardmenL orcept in casa ofassaul< do al1inhis power to wam the authorina.
Article27.In siegu and bornbardmaü al1naesary ncps mus betakento sparr,as far
zspossible, buildings dcdicatcd to religion, aq wicncc. or chantable purposa, hinoric
monuments, hospitais, andplaceswheh the sick 2nd woundcd arcwllected, pmvided thcy arc
not king usedat the timc for military purposes.
Following World Wax I,in 192, a Commission of Juriststo Consider Amendment of the Laws
of War was cstablishcd by the British Empire,France,Italy,Japan and the Unitcd Statu of Amaica
to consider whether "existing mla of international law adequately cova new mahods of attack or
dcfense mulring from the inaoduction or dcvelopmen~ sincc the Hague Confernicc of 1907, of new
agencics of warfare" and, "if not so, what changes in the exinhg nila oughr to be adopte3 in
consqumce thcreof as a part of the law nation^."^
The Commission met in The Haqe hm Deccrnber 1922 to Febniary 1923 and adoptcdtheHague
Rules of Air Wadare"' which, thou* neva formally adoptcd bcyond the Commissio& arc gmerally
mgarded as having "&ong persuasive authorify."" Anjcle 22 of the Hague Rules pmvida that
"[alerial bombardment for the purposeoftmorizk>g the civilian population, of demoying or damqing
private propeq not of a military ciaraner, or of injuMg non-combatants is prohibitcd.In addition,
hicla 24 to 26 lay down dctailed mla as to bc limita3 circumnanccs under which neriai
bombardment of military qets is permined.
mh+m 435.
" Reprinirlin 17AM.J. IKT'LL.SWP. 245 (1923).
E.MEYRowm 11 (citinOppdcim andcr~nspan).
17 The next major event in the hinory of thLWS ofWK wasthe adoption in 193 of the Protoc01
for the Prohibition of the Use in Wur of Asphyriaring, Poisonous or Other Gasa, und of
Bacteriological Methods of Wuriare, ratifid or adcd to asof this writing by 15I States."' Tne
Geneva GasProtocol, as it is popularly calld prohibits "the use in uar of asphyxiaring, poisonous or
other gases. and of al1 analogous liquids, materials ordevices.It daclan~sthat such use "bas ken
justly condemned by the gened opinion of die civilid world" and that the purpose of die Pmtxol
is that "this prohibition shabe univmally acepted asa par!of International Law, binding alike the
conscience and the pnctice of nations."
In 1938,on the eve of Worid War II.the Lague of Nations adoptcd, withom dissen&a Raolution
on the Protection of Civilian Populations Against Bombing from the Air in Crueof War, stafing
that "on numerous occasions public opinion bascxptawd hugh the mon aurhorirative charnels irs
horror of the bombing of civilian populabons" and th? "this pra&ct . .. iscondemned unda the
rsagnized principles of international Iaw."=
..
In the same year, tbe .Intemafional Law Asnxiarion adoptai a Dratt Convention for the
Protestion of Civiiian Populations Aguinst New Engin- of War base3 on "tbe principla of
humanity dmanded by the conscimm of civili~ation."~ The Draft Convention would have
prohibitcd the bombaniment of undefendcd towns "in ail ci~~~nanca" (Arscle 2) as wcllas "aerial
bombardment for the purpose of tmrizing the civilian population (Artic4). In crily propbnic
languagc, it also would have prohibitcd "theuw, by any mahod wimsocvcr .. .of anynanvai or
synthetic nibnance (whethcr soli4 liquid orgasmus) whichizharmful tothe humanor animal O-
by mon ofis being a mxic,asphyxiaring, Pnmt or vesicantsubstanct" (Am'cle 7) and of "projeuiles
spesifically intended tcause firescxqî for use in deienw againsi aimaft" (Am'cle8).
As is only too well known, inWorld WK 4 mORof the foregoin3 general principla as well as
specific prohibitions were honord more in the bmi~ than in be obxrvance. Nevertbeles, the
vinonous Allia, in adopting the 1945 Nuremberg Charte?, hafnrmad, inter alia, thac"muln
demunion of cities, towns, or villages, or devanation not jurn'fied by military nmsity"was a war
crime and d&larcd "inhumane am cornmiaed againsr any civilian population" to be a cine againn
" Concluded17Junc 1925,mtd intoCon 8 F&w 1928,94 L.N.T.S.65, rqrinrei in14WT'L LEû.
49 (1975).SCFUNDER-TOM 115 @crcinafcc%c 1925Gcncva Gas Rotocol").
''Adoptcd 30 Scptcmber1938.1938 LUGE OFNA~ONS OFRCIU. JOVRN& 1% Sas. (12-30Scptmber
l9;8), SpccialSupp. 182.a 15.
,.
Amnt by the Govcrrimnt of ihcUnited Kinsdom of Grcv Bntain and Norrbcrn Lrcluid.the
Govcmnt of tbc UniteSdtara of tmcriq the Rovisiooal Govcnmat of rbc FmcS Rcpublic,and rbc
Govment of thcUnion of Savie Sccidir.Rcpublicsof chc Eumpcin A*is md Chann of rbc in-ional
Military Triounal.ncludcd 8Augun 1945.catcrd intofohc 8Auw 1945.82U3.T.S. 279. Tocprinciplcs
ofrhc Nurcmkg Chancr wm unanimouly nidorscdby chc Unid NationsGrnoal Ascably inAevsation
ofthc Rinciplesof btcrnarionaLaw RccogLîd by ri~Cbmcr of Num5q Tribunal,adoptcd IID&inber
1966. G.A. Rcs.95. 1stSas..ai114, U.N. Doc. m-36 (1946).aiII=. urnanir,'".Tnc Nurrmbcrg principies were dirmed in thcir entirety by the Intem~tional Law
:ommission oi the United Nations in 1950'U t.us giving ihem the imprimatur of die international
-eal cornmuni. and counterins the ocrasional criticism of the Nuremberg Charteras "victon'junice."
The four Geneva Conventions of -1949'" i-epresenr the mon cornpletc codific~tion of
iumanirarian law up to the time of their adopuon. They aisa contain, for thfim tirne. a decaiied
:onven8oo (No. N) Relztive to the Protection of Civilian Pcrsons in Time of War.=
Succetding ycan saw the adoption of a number of lcgal inmumenu which ptly rciniorccd the
lotion of mcdenteness in the conventional Gd cunomary international laws of war. in 1956, the
ntemational Cornrnitt~ of the Red Cross adoptai Dniï Rule for the Limitation of the Dangers
hcud by the Civilian Population in Time of WSU.~' The Prcamble of this inmument spcaks
jf "rhe lirnju placui by the rcquiremenu of human* .. .on the use of ~mcd force" andnata aiat
'the civilian populationshall continue to enjoy the prottnion of the grnerainile se1for& inAniclc 1,
md of the principlcs of international law." Article 1scates:
-.
Since die righr of the Partis to the wnflicto adopt means of injurkig the enemy isnot
unlimited, thcy shall confine mcir operations to the destruction of his rmoiaccs, and
lcave rhc civilian population ourside the spheramiedatrack
Lnaddition, Aniclc 6 provida that "[a]mcks dirraalagainstthe civilian populatioas nich, whctha
with the objen of terroi%ng it or for any oth-n, are pmhibi" followed bya Ln of spacific
prohibitions designcd trninimizrthe ididon of hm on nommbatants and includiig a chaptrr on
"Wcaponswith Unwnmllablc Effa." Article 14 of this chapta pmvida:
Widiout prejudice to the pment orfutureprohibition ofcertainspecific wepons, the useis
pmhibited of weapons whose hamiul effca+dring inparticular hm the dissaninarion
of incnidiary, chernical, baneriologid,radioanive or othn agents - could sprud toan
"..The NurembersChana was adoptedwo àays aftcrthe nuclar bornbingof Hiroshima,one&y kforc
die bombingof Nqasdi. Thismay explainwbythe Chanerof theinternarionalMilitaryTribunalfoththeH
E?q pnxlaimed by the Suprme Commanderfor the Allied Powm on 19 January 1946.dcha war crima
mcrcly as "violationsof the laws or cunoms war' and, unlike rbc NuremberCbancr, dw not mcntion
banton damnion ofcitics ...no[ jusrifiedmiliq ncussiry'asariaamplc of war crima.FlEDt4.W 894.
897.
Y RinciplcsofinternationalLawRŒo@ iutheChano oftheNurcnbcrg Tribunalandin rbeJudgment
of rheTribuai. adopted2 Augusr 1950: Rcpon ofthc Z~emurionolLnw Commission Corering ntSacMd
Secsion.5 June-29July1950,U.N. Doc. M1316, ilY.B.I.L.C.374, reprir~dinSCHDIDLER-TOM 9A2.
''DW RVLES FORTHE LWATIOE: OF THE D,UJGEM WCUFJW BY THE CMLLW PoPuunorr LNTIME
OF WU (inlemationalCornminceof dieRed Cross,2d cd.1958),rqrinid in SC~DLEX-TOMA\1 :55. unio~scn demet or esupe, cithcr in space or in rime, 60m the conml of those who enploy
dien, dius endangering the civilian-population.*'
Ln 1965, die International Conference of the Red Cmss adopted a Raolution on Protection of Civilian
Populations Against-the Danger of Indiscriminate Warfare,'" dnning the following rhrre
..
principles:
(1) die right of die panies to a conflicr to adopt maof injuring the cncmy i;ot unlimired;
(2) itis prohïoitcdIOlaunc'n--a~tack,gainstthe civilian populationassuch; and
(3) dininction must-.bemade ai ail tima bcWccn pesons taking pan in the honilitia and
membm of the civilian population to the cffcct bat the latter be spared as much as
possïole.
jignificantly. the resolution added a founh principle: The gmaai principla ofthe Law of Warqply
to nuclcar and similar wcapons."
M-yean later. on12 May 1968, the International Confcmct on HumanRights wnvrnedby
the United Nations in Tehesan, adopted, by a vote of 67 to none, wiïh two abstentions, a Raolution
on Euman Righu in Armed ConIli&. Emphasizing the continuhg imponancc of the Hague
Conventions of 1899 and 1907,LYme heva GasProtocol of 1925'"and the Grneva Conventions
of 1949,'Ythe rsolution rcqud the SecrctaryCrenaai to remind ail States of their obligatioto
observe "the existing mies of international law" conccming armed confiicts and made a special point
of &oting in full the operative portion of the of the de MarlcnsClause.'"
The followingyeart,he Innime of Inkrnariod Law, m&g in Edinburgb on Septcmbcr9,1969,
adoptcd, by 60 votes to one, with nvo abnmuons, a Raolntion on the Distinction Betwen Miiitary
Objectives and Non-Military Objectr in &ne4 aad Parîicnhriy the Problem Associated 4th
'0Ernpnzsisadded,
" ZOTH IF~TERNATIONA &-CE OF THE RED CROSS,RE5OLLmONS 21(1965).
-.
. - ''RcsoluriooXXnl adoptd by the LntcmarionalCodaencc on Human Rights
12 May 68. U.N. Doc. AiCONF. 32/41, Sald No.68, XN2, repnmcd in SCHINDLER-TOM 263.
hlSec texiaccompaoyingnota 43-47, supra.
Supra noce51
6, Supra note47
- Sce iextimmcdiatelyprcccdingnote 47. supra. Weapons of Mass Dauuction.'" The anention of the Couris rqmfuily invitd to the following
uccrpts 6om this imponant wnnibution to thécunornary law of war:
Cornideringthat, if anamed wnfiict occurs.., the protaxion of the cbilian poputarionis
one of the essential obligationsof thc parties,
Huving in mind tbe grnaal principles of international law, the ucicornary mies and tbc
conventionsand agreementswhidi cldy rrmia the atent tDwhich.the partiecngqed in
a wnflict may hm theadvazary,
Huving &O in mimi tbatthac mlu ...have bcen fomally confmcd on wvcral cccasions
by a large numbcr of international organhtions and cspo5dly by tbe United Nations
Organizati~n,~
Being of rhe opinion thal thae mles have kcpt thcir full vdidiry nowitkaading the
b&ingemenrs niffercd,
Having in mind thar the wnsquenccs wtiich the indisaiminate mndua of hostilitia and
particularlythuse of nuclcar,chernicaland bactcriologicalwapons, may involvefor civilian
populatiws and for mankindas a whole,
Nocesdiatthe followingniles formpart of theprinciplcsto beobscrvinmed wnflicts by
any dejwe or defacto govcmmenSor by-ay othcr auîhorky raponsiblc for the wndua of
honiIiùes:
1. The obligatioto mpca the distinctiberwcen rniliraryobjccriva and non-mil* objeas
as well as bctwecn pcrscns participahg in ihe hosriIieid and mcrnbcn of die Uviliari
popul&on mains a fundamatal principie of the intcrnxcionlaw m force.
4. Exiaing internationallawpmhibits ail armed actackson the civilianpopulationas mch
.-
--
6. Exining international la~ prohibis, irrtspcnive oftypcof wupon usai, anyaction
whatsoevcrdcsiped to tmrize the civilianpopulation.
7. Exining int.ernationlaw prohibitsthe use of al1wupons wbich, by their naar&Œt
indisuiminatcly both military objectives and non-miliray objor bathamcd forces
and civilian populatioinparticular,itprohibitstheuseof weaponsthedcmuaivc effŒt
Se jor ~mple tbe liofpcrrincnt Gmcralably Raoluions inAnicle 1of fbeFinaAn of the
Diplomaric Confuuxe on the Rermmion and DNdopmurr of lnrcnuiiowl Hvmnnirariiuw Applicablin
Amed Conflins.IOJuoe 1977.U.N.k MY144 (15 AuW Ti),ihTEu4~7iONM UWEW OFTFE
CROSS .o.197-8 Augun-Scptcmbn 1977ai 1reprintrdinSaùNDLD(-Tow 605. of which is so pst thatn mot be l~ited to seific milirary objecrivcs or isoticwise
unconuollable .. ..
Trie Pmtocol. Additional O to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relnting to
the Protection of Victims of International Armed Connicts,'" adopted arGeneva on 8 June 1977,
re?r&.:n~ one of the mon =nt authorirarivewnf&arions ofthe ethic of modmtenas injus ir:ello.
hicle 1.1 rrnates the de Manas Clause in its ditional fomi. ANcle 2@) defina "mla of
internationrl law applicable in amied conflicts"as including, inier.ali<l, -the gcneralrrcogniz&
principles and niles of inremaional law which arcapplicable in armd contlict" Amcle 55 dis
that the right of the Parria to a confltotchoow mcthods or muns of warfarc is not unlimited and
that it is prohibitcd to employ wcapons, projeniles and matcrial amnhods of warfare of a nm to
cause supcrfluous injury ounnecosa s.fferingiialso ad& a prfhibiüon againstthe cmploymcnt of
merhods or. means of warfare causing widcsprcad, long-term and scvcre damage KOd~e n-1
cnvironmmt Anicle 36 imposes on the Hi& Conhg Parria an obligation todetemine wbether
the employment of new we+pons,muns or mcthods of warfarcwould violate Ws Protocolor. .. any
other rule of international la..". Article 40 providesthai"[qtis prohibite3to order th mm shall ..
be no sutvivors, to tbrcaten anadvasary tbercwith or to conduct hostilitia onîùatbasis." And Part
IV contains emmeiy detailcd mla for the protection of the civilian population, includingprohibitions
of ar-acks against the civilian population andthe naniral environment by way of reprisais (Amcles 51.6
and 55.2).
The 1977 Pmtocol Additional (No. II) to the Geneva Conventions of Aupst 12,1949, and
Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflict~'~ cm& the
application of the humanitarianrula of warfareto cenain non-intanational armcdcodicts and qain
wntains, in itr;Pm TV,detailed rula for the protection of the civilian population.
A concise sumrnary of the chiefaspcn sf the law of war m itshumanitarian zspcctsis containcd
in Fundameniai Rula of international Hnmanitarinn Law Appiiabie in Armed Conflicts,
publish& by the International Cornmince of the Rd Cross and the Lage of Red Cmss Sociaia in
1978."' 11sPrcarnble states:
Intemational humanitarian law is made up of al1the internaionai legai provisions, whethcr of
Anen or cusiomary law, ensuringrrspst for the individual in armed conflict. Takhg irs
inspiration ~orn the wntiment of humanity, it postulates the pnnciple tbat belligercntsmust
not inffict hm on their adversaria our of pmpomon with the objcct of uarfare, hich is to
demoy or weakcn the rnilitary mcngh of the cnerny.
International humanitarian law comprises the "law of Geneva", which aims to depuard
rnilitq peno~el horsde cornbutand pesons wbo do not take panin the honilitia. and the
"law of Tue Hague", whicb determina the ngbts of and dutia of belligcrcnts in the wnduct
.- - of operations and limitr the choic of tbe meam of harming an cncmy.
p ~ ~ ~
Su~m note47. Reprinrd in Suirm~a-To~~~ 621.
m Su,oranote47. Rqrimed inS%NDI..ER-TOM 689.
"
lnrer~riomi Rwiew ofrire RedCross248 (1978),repririi nd ScXh3ER-TOhUE: 735
.. . 22 1; is doubtless wirh this perspective in mind th21the SccrcraryCencral of rhe United Kations. ir:
a recent rcpon to the Securiry Council, nord thishonorablc Coun's recognition in the Care Conceming
Mili~my and Pmmilitmy Acrivifesin and againsr Nicmaguam that the prohibitions wntrined in
ammon Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Convcnrions,"' is law dia!is "baed on 'elemcntuy
consiàerations of hurnaniry' and cannot bebrcached in amed conflic& rcgardless of whether ir is
international or intcrnal in ~haracter."'~
One of the most =nt dumations of the basic principla of bumanirarian iawis wnmind in
the hex to the Rcporr of the Sntlry-Gcncral F'unuant to SŒuriry Council Resolution 808 (1993).
king the Statute of the International~~Tribuosl for the Prosecution of Persons Raponsible for
Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Committed in the Tenitory of the Former
Yugoslaria since 19917Y(which, in irshnoductioq.ocprasa tbe view of the SŒretaryGmeral bat
rnuch of the conventional law of war "hasbeyond doubt beçome pari of cusîornary inknanonal law").
Article 3 of theSüitutc ds in parar follows:
The Inrmational Tribunal shall have the power to prosecure persons violaring the laws or
cunorns of wu. Such violarions shall include, but not bc limir10:
(a) cmployment of poisonous weapons or other w-ns dculatcd to cause unnŒasary
suffering; .-
@) wanton damiction of ci~~. toms or villages, or devastafion DO~ jusifid by miiitaiy
neîtssity;
(c) anack, or bombardrncn& by whatever mas. of undefended towns, villqa,
dwellings, or buildines;.. .
-
THVS the principal instruments ofjrinbelio dernonme beyond peradvcnnve thaf unlike certain
other branches of intcmational Iaw, the wrc content of this branch of the law is unam'oiguousand
unequivocal: rnoderateness in med conflic5 the wmmuniry poiicy dairrd and acceeted worldwide.
The applicabiliry of this wmmuniry-wide poiicy to the ux of nuclear wapns is discuswd in the nen
ensuing section.
" Niqua v. UnitedStatcs,19861.CJ. 114
" Id. al1:.
- W. THE LAW OF WAR (JUS Ih'BELLO )ROMBm THE USE OF i*;UCLUR WEAPONS
The essential tcaching of this SenioN, which ar&eS thar the physical use of nuclear wcapons
ha vioiated and would violate in emme ways the wre humanitarian rules of med wnfliq is that
jus inbello. though never fully wmplied with any more than any body of law is ever fully wmplied
- with, continues as a vital civilizing infiuence upon the world wmmuniry's warring propensities and.
fuder, that in this capaciritmies out the use of nuciur wqns.
A. The Principfc ofDiscrlnindion: It ispmhibired touse weapons that fail to discriminate
berween milita- and cidian per~onnel'~
Long before the power of the atom was nuricd to milirary use, Job Bassen Mwrc, the iirn
Amcrican judge on the Permanent Court ofInternational Justice, refto the primacy of theprinciple
of discrimination injus in belas follows:
hong the elernenrary principles which the dwelopment of the modem nilesof warfarr,
ninning through several unniria,has ben designcdto cstabiish antowkfm, the principle
mon fundamental in charancr, the obscrvancc of which the detailcd regulations have lqely
kn designcd to assure,isthe distinction ban cornbarans and non-wmbarants against
injuries not incidental to militKy operations agcorn bar an^.^'
The Comprehensive SI+ on Nuclem Weapom submiaed by tbe S~Ccneral of he Unid
N2tions to the Generai hsnnbly on 12 July 1980'" examina the likelyeffacs of theuseof a wide
range of nuclear wcapons, 6om 1kiloton "tactical weapnsWn'to stratcgic weapons of modeme yicld
to "total nuclcar war" employing the laqest wcapons, with $el& of up to 20 mcgatons of daructive
power.= II is impossible to d this qon withou~bcing imprcsscd a the pa~ extrnt towhich the
use of nuclearwezpons has violaxedand would violate thjusinbello principle of discrimination.
The fissionbornb that cxplcdd ovcr Hiroshima on6Augu5-t1945 wu srnail by tcday's standards.
It had a yield of 12.5 kilotons and today would bewnsidmd a Zactid"nuclcar wcapon. Ya teus of
" The hudings of subsccrion1toVil arebarrowedhm Baie Dunon Murray Pmicssorof Law Burns
H.Wenon's scminalmidy Nucieu-Weapons Vemu IntmmrionniLaw: A Contmual Reazsessmuu, 28MCGU
L.1.542 (1983)(hcrcinafiecitedasVESTON-).
1. B. Moore, ~~TEJU.IATION AL AND SOMECURW LLLUSION .S4D OTER ESSAYS153
(1924).
" United Nations, COMPRMMS~V SrmY ON NU^ WEUONS [:] RFPORTOF THE SE~ARY-
GR.KU.4 35 U.N.GAOS Anncx (RovLiod Agni& Itsm48@) CO.4,U.N. Doc.AIj5B92 (1980).rqrinred
asUnited Nations.DE- S~Y Sm NO. 1ch.4 (1981).
iP Txical ouclearwcaponsarccommontnms forihox ouclcarwupons synems which.byvimc of hcir
rang:and yicldaswell as ihW. thcy mmrpod in am'tirsrorgWoo, bave ka daiped or can
k used for cmploymerirGsinn milimy wgcs inarhcara ofwar."id at21.
IO
Througbourrhis memonal,th:ïnm huclcar wepons- L d gc~crallyto =fa tonuclcarwupom as
wupons of massdemucrion. Therclevana ofihc humanirarian~lcs of annedconflic'mininu'es.i.e..vcry
snrlltaciicavcawns with yieldofaslinleas0..~kiloroisddr within Saion VU-ir:,+a.thous&ds oi innocent civilians werc burnd. blzsted, and crushed to dmth at the moment oi explosion.
The number who died of their injuries within the nexc thrtonths is exÿnatcd at 130,000.'" Tnc
oficial estimate by theCiry of Hiroshima oftoml deaths amiburable to this single bomb is 200,000.a
-
Today's nuclear arjenals conciin weapons with yields of up to several megatons, i.c,sevenl
hunared rimes that of the Hiroshima bomb. it has ban enimated thac if a tcn rnegaton wcapon were
exoided over New York Ciry, it would kill scvm million p~ple.~
Nedless to say, it is impossiblW contemplate the use of any wwn inthis mge other han as
a terrer weapon, the purpose and effd of which is w kill and maim hund.rcds of thousands, if not
millions, ofcivilians._Jt is imponan& in this connecrionW dl the hjunhon of international law , ,
scholar Burns H. Weston to "bcclcar about the mie nature ofnuciear weapons, cspaialiy inmnaast
to s-lled conventional w~apons":~
pilon nuclcar weapons, ccrtain)yal1 inthe "maregic" category, arcnot just "somewhat more
demuctive", but many thousands or millions of rima more powerful &an cvcn the larges
conventional high-explosive wcapons....Unlike conventionalweapons, nuclcar wcaponsrisk
puning an end to civiliitionaswe know it ... mhe majoriry of nuclcar weapns, "tacticai" .
as well as "wgic". difierhm convational wcapons inthe varieryas weil as the intensiry
and scale of iheir physicaeffens. The chief charaneristic of convcntional weapons is tùeir -
potential for "blan" or "shock"damage, accompanicd by somc thermal effècs @ums and
fires). By con- nuclcar weapons produce "blast" or "shock" damage and, in addition,
extended "thermal radiation", "electromagncticpulsFm] effccy and invisible but highly-
pcnemting and harmful nF callcd "initial nuciear radiationin the form of delayed
radioactive fallout acmsspotcntiallgrcal distan- and ovcr extendcd periodsof time. The
radiation effect. . .arcnot unlike ... the effcctr prcduced by chernical and biological
wcapons as opposcd to conventional hi&-explosive weapons. Finally, inm'U funber conm
to convcntional weapons, nuclcar wcapons, even those with fairly low yields, arccapable of
harming noncombatants (iicluding civilians and neurrrl panies) vimially inevitably.lY
-
Or as elder srarcsman George Kman haswTitten: "Convmuonal wcapons can bring injury to
noncornbarnu by accident or inadvertence or callous indifference; but they don't always have to do
it. The nuclear weapon cannot help doing i~ and doing it massively, cvcn wherc the injury is
unintendcd by those who unlcish itd
" Sec 1.Scbell,rupranote 10,at57
" R Lifton and R FI& Ind+mib[e Wcqom 40 (1982).
" T. Stonia,NUCW DIS- 24 (1964).
WESTON 549.
" Id.at 550. .
NU- DI~,USION[:Som-IL'.E?JC.W %UI?ONS LNE &TC,WC AGE 203 (19.82).
G. Kennan.
25 A forceiul srarement of the indiscrirninatcly brutal narurc of nuclear weapons is foundLithe
Preamble of the 1967 Treîry for the Pruhibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America,"'
popul~ly known as die Trury of Tlatelolw. to wnich, as of this writing25 Western Hemisphcric
Srztcs arc. parry.Proclaims the Pmblc: "nuclcar weapons, whosc terrible cfku are sufimed,
indiscriminarefy and inexonbly, by-miliq forces andcivilianpopulations alike, wnninite.through
the persinencc of the ndioactivirythey relcasc, ai-amck on the integriry of the burnan species and
ultirnately rnay evcn rcnder the wholcar& u~inhabitable."~
B. The Principle of Proponiwidùy: It Li prohibitecl to effect mprisals which are
dkpruportionate to their antecedent provocations or to legitimatemiiitary objectiva, or
dismpectful of persons, instinitions and raonrca otherwise protectd by the iaws of war
Ir follows hm Che discussion in the pding subsaion thai any use of nuclcar weapons in
responsc to conventional weapons violates the prliciple of proponionalAsy.alcading scbolar on the
lau of nuclear weapons,"' wites:
..
A partir d'un cenain niveau, la notion de proportionnaiitél'idée de licite qui lest
associée-perd route signification. Par difinition, Icprincipe de proportionnaiité en totalement
incompatible avec les destructions musives.iidevicnt inapplicablc avant que l'échange des
hppes nucléaires n'ait aneint le seuil de la massivité?
But this does not dispose of the more dificultquestion of the legitimacyvel non of a nuclcar
rcsponse toa nuclcar anack. Inthis corncrion, the ovrniding nom isthat reprisais "mus confom
' Concludcd 14 Febniary 1967. Entered into forc in accordanccwith Anicle 28. U.N.T. S81.
"
Seedso the Rearnble to ihc SouthPzcificNucles FrecZoTV, mncludcd 6 Augus 1985,atd
ilto forcc 11 Dcccmbcr 1986. U.N. DOC.CD1623(1985). UN. k. CDl6jjlCorr. 2 (1985). md U.N. Doc
- CD16jjlAnncx 4IRev. 1 (1987).24 WL LEC.IviATS 1442(1985):
The Panics to this Trea'y * .
Gruveiyconcerd thacthe wntinuing nucleamas m prexrirs the risk of nuclcar war whichwould
have devanaring consqucnccs for al1pcoplc
Corrvinccdbar al1wunmcs have an obligaion to makc cvcrycfion to achicvc the goal of elimiBaIhg
dl nuclur weapons, the =mr which bey hold for humankindand the &rd which thcy pose to tifc
on carh ....
R1 Le.: "Beyond a ccnain level. the principle of proponionaliry-and the idea of lawfulness
associated with it-loses ail sipnificancc.By dermition, the principlc of proportionaliryis totrlly
incompatible with massive demucrion. Ir becomes inapplicable cven beforc the exchange-Cf nuclear
blous has rcached the threshold of massiveness." H. Meyrowiq Le Régime des Armer Nucléaircc
Selon le Droi~de la Guerre, inLAW m rm NuW D~AE 398 (M. Cohen & M.Gouin &.
1988).
- in ail czses:O the laws of humaniry and rn~~lirf""'-that is, rhe inflicrion of rcprisals is sIOjail
the orher pnnciples of hurnaniran'anlaw. Thus: "civilian populations.. .should not be the objectof
repfisals," pcr Article 7 of Unitcd Nations General Assembly Raolution 2675 (XXV) on Basic
principles for the protection of Civilian Populations inArmd Conflicrs;'" and "[rleprisals
protected pesons and thcir properry arcprohibird," per Anicle 33 ofthe 1949 Gcncva Convention@io.
K) Relacivcta rhe Pmtczlion of Civiiian Persons in Ïme of.War. Sirnilarly, 1977 Gcneva Protom1
~dditional 0) IOtht Gcncva Conventions of Augun 12, 1949,and Relaring to the Protection of Victims
of Liremarional hcd Confiicts,"' whichxvd of the nuclcar weapon States self-scrvinoly claim
des not apply ro the use of nuclcar ~+apons,~ q=adly -ses the prohibition of rcprisals rhar
fail to me:[ the test of proponionaliry: "[rJcpragainsrthe pckonr and objm protead by this Pa-c
are prohioited" (Anicle 20); "Atrackagainn the ciWliampopuiationor civilians byway of rcprisals arc
prohibird" (rn'clc 51(6)); "[c]ivilian objms shall not bethe objen of auack or reprisais(Amcle
52(1)); "ir isprohibited to makc [cultural objsrs and places ofworship] the objtcr of reprisais"(Anicle
52(c)); "inesc objects" [ie. objats indispensabletothe swivai of thc civilian population, sucu -
fdmiîTs, agricultunl ams for the produaion of focdsc&s, mps, livcnock, drinking water
inxtllarions and supplies and irrigation works] sball notbc made the objd of reprisais" (Arriclc
54(2)(4));"Atracks againn thenatd mvironmmt byway of reprisais arcprohibited" (Amcle.55(2));
"Iris prohibitcd to make any of the works, installations or military objecrivcs mcntioned in parapph .z
1 [ie., work; or insrallationsconrainin~ dangerousforces. namclydams, dika, and nuclear elcnid
gencrating nations] the objea of rcprisals" (Aniclc 56(1)(4)). "in international armedconfiicts,"write
British international law scholars CliveParry and John Granf "reprisais arcnow uncond~ionally
prohïoitcd qainn al1 categories of protcned pirsons as uiurnerated in the four 11949) Gencva
Conventions on the Laws of War."=
In the Nauliiaa Incident Ar6irrmionW, "gcncrally considerd to bc the mon authoritacive
saiemcnr of the cunomary law of rcprisals,"" the Arbirral Triounal heldinferaiio.rharxprisals am
limired by considerarions of humanie and thar the masures adopted mus not be cxessive, in tfie
'' OxfordManual,Anicle86. TheOxfordManual was adoptd uoanimouly bythc Lnnimrcoi lntcrnarioual
Law on 9 Scprcmbcr1880.lu tcn is reprintin Sc-rimWohWJ 35 ff.
" Supra note 47.
9. For adiscussion of the "nuclear undcmandings" to the Protocol. sce Salian'Ji, injrn.
*' C.Parry and1.Grant, &NCLOPMDIC DICIIONAII OYFb7ÜUiATIONAL. LAW 3ï7 (1988).
" 2 m~TS OF Lrrr'ARB. AWARDS 1011,ar1026 aod 1028(1928). .
- -
" J.Bricly,THZ LW OF NAnONS401 (6th ed. 1963).
n 'Eo cfmo. las -dias no dcbm vase de los principiosdkmmidad. No o hmmo que cn
amcian de que un beligeraothaya masacdo bah-ente mujacs y nieos, clouo ~ndc con lamima
mm" (crnsl:'lnc5cch rcprLaLrwot bc sqaratcd kom rbcprincipla of munmtiry. If a bellig&r
buj~ously nrzsacrs womm and childnn,iisnot human forrScorhc to rspood uirb cb-samc bahriry').
Sqrc nore 30.at CO. sensc of being out of ailproponion 10 the provc>carion mxjvcd. Thus, as found in a
Corporation snrdy. "[tlhe concept of Assured Denniciionwhen deli'oerately zpplicd to policia for &e
acquisition and use of nuclcar wwns, appcan to be dLcnly opposcd to the mon fundamental
principles foundinthe international law of amcd conflicc . . .Even as reprisal. .. the concept of
Assurcd Desmction is pronibiicd ifincludes dciiberate .Sacks on the civiliui population.""'
In =y tue, it is highly quenionable vhcther thuse of fom asa muns of -risal-r&cr ha-,
as sclfdefense-is ladl under the rcgime of the UnitdNations Charur.'m The classic notion of
reprisaiwhich sanaions an illegal rcsponwtoan illqala~t, harksback to a Hobbesian condition of
war or potential war of cvcry SW apakst every Starc.''" But Anicle 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, as
iswell known, wrnrnands al1mcmbm to"rchin inheu in-onal mlatious hm the or use
offom againn the temrorial inegriry or political independnicc of any star,r inany oth~ mamer
inconsinent with rhe purposes of the United Nations." Furthamore, Charter ANcl33(1) provides that
"[tjhe pania to any dispute, the continuance of which is likdy to endanger tbe maintaance of
internationalcae and seçurity, shalfun of ali~ek a wlution by negotiation. cnquiry, mediation,
conciliarion. arbiuation, judicial wnlcmcnrrcson to regional agencia or anangemenu, or other
pcaeful means of thcir own choicc." Hacc rcno-cd inremarional law schoiar Georg
Sch-nbcrger concludes: "The combined effm of rhe 119281Kellogg Pacî and rhc Chartcr.ofthe
United Nations.. .has been to raolve the dilcmma sriringhm the ~(~Xinencc of a limitcdrightto
qply forcible rcprisals aan unlmirtd nght toeson to war. Under thii international quasi-order,
forcible rcprisals havc becorne illegal."'m
--
Trieprincipal purpose of the United Nationsasstatcd in the Prramble to the Chmer, is "to Save
succceding gencrafions601x1 the saurge of war."joY Clcariy thispurpow would be hmakl ifa
counrry subjmed to a nuclear anack wme to rcraliare inkind, sine the Iikely outcomc of suchan
C. Builder ad M. Graubardd. ~ATiONN LAW OF ARMEDCoNFIlCT: ihPuCAnONS FOR THE
CONCEPT OF MWAL ASSURm DEXlRUCllON (1982).
--
lm Cj: 1.Browlic. mnOW hW AND TWEUSE OF FOR~ BY STAm 281-82 (1963) and sourŒs
citcdaf281 0.4.; also klaration on Principla of InLcuaOond Law Conmin; Friuidly RelKiom md
Ceopcation Among Scata in AocordanccMth me Chma of ttre Unnid N&oL!&adoptcd by the UN. Gacral
Asscmbly. 24 Oaober 1970.GA. Ra. 2625, UN. GAOR. 25th Sas, Supp. No. 28, at121,U.N. Doc.A/8028
(1971), reprint& in WL LEG. MAX. 1292 (1970) ('Srna havc a du+ ta rc6ain hm acs ofrq-id
involvingfhe use of font"); and DIOFSU.S.FWCtlCE W INEWAT~ONAL LAW 700 (1974). quotingtUS.
Dcpamricit of Sute as supponing the klmmion andnarin ga! if belicvcs if ro bc"desirable to main& the
dixincrionbctwan ans of Iawful wlfdcfcnsc and.unlawful rcpNal."
101-The conditionofman . .. ia condirian owar of evcrycoeagUas; cvuyonc." m~mV, R L ch.
4.
'" A OF NÏ~YA~ONN LAW 151 (1976). Sec &O RESTA^ (TH~D) OF TKE FOWm
RrunoNs LAW OF rn Um STA~ g905 Reportas' Noce 8 ad sourccr cited chcre.cludingwvd
,Sesurir) Cou~circsolutions.
801in fhc words of Judge Spcodc, ihain h es of thUmiJ Nations(Article17,pangrauh 2 of
fk Ch-) (AdvisoryOpinion). 1%2 1.CJ. 151ra186:7bc principlcpdg rbc whole of meCh- md
dominath; itisdis of maiziaining intcrnationaipcmac sccuiry. . ..- - . . exchange would be rhcmassive demudon of life'inboth counoies, not to mention their neighborsani,
dependine on the six of the exchange, the rat of the planeA swnd use of nuclur w-ns, in
other words, would be Lnpemissiblasreprisal and ineffective as well as Mpcmissible asself-àefense,
sincc defensive military action is subjut to the laws of war to the same as offensive ~iii-
action.
11follows îhat die d&e of detmcc, wbich is thutmnt justification for the nockpiling ma
potenrial use of nuclear wcapons,is devoid of qy bais in the universally a.ccepd noms of
humanitarian law. Nonc of the nila rtcitcd above makc ünyexception for a serond "defeuive" use
of nuclca~weapons. ïhe prohibion of theu use is absolu*; it is a mle ocogem dogous IOrhe
nile of humanri,+ law that maka mm a mdm-in se and,thdorc doa not allow for &c useof
t~rturc in raponsc to tom. As natc by Judge Jens Evenscn, a forma manber of thisGu% in rn
.
April 13, 1989 press wnfcrençe at The Hague (commemonthg the 90th annivmary ofthe Hague
Conventions of 1899):
Reprisais arthernsclvcs violauon...[and] the vcry narurcof modm wcipons are[sic]such
ïhat nuclcar wcapons should nevbe allowed to bcused, neva as frmuse,never as reprisais.
.. . The use of nuclear wqons is the ultirnate crim... We a-fornulate al1kinds-of
senarios, brrrthat doesn't change the basic appthath!h- arecata -ns of Warin
riia~c illegal and criminal and the behavior of the other parry docsn't makc ïhem ..-al.
IW
Judge Evenxn sdded: "One thkg quite clcar to me ischataccordhg to the U.N. Chancr we have an
obligationro ger nd of al1nuclear wcapons."'Oy
C. ?ïicPrinqOic o~N~M*: Itispruhibited touse wnpons whose e5ect irgrester <hanbat
requid to nchievaelegitimate dtaq objective
The principle of n~siry is somctimescitcd tojusti*tbc only hvo occasions in dich aucl=
weaponshave becn uscd: the bombing of Himshia and Nagaraki. Ihe killing of a fcw hundd
thousand civiliansso the argument goes, saved the liva of millions of Amcrimand Japanae who
would have been killed in a military assault on the Japancsc mainland, if the nucltar snacksan the two
Japanese cities had not ended World WarD.Iw This thwry of military ncccssity, sometima rcferd
to as îhc broad interprctatioq bolds thmilitary uaxssity ovcmdes al1 othcr principla and th=
whatcva means arcchoscn toachieve the md of victory, are jusrifitdBu?, as will bc seehm &e
authorities cited bclow, nbccssity, like reisnor an absoluteIf nsessity wuld be uscd tojustib
otherwisc prohibitcd weapons or tacticsitwould makc a mockcry of such prohibitions; rnili-
an
PmS rclcas cnjtedNalionsMs Associ~ion (UNCA). PresGnjfermce withhidge iensBensen. 15
April 1989.commmders u-ould always invoke neccssity IO junify wharcvcr wmpons or tactics the) chose to
employ, no maner how bmul or inhurnane.""
AS carly 2s the 1863 Lieber Code.'" the rcsm'nions on the principle of ntçessiy wcn: clcul!
spellcd out:
hicle 14. Miliq neçasity, .& understmd by modem civilizcd nations, consir& of the
neussity of thosc measurcs which a-indispensable for sccuring the ends of war,m6 which
are Iawfil occoràing ro the modem Iaw ad usages of ~rn!~'
hicle 15. Miliq nccssiry admis of al1 dh demuction of lifc or iimbof mmed
cnernies, and other persons whose demunion is incidentally unavoidable. .". .
.Anicles 16. Military ncccssity does notadmit of cruelry-that is, the inflicrion of sufiiring
for the sake of sufiering or for rcveoge, nor of making or wounding utupt in fight. nor of
romrc to cxnan confessions."" It does not admit of the use of poison in any waynY,
nor of the wanron devation of a dimin ... and, in gened, military nccessity dots not
include any act of honiliry whichrnaka the rem topcace unntcessarily dificult
Similarly, in the1868 Declaration of Si Petersburg,"" itwas laid dom as a nom of humanirarian
law that "the only legirimate objw which StatEs should endeavor to aççornplish during war is to
weaken the miliraryforces of die cncmy." The use of a weapon ofmass destrucrionagainsi the civilian
population may weaken the cnemy's will to fight i dw not wcakcn the cnemy's "rnili oarcs."
And in the 1938 Resolotion on Protection ofC~liaa Populations Against Bombing fmm the Air
in Case of War, the Lcague of Nations spellai out rhe neccssity-humanity dichotamy in eveo -ter
derail, as follows:
Considering that on numerous -ions pubfic opinion has cxprcssed through the mosr
amhorirative channcls its horir of the bornbing of civilian popularions;
107 For a discussionof the broad vmus the narrow inrcrprctuionof miliq nŒcssiry. arguingthat rhc
Ircight ofargument" and %e baiana of legalopinion"clmly favorthc narrow inrcrprnarioq soT.Nardin,
7he h ofWur and Moro1 Judgmcnt, inR. Falk F. Kntchowil ad S. Mcndlovi~ h7EWAnONM LAU': A
COhTwo~~ PERSPECTWEMl K.(1985).
101See tcxiainotc 38,supra.
Emphasisaddcd
II0
Empbasa m original
111It is imponantto notcthe cnuplingofthe prohibitionofavoidableaucwirh rhe prohibitiooorom=.
wo prohibitionsper se.
": Note the prohibitionof Zbuse of poisoin enyway,' dcrivedhm the gcncralpriociplcofhumanin,
long before such use was speciiicailypmhibiby the 1925Gcncva Cas Prorocol.supra no= 50.
-
II>Supra norc4 1. Considering thrr this pcactice.fwBicn rhere icno milirarnecesiry, oniy auses nreiess
sunéring, is condemnd under the raognizrd prlicipies of international Law". ..
To dnw an analogy wirh inremational human nghu law, wnich is well known IO divideberw=n
dcrogable and non-derogable ri@~ts,"~the laws of wu dinrriguish benvacn noms that aresubjec:
IObeing overriddcn by milirary necessir).and those a&anot. Thu, Article 58 of the 1922.2Hague
RU]& of Air Warf~re"~ provida thai a neuc-alppriatc aimafi musi nor bc dtnroyed "cxçrpcin the
pven rnilirary emcrgcncy"; Arriclc 15of the1906 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the
Condicion of the Wounded and Sickin Armia in tbe Field"" pruvida th;ubuildings endmarcrial
cannot bcdivd hm theu use in hg for the sick and wounded, cxcept "in case ofimparanr
militzxy ncccssity"; Aracle 54(5) of 1977 an--Pmto~l--Additions1 No. IllUpcmiiu a Pany IO
demgarc 5om the prohibition agak the damichon or movd of foodmiffs and orhcr objecrs
indispensable to the surfival of rficcivilian population, bwirhinurrirory "under ~TSow canuol
-vherc nquircd by impcntive miliürry nbussity"; ArticIes 62,67, and 71 of the same inmument
pmhibir inrerfmnce with civil dcfencc oqanizzions and relief personnel "cxcept in case of impcrarivc..
military n-iry"; Amde 17 of 1977 Gencva Pmtocoi Additional No. II1'" prohioirz the
displacement of the civilian population "unlas thstcurityof the civilians involved or impcrative
military rcasons so demand"; and Anicle 11of th1954 Convëntion for the Protection of Colturd . .
Properfy in the Event of Armed Conflict,*" pmvida îhaiimmuniq may bc wirhdnun hm
cul& propn~y "only inorcepuonal cases of unavoidable military nccessity."
No such cxccptions arcwriwn inm tbe convcntional ownomary laws of war with ro the
principles~applicable to the use of nuclcar weapons as wcapons of mass demucrioTo theanaary,
common Article 1 of the 1949 Gcncva Conv~ntions"~'enjoins the Partie tosrqcct thcir provisions
"inal1 circumnanccs," while cnmmon Article 3 provides tbai pcrjons takingno pan in the hosiilities
"' intheforma categoryarcthosctbatmaybe tanporaily suspcndedintimaofemergency.such asli-
of movcment as opposd Cocbosc intheIma aqory, which maynotbenispcndcd unde any cipimnaocn.
such as tbose mumaafcd in,de- dia.Anides 6 and 7of tbc lnternaIionalCovcnant on CivandPolitid
Righrs.concludcd 16Dcccmber1966, end intofore 23 Mard 1976,999 U.N.T.S 171: "theinbmt nght
to lifc' etheright'[nottobc]subjaed torom orrocruel, inhumanor degrhg acament orpuuiduncnc."
"'Supra note49.
"' Adoprd 6 July1906.mtaed.into foroc9-Augus 1907,11 L.N.T. S40 (ultimatelsu&d by rhc
1929convcntiooof tbe sametirle,conclud27 July1929.cntcredintoforce19 Junc1931. 118L.N.T.S.303.
"' Supra note47.
'IVSupra note47.
"O Conventionforbc Rurinion ofCulairalRopcrry ithe Evar of hcd Coofliq end Rcguluionsfor
rhcExŒutionof theConvmrionfor rhcRotoclionof CulturaRom inthe Evat ofArmed Cadic, adoprd
le May 1954.mtered inroforcc7Augw 1956, 249U.N.T.S.214.
121 -
Supro noieJi. --
shall "inall circumnanccs' be utatcd humanelyad prorectcd bom violencc to life and person "arany
rime and in any placc whauoever." That the noms of humanicarian law are nor subjcct to dcrogarion
by vinie of milicuy wcssity wzs succinctly natcd by the Judge Advocarein the case ofInRe von
Munx~ein'~: "Once the usqes of war have asnimed the riantsof laws they cannor be oveniddm by
ncccssiry, excepr in those special cascs wherc the law iuelf makes provision for rhe cvenn. ....
In oher words, the mlcs thcmselves have akdy made allowuicc for milicuy noxs~iry."'~'
Funhemorr, there is no aurhoriry in international law for the pr6position bat pmhibircd w-ns
or wepons whose use is prohibitcdcanbe usedin selfdefcnsc. Thus, thefamous mlc in Tne Cmoline
Gare"“ tha~ the use of fore in a foreign territory isjumticd only in case of "aninnrnt and
overwhelming ncwsiry for sclfdefense lcaving no choice of means.and no moment for delibcration"
dso speaks indirecrly to the quenion of military n&essiry and prohibiwcapons. Pmfcssor Gearg
Schwarzcnberger. for instanc r,ues that if pmhibitcd wcapons -oc be used in selfdefense, "a
forriori, thcy may not bcuscd on the ground of necessiry."'lY
Ïhe notion of m&mencss discussed in Saztion m. supra, also sp&s to the principle of
n-siry, as exemplificd by Aniclc 220(a) of die Unitcd Sma Navy Manual,which -es that "[tlhe.
principle of military neccssiry permatbclligcmnt to apply only that de* and kind of regulated
not othenvire prohibired by tk Ims of wm"", rcquirrd for the partial or çomplae
submission of the encmy with the least ccpcnditurc of tirne, lie and physical rao~rrrsThe v&
majoriry of cornmentatorag~~. Charles Rhpe, a former Prnident of the Amcrican Bar Asociau'on
and wunsel to U.S. President RichardNixon, uses the followingformulation: "Military ncssmeans
that-only thar demuaion n-sary, relevant and proportionrue to the prompt achicvemenr of ladl
mi1ira-yobjmiva k Icgal. Nor only must such demuction benceïs- and devant to the anainmat
of militap objectives, but it must rlsobe pmportionately and monably related to the mi1ita-y
imporrwicc of the objecr of ana&""" .. .
Fmm the foregoing, it is clcar that "miiitary neçasiry," while ofien invoked as a shibbolcth by
States or mili'cuywrnmandeawho have cngaeed in violations of the law of war,is powerlcss tojunify
the use of nuclcar wetpons when the entire body of that law is &en into considerarion.
'" 16 AN. DIGEST PlB. LWL LAW CUES 539 (1949).
IZ1Quoredin C. Parrynd 1. Gran!supranote9S, at236
"'
J. BMoore, 2DIGESTOFLMERNA~ON~L LAW 409 (1906).
"' It Mponanr to notbat"regulatd fom" isaLSUI toralltyod& withthc - of nuclezrwcpons
and warïarc.
"' U.S. Deparunent of the Navy.L4'W OF NAVAL WAW- ch. 2,81 4(1955), D. The Principle ofHumonir).: If ispmhibited to use weapons that cause unnecasary or
aggravnred suffering
Inis principle isthe milifdrycounterpan of rhcmle againn cruel, unusuai and i~uman punishmcnr
in a civilian wntc~t.~'~While iris aimed panicularlyat ri-ducing die sufiering of wm8tmu. ir
- '
appiiesIOthc use of weaponrqainst civilians as wcll.
AS observecl in SenioiIi.supra, the ban on exccssively cruel weapons dates .back to die earliest
wrded instanc ofhumanimian law and isa major tbemc ninning hughout the pdual evolution
of the laws of war. Indeai, thc fmf major inmationai codification of the lawof war in modem.
&--the 1868 Dalatation of St Petrnburg!'"-was ~~~~~~~~~by tbe desire of the Russian
govemmenr to ban the use of 'dumdum bullns." ie.,pmjedla desi-cd to explode upan contan wirh
the humanbody. It is ernbodied in the rwo ovmhing principla tharthe right of the pani10an
moj wnflict to adopt meansof injuring the cnemisnot dimitcd and tha~ in thewords of ibde
Martens Clause,"" "die laws of humaniry" and "the dictates of the public conscience"to govem
ihe wnduct of war.
It hardly necds saying that die cnielfy and inhumanity of nuclcar weapons is of an ordu.of
mapirude asûonomically pta thanthat of a durndum b~lla.'~' Tacimony conceruhg die efïeas
of nuclcar weapons on human bcingsby sumivon of the Hiroshima and Nqdi bombings bas ben
collemed in two bone-chilling volumes publishcd by the JapanConfcderation of A- & H-bomb
Survivon. Hercwith some examplu:
pfy siner]was caught in the A-bornbing whiic she workcd in the kitc.... [She] tumcd
inro pure white ashes.''"
'1See cg.. Anicle5ofthe UoivcrsalDcclantianoHumanRighü. adoptcd10Deccmbcr 1948,GA. Res.
217A, U.N. GAOS 3rd Sess.Pr 1,Rcsclutionsat 71. U.N. Doc. N810 (1948); Anicle 7 ofrhc 1966
int~ananal C4vcnmt on Civil anPolitidRighfs,rupran.115.
"' Supra noie41
' Secten immcdiarelypreccdingnote47,supra.
111On the nanuand cfia ofnucicarwapoas. wc, inredia, Rcpon of thSccrcrary4ocral OUNuc1cz.r
W~wns. *ru note78; WHO, Emcn OF Nw WAR ON HtuTH SaviCES. niprc uri followingno=
4,supro;InternationPhysiciamforrhe PrevotionofNucicarWZ. Lcrr AD (1982);R Brrcs ,KÇUWSE:
NU- CATASTROPH m EWORU) POm5 ch.4 (1980)S. Glasnone& P. Dolan.THE ErTUT OF
WMPoNs (3rd cd.1977);R Lifloo& R Fax supranote 76, rn&.4: (1980); London Nuclc~. Wrfare
Triounal,THE BOMB AM) THE hW ch. 3 (1989)1.Sçbetl.Npra aotc 75.at PL 1; %- FDYM EPiDEMC:
PHYSIQ~N SND Sxm71s-n ONNU- WM. pu.ff i TV (R Ah & S. Cullm &. 1981);-und Zero.
NUCLSUIWAR WHAT'S w TTFOR YOU? PL iil(1982).& &O nous 68 and accarnpan?.iurrr. For 2 days after the A-bornb, rny father a-scarched for rny broche:, and ar las; wc found
him by the name on his clothes. His face swellcd up with blisters so rniserably rhat we could
not have rold him 6orn orhers withour the name.'jY
-ine boay of rny father was found buricd under the ground ncu a bornb-shel~e:. Hc was
hcadless and ten-ibly buni. .. @-Je]wzs identifih only-fiorn a picce of his kimono jacket
antched to a bone of his body.'*
Tne body of rny mother was found hcadless in the kitchen, lying on her bwith one of her
legs nised and her arms mhcd upward. Ir was bumt scbadly that itlookcd almosi like
human-shaped chamal. 1 wnnbcr noticing that.itwas somchow pulpy amund the
h~l~.~~~~
The victims werc walking like slŒpwalkm ....The skLi hm tbeir fingcmailswas daneSig
doun to the ground. Wornen had no hair. Men hab same hair but only on the uppcr haif of
heir h& ha! had ban covcd with bars."“
Tne mon important and unforgemble thing is atornic disease. 1have ainrady Ion 6 relatives
becauseof acure aromic discase. Tbose ho wcrc only slightlyinjd wcre wvd wirh
black spou, their hair falling oThey coughed up blood and finalldi~d.'~''
Since the only two nuclear weapons ever used in'cornbat wm qlodcd ovcrprimatily civilian
targeu, therarc no accounü of their efÏ~ on cornbaranu, but thex is no rrasotobelievc that these
would be any las cruel or inhumane than tbose suffered by the people of Hiroshima aNaga&i.'*
Tne burn and blasteffeas of nuclear wcapns and thek immaiiate and long-range wnsequenc~-,
including genetic consequcnccs, al1pl=thcmin the carcgory of wcapons dm! cause unnv md
agpvated dcvanation and suffaing. Ifitamof bcsaid of the wcapons th thcyviolate the laws
of humanity and the dictata of the public conscience, then this cabcosaid of any weapons inthe
menais of the world's mies, pasï or present
"' id at7.
'>'Id at11.
- -
"' THE WWS OF MOSE TprO DAYS89 (Japw Confedcmionof A- & H-bomb Slwivors. 1991).
"' Id.
'" For discussi onrbcIqal aspectofrbcuw ofvcy mal1 hctl nuclcawqxns, sc Subdoo G(l).
irfrc. - E. The Principfc of h'e'eurrn'iIr isforbidden 10 use wcapons that violare the neutml
jurisdiction of non-pamcipanng Stara
Tne principle of neunaliry, in irscltrsic scnse, was aimed a1prevcnring the incurzion of belligcrent
forces into neuml rerirory, or anacks on chepersons or ships of neunais. Tnus:
"[t]hc.xe&oy of neuml powcrs is uiviolable";'"' "[b]ellige~n.se &und COmpccx fbe sovercip
ri&u of neund powers. ..";la"neuûal sates have qd intam in having thcu ri&= m@ by
bellige~n~ . ..".'"'11is cieu, howcvc;, thai the principle of aediryappiies wirh quai for; fo
msborder incursions of amcd fort= and to die nansborder damqe caued toa neud WC by the
useof a weapon in a belligrnt=te. Inbis scnsç nuclcar wczpons, givcn rhcu unwnmllable cf?=,
art neÙÜaiiry-violatingwilpcns pm ucellencc.
in heir classic midyeutidcd CORSW~&CLZ of Rudiocc~ivcFdoirr, Lindop and Rorblar dsribe
.he efiaü of fallouhm a nuclw explosion:'Lu
Tne radioacrivi- in the faIlout canexpose papulations in several ways, and in difieren1 tirne
sequences:
' extemal irradiation by the mdiBacrivccloud as it passvcriiead;
= internai radiation hugh the inhalanon of radioactive particiothe air;
extemal irraàiauon, mahly bythe gamma-rays hm the radioacrive substances dcposired
on the ground;
* intemal irradiation through &g meat or drinking milk 5om animais whichhad ing~ed
radioaaive subranc~, or by dr&g conraminatd water.
Mile concnfing the spcculative naturc of projeions obis SOG the do13 cStimate aie acumtularni
dosc from a 1-rncgafon explosionat 850rads"Y ai a airsnc of 100 km 3.3 hours der rhe explosion
and 54 rads at a distance of 300 km der 11.7 hours; and the accumula14 dosc hm a IO-rnqaton
bomb a<4570 rads at100 km afrcr2.8 hours and1(M raci as800 km &ter 31.9 hour~?~ in aoothe:
'" Articl1 of HagueConvmuon(No. V) Respcning rhcRigh~ ad Dutics ofNeud PowcrsandPmom
inCLsc ofWar on LM4 wnciuded 18mobc 1907, md iniofo~ 26 Januai-1910,reprinrc?'i205C.T.S.
299 (French)2 AM 1.Iirr'L. SWP. 117(1908),~~-TOMAN 942.
"' Anide 1 ofHague Coovorioo (No.Xm) Reg me R~@J ad Duria of Neunal Powm intb"d
War. wncluded 18ûctobcr 1907,enrd iatforce26 3anu.q'1910,rwrinied in205 C.T.S. 295(Fm~b), 2
AM. J. iNT'LL.SLIPP.202 (1908)Schindlrr-To9 m52.
"' ExposurcIo rclarively maido- rads or lus-will~lrsc radiatic0 sicbas(arI0&2 nausa
vomirirg.dihca) ioasubnantiaiporjonofthc populboo dard. -Fii& incrcarindosesmordiryincrcis~
euing 100 pcrcûc fora dose oeut 500rd to tbcmairow.' fi ei131. -
1. Tne principle ojcnvironmntd sccur* ason inregrai pan ofthe intcrnolionol
jus in belto:rd~~! ad ofher insrrumnK
a. 1963 TreaT Baoniag h'uclear Wapons Tau in the Atmospherr, in Outer Space and
Under Watef"'
,?resmbie: ". ..dcsiring to put an end to the con~inatioof rnôq'soanrnl cn\~lomenr by
;a~ioar.ivc subsrs?ccs.. .."
b.1976 Convention on tbe Pmhibinon oihlilitary or any other Hostile u'~eofEn?ironmenzsl
Modification ~echniques'~
ArricleI(1):"Each Srate Pany to thi sonvmtion uudcnaka not in mgqe inmilitvy or =y
oher honilc use of environmental modificaoon techniques having widcspricad. longlaning or
severc efÏe;u asthe means of desrmaion, damage or injuy toany orber StatePq."
ArricleIo): "Each Statc Pany to this Convention unddes not to assis&enwungc or induce
an? Stare, pup of Srarcs or international organizauon cngqe in anivirics tonoary to ~.he
provisions of pmgnph 1of chisarriclc"
ArricieLlc"As uscd in Anicle 5 the terni'mvironmniral modification tshnjques' =fers tnany
technique for changing through chedelibc manipulation of naniral processes, the dynamics,
composition or mucnire of the 6 including iü bioq lithosphcrt, hydrosphen and
amosphcrc, and of outer spac."
Awrding to th= inre~rctative agrmnent of tbENMOD Convarion, the rcr; nwideqJrd" sbould
beundemwd as cncompsing an ercaon the de of xvcd 6unarw' squarc kilornercrs, rhe icm
'long-Izning" asrcfemng ro a paiod of rnonrhs(or appmximateiy a season), and cbctenn "wvcrc" as
invoiving xnous or significant dimption or hm tohumm lie, nanuai tconomic mouha or omcr
âZSN,l=J .
r 1977 Geneva Protocol Additional Eo. ILSU
~niclc 35(3) of the provisions lincd as"Basic Rule" undc: "Meinoàs andMans of Warfar~,"
rates tha! "[iJt is prohibiIOdanploy mh?ods or mas of wa.<m woicn are intendd, or may be
cxpecrcd, tocause widespread, long-~crmand wvcrc damagcto tbe nvisunmcnr" Tnc fac bai mis
provision is includcd ianMiclc on basic rula impiies rhartheprotcc:ion of the enviromait in rime
--
"' Coociudd 5 Augus 1963. E3- inro foru,IOkok 196:. 480 U.N.T.S. 42. Onc H~ked
Ninc,i=n(119) Srara anpmry rr >hisirat srof diswiing.
~ d ~ ~ d01 1976. kro foru5 Cco'k 1S:S. 1108 U.N.T.S. 151. Fib-%va (57
Sucs m pany torbisinmusat c,ofthi shg.
"' Sec P.Antoioc,InremaionaiHunrr~;if=;a!&w midriiProiecrionofik trvironmem in Tirno,fAmd
Co~fiiciWTm~noH,u OF TW~RED CRMS 040.291),a 526 OJovaiDcr-Wk 1992).
'"Sqro noleL7. Nin-+ne (91) Swa arcparj tobis inrac3: zsof thiwniing.of intemarional armcdconfiict mun be eivcn hi@ prioriry inthe conduc of honiliries.'"' lu woraing
avers casa in which desnicrion of the narud environment is not ncccssarily the airnof the belligcrrnr
who uses rnechodsor mcans of wad~ rhar cancause widcsprcad, long-tem and sever: d~ntegeto the
cn~ironment.'~
The protection of the narunl cnvironmcnr is also nqukd by the provisions of the Prorocol's
Chap;er W. conccming "civilian objŒu":
Article 540): "It is prohïoited tanack. d-y, move or=der uselas objecu inaispcnsable
ro rhc survival of the civilian populatioq such afoodmi6, qiculniral for rhc production
of foodstufis, crops. livmock drinking watcr installarious md irrigation worics. for cbespsiiic
purpose of dcnying them for theu ninmancc value to the civilian population or ro the adverse
pany. whatever the motive, whether inorda to same out civilians, tocase them to move away,
or for anyother motive."
Article 54(4): "These objccu sM1 not bemade the obja of reprisais."
Article55 - Protection of the runuroi errvironment
Article 55ll): "Care shall be Idken in whe to pmta the nalual cnvuonment against
This protection includes a prohibition of the use of
widesprcad, long-tm and sever, damage.
methods or mas of warfm which .& inrendcd or may bc cqcctcd to cause such damase ro
the naml environmcnt and thmby to p~judicc di: hdth or survival of the populaxion."
Anicie 550): "Amcks againn die natural mvironmnr by way of reprisal m pronibircd."
Article 56 -Protection of worb and ir~tallatior~ conrcining Cmigerotrsf.rcec
Article 56(l): "Works or innaliarions wnraining dangernu forces, namely d-nzs, dikes and
nuclear elecoical gencaring mions, shall not bemade the objm of ana& even wherc thesc
objŒts aï%military objectives, if sucn anack may muse rhe rel-c of danserocs forces and
consquent scvcrc losses among the civilian population. . .."
As a "civiiian objŒ~" the nanirai environment is further proremcd by the pruaurionary mesures laid
down in Chapter TVof the Prorowl. Licluding the wmmands to take carc to spue civilian objcu
(Arricle 57(1)) and io obserge the rule of proponionaliry wrqmz to civiiian objwts (Article 57(2Xa)
and (b))inthe wnducr of rnilitaryoperations. Besidcs the principle of environmental sr;unty embcdicd
Li Arricle 35(3) ,herefort,~s a "civiiian object" me naniral cr?vironmcnt is prorŒted under the
-- -
111
P. Antoine.supranote 155.n 517. 526.
"' Cj:Article22(1Xd).commeniary, parr 9of Int'lL. Canm'n Dr* Code of Crkncz Ag& Tbe Pw
and Sauriry of MankiDd (as misai by the in~mariond Law Ccmmission thmu@ 1991),fïm adoptedby the
U.N. Intnuional Law Coumission on 4 kzzbcr 1954. U.N. Doc. Al461405 (1591). rqrinicdin 50 W'L
LEC. t-hÏS. 1554(1991). - proponionaliry rule caaiiid in hnici: 57.'"' in vieu of the narux and eficcü of nuciw wep~ns.
ke collareral damaoc ro Vieenvironment and oÿie: civiiian objecu charwould Decaused by theuse of
such wetoons would inevirablyourwei~nrhc rniliruy advanrase and $0violarc rhis rule ofinre~ational
law.
d. 1972 Stockholm Declaranon of the United Narions Coaference on the Buman
~n~imnment'"
Princ<~le26: "Man and his enviro~ncnt nun be spad the efkts ofnuclur wupons end al1
oincr mcans of mzrs dcmu~ion. States mun mive w ruch prompt apemenL in the rrlevm;
international orguis, on the ciiminarion and cornpiete denrucrion of sweapons."
e 1980 United Sations Geoeral Assembly Raolntion on Historioil Raponsibiliry of Scates
for the Pmervation of Nature for Pment and Future Generations""
"Procicim the hinoncal rrspoosibiliry of States for the prcscrvation of n-.foprcsent
and funire generations;
Drowr; fhe a~renrionof Stafesto the,fact that thc wnrinuing armracehas pcrnicious efiecrs
on the cnvimnment and dues the pms~rs for the nccaçary intemarional cc-opaarion jn
preserving nature on Ourplanet;
Ccils upon States. in the interem of prnent and furure gcncra~ions.ro aemonmatc due
concm and rakcmeasures ...necessary for preservlig nam, and aiso to promore inimz~ional
co-opcation in this field;
Re,-xesisrhe Sare'q-General, with rhe mperarion of die Ljniid Naior.s Environnent
Programme, to prcparr aVn an the pcrnicious efia of rhc annsraceon nanrrc and to srk
the views of States on possiblmeanves CObc taken a! the inrmariond leve! for the pracmarion
oi nanirc .. .."
100
Adopicd by rhcU.N.Confme oo ?be Emm >vimmnt a Stcckhoim.16 Jwic 1972. +on o/rk
LIN. Cocierence on ~k Human hirormeri. Siaciholm, 5-1Jwir 1972. U.K. Doc. A/CONF.48114iT(ev .l
3 (19i3),U.N.Doc.PJCOM.48114 2 2-65. ad Coc. 1(1972),rqrinrd in 1 LKT-'LCG. MATS. 1416 (1972).
I.1Adoplcd30 ~~bbcr 1980. GA. Ra ISid6.U.N. GAOP. 35& k., Supu. NO.48. p~15.US.k.
1 981) On qui? for ka-: gmcztiocs as 2 ncw endmceng lcgalprincipleO: incr,aionrl
-
cnviroruncntalaw, se E. Weiss.IN FmSS TO r'LW CZ'.'EL~~?O( S1989). f. 1952 \\'orid Chaner for Nature'"'
Secrion i: General Principles
Xriicle 5; "Nature shzll be sŒured agrinn degadation caued by warfare or other hosiilc
activities.'
Secrion iii;Impiemenrcrion
.lrriciz14:"The principles set forh in the preseChancr rhail be~flecred in the lau. and
pnnicc or -ch Statc, aswcll as at the international Icvel."
Anicle 20: ",&filiiaryaruviries dam-ingto nam shallbeavoided."
Arricie24: "&ch peson ha a duy to act in accordance with the provisions of the present
Chmer; ..."
g. 1991 Procecdings of the Suth Comminee of the U.N. Genenl Assembly (=marks on
behalf of the Member States of the Enrupcan ~ommunity)
Spcaking on bchalf of the Europw Communiry and its rwelve Member States in the Sixth
Commintc of the U.N. Gcnual Asscmbly on 24 Oçrobcr 1991on the subja of rhe urploiwion of the
environmenias a weapon in thes of md wrxflic~,the rcpresenutjve of rhe Netherlaqdrarcd:"''
Tne nvelve Memba Stararaof the European Communiry anach grcat imponanc to the
protenion of the environment both in rima of pcace and of armed conflic; and to the
observuicc of international humanirarian law. Thercfore rhey welcorne the dtcisIOnplac
on the agenda of the Sixth Cornminec the mbjcct "Exploitation of the environment asa
wea,pon in rimes of amd conflicr and thetakiag of pmical mczsura to prcvcn! such
exploitation." Whcn speaking about tbe use of the environment as a w-n in rimesof
wnfiia we of course cmnot ignorethe unpdcnred eavironmend damqe caused by t.
in KUM~ in this contez 1would like to draw your anenrion to what was mxntly ratcd
in a xpon to the SexmaiyCiencral ofthe United Nationsbascd on a United Nations missioq
nmely that the deliberaie torching of the oilfieids .menu Kuwait's mos pmsing
environmental problem of today, kides which ail else pais inro insignificancc. As chis
rcpon rightly poinu ou! uierhas neve: ben anyrhing Iikc it in hinory before.
...
Trie- cmot be any doubtrhat hcsc hqi ac:ivirics werc in fl-r violation oiexining
intcrnarionai law.
II is clem rhnr uirring iniernn~iomi law lirniü the righrr of belligerenü io me
sflering und injmy topeople and me& der~dion on objecrs. lClvsive ecolo~col bge
lu Adoplcd bythe U.N.Cm14 Asscmbly,2S Ocok: 1982. GA. Ra. 37Il(Anncx).U.N. CAOR. j7rii
Sas.. Supp.NO. 51. af 17U.NDoc. A/j7/5i,ryrirJea'in2 WL L-G. MATS.455 (1983). Makr Stares
. .
voling: 111in favor.1 againn@c Unid Sa), 18 &szuung.
,(il ~..
U.N. Doc.rVC.6146ISi20, a 2-3.rqri~ie;'rr62 Sm. Y.S. L\Ï'LL. 653-54-(1991) cr Oconseouence ojmmec conjicr-be irof inremcrion01 or non-inremcricno/ ci--zccrer<i,
endcnger che very bais oflije on !hisploneîjoro long period of rime."'"
h. Dnfr Code of Crime Against the Pace and Securin of hlankind"Y
Arricie19(3j: -"[O)n die bais of die mlcs of inzemational ]au. in foxan inlernlrionai crime
may rcsul\ inter aliq 6on: ' ..
(d) a serious bmcn of an inmarional obligation of essentid impo~mce for rhedcpzrding
and presmation of t+e bwrian environmen\ such as diose prohibiting massive pollurionci
the amosphcre or ofthe sezs. ...'
Article22Qj: "[Ain excepuonally xn'ous war crime isan crceptionally serious violation of
pnnciples and des of intemational law applicable in med wnflict consinhg of any of die
following acs: '
(d) employing mclhods or mas of wadarc wnich aie intmded or may be cxpc=td IO cause
widcsprcad, long-term and severt damagc to the n d cnviiunmen~"'~
~rzicli'26: "An indiviàual who wilfully causesor orders die causing of widcsprud, long-m.
and severc damage to thenad envuonment shall, on conviction diercoc be smtcnced .. ..'
i. 1992 Socurity Council Resolution-687 (concerning the restoration of pace and security
inInq and Kuwait)""
"Tne Secniry Council .. .
IL Ernphasisaddcd
'" Supra nore 158
Itis cilighrcningUOK rScInrmuional Law Co-ission's comenw ona e.icle 22(2Kd):TOC
wording . .. istakm, word for ward hm Anicle j5, p-h 3. of kotûccl 1 AddifionalIOihcGcneva
Conventions . ... mt sbould bc painraiouitby mdc chesub-pwh. itisa crime not only Io employ
mcthods or mcans of dam mrcodtd to euw the WC mninand above buiais0 hosc wùicb may bc
expe~ed to cause suchdamage. This lmc qrvion covcrs c=scs in which dcsuucion of tDe nd
cnvironmmt vas nof rbe awnriai sim of iheusc of suff ichds ormeans ofwarkc. bu^ asmi:of hcir
poimrially disamous coascquc~~ for ~c aviroumm\ he nonethc 16s daidcd Inanploy &a.' U.N. Doc.
AlCN.45.464/Add. 4 (15 July 191).m 25.
"' Adoptcd j April 1991. U.Nûoc. S/RES1687 (1991), rqrimd in20 hT'LLEC. WTS. ô46 (19911.
alto Mty Council Raolinioa 692 (conc-?ung thc lisjiliry of kq for dLm loss. damage mciubg
enviroa.'~cntaldams-. asa mufi of LT's ualawnil icwion md -parion of Kuwait), 20May 1991.U.N.
Doc. SRES/ 691 (1991). - 16. Reafirms thar Iraq . . .--is liable undv international lau* for any aircct loss. dxnaec,
including environmenral amaee and the depletion of naninl moums . . .zs a rcsul; of hq's
unlaufil invasion and occupation of Kuwair . ..."lu'
U'ith is specific reference to cnvironmenraldmage and the depletion of natural rcsources. Rccolution
687 js clm cvidence of the international communiry's determination to msure rcspeci for L5e
environrnent in time of anncd conflicr
j. 1992 Rio D~ilntion ou Envimument and Developmentl'"
Principle 24: 'WxÏarc is inhmtiy dcmuctivc of susrainable devclopment. States shzl!
thercforc respect intcmational law providing pro&on for the environment in rina of armd
anflicr and co-ope~ate in its furiberdevelopmcn~ as nccasary."
2. Thcprinciple of environmenfaI securiry acpan of
convenrionai internarionai urvùonmurtd Lov
a. ,United ~ations Chaner
Arricle55: "With a view to the muon of conditions of srabilin. and well-being whicharc
nnessary for pcaccful and aiendly relations arnong nations bscd on rcspecr for the principlc of
equal rights and selfdetermination of peopla. the United Nations shaIl promote:
(a) higher -dards of living . . . and conditions of wnomic and mial pro-mss and
devclopment;
-.
@) solutions of international emnornic, social, health mrdre[medproblenrc . .
Arricle 56: "AI1Membcrs pledge themsclvcs to takc joint ana separare action in mp-rztion
-w~rh the Organization for the purposa sa fonb in Amcle 55."
Since the kell-being of psla, their cconornicand social berrss and developrnen\ and themolution
of international problems dl prrsuppose a h-khy cnvLonmcn& rhe~ Micles of the UnitedNarions
Chaner mus beinterprercd asincluding an obligation upon the Mernber States to rcspct and pmtm
die hurnan environment in war as wellas in ce.
h. 1966 International Coveaani on Ecnnomiç SWal and Cultural Rigt~ts~'~'
Arricle12(1): "The Sures Panies IOthe present Covenmt rrçogize the ri@t of evcnone to
rhe enjoyment of the highen arainable nandard of physical and mental healrh."
Adopred by the U.N. bnfcnc on E3vi.ronmcntand Dcvelopncnt a Rio dc Juieira, lj Iuc 1991.
U:N. DOC.A/COW.151126vol. 1)(1992).rqrimed in 31WL LEC. MATS. 874 (1992).
"' Concluded16 -ber 1966.Enrd iuroforu. 3Jmuy 1976. 993 U.N.T.S. 3.Ooe buow WaV
(120) Suresuc parrjrobis insmrnc3i as ofthisivrjting. .. rce 1): "Tne ne;s ro oc kcr. iy qc Sraics Panics to the prcscnc Covez~r ro ac:lie\.e
' '
<ne full rcalizrtion ofthis nghi shafi inciudc thosc ncccssqfor: '
(b) The impmvcmenr of 011quects of environmental . .. hygiene; ..."'"
c. 1981 African Chaner on Human and Peopla' Righrs''"
Arricie 24: "AI1peapics skall have the n-r toa oened satisÎanory cnvirurinc3: fzvorabl: to
.
thcir oevelopmen;."
d. 1982 United Narions Convention on the Law of the Sen''u
Arricle 192: "States shall take ameasurcsns-ssary toalnm that dvities under thcir
jurisdicrion orconml M XI ulnductcd as not to cause damage by pollution ro other Statesand
hclr environmenq and uiar pollunon aising hm incidenrs or scrivincunder rheu jurisdir'.ion or
conuol does no< spd bcyond dic K-& wherc they urcrcise sovcrcip ri&= in açîordance wirh
rhis Convcnrion."
e 1985 Vienna Conveatioa for the Prutecfion of the Oune Layerl'%
"The Panics shall take appropriate measura .. .to prota human hcalfn and
Arficle 2(1):
the cnvironmenr agaLin adverse efÏcc raulting or likely to rsulhm human acnvirics which
modify or are likely tornodify the ozone laycr."
L 1992 Fnmework Convention on Climate
Xriicle3: "in thcir asrions ro ashiwc me objcqive of the Convention and to impierncnriü
provisions, the Putics shall beguide& inler alia,by the foflowhg:
1. 'Tnc Panics should pro- tEc climare qncm for the bcnehr of pmr and fume
gcncnrioas of humakh4 on ti~cbais of equiry and inaccordancc wito thbY-commsn but
'diEercntiated rcsponslbiliti~ and tqcaive cuiabiiitia.Accorduigly. the dcvclopcd counoy
Partis should take the lead in cornnaring clic,nc c.haoc and the advcrsc e5crs themf."'
'n Concludcd 26 lune1981. E31erd in10 fort^21 kok L966. OAU DOC. C.-G/T?G1671~Rtv. 5,
-,-inrd in 21LM'L LEG.MATS5 .9(1982). Fory-four(G) Sua e p- tothisinmummi asof rhi+dg.
'" Conciuded 10 Dcctn'kr 1982. bers into forcc16Novukr 1994. U.N. Doc.NCONF.621122.
reprinid in21 W'L LEo. MATS. 1261(19S2). S~-ane (61) Sucs arcpmy iothis immi asof bis
wriring.
"' Concludcd 12 Marc" 198.'.hi& inIo forc12 Sc;>rm'k 1988. 26 ML LEC. MAX. 1516(1987).
Onc hundrcd rwo (102) SKIS a.. piy ioiCr insrunor W. of raisunring.
"' Concludri 29 May 92. E3rd in10iom 21 M~x3 1%:. Reprimd in31 LI;i' LLEC.MATS. E-49
(l?92). -
43 Arricle 3: "States have, in accordance with the Chancr of the United Nations and the
principles of international law.the sovereign rigIO ucploictheir own rcsourus pursuant to their
Oum environmental policies, and the mponsibilicy ro ensure that activities within thtir jurisdiction
or conrrol do not cause darnqe to the environment of other States or of areas kyond the lirnirs
of national jurisdiuion" (the same wording as Pnnciple 21 of the 1972 Stockholm Declaration.
inka).
Princc~le 7: "States shall cc-opaate in a spirit of global parmcnhip to conserve, pmtacr and
renore the health and inte& of the Eanh'socosynnn. .. ."
-.
Principle 25: "Peact, developmearand envLonmuiÿJ pmte,u'~n ar;interdependenr and
indivisible."
3. ne prinùple of environmenid seurriiy as pari of
customary internationai uvuonmentd Iaw
Tnc cunomary stanisof rhe principle of environmental wcuriry is evincsd by the above -es,
man) of uehich have crnergedinto customary international la^,"^ and conhed by the praaict of
Stares and intèmational govmcntal organizations in United Nations rsolutions and other diplornatic
communications. For a small sampling:
a. 1972 Stockholm Dedaration of the United Nations Conference on the Humao
~nvimomeot'~"
Principle 21: "States have, in acconlance with the Charter of the United Ejations and rhe
pn'nciplesof international Jaw.the sovcrcign right to exploit'thcir ow rcso- punuant to their
own environmentai policia, and tbe raponsibilify to ensure that activiries wirhiiï theirjurisdiuion
or conml do not cause damqc m the cnviromcnt of otha States or of arus beyond die limk
of national jurisdiuion."
b. 1982 Worid Charter for Nature""
Principle 1: "Nature shallbe rcspcctcdand its essential proesses shall nor bc impainrd."
Principle 2: "The geneuc viabiliry on thed shail notk wmpromised .. .."
'" Coocludcd 5 lune 1992. E3td intoforce29 D&CIIlbc; 1992. .&orinradin 3l W'L LEG. MATS. 8 18
(1992).
- ' See.cg.. C. ü.wmany, NUC~ WWNS AND SCE~T~C RESPONSIBILTn. 93 (1987)
In Supra note 160.
880
Suoro norc 162. c -1987 %al Principla for En~imnmenral Pmteco'on and Suszinable Development of the
Experts Croup on Environmenul Ln. of rht 1966 Worid Commission on Earironmenr
and Developmen t""
Arricie 1; "Al1human beings have tic findamenul nghr IO anenvironmeni adquete-for theil
healrh and well-king."
Arricle 2:"Srares shall cnsuc that the cnvironmcncand narural rcsouhes arcwnservd 2nd
used for the benefïi oi prcsent ahmrc gencraaons."
d. 1990 European Council Dedanrion on The Environmental Imperativel">
"A Heads of Stace or Govment of the EumpeanCornmuniry,we iuognk out spcciai
responsïoiliry both to our om citizrns for thcir environmcnr andina widcr contes. We
unde,lake ro intensify our effom ro pmtxt and enhancc the nmnl environment of die
wmmunity irself and the world of which itis pan.. ..
The objective of such action mus bcto guarzntce cib die right to a clczn ad
healthyenviron men^ p~icularly widi ~gard to - (inter alia)
- die qualiry of air
- rivers, lakes and coml and marine waten
- the qualiry of food and drinking watcr
- protection againn conminaiion of soi1 ... and defomation
-. - prcsuvanon of habitas, flon and faunq landwa, and orhcr elemcnu of the narural
nerirage".
- ~1992 Rio Ddantion on Enlimnmenr and ~&elopmenr~~'
Principe 1: "Human beings arc atthe cents oiconms for susiiabie cevelopncnr 'Ihey
arcenritlcd to a healwand produnivc life in harmony wirhnature."
Principle 2:"Stares have, in accordan= with the Charter of the United fu'ationsand the
principlcs of international law,rhe sovcrcnght to expioitthcir own resourcs pursuantto the?.'
om environmental policies, andthe rcsponsioility to mur, rharactivities wiihin meu jwisaicrion
or conuol do not cause darnagc to the cnvironmcn<of ohcr Stara or of are beyond the limiu
of national jurisdiction" (ihe same woming as Principle 21 of die Stockhoim Declaration, supro).
In sum, it is beyond peradvcnrue tfiar 13uncaouollable cnvLonmmtal cfiecs of the use of
ouciwr weapons. even on a rrlauvcly maIl de, an inwmpatiblc wirh ïbe muiy 2nd growing
pronioirions on nviroamentally damagino wciponr,and &CS.
"' Adouicd by the WC= Expers Cmu? on E3YiTOmm1.d Law, 4 Aw 1987.U.N. &:.
WCERD/86Qj/Add.l (1986).
"' Adopicd 25-26Junc 1991. EUROPE DOc?OA%T NO. 163011633.27 Junc 1990,e 11-1:
111
Adoptd by thcU.N. Confmcc on bviroamnt and Devclopncnt aiRio de larieka l. luc 1992.
ü.3. Doc.AJCOM.IS1426 (Vol. i')(1992).repriruei i31 LhT'LLEG. mn. 875 (1992). G. The Principle of Xon-Toxicir,.: lt isprohibited to use asph!xiating, poisonous. or otbcr
gasa, and al1 analogous liquids, materiak, or substances
Ir is useful to recall oncc morrrhe wmmand of Manu, the fim man and the fun king in the
rny.,nologyof Indi+ and ceminly irrfim iaw-givcIw
\\;icn the king fignrs uith his focs in banle, let hirn nor mike ueithwczpons ccnculed in
wmd, nor wirh such as arc barbai, poisoncd, or the poins of whjch arc blKing wirh h.
Presumably because of the slow. painful and ûrachcrous & in which they act on the human body,
poisons md orhcr chcrnical substances have aiways h regardcd wirh pculiar horror esinmumeors
of combat, wmpand with such clczn, if not exactly pl-t toois for dispatchinan enerny as mords,
lanccs and bullcrs. Thus Grotius devotcs an aitire mion tothe proposition that "p]y the law of
nations itis forbidoen to kill any one by means of poi~on"'~,nating, inferaiia:
r]rorn old rimes the law of nations-if not of ail nations, ~arainly of tofsthe bener son-
hrs been that it is not pcmissible to kill anenerny by poiso.. . in s+g of Paxeus[,]
Lily calls the poisoning of encrnia sec-rrrtcrima. Claudian. in discussing the plot %air&
P.-us which *.as rcjcned by Fabricius, characte& it as Lnpious. and Ci-, rouching on
the samc nory. refers to as an arocity:... InValerius Maximus is rhc saying, "Wan oughi
ro bc wagcd with weapons, not poisons."
Lïic Grotius, Licbcr went om of his way to ernphask the abhomint nmrc of poison as a wcapcn:
"[rnlili- necessiry does not admit of. . .the use of poison in anyMY ...";ilu"[tlhe use of poison
in an? manne:, be it to poison wells, or food, or arms, u wi~ollycxcluded 6om modern warfarc. Hediat
uses ir puu hirnsclf out of die pale of rhc law and%es of wu."""
Similar prohibitions arcfound in, among othc provisior& Article 8(a) of the 1880 Oxford
Man~al,'~~the 1899 Haye Declararion (TVJ) Concerning Asphyxiating Gases,'"' Anicle 23(a)
of the 1907 Hague R~gulations,'~ Article 5 of the 1922 Tm Relaring to the Use of Subrnarines
and Noxious Gases in WKiare,"" and the prrrnic: in this field, the 1925 Geneva Gu
,"
Supra note27.
"' Supra ootc23. atBk III,Ch. N, S. XV.
II'Suora note58. A,niclc 16.
"' Id. Anicic 70.
II!
Supra note91.
111
Su,oranote45.
0.0Supra note43.
191Concludcd 6 Fehq 1922.not i3forccfor orhc ruons. 25 L.N.T.S. 102.
-
46 wnich prohibirc "rh:use in uz* of rs?h?ria~'ine. psisonousO: orhe: gses. ri' qfc!!
ma log ou^liquid~. marcrials or aevica'"" and nates thar 'sucn use ha ben jusil? ccndcmned by
thc gene.ql opinion of rhe civilircd world," thus ~nninitiaggood ex~~plc of r u=iy wn<matoy
ratnef han dcclaraton, in narure.
hnicle 1: of the 1956 Dmf~Rules [of the International Commine of the Rd Cross] for ùic
Limixtion of die Danger; lncumd by the Civilian Popularion in Tie of War"" cxpadcj on the
Ceneva Gu Protocolin rhe following ternis:
mhe use is prohibitcd of wupons whose hamifui efic~ls-rcsulzing inpYrjcular 6om the
à_isseminationof inccndiary, chcnical, banuiological, radioocrive or other agenü-could
sprad IOan unfores.cn degree or a., cirhcr kispace or timc. hm the conml of hose
uho ernploy thern.'*
1t vuires no pr powen of analysis Io rd the ICRC lanpage s an Aaopian rcferrnce to the
radioanive and other cnissions hm nuclear wcîpons as connirukg "analogous marerials or devices"
witiin rhc meaning of the Protocol.As ratd in Nuc/eur Fm: %f > inifjor You?:"~
Radioactive falloutis in efim a kind of poison that can bc absoroed through th: ski,
brcathed in, or earen. Ir is accurnulative,which mcarrs ilwllens in the body. &%enrhe
accurnulated dose rises abave ccr& level, the mult is "radiarion sickness", a diseve rhar
a;.azksthe bne rnarrow and other paru of the body. The fim symptoms arcvomiting and
aiamiy followcd by anemiq loss of hair, possible skin sores, incmed susccptïoiiity ro
infection, and finally-in the wom c?ses-death.
Buuse die prohibition in the GasProrocol is so unequivocal, and ils wpiiution by andogy ronuclm
wa,mns so ci-, itislinle wooda tharmany hghly qualied publicins have rclicd on the Pmtwl's
prohioition of the me of poisonous and asphyxiahng pua and "al1analogous liquids, marerials and
devies" to mch the conclusion bat nuclev weapons arcillegai.'"'
"l Supranorc 51.
-
'" Supranote 132, 140. Arricic il/)oj rne 1969 Arnerican Conver;rion on Eurncn Rigi:s::OV '"Evcry personha the
righrIO have his life rcspected.'
Arricle d oj rhr 1981 A/iica nkrer on Humsn md Peo~le i Rigi::s::w"Hu.~M kbgs
ue inviola~le. Evcy human king shzll bc entitlcdro respect for his lifc and the inte@-.
of nis persan."
Arricle I(c) of the1981 Universal Islamic Declmaion of Hxmm IZ;ghü:'W "Humm liie
issacrcd md inviolable and every efion shall bemade to prortct ir."
Arricle 6(1) ojrhe 1989 Convention on theRighLc of rhe Child:" "Sutci Partiesnra_oiizr
thar every childhrsdie inhernt right to liic."
As dcmonsjared abovc, the use of nuclcar wcapans wouldinmon ii oot ail circumnsncts mult iothe
rrking of mmy tiausands, if oot millions, ofiunoccntcivilim Iivcs,invioiarionof wvcrd principles
of humanitanan law.'" Such an event would violare also die righr to life.
Tne point ha ben recognid by the Human Rights Cornmiuec of rbeUnid Narians iniu 1987
gencral conmenr unde: Anicle 40(4) of the International Coveoanr on Civil and PolitiuRi&s?OU
3, Mile rcmaining dccply uincemed by rhe toli of human life taken by convenuonal
wawns in mcd wnflicrs, the Cornminr has noted diah during succtssivc sessions of the
Gcncral Asstm'Dly,rqrcsencauvcs &om al1gwpphiul rcgions have cxprascd their pwing
ancm at the developmcnt and proliierauon of incrcsingly awaome weapons of mas
acsructjon, which not only bten buman liic bur also absom mources thar could othcwise
be usid for viralcmnomic andsociai purposes panicuiarly for the bcneiir of deve!oplig
counmes, and thereby for pmrnoring and socuring the cnjoymcnc ohuman ri@= for ail.
"' Coricludcd22 Novcmoc 1969. 5te.d in10forct 18 July 19780A.S.T.S. No. 36. 0A.S. OtTRec.
OEîJScr. Wlll2j doc. 21RV. 6 (1979)rqrimei in9 N'L UG. ~n. 673 (1970).
Sqra note 173
rn Adopted 19 Septembcr 1981.4 Em HLIMC RVn. W. 433 (1982)
Concludd 20 Novmk 1989. E~L~ in10foc 2 Septmbc 1990. GA. Ra. 44125(Pmcx), U.N.
GAOR. Uth Scss., Sup?.No49, r166,U.N.Dot. hlRESl=/49 (IWO), rarinieain :OW'L W. M*TS. lu8
(198Ç).
' See Çarions I andTV.Wrc.
'OSuprc note 150. 4. ihc wmrninee associales iself with-rhis concem. Iris wiaeor rhar th acsipixg.
lesring. manufac~uTe.possession and depio.vmenrof nuclen weapons are among rhe grearesr
rhreo~~ro the righr ro Iife u*nichcanfronr.mcniind roaay. Tnis rhreor u compounaed by rhe
dmgcr rbr rha ricruai use of such wecpons be broughr abour. nor only in rhe men! of
wor. bur even rhrough hurncn or mechnical err~rorjailure.~~'
5. Furdiemore, the vcry existene and pviry of this thrcat gcnentes a climrre of
suspicion and fear berwcn Srires, wnich isin iuelf-anugoninic to the promotion of universal
respect for and observance of human rienrs and fundzmental hcdoms inaccordancc with die
Chmer of rhe Unircd Karions and the inremarional Covenanrs on Human Righrs.
Closely allied with, indd an intepl pan ot. the right to life rheright to bcalrh A. numbcr of
=caries and other intekational inmurnenu use the language of ri@& in referring to healrh, and
thereiorc it is important they benorcdas well. Just as the use of nuclur weapons would in mon if not
al1circurnnances mult in the taking of many thousands, if not millions. of innoccnt civilian livcs, so
also would the use of nuclw weapons, paniculariy in conndon wirhtheir radioactive cfku, cause
wides~read epidcri& and othc: conditions of ill-health, fundamcldly anrithnical to the enjopmt of
the nght to.I.ifc,again violating sevcral of the principles of humanirarian law."'Peninmt provisions
inciuae:
Preamble ro rhe 1946 Consrirurionof the World Heclth ûrgan&a~ion:"" "The enjoyment of the
highes; arrainable srandard of healdi is onc of rhe fundamend rights of every human being without
dislinction ofrace,religio4 polirial belic!-,cmnomic or social condition."
Article25 of rhc 1948 Universal Deriarrrion of Zumm Rigiirs:"" "Evcryone ha the righrIO as
radard of living adquare for heaidi and wcil-king of himseli and his family. incluaing food,
cIot+ing, housing and medical ur: and the righr ro sauriry in the evenr of...sichess, disabiiiv.
" -
.. .
:'O
Se Senions 1 and W. supra. As obscmcd by Dr. EgiiAarvik Chairman of rbe Nowcgian Nobel
Conminec on thc -ion ofrhc au.ardof rhc1985 No'kl Peac Riz to the Intmiational Physiciu for rhe
Rcvntion of Nuclcar War (PPNi47: ?hm is no fcasibic provrtion availablc agaiastsucb an atomic
carisaophc [rbcuscofnucicar wcqmm]. Hom=ocic;isc ad mdol &ces wnuidincvirablywllqsc. Iwould
bc impossibiero heip<hc injurd ad tOca-9. anC sumivon woulC k subjold la rhc murderouslong icrm
wnsequnces.- Supra norc 5.
'. Supra oorc 130 Arlicle IZ(I) of rhe 1966 inremriono/ Covenmr on aonomic. Socid and Cvirurci r?l.s::"'
'The States Panies to the prcscntCovenanrmgnizc the rient oicvcNone to the enjoyrnen; oftic
highen anainable nandard of phpical and menu1 healdi."
Ariicle 2<(J)of rhe 1989 Convenrionon theRighs ojrne Chii~Y'::'"States Panies recogni.=cthe
rien; of rhe child lo the cnjoyment of the highcx anainable rsndof health."
Arricle 16ojthe 198j Mien Cher on h'um and Peopler' figh~:''~ "Every individurl snaII
have the nghr to cnjoy thebm availablrvve of physical and mend beairh."
Quesrions have ben raised es todethcf 1977 Gcneva Protocol Additional No. I1Iuapplics to
the use of nuclear weapons. Al die tirne of si--. the Unid Kingdom and rhc Unircd Srotcs
nipulated fonnal "undemdines" dia the niles cstablished or ncwly inaoduced by the Protocol would
not rcguiate or pronibit the use of nuclcar wwns, only sc-dlcd convmùonal oncs. The United
Srzrcs, which has noya mified die Pmtowl, siged if on 12 Decembcr 1977 mbjm Io the following
undemanding:
Itisthe undemding of die United States of America chatdie rules establishcd by rhis Protoccl
were not intmded to have my cffea on and ao not rcplare or prohibit the use of nuclear
weapons.""
Sknilar undcmandings were voicd bbythe United Kingdom, wnici appurs ro be on the point of
mtifying, ad by Fm=, which ha neithcr sinad nor rarified the Pmtocol as otbiswi:ing.
I: is submioed that thcsc undesmding cmnot have the cfic~.:of excmpting nuclur wcapns hm
the regime of humanitarianlaw. An undemuiding, while wnsrituting e lcsscr demganon hm the
binding efÏ-t of aûuty than a rwation, is611 subjcn ta mle tha: a signing or mufying State
mzy not formulate a rcservation iawrnpztibie with the pruposc or objat ofkav. It is clcareyond
pcadventurc bat inmon cir,umma, theuseof nuclur wqns would bctotally incompatiblewith
the purpose and obj- of the Pmtml, as wcll as with die Gcneva Conventions that it is inradai to
reafnrm and supplerncnr.
"' Sqro nofc171.
' Su,pronote206.
"' Supra noce17;.
"' Supra note47.
:"
See DIGESTOF Um Si~i-6 Pïm~ w Lh7éiuv~ilON~~ Lw 920 (1Boy& ed. 1957).
51 -. Hcnce, the "nuciear undemding" cluion1y.k intcr~retcd in one of wo ways: eihc itisrn-I:
10 limit the application of the Protow10 nuclev weapons "as such" (as in the formularion csd in the
Unit& States h y Field Manual"". or itis intmdcd to rcfer to the non-appliubiliry to nuclcir
wawns of thar pan of Protocol 1bat goes beyond the rrnarement of humanitarian law as ifuisted
p& 10die pmrocol's adoption.
Arguably, the oniy mily "new"provision in the Pmtocol rclc~vanrto nuclcar w-ns is hicle 55
on the pmrccrion of the naml environmcnr This view is borne OUL ro some ment, by the foIIowing
natement by George H. Aldnc4 Unitcd SratesRcpmcnraùve tothe Fourth Session of the Diplomaic
Conferencc on rhe ~e@-rmmion:"' and Dcvelopmnit of International Humanitarian Law Applicable
in hed Conîlicrs (1977), in his rcponIOthe Depamrimt of Sratc:"
During the course of the Conf~cc ti~erwas no consideration of the issues miscd by the use
of nuciear weapons. Although rhcrc arcseveral arciclatha rould sbsn to mise questions uith
qecr to the use of nuclear wcapo&, mosr cieariyarticle 55 on thcprorrction of thenumol
environmenr, itwas the undernanding of the Unitcd Stares Delegation throughout the
Confmncr that the rula to be dcvcloptd wm daignai with a vicw to conventional weapons
and rhcir effcctc and that the niles cnablishcd by the Prorocol weri nor intendcd to have any
eiïczu on, and do not rcgularc or pmhibit the use of nuclear weapons.""
Frcnch inremauonal law scholar Henri Meyrowiq in diwussing the relarionship betwcn rhe
"nuclear undcntandings" and piexihg cirstomarylaw, stars: "La puissances nucl&iks et leursallies
et proreges pourront discuter le contenu exact des +eles coutumieres; mais aucun gouvernement ne
pourn-er aucun n'osera-contmer le principie mine de I'assujetissemcnt de l'emploi da armes
aromiaues au droit courumicr préexinani"me nuclear powcrs and theirallies and protéoh m discuss
the exact content of the cusrornary nila; but no govemment can-and nonc willdare r-ntar the vey
principe of the subjdon of nuclcar wcspons to pmxising cusiomary Law).=
To exempt nuclear weapons hm humanimian law on thc bais of rhe Pïotcal-rrlated
undemdings would bc ro ignorc prc-Pmtoal and pon-Protocol conventional and crrnornary law, as
wcll as to give far grearcrweight rothe undcrrandings than thIO wnicn bey are cntirled undernormal
nilcs of intcrpretation.
"' SecP-h 35 ofUniid Sma t?qrnnnt of theAmy. Field Manual 27-10, 71- LAU. OF h\TY
WhWhRE (1956) :hc usc of qiosivc 'konic wqons'. . .camor pr nich bc qucd as nolativc of
intc~ationallawin rk absenceof- currorwy de o/inrr7imionclInw or im-ionnl conve~ionrcsricing
?kir emplcymrnr" (cmphzsis added). For a discxsion of th: i1legaliry of nuclcrw-ru unde ail
c~zumraus, racbe; tba-assuch',sc =on Vil, i+c.
"' Emphzis addcd.
DIGEST OF UNmD STAN PIUCnE D.iIh~AT1ON.U hW 1977,ai 919(J. Boyd cd. 1979),
' Empn~is added.
-. Sorc note89.a!385 THE PROHIBITION OF TM USE OF fiVCL.EAX wuPoN5 &PLIES
ro NUC~ W~NS OF W SUlS INALL CIRC~~AKCES
A. "iMicm-nuka," "mini-nuka," and "riny-nuka" arc not exempt
Înis Mernorjal,& rated above, ha ben conccmcd principally wirh the use of nuclct. wcapons
aswwezpnsoimvs demucrion. 1tis uscful,bowtvcr, IOexamine briefly the applieuiliof the seven
principles oijuin bel10discussed above in relattothe sizc 2nd naturc of & nuclcar wupcns.
In one sense, the quescion is academic, pa+cularly in view of tha&fasof Eiovmber 1993,
ir ha becn the Congrcssionally mandad poli-. of the United Stara noro condua "rescarch and
dcvelopment which wuld Id to the producfion by tbe United Stara of a low-yield nucl--
wqon."= Furrhcmiore,as fu as canbe asmincd the mallm nuclw wcîpons cmntly inthe
arsenals of the five declnuclcar wcaponSwcs bave a yield of 5 kilo~one.g..alirtle less&an hrlf
of the Hiroshima bomb and one-thld of the Nagasaki bomb."" Evmg said hcrctoforc applies
ro wapons of rhis sizc.
On the other han& sp&ulatiosurfaceshm time torimeaborn the daip and possible production
of much smalla wtapons. Thus.Wo highly qualificd rcsdcrs, William Arkinand Roben Noms.
have xponcd thar the Los Alamos Narional Labontory rrcommends a nuclear arsenal for the Unitui
States that would conrainscvd hundrcd osthe following "iow yield" weapans: (1) IO-toeanh
pcnccato; wariieads ("rnicrc-nukes"); (2) 100-tonanti-tzaical ballisiic missile warhcads ("mini-nuka"),
and (3) 1-krcounrer-pmjection forcua?d&s-("-hy nukes").%
This honorable Coun rnay simply choose to dismard these Gara isthe muings of a grou? of
sciatins in scahh of a pon-Çold War mission and therciore nor pcsaring e auenion ripe for
consideration. Howwcr, should the corn undenakc to enter into a deoate ofrhc mimlminihiny nuke
qucnion, the following poins arcrrspccmilly nibrnidfor wnsidc;dion:
-
1. The proposcd micro-nuke, the mallm of die potcntizl fax arsenal, is trime she si= of
thelargesi wnventional bomb used in die 1991-9Persia Gulf War.
2. No maner how small the nuclear wctpon, it is srili one exhibitiing primady radioacrive
pmpcnia. Hencc its CE-, wnile of a lower order of maginide than weapons in the 5-kt
and up caresoryart dl1 unwnmilabie, quasi-poisonou, and unncotssarily cniel.
=' Sec.cg.. National DcfensAuiPa-.oo Ac forFiscJ Yar ("0 199:.hblic Law 103-160.50
Novcnbc: 1993.107SUI.ISd7.Sccrion3136(d(41U.S.C 2121) ofAa medcha a low-+cld nuclcw-0
as onehavinga $cld of las thafivckilorons.
"' Wilc ii ipossiblctrootuïguresomc wr3& in cUrllogararris foryicld 1ou.&an 5 kilotons,
iiisdoubful tbanronirgu~a: wiouidsu~sfully hii ecn&i*c!l tomuchlas han one kiloton.
" TiJ.Pn;iandR Noris. Ti?Nuiiejbr M;nTMirdS.?FE BU. OF Tm ATOYC SCiMnSTS 24 (Apnl
1902). -- -
5. The use ofany low-yield nuclw wupon Gainsi a miliy facilirywould ne;cssiurc a --und
(scrfzce or sub-surface) bum which would generare.proponionatcly. greatly more radiation
than an amospheric bum since, at -mound Icvel, more marerial is available IO bcuome
radioactive rhan in the amiospherc.
4. Tnmiorr, the use of the proposai micrc+nukcz an4 aforriori,the mini-nukes and tiny- nukes.
would nill be absolutely forbidden by tbe pruiciplcs of humaniry and non-toxicip ana'
depending on the circurnnanccs of thcir use wouid dso bepmhïoited by rhe principles of
aiscrimination, pmponionaliry, ncçasiry, neudiry, and envimnmenral scurip'.
5. Any use of even the tiniennuclear weapon islikelyto acalate into a nuclear exchange.
of increzsing mapirude, and thus the country Liitiatingsuch use would bar the gravm
rcsponsibiliry forir s nsqumces and would, at the very leaq bein violation of the
principle of pmponionaliry. motwithnanding voguish ihmria of 'inna-war
bqaining,' 'inûa-wax detemnce,' andcon~olled acalation,' nis highly improbable rhat
rhc opposing sides wouid or wuld rcnin tbemsclvcs to fighting a 'Iimitd' nther than
rorrl' nuclta war, as if somehow govaned by the rulcs of the Marquess of
~uccnsbury."~'"
Finally, considvation mus always be iven tothe fundamentaldifierencc betwben nuclear wcapons
and al1 previous weapons in the history of warf~. Tnus Henri Mepwia speaking of the "spcial
narus' of nuclear weapons in international law, statu:
-.
La nison en cg la difrCrcncc absolue qui separt la mes nuclCaireset les anriesclassiques,
malgré la minianirisation propsive da charges atomiques et la prtcision croissante des
vecteurs (The reason for this is the absolute diffcrcnw threparaies nuclear w-ns hm
ciassic weapons, dspite the propsive minianukaion of dieatomic charges and the growing
peision of the delivcry v~hicla).~"
-
B. Detemnce isnot a defense to the illegality otheuse of nudear weapons
The cumnt policy of the dcçlarrd ouclcar we+n States is to main theu capaciry to diare
aeainn cithcr a nuclcar or a conventional anack with a nuclcar ccunter-srrikc."u
Patcntly, such a
response ro a convenuonal anack would vioiatc, a a minimum, rhe principle of propnionaliry, no
maner how devanaring so-called conventional wcapons have becorne.
'Y WEsmN 581. WCROO Om~s fYRhc [AISm-ativcly pmjccrd inthe 1980 F+on of rk .%?UT-
Ceneraf on nuclearweapons [qra nate781,raztic nuclcm wdm ...would mlt iD hmciruis md Tbowàs
of nuclcar uplosions and.cnnsequendy,imtold immaiiarc and long-mge, long-tcrm mUatcrai hanris. Ln
addition.onccuolcasbd. the probabilitythaQNcai nuclcarwarfarccould bckcpt aftheaxeror banlefieldler.el
would bcsrnaII.A cruis cwalaringto rhc fun uw ofcva rcIHivelysrnainuclur wqas would brin :s
dangcrouslycloseto the ulrimaicnage,a 'marcgicuchangc', panic~iarlyifone of tbc wo sidcswas irselfZI
a disadvanrascina draw Our 't~ical exchange'.'Id ai 583-81.
--
-' Supra notc 89.at388.
'. Only China has an oficial na-fun-uspolicy. SîrDole19 a8 accornpanyingRn supra. Eou.evc:, u discussca'in Scctionm abovc, no1only a nuclcar rcsponsc to a conr.zn::on~! ara&
but tlso a nuclear rcsponse to a nuclecr anaci<woula viola21 lean the principics of discriminatior..
humaniqf, and envimnmental sauriry, and auite possibiy aisodit pnnciple of ncuoalir\sinccthcrc is
no purpose in incineraring entirc urban populations. ravqing the oamral cnvuonmcnt for gencations
to corne, and ouite possibly defiling the tenitory of ncighboring and dinant neuoal aunmcs othcr thm
10 saris$ onc's desue for vengeane. Ai, on-ciradmiày by the United Sutes O6c- ofTaihnoio_qr-
AsscssrnenL publishcd in 1979, quotes United Statcs govmcnr midies indicarine ihar berwcen 2
million and 20 million Amencans would bekilled wiLhinthinyciays aftcr a cornfer siluattack on
United StatesICBM sires, duein large pm to urly diarion fallouhm iikeiy surface bu.-ru."?'
surh ci..umwccs, the vcry mcaning of pmporrionali. hmcs Ion and we coroc h~cmusly
close 10condoning the Nazi Gman theoq oiXriegraiton rcjeucd axNurmberg and IOrtpudi~ting
thcju cogms prohibition of gcnocide.
lob inegan, for many ycars a senior I~mrcr in milituy hixoy at the British Royal Miliq
Aaacrny, Sandhursf wmmcnu pcxinently on the conscience-shocking chmer of nuclear dcrerrcncc:
Nuclcar deterrence was and is abhorrent to hurnanc snUmmr ...sin=it implics that a nate;
if rzuircd to defend its oun cxincnce, will act with pitiless disregard for the consqucnes
to irrown and itsadver;ary's pwplcs, Linle wonder that .. .dnerrence thcoq evokcs thc
depcn repu_miance,ofien i?ompamoÿ dcvoredto the national defence,even hm professional
war;ion who have shad dieu own blood for heir counme~.~~
And so,addirionally,die inhercnt illogic of nuclw detmna is cxwsed: paradoxidly. salvation kom
cxtincrion by nuclw weapons is to bc found Li thc w-ns of e.xtinctionthemsclvcs.
Tne so-alled paradox of nuclur dctcrrcncewa long agonord bySir Winnon Chuxhill, spck.g
on nuclw dctcrrcnce in the Houe of Commons in 1955: "S* will bcthe dy child oitmor,"
Churchill said, "and survival the twin brothcr of anni4ilarion."u" More re;-ndy, inhis fanous 1982
asay on ?he Fafe ofthe mh, Jonathan Schcli addressd the iacouincncy su&c,iy:
Tnis doctrine [of ouclur dctcrrtncc], in icr,derriaswe!l es itmore gcncrd fonnuiarions,
is diagmnmaric of thc world's failurc ro corne to tcms aitS the nucleu pdicarnent. in i~
rwo imconcilablc purposes clash. The fux purpose is to pcmit the survival of rhespies.
and this is cxprased in the domine's ah of fiighrening cvq.body into hoidin2 oack km
using nuclcar wqns aiall; the serond purpose u to scrvc nafiond ends, and this is
cxprtsscd in thc doctrine's pcmining the defensc of onc's nation and its interta by
chrcatening to use nuclear wcipons. Tne megins arc plascd tû cal1 this clash oWO
opposing purposes in one docninc a pdox, but indiiy i!isa conmdicrion. WCcaonot
borh thraten ounclvcs with sorncr0ing and hopt ro avoid diat samc tbing by making the
Wt-both intend to do ximcrhing and not w do ir . . And sincc thc dctcrrence domine pais rne safey and die terror. and malies die'former depend on die lancr. die world is never
quire sure from day to aay which one is ascendant-if. tided, die distinction cm be
mainuincd in die fim.placc. Ail that die world can know for min is diat aan? moment
die fircballs may arrive. 1 have said that wc do no1 have Nio &, one to blow up
ex~crimenrally and die other ro live on; nor do we .have rwo souls, one for reaning ta daily
lik and die ocher for reacting to the peIOlail life: But neithcr do we have wo wills. one
wi& which we can inend to dmy OUT specics and the odier with which we can intend to
Save ourselves. Ulrirnatcly. we mus al1 live togedia wirh one sou1 and one will on one
cyin.S"
SchelrS assesmient has of coune an obvious legal Impiication: if the inruIOuse nuclcar wupons is
inseparable 6om die domine of detmce, and sucb uw isillegal. thcn the doc&e itsclf munsi&
under the weight of iiiegaiiry.
Tne doarine sinks, too, from tbe essential inutiliry of nuclcar wcapons. As noted by the Cenrer
for Defense Information, a non-govemmmtal organùarion hcodqmmd in Washingon. D.C. and lei
by rctid Rcar Admiral Eugenc 1.Cm11 and othcr hi&-iaaking former ofiicers of the Unircd States
med for+--s
Nuclcar weapons arc sirnul~ancouslythe most desuunive and mon uselcss weapons cvcr
invcnred.... The monstrous devaration and radioactive pollution created by nuclcar wezpons
rcnders thcm useless to achicve any rallonal rnilitary objdve.
Suclcar weapons failed to prcvmt wa~, including the Korcan conflict, Vicrnarn war, and
Iraq's invasion of Kuwair. Nor have nuclcv weapans bcen used in wadarc sincc 1945. Any
use of nuclcar wcapons in a sccnario like the war qaiasi lraq would bc selfdefcakg.
Nuclcar weapons wuld have poisoncd the vny land Kuwaitand Saudi Arabi& thar the U.S.-
led coalitionwas ûying to proka Fallout could also kill one's own soldiers aswell as
countlcss numbm of innmr civilians.
in zddition to king militKily impracrical, nuclur wcipons artself-inhibiting. Any use of
nuclcar weapons would undoubtediy incur widapread public orncry athome and abr~ad..~
Tne negativt irnplicatioiu that thcse bighly pnaicaconsiderarions b& for the principle of miliq
nccssiry is or should be self-evidenr
Indead, thae and related pxactical wnsiderarionsas well as the mon1 and legal dilemmas posai
by the doctrine of nuclcar detcmnce,arcrrsponsiblc for8 palpable pwing raisancc to the n-iv
of nuclear weapons altogetha. Thu. in a -nt publication of the Unired Narions Inninite for
Dismarnent Ratach (WIDIR), Nuc/ear Dererrencc: Problems and PerspecnLcs infk 1990i ,uan
M&-BOS~~, Mexico's Ambassador to cbeUnjud Nations Ofri=. ~en&& is quo& as saying: "The
=' Id.at197-98 (cmphasiseddd).
"" TTr DEFMSE MOmR NO. m. j(1993).
56 .., -.
whole qucnion of deterencc is pzssé. Tne u~holequestion of ~ing to juniiy die possessioi; oi nucie;.
weapons in tcms of dncrrencc, if itever was valid. is ccrrainly no lonoer vaiid n~w."~"
In faa fron a pnctical point of view. the rnyth of nuclcar damcc poses the -mtes; n'sk of
nuciex wx, for Lhesimple mon dia&so lon~ zsthe dalad nuclear wcapon Sraies insisi on rcraining
thci: weapons for deterencc pupaxs. zn cvcr inciersing numbn of othcr prcscntly non-nuclear-
wapons States will bclieve themselves compelledtoqui= such w~+~ns rhemselves; ana yivcn the
porous nanire of prolifention conmls, they will be able to do so. Damce is the ncxy of non-
prolifcntion and prolifention is rhe way to nucleawar. It may bc tbcrefore, that thdhmc
of the nuclcar wcapon States torhcir "right of dame" makcs them not oniy openly potentir1
violators of die laws ofWK (since the efiecOvmess of dcrcmnce mus bebasai on the willingness ro
use nuclcv weapons), but acrual violators of rhe 1968 Tmv on the Non-Prolifcntion of Nuclear
Wilpons (NPT).3y Anicle VI of the NPT places an obligation on thc States Parties to "pursue
neeoriarions ingoodfaith on c5bcrivc mes relacingto esaiion of the nuclc~ ms raceatan cariy
date and to nuclez disarmamen\ and on a on grnaal and cornpletc dimament undcr nicc and
efîajve international conml."2w Whilc negoriations bnuan rtreUnited Saes and foma rcpublics
of the Soviet Union have id uia considerable diminution of dicir ïq~~~vc nuclcar usenals, thm is
mmtiy no indication of any funirernovemcnt toward nuclcar disamamaif rnuch lcss gcneral and
compicte disannament. To the con-, the adhermce u,deurrmm, by both sidcs, makes any nich
movemcnt impossïole.
Tne point was well put by the rrprcsentativc of the HolSoc, H. E. ArcY~ishop Resaro Martino,
spcaking beforc the Fint Cornmina of the United Naions on 25 Ocrobe: 1993:
'-Y IJNiDP..93/26,XI89 (1993). AS shouldbe -ci of acodooc cornpnsed d y oi nazionai
scarfcy raiha àm le@ expz4 no1cvcy pmicipanr in rhc confcuc ma producd rhis volne shard
hàarsador Marin-Bosch'svicw. Nevdelas. Ru notmorrSy rha suc5 rcfmca tniaw -rZE IO bcfound
in rhc prwedings of the w&rmcc (168 pqa long rc the following:
ProfessorScrgeSur. DepuryDirclor of WIDIR: 'De jure. nuclu.weq>ons main tùe onlw-ns
of massdcmunion which no1[rrprasly) prohibitai zzl& to a cm& mm\ afier rhconclusion
of thcChernicalWcaponsConvention. .. .However. rhc cradicarionof chcz3cawcapcs cmor be
.uaicd wirha commio mgnition of thc Icgirimaq ofriuci~~ wupos." id ar8 and 9.
RuimundoGomIa, Counrdlor, PCTUDWV Musion of Chiic forhe UnifedNmionr Q7c.e. G-.
&kg ofdumcacc inthe contcxrof Arricl2(4)ofrhe UnitcdNarionsCharter:'WChavero bcvq
acful in mg to debe &e thrczt ofrhcuse of foru whiq by tbc way isalso prohïoitcdby rhc
UNGA Resolution 2625TXXV wbicb idzntifia thc wvcn morc important principis of rhc Unitcd
NarionsCharta, ad which has hm tbe l~ai piot of rim rhcchz%zzr of pincipics of iurcogm.
Itcanot be dcrogaxcd.' Jd aiIji.
"' Concludcd1 luly 1968. Entd into fom. 5 Marcb 1970. 729 U.S.T.S. 161. Onc hwdd fLi (150)
-Stara arc parfyto this inrmimmt as of tu/n&g.
' Fornatnims on thc imponaoc of 'gd faithmclaus~ in hicnarionai qezrncnü. SC.Condir~onrof
Aahirsion o/oSraferuMembnsn!~ inrk LinifedNaions fArrici4 ofCher) (AdvisoryOpinion). 1948i.CJ.
57;Temple ofPrenh Yi- (Cam&aïa v. Dailand). 19611.CJ. 6;Nonh Sea Conrinerud Wf (FmcralRcpuolic
of Gcrma.~yiDc.markand Fdnal Republicof GerrnmyMrbclan&). 1969 1.CJ.j, 46- .. -
The new pen'odof hino- the world has enrend enables hsh insighrs inro the iunaamental
policies of nuclear detcrrcncc thai have forso long hcld sway. Today. there is no logiul mon
for the rerention and funher development of sucb caraclysmic.fw-power. Nuclear rcducrions
no1 cnough. Sccuriry lies in the abolition of nuclear weapons and the mn-nrhening of
internationala^.^''
The viewpink howcvc:, is incrczsiugly ernbraccin the ~;cular rswclas the sacd omer. Mr.Les
Aspin, Unired Starcs Presiaenr Bill Clinrofist Secrctay of Defense and formerCbairman of the
House ~.med Scrviw Commiaec of the Unird Stara House of Rcprcsenta&es, ~kssed a
-duarion wmmcncemenr audiene a<the Massachuscm Inxituu of Technology in June 1992 as
follows:
Nuclear weapons wcre the big cqualircr-the means by yhich the Unired States qudizcd the
military advanrage of irs adversaries. But now the Sovia Unihascollapscd. The Unired
rates is die biggrn wnvenuonal powcr in the world. Thm is no longer any nced for die
-- United Siarcsinhave nucicar wcapons u anqualircr againn 0th- powcrs.
If we werc ro gel another craat rhar mec wand, we'd wave R in a nanoseand. In faq a
world widiout nuclear wcapons would dly be bener. Nuclcar weapons arc niIl rhe big
cqualizcr bur now the Unircd Suarisnot the cqualk bur the eq~a1ui-e.~~
%m. OPINIOJURI.5 SUPPORT TESE PROBlBlTlON OF W USE OF NUCW WEAPONS
This Memonal has anemprcd 10 show tha~ despire much flotNng of the legal -inu on the
conduc: as wellas rhc initiationwar ovcr the ycar;, thme mains today, as lately dmonmated by
the world community's homr a!the ongoing carnage in Bomia-H-ovina, an inheritcd commimicnt
to -dards of humane condun witbin Gich belligvcnu can and mut operate. It bas anempced to
show also rhat thae Icgastanaardsof humane condun in time ofwar (thejusin bello) mun:berrad.
by any rationalO: rwsonable intc-on, to prohïoit the use-wbiy cven theth. of use-of
nuclcar wmpons.
It mains now ro wnfim, in the absencc of any mty applying these srandardto the use of
nuclcar weaponsper se,that these intemarional bumanitarian les of arwuflia arcundemood and
Mdely acceptcd, as a rnaner of law aswelas of moralityinprohibit theuseof nuclcar wcapons(as
bas becn argua! above); and,furdicr, that the physicai use ofmcw w-a!Hirushima and Nagasaki,
toeether with thcir psychological use by the nuclear weStates in tbe cxerciw of their damencc
policies, does nor erodethis opiniojmis-nor, thcrcfom, Checonscquent legal judgmat that the use of
nuclur wcapons isprohibitcd under international Law.""
"' PressRele~:. P~mt Obsmcr Missio nfth:Holy Sc;ro th:Uniud Nariom. 2Daaik 1993.
"' il maybe thatan cxaemely midi. mtaify "clch-.' wcapoustd in a tntaily conoollable fashion
in a purely military wnten posing no danger to civilians or the covirunment would be10escape,
tic manifoldju in bel10pronibitions diwusscd above. No suce w-n bar yet kn inventcd and no
such sccnario has eve: bccn cncounrcrsl in a rd-lmiliq conrcxt. De minimis non-curai lu, no1
cvcn as an exception to a gencral rule. - A. The international humanienan nilei of armed connicr art aidel? undersiood and
accepted to prohibit rhe useof nuclear wmpons as a rnaffcr of law
~uably the single mon pmursive point to be made in this wnnecrion is the fac:L\~L in rhe
ncarlv fiiiy yca since Hiroshima-Nagasaki. thm is lhle in the audiorirarive literarurc ro indicare,
eihcr explicitly or implicitly, thzt nuwcawns andwdirr arcnot or should nor be prohibitcd bv
the-humanim.an niles of armedconflia Which should corne rc no surprise. It is, for example.
n&inely diEcult toimagine the Unid Stata not dsrying rc a heinous violation ofjin bel10ui
atomic a&ck by Japan againn the United Statesor orher Allie. lcrrnory during WorlWK ii .nd
notwithnanding the "saturation bombiigs"visitd by Amcriw fow a orber rima during thatimïolc
wnfljcc. Writc Fa Meymwi~ and Sandmon ira minal -y: "A pmprrive of mlc rcversal is
bclpnil in onenring our undestanding of rhe pmmt s!aw of nuclear w-nry aod matce-ic
docuine"'w-and, it ma? beaddd, of intcmarional law.
In faci, thce is much to indicatcthar the use of nuclcar weapons. cnuinly any knom uricipatd
use, is and shoul& pimhibited by the humanitarianila of armedconflict-althou0 sornnimes. as
bciits a lcgal wrnmunity lacking LImuaid cornmand and enforcementnnrcturrs, one mun rely for
midencc morc on inference than iuoppsite. For exampl: one mot ovcriook thattinited Nations
Gcncral kscmbly Resolution 95(I) of 11 Deccmbcr 1946, which mgnid the piinciples of
international law fonnaliwd in the Nuremberg Chancr (kicludmg the defmirion of a "war crimees
cmbracing the "wanton desuuction of ciria, toGs or villages, or devasmion not junified by miliruy
n-siry"; and of a "crime agains humaniry" as involving "inhumane a06 wmmincd sains my
civilian population"), wu adopted by unanimous vorc abouia.u and a half @er the Kivmt of the
nuclear ee in July-Augus 1945.u" Nor cm one overlook, forfurdieexamplc, ha! the four 1919
Geneva wnvmrions on the humane wnducr of wxXY have bcn the subj- of widespresd and
csxn~ially unqualiiied adoption hm four to fiycan airer theadvent of the nuclcar age rortiepresenr
duy. Exccpt for zhe few self-intd nuclear powm th& as ctriicr àixuss& have xiughr-
imperidy and quably in violationof ihc law of wua-to exempt nucl- wcapons hm the 1977
Protcrcol Additional No. 1 to the 1949 Geneva convcntionqW tbereis no knowa eviomc thar any
Srarc, least of alany non-nuclcar wcapons State, cvs bas wntated that rhae 1949 convmnons
prohibit irnplicitly, even if they do norpmhiinicqlicthe use of nuclear wcapons. Not evm al1the
decland nuclear wcapon States (mcludingnow Belanis, Kzdbmn, and Ukraine) apF u,have done
so. As one internarional law scholar observcd 1983,rcfeg to the undentandings adoprcdby the
Unircd Kingdom and rhe Unircd Starcspurporiing ro exempt nuclear wcapons from the 1977Protocol
Additional No. 1to the 1949 Gmwa conventions, "[nlot one non-nuclcar wcapon Starc ha followed
suit and none appears inclhcd to do so. Tbc non-nuclcar wcapon States, it ems, arc variouly
commintd to the wholesale prohibition of nuclcar weapons or, in the alternative, to dieir rgulaiion
'" U.N.Doc. W-36 (1956).
"' Su.~runote47. ..
accoraing to the laws of war mon wnrly a.riculated..""'Validating this oàservario&Y, for
exmple. numerous pronouncemenu of rhe mcmàer Stara of dieNon-Aligncd Counmes rssening,inrer
olio, heir perception of the wsu and dangers of the nuclcar amis race,thcir wnccm to achieuc gcncral
and cornpletc disamamen\ and "dieu rejjecrionof ail thcones and concepts purpoIOjuni- the
vssession of nucl- wupons and theu use under any'circumsfan~es""~ which, the? hav~peatedi~
mainuined, "would also be a crime qainn hurnanity."-
Fomnately, one necd not rely exclusively on inferencc to prove th%mgoinmade here. Tnerc
mplc cxplicit sipals to subnanriatc a far-flung conscasopiniojmfs bar the useof nuclca
wEpons would, excepi possibly in the case of die detanation oasyet uninventcd "cleui" nuciev
device in an emmcly limited bditional badefielsclthg,violare the humanitarian nila of amed
confiin. Itis, indd, for rhis very monthaf one som&a hem the spuriousargument thatthese
le-zl ,u]es do nor intcrdin the use of nuciur wcapons buse they p&e the invention osuch
' Pangaph 8 of die Finacommuni~uSof rhe Mcrring of Minisrcn for Foreign Anairs and Huwk of
Delcgafiom ofrhe Mmunuif ofNon-Aligned Counrriesrotk fon'psccond session ofthe UnitedNmionsgeneral
Assemb(~,hcld in New York 6om 5 to 7 Onober 1987. rcprinred i11 THE THIRD WORLD WrTHOLoT
SLIPERPO-: Tif€ COUECED DOCUMPm OF THE NON-AUm CO- 549(0.Jaakowiücb.K Sauvaot
Br1.Wck &. 1993).
lY Pwh 47 oftheF@en of rk Chirm qfrk Eigii,h Coqmm ofHendr ofSlme orC-mm!
ofNon-Aligned Counrriebclda: Hm. Id SC~>LP ;986CnTrimed in11iliE fwu, WOW WiTHOUT
SWEWOWEKS: COUEzTD OF TIiENON-AIJGNED COUNlXES 168 ((0. Jmkowiuch. K.
Sauvant& JWcbc: cds. 1993)m b 52 oftheFinclcommune of the Minisfeinl Meaing of CO-
ordi~ling BU~CFZoftk Movemenr ofhion-Aligned CoirnrheldrnNiasi4 5-10 Scpvmk 1988rqriwd
in 11 Tif€THIRD WORLD WITHOUT SUPEWQWEU: % CQLUCïEû DOCLIMEITn OF THE NON~AUG~~
Conm 549((O. Jankouiü& K. Sauvan& J.Webcr 1993);W b 8 of meFiml commvniqliCof rk
Minisrniol Merring of rk Cwrdi~inBurem of the Mm& ofNorrAligncd Counniu.heldaxHm, 17-
19 May 1989.reorinrcd i12W- TETLOWOU WTHOUT SVPEXWWERS: THE CO- Docl- OF
TE NOK-AucMD COW 549 ((0.dowil~ch. K Suml & J. Wek cds.1955). wc?ons or orhcm.isc fzii IO mention rhcn by. n~e."" To avoid rhc auiho~urir~cncss of &e
ansensur, the very relevane of the humzniruian mles of&cd conflict to nuclawup-. is aenied.
1. Opjnio juris asoprcsscd in Unued fiafions Gencraf Asscmbly rcrolubns
md simiiar qwcisions ~fpublic pdiq
AD carly exampie is 1961 United ?kions Gened Assernbly Rtsolurion1653(?XI) aoclaring "the
usc of nuclcu and diemonuciczr wcapns" Io be (a) "wnw u,tne spi rilem uid aimsof the
United Nations ana,as such.e dim viola~ion of rhCb of the United Nations," (3"wnw CO
be mies of international lawand to the iaws ofhumanity,' and (c) "a crime -ainsi maakind and
civilirarion."'"Ir is mie thZ ~~~l~rions of the U.N. Guicral Asscmbly are nor presÜtnptiveiy
binding on theU.N. mcmbcrship bsause hcy do nor "legislate" inthe commonly undernoo domesùc
Iaw scnsc of that rem.Bur thisfau dcm not dmy tbeir pmbiry as expressions of jun'dical op&ionl'"
or, rr Professor Rosalyn Higgins of the London School of Economia has put if-as "dclarationsof
conwiously legal (for example- and chxi by Profasor Higgins-the.Gacd Assembly's
1946 fimarion of the Principles of InternationaLaw Rcwpiztd by the Chmer ofNuremberg
fnbunal;"" for mother, rhe Arsanbly's 1970 Declaration on Principles of Internarionai Law
Conmrning Friendly Relarions and Cuomtion Among Sacs in AuarOance WiUi thc Chancr of the
* Thc spuriou nwrc of Ibi srgumat ha kn noted by Rofasor Wcxan as follows:
Thc aqunmt [bai thc humaniwan rula of armcd coniiia do not apply kusc they pr&c the
invation of nuclcar w-ns or ohmvise fai lo manon tha by namel ismily dissiscd. As a
varianrof die spuriou thais thai nudcar wqanuses8c wiLioutIcgd consPwr in rhcbswce of an
qlicit ucaiy banitfai lohccdthe multifd nz%m of the ~aaiooal law-ming syxcm. Qkiag
a viov of lcgd process rharno one would d8acc,~ in Iac domestic spherc.ormvc, legal rula
typicailyan inrapratd tomwm~ manas notp=ci£idy mcciriond-ofrm nor cvn contanpl&-by
theu formulaton.... AS =cd by rhe1945Nurcmbcrg Tniund whui dled to adjuaicuc wmplahts
about previouslyundefina'aima qainn hmnaniry" and orha aima, '[die law of war]isnot natic,
bur by wntinud sdapfauon followsthe nceds afchangingworld.' Fially, confrrminthc ürspoinS
the well horn [de] Marra Claw ... was formulard ucacly tocovcrsuch lacunae . .. Wcapans
and laaio no1dealr witb specifically in the variou tazhzulating the laws ofwa.thus runain
noncdiclor wnmaincd by thc principla of intanHional law.inciuding thc countcrjaizncing principla
of humaaiiy anrnilic aacrrity. and-no1 to be forgo--%= dinara of thc public wascicacc.'
'" GA. Res. 1653,U.N. GAOR 16thSus,Supp. No. 17. rn4, UN. Doc.M5100 (1962).
"' Obsma John Norton Moore: -Gad ?!bly roolutionz takco donc. .. can be cMdence of
intcrîaiional law;thcm. insrcasof popuiampr;uu, pcrna35rcficcdm coawnnrs or cvc id in crcrPog
ir.... 1.N. Moore.fiucleriWeqor~ riiL7U: Wzing S~megic SrabiiirinNW W-&HS AND
LAW 51. 53(A.Miller& M. Fcivcidn &. 19%).
:" G.A. R6. 95. In Sas..z IIG, U.N. Doc A136 (196). -Unired NationsuY). And the mort is this mie when the General Asxrnbly ttsolurion is aàoptedb'.
a subsmrial worldwide wnsensus, as happened with Resolution 1653 o.'Y' and wiicn the
essenrial substance of the rcsolution is repcated ovcr and over aasalso happened wirh Resolution
1653(XVI), and not jun once but axleast ei@run tima since 1961.- cach rime by incrcrsingly
iargcr majoriri~."~
lntcnational law rcmgnizcs that the intcprsion of a may bc affccte bd the suuswuen;
practicc ofthe panies:O i~ including voring in the ~cneA Asscmbly in favorof one intcrprctrrjoor
-
'-"Supra note 100.
'" Rcsolurion 16530 was pas4 by a vote of 510 20 with 26 abnmtions.hich sug&aÿ a much
mallcr cons- than in faa was rhe case.s Chichele Fmfcssor of Public IntanaùonalLaw ar:xford
Univcrsiry IanBrownlic poin~ ou&
[t]hc only votcm agahs the rwlution fiomficd and Asia was rhar of NaionaliChina The hin-
Amcrican.Stata largely abnained,as also did the Scandinavianrates.Ausui& and çcnain politid
associaes -ofthe War in AsihWu is iotarning about thc voIipancm ish.owcvc, the facthu Sues
rcpracnting a varicry of palitical arsociatioas are to befound in the majTbisywrrtdm& fio.on
the 'non-aligncdAfican and Asian Sratcs.somAfim andAsian Sma with Watcrn laingr suchzs
Nigeria. Lebanon ad Japq Mexico .. .and-the Communin Sma. Mmks of NATO (a= fiom
Denmark and Norway), tognhm with Aumaliq h1and;New tciland Spain [unda Franco].SOL Afiw
thrm Cmnal Ammcan rcpublia wd Narioadin China. voud qainn thc raolmion.
1.Brovmlie, Somr Lego!Asprcls ofrhe Useofflucfenr R.nom, 14IKT'L & COMP. L. Q. 427. 438-59(1965).
in oher words, exopt for rhc United Sma ad other self-inrp-ared nuclurwcapons Sma and Statu
sipificantly dcpcndent upon rhe United Suamon of be world vorcdfor the rwlurion.
.
See.cg.,Raolunon on the Non-useof ~oru in Lntmarionai Rclarions and Permanent Rohïoitioo of the
Usc ofNuclcar Weapons,GA. Ra 29j6, U.N. GAOF!.20th Sas, Supp. No. 31, a5,UN. Doc':.~/g7j0(1972)
(72 in favo4,o<kse4 41 abn&rions); Resolution on Non-use ofNuclur Wwpons and Revention ofNuclw
Wcapons, C.A. Ra. j3nlB. j3 U.N. GAOR. Supp.No. 45, a 48. U.N.Doc. M3145 (1978) (10; infavor. 18
oppose4 18abnmrions); RcsoluriononNon-use of Nucicar Wapns 'ad hvenrion of Nuclcu Ws, GA. Ra.
34/83G. 34 U.N. GAOR Su~p. NO.46, at 56. U.N. Doc. Ua4146 (1979) (112 in fivor. 16 opposed, 1'
absentions); Roolutioo on Non-use of Nuclcar W-ns and hcntion of Nucla War. GA. Ra. 351152D.
35 U.N. GAOF!.Supp. No. 48. H 69.U.N. Doc. AB5148 (1980) (II3 m favor. 19 oppose414 sbncntios);
Rcsoiu?iononNon-w of Nudcar Wcqwns ad Prcvcotion of Nucier Wax. GA. Ra. 361921.36 U.N. CAOR
Supp. Na. 51.ar 64.UH. Doc A136151(1981) (121 infavor. 19oppose4 6 abnenuans);Rwlution on the
Convmrion on Ihc Rohibnion of thUseof Nuclcar W-ns (wit hnnacd Dmï Gmvcrition on theProhibition
of rhe Uw of Nucicar W~poas), GA. Ra. 45/59B, 45 U.N. GAOR. tu117, UN. Doc Al49779 (1990)(125
in favor. 17 oppose4 10 abmtiaos);Raolvion oo tbe Coovmrion on the Prohibition of the Uu of Nucleu
Wcapans (wirh anneredDr& Conventionon rbe P;o&birionof bc UseofNucirar W~pans). CA. Ra. 46D7D.
46 U.N. GAOS u 127,U.N. Doc. AJ441674(1991) (122in &or, 1oppxd. 22 sbnmtiorrs)Sccdro tbe full
list sec Appcodu B.
=' lt is helpianoterhst the vota cm in of<hsc manypan-196 1 iuolurions mmingly included
vota by Stara thafbad eithc; voed agaim or abraincd in ibc voteoo Rcsolutio0.1653includin$Balivir
Brazil. Chile. China. Colomb&na RJ~ Ecuador. El Salvador, G-al& Haiti. HondurasIra n.daysir.
Niquq Pakisran. Panama. P-y, Pm. Philippines. Thailan4 Uruguay, end Vmczziela (man! of thCu
-
counmes proxinue to. rnd dc;>cnacn04 the Unitcd Srara). snober. 1i rhus is fair to conclude inat Gened Assernbly and simil- msolurions inrerprering the
conventional and cunomary laws of war also amount IO a pacricc thar may clariS end scnle kg-1
issues. As Judge Jcssup pointcd out in his dissatine opinion in the South Rrur 4fiico Cases
(1966),'~'the judicialtask of the Coun, as in that case, is ta interpet the inmumenu pmscnrcd to
it(e.g,,die U.~. Chaner) 'by applying contcmprary international wmmuniry srancixns for which
raremens in General Pssembly rcsolurions pmvide proof.''"
any evenL les there bc any doobr &ut the vaiidiry of the opinio jurirexpmsed in the
aionrncnrioned General Asscnbiy rcsoiutions, ir uinmuaive tanoie the pieasof ihe rnemèerSrnes
of the Non-Aliped Movemnl, manyof thun sponsors ofthe Gmcral Assnnbly rcsolurions. rqaxadly
qpeziing for nuclear disarmament on rbe punds, infer alia, bat %e use of nuclear weapons would
. . .bc a crime ~ainn h~maniry."~ Pahcularly norewonby in this connedon isanspccially
forcefui srarcmentIOthe Unircd Narions made by Lndoncsiaon bchalf of the Non-Aligna! Movcmcnf
in Novcmber 1993. Srared Ambtsdor Nugmho Wisnumw:
The advent of nuclear weapons basaddcda new andfi_ehrcningdimension to ihe potentiaIiues
for world ca-phe. Their possession conninites an unpdenred th to human socicry
andcivilization. For what isar de is the mon fundamental nghf of humansand nations,
which is the nght to their vcry swivaiDespire thae self evidmt and principal concems, rbe
ma-iorpwers have show a callou diigard for rhe global calamitous wnwquences rhu
would surely cnsue the use of nuclear weaFns. . . . mhelr use as a deliberare polirical
dccision mains a 6ightening possibiliry for thpai mc.ioriIyof nations.. .. Hençe the
immoraliry and illegaliry inhexnr in the pmcnt situaticm no longer bc perpemed.""
South Wesr Afiica(Eh. v.S. Ai-.) (iik.v.S. At.)(Smnc Phasc),1966 1.C-I.6
"7 Simiarly.&csolearbimor. Profaxir RCnC-Jan Wuy, inrhc1977 dit4on baw~ Tc- @ers-
Pe~oleumand tbc Libyan Arab Rcpubliclookcdto tbevota of Srya on UnitedNatjonshcral Asscmbly
ruolutionsIO bclpdaamioc &c cwornuy inrmiariooaiaw wpligblc to naionaiidons of forcippmm.
SeeTpcaco ûwrsuu Pmoicwr Co. v LibyunArnt Repblic, Awardon theMenu of 19Jmuary 1977.17 h7'L
Lffi~ WTS. 1. 30(1978). A notable uidnotcwody domaric Law i.ce in which Gad Aswmbly
raolurions baveprovidedproofofaateqmrary inmazioaai wmuniry sandsrds may bcfoundintbccase of
Filin~gi v.Penn-Irda,630 F. 2d 876(1980)whmin bc Unircd St.zs C4un ofAppeaLrfor rht Sand Cii1
hcldtbu iom war prosibitcdundc inmationai law.ar,cvidmced in pan by W.N. dŒfrraiions[which] Ue
sipifiml baausc rhcy sp&@ pi& pmision the obliga!ioa~ornnibc: m.ons undc theCher.' Id.
ai88;.
"' Secnota 246-247 and smimpanying te- sqrc. ..
'' SUemcncbeforc&c Fim Conmi- of thcFm-Eiai hion of mc Gmcral hsscrnblyw Wf of
Non-Alipcd Counma on Drr? RcsolirnoNC.lf48L25. 19 h'ovc'k 1993. Pr;ssR-lesc ofthe Pcrm?JK3t
Missionof rhcRcpublic oflndonaia 10rhcUnitedNanoa.
..
6; .. . .
11is inmuniveIOnote, too. the hisrory surrounding Genenl.Assenbly Resolu2145 of19 Dcri'bcr
1968 on Respcci for Human Ri&= in Armed Conflicrr:~. Adoption of the resolurion involved a
rcquen by the Soviet delesarion for the delerion of a provision "that the genenl prwazia.pjvof
to nuclcar and similar wcapons." Tue dcletion was allowed, but only ovcr the objccrions of the Unitcd
Stares rcprcsnrative who maintaincd bar the laws and p~cipies of war "apply as well to riie use of
nuclcar and similar wapons," and only on the und-ding tharthe remainimgprovisions would apply
regudless of rhe nam of the amicd confii~ "or the kinds of .wcapons u~cd."~'" To this may bc
addcd rhe spirit and subrmcc, if not the prailac:, of die Final Documentof die United Narions
Gcncral ksernbly Spccial Session on Dis~mamcn~ adopud 30 June 1978.>'Y
2. Opinio jurisas aprc~scd L?jdkiai aicirions
Anotha irnponant expression of opiniojwir thar wnfnms mat rhc bumanitarian rules of amicd
conflin work to prohibit nuclear wcapons adm is found in the widely acclaimed ShimoCae,
a suit brought by five indiviauris against the Japanac govanment in 1955 tomvcr damages for
injurieslleged?y sunalied fiom rhc aromic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and dacided by the
Disrin Court of Tokyo on D&cm'm 7, 1963,the trvmiy-smnd annivmary of the Jqanae nuprise
anack on Pearl Harbor.'o' The case is irnporwt botb forN thid-parry decision-making genre, a
wcll-knovm scarciry in the intemational lcgal order, and ffaatthaL,safar asis known, irist5e
only ancmpt by any court of iaw anywhercIO wrrstle with rhelcgal implications of nuclear &are.
Uhimatcly holding char the claimank bad no lepl bvis for mvering dvna+s hm the Japanae
govemmcnt (because of Japan's waiva of war-injury claims in its 1Pm1 Tm? with the Allicd
Powers), the court also rcachcd the principal substantive conclusithe United States' bombings
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were conauy to intrmzxional lawin gcneral and the laws of wauur in
bello )n particular. The dccision wv nevcr appealcdby the five plaintiffs, apparcntly buthey
wm sufiicimtly satisficd by the fmding of illcgaroIn the INgation lapse. Bm neithcrwas it
appc-Id by the Japanae govmat cvcn tboughTokyo had contendcd that the atomic bombs wm
ncw inveririonsand for this -onnot exprcssly covd by &e anventional or cusromq rules of the
intemationd law of war, sincc rheir sas not qrrssly forbiddes th. argue dmm in the face of
Japan's diplornatic protm at die rbne of the bombings)wutino legal bais upon whichCOprmnise
a claim for compensation.
The Japanesc govcrnmenr's argument wu vigorousiy rejad by the coun. Ln an opinion rhat
accords with thebat nadirioos of judicial conwwativixn, namcly, n~wing the dispositive issue to
the p t ~ acnt possible, it dalt not wi-h the legality of aiomic w-nas such, onlywirh the
23 U.N. GAOS Supp. No. 18,a 50,U.N. Doc. hÏ218(1968). Se dso U.N. Gad Aswmbly
Raolutionon Baric principiforthcRorrrion of Civiiian PopulaioinArmed Confiins.GA. Ra. 2675.
25U.N. GAOR. Supp.No. 28.ai76.U.X. DK. A18028 (1970).
=' AS inUnird SUS m't of theAU Ford, Wra'4AnONN UW-THE COhDUCT OF hR.-
CDMUCi N ALR OPEUTIONS5-17 n.18(AE'.IIO-3 1976).
"' GA. Rcs. 5-1012 ,.N. GAOR. lm Spid Sa., Supp. HO.4, a 2, UN. W. AlEl014(1978).
reprint&in 17hT'L LEC. MA^. 1016(1978) and2 ihmAllOSM LAW AND WORU ORDm: BASIC
DXLr?.mTS (B:Waion ai 1994)as -nt U.C.6.
'"
Reprinte id[1964J]AP.AMI. LKT'LL. 212(EnglisbPXLS~.52 W'L L. RLls-626 (1964). legzliy of their use -ainsHiroshima and Nagasaki. The wun's principal fmdings arc convenienrly
surnnarized by Richard A. Falk the Alben G. Milbank Proicssor of intcrnarionLaw :rd Prjctice a:
pnnceron Univcrsiry asf~llows:'~'
(1) Inrernationallaw forbids an indiscriminare or blind amcl; upon an undcfendcd ciy Hiroshima
md Nae -zsaki wcre undefended; thercfore, thmacks werc ilieeal.
(2) Inremarional law only permirs,if ardl, indiscriminate bombing of a aefenaed ci. if ir is
junified by miliG necasiv, no miliw n-ip of suincien1 m-inide wuld be
dunomted hcrc; tbercforc the aaacks wm illegai.
(3) inrmarional law as irbas specifically developed to govcrn amid bcrnbmhcnt might bc
mctched to permit zone orrn bombing of an uicmy ciry in which miiiw objenives werc
concznûated; thm wu no concentration of rnilirary objaivcs in either HLroshiia or
Nagasaki; th&foh, no legal bis cxim for confading tha the atornic arfadis mi@ bc
ailowable by malogy to zone bombing, husc evm tbe laner isle@, if at dl, dicd
againsr an axa wnraining a con~narion of milirartargers.
(4) International law prohibits the use of wqmns end belligc;en~meansthat produu unnecrssary
and cruel foms of sufiering as illmtcdby the prohibition of lethai poisons and ban&& the
arornic bomb causa sufitring fa.mor- severe and encnsive than the prohibired wcqmns;
thmforc, itis illegal to use the atoLFc bomb ro dk belligercni objccives:
(a) that is. the dury to ~6ain hm causing unn~sary suficring is a principle of
inrernational law by dich al1beliigmr aniviry istesci,whcrher qxcificzlly rcgulard
or nog
(b) that is, specific prohibitanbody a wiacr principlc and rhis principexunas tnnew
wcawns developrncnu not fo-n a!the timc wiin the sp&ific prohioitiwas agn=d
-upon.
hponantly, the Shimodo coun was advised by th^^ aircinguishcd Japanae professon of
international law, appointcd by them beause of their wmpeence to andyzc the lecal problms zf
issue. Acçordingly,rhough conmporary knowledge about the devasaring cfisü ofnuclcar wcaponry
probably would have caustd thewurt and iudiniriguished advisors to byctmore cizumrpcn aboa
the boundarjcs of rnilitary n-si.,this solejudiciai anernIOrs~ss the hurnanimran mies of annd
confiict in rclarion to the use of nuwcapons in warÏan: &es on addcd opiniojmir sipificance.
3. Opinio joris ascqrnscd in&< whgs of "highly q@udpublium"
Cornplcmcnringthe forepoing is theopinio jmir that is tbc found in"ihe whings of tbe mon
highly qualified publicins" hich, mgdc wifb judicial dsisioos suchasthe Shimodn dacisionjus
describ~d,'~~this Coun irainhoM by h.cie 38 of irsgovcahg mv to qpiy "assubsidir?'
'" RiFalk.7neShimodo Ccre: A Le-goApprnircl oris Atorn~cAnnck vponH~rosiiir~aidNaga~ab, 59
AM. J.W'L L. 759, 776(1965).
-
"' Ge iexlaccnmpanyingnotes 246aod 247.r~,orrc. -. - .-
mcan for the detcminarion of rules of law." IVhile these teinemphasis and nunc,aqd
while a few dissenr bom the thesis of this Mernorial al~ognher,~~ in theouispmtly
dubious. grounds tha~ rhough widely undemlndbc globally dcirabliring. nuclcv wupart
n-ssary for global rabiliry:the van majoriry of the scholars who have addrcthe topic
clwly favor the vicw rhit rhe use of nuclcar wupons gencraIly would violarc the humanirarian mlcs
wnflicrA pxial lining is al1bat is possiole ber,:
of
C. Builde& M.Gnubad THE ~TEWATIONAL L*W OF AFAED CONNCT: BUUT UT IO FOR
THE CO NO^ OF ASSURED DESTRUC~ION (Rand Publicarion Sen'a R-2801=FF1981); F.
Kalshovm, CONSi7A!JJE ON THE WAG~G OF WAR (1987)R Lific& R.Fa ~NDGCNSIBL-
WEAWNS(1982); E. Meyrowiq PROHIBlTlON OF NU- WEAPONS ï: RELEVANQ OF
IM-mno~a (1990); B. R6llTHE ~PACT OFNm WEAWNS ON immwnow
-4770NS AND ~NEWATIONAL bW (1982); G. Schwarrcnbagchn LEW OFNW
W~NS (1958); NSin& Nm. W~NS AM, ~~EF.N~oPw LAW (1959);N.Sin& &
E. McWhinney. NU- WEcSONSAND ERNA NATION LAL (2d cd. 1989)J.Spai&c, Thi
ATfJMICPROBIEH (1948);C.We~amanUy,N U WEAWNS ANû SCIENnnC &SPONSIBILIN
(1987)D.ArDess, TneInremmionalLaw ofAnd ConJiu m Lighi of ConremporqDumence
Srrategiec Ern.09 Promires or MeminRrrraini?,30 MCGu L. J. 89 (1984); 3. Bleimaier.
Mem Weapoiu and Crimec Agoim! Hummiry under Irilcnrmional i55, CA^. hW. 161
(1990); F. Boyle,eRelcycmcrof InremmionnLaw IOrhe"Pmadox" of Nuclear Dermence. 80
Nw. U.L. W. 1407(1986);1.Bruunlie, SomLegd +etc ojrk Use of Niltlem Waporrc. 14
WL & COMP.L. Q. 437 (1965)E.Csmcn, Tm nlegalip of Nuclem Weqoiu. 3U. TOL L.
-. RE. 89 (1971);B. Chimni, Nrrdem Weqom ami hemariond Lmu: Some Refieuiorrcin
hTE?iUTlONAL hW IN TRANS~ON: ESUYS Di MEVORY OFJUDCE NAGENDU SLNGH 137 (R.
Pathak& R Dhokalia 4s. 1992);ConviBe Legaliry ofNuJear Annr ünder Imernmional iuw,
- DiWsON 3.WL L.271 (1987)R FalkE,. Mqmwin & J. Sandcrsoq Ndem Weqaiu mid
In~erzldionh, 20&UN J. LKT'L.541 (1980); 1.Fn4 Inremmionalh Prohibiting the
Firsl 'Use of Nuclem Wqonr:&ring Prohibiriom m h~ional Lmu, 12 BU PUCE
PROPOSAI3 21 (198r- nLcNuciear Collision Cowse: Cm hrrrnmionLaw be of Help?.
14Dm. 3.LIT'LL. & POL'Y97 (1985)H.FujitaFi& UseofNucfem Wcqoom: Ndm Suategy
vs.Inlemarionah. 5 KANSrJU. REV.L.& POL 57 (1982); ThePre-AromicLmvof Wm
and iüAppliuibili10Nuclem Wmjare, 6KANSA U. W. L & POL 7 (1985); Srarrrs of
Nuclem Waponc inInrernmionaLmu. 7 Ku&u U. W. L & POL 1 (1986); N. GriLegd
Challenges ro rhe LiniredKingiNuclem Defence Policy, 198PUB. L.541 witcr 1989);
Kennedy, A Crirwue o(miredSrmcr Nuclem Deterence Tïo~, 9 BROOKLY J.1KT'LL. 35
(3983); M. Lippman, NucIem Feqoncmtd Inreman'ondLaw: Towmds o Declmmion on the
Se. cg.H.ALmond Dclareuc rmdA Poliq-ûria-PPoJpeiniconrhkgdi9 ofNuclupWcaporrr.
inNU- WWNS ANDLW 75 (A. MilleM Fcbrcidccds.1984);J.NMooreqro no= 249,ar51;
W. Reinan,Dcraruiccmdlmmxziomd Lm: iN u WWNS 'S hW 12(A.Mler & M.Feinrcidc
&. 1984). SealsR LisleRemmk: h'uciezWcponr-A Conr-iue ApproachIOTrq Inrcprumion,
9 BR~KLYNJ. LKT'1. 275(1983)E Ronow, Lcme a Lgolkir forNuclem Dcro-rcncTieormd
Po/iCy?inLAW AhIlTiâN W DEBAE -PROCEri)CNGOFTHE CANADlANCONEPB4CE 0.INUQEAR
WEAPONS AND THELAW 175p. Cohm k M. Gouin&. 1988).
-A7
See,e.g1.N.Mwre. Fra ool250.ra53.Thcdubiouseiry ofcbcPgummr is madernmifaby
rhei-nercnrinsv&iliya nuclcu medandprolifcaring wor14bncfly uinsidcrcd &Vii(B)ruprc. Prevenrioncxd Punishinentojtne Crime ojfv'uclear iiumuricide. 8 A. Lh"i'~6Cosp.
L./&W. 183(1986)-, FirsrSrniireXuclecr Weapor~ariuirrsri/iaO;yf Civilrts~slancc
under inlemarionLm: 2 TEMPLE LhÏ'L& COW. L.J. 155 (1988);E.McGrath. Xdec
Fec~ons: Tne Critic oj Corncience,Mii. L. LE. 191 (1985); P. Menon, Eiirn:nc:ionoj
A:uc/emFeaDons:An Im.oerarivehie10Preserve the Hummi &cej-om hincrion,30 UV.DR.
WA~E $3 (1991);E. Meyowic, The Opinions of Legd Scholms on the LegoSI--r 0.;'
Kuclear Wec.~or-,4 SÏM'.1.W'L L.111 (1987);H.Mepwip Ler jurir~es a'mm/'arme
nuclinire67RLY. G-i. LKT'LPUB.820(1963);, Le Smul da Anne3 NucléairesenDroi;
Inremarional25 GW Y.B. IKT'LL.219 (1982)- LcRégimedet Anna fiucléaires
Selon le Droir de /a Gueme.hUYV.3 AND THENUCLLU DESAE -PR~~~DING OS 71-Z
C~ADIANCONEXSE ON NUCLSrR W~NS AND THE hW 398 W. Cohen & M.Gouin cds.
1988); V. Vanda, Ndem Wcq~om ad the Righr toPcpcc Mer lnlmarionalLmv: A
Fto;àornenralChalIrnge, 9 BROOKLJ.1Ki'LL. 283(1982); 1. Pogany, NycIe~~rWqomad
Selj-Dejeme in inrcrnmioLmu:An Emerging S!&dfor a Nudem Age. 59 N.Y.U.L.m.
187 (1984)B.Polebaun, himionalSel/-De/ninIntenimonal h: An Emerging S~mzbd for
c Nuclem Age, 59 N..U.L.LW. 187 (1984)P.None, Tm Applicubiliry of MIitmy Ncccssiry
in theNulem Age, 1N.Y.UJ.ML L.&POL 701 (1984A. Rosas, Negmirc SecAiry ms'Non-
Liseofhiuclem Weapom, 2Gm Y.B.WT(L L.199(1982); kRubin h'udecr Weaponsmd
ln~ernarionh, 8 FLET^ FORUM 45 (1984); B. Wmoq Amering the Nuclem Quctrion:
TneModernbuyr 2 Role. 9 BROOKLYN.WL L.203 (1983); 2, Nuclcm Weq~omVersus
inrernarionLw: A Contesual Reassecsmenr, 28 MCGU L. J.542 (1983);, Nuclem
Weaponsmadin~ema~iona lPW:ProlegomenonIO Generd Rlegaiiv,N.Y.L. 1..'~ & COMP.
L.227 (1983), Nucieor Weqom and inremmionalh: niegaiiry in Conrur, 13DmR
J.INT'LL. & POL'Y1 (1983); - Nudear Wewm ad the Aerpomi~iliy of rheLegal
Proiesion, inLA- hM) TI- NUtLFAR DEBATE-PROCEIDINGS OF ÏI C.LNADW?J
CohiE ON NuCLE.~ W~NS A~D TE bu, 291 (M. Cobcr& M. Gouin ais. 1988).
To ~+ae lcarned ttachiogs beaddd die following: (a) tbe opinions of intelaw~cholm
Alfred P. Rubin (Profasor of Intmazionai Law',Flncbcr Sc'nool of Law and Diplomacy, Tufrs
Univeni.) Francis A. Boyle CPmfcssorof Law, Univcrsiry oiiilinBum). E.Wcsron(Bcssie
Dunon Mumy Pmfessor of Law and Associale Dean for Lotmarional and Comparative Legal Snidies,
Tne Universiv of Iowa)in their capaciv asjudges in an "unofficizl" t-ial beforr the Pmvisionzl DisP;ct
Worid Coun of the Fedcrarion of Earh inre More t50,000Nucfem Weupodw (eacnholding
thar rhe humanitanan rula of armedconfiic: eirhcr prohioit or wvertidie usc of nuclw.
wcawns); and (3) topinions of international law schoian Scan MacBride (co-foundcr of Amnesry
Inrenational and 1974Nobel PaPrizRczipient) and RichA.dFalk (AlbenG.Milban);Professor
ofInremarional Law and PncciarPrincnon Univcrsiv), rogcrhc:witb Domthy Hodw(îrofcssor
Emerinis and Fellow of Wolfson College, Oxford Univmiry and 1964 NoPhl raipicnt for
Chmi-) and Maurice WiUcins(Roiessor Emcrinis of Biopbysics and Fcllow of King's Coliege,
Cambridge Univcsiq and 1967 Nobel Pr2 rripicnfor Medicineas mmben of the "uno5cizl"
London Nuciear Wariar, Triounal (holding ascntitbe same thing).''"We cal1the COLT'S
k INRE: MORE W 50.o0NVCZAR WELWNS-,WALYSE SF THE ILLEChLTfOF NUCLEX?
W.Z&PONSU.;DERIKillWATIONNhW Il-70 (1991).
LondonNuclc-W&. TnDunz!:Juc-en:R-r. puoiisncu 'Ïi Bombon -rio;Swcdishyc5
A;ai1sNucicrs.Anus. SrocLbolsi (1989)
67anention 25 u.eii to rhe 1989 Hague D~iara~ion on the lllcgaiiry of Nuciwr Wupons of the
lntcnarional Associaiion of La\brerS A&ainnNucifa Arms(LALASA). "qfirming thar rhe use rhr+ar
of use of nuclcar wcapons is ~arcrime and a crime 2ainn hurnanity.aswell +s a pss violation of
othcr noms of international customary anmary law . ...""w
4. Opinio juris as cqrnsed Lifhe "diuates oflhcpublic conrcience"
AS =nified in the farnous "de Martens Cla~sc"~'*'in the 1907 Hague Convention (No. IV)
Resp~tine the Laws and Cunoms of War on Landand rdmed in the four 1949 Ceneva Conventions
on the la& of war and the rwo 1977 Gcneva Pmrocolz Addirional tbemo, the laws ofwar an:inpan
a funclion of "the dinates of the public conscien~e."'~ Accordingly, whattemptkigtn damine
and define the jusin bello, includiig the humanitarian rula of mconflict, this Coun is qmssly-
authorircd by convenrional international towlook beyond theso- of law enumaabd inAnicle
38 of its Stature to legal wmmunicarions exprrssed by, or in the n05c"rhe dictates of the public
conscience." And ro this ad, the Coun's ancntion is callcto a hon of drafr nila, declaiations,
resoluriorq and orher wmmunications cxprrsscd by personsaod inninitions highly qualifCOassas
the laws of war alrhough having no govanmental 6Iiioos-for nccasarily Iimiraf example:
raolutions ofthe intemationai Commina of tbe Red Cross, e.g., ResoluriAXlZU on the Proteaion
of Civilion Poplarions Agaimt fhe Dangers of Indiscriminorc W.fme, dalaring rbar "[tjbc gmd
principles of the Law of Warapply ro nuclcar and similar weapon~";'~' Chapter 5 of Vatican il's
1966 Pastoral Conrtirurion on the Chch intheMw'em World and the 1983 Parforal Lcrrer on Wcr,
Annments md Peace of the Nanonai Conferencc of Carholic Bisbops of the UnitedStates;""and,
again, die 1989Hague Dslaratiun on the Illegaliry ofNuclear W-ns of the Lntdonal Association
of Layes Againn Nuclear Arms (~ALA.NX)?'~ Ovcrwhclmin~ly, each of thae wmmunicarions,
manaring fiom among arguably the mon sipificant clcments of civil society-the healen, the clergy,
and uie lawyers-manifesü not only the des& to cmil the menac of niIituy nuclearism but aiso the
intention toeinforcc the humanitanan nilesmed wnflia in the nuclear -am uintexr Arguably
perzuasive is the 1989Hague Declaracioninasmuch as was adopta3 unanimously not oaly by la-m
Reprint& intihTEIWr;nONM hW hM) WORLD ORDEF; BGIC DC>CLIMDS (TS.WeSi0n cd.1994)as
Documcnin.F.1.
:" For fcxsa tcn immediatclpraxding note47, supra.
" IIbcarsrcpaing the'dcMaleus Clause"inrhcRwmble of r$e 1907 Coovc3rionWo. N). nipro
note41. is variouslyrepeatinnibsaucnt modcn4ay law ofwaxwnvertions. Secnoie 45,.Dra.
" Wrinred in ~A~ONAL CONFERENC OF rn FEDCROSS.RXSOLL~ONSu , 22 (1965). k uiso
htcmaiionai Commina ofrbcRd Cms, SOME hi-mui~n0N.u CROSS RESOL~~ION OSTHE
PROTEON OF clVUAJ4 POPIRATION AND ON W~NS OF MhSS D-Z~~RUC~O (N981);, mRT ON
M-WON OFEXPERTS THAT bl4YCAUSE UNNECESSAUY SUFFEXRG O.? PAVEINDLSCRBfPATZ (1973).
' SeeParrora/Conrrirwion onfk Chch in rheModern Worik ch. 5,rcprinrecd nmrslaed in 5)n
DOgliMn*TS OF VAnW LIW. Abbon ai 1966);NationalConfoc of CatholicBihops.Tm Challengeof
Peace: Cod> Promise aiidOlu wonse (PastoraLenu on Fm. Arrrcmms mrdPue). 15OR~GC~S-NC
BXmWSiTnY SERVlCENO. 1 (19 May 1983).
'?' Rzprinied aDocumczt ii.F in12~X~ER~A~ONAL LAW A.- U'ORCD ORDER: BASIC p.
Wcs~oned.1994). - -
-..
bu[ by lauyers fiom bath sides of ihe then aisinre&ring Lon Cuna"oj:-m;ng inar inc us: arirrcr
of use of nuclear wcapons is a war crime and a crime aoainsr humanin:as wcll a a gross violation
of other noms of Liranarional cunornary and uearylaw ...." Howcvcr, perhaps rhe non persuasive
of ail diese and other "diaes of the puoiic conscienut"arc the re~olutions of the .inic~ariond
Comminee of the Red Cross inrsmucn as the I.C.R.C. has wmc to play an imporsnf and r,sptcred
quai-ofiicial rolc in Uie developmenr anC claification h~ well as die irnplexenution of riie
humanirarian laws of wa~.''~lu 0-oiniojmü counu for a g~'Cdad.
fbe physical use of nucimr wespons a< Hiroshima and Piapsaki, together airh their
B.
psycbological use in tbe uercise of major power detemnct policy, ha not eroded rhe
opinio juris %bat rbe use ofnudear weapons would vioiate the humanirarian rulesof
armed connict
Despire abundanr mctonc to rhc connar)., anwith the notable açtprion of rheu intense wncern
to curb the proliferatian of nuclur wcaponsbeyond rheir monopolyconml, die nuclcar wctpon States
have aw.cd ddermined to f &r delaying aaionr; againSIa gened lcgal conml of nuclcar weapons
and wdm. in the name of selfdcfaisc and dctcmnce, fhchave built and continue to build. despire
the ending of the Cold War, enormous nuclur arsmals dich prrnrmablythey would use if niniciatly
provoked, if nobmvtcn thcrnsclvs thcn againnotbcn. Munially fcamil of riasion, they haveshown
thmselves unablc to agre on a wmprchensive inmumat of prohibition and rrluna~r tn
ohmvise scvm rrmictions. Exccptfor the Pmplc's Rcpublic of Chi they havc declind publicly
to mouncc the oprion of "fk use.J" And, asnoted above. sorne of hem have soueht ro aempt
nuclev wcapons hm irnpormr provisions of the mon rsnit formai sacment on the pmreaion of
-. victims of intemarional wnfiins, the 1977 Gcncva Pmtcxcl Adaitional Ko. 1 IO the 1940 Geneva
Convenrions on the laws of wu.""
in the light of such State practice, caribc sorncwnt-oversy as to wnethcr or no1tiie o.oinio
juristhat findsnuclear warf~ wnmq ro the arc pnccprs ofjur in bel10 bu te:, croda! or
m~~formcd. Mord Univcrsiry Professor Mark W. Janis has cody obscrved, "[tjne lindiat
sepamte statc practiccf63 violares cunomq intemarional law, aare vrac&% chat dissens hm
cunomary internarional law, and Rare pracie mar replaces oid with new cunomary intcmatio~ai Isw
arroRen hardro disc~rn."'~' .. .
' The I.C.R.C.playcd a mlor mie,as iswciiboug in tbcLaftingand negoriaion ofthefour 1949
Gcncvawnvcnuons onthe laws ofwar,nipronole46. fmdrbcrwo1997Gmeva ProrocolsAdairionaltothosc
conventions.supranote&ail of&cm uno5ciailyrcferedIo.infac, as'rbcRed Cros convmrions.' For
furibnindiaion ofrheI.C.RC.'s cmmsive involvcma& se, cg.,G. Drspcr.TKF RD CitOSS COt--~~ONS
, (1958)D. Forsyrbe.HW~T~RUN muncs: THE L'i?EnN~nom Co-OF THERD CROSS (1978);1.
Pic% HLrhuhTiW LW &D m PROxnOH OF WAR VINS (1975); ïHS PRC.'aPLES OF
INE~WATIONM HWhRLV: LW (n.O.a~iabic £rom d~cICRC).
'" Sa n. 19, supn.
See SecrionVI.r+ra. .. -
In the instrni cye: howevcr, the diacritical Iine is not diIOdisccm. Tnis is so for csscnrially
rwo terrons: iim, bccause certain of the praniccs of the nuclkwcapon States themsclves belies the
conclusion that their behavior has sornehow nc~ated or Qansfomied the worldwide cornrnuniry
consensus that the use of nuclcar wapons would violare the humanilKian niles of amcd conflict;
second. beause the rcs; of the internationalcommuniry has no1quiesced in. or in anwa? wnsenred
IO,a ncgation or oansformarion of this consensus.
1. The pncrice of the nuclar weapon States nxonfirms the opinio jurir thar the nsc of
nuclear weapons would nolare the humanirarian rnles of ermed conflics
Evcn while escalaring nuclcar capabilitics and tensions during the 1980s to the point where
raponsible observers were pdi&g a nuclcar bolocaun befm the yzar 2000, the nuclear powers
appe~ed IO bave den for pnted that the use of nuclearwcapons would not the ncgative
judgrnenr of the humanirarian mla of amicd conflict. The evidcnce of this opiniojrrriis plcntiful.
-~ Periiaps rnost unmisrakably,itis implicit in the militay manuals of the major powm, manuais
whosc purpose ir is,infe rlia, to advise miiitqpersonnel @artiuilarfy thosein cornmand positions)
on how IO compon themselves inBmeof war. While denying the illegality of nuclear wcapoaper se.
the milirary manuals of the United Stata and the Unitcd Kingdom, for example, consisrentiyinmucr
ha1 nucicar weapons areto bejudgcd according IO the samc standardsthai apply ro otherwcapons io
amed conflicr; and by any raional application of these -dards in any of therd world contucrc in
whicn nucles wcqmns would likely beu* the use of nuclear wapons, as this Mernorial hasargucd,
would bepronibited.
Also, "a min responsivenas to the importane of nor ûanr~sing [the hummitarian niles of
armd conilin] appears to have bcn aiwok however pewmcly, in ibe bombings of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki. Each was justifid officiallon [the] punds of militzuy n&a~iry.~ Similady, the
rcsponsiveness has sccmcd p&f 30 some at lcan minimal atcnf inthe wmplae non-use of nuclear
wcapons in a number of the violent confiictr that have arisen sine World Waril ,onfiicrs into which,
manifcnly, superior forçcs could have brn unlcrshed, including b major xars wiîh inconclusive
outcoma but.in whicb nuclcar wgwn States might have "won" hadthey becnwilling to use nuclear
wcqmns-the United States in thecase of Kom and Viemam and the Soviet Union in the case of
A.f&anirï. Surefy it is in this spibat one mus rrceive former U.S. Pmident Ronald Reagan'"1.ll
now famous pronouncement that "[n]uclear was cannor be won and musi ncver befought
President Reagan was speakkigIss as Commander-inChicf of the armd for- of the Unircd States
than as President of die United Stara aiid moral world citizen. Ir would behypchle IOsay thar he
was mering a clearly defined legal p-5 but he ccnainiy was in the gray arca where moral
perceprions meet legal rules and wi~m "the dinates of the public conscience" serve critically 2nd
fundarneotallyIOunderpin the iaws of war.
WESTON571.
31
Ar auorea'iN. Y. Tics, 6 biovc2~cr 1986,aiAj5. al. 1
70 Finally. aiong similv iints, on= mus be alen-10 ihe raponsiGia: surcihasben prcsent (a)
amone rhe ,Amcrican and Soviel mateginri who, du~g rhcbei_ehrof the Cold War es~ially.have
bm. conccmcd with counicdarcc Oocakie and wirh capabilities for damage Ihiurion2"and (b)
amone- the diplomaü. panicularl6um the two nuclcar superpowen, wbo, to rhc prese&y. have
ncgoriald the various nuclems conml and amis ducrion ueatieschathave mulriplid over the
yçr.s.'U'In uch use, evcn while îaili-ero merr thcirowp obiieauons undn ~rticie \1 of rhc
a Id. ciringJ. RoNh Evo~vnow OFUS.. ARMY NUOlAR DKWh5 1945-1980(19SO)(ioeludiugoa
dis-..sion of SovaswellarAmma dccUi?~atlhinking).
"' % cg..thcAntMuc Trcary, 1 1959,402 U3.T.S. 71;the Mcnomdum of Undrnrndlig
Bawun the Uoned Smo rnd the Unionof SaviSocialinRqublio Regardhg thc Enablirbmmt of a Direct
CornmunicarioLink(YbcHorLine Agl"=nmr'), 20 Juac 1963.42 UN.TS. 163;rhc TrcaryBanniDgNuda
Wqn Tac; in the Amospbcrc, in Chna SpaceandUnda Wafa (Ybe Mal Ta Ban TV'). Tro note
1%; thcTrcrry on PMtiplaGovdg tbc Amviria ofStarain thc Eq10r;nion mdUx of Outc Spacc.
IncludingrhcMwn md Olba Glcnial Bodia (YbeOlncrSpacc T-7 27 Jmq 1967,610 U.N.73. 205.
rrprinrcd inWL LEG.~TS. 386 (1967);the Tm for rhcPruhibiaan ofNuciar WcaponsLariAnmcicz
(YbeTrcsryof Tlatclolwsupranoie 87;rbTrciroritheNon-Pmlifaaion ofNuclcaWeaqans (2heNPT).
m,ura note237;thc Trcary on theProhibitionof the Emplac=mmcof NuWqamr and Orhc Wczpansof
Mas Damiaion on theSeabui and the Oca noor 8id inrhe Subsoil Thesof Che SaM AI=IISConmi
Trray3. II Fcbruary 1971,955 U.N.T.S. 115,rwrimcd in 10IW.r'MA=. 146 (1971); the Agxeamt on
Mcasweï to Reduct cheiüskof ûvtbmk of NucleaWar Bawccri the Unid SUIS and the Union of%via
Socialin Republia (WCAccident Menrra Agcaumr"), 30Sqrenba 1971,807 U3.T.S. 57?@inrd in 10
~Ï'L B. MATS.1173(1971); thc Aprccna~Bcnvan thc UnitcdSm5 ofAmaica andthe UnionofSovia
Malin Repubiio on Mcrnva Io hpve the USA-USSR Dh Communiacions Li ("the Hot Line
Modanieo'on Agrrrpicit'). 30 Sqtembcr 1971. 806 U3.TS402. rqrimed in 10 INT'LEG.MATS.1174
(1971); thc Convmùan oa the hhibitiof the Developmcir. Fmduuon md Sbxkpiling of BacrPioiogial
(Biologicai)anT~xinWeapomand on Thcir Damrmon. 10 April 1972, 1015UN.TS. 162,rqriinrd in11
ML LEC. MAn. 310 (1972)teTrearyBawa~ the Uniid Suu ofAmaici andthe Uaion ofSoviaSociiir.
Rcpublia onthe Limitarionofhti-BalliMissilSyriens(Ihe ABM7~"). 26 May 1952,Zj U.S.T.3435,
TIA3. No. 7503, rcprirued in Il WTk. MATS. 784 (192); thLntcimAgJtsaent Bcrwec~&e United
SratcsofAmmica and theUnion ofSovia Sxialin RepublicW on Measus with Rerpco totheiimjrarion
of Spauigic Offnsivc Arms, 26 May 1972.94 UN.TS3,rwrinfcdin 11WL m. MATS. 791 (1972);the
hiamion of Basic Princip16 of Relations Bawd~cUnited Ststa oAmmca ad cbe Unioo of Sovin
Socialin Rqublics, 29 May 1972,DEP'TSTATE BU 898 (1972);thTrcaryBmvm the Unid Smes of
Amcrin md rheUnion of Sovia Socialin Rcpublia on rhc LiniraDonof UndergroundNuclw WeaponTem.
12Juiy 1974.71DEP'TSTAE BU 217 (1974);the LimidonOU Anti-BalljsticMissileSm Tq Rut*
col. 5 July 1974.27 US.T. 1645.TJAS. No. 8276;the Starennton rhc Liaiaioof Smegic ûfimsive
Arms me Viadivonok AgrŒmmt"). 29 April 1974. 70DEP'T STAE BU 677 (1974);ti~FinaAU of the
Confwcc oa Secuir)' and CoopcralloninEurope('the HcAccords')reprinfcdin14WL LEC. MATS.
1292 (1975);thc Tm Beau tbeUni& Smus of Amcica and the Union of %via SOCialt qublics On
rtïLiminitarnf Scaqic OffnsivcArms md od~m<ocolbcrao (Ihc SALTIITrcary). 18Juoe 1979,rqrimcd
in18 Im'L LEC.MA-. 1138 (1979);A-at Govaning the Aaivicia of Sma w rbc Moon md mer
Glntial Bodis (WC Moon Trcrry-)5Wbcr 1979.UN.GA. Ra. 34/68 0, 34U.N. GAOR Sirpp.
Po. 46) 77.U.N. Doc AB41664 Amaa (1979). rqrinrein18 iNî'L LEG.Wn. 1434 (1979);
BenvŒuthc United Srata oAmcje and me Union of Sovic SocirLinRepublics on the Eiiminafionof Tbek
Lotamedia!c-Range8id Sbom-Range Missila("W TEU)"),7 -ber 1987.reprinred 27 lh7'LW.
Wn. 90 (1988); AgiematAmongthe United Sw ofAmcica imd&c Gagdom of Belgium..Tôt Fcdd
Roublic of Gcmany. tbc Rcpublic of Italy.rhc Kingdom of rhc Nerhdmds ad chcUnid Kingdomof Crcm
Bi+& andNonhcrnlrciand RcgardiogInseion RelKin~IOthe Trcq Bcrwan the &%rd Swes of m3iaTroy on rhc Non-Proliferation of Suci= WGpons @PT) "IOpursue negoriarions ingd fai~! on
effectivemevures rclaring ro . . .nucleu disamiamen\ and on a man. on genenl ad cornpletc
disarmament under mict and efiŒtive inicrna~ional c~nuol."~ rhe nuclcar powers appw u> have
acknowledged the unacccptabiliv of the use of nuclwr weapons-and not only because of die
unpreccdcnted devaration that would =SUI\ but also, one rnay assume. bccause of die correct
pemprion th31 nuclcar udue-tbar k, the muai trteof nuclcar wcz.mns-wouid collidc both
nomztively and syncmically wirh cvcryrhi fng which the humaniwian jus in bcUo is supposed ro
rand. Orherwise, it is difncult to unaernand why, for example, in the 1Treary oiTlaze1olco""-
banishing the "tcsting." "!SC," "manuf-," "produnioi' "acquisition,""rt;cipk" "norage,"
"innallation." "deploymm&" and "=y fom of possession" of nucicar weapons an~whcre in J-ain
Amenca-the Conmcting Pania (inciudini via arsociarni ~iotowk I and aYY such nuclcar powm
as Chin4 France, the United Kingdom, rhc Unitrd Statesand the foma U.S.S.R) would have
orprrsscd, in the P-ble, theu conviction "[tlhat the indcuiably demuctive powcr of nuclcar
wumns has made it irnperative thzfthe legalprohibitiowarfshould bcmictly observai inp&ce
if th;survivd of civilization and of mdid irwlfisto beassud" and "[tlhar nuclear wupoas, Gnose
remblc efkrs arcsufimd inaisaiminaIcly and inexorably, by military foxes and civilian populations
alike. corninite. through the persinence of the radioacriviry they recn,anack on ihe integiry of
the human spccics and ultirnately may evcn iuider rhc wholcarthuninhabitable.."
In sum, the laws of WK (iUSinbcllo) arc not supersededby the conrmy pnnict of the uuclear
wepon States; c&n of the pracices of the nuclcar powm ihcmselvcs confirms the opiniojmis thar
the use of nuclear weapons is pmhibitby the humanitarian mla of annedcodia Countcrargumenrs
to this conclusion rcpncnr no: a challenge ro its vaiidiry, bu5 rarbe;,an achowiedpcnt of irs
authoritativenas and a wnscquenraaempt ro escape ir-and for the simple mon tha tbe conclusion
lads inclucrably to thfunhcr conclusion rhatthe nuclar powen are poised to bcin violuion of those
humaitarian niles if, ifaq they artnor in violation of them hdy. But fti1u-e oreh.4 to obey
the lew mot be dlowcd to nc@e &c law. Jus asin domdc lepi syrarns hose who violare the
law arc not pcrmintdto argue thai tbeu own illcgal conauu dmys the vcry Lawsthey haveviolarcd,
so the maxim erinjvria non oruur jus, a gencral priaciple of law idco-pizby al1 civilid &on&
is a mie of international law ihz bcgsIObe taken scriously in the phsent case.'"'& poinrrd out
by the 1985 London Nuclcar WarfareTri~unal, ir is, simply, "rading" hhnc irony ihq China and
and ;heUnion ofSovietSociaiir.Rquniics onrheElininarion ofTheu Lntcmcdiaxe-RangcandShona-Racge
Missiics.1 June1988.rcprimcd in27 LG'LLEC. MATS. 60 (1988); andTrcaryBcwoco tbc Unital Stucs of
Amcria anddie Union ofSowc. bciaiir.Rqublics on RcducEionmd Limitazionof ScaxegicMensive Anns
(';hcSTART Tracy"). 31July 1991. S. Trwry k. No. 107-20.IOZdCong, lx Scss. (1991). Al1 of the
forcàoingagamenu artqrintcd inwbolcor inpartin 1-2~~ZWATIOHAJ. LAW AND WORU) ORDER :hSlC
Wcuhorrs (B.Watoo ai.1994).
"' Suprcnoie 87
For Addicionalilml Lwe 637 U.N.T.S 3.0. rqniued in 6 LKT'L-LEG W.TS. 553 (1967).For
AdditionalRotocol Il.x 634 U.Ei.T.S364. rgrinxeain 6 WL LEG. WTS. 534 (1967).
211
Se. ex.,1Browniie.Some Lgc! &m:s ofiheUse ofNuciecr Wenponr,14 h7'L &Corn. L. Q.4j7,
451 (1965). - hdja uiae, "the other nates thaf ach0u'i&g~ *sS;SS~O~ of nucicar wupons consrinit& the foui
prosecuring states ai Kurembcrg aiïe: World Wu ii. in pariicular thIWO superpowcrs, the United
Sutes and the Sovier Union, wm mon insineni thar German leadm ar al1 levels of sc-cicn bc held
cnminally iiabie for thcir rcfusIOuphold Iriiemationallaw inùie conten of war and pcicc.":"'
2. The non-nudcar uupon Sialcc have nor qukccd in, or conscnred ru,
rhcpraic of rhc nu&m wurpon SIP~P
11is somerimes vscncd tht~ by vimie of a ccnW silence or lack of prorar relative to the masive
cornmiment IO nuclcar deremncc and the wnscquat posstbility of nucleuwdp- by.the major
powers, the non-nucletr weqn States have quid in or wnscnred to the pracricc of the nucl--
weapon Srarcs and thei,forr to the negation ordomarion of the worldwide communiry consensus
bar the use of nuclcar wcapons would violate the humanitariamla ofarmcd conflicr This contention
faiis for asentiaichne -onS.
Fi= ir is nor cmpirically valiAs observai above, die Unitcd Nations Gcneral Asscrnbly, the
largm and mosi represcntativc global fom anyvtiere, hasmanifened iu wnccrn about ~benanis of
nucleu wcapons in a long xria of widely aidod rrrsolutions(going back to Gencral Asxmbb
Resolution 1653 (XVi) of 1961'"3 which ciearly support the vicw tha!the use of nuciwr wcapons
connirutes violations of the United Nations Charter e?d &ma againn humani~y?~ And these
expressions of opiniojuris arcintun undmwd, dYcnly and iodiy, by orher major qmsions
of cornmuni. consensus such u thc 1967 Tmty of Tlattiol~,"~ the rcpeatcdplev end pmrcns of
the meniber States of the Non-Aligcd Mo~ernen<~ the 1978 Final Document of the United Nations
Gcncnl Assernbiy Special Session on Dis~mamenf'>~'and rhe wntcmporary "dictates of the public
~onscience."~"'
Scond, wharffer the silence or la& ofprotcsc thar may be amibmed to rhe non-nucleu wqn
Stales in the face of the nuclcar build-ups and dcploymeots of the major powcm over be yars,ithu
linle if mything to do with any consciousor unconscious concessiontothe negarion or revision of the
humanitsian laws of war. It hasro do, rrrher, wirh pmxptions of futiiirand dependcncy and to the
brute rcalit of Cold War idcologial-psycholo~ol gridlock. The non-nucicar w-n Stareshave
wrrtctly pcrceivtd that any wrious legal cballmge they mi& have mountffi or wish to mount gains
the plicies of the nuclcar powm, mon of hem permanent mmbers of the United Nations Stcu+t'?'
"' E-erprs fiom fhe Rulingoffk LonConNucim W~bre tri ou^/,inR: More rbz 50.000Piucler-
W-ns il.73 (1991).
"q Se.enote 2J8 andaccnmpaoying <rx'p.Dra
lV' Seo rca atnoies88 and285, Trc.
See nocm 245-246. 2'9 and accom,m@g tm, ngrc.
'" Supra note261
,ei
See texaaornpanying oots 271-276.rqra. Cocncil, is destin& to be summzily veto&. ~Iso, thcy have undcrz:ood vc~ wcll thai such 2
cnallenge would no1 sit well uirii die nuclw wcapon Srara upon wnom they m. by and large.
-nornically ancilor politiully depenaent. And there is no acaping thar ihe larger imprint of Gres
Power exhoration and cajolery, at lusi during die iawlogical hei-c of die CoWar. inaelibiy mzrkcc
a p-oid disposition on the pan of many to thinl< rhe Fausrian bargain ihai iu.rr bene; IO risk
wxierai-possibly civilkational-duth than IO [ive in wmmunist slavery or capiulin scminiae.
charac1e.d by riic Non-Uiped Counmes as "aperpcnialcommuniry of fcv rhal conoa9icü the
United Nations Chzncr and the approxh and principles of the Finrl Document of the P.K. Genersl
Assembly's] spccial session on disamarnent anclthosc wnrained in the deimtions of rhe non-
aliped Surnrnir Conferiencc~."'~ Fanon such as these, no1 any quicscencc or consent ro
normative chrngec, xpiain the -ions whcn rhere may have ben silence or lack of pmteq jusr zs
thcy explain the world's &quent inabilityu,min rhe abuse of United Nati0r.s Charrrr Anicle 2(:),
simiiuly awgn of pndictions of dernise.'" But asproven by the 1990-91 Persian Gulf V'aralonc,
sucn pdicrions bave provcn croncous.'" Lorhc case of the humanitarian jrrin bello, rhese clahs
likewisc fail for being as simplisic asrhcy arc wlf-scrving.
Finally, because thexareserious non-normative crplanations for the silence or iack of pmten tbat
somc would amibute tothe non-nuclcar w-n Stara and thcrrforc a!lusi ambiguity about rhe force
and efÏ~7 rhai such silence or lack or proun may have. it isnot in anyevent thmrcticrlly possible thaï
the non-nucicar weapon States canhave acquiesced in.or convnted to, the dismisszl of to.oinijwir
that use of nucia weapons, cenainly in al1 known anticipard hgs arle.%, would violate the
humanifarian niles ofanncd conflictArmed aSgrcssion, crimesagainn puce. crimes agzinn humani-.
war crima, and genocide arcnow q-4 to viola~ejÿs cogem; sc,thereforc.itmay bc prcsurnd dia
the use of wcawns that are -able of cncminating ail or pr, of the human race would violarejus
coger.. Ticriefore, to arpc thar s.~cnsilence or lack of prESemay bc an-ibutcd to the non-nuclear
wctpon Srara le,okirnatesaju cogens violation is, at bonom, to dcny the very exisrence of perempto?
noms in international law. If mes simple crcdulin ro insin that such a result or wnclusion would
have kn inrendcd or thzt un beinfemd, especiaiiy vir silcncc or iack of proresr.
In sum, the world wmmuniry nas in no way consentcd to thc abolition of the humanimian niles
of armcd conflin in order to legitimiz-- nuclev wu. As thc latc Pmfcssor John Fried stated
cmpharically: "It is scumlous to argue L$aitis nillfor$i&en to kill single innoceni cncrny civiliui
with a bqoner, or wantonly to dcsroy a singlebuildin~ or cnemy tenitory by mochine-gim fi=-but
that itislegirimme to killmiliior~of cnemy non-mmbamu ad wantonly to dcnroy entire cncmy
"' P~agraph 33 of theFinoi Poiiricd Lkc!~mionU~DI~ byriu Conjeruicc ojForeigm Minuios of rk
Non-Ali@ Cournier. heidarhan& Li Squmbcr 1985.reprir~erin 11 THE TIWJI WOIÜD WKHOLT
SUPmWERS: THE COULCD DXUM&TS OF SHT NOti-Umm COUh?RIES44 (0. lankowirwh L Sarivat
& 1. Weber eh. 1993).
n< Sec.cg..T.Fm& W71o Ki/le.dAnici2(4)?or: CiorgingNm Gming rk Use ofForcc by Srarc,
64 M. J.WL L.809(1970).
:''Sce.cg.. 1.Hmk TM Rqom ofrk Dcmn oj~rricle 2(4) ArcGremb hggmmLc: 65 AM.J. Lq'L
L. 5'1 (1971).In thiconn~ion. sa Eacloicn prunblc 'impaativc bu Ihelcgalprohibitionofu.aS~OU~C
-
k *ciy observed....- ..
cilies, regions and pefnaps counmts (including cities. ara O: the cnrire sur;'aceofncï~s! Sures) by
nuciem weapons.":'"
Conclusion
In conclusion,WC ctllthis hononbli Court's anenrion to the irnpomce of prcaution as a principlc
to guioe decision-r principle now acccptcd u fundamental in international cnvironmmul lau., itis
imporm; to note, in rcspecr O:al1acrivit+ that zre likely tapose a sipificant risk IOnaru==' and
:O rhe rieh~ of pment and fume genations,- esvialiy in uansbounàary smin~s.'~ Professor
Wesron hrs pui it Liis way:*"
[ijn vicw of the horiiying and potcnrially irmversible oevaxation of which nuclau ww,wns
ctpabl:, nor to mention the vq litCiethe lbcir delivcry synems dlow for rational rbough~ ir
sens only sensible chat any doubs about whether the? arcsubja ro the bumanikan rula of
med connia a a rnzner of iaw should beanswend, as a maner of policy, uncquivocally in @e
ziiimativc. Such a mponse s=ems rcquirrd, in any evenL by a world public order of bumzn
digiry in wnich values are sh& and sharrd morc bypc-ion man by coercion. Ir is in
keping, roo,withthe major mnds of an evolving planerar).civilization: for example, me pcsincni
if uncenain, yen for nuclev ams conuol and disamizmcn\ and the acccleraring muegle for rhe
rmlization of fundamentzl human rigbts, including the mcrging nghr to pcace m&d
irnplicirly in Anicle 28 of the Univcnal Dalaration of Human Rigbrs. Also, it is consirnt widi
tiie spirib if not always the lenc:, of the judpnent a: Nurernbere, the Genocide Convention, and,
'nor les:, the United Nations Chaner. The burdcn of prwf, Lnothcr words, should beupon those
wno would contena dia:the humanirarizn noms do nor conuol the use of nuclerr wqons.
~- -~
'" 1. Fn4 Firs ~se ofNuienr Wecec~or~-L-isring Prohibiiior.NiInrerraionalLov, 12 BU. PE4E
Pfl0POSA-S 21, 28 (1981).
Se. cg.,F~inciple1](a)+) ofthe 1982World Chanc: forNrurc, xu,ornote 162:Ar;iciet6ofrbe 1987
Lcgai Rinciplcs forhvironncnrai EotcOon and Suinlrolc Deveiopam: doptcd bythe 1986 ExpclsGroï;,
on Envuonmeoral Law of rbeWarld Conicrraccon hvimnmc~t ma Dcvciopma~ sqro notc 181;P;iociple
15 of the 1992Rio klubtion on Eovimnmat endEvelopmco~ supra nocc 183.
lm Scc.cg.. Pnncipla 1and 2 ofm: 1972StcvkhotmDsluMon of the UnircdNaions Confcrmc- on tbc
Humzn Environma& qorc note 160:iiumblc. World Ch- forN- -70 nolc 162;ARicic 1ofihe 1987
Legel RinciplcsforEnvironma-ai Protccionmd Swinzble Drvc1osmc;itadop& by rhe1986 Fkpm5 Group
oc E3vuoamad Law of rbcU'orldGaicrncc on Svùonmnir ad pvelopmcn& rupro noie 181. Forrhisandrheorhcrrusons c~~lzind hcntintheCou11 isrqucsiedco ad\.isrhcU'orldl;ealr'.
Orgmiznlion :hatthcuseof nuclcvurapons by a Sialein=+aor olhciamid cotiflici asbruch of
iuobligsiionundcr internationlw, includingtlW.H.O. Conninition.WC as)bis hononblc Coun
IOdo $0,rnindfulf thcpitaphth=may k foundntHiroshimawhcrc tbcfÿn aromicbombfcll vlmosr
fifryear asgci:
We know 100 hct more ttisWC nad 4>how. W~ar WC lsckisthrabiiirto upcrienc
.uid tobcmovd byusharve kriow,whar wc undc.rand,andrvhatWC se and Lelicve.
-
Auckland, New 2alaud
1.9S~icnbcr 1994
V
PrvLJcromc D. Elkind
Counsclof the Govcrnmcntof
tic RepublicofNauru RESOLUTIOWADOPTED BY THE f HIRTY-FOURTH \!+'ORLD HEALTH ASSEhZEL?.
72 ZAY 19SI
Kcsoluiion U'HA34.38
The rolc of physician-nd oihcr hcnllh rorkcrs in the preservaiion and promotion Of PClCc
as the most sio,nilicanr ficior for the ailainment of healih lorsll
The Thiny-fourth World Hcalth Asscmbly,
Having considercd ihc rcpons of the Exccutivc Board and of thc DircctorCenerai on the Global Stralcgy for the
attainmcni of hcalrh for al1by thc year 2OOO and thc contribution of heallh to lhc sociocconomic dcvelopmcnt of
. 2.ntrics. particularly devcloping countria. as vcli as10 thc praewation and promotion of pwcc ar the most
bignificani factor for thc protcction of pcoplc's lifc and hcalth;
Bearing in mind the provisions of thc WHO Conniiution stating chat the artainmcnt of thc hightsr possible stand-
ard of hcalrh of pcopla. on the tasis of thc fullw coopcration of individuals and Stata. is one of thc funduncn-
ta1 faciors for pcacc and security. and ais0 rcsolution 34/58 ofthc Uniicd Naijons Gcncral Asscrnbly siaiing thac
pcacc and sccuriry. in their tum. arc imponanr for the pracmation and improvcment of the healih of aUpeople.
and thal coopcrarion among nations on vital health issues can contributc irnportantly to peacc;
Recalljnp thc provision of the Alma-Ata Dedaration cmphasiring thai an "acceprablc levcl of hulih for dl thc
pcoplc of the world by thcycar 2OOO can bc attaincdihrough a fuller and bcttcr us: of the world's resourccs. a con-
siderable pan of which irnow spcnt on armamcnis and miliiary conflicts" ;
Recalling raolutions WHA13.56, WHA13.67. WHA15.52. WHAli.45. WHAZ0.54. WHAZZ.56. WHA23.53.
WHA32.24, WHA32.30. WHî33.24and orhers on the roic of thc physician in the prcscmarion and promotion of
pcacc. rhc protcction or mankind against nuclcar radiation. fhc rcduction of miliury cxpcnditurcs andthe alloca-
tion ofrhc raourcu rhus rcleascd ta sodocconomic devciopmcni and &O to public hdth, apccislly in devc!op-
ing countria; -
~onsiderin~fhc praent aggravation of thc international siiuation and the growing dmgcr of thcrmonudcar con-
nia, whosc unleashing in any form and on any waic will incvirably lad ro incvcrsiblc datruction of the cnviron-
mcnt and thc dcath of hundrcds of millions of pcople. and also to grave conscqucnccs for the lire and hcalth ofthe
->opulation of ail countria of the world withaut cxccption and of fuiurc gcnerations. thus undermining the efforts
of theStaia and WHO to achievc heaiih for ail by ihc ycz- 2000;
Noting furcher thc growing concern of physicians and othcr hcalth workcrs in many counrria al thc mounring
danser ofthermonuclcar war as ihc most scrious thrur to th= lifc and hcalth of al1popuiations and their desire10
prcvent therrnonuclear disaster, which is an indication of thcir inneascd awareness of their moral. profasionai
and social dury and raponsibility IO safeguard lifc, to irnprove hurnan health. andio usc al1 mcans and rcsourccs
forattaining hcalth for dl:
1. REITEMES most strongly ils apped Io Membe: Sratcs 10 multipiy thcir cfforu IOconsolidate pcacc in the
world, reinforcc dcienic and achicvc disarmarncnr so asio crcaic conditions for thc rclcvc of rcsourccs for the
dcvclopmcni of public hcalth in tnc worid;
2. .REQU- thc DirectorCcneral :
(1) IOexpedite and intensify thc study of rhc conirioution thar WHO. asa United Nations spccialitcd agcncy.
could and should makc to cconomic and s-ociaidcvclopmcni and to faciiiiaie ihc implemcntaiion of the
Unitcd Nations rcsolutions on sirengihcning pcacc. octcntc and disarmament and prcvcnting ihemonucicar
connici. crcating for this purposc an inicrnationai commiticc corn~osed of eminent cxpcris in mcdicaJscience
and public heslrh:
(2) ro coniinuc collaboration with lhc Sccrcary-General or rhc United Nations and with othcr gov~rnmenial
and nongovcrnrncnial organizarions. 10 thc cxicnt rcquircd. in«t=biishing a broad and auihoriiative intcrna-
iional cornmiiicc of scicnlisis and cxpcris Corcomprchcnsivc siud? and clocidalion of rhc ihreai of ihermo-
nucJc=r u.ar and ils porentially baneful conscquenccs for ihc IiCcznd heîlth of pcoples of thc world. . Appenais B
Page 2
Rcsolution 43/76E. Convention onthe Prohibition ofihc Use of Nuclear Weapons. U.N.
GAOR. 4jrd Sess.,Supp. No. 49 at 90, (1988).
Rcsolution 411 17C, Convention on tbe Prohibition of die Use of Nuclear Wcpons:
U.N. GAOR 44TH Sas., Supp No. 49 at 80, (1989).
- ..
Resolution 45/59B, Convention on theprohibition of die use of nucicar wapons, U.N.
GAOR 45th Sess. Supp. No. 49 at 71 (1990);
Resolution 4667D. Convention onthe prohibition of tbc use of nuclear weapons (1991).
U.N. Doc. GAI8307 at 127,
Resolution 47153C.Convention onthe prohibition of die useof nuciear weapons (1992):
U.N. Doc. GAI8470 at 112(3993);
Resolution 48/76B, Convention onthe prohibition ofthe use of nuclear wapons (1993),
U.N. Doc. GAI8637 at 124(1994);.
INTERNATIONALCOURT OFJUSTICE
LEGALITYOF THEUSE BYA STATE OFNUCLEAR WEAPONS iN
ARMED CONFLICT
(Request foran Advisoq Opinion)
MEMORIAL
OF THEGOVERNMENT OF
THE REPUBLIC OFNAURU
II
Seprem1994 Mernorial
in support of the
Application by the World Health Organization
for an
Advisory Opinion by tbelnternational Court of Justice
on the Legaliîy of the Use of Nuclear Weapons
Under International Law, including the W.H.O. Constitution
Issues of Cornpetence and Adrnissibility"
By Resolution46.40 of May 14, 1993,the World Health Assernblyrequested the International
Court of Justice to given advisoryopinion on the following question:
"In the view of the health and environmental effects, would the use of nuclear
weapons by a statein war or other arrned conflict be a breachitsobligations under
international law including the WHO-Constitution?"
Objectionshave been raisedl againd this request to the effect thatthis resolution exceeds the
boundsof thepowersof the WorldHealth Assembly (WHA)and.therefore,doesnot constitute
alegally valid exercise of the power grant10the WHA to requestan advisory opinion and
chat,as a result, the International Courtof Justice is not entitled to give that opinion. This
menlorialwill show that the resolution containing the request is indeeda valid exerciseof the
powers conferred upon theWHA.
Objections have also been raised which ma? be understood in the sense that it would be
improper for the ICJ togive the opinion andthat theurr.giventhese objections, shoulduse
the discretionit possessesnot to accede to therequesi. This mernorial will show that giving
an answer to the request constirutesa proper exercise of thejudicial function of the Court and
that. thus, no reason exists for the Court to use its discretion in the sense of nor giving the
requesred opinion.
'This Mernorialis largely based upon a study conducted by Prof. Dr. Michael Bothe
(University ofFrankfurtlMain).
1See in panicular the objections raisedby certain delegaresin the debates of WWHO
Doc. A 46/B/SRl8p. 7 etseq.:SW9 p. 2 etseq.and A 46NWl5 p. 8 etseq. and in particular
.some of the views formulated by the WHO Legal Council, A 46NWl5 p. 13 et seq.
'1tis in this sense that objections could be interpreted which srate that the course
followed by WHA was "notappropriate" (see e.g. Austria, WHODoc. A 46/B/SW8,p. 11).Resolution46.40 lieswithinthe cornpetencesof theWHA.
The legalsourceof the power jranted to theWHA to requestan advisoryopinionof the ICJ
is found in Art. 96 pan. 2 of theUnited NationsChaner, An. 76 of the WHO Constitution
and in Art. 10of theAgreementbetweentheUnitedNationsand WH0 approvedby both the
WHA andthe United Nations GeneralAssernbly.The relevantpans of thesethreeprovisions
read as foiiows:
An. 96 para. 2 of the UN Charter:
"Otherorqansof the UnitedNationsand specializedagencies, whichrnayat
~.
any tirne be so authorized by the Generai Assernbly,rnay also request
advisoryopinionsof theCounon le:nl a~~esrionasrising wirhinrhescope of
rheiraciriviries"'
Art. 76 of the WHO Consrinition:
"Upon authorizationby the GeneralAssernbly ofthe United Nationsor
upon authorization in accordance with any a,geernent betwern the
Organization and the United Nations,the Organizationmay request the
InternationalCoun of Justic: foran advisoryopiniooon anylegal quesrion
arisinj wirhinrheconverence of rheOrgmi=arion. i1
1
Ernphasisadded.
Ernphasisadded. 5
An. X of the Agreement between the United Nations and the il!orld Health Or ~aiiizati~n:
. -
"1. ...
2. The General Assembly authorizes the IVorld Health Organization to
request advisory opinions of the International Court of Justice on le,oal
qilesrionsarisinz wiri~inrhe scqoe of ils conoerence otlier than questions
concerning the mutual relauonship of the Organization and the United
Nations or other specialized agencies.
5. Suchrequests may be add~ssed to the Coun by the Health Assembly
or by the Executive Board acting in pursuance of an aurhorization by the
Health Assembly.
4. ...iis
The two essential legal requirements for the adrnissibility of the request are, thus, chat the
request concerns a "le=al question''anc relates to rnatrtrs which are within the scope of the
aciivities or of the comoetenci of the Worid Healih Orglnizarion. This mernorial \vil1fuse
aciaress the lanrr question.
II.
The resolution concerns a question which iswithin rhr siope of the powers and Ïunctions of
the LWO.
1. Ihe powersof the WHO concemin,onuclear w-apons are based upon, and related to:
some obvious and undisputed iacts: In the two instances wheri nuclear weapons were used
they caused unspeakable human suffering nor only kiiiing immediately, but also inflicring
wounds and illness in man? dzerenr ways upon thousanas of "survivors". Should nuclear
weapons ever be used again, the eîfecrs of their us: wdi again min the health of countless
s Enphasis added.humanbeingsandconstitutea challengeof unsurmountable dimension to the healthsenpices
andthemedicalprofession6 in theaffectea~%. Funhermore, the healtheffectsof thetesting
of nuclearweaponsare becomingmore andmore apparent as the veilof government secrecy
lifts. Nuclear weaponsrepresent, among other things, a health problem, and are, thus, of
relevanceto the tasksof WHO.
The resolutioncontainin5the requestcm, thus, be based upon a numberof itemscontained
in the list of WHOfuncrionsenumeratedin Art. 2 of the WHO.Constitution.Theseare in
panicular:
"(a) to act as thedirecting and CO-ordinaringauthorityon international
healthwork;
...
(c) to assisrGovernments,uponrequesr, in strengtheninghealthservices;
(d) to fumish appropriate technical assistance and, in ernergencies,
necessaryaid upon the requestor acceptancr of Governrnents;"
.4s far as nuclear weaponsare concerned, rhese provisions =ive WHO, in panicular, the
mandate tohelp sraresin preparing their healthservicrs to meerthe challengeof assisringthe
injured,bursrill survivingvicrirnsof a nucleararrack.
"6)topromoteCO-operatioa nmongsiienriiic and professionalgroups which
contributeto the advancementof health;"
The provision is especially concerned with attitudes of the medicnl profession, which
represenr a crucial issuewirh regard to nuclear weapons.This provision can be seen as
fundamentalto WHOactivitiesrelatingto rnedicaletkcs, which rnayalso be basedupon the
foilowing:
WHO, Effectsof Nuclear War on Health and Health Services, 2nd ed. 1987, 5
"(k) to propose corivenrions,azrecments and regularions, and tiiake
recommendauonswith respectto inter .nationalhealthmatrers ..."
Awarenessof hdth relatedproblems(includingthosecreated by nuclear weapons)is another
important aspectof WHO activities,basedon the followingprovisions:
"(q) to provideinformation, ciunsel and assistancein thefield ofhealth;
(r)10 assisin developingan inforn~ed public opinionamong al leoples on
maners of health;"
The requesr for an advisory opinion is, arnong other ihings, a means to develop a more '
convincinginfonnarionpolicyregardin: nuclw weaponsand the challengerheyconsrirutefor
health servicesandthe medical profession.
Finally, the lis[of WHOfunctionsenas wirh a generalclause:
"(v) peneially ro cake al1 nerrssay ac:ion ro anain the oojective of the
Organizarion .
This provision createsrhe necessarylink~etweonthe powers andthe aims or,oaniz?.rionI.r
consrinites an unusuaiiybroad enablin: clausetharallowsthe Organkation Io do tveryrhing
neccssary IOartainirsgoals. Ir does no[onlyrefer IO .An. 1 whichstareschatthe objectiveof
the Organizationis
"theattainmentby au peopiesof chehighesipossiblelevelof health,"
bur aiso thePrearnblewnich formulatessomc basicprincipiesrelatingto rhisobjective.The
Preamblesures, inparcicular,the closeiink berweenhealrh, on theone hand, and peaceand
.-
securiry, on theother:
"The healrhof al1peoples is i'undamenralio rhe anainment of peace and ..
6
security..."
With regard to nuclear weapons, this provides the WHO with additional authority
nie power of WHO to deal with the question of nuclear weapons having been established in
Jeneral rems, it is possible to develop some more specific eurnents in favour of the power
to request the advisoryopinion and to dispel some arguments put forward against this power.
2. The interpretation of the WHO Constitution to the effect that the Organization rnay
deal with health effect of nuclear weapons is confirmed by the undisputed practice of the
Organization. This subsequent practice constitutes a decisive element regarding the
interpretation of a treaty, in panicular, where no dispute exists between the parties and the
parties to the treaty agree on this practice7.
With respect tothe healih efiecrs oinuciear weapons. doubts were not voiced in the othenvise
controversial debate leadin; to the adoption of resolution 46.10' that these effects constitute
questions comins within the scope of competence of the WHO. Dealing with the health
enects of nuclear weapons has indeed consrinited an unchaiienged practice of the WHO over
many years. Based on resolution WHX 34.38, an international committee of expens was
formed by the Director Generai of the VvXOwhich in 1983, submitted a fust repon on the
effects of nuclear war on health and health services. The WHA endorsed the comminee's
conclusions in resolutionWHA 36.28 and recommended that the-work should continue. This
recommendation was the basis for the weil-known second edition of the repon published in
19879.ïhis report was accepted and commended by the Founieth World Health ~ssembl~'~.
7 An. 31 para. 2 (b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties: see R.
Bernhardt, interpretation in International Law, in: R. Bernhardt (ed.), EPIL,
Instalment 7 (1984), p. 323.
8
Statement by the Legai Council of WHO, .446lW13 p. 13; Delegate of France,
ibidep m. 12.
9
~f'fectsof Nuclear War on Health and Health Services, Second Edition. Gzneva
1986. A similar pnctice exists relating to other weaponsof mass destruction. In tlre 19bOs,III*
WHO coopented with the United Nations in ..the field of the prohibitionof chernicaland
biological weapons. Ir submitted a repon on healthaspeca of chemical and biological
weaponsf'and seved WHO resolutionsdealt with rhis probleml'. It, therefore, remains
beyond doubt that the health aspects of weaponsoi mass destruction represent a grnuine
question of health and, thus, fali wirfiin the scope or purpose of the World Health
Organjzationas defmedin Art. 1of its Constimtion.Accordingto .An .(q) and jr), quoted
above, it is thefunctionoi WHO to provide informationregardirigthese questionsand to
connibureto theformationof a benerinformedpublicopinion.This-representsa basisfor the
publicizin=of activitiesand viewsof theWHO on suchquestions.
?,
J The objectionsraised in the currentproceedingsdo not relateto the leg3lityof the
WHA dealin: with quesrionsoi heairheifeccsof nuclear weapons, they only relateto the
power of the WHAto express a view regarding, or to requestan advisop opinionon, the
Iegaiityof rheuse ofsuchweapons.For the-purposesof thepowersof the ÇsH.4. adisrincrion
is thus madebetweenthe healtheifecü of sucnwe3ponsand the Iegalityof theiruse. Those
objectinj apparentlyassumethat the powersof W3i9 re!at: to rheseeffectsonly, whiiethe
causesof theseeffects,nameiy the acrualuse of chosswea?ons, remainoutsidethe sphereof
the competencesof the Organizationand its Asscrnoly.Ris dis;inc:ionecablishrs a narrow
constmctio~f WHO powers which is unacce?caoie an^cantnp to rheesrablis!iedpncrice
of the organization.
Theundispured pracuceconstimtesa subsequentpnccice within chemeanin?or'.Li. 3 1para.
3 (b) of the ViennaConventionon the Law of Treatiesand thusa decisive eiementof the
incerpretationof the WHO Constimtion". WHO hasnt\,:r unde:siood irs mandateto deal
10Resolution WHA 40.24' 15 May 1987
IlWHO, Healthaspectsof chemicaland bioio,oi;alweapons. 1970
12
ResolutionsWKA 10.54 oiivlay 1907; Çs3.A 22.58 July 1969and WH.4 23.53 of
May 1970.
IlSzeabovenore 7. with healthquestions asexcludingfrom its purview the social andpolitical causesof healtli
problerns.This bmadstanceha alwayslead the organizationto deal with the poliricalaspects
of cenain conflictsl'.As a result, the WHA has also expressed views concerning the
application of the laws of armed conflict, in particular the Geneva Conventionsfor the
protection of victimsof anned conflicü". The authorityof the WHO to deal withpolitical
issues is,in pa~icular, well established in relationto the questionof health andpeace. The
Pmble of theWHOConstitutionclearlyStatesthat healthis a prerequisiteof pencei6.Thus.
health is not seenas a merelytechnicalor scientificissue.Itis a politicai matter, a question
of war and peace. It thus being accepted thathealth is a prerequisite of peace, can the
question of peace asa prerequisiteof health be excludedfrom tlie scopeof activitiesof the
Organization? Both as a matter of legal losic and of the practice of the Organization,the
answer is clearly no. This conceptof "health through peace"and "peace throuzh health" is
clearlyreflectedin relevantresolutionsof the WHA. WHA 15.51of May 1962on the "Role
of the Physicianin the Preservationand Promotionof Peace" reads as follows:
-
"TheFifteenth World Assernbly,
Considering the international responsi'oiliriewhich rest upon the World
- ~ HealthOrganizauon,and beingaware of the close relarionsltipwhicherisrs
benveen hea~ and rhe preservanon oj peace; Bearing in rnind the
stipulations of the Prearnble to the Consritution of the World Health
Organizarion which stares, inter alia: "The health of ail peoples is
fundamentalto the anainmentof peace and securityand is dependentupon
the fullestco-operationof individualsand States"; Desiring to emphasize
the close relationshipwhich exists betweenhealth - defmed as a state of
complete physical,mental andsocialwell-being -and happiness,harmony
liSee, as a recentexample, the resolutiondealingwith healthconditionsof the Arab
populations in the occupied Anb temtories, including Palestine, WHO Doc. A
46iBISRl8,p. 2.
" Cfi. resolutionWHA 11-131 of June 1958(concerningthe Geneva Conventionsin
general).
16
Seeabove. and security of al1 peoples; Considering tiiar continuing progress in inr
inoroveinentojworid iiealrhwillconrnoure im.oorrmriy ropeace, as we!! CS
rha peace is a basic condirionfor rhepresennn'on anc itnprovemenroj
healrilofpeople in rhewholeworid,
1. DECL.- that physicians and al1other rnedical workers have- in
the exercise of their proiession and through the relief and help rgive to
their patient- an irnponant roleto play in the preservauon and promotion
ofpcc, bycontributkg to the elirnination or at least tlie attenuation of the
causes ofdistress and dissatisfaction;
2. C.ALLS upon al1 Members to promote the cause of peact by
inrensLFyintheir effons to implement the principles and purposes emboàied
in the Consitimtion of the World Health ~r~anization."'"
The same broadapproacnto WXO powers was adopred in relation to chernical ~ndbiological
weapons. In its resolution oi 25 May 1967, the 70th World Heaith Assembly welcomed the
resolutions of the C'nitedNations Genenl .4ssernoly conceming the prohi'oitionof the use of
-
cnemicd and bioio~ical wespons and czlled upon its ivlember States to exen e:*en.effort 10
impiement these resolutions". The quesoon of the use of such weqons is thus considerrd to
consUmtea cornmonconcm and a comrnon function of both the United Nations 3na WHO.
.4lonj the same lines. resolutionW.4 22.58 of 75 luiy 1963 expresses the viw that rapic
internationala-geernentsfor checompleteprohibiiion and riic disposaof al1types ofchemica!
and bactenoiogicaiweaponsare nectssary. .Again, the pronounce.mentof WH.4 is weil in the
field of disarmament.
The mosttellin: example of this broad conccpr of 'AH0 powers, tvhich inciude the question
of the legality of possession an2 use of wezpons of rnôssdestruction, WHA 22.53 of May
1970. Due to its importance, itdeserves to be quotrdin full ttxt:
IiEmphasisaaaed.
13
WH?, 20.54. "ïhe Twenty-third World Health Assernbly,
Guided by the principles of the--Constitution of the World Health
Organization;Recalling the danser hanging over rnankind as a result of the
ever-Con~uing work to develop new forms of chernical and bacteriologicai
@iological)weapons, and ais0 asa result of their stockpiling; Expressin: its
profound anxiety in regard to the cases that are recurring of the use of
chemicalmeansof waggg warfare; Bearing in mind resolution WHA 20.54
- in which the World Health Assembly has already expressed its deep
conviction that scientific achievements,anicularly in the field of biology
and rnedicine - that most humane science - should be used only for
mankind's benefit, but never to do it any hm; Taking into account the
terms of resolution2603 adopted by the General Assembly of the
United Nations at its twenty-founh session, which stated that the prospects
for general and complete disarmament under strict and effective
international control and hence for peace rhroughout the world would
brighten signif~cantly if the developrnent, production and stocLciling of
chernical and bacteriological (biological) agents intended for purposes of
war were to end and if they were eiiminated from al1 milita. arsenals;
Noting with approval the report of the Director-General of WHO and a
group of consultants on the disastrous consequences for hurnan heaith to
which the use of chernical and bactenological (biological) weapons could
lead, arepon which was tnnsrnirted tothe Secrerary-General of the United
Nations in accordance with pangraph 2 of theoperative pan of resolution
WHA 22.58, adopted by the Twenty-second World Health Assembly;
Drawing attention to the fact that the quesrion of prohibiring rlle
- developmenr, producnon andsrockpilin,oof al1forms of chernicaland
bacrenological(biological)weaDoruis ve- closelylinked wirhrheproblem
.. oftheprorecnonof rllehwnanenvironmenra,oairur pollurion; and Declanng
that the use not only of chernical and bacteriological (biologicai) weapons
but also of any chernical and bacteriolo,oical (biological) agents for the
purposeof war rnight lead to a disturbance of ecological processes which in its turn would menace the exisrence of modem civilhtion,
1. PROPOSES rhat-the-Director-Generrtlshould continue to CO-operate
with theSecretary-General of the 'ünited Narions wirh a view IO promoting
the rapid prohibition of the deveiopment, production and srockpiling OÏ
chemical and bacreriolo~ical (bio~o~ica~') weapons and ensurins thrir
desrnicrion;
2. APPEALSonce more rorhejovernmenrs of coirnrrieswhich have nor
yerratifiedrileGenevaProrocolof 17Jime 1975roaccede IO tharimporranr
and IrighlvIr~urzanienremarionalazreemenr in rlienearesrpossible@iire;
2. EI/IPKASIZESthe needfor rherapid prohibirionof rhede~elo~oment.
producnon and srockpilinj of clrenticaland bacreno10,oical(biologicall
wea.oonsand the desrnicuon of stocks of such weapons as a necessa?
mensurein rhejghr for Iiurnanlieafrh;
4. C.4Li.S UTON ail medical associarions and aii rnedical workers t0
considir it their moral and professional auty to give every possiolc
assisrance to rhe international movemenr directed rowards the complcre
pronibition of chernical and bactetiolo~ical (biological) rnelns of \c.a:in_o
- war; and
5. REQUE -STS the Direcror-Gcneral to rnnsrnir rhis resolution ro rhe
Sezrerav-Gzneiai of the United Nations anà aiso to disrribute ir among
Member Stares and a wide medical public. ""
The c-oncep of this resoiution is that the powers of the WH.4 are noc lirnired to the health
effecrs of the use of weapons of mass destruction. bur rhar rhese heaith effecrs lezitimize
WHO dealinz with the (il)lejaiity of use and possession of such weapons, and char itis
includedin a specific medical profissional responsioiliry to work roward their prohibition. Ir
is precisely rhisconcepr which underlies resolution a6.20.
-- -
l9Einphasisadded. 4. Anothersourceof the pompeo rf WHA to request the advisory opinion of theICJ lies
in the fact that,in the viewof the WHA,it-required suchan opinionas guidancefor future
action.The Coun has always accepteda perceived needfor authoritativeguidance asa basis
for its acceding to a request to give an advisory opinionz0.The interpretation of the
consticutionof theOrganization to which the requesting organ belongs, represenü, without
doubt, such a rnatterwhere the guidanceof the Coun can be sought. Thus, the request to
clanfythe rneaniiigof the WHO Constitutionlies within the powersof the WA. This is an
explicit aspect of the request for the advisory opinion.lthough it is true chatthe main
reasons for the illzgality of the use of nuclear weapons are found in other rules of
internationallaw, theWHO Constitutionis also relevant for the question.The useof nuclear
weaponswould bebotha clear-cut denialof the very essenceof the objectiveof theWHOas
- fomulated in An. 1 of the Consticutionand of the basic principles formulated in the
Preamble. The use of weapons causingincurable trauma and iilnessfor thousandsor even
millionsof victimsis incompatiblewith the basic hurnanright containedin the Prearnbleof
the IWO Constitution:
"The enjoyrnentof the highestattainable standard of health is one of the
fundarnenralights of every hurnanbeinz .."
It isclearlwihi thepowen of the WHA to express this idea in a solernndeclantion. In the
debateprecedingthe adoption of resolution46.40, theLegal Councilof the WHOexpressly
mentionedthepossibilitychatWHX couldadopt a resolution concerningthe interpretationof
theConsticution".t foliows(a logicalconclusion which,however, the Legal Councilfaiis to
draw) thatWHA rnayseek the adviseof the ICJ beforernakingsucha declararion".
.4notherfieldofactivirywhere the lezal guidanceof theICJ concerningthe (ii)legalityof the
20 SeeCenain ET.DCILT~ojihe United~Vanons,ICJ Repons 1962,p. 8 et seq.
" WHODoc. A 46IBISRI10p. 2.
Seeinthissensethe suternentby the Delegareof Mexico, WHO Doc. A 46lBISFU8
p. 9. use of nucleartveaponsrnay becomerelevantis the functionto provideadvisr penai~iiiig to
medical services. Assistancein the field of p..blic health and thedeveloprnentor'nieaical
services is oneof the major activitiesof WHO". This assistanceisof particulaririiponance
for the developinpcountries. Prepanns health services, inparticularthose of developing
countries, to cape aith emergencies and desasters is a very important elemenrof rhis
ass'istancc--.Medicalservices of developingcountnes are in a positionwhichis sriUworse
than chatof indusuiaicountnes whenhavins to cope with theseproblems.The probleinof
nuclear weaponshas become more relevantfor developing countries inreccnr rimeas the
-.
proliferationofthosewapons to smallerstateshas come to present aredistic ~cenario'~F .or
the purposesofgivingadvice on desastermedicinerelating roa nuclearatrack, it is cenainly
relevant whethersuchatracks are to be consideredas a facrof liie whichmusrbe accepted
under the law or are to be avoided tvherethe law is obeyed. In addition,the repon on the
effects of nuclearwaron health andhezlthservicesconvincinglyconcluded that,in thecase
of a nuclearanack,the health servicesof the worid could notaileviatethe resultingsituation
in any si~niiicanway.Thereîore, theonlyapproach of treatmentof healthefiects of nuclear
waYa.reis primaryprevention, charis, preventionof nuclearwa?'. Ir wouldbe awkivard, [O
say the lest. to concluciethat the JiX.4 rnusr kzep silent repsrdin: somethng which is
recognized as beingthe only effective preventionof the heaithproblemscre~rea op nuclear
war.
Another fieldwhez ~heguidance to begiven by the internationalCoun of Justiceuould be
irnponant for theacrivitiesof the WHO is medicalethics.>ledicalerhicsrepresentsanother
- " Set .VL.2 (c) and (d), quoredabove
" See. inreralic. The Work of WHO 1990 - 1991. BiennialRepon of thr Director-
- Gene.d totheWorldHealth.4sjemblyand to theUnited Xations, 1992,pp. 7 e: seq.
'' See the repon by the Director Genenl, Health and EnvironmentalEffects of
NuclearWeapons. hl30 Doc. 2, 46/?0. para. 14.
" EffecrsofXuclear War on Healthand HealthSepices. SecondEdition, p.5important activityof WHO". It is also relevantfor the question of nuclear weapons. The role
of physiciansin the preservation and promotion of peace and, in panicular, in relation to the
rernoval of the threat of nuclear weapons is a major ethical issue. This is, for instance,
reflected inWHO resolution WHA 34.38":
"Notingfunher the growing c oncem of physicians and other health workers
inrnanycountriesat the mounting danger of thermonuclear war as the most
senous threat to the life and health of all populations and their desire to
prevent thermonuclear desaster, which is an indication of their increased
awarenessof their rnoml, professional and social duty and responsibility to
safegard life, to irnprove humanhealth, and to use al1rneansand resources
for attaining health foaii;"
Finally, the question of the legal prohibition of nuclear weapons is also relevant for WHO
activities in another aspect. Under the niles of the law of armed conflict which are relevant
for the prohibition of nuclear weapons. the effect on human heaith and the environment
consritutes the essential basis of this prohibition. Thuitis not possible to clearly establish
the very existence ofthat prohibition without expen medical knowled~e. Ir is one of the tasks
of WHO to collect and disseminate such knowledge or at least to instigate concened effons
to this effect. Thus. the work of WHO should represent an essential basisfor the opinion of
the Coun re,grdinj the iUegaiity of the use of nuclear weapons. ThePiHo rnust, as a result,
also be interested in the legal yardstick by which such health effectsare evaluated. Health
effects and the legal yardstick applicable to the use ofthese weapons are thus inseparable;
they are thetwosidesof the same coin. ifthe health effects of nuclear weaponsfaii within the
powers of the WHO (and there is no doubt that theydo), WHO must also be competent for
the question of the legal prohibition of the weapons causing these effects. It is this very
concept which derermined the role of the WHO in irsCO-operationwirh the United Nations
21 See. inter aiia, resolutions EB4.FQ4 of July 1949, EBS.R75 of Feb. 1950;
EBSS.R64of Jan. 1975; EBS7.R47 of Jan. 1976.
-
" See alreadyResolution WHA 23.53 of May 1970, quoted abo--. rezarding theproiiibirionof chernicaland biological~e3~ons"
..-
Those objecting to the cornpetenceof the VfXO to de31rvitlthe questionof the
5.
(i1)legalityof nuclex weapons claim thatthisquestion lies withinthe exclusiveconipetence
of the United Halions which the IWO would have to respecr. .4lthough this !vas not
exp~ssedinvery cim rerms, this ideaserrnsto underlythe rnisgi\,ingstlieLesal Council of
the WHO and of manydeiezates exprcssin,odoubts about thelegalityof the requesio. This
thesis seems coresron the assurnpuonthat a kind of domaine réservéexists for the United
Xations in thefieidof the application and interpretationof the lawsof med conflict.If rhis
is the assumution, itis an erroneous one. There are no exclusivepowers of the Gnited
Nations in tliisfield. Quite to the contrary,a traditionof cooperationof the UnitedNations
wirh other bodies exists. The UnitedXationshas, in panicular, reco~nizedthe powen and
funcrionsof theInternationalCornminerof the RedCrossin thisiield. The questionsof the
apptication,L-nplemenratioand deve!opment of the lawsof anned conflictare dealtwithboth
by [DIUnitedXationsand by theRedcross".
Qu~stions regarain; peace and secunty and the Iawsof ameà conflicr have never bezn
consideredas a marrerro oe exclusivelytreatedby tlieUnited'iaions. but rarher 1common
concex anda commonÏunction of the ünited Nationsana of cenzinspecializedagencies.in
parricuiar the %;HO and UiuTSCO. The United Narions have always weicomed the
conribution of thespeciaiizedasencies in this field. ThisCO-openrionor commonaction on
the pan of both the United Nations and the speciaiized agrncies was not always
unconrroversial. Ir was argued that the basic principle of the specialized asencies was
"funcuonalism"and, asa rrsult, "political"questionshadto remainoutsidethe scopeof their
29Seca~ovenotes il and 12
'O%HO Doc. .A 16!B!SR/S p. S(hgal Council);Delegareof Srnegal. i~idernp. 12:
United States.SR'10 p. 3; XewSc3land. ibiacrnp. 6.
jl
hl. Boche.in:AI. Botnell;.3.PazschlW. A. Solf.Xew RuiesOFVictimsof Amicd
Conrlicts.1982. p. 3. 16
activities". Altliough there was considerable legal debate conceming the treatment of such
political issues as South Africa and the relations between Israel and the Anb States, it has
never been accepted that the specialized agencies were "unpolitical"". Indeed, the United
Nations rerninded cenain specialized agencies that they had their role to play in order to
promote certain policy objectives of the United Nations, for instance the BrettonWood
institutions in relation to South ~frica'~.The CO-operationbetween theUnited Nations and
WHO conceming chernical and biological weapons, already mentioned above", represents
another example of this concept of the responsibility for peace and security shared by the
United Nations and a specialized agency.
It may, however, be arsued that WHO musr respect the primary roie of the United Nations
and, in panicular, of the Security Council in the field of peace and secunty. The relevant
sectionsof-the A,mment between the United Nations and the WHO, however, provide only
for hited duties of the WHO. In relation to recornmendations of the General Assemblyand
of ECOSOC, a duty exist, to consider-thern and to consult with the U. N. (.4rt. IV). In
addirion, a duty of the WHO exists to render "such assistance for the maintenance of
internationalpcc and securiry" as theSecurityCouncii may request.This could rneana duty
of the WHO not ro create obstacles for United Nations acrivitiesj6. However, the
''O-this questionof "politicisation",see D. Wiliiams: The Specialized Agenciesand
the United Nations, 1987. pp. 55 erseq.; 4. - V. Ghebali. The Politicisation of UN
SpecializedAgencies: A PreWary Analysis. in: R. N. Wells (ed.), Peace by Pieces
- United Nations Agencies and Their Roles, 1991, pp. 12erseq.
" Williams, op. cir. p. 55; R. v. Hanstein, Der EinfiuB der Vereinten Nationen auf
die Sonderorganisationen - Anspruch und Wiruchkeit, 1989, p. 171 er seq.; W.
Meng, AT. 57, notes 37 erseq. in: B. Simrna (ed.), Chana der Vereinten Nationen,
1991; E. Klein. United Nations Specialized Agencies, in: R. Bernhardt (ed.), EPIL
Insralment 5, 1983, pp. 349 e!seq., at 366.
tr
v. Hansrein, 0.0.cir., p. 19 erseq.; Meng, loc. cir. note 42; see also 1. Seidl-
Hohenveldem, Sonderorganisarionen, in: R. Wolfxum (ed.), Handbuch Vereinte
Nationen, 2nd ed. 1991, pp. 782 erseq., note 9.
'' See above notes 11 and 12; on other "political" maners in the work of WHO, see
C. O. Tannenberg, A New InternationalHealth Order, 1979, pp. 305 erseq.
?6
CF. Meng, loc. cir. note 42 erseq pronouncement of the United Kations Genenl Assernblyto the effect that riie use of siicii
weaponsis indeedillegal" by no maris consti .utesthe final disposition the niartcr. Roorii
still exisü for an authorirarivestatementby the International Coun of Justice on tlie same
matter. Even if the World Health Assemblyis required to respectthe responsibilitiesand
hnctions of theS~curiryCouncil,thiswould notand Couldnot consritute anobligationon the
par; of WHO hadto kerp silent regardingmalters not actuallybeîorethe SecuriryCouncil.
6. .4finalpointto be considered is the fact thatthe WHA hasalready madean explicit
determinationofin owncompetence. A morjonnot toconsiderthedrah resolutionrequesring
the advisory opinion was put before the Assernblywhjch argued chattiie resolutionwere
beyondthepowenof theOrJ&tion. Tnemotion wasrejected". Thisformal determination
of the Organization'spowers rnusrbe respectedby the ICJ. llus raisesthe question ofthe
judicial review of decirions raken by internationalorganizations.Certainauthors argue that
the= is nojudicial reviewof such resolutions". For theseaurhors, itshouldbe clear chatthe
detemination made by the WX.4 concerningits own competencc 10 request an advisory
opinion was bindingfor the Coun and couid not be questioned bu it.Tliis, ho\vever:is a
sornelvhatextrerneview. Tne Coun rarhe:adopts 2 îornprornise vizw onthe inatiz:by using
the legal constructof apresumprion. in irszdvisoryopinion concening irrcmibic.theCourt
States:
"A resolutionofa properly consrirutedorgan of ;he Unitea."iarionsurhich
ispassedinac:ordance with t?ato-an's niles oi proczdure,3ndis declared
by its Presidenrto have bezn sopassed. must beprcsurnedto have been
validlyad~~ced'~ ".
--
" Resolution33171 B (1978).
" WHO Doc. A 461BISR1?p. 2.
39Caflisch,Is the InternationalCourtentitied to res.,iewSecuriryCouncil Resolutions
adopted under Chapter \Tl of the United NarionsChaner?, Paper submittedto the
Qatar InternationalLau: Conference1994,in panicuiar p. 4. - 1s
In its advisory opinionon Cenain Expensesufthe UnitedNations,the CourtStates:
"As anticipated in 1945, ...each organ must,in the fmt place at least,
determineits ownjurisdiction"."
This, too, is a hnd of presumption. The questionis thus whether, in a particularcase, any
reason exists to rebutthis presuinption. It is submitted thatno suchreasonexists. It is true
that in the NamibiaCase, the Court examined objectionsraisedconcemingthe procedureof
the organ which had requested the advisory opinion because those objections finally
concernedthejurisdictionof the Coun. The Coun, however,did not holdthat this conveyed
a right of unlimitedscmtiny regarding the requestingorgan'sjudgementconcerningits own
competence. In thepresentcase, the essentialquestion is reallywhether theWHA needsthe
-uidanceof the Coun for its future activities. Inthisrespect, a marginof appreciationmust
at leastbe -mted totherequestingbody.TheCoun willhave to accept andmay notquestion
the wisdomof the jud~ementmade by the WHX that itfeelsa needfor the Court'sguidance,
at least where the rnatterin question does not manifestlylie outsidethejurisdiction of the
requestingozan. ïhe Court, indeed, has never retüsedto :ive an opinionon the basisof a
lack ofcompetenceof therequesting organ,althoughobjectionsto this effecr havebeen raised
beiore the ~oun'?.
III
nie riextrequirementfor theadmissibiiityof a requesris tharit relatesto a legal question. As
tlie question is submitted to the Court, it concems the existence of a prohibition under
intemationallaw.This is cenainly a legalquestion.It is [nie that thislegal questioncontains
imponant politicalimplications.This does, howeve:. not excludethe legalcharacterof the
"'ICJ Repons 1962, p. 168.
.-
dlD. Pratap, TheAdvisory Jurisdictionof theInternationalCoun, 1972.pp. 122 el
seq. 19
question. A Iegalquestion putto the Coiin, in panicular a questionof treaty interpret3tion.
remains a legalquestioneven if it liasFar-re~ching political consequencesT. IieCourr, 3s ir
held in the CerrainErpensescase,
"cannot anribute a politicai characrer to a request which invites it to
undenake an essenriaiiyjudicialtask, namely,the interprerationof a treaty
provision"." -
This is the constantjurispmdence of the court". If suchpoliticaÏconsequencesnevenheless
leadthe Coun to refuseto give an opinion,the reasonis nota lackofjurisdiction, butthe fact
chat it rnigiitnocbe appropriate for the Coun to give an opinion. This is a matrer ofthe
discretionarypowerof the Coun to declinea requesr.
Even if the requestfor an advisoq opinionconscinitesa legaliyvalid extrcise of a power
conferred upon WH.4: it sriil remainswirhinrhetiiriretion.?;vpoiverof rheICI not togive
iliat opinion'2:.~nder .U. 65 of the Statute, the Csun i11q givc an adviso~ opinion.It is.
.-
however, nocobiigedrodo ~o. ..
-~
.Asthe Coun statedit in the Cerrai~Evemes Ccse:
"The powergnnted isof a discretionaq character ...Evenif the quesrion
$3
ICJ Repons 1962. p. 155; se: already iirhis sense H. Kelsen, Tlie Law of the
UniredNations, 1964,p. 548; on the broaddefinitionoïa "legaiquestion",seeais0
H. W. A. Thirlrvay.Advisor)'Opinionsof InrernationalCourts, in: Bernhardt(ed.),
EPIL vol. 1, 1992,p. 39.
24
Pratap, 0.0.cil.p. 130:L. M. GoodrichiE.HambroIX.P. Sirnons,Chancr of Che
United Narions,3rd ed. 1969,p. 567 erse!.: P. Daillier..An. 96. in: ].-P. C0tI.A.
Pellet (eds.). LîCharte aes NationsUnies. i985. p. 1237.
2s CerrainEt~emes ojlite Unired iVarions.ICI Re?ons 1962,p. 155 20
isa legd one, which theCoun is undoubtedlycompetentto answer, it may
nonetheiessdeclineto-do 50. " . .
The Coun will, however, in principle not refuse to accede to such a request. Only
"compellingreasons" shouldleadthe Coun torefuse togivea reqiiestedadvisory~~inioii'~.
This is related ro the function of the Coun as the principal judicialorgan of the United
Nations. As a maner of pnnciple, the Coun is bound to give an opinion. As thedecisive
factor in exercising its discretion, the Coun is inspired by considerations of judicial
propriety". The fact that a question is "intenwined with political questions"" does not
consututea compeiJigRasonto refuseto give an opinionin the sensediscussedabove; it does
notmake itimpmperfortheCoun toaccedeto the request.In conrentiousproceedings,it has
also bern argued that thepoliticalnature of a disputeshouldexcludethe jurisdicrion of the
Coun. The Coun clearlyrejected thisargumentin theNicaraguacase". It found thatthere
was no "inabilityof thejudicialfunctionto deal with situationsinvolvingongoingconflictJO".
In international law, no political question doctrine exists that suggeststhat couns sliould
-. refrain from giving a pronouncementon a panicular question because that question is'too
political.hus, the politicaland securityimplicationspenaining to the (i1)le;alityof the use
of~uclear weaponsdo not render itimproper, in viewof the judicial function of theCoun,
to give alegalopinion-heron.
16Judgemenr of theAdtninisrrariveTribunalojrl~eiL.0 upon compiainrsmadeagainsr
UNESCO, ICJ Repons 1953, p. 86; Cenaif1-enses ojrhe UniredNations, ICJ
Repons 1962,p. 155.
17 H. Mosler, An. 96 note 22, in: B. Simnia(ed.), Chana der VereintenNationen,
1991; M. Schroder, IGH-Internationaler Gerichtshof, in: R. Wolfrum (ed.),
Handbuch der Vereinten Nationen,2nd ed. 1991,pp. 321 et seq., note 14; Pratap,
op. cir. pp. 149erseq. ;WesremSahnra case. ICJRepons 1975, p. 21.
. .
" ICJ Repons 1962,p. 155.
69
Case concerningn~ilirarya -nd paramilirnr?acriisiriesin and a,oainsrNicaragila,
Jurisdictionandadmissibility,ICJ Repons 1984,p. 137.
JOIbidem p. 436. Anotherargumentraisedto suggestthat theCoun shouldrefuse to$'ivethat opinion maybe
called afutility argument.It issaid thata decisionholdingtharnuclearweaponsare indeed
prohibitedwouldbe of nopracricaiconsequence.ïhis argumentcan be undentood in various
ways. First, it is often said that it is improper for the Coun to answer hypotheticalor
"academic" questions. The Coun, however, has never accrpted this argumen?'. In the
Wesrem Saharacase, the Courtexpresslystatedthatirsadvisoryjurisdictionwas not iimited
to jivinj an opinion
"on exisung rights and obligations, or on their coming into existence,
modification or temination, or on the powers of internationalorgans ...
(nhe coun mayalso be requested to giveits opinionon questionsof law
which do not cal1for any pronouncemenrof this kind, thoush they may
havetheirplacewithina widerproblemthe solutionof whichcouldinvolve
such matrers5'."
Thus, the fact that the requestdoes not relate to a panicular case of use or intended use
and/or does not concernthe behaviourof any panicular sratedoes not affect thejudicial
propriety of rende~z theopinion.
The futilityargumentmayaiso 'ceinrerpreteto mcancnarir wouldbe improperfor the Coun
ot deiiver an opinion which ha no chanceof beingexecutedin practice.In this respect,the
viewsexpmed bytheCouninthe Nicaragua case are also applicable.Quotinsthe Cho~biv
decisionof the PCU, the COU?' observesthat it
"neither can or should contemplatethe contingencyof thejudgementnot
beinj compiied with."
JIPratap, op. cir.p. 130, 169e!seq.
"1~'~epons 1975.p. 20: see alsoblosler./oc. cir. note 2b
33
ICJ Reports 1981,p. 437. îhisappliçr,lissubrniatdafonio~iioadvisolyopiiiionItmus berccognized th= indeed
..
the request foan advisoly ophiion,iUliscase asiiiiiiaiothcrs,ispan ofa politicai
process designcd toachicvca cmain solutionto aproblem.This was so inphcular in
dationtothe rqusstr foradvisobinion sonccrningthestatusofNamibinand thepowers
of administraiioyvsscsscd ,rnot possusrd,by SolitAfncaand thc conaqumcss of the
prcscnce OCSou&Afnca in Namibia whlch was foundto beillegalWhm the Court was
askrd forc le-4opinion,Itwu bynomeanscenain rbatheholdlngof ditCoun would be
hon%rcd by South Afdca. ïhk, howtver, àid no!prevent the COUR hm delivering an
opinion.ltisthemleof iaw andthusalsathe mle ofthejudgestoconuibutcto thesolutiori,
in apoliricdprocws.of apoliricaplmblem byclarifyintheapplicabl eulesof thegame.
If thiacontribuLioof Chlaw iseskd fol'althebefiiiitig ofpm. thatis to say aa
pointintirrwherethesaludonof the problemstiiscuns to befar awry, thdocs notniuui
tbarthelawhasno rolcto play. ïhcplitical dificulryimplementinganopixiiongiven by
theCourtis nota coliipelling=son todenya request.
.4uckla& New Zcaland
19Scptembcr 1994 INTERNATIONAL COURTOF
-
- .. JUSTICE
LEGALïïY OF THE USE BY A STATE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN
ARMEDCONFLICT
(Request foranAdvisoryOpinion)
MEMORIAL
OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF NAURU MEMORIALOFTHE
GOVERNMENTOF THEREPUBLICOF
NAURU
Authority of Askfor Advisory Opinions
Article 96oftheUnited Nations Chartersays:
1,The General Assembly or the Security Council
may request theInternational Court ofJustice to give an
advisory opinion on any legal question.
2.Other organs of the United Nations and the
specialised agencies, whch may atany time be so
authorised by the General Assembly, may also request
advisory opinions of the Court on legal questions arising
within the scope of their activities.
Article65(1)of the Statute of the International Court ofJustice says:
The court may give advisory opinions on
any legal question at the request of whatever
body may be authorised by orin accordance
with the Charter of the United Nations to make
such a request.
The World Health Organisation is authorised to request advisory
opinions under Article X of its Relationship Agreement with the United
-
Nations which says:
(2The General Assembly authorises the World Health Organisation to request advisory opinions of theinternational
Court ofJustice on legal questions arisiig within the scope of
itscompetence other-than questions concerning the mutual
relationships of the Organisation and theUnited Nations or
other specialised agencies.
(3)Such requestsmay be addressed to the Courtby the
Health Assembly or by the Executive Board acting in pursuance
of an authorisation by theHealth Assembly.
General Assembly Resolution 1240,15 November 1947 approved that
agreement. Article 76 of the Constitution of the World Health Organisation
says:
Upon authorisation by the General Assembly
of the United Nations or upon authorisation in
accordance with any agreement between the
Organisation and theUnited Nations, the organisation
may request the International Court ofJustice for an
advisory opinion on any legal question arising with the
competence of the organisation.
So we must ask ourselves whether the use ofnuclear weapons is a legal
question arising within the cornpetence of the M7.H.0.The first question to be
answered is does it fa11with the cornpetence of W.H.O. Let us look at the
Preamble. The Preamble says:
The StatesParties to this constitution declarein
confonnity with the Charter of theUnited Nations, that
the following prinuples are basic to the happiness
harmonious relations and security of al1peoples:
Health is a state of complete physical, mental
and social weli-being and not merely the absence of
disease or inhrmity.
The enjoyment of the highest attainable standard
of health is one of the fundamentalrights of every human
being without distinction of race, religïon, political
belief, economic or socialcondition. The achievement of any State in the promotion and
protection of health isofvalue to aii.
.- -
Healthy development of the chiid isofbasic importance:
the abiliîy to live harmoniously in a changing total
environment isessential to such development.
Governments have a responsibiliîy for the health of their
peoples which can be fuifilied only by the provision of
adequa tehealth and social measures.
Accepting these principles and for the purpose of co-
operation among themselves and with others to promote
and protect the health of aiipeoples, the
Contracting Parties agree to the present Constitution and
hereby establish the World HealthOrganisation as a
speaalised agency within the terms of art. 57 of the
Charter of the United Nations.
Article 1 says:
The objective of the World HealthOrganisation
(hereinafter calied the Organisation) shall be the
attainrnent by aii peoples of the highest possible level of
health.
The victims of a nuclear attack could not possibly sustain the level of
health referred to in the Preamble and in Article l? Clearly this makes the use
of nuclear weapons a health issue. It is my intention to call a doctor to the
stand to testify that the use of nudear weapons is a health matter.
The next question to be asked is "is this a legal question?' We can
regard this as a question of justiciability. Justiuability has been defmed as the
. .
"fitness of a dispute for settlement on the basis of legal p~ciple". It has beenvery common for States to assert that a question before the Court is of a
political nature and not a proper one for judicial settlement. But a distinction
must be made between genuine "legal" non-justiciabiiity and spurious claims
of non-justiciability based on the alleged "political" nature of the subject
matter ipolitical non-justiciability).Issues of the political nature of a matter
date back to the P.C.I.J.Austro-Germn?C ~l~stomsUnion Case .l in essence the
Permanent Court was asked whether the proposed regime threatened the
independence of Austria. This question dearly invited the court to indulge in
some political forecasting and was of the greatest political importance.
Notwithstanding this al1 fifteen judges subscribed to opinions whch dealt
with the merits of the dispute and only Judge Anzelotti even mentioned the
propriety. of doing so. Advisory cases before the I.C.J. where the political
question was raised include ConditionsofAdmissionofn StntetoMernbershipifi
the UnitedNntions, 2 Competenceof theGniernlAssemblyfor theAdmissionofn
--
Statestothe UnitedNations 3,and CertainE.qmises of the UnitedNntiolis case..'
in ail three cases the argument was summarily rejected.The argument was a
legal one. Nor, said the Court was there any reason why it should refrain from
giving an opinion. In the, CertnirlExpenses Case, the Court said that only
compelling reasons could lead it to refuse to give an opinion:
-.
ïhe Court fids no "compelhg reason" why it
should not give the advison/ opinion ..It has been
argued that the question pit to the court is interhvined
with political questions, and that for tius reason the
Court shouid refuse to give an opinion. It is true that most
interpretations of the Charter of the United Nations
wdl have poiitical significance, great or smail. Inthe
nature of tiungs it could not be otherwise. The Court,
however,cannot attribute a political character to
a request wiuch invitesit to undertake an essentiaily
[1931] P.C.I.J. Rep., Ser. A/B, No. 41
[1948] I.C.J.Rep. 57.
[1950] I.C.J.Rep. 4
[1962] I.C.J.Rep. 151. judicial task...5
in that case the judicial tkk was speùfically the interpretation of a
treaty. Despite the involved political aspects of that case and its considerable
political importance only one of the fourteen judges argued that the Court
should refuse toproceed on that ground.
-
in this case the task is the interpretation of a number of keaties
induding the United Nations Charter andthe elaboration and application of
prinuples of customary international law.
Perhaps the skongest attacks on justiuability appeared in cases where
the Respondent did not even bother to corne to the Court. in the Fisheries
Ilrrisdiction Cases, the Icelandic govemment argued that Lhiswas a matter
involving "the vital interests of the people of Iceland."6 In the Nlrclenr Test
Cases, the French Govemment protested that the matter was too closely
~0mected with national security and defence of France and in the Hostnges
Case, the iranian govemment complained that the hostage problem was only
a part of a larger problem mherent in the relationship behveen the United
States and Iran of over twenty years' duration. 8 in the Militnry and
ParamilitaryActivities Case, the United States attempted to arguethat the use
of force was a political matter which should more properly have been dealt
Ibid. at 155
6 Correspondence from the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iceland to the
Registrar of the Court [1975]I.C.J.Pleadings, Vol.II,pp. 375-6,
'(19741 LC.J. Pleadings , Vol.II,pp. 347-8.
8 Il9751 I.C.J. 7, 10-11. See Gross, " The Case concerning United States
Diplornatic and Consular Staff in Tehran Phase of Provisional Measures," 74
A.J.I.L.395, 396-7(1980).with by the United Nations Security Councii. When, despite this argument
the Court found that it did possess jurisdiction, the United States withdrew
from participation in the case. in al1of these cases the parties attempted to
argue that the Court didnot possess jurisdiction.
The non-appearing respondents argued that the Court did not possess
jurisdiction with varying degrees of authority and conviction. in the Hostages
Case the Court did not even deem it necessary to waste time with a
jurisdictional phase. In ali of these cases, it would seem that, while lack of
jurisdiction was a professed motive for abstention from the judicial process,
the primary motive, in each case was a claim that the action was non-
justiciable.
Any discussion of non-justiciability inevitably involves a dialogue with
Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, the most articulate critic of the doctrine of non-
justiciability. In hs book TheFunctionof inu in thebiten~ntionnlCommiliiity,
written before he received hs knighthood and weUbefore his elevation to the
bench of the International Court of Justice, he identified "four dear-although
not mutuaily exclusive-conceptions of legal or justiciable disputes". These are:
(a) Legal disputes are such differences between States
as are capable of judiual settleme'ntby the application of
existing and ascertainable mles of international law.
(b) Legal disputes are those in which the subject-matter
of the claim relates to questions of minor and secondary
importancenot affecting the vital interestç of States, or
their extemal independence, or interna1 sovereignty, or
territorial integrity, or honour, or any of the other
important interests usualiy referred toin the so-called
"reseictive clauses" in arbitrationconventions.
(c)Legal disputes are those in which the application of
[1964 IC.J. 392. existing des of international law issufficient to ensura
resultwhich isnot incompatible with the demands of
justice between States and with a progressive
development of international relations.
(d) Legal disputesare those inwhich the controversy
concems exisfing legal rights as ditinguished from
claims aiming at a change of existing law.
Of thes-, the second conception is the oldest and probably more
accurately reflects the thinking of Government leaders than the others.
Traditionally, treatiesinvolving international arbitration exempted
disputes which might affect the vital interests, independence and
international honour of the contracting parties. Later treaties limited the
obligation to arbitrate "legal disputes" or disputes "withregardto whch the
parties are in conflict as to their respective rights". Such clauses were inserted
into declarations of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the
Permanent Court of International Justice as a means of excluding "political"
disputes or disputes related to interests and not to rights." De Visscher
expressed the view that, when a state takes a political position, it is expressing
the priority that its Government assigns to the interests involved:
The speuficaily political quality is to be seen in the
particularly close relation that the rulers assert from time
to time between the State and certaingoods or values
that they hold indispensable to its security or
greamess.12
Iceland, for example regarded the conservation of its fisheriesresources
as non-justiciable because, as a nation dependant upon its fisheries, it
'0Lauterpacht, TlieFilnctionof Lnwin theIntemationnlCornrnii?rify (1933) pp.
19-20.
11Ibid.
12De Visscher, Theoy and Realiîyin P~rblilnternationuLaw (Transl. Corbett
1959)p. 73. regarded the matter as vital. The United States and other nuclear nations do
not want a legal deusion whi& wiil limit their free hand with nuclear
weapons.
Thomas Franck points outthat "thetest is nearly useless from the point
of view of good order". l3Hence:
..the only usefui guide from the legal point of view,
is the externalbehavior of interested States.
This underlines the difficulty of developinglegalnorms which can help
us to determine what isa political dispute and what is a legal one. Political
questions, according to De Visscher, are the expression of "vital and moving
forces".They can be subject to constant change. They cannot be locked up in a
definition. 14 He did however acknowledge that certain matters generally
have a political character while others are political only in exceptional
-~
circumstances. 15 But lus book demonstrates throughout, the operation of
political factors in ali areas of international law and the fact that there is no
-
clear demarcationbetween political and other issues. With regard to domestic
-
matters he notes that there is hardlv any matter which "looked at from a
certain angle or a certain level of generalisation or specialisation" '6 may not
now be legal,now political.
Some writers are of the opinion that the distinction between legal and
political questions has no real validity. Lauterpacht argues that al1questions
whch can be resolved by the application of legal rules are legal whether or
l3 Franck, The Structu oflmpartiality (1968),p. 178.
l4 Supra note 5atp. 73. ~~
15 Ibid.
161bid.at p. 22.not they affectthe vital interests ofStates.17 Thus aiiconflictsin the sphere of
international politics can be rediiced to confiicts of a legal nature. 1s One
wnter points out that there have been quite a few situations in which cases
involving political tension have been brought before the Court. 19 He cites as
examples the Angl~lrnnian Oil Co. Case Zo,the Co* Channel Case 3, the
Cnsesof Trentmentin Htcligay ofAircraftof the UnitedStatesofArnericn, 2? the
Asylum Case z3the AerialIncidentsCases 24 and theAntnrcticT&toy Cases.
25
17 Supra note 3 at p. 139. See also Doecker, "International Politics and the
International Court pf Justice", 35 Tulane L.R. 767, 770 (1961); Brown,
"Reserved International Rights",38 Am 281 (1944); Sd-iwarzenberger,Power
Politics(2d Rev. ed. 1951) p.450, although Schwarzenberger argues that "an
organised societybased upon a community spirit and founded upon the rule
oflaw seems tobe an illusion".
18Lauterpacht,ibid.atp. 164.
19Doecker,supra note 10 at 782.
20[1952] I.C.J.Rep.93.
21 [1949I.C.J.Rep..
22[1952]LC.J.Re9 p. ,103. -
'3[1950] I.C.J.Rep. 266.
24 [1956] I.C.J.6; [1959]I.C.J.Rep. 276.
25[1956] I.C.J.Rep. 12. Lauterpacht points to the-historical paradox that many disputes of
political importance were settled by the judicial processwhiie many disputes
which were obviously capable of decision along strictly legal lines were
withheld from adjudication or arbitration on the ground that they were
essentially political.26
- .~
In fact, al1 international disputes induding legal controversies are
political because the State is a political institution and al1 questions which
affect it, particularlythose which deal with its relationship with other States
are political.27The nature of the judiaal task is isolation of the legalproblems
from the political situation and solution of legal problems on the basis of
objective rules of international law to the exclusion of extra-legal
considerations. 28In the words ofJudge Hardy C. Diliard:
Just as men are neither a pack of wolves
nor a choir ofangels andmarnages are
sometimes happy and sometimes Sad, so
with disputes. Most of them, as we aii know.
25 (19561I. C..J.
26 Supranote 3 at p. 163.
27 Ibid. atp. 153.
2s Rosenne, The ~ntemationaC l ourtoflustire (1957),p. 66. have both a political and a legal component.
And surely, the legalcomponent can usually
be siphoned off for analysis. 29
-AsDe Visscher points out, lawyers and politicians look at these matters
through different lenses. A lawyer is likely to ask whether there are mies of
internationallaw which can be broughtto bear on the issue. To a politician the
question is the extent to which State interests, or even Govemment policy
(which is often identified with State interests) are affected by the dispute. A
Govemment may refuse to submit a dispute to legal settlement without
disputing the existence of legal des which can be applied by the judge or
arbitrator. 30Thus the attempt to measure justiciability in terms of political
importance is illusory,
In Lauterpacht's view, it is not the nature of a matter wluch makes it
unfit for judicial settlement, but the unwillingness of States to have it settled
by application of law. 31Arthur Larsen made the foliowing point:
..the real obstacle to adjudication isnot inherent in
- the nature of thuigs, but it is largely a matter of deliberate
choice. As of todaynations stayaway from the Court ...
simply because they prefer to retain their freedom of ~..
action, and in many cases because they apparently prefer
to live with conhuing controversy than take a chance on
an unfavorable decision. In short, the problem isn't
"can't-its "won't".32
29 Address to the American Society of International Law, "The World Court -
An Inside View" 67Proc. ASIL 296,299 (1972-73).
30supra note 5at p. 331.
.. 31Supranote 3 at p. 369.But see Roserme, "Su Hersch Lautepacht's Concept of
the Task of an InternationalJudge", 55 AJlL825,832, note 34 (1961).Roserme
believes that there are other extra-judicial factors which may establish the
non-justiciability of a particular matter.
32Larsen, "Peace Through Law: The Role and Limits of Adjudication-Some
Contemporary Problems", 54 Proc. ASIL8(1960). .. -
in the FishniesJllrisdictionCases, the Hostnges Case and the Military
and Paramilitay Activities Case the Court wasnot sympathetic to the claim
that the matters were political and thus not fit for judicial settiement. in al1
three cases the Court went on to deùde the merits of the case despite the pleas
by Iceland, Iran and the United States that the matters were political and
therefore not suitable for settiementby the Court.
Thereare strong legal arguments that can be made about the legality of
the use ofnudear weapons, particularly strong are the arguments relating to
jus in bello..But before proceeding to the jus in bello arguments, it would seem
necessary to canvass some of the reasons why the use of nuclear weapons is
uniawful according to the jus ndbellurn..
The United Nations Charter
Article 2(4)of the United Nations Charter says:
AU members shail refrain in their
international relations from the threat
or use of force against the territorial
integrity or political independence of
any state, orinanyotherrnnriner inconsistoit
witlithePilrposesoftheUnitedNntions, (emphasis
added).
Therefore, the use of nudear weapons is unlawful because the use of
force is unlawfui. This automatically excludes any aggressive "first strike"
uses.
The itaiicised portion of thi sule is frequently ignored by
scholars. But let us look dosely at it. The purposes of the United Nations are set out in Article 1 of the Charter. There are three
relevant paragraphs. ..
Article l(1) says that one of the chief purposes of the
United Nations is:
- .~ Tomaintain international peace and security ....
The remainder of the paragraph speaks of collective
measures for the removal of threats to the peace, breaches ofthe
peace and acts ofaggressionand peacefd settlement of dsputes.
Certainly the use of nudear weapons is inconsistent with
the maintenance of internationalpeace and security.
Paragraph 2 says:
To develop friendly relationsamongnations
based on respect for the principles ofequal rights
and selfdetermination ofpeoples, and to take
other appropnate measures to strengthen
universal peace.
Again the use of nuclear weapons can be seen to be
fundamentaiiy inconsistent with the idea of developing friendly
relationsamongnations.
Paragraph 3 says:
To adiieve internationalCO-operation in
solvinginternationalproblems of an economic, social,cultural,or
humanitanan character, and inpromotuig
and encouraging respectfor humannghts
and for fundamental freedoms for aii
without distinction as to race, sex, language,
or religion.
Nudear war is not international co-operation. It does not
help to solve problems of an economic, social, cultural or
humanitarian character, rather it creates and aggravates such
problems and, it can be seen to violate basic human rights and
fundamental freedoms.
The use of nuclear weapons violates other provisions of
the United Nations Charter. Articles 33(1d)irects the parties to a
dispute to seek a solution using peaceful means for the
settlement of such disputes. The use ofnuclear weapons does not
amount to peaceful settlement.
Article 55savs:
With a view to the creation of conditions of
stability and weil-being which are necessary
for peaceful and friendly relationsamong
nations based on respect for the principle of
equal rights and self-determination of
peoples, the United Nations shd promote:
a. higher standards of living, fuli
employment, and conditions of economic
and social progress and development.
b. solutions of international, social,
health an,d related problems; and
international culturaland educational co-
operation. .-
c.universal respect for, and
observance of, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without
distinction as to race,%,language, or
religion (emphasis added).
We cm see the fundamental inconsistency of the use of
nudear weapons with those objectives.
Artide 56says:
AU members pledge themselves to take joint
and separate actionin CO-operation with the
organisation for the achievement of the
purposes set forthinArtide 55.
Human Ri ehts Law
Before proceeding to a jiiin bel10 argument we might
also want to look at basic human rightslaw. For instance one can
argue that the use of nuclear weapons violates the foUowing
principles in theUniversal Dedaration of Human Rights. 33
Article1says:
AU hurnan beings are bom free and equal indipty
and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience
and should act toward one another in a spirit of
brotherhood.
Obviously to use such a horrible weapon on someone
does not recognise that person's dipty and rights. It cannot be
regarded as acting toward the victirn in a spirit of brotherhood.
33U.N.. DOC.A/8ll (10December 1948). Artide 3 deals with the right to life, iiberiy and security of
person. The use of nudear weapons against people may well
deprive them of their right to iife. The current threat of nudear
weapons has a negative impact on everyone's sense of security.
Artide 5 prolubits torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment. 1think we can Say that the victims of
nudear weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and future victims
have experienced and will experience cruel, inhuman and
degrading treab-nent.
Artide 8says:
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the
competent national tribunals for acts violating the
fundamental rights granted hm bv the constitution or by
law.
In a nuclear war there is no remedy and there is -no
tribunal capable of admi&stering such a remedy.
--
Article 12 protects against arbitrary interference with
privacy, family, home and correspondence. A nuclear war will
arbitrarily destroy families and homes.
Article 25 talks of the right to an adequate standard of
living. Assuming that one survived a nuclear war, one would be
reduced to the process of living at a bare subsistence level. A
nuclear war would infact render superfluousmost of the rights
in the Universal Dedaration, freedom of expression, freedom of
assembly, freedom of religion, the right to take part in the govemment of one's countq, the right to rest and leisure. So we
can Saythat it wodd violate Artides 18,19,20,21 and 24.
Artide 28is aIsorelevant. It says:
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in
which the rights and freedoms setforth inthis declaration
can be fuliy realised.
The status of the Universal Dedaration isquestionable. On
one view it is merely declaratory and has no legal force.34On
another view it has found its way into the corpus of customary
internationallaw and is therefore binding on-aiiStates,regardless
of whether they are parties to any human rights treaties. 35 But
we can find references to similar rights in the human rights
treaties particularly the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights.
-
34Watson, "Legal Theory, Efficacy and Validity of Human Rights Noms<"
(1979)U. Il1L.F. 609;Seealso Schachter, Internationa law inTheoryandPractice
(1983) pp. 334-38.For areply to Watson see J.Elkind, "Normative Surender"
9Michigan Journal of International Legal Studies 263,266-273(1988).
35 Schwelb, "The International Court of Justice and the Human Rights Clause
of the Charter," 66 AJIL 337(1972); Sohn, "Protection of Hunan Rights
Through International Legislation" in 1 Rene C-assin, ~miconim
Discipiilonrrnqiieiber 325 (1969);Lauterpacht, lntemntionnlLnwand Hirman
Rights (1950,1973)pp. 115-60. Turning to the jus inbel10 arguments; the position in customary
international law is that the use of.poison in warfare is prohibiti36
The most positive and clear enactment on the subject isfound in Article
23(a) of the Hague Regulations, 37 which is in unequivocal terms and is
regarded as a fundamental principle regarding the law of weapons in war.
The term poison means "any substance that, when introduced into, or
absorbed by a living organism destroys iife or injures health. 38 The use of
nuclear weapons contaminates water and food, as well as the soi1 and the
plants that may grow on it. Ths is so not only in areas covered by immediate
nuclear radiation, but also in a much larger unpredictable zone which is
affected by radioactive fall-out. In regard to immediate nuclear radiation
which consists of neutrons and gamma rays said to be released
instantaneously with the explosion, it is now well established that a certain
dosage is destructive of human life. It gives rise to disease, ag,~ravates
suffering and frequently proves lethal. Exposure to radiation brings about
chemical changes both in plant and animal life including human beings.
Accepting the normal definition of poison, nuclear radiation appears to be
something whch can be described as poisonous in its effects. 39
It is my intention to cal1a doctor to the stand. to testify that nudear
radiation destroys Me and injures health.
36 Schwarzenberger, TheLegnlityofNiiclenrWenpons(1968)p. 30-4.
37 Signed at the Hague 18October 1907.entered into force 26January 1910;TS
9 (1910),Cd. 5030;P (1910) CXIl 59; 100 B.S.P.338; 25 H.C.T. 596; 3 Martens
(V)461;Supra note 11 at p. 43.
38 Supra note 36 at p. 27,uting TheShorterOxfordDictionny.
39 Singh, NiiclenrWenpons nndltltemntio?inLlnw (1959)p. 157. Other international anti-poison instruments whch are violated by
nuclear weapons are the Declaration of St. Petersburgh of 1868 wiuch is the
first major international codification ofthe laws of war in modem times, ,the
Hague Declaration on Asphyxiating Gases of July29,1899 and the Geneva
Gas Protocol of 1925. 40 That Protocol prohibits "the use in war of
asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of al1analogous liquids, matenals
or devices" and States that "such use has beenjustly condemned by the .
general opinion of the civilised world". The United States is the most
prominent of the non-Parties. But we have shown that the prohibition of
poison is a rule of customary international Iaw and is therefore binding on
States which are not Parties to the Geneva Gas Protocol.
Artide 14 of the ICRCDraft Rules (1956)expanded on the Geneva Gas
Protocol. It said:
...the use iprohibited of weapons whose harmful
effects-resuliing in particular from the dissemination
of incendiary, diemical, bacteriological, radioactive
or otheragents -couid spread to an unforeseen degree
or escape, eitherin space or tirne, from the control
-. of those who employ them.
It isforbidden to use weapons which cause unnecessary or aggravated
suffering. Tius is the milita- counterpart of the rule found in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights and in other human rights documents
prohibiting cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment. It is aimed at
reducing the suffering of combatants, although it applies to the use of
40 Cmnd. 3604(1930);94 LNTS 65(1927), weapons against civilians as weli. The ban on excessively cruelweapons dates
back to the earliest recorded instances of humanitarian law. Thus, the right of
parties to an armed conflict to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not
uniimited.
The Declaration of St. Petersburgh was prompted by the desire of the
Russian Government to ban the use of dum dum bullets, i.e. projectiles
designed to explode upon contact with the human body. It hardly needs
saying that the cruelty and inhumanity of nuclearweapons is astronomically
greater than that of dum dum bdets. The blast and bum effects of such
weapons and ail their other cowequences including the radiation
consequences and the genetic consequences demonstrate that they cause
unnecessary and aggravated suffering. The rule againstcausing unnecessary
or aggravated suffering is enshrined in the Dedaration of Petersburgh. Article
23(e) of the Hague Regulations on Land Warfare of 1907 41says that "the use
-.
of arms, projectiles or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering is
prohibited"
-
-
Environmental Safetv
Everyone has a right to a safe, clean, livable environment. The
Stockholm Declaration of the United Nations Conference on the Human
Environment (1972)adopted prinuple 26which said:
Man and his environmentmust be spared the effects
of nuclear weapons and ail other means of mass
destruction.States must strive to reach prompt
agreement,in the relevantinternational organs,
on the elimination and complete destruction of such
weapons.
" Supra note 11. P~ciple 21says:
States have, inaccordance with the UnitedNations
Charter and the prinaples ofinternationallaw ...
the responsibility to ensure that activities within
their jurkdiction or control do not cause damage to
the environment of other Statesor of areas beyond
the limts of national jurisdiction.
Article 35(3) of Geneva Protocol 1 (1977) 42 declares that "it is
prohibited to employ methods of warfare that are intended, or may be
expected to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the
environment". Article 55provides:
1. Care shallbe taken in warfare to protectthe
natural environment againstwidespread, long-
term and severe damage. This protection indudes
a prohibition on the use of methods or means of
warfare which areintended or may be expected
to cause sudi-damageto the natural environment
and thereby to prejudice the health and survival
of the population.
2. attacks against the natural environment by way
of reprisais are prohibited.
The United States of America and the United Kmgdom but not China,
France or the U.S.S. Re.lared, upon sigrung Protocol 1,that it was their
understanding that its rules were "not intended to have any effect on and do
not reguiate or prohibit the use of nudear weapons". But we must understand
that thisisnot a reservation. It is an understanding of the interpretation that
42 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and
Relating to the protection of Victims of International ArmeConfhets adopted
at ..neva, ]une 8,1977, U.N. Doc. A/32/144 August 12,1977; 16 KM 1391
(1977);Mire, No. 19;(Cmnd. 6927)p.23. these two nations wish to have placed on the Treaty. But, as an
understanding, it must be regarded as purely self-seming and neither the
internationalcommunity nor the International Court of Justice is bound by it.
Even if it could be considered a resemation, Article 19(c )f the Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties 43 provides that a signing state may not
formulate a resemation which is"incompatible with the object and purpose of
the treaty".
-.
The United Kingdom has not ratified Protocol I4 and the United States
has ratified ProtocolIl 45but not Protocol 1.Protocol 1has however been
ratified by over 70 States and we can Say that it must now be regarded as
customary intemational law which is binding on aii States.
The World Charter for Nature adopted by the United Nations General
Assembly on 26 October 1962 proclaims in Principle 5 that nature "shall be
secured against degradation caused by warfare or other hostile activities".
The theory of "nuclear winter" was propounded by a group of
distinguished scientists46It is based on mathematical models and assumes
that a major nudear exchange of about 10,000 megatons would result in a
mean reduction of 50% of the ozone layer in the Northem Hemisphere and
30% in the Southern Hemisphere. This would result in an increase in
.
44Supra note 17.
46Ehrlich, Sagan, Kennedy and Roberts, NuclearWinter(1984). ultraviolet radiation (UV-B) by a factor of five or inore. 47 It woiild also
make the eartll miicl\..coldei-. 1.t woiild mnke wari~i places cool alid cold
places iinlivable.
The nuclear winter theory gives us some idea of the severity that the
effects of nudear war would have on the environment. Even a single small
tactical nuclear detonation 48 is likely to affect the environment adversely
since it would damage not only humans but plant and other animal life.
Nuclear weapons are weapons which dearly damage the environment and as
such arebanned.
TheDestruction of Medical Faciiitia
Nuclear weapons are indiscriminate. They would result in the
destruction of medical facilities. This is forbidden by the Geneva Conventions.
-.
Article 19 of the Geneva Convention of 1949, for the Amelioration of the
Condition of the Wounded and Sickin kmed Forces in the Field says:
-
-
Fixed establishments and mobile medical units
of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be
attacked but shall at al1times be respected and protected
by the Parties to the conflict...
Article21 says:
47International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, LnstAid (1982)
p. 282.
48 Tactical nuclear weapons are common terms for those nuclear weapons
systems which, by virtue of their range and yield as well as the way they are
incorporated in a military organisation, have been designed or can be used for
employment against military targets in a theatre of war. The protection to which fixed establishments and
mobile medical units of the medical Service are entitled shaii
not cease unless they are used to commit, outside their
humanitarian duties, acts harmfu to the enemy. Protection
may, however ceaseonly after a due waming has been given,
naming, in ail appropriate cases, a reasonable time limit
and after such warning has remained unheeded.
Article 18 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of
CiviiianPersons in Time ofWar says:
Civilian hospitais organised to give care to the wounded
and si&, the infirm and matemity cases, may in no
circumstances be the object of attack but shaii at aii times be
respected and protected by the Parties to the contlict.
States which areParties to a confiict shall provide all
civilian hospitals with cerhficates showingthat they are
civiiian hospitals and that the buildings which they occupy
are not used for any purposes which would deprive these
hospitals of protectionin accordance with Artide 19.
Civilian hospitals shail be markedby means of
the emblem provided for in Artide 38of the Geneva
Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of
the Wounded and Si& inArmed Forces in the Field of August
12,1949,(the red cross or red crescent) but only if so
authorised by the state
The Parties to the conflict shaii, insofar as military
considerationpermit, take the necessary steps to make
the dishctive emblems indicating civdian hospitals clearly
visible to the enemy land, air and naval forcesin order to
obviate the possibiiity of any hostile action.
in view of the dangers to which hospitals may be exposed
by being close to military objectives, it is recommended that
such hospitals be situated as far as possible from such objectives.
Clearly, there isno way inwhich a strategic nudear attack by ICBMs or
other long range missiles can pick out civdianhospitals from military targets
and ensure their protection.
Article 12of ProtocolI says: 1.Medicalunits shaUbe respected and protected ataii
timesand shaiinot be the objectofattack.
2.Paragraph 1 shaU applyto avilian medical unitsrovided
that they:
(a)belong to one ofthe es to theconfiict;
@) are recognisedand authorisedby the competent
authority ofone ofthe Parties to thedict; or
(c)areauthorised inconforrnitywith Article9, paragraph
2,of thisProtocol or Artide 27of the FirstConvention.
3. the Parties to the confiictare invited toeach other of the
locationoftheirfixedmedical unitsT.heAbsenceofsuch
notificationshaiinot exempt any ofthe Parties from the
obligationto tocomply with theprovisions ofparagraph 1.
4.Under no circumstancesshaiimedical unitb se usedin an
attempt to shield military objectivesfrom attack.Whenever
possible,he Parties to theconflictshallensure that medical
unitasre so sited that attacks against military objectivessha;ll
not imperil their safeîy.
A nuclear armed confict,inthatitwodd destroy civilian and military
hospitals and thereby place a great strain on the medical faciiities of the
attackedparty would violate the Genevaconventions. It is forbidden to use weapons that faii to dWiminate between military
and civilian targets. 49A 9 5 was
submitted by the Secretary General of the United Nations to the General
Assembly pursuant to a General Assembly Resolution. 50That study examines
the iikely effects of the use of nudear weapons ranging from a 1 kiloton
tactical nuclear weapon, to.-trategic weapons of moderate yield to total
nuclear war employing the largest weapons with yields of up to 20megatons.
The smali atomic fission weapon exploded over Hiroshima on August
6, 1945 was small by today's standards. It had a yield of 12.5 kilotons and .
today it would be considered a tactical nudear weapon. Yet tens of thousands
of civiiians were bumed, blasted and uushed to death by the explosion..
Within three months of the explosion an estimated 130,000people died of
their injuries.j1 The officia1estimate of the total number of civiiian deaths
attributable to the bomb by the city of Hiroshima is 200,000. 52
Today's nudear arsenals contain weapons with yield of up to 800 times
that of the Hiroshima bomb. A weapon exploded over New York City could
kili up to 7million civilians53
49 Weston, "Nuclear Weapons Versus international Law: A Contextual
Reassessment", 28 McGill Law Journal 542(1983).
50 Resolution 33/91 D, 16 December 1980.Also published by Autumn Press,
1980.
. ..
51 J.Schell.TheFateojEart11(1982)p. 37.
52 R.J.Lifton and R.Falk, IndefoisibleWeupons(1982) p. 40.
j3 T. Stonier, Nl~cleur isaster(1964)p. 24. ProtocolI of the Geneva Convention requires discrimination between
civilian and military targets.rticie 48-containsthe basicde. It says:
Inorder to ensure respect forand protectionof
the civilian population and civiiian objects,the
Parties to theonflictshail at aii times distinguish
between the civilian population and combatants
and between civilian objecs and military objectives
and accordingly shall directtheir operations only
against miiitary objectives54
Article 51says:
1.The civiiian population and individual avilians
shail enjoy general protection againçdangers
arising from rniljtary operations. Togive effect
tothi~srotection, the foiiowing des, which are
additickl to other applicable &es ofinternational
law, shaiibeobserved in ailcircumstances.
2.The civiiian population as su&, as well as individual
civilians, shaii not be the objectof attack. Acts or threats
of violence the primary purpose ofwhichis to spread
terror among the civdian population are prohibited.
3. Civiliars shall enjoy the protection afforded by tius
section. udess and for such time as they take part in
hostilities.
4.indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.indiscriminate
attacks are:
(a)those which arenot directed at a specificmilitary
objective;
(b) those which empioya method or means ofcombat
which cannot be directed at a specificmilitary
objective;or
(c)those which employ a method or means ofcombat
the effectsofwhich cannot be limited as required by
thi srotocol;
j4Supra note 17at 1412. and consequently, in each such case, are of anature to sbike
militas, objectives and civilians or aviiian objecîs without
distinction. ..
5.Among others, the foiiowing types of attacks are to be
considered as indiscriminate:
(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or
means which treats asa single militas, objective a
number of dearly separated and distinctmilitary
- objectives located in a aty, town, village or other
area containing a simdar concentration of civiiians
or civiiian objects;and -
(b) An attack whch may be expected to cause
incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civiiians,
damage to civilian objecîs, or combinationthereof,
which would be excessive in relation to the concrete
and directmilitary advantage anticipated.
6.Attadcs against the civiiian population or civilians
by way of repnsals are prohibited. s5
Nuclear weapons are a means of combat which cannot be limited as
required by these sections. A strategic nuclear weapon is incapable of
discrirninating between civilian and military targets. For that -reason it must
be regarded as "indiscriminate" and therefore proi-ubited by Artides 48 and 51
, i
Counsel for the Republic of Nauru
-
55 Ibid. at 1413.
Written Statement of the Government of Nauru