International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion on Nuclear Weapons
July 1996
After studying reports and papers and hearing oral evidence from many countries, organisations and individuals, a series of advisory opinions were given at the end of the ICJ discussions. The main four concerning nuclear weapons were as follows:
A threat or use of force by means of nuclear weapons that is contrary to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and that fails to meet all the requirements of Article 51, is unlawful
Passed unanimously
A threat or use of nuclear weapons should also be compatible with the requirements of the international law applicable in armed conflict, particularly those of the principles and rules of international humanitarian law, as well as with specific obligations under treaties and other undertakings which expressly deal with nuclear weapons
Passed unanimously
It follows from the above-mentioned requirements that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law;
However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake
Passed by eight votes to seven on the President’s casting vote. However, three of the judges voting against did so because they took the complete illegality view and did not agree with the possible “extreme circumstances” exception. So, in effect, the vote for illegality was ten to four.
There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.
Passed unanimously
The Court was composed as follows:
President: BEDJAOUI
Vice-President: SCHWEBEL
Judges: ODA, GUILLAUME, SHAHABUDDEEN, WEERAMANTRY, RANJEVA, HERCZEGH, SHI, FLEISCHAUER, KOROMA, VERESHCHETIN, FERRARI-BRAVO, HIGGINS
April 2008
Twelve years have passed since the unanimous conclusion by the court that all states are legally obliged to pursue negotiations in Good Faith on nuclear disarmament. This obligation is not just about engaging in the process of negotiation. There has to be an outcome – the global abolition of nuclear weapons.
Negotiating in Good Faith means conferring sincerely and flexibly to achieve the desired result – global nuclear disarmament. The objective should be pursued consistently with real political will. The conclusion should be reached with all deliberate speed and the parties must avoid policies which contradict the very purpose of the negotiations.
Several international Citizen Groups are now working together as the World Court Project to Abolish Nuclear Weapon. They are preparing a resolution for the United Nations General Assembly which will ask the International Court of Justice for legal advice on whether the nuclear states are complying with their Good Faith obligation and to explain what compliance would require. They believe this will bring more legal pressure on the minority of states with nuclear weapons to keep their promise to work towards a world free from the menace of nuclear weapons.
World Court Project UK
Secretary, George Farebrother
67 Summerheath Rd, Hailsham,
Sussex UK BN27 3DR
+44 (0)1323 844 269
geowcpuk@gn.apc.org
World Court Project UK is working to publicise and have implemented the 8 July 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legal status of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.
