The Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the use of nuclear weapons

1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (316) ◽  
pp. 21-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric David
Keyword(s):  
International Justice ◽  
World Health ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
The Hague

Of the 51 opinions handed down by the Court of the Hague (28 by the Permanent Court of International Justice and 23 by the International Court of Justice), there is little doubt that the two delivered on 8 July 1996 in response to requests submitted by the WHO World Health Assembly and the United Nations General Assembly will become landmarks in the history of the Court, if not in history itself.

The International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion in the Nuclear Weapons Cases — A first appraisal

1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (316) ◽  
pp. 103-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
John H. McNeill
Keyword(s):  
World Health ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Advisory Opinions

There were two requests for advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice — the first from the World Health Organization (WHO), and the second from the United Nations General Assembly.

ICRC statement to the United Nations General Assembly on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons

1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (316) ◽  
pp. 118-119
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
United Nations General Assembly

The debate in the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly (51st Session, 1996) on agenda items 71 and 75 (disarmament and the 1980 Conventional Weapons Convention) gave the ICRC the opportunity to make the following brief comment on the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice relating to the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons:This was the first time that the International Court of Justice analysed at some length international humanitarian law governing the use of weapons. We were pleased to see the reaffirmation of certain rules which the Court defined as “intransgressible”, in particular the absolute prohibition of the use of weapons that are by their nature indiscriminate as well as the prohibition of the use of weapons that cause unnecessary suffering. We also welcome the Court's emphasis that humanitarian law applies to all weapons without exception, including new ones. In this context we would like to underline that there is no exception to the application of these rules, whatever the circumstances. International humanitarian law is itself the last barrier against the kind of barbarity and horror that can all too easily occur in wartime, and it applies equally to all parties to a conflict at all times.

Size Matters, Although It Shouldn’t: The ICRW and Small Cetaceans. A Reply to Stephenson, Mooers and Attaran

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-278 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ed Couzens
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Issue Area ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Draft Resolution ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
Size Matter

AbstractWritten as a response to the article ‘Does Size Matter? The ICRW and the Inclusion of Small Cetaceans’ by Sean Stephenson, Arne Mooers and Amir Attaran, this commentary considers how important global and regional biodiversity- or conservation-related conventions have deliberately avoided the issue area of cetacean management. One of the effects of this is that so-called ‘small cetaceans’ – approximately 70 species – are left largely unregulated. This article differs from that of Stephenson and his co-authors, who argue that the ‘only appropriate’ forum for dealing with the issue is the International Court of Justice. Instead, it is argued here that the ‘Future of the IWC’ compromise process may yet represent the best course for bringing small cetaceans under IWC management authority. Another alternative was recently suggested in a draft resolution put forward by Monaco in 2012 – and is likely to be put forward again in 2014 – which advocated involving the United Nations General Assembly in the issue. The issue is both complicated and important, and a solution is needed.

The Opinions of the International Court of Justice on the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

1997 ◽  
Vol 91 (3) ◽  
pp. 417-435 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Matheson
Keyword(s):  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
World Health ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Subject ◽  
United Nations General Assembly ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Advisory Opinions

On July 8, 1996, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) responded to requests by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) for advisory opinions on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. These opinions deserve careful attention, and have already been the subject of considerable scholarly commentary.

The Changing Role of the International Court

1985 ◽  
Vol 20 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 182-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shabtai Rosenne
Keyword(s):  
Western Europe ◽  
League Of Nations ◽  
International Justice ◽  
Russian Revolution ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
Changing Role

En s'efforçant, au lendemain de la guerre [1914 – 1918], de poser les bases d'une société de peuples régie par le droit, les fondateurs de cette communauté internationale nouvelle se rendaient pleinement compte qu'il ne saurait y avoir une société organisée sans un pouvoir judiciaire chargé de veiller, en dehors de toute préoccupation de politique et de force, à la stricte observation du droit. C'est dans cette conviction qu'ils ont prévu, dès l'origine, la création de la Cour permanente de Justice internationale.Feinberg in 1931Reviewing the history of the Permanent Court of International Justice and of the International Court of Justice from 1922—the World Court, a convenient but possibly misleading expression which embraces both the Permanent Court from 1922 to 1945 and the present International Court of Justice established as an integral part of the United Nations since—four clearly separated periods can be discerned. They run from 1922 to 1931, 1932 to 1940, 1946 to 1966, and from 1967 onwards.The establishment of the League of Nations and the Permanent Court after a cataclysmic war in Europe and the awe-inspiring Russian Revolution released a wave of euphoria upon the exhausted and war-weary peoples of what is now known as Western Europe, and they placed great hopes in the new League and Court.

The Ban on the Use of Force in the UN Charter

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nico Schrijver
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The Other ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
History Of

This chapter focuses on Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force in international relations. After discussing pre-Charter attempts to restrict states’ freedom to resort to warfare, it examines the emergence of a normative doctrine on a bellum justum. It considers the history of Article 2(4) and the other articles of the Charter that touch on the use of force and outlines exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force, including the so-called Uniting for Peace procedure. It examines the interpretation of Article 2(4) in the practice of the General Assembly, Security Council, and International Court of Justice), together with its inclusion in a number of multilateral treaties. Finally, it assesses the question whether the use of force after 1945 conforms to the object and purpose of Article 2(4), as well as the legal status of the prohibition to use force in contemporary international law.

scholarly journals The Kosovo Opinion and Secession: The Sounds of Silence and Missing Links

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 881-889 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Burri
Keyword(s):  
Armed Forces ◽  
Ethnic Cleansing ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
High Profile ◽  
United Nations General ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Low Profile ◽  
International Court ◽  
United Nations General Assembly

With the request for an advisory opinion on Kosovo opportunity knocked on the doors of the International Court of Justice. The opportunity was unique for several reasons. First, the case of Kosovo was momentous. It had involved war. International armed forces had intervened to stop ethnic cleansing. Since then, the situation of Kosovo has been politically loaded. It has polarized the entire international community. Second, it is a rare occurrence that such a situation comes to the Court. The regular case, if there is such a thing, before the Court has tended to be a relatively low-profile interstate dispute. The Kosovo incidence had only come to the Court in the first place—like the case of the Wall on the West Bank, the other recent high-profile exception—because the detour via the United Nations General Assembly had been open.

The 1987 Elections to the International Court of Justice

1988 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 379-388 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward G. Lee ◽  
Edward McWhinney
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Hague Convention ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The Hague ◽  
The Hague Convention

The Statute of the International Court of Justice specifies that the nominations of candidates for election to the Court shall be made by “national groups” constituted either by the national groups in the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PGA), or by national groups appointed for this purpose “under the same conditions” as those prescribed for members of the PCA under the Hague Convention of 1907. As of May 1987, about half the member states of the United Nations — seventy-six out of one hundred and fifty-eight — were members of the PCA, but among these only sixty-two had functioning national groups. Official United Nations documents show that a great many national groups from other states, perhaps created on an ad hoc basis for the regular elections to the Court, submit nominations as provided under Article 4(2) of the Statute. Once a candidate has been nominated by one or more national groups, the state of which he is a national is free to decide whether formally to sponsor his candidacy and to seek the support of other states in the elections to be held in the General Assembly and the Security Council.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document