Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the use of nuclear weapons under international law — A few thoughts on its strengths and weaknesses

1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (316) ◽  
pp. 92-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manfred Mohr
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
The Public ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

On 8 July 1996, the International Court of Justice finally rendered its Advisory Opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. The procedure had been dragging on since the start of the public sittings on 30 October 1995. Several deadlines set by the Court for reaching a decision came and went, ultimately giving rise to the fear that there would be no decisive majority to affirm the basic unlawfulness of the use of nuclear weapons. This would have been a bitter setback for the initiators of the Advisory Opinion proceeding and for the development of international law.

The Completeness of International Law and Hamlet's Dilemma

1999 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 225-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Current State ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Self Defence

AbstractThe aim of this paper is to examine whether the possibility of a genuine non liquet is ruled out by a so-called ‘closing rule’underlying public international law. The answer to this question largely determines the relevance of the debate on the legality and legitimacy of the pronouncement of a non liquet by an international court. This debate was recently provoked by the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat and Use of Nuclear Weapons. In this opinion, the Court held that it could not definitively conclude whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons was contrary to international law in an extreme circumstance of self-defence in which the survival of a state is at stake. Nevertheless, some authors have argued that, since international law contains a closing rule stating that the absence of a prohibition is equivalent to the existence of a permission (or vice versa), the Court had in fact decided the legality of nuclear weapons. By virtue of this closing rule, the pronouncement of a non liquet would be impossible. In our analysis, we have taken issue with this view and claim that there are no a priori reasons for the acceptance of a closing rule underlying international law. It is possible indeed that a legal system is simply indifferent towards a certain type of conduct. Moreover, even if a closing rule would be assumed, this rule would be of no help in determining the legality or illegality of the threat and use of nuclear weapons, since the Court asserted that the current state of international law and the facts at its disposal were insufficient to enable it to reach a definitive conclusion. Nothing follows from this assertion, except the assurance that international law cannot definitively settle the question of the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons: to be permitted or not to be permitted, that is still the question. Hamlet's dilemma precisely.

International humanitarian law and nuclear weapons

1996 ◽  
Vol 36 (313) ◽  
pp. 500-502
Author(s):  
The Review
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
World Health ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Health Organization

On 8 July 1996, the International Court of Justice gave its advisory opinion in response to two enquiries as to the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. Whilst the Court did not examine in detail the request put forward by the World Health Organization, it did give very close attention to the question presented by the General Assembly:“Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law?”

Case Analysis: The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice in the WHO Nuclear Weapons Case: A Critique

1997 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 525-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. F. Amerasinghe
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
World Health ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Health And Environmental Effects ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Health Organization

The World Health Organization (WHO) had, among other things, been examining and deliberating the hazardous effects to health by the use of nuclear weapons. These discussions culminated in a resolution which requested an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legality of the use of nuclear weapons in the following terms: [i]n view of the health and environmental effects, would the use of nuclear weapons by a Stare in war or other armed conflict be a breach of its obligations under international law including the WHO Constitution?

The General Assembly's Request for an Advisory Opinion From the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

1995 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 401-429 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Lailach
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Un General Assembly

On 15 December 1994, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 49/75K by which it decided:to request the International Court of Justice urgently to render its advisory opinion on the following question: ‘Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law?’

The 1996 Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion and Non Liquet in International Law

1999 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariano J. Aznar-Gomez
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
International Legal Order

Following extensive debate by the great theoreticians of public international law earlier in this century,1 it might seem that the completeness of the international legal order is now a banal issue, which should be remembered only as an academic dispute.2It might have been so had the International Court of Justice not intervened, perhaps unintentionally, in its advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 concerning the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons3 In her dissenting opinion, Judge Rosalyn Higgins argues that “the Court effectively pronounces a non liquet on the key issue on the grounds of uncertainty in the present state of law, and of facts”.4 In her view, the Court thus interrupted a line of case law which, in theory, had endorsed the idea of the completeness of international law and which, in practice, made it unthinkable that an international judge or arbitrator should actually pronounce a non liquet.5

Consolidation of Statehood through Membership in the UN: Some Remarks on Kosovo, Democracy and International Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
pp. 331-349
Author(s):  
Iliriana Islami ◽  
Remzije Istrefi
Keyword(s):  
Foreign Policy ◽  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
State Building ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Building Process

Kosovo declared its independence on 17 February 2008. Subsequently, one of the aims of Kosovo’s foreign policy was to further consolidate this position and to justify Kosovo’s prospective membership in the United Nations. This article examines the issue of recognition, elucidating how Kosovo is different from other countries and comparing it with the case of the former Yugoslavia. Other aspects in the state-building process such as ‘building constitutionalism’ will be presented as a step toward justifying recognition and membership. Furthermore, the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) of 8 October 2008 will be presented as evidence of Kosovo’s strengthening international position in its quest for further recognition. Thus, the article will discuss and analyze the arguments in favor of Kosovo being admitted to the UN.

scholarly journals Comment on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat to use nuclear weapons in 1996: التعليق على فتوى محكمة العدل الدولية في مدى مشروعية التهديد  باستخدام الأسلحة النووية عام 1996م

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (13) ◽  
Author(s):  
Esam Elden Mohammed Ibrahim
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
International Peace ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Peace And Security ◽  
The United Nations

The International Court of Justice had the opportunity to establish the principles of international humanitarian law and restrict the use or threat of nuclear weapons, on the occasion of its fatwa, on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons at the request of the United Nations General Assembly, after realizing that the continued development of nuclear weapons exposes humanity to great risks, and its request It states, "Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permissible under the rules of international law" (Atalm, 1996), (Shahab, 2000), Therefore, the comment seeks to answer the question: What is the legality of possession, production and development of nuclear weapons? What is the extent of the legality of the threat to use it in light of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in this regard? Was the decision of the International Court of Justice in favor of documenting the principles of international humanitarian law and international human rights law? Or was it biased in its decision to the interests of a particular class itself? The researcher used in that descriptive, descriptive and critical analytical method, and the results that lead to criticism of the work of the International Court of Justice in this regard were reached on the premise that they tended towards tipping the political nature of the issue presented to it under the pressures and directions of the major nuclear states and this strengthens my criticism to the United Nations that I see It only works for the benefit of the major powers under the auspices of the Security Council by veto (right to veto) at a time when the Security Council itself is responsible for maintaining international peace and security, just as it can be said that the United Nations does not work for the benefit of mankind but works for the five major countries Even with regard to nuclear weapons Regardless of whether or not there was a threat to international peace and security. From this standpoint, the researcher reached several recommendations, the most important of which is the necessity of the independence of the International Court of Justice in its work from the political considerations of member states, especially the major countries, as a step to establish and support international peace and security in a practical way in practice. The United Nations should also reconsider what is known as a veto, which is and it is rightly one of the most important and most important measures that truly threaten international peace and security.

scholarly journals Advisory competence on international law of the International Court of Justice: theoretical and practical issues

2021 ◽  
pp. 136-145
Author(s):  
Huu Phuoc Him ◽  
Thi Kim Kook Nguyen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court

This article analyses, clarifi es the theoretical and practical issues of the advisory capacity of the International Court of Justice. Thereby, highlighting the role of the International Court of Justice in the development compliance and enforcement of international law from 1945 to now. Keywords: Jurisdiction, advisory opinion, International Court of Justice, international law.

A Note on the ICJ Advisory Opinion on Kosovo

2010 ◽  
Vol 11 (7-8) ◽  
pp. 867-880 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Muharremi
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
International Law ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Declaration Of Independence ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Unilateral Declaration ◽  
The Icj

On 22 July 2010, the International Court of Justice (hereinafter the “ICJ”) delivered its advisory opinion on the accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo. The ICJ concluded that the declaration of independence dated 17 February 2008 did not violate any applicable rule of international law consisting of general international law, UNSC resolution 1244 (1999) (hereinafter the “Resolution 1244”) and the Constitutional Framework for Provisional Self-Government in Kosovo (hereinafter the “Constitutional Framework”). The ICJ delivered the advisory opinion in response to a question set out in resolution 63/3 dated 8 October 2008 of the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization (hereinafter the “General Assembly”), which asked if “the unilateral declaration of independence by the Provisional Institutions of Self-Government of Kosovo is in accordance with international law.”

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document