Talk:Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

This and that
I wrote this based mainly off my notes from an international law course from last semester and I'm sure that more work is needed on it. One thing that could use more information is the decision of the ICJ to rule on the case (it was somewhat controversial of them to do so, the arguments pro and con deserve to be included). Also, is my description of the main arguments in the case correct? I hope that someone more familiar with the case than I can help here. Jacob1207 04:10, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Jacob. I added the words in italics: "Nuclear weapons have not been used at a large scale in a war  since 1945 because nuclear weapons have been tested dozens of times since then, and depleted uranium weapons were used in Afghanistan as well as Iraq. Get-back-world-respect 21:14, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Although G-b-w-r is correct to point out the historical fact that nuclear weapons have in fact been "used" since 1945, the statement in the article was reporting the findings and reasoning recited by the World Court, so I would ask G-b-w-r please to take a second look at this correction, if he or she has not done so already, and compare it with the text of the opinion, to see if the correction remains true to what the ICJ said. The ICJ analysis actually made a point of considering possession and deployment as separate from threat or detonation-use. If there is any confusion or possibility of misunderstanding, maybe this important fact belongs in a separate sentence, as a comment on the ICJ's findings and opinion. I haven't had a chance to study the ICJ opinion again carefully, to see whether the correction as it stands is accurate with regard to what the ICJ said, but I have an uneasy feeling about this. Thanks. 151.200.125.46 05:21, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Interesting, though I think that if anyone starts popping off fusion bombs international courts will go from mostly ignored to completely irrelevant (or to a sheet of molten, radioactive glass). Not that I'm criticizing the accuracy of the article or suggesting a change, just felt like making the point.


 * Well, and this is all PoV, but in my opinion the U.N. is basically irrelevant when it comes to 'international law'. It exists mostly to give smaller nations a podium to vent and to let the big boys try peaceful solutions first (or to seem nicer and like they played ball when they do have to go stomp somebody later), so as a forum of discourse it's great. However 'laws' require some form of enforcement if they're to be taken seriously and the U.N. doesn't have that, never will, and shouldn't. If a true power such as the U.K., France, definetly China and the U.S., maybe Russia still, or the like decides to just piss on it their isn't anything they can do. At it's very inception it was designed to be a helpless body that could only enforce itself through outside aid. Since the various powers with nuclear weapons are the ones who provide that outside enforcement aid, what's it going to do? Tell the Chinese, U.S., and other militaries to go stop themselves? Or in other words, you're appraisel is pretty much accurate. The smaller countries push this stuff out all the time, and the big nations just smile and nod their heads at the children that don't matter in the grand scheme so they feel special and like they have real power. The day the U.N. trots out a law that actually directly challenges the big boys is the day before all those little piddly nations don't even get what little voice they have anymore. [Wednesday, 2007-03-21 T 04:31 UTC]

Summary
The summary seems to be original research. I have not bothered to check beyond the first paragraph that mentiones paragraph 72. Paragraph 72 states:
 * ... That application by the General Assembly of general rules of customary law to the particular case of nuclear weapons indicates that, in its view, there was no specific rule of customary law which prohibited the use of nuclear weapons; if such a rule had existed, the General Assembly could simply have referred to it and would not have needed to undertake such an exercise of legal qualification. :

is the contrary of what is being stated about the paragraph in the summary. Please see the article on military necessity for a more detailed argument about unnecessary suffering. It is not at all clear that the paragraphs mentioned in this judgment conclude that the use of nuclear weapons cause unnecessary suffering above that consequential to military necessity. If this is indeed the conclusion drawn by some legal scholars then those legal scholars should be cited. likewise the other bullet points need a cited source for the conclusions that they are drawing -- Philip Baird Shearer 23:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Another example in passing. This article currently states "First and Second Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions," But how many of the Necluar states have ratified those protocols? For example any legal scholar will be aware that Britain signed the protocol but included reservations on HMG's Ratification and Accession to Protocol I ( expressed in a Declaration on 2 July 2002) that states that "It continues to be the understanding of the United Kingdom that the rules introduced by the Protocol apply exclusively to conventional weapons without prejudice to any other rules of international law applicable to other types of weapons. In particular, the rules so introduced do not have any effect on and do not regulate or prohibit the use of nuclear weapons." This statment by a permament member of the UN Security Council must affect the interpretation of this judgement in relation to Protocol I. Further AFAICT Protocol II [Additional to the Geneva Conventions] is not mentioned in the Judgement, (it is protocol II of the the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons that is) so why is Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions mentioned in this article? Further Paragraph 50 of the judgement specifically mentions "The Court finds that it is not called upon to deal with an internal use of nuclear weapons." which would seem to explicitly rule out Protocol II Additional to the Geneva Conventions. --Philip Baird Shearer 00:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Philip: the "summary" was my addition to the article, and was left unfinished - I ran out of time a week or so ago and left various loose ends. My bad. I will be spending some time on this summary in the near future, but for the moment feel free to take it out. It is based on one interpretation of how the ICJ Opinion effects the UK-US Trident missile, so will almost certainly need some rewriting. Thanks for your attention to this article, which I'm trying to get up to a decent standard: it's currently a nominee at WP:ACID, and you may wish to vote for it there. --Jim (Talk)

UK Reaction
The government statement is very useful information, so I've placed it in the context of the other stuff on UK law (put under "English Law" previously). What I'm really looking for now is a justification of the government position: they just seem to be stating it in every source I've checked, without backing it up with legal argument. It would be fascinating to hear what their argument is.

Also, I've started using "blockquote" rather than "cquote" as I think that is the style we're supposed to use. --Jim (Talk) 23:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The UK Government's position is explained by generlising paragraph 55 of the ICJ opinion, "The terms have been understood, in the practice of States," and by HMG's reservations on ratification and Accession to Protocol I. It is that under international law as practiced by states (not what some NGO's would like it to be) that they reserve the right to use WMD either for military necessity (as for example the threat in the Cold War to use tactical nukes on massed Soviet armoured columns) or in retaliation if attacked by others using WMD --Article 51 or UN charter {See paragraph 59 of the ICJ opinion}-- (This was the position in the First Gulf War by both Thatcher (UK) and Cheney (US)). I guess if you look hard enough you will find a decent source which explains this better than I can :-) --Philip Baird Shearer 12:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Article title
The current title of the article is unwieldy, and the capitalization looks funny because of the embedded title of the actual opinion. I would suggest moving the article to Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, and have the current title redirect there rather than vice versa. By comparison, articles on other court cases have titles like Marbury v. Madison rather than United States Supreme Court decision in the case of Marbury v. Madison. Similarly, this article should be titled the same as the advisory opinion it's about. That it is an ICJ advisory opinion should be abudantly clear from the content of the article. Thoughts? PubliusFL 20:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the current title is unwieldy and should be changed. However, although titles like "Marbury v. Madison" clearly refer to court cases, I'm not sure that Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons does. Maybe the article should be renamed to ICJ Hearing on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons? I think there was some discussion on the International Law wikiproject about the naming conventions for ICJ hearings - might be of use to you. --Jim (Talk) 02:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing me to the wikiproject (WikiProject International law). On the project case, regarding the citation of ICJ cases, it says "Introductory articles such as 'The' and the words 'Case' or 'Case Concerning' should be omitted."  A fortiori, I would think that additional explanatory words should not be inserted in the article title.  Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons may not clearly refer to a court case, but it is the actual title of the opinion (as I understand it).  It's clear from the article that we're talking about an ICJ advisory opinion.  By the same token, if you read Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing? it's clear that the article is about a collage with that title, rather than a book, motion picture, or magazine article.  They don't call the article Pop art collage called Just What Is It that Makes Today's Homes So Different, So Appealing? just to make sure that you know what type of work the title belongs to. PubliusFL 01:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Good argument - I'm happy with the move to Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons now. --Jim (Talk) 00:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it is much better if this article remains at "International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons" because to change the title to "Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons" will over time alter the article into one which is a discussion about the legality of nukes in general and not this specific court case. For example under the title "Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons" what is to stop someone introducing sections on the opinions of every tom dick and hairy NGO and a section on Ryuichi Shimoda et al. v. The State? So I think that if the article is to be renamed to "Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons" it should be via a WP:RM request so that the issues can be thoroughly discussed with a larger pool of participants. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I take your point Philip, but I'm not sure I agree entirely. It's pretty clear that this article is about the ICJ opinion, so I don't think anyone will turn it into a more general discussion of the legality of nuclear weapons. Noone has done this yet, and if they do other editors could simply revert their edits and point out to them what seems obvious to me: that this article should only cover the ICJ opinion. To be honest, I think this is indicated in the title of the article, since the use of capital letters in Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons suggests immediately that the article refers to something specific; Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be a more likely name for a general discussion article, in-keeping with the WP style guide on the use of capital letters. Removing "International Court of Justice advisory opinion on" from the start of the article name keeps it in-line with what the guys at the International Law Wikiproject seem to like.


 * I guess I should also point out that the correct title of the AO was "Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons", not "The Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict". I just changed the first line of the article which used the second form. The AO relating to the use of NW's in Armed Conflict was, I think, the one in response to the request from the WHO, and basically said, "sorry chaps, no can do". --Jim (Talk) 10:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Although the title is certainly unwieldy, I think Philip's point is a very good one. --kingboyk (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Two caveats in the Opinion
The advisory opinion says the following:

"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."

I think the article should clarify precisely what the court meant by "the current state of international law" and "the elements of fact at its disposal", but I'm not sure what these things mean myself. Anyone got any sources? --Jim (Talk) 10:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Intro
The lead (intro) is too long. It should be a summary of the article. Can we get the quoted text moved into a section please? See WP:LEAD. --kingboyk (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Nuremberg trials basis
No German was tried for the use of indiscriminate bombing of civilians with V2's etc, thus making also nuclear "dehousing" campaigns legal, unless the laws have changes since this paper came out.MILITARY LAW REVIEW VOL. 33 from 1966 --Stor stark7 Speak 23:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This article needs legal arguments not descriptions of weapons
on 26 December Brianm358 added to this article lots about the new weapon development and deployment of nuclear weapons by state. In doing so Brianm358 also deleted of the legal arguments for and against the development and deployment of new weapons in the UK, replacing it with: "The British government has announced plans to refurbish its Trident SLBM missiles and build a new class of three or four submarines on which to base them, replacing the four existing Vanguard Class boats.[49] This has caused some debate of the legality of the proposal within the UK."

What Brianm358 dismissed in one sentence "This has caused some debate of the legality of the proposal within the UK." was a whole section looking at the legal arguments for and against deployment of new weapons in the UK based on this ICJ ruling. The section does not need expanding with what the nuclear weapon states are deploying as was done in the new Russian section "Russia introduced a new ICBM missile, the RT-2UTTKh Topol-M in the late 1990s...". but the legal justifications given by the Russians for introduced a new ICBM missiles. -- PBS (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410131344/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7646.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7646.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070616151407/http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/White%20Paper%20Nuclear%20Deterrent.pdf to http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/White%20Paper%20Nuclear%20Deterrent.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927002435/http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket%2FXcelerate%2FShowPage&c=Page&cid=1163677931589 to http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket%2FXcelerate%2FShowPage&c=Page&cid=1163677931589
 * Added tag to http://www.peacerights.org/aboutus.php
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130113035419/http://www.peacerights.org/reports/195 to http://www.peacerights.org/reports/195
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927193241/http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?&ucidparam=20061123104513 to http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?&ucidparam=20061123104513
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130113035419/http://www.peacerights.org/reports/195 to http://www.peacerights.org/reports/195
 * Added tag to http://www.peacerights.org/aboutus.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927002435/http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket%2FXcelerate%2FShowPage&c=Page&cid=1163677931589 to http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket%2FXcelerate%2FShowPage&c=Page&cid=1163677931589
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227095818/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206131612/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/93/7648.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/93/7648.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229161239/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7497.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7497.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229160933/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7521.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7521.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)