Abstract
The Court declared 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." The Court, however could not conclude definitively whether the threat of 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. This article is modest attempt to analyse the opinions of the Court. Part A will trace the background for the advisory opinions. Part B will examine the judgment on the request made by the WHA. Part C will highlight the salient features and comment on the verdict of the Court in respect of the request made by the General Assembly. The discussion in Part D will concern the Court's ruling on its competence to entertain the General Assembly's queries. Part E will deal with the formulation of the question posed and the law that the Court felt would apply. Part F will endeavour to explore the Court's interpretation of the general prohibition on the threat or use of force contained in the Charter of the United Nations (U.N. Charter). Part G looks to the Court's opinion in relation to customary and conventional international law. While Part H will seek to estimate the Court's observations on International Humanitarian Law, Part I will do so with respect to the principle of neutrality. The conclusions of the Court derived through the application of the rules of armed conflict and international humanitarian law will be analysed in Part J. Part K concerns itself with pronouncement of the Court with respect to the obligation to negotiate nuclear disarmament and its consequent impact on treaties like the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
Recommended Citation
Raghavan, Vikram
(1997)
"The legality of nuclear weapons cases: The world court sits on the fence,"
National Law School Journal: Vol. 9:
Iss.
1, Article 23.
Available at:
https://repository.nls.ac.in/nlsj/vol9/iss1/23