physics

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

Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons is a physics topic covered in the lgStudy science library. This page brings together a partial reference excerpt, illustrations, worked examples, real-world applications and a short study plan, so you can understand Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons rather than just read about it. In short: Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons [1996] ICJ 3 is a landmark international law case, where the International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion stating that while the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to international humanitarian law, it cannot be concluded whether or not such a threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful in extreme circumstances where the very…

Key takeaways

Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons belongs to physics; place it in that map before memorising details.
Learn the definition first, then one example that makes the definition concrete.
Connect Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons to a quantity you can measure, compute or draw — that is where exam questions come from.
Reproduce the core statement of Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons from memory before moving on to harder problems.

Reference excerpt

Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons [1996] ICJ 3 is a landmark international law case, where the International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion stating that while the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to international humanitarian law, it cannot be concluded whether or not such a threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful in extreme circumstances where the very survival of a state would be at stake. The Court held that there is no source of international law that explicitly authorises or prohibits the threat or use of nuclear weapons but such threat or use must be in conformity with the UN Charter and principles of international humanitarian law. The Court also concluded that there was a general obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament. The World Health Organization requested the opinion on 3 September 1993, but it was initially refused because the WHO was acting outside its legal capacity (ultra vires). So the United Nations General Assembly requested another opinion in December 1994, accepted by the Court in January 1995. As well as determining the illegality of nuclear weapon use, the court discussed the proper role of international judicial bodies, the ICJ's advisory function, international humanitarian law (jus in bello), and rules governing the use of force (jus ad bellum). It explored the status of "Lotus approach", and employed the concept of non liquet. There were also strategic questions such as the legality of the practice of nuclear deterrence or the meaning of Article VI of the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The possibility of threat outlawing use of nuclear weapons in an armed conflict was raised on 30 June 1950, by the Dutch representative to the International Law Commission (ILC), Jean Pierre Adrien François, who suggested this "would in itself be an advance". In addition, the Polish government requested this issue to be examined by the ILC as a crime against the peace of mankind. However, the issue was delayed during the Cold War. The New START treaty is an agreement by both the US and Russian governments to limit the deploying of nuclear ballistic missiles. Being signed in 2010 and started in force back on February 5, 2011, had the Russian government seven years to meet the requirements set by the treaty. The treaty was extended in 2021 for another five years till 2026.

Request of the World Health Organization

An advisory opinion on this issue was originally requested by the World Health Organization (WHO) on 3 September 1993:

In view of the health and environmental effects, would the use of nuclear weapons by a state in war or other armed conflict be a breach of its obligations under international law including the WHO Constitution? The ICJ considered the WHO's request, in a case known as the Legality of the Use by a State of Nuclear Weapons in Armed Conflict (General List No. 93), and also known as the WHO Nuclear Weapons case, between 1993 and 1996. The ICJ fixed 10 June 1994 as the time limit for written submissions, but after receiving many written and oral submissions, later extended this date to 20 September 1994. After considering the case the Court refused to give an advisory opinion on the WHO question. On 8 July 1996 it held, by 11 votes to three, that the question did not fall within the scope of WHO's activities, as is required by Article 96(2) of the UN Charter.

Request of the UN General Assembly

On 15 December 1994 the UN General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/49/75K. This asked the ICJ urgently to render its advisory opinion on the following question:

Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstances permitted under international law? The resolution, submitted to the Court on 19 December 1994, was adopted by 78 states voting in favour, 43 against, 38 abstaining and 26 not voting. The General Assembly had considered asking a similar question in the autumn of 1993, at the instigation of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), which ultimately did not push its request that year. NAM was more willing the following year, in the face of written statements submitted in the WHO proceedings from a number of nuclear-weapon states indicating strong views to the effect that the WHO lacked competence in the matter. The Court subsequently fixed 20 June 1995 as the filing date for written statements. Altogether, 42 states participated in the written phase of the pleadings, the largest number ever to join in proceedings before the Court. Of the five declared nuclear weapon states (the P5), only the People's Republic of China did not participate. Of the three "threshold" nuclear-weapon states, only India participated. Many of the participants were developing states which had not previously contributed to proceedings before the ICJ, a reflection perhaps of the unparalleled interest in this matter and the growing willingness of developing states to engage in international judicial proceedings in the "post-colonial" period. Oral hearings were held from 30 October to 15 November 1995. Twenty-two states participated: Australia, Egypt, France, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Iran, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, San Marino, Samoa, Marshall Islands, Solomon Islands, Costa Rica, United Kingdom, United States, Zimbabwe; as did the WHO. The secretariat of the UN did not appear, but filed with the Court a dossier explaining the history of resolution 49/75K. Each state was allocated 90 minutes to make its statement. On 8 July 1996, nearly eight months after the close of the oral phase, the ICJ rendered its opinion.

Decision of the International Court of Justice

Composition of the Court

The ICJ is composed of fifteen judges elected to nine year terms by the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council. The court's "advisory opinion" can be requested only by specific United Nations organisations, and is inherently non-binding under the Statute of the court. The fifteen judges asked to give their advisory opinion regarding the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons were:

Court's analysis

… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.

Illustrations

Worked examples

Example 1 — a first encounter with Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

Start with the simplest possible case. Write down what Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons claims or describes in one sentence, then invent the smallest concrete situation in which that sentence is true. In physics, the smallest case is usually a single object, a single equation or a single measurement. Check that every symbol or term in your sentence has a meaning in that case.

Example 2 — changing one variable

Take the situation from Example 1 and change exactly one quantity: double it, halve it, or set it to zero. Predict what should happen to Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons before you calculate. Comparing your prediction with the result is the fastest way to find out whether you understand the idea or only the words.

Example 3 — an exam-style question

Typical questions about Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons ask you to (a) state it precisely, (b) apply it to given data, and (c) explain a limitation. Practise writing all three answers in under five minutes; the third part is what separates a full-mark answer from an average one.

Applications of Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

In research: Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons appears in physics research whenever the underlying quantities have to be modelled precisely. Papers usually cite it as a starting assumption and then explore where it breaks down.
In technology and industry: Engineering practice reuses Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons in design rules, simulations and safety margins. Knowing the idea lets you read a specification sheet and understand why the numbers look the way they do.
In the classroom: Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons is common in secondary-school and first-year university syllabi. It links to neighbouring topics 1996 in case law, 1996 in international relations, Aggression in international law, so understanding it makes those chapters shorter.
In everyday life: Look for Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons outside the textbook — in sport, cooking, traffic, electronics or the sky above you. An example you found yourself is remembered far longer than one you were given.

Affiliate

Preply — study more efficiently by working with a personal tutor. 50% off.

How to study Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons in 20 minutes

Read the reference excerpt below once, without taking notes.
Close the page and write down what Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons means in your own words.
Compare your version with the excerpt and mark what you missed.
Work through the three examples above with pen and paper.
Explain Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons out loud to somebody else — or to Teacher Smith in the lgStudy chat.

Frequently asked questions

What is Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons in simple terms?

Why does Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons matter?

Because it connects several physics ideas at once: it gives you a definition you can apply, a quantity you can calculate, and a way to check whether a result is plausible.

How should I study Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons?

Read the excerpt, restate it from memory, then work through the examples and applications listed on this page. The five-step study plan above takes about twenty minutes.

What does this page cover?

It gives you a compact reference excerpt plus original lgStudy explanations, examples, applications and study material on Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons.