Advertisement

Is the Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty Accessible to Umbrella States?

  • Nobuo HayashiEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter asserts that States placing themselves under the umbrella of nuclear-weapon States may not join the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons without being in breach with one of its core provisions. The author considers four questions: How did the Treaty come to include a prohibition on threatened use? What does the prohibition mean for threatened self-defensive use of nuclear weapons under jus ad bellum? Does the prohibition cover nuclear deterrence? Does threatening to use nuclear weapons include threatening to have these weapons used on one’s behalf by its nuclear-armed ally? Whilst promoting universal adherence clearly coheres with the Treaty’s object and purpose, it is doubtful whether such considerations warrant a narrow construal in the hope that umbrella States would accede to the treaty without having to abandon their dependence on extended nuclear deterrence.

Keywords

Deterrence Nuclear Ban Nuclear Disarmament Nuclear Umbrella Nuclear Weapons Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons 

References

  1. Alder MC (2013) The Inherent Right of Self-Defence in International Law. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  2. Brownlie I (1963) International Law and the Use of Force by States. Oxford University Press, published to Oxford Scholarship Online March 2012Google Scholar
  3. Cannizzaro E (2006) Contextualising Proportionality: Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello in the Lebanese War. 88 International Review of the Red Cross 779Google Scholar
  4. Dinstein Y (2011) War, Aggression and Self-Defence, 5th edn. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  5. Dubuisson F, Lagerwall A (2015) The Threat of the Use of Force and Ultimata. In: Weller M (ed) The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law, 910 at 915–917Google Scholar
  6. Falk RA (1997) Nuclear Weapons, International Law and the World Court: A Historic Encounter. 91 AJIL 64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Franck TM (1970) Who Killed Article 2(4)? or: Changing Norms Governing the Use of Force by States. 64 AJIL 809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gardam J (1999) Necessity and Proportionality in Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello. In: Boisson de Chazournes L, Sands P (eds) International Law, the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons. Cambridge University Press, 275Google Scholar
  9. Gardam J (2004) Necessity, Proportionality and the Use of Force by States. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Gardam JG (1993) Proportionality and Force in International Law. 87 AJIL 391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gazzini T (2006) The Changing Rules on the Use of Force in International Law. Manchester University PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Gray C (2000) International Law and the Use of Force. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Green J A (2009) The International Court of Justice and Self-Defence in International Law. Oxford Hart PublishingGoogle Scholar
  14. Greenwood C (1999) Jus Ad Bellum and Jus In Bello in the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion. In: Boisson de Chazournes L, Sands P (eds) International Law, the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons. Cambridge University Press, 247Google Scholar
  15. Greenwood C (2011) Self-Defence. In: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 2nd edn. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Grimal F (2012) Threats of Force: International Law and Strategy. Routledge, AbingdonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gunderson M (1979) Threats and Coercion. 9 Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 247Google Scholar
  18. Hayashi N (2014) Legality under jus ad bellum of the threat of use of nuclear weapons. In: Nystuen G, Casey-Maslen S, Golden Bersagel A (eds) Nuclear Weapons Under International Law. Cambridge University Press, 31Google Scholar
  19. Higgins R (1994) Problems & Process: International Law and How We Use It. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Kadelbach S (2009) Nuclear Weapons and Warfare. In: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 2nd edn. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Kadelbach S (2010) Ultimatum. In: Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, 2nd edn. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  22. Kohen MG (1999) The Notion of “State Survival” in International Law. In: Boisson de Chazournes L, Sands P (eds) International Law, the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons. Cambridge University Press, 293Google Scholar
  23. Koskenniemi M (1997) Faith, Identity, and the Killing of the Innocent: International Lawyers and Nuclear Weapons. 10 Leiden Journal of International Law, 137Google Scholar
  24. Kretzmer D (2013) The Inherent Right to Self-Defence and Proportionality in Jus Ad Bellum. 24 EJIL 235Google Scholar
  25. Kunz JL (1947) Individual and Collective Self-Defence in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. 41 AJIL 872Google Scholar
  26. Printer NG Jr (2003) The Use of Force against Non-State Actors under International Law: An Analysis of the US Predator Strike in Yemen. 8 UCLA Journal of International Law and Foreign Affairs, 331Google Scholar
  27. Quigley KW (1985) A Framework for Evaluating the Legality of the United States Intervention in Nicaragua. 17 New York University Journal of International Law and Policy 155Google Scholar
  28. Randelzhofer A, Dörr O (2012) Article 2(4). In: Simma B (ed) The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary 3rd edn. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  29. Rodin D (2003) War and Self-Defence. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  30. Roscini M (2007) Threats of Armed Force and Contemporary International Law. 54 Netherlands International Law Review 229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sadurska R (1988) Threats of Force. 82 AJIL, 239–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schachter O (1984) The Right of States to Use Armed Force. 82 Michigan Law Review 1620CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Stürchler N (2007) The Threat of Force in International Law. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  34. Thirlway H (1999) The Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinions: The Declarations and Separate and Dissenting Opinions. In: Boisson de Chazournes L, Sands P (eds) International Law, the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons. Cambridge University Press, 390Google Scholar
  35. Weeramantry C (1999) Nuclear Weapons and Scientific Responsibility. Vishva Lekha, Sri Lanka/ KluwerGoogle Scholar
  36. White ND, Cryer R (1999) Unilateral Enforcement of Resolution 687: A Threat Too Far? 29 California Western International Law Journal 243Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser press and the authors 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.OsloNorway

Personalised recommendations