Civilian Casualties and Nuclear Weapons: The Application of the Rule of Distinction

Breau, Susan

doi:10.1007/978-94-6265-020-6_5

Susan Breau³

1329 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter considers the possible use in armed conflict of low-yield (also known as tactical) nuclear weapons. The Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion maintained that it is a cardinal principle that a State must never make civilians an object of attack and must consequently never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets. As international humanitarian law applies equally to any use of nuclear weapons, it is argued that there is no use of nuclear weapons that could spare civilian casualties particularly if you view the long-term health and environmental effects of the use of such weaponry.

The author is Professor of Law, School of Law, University of Reading, UK.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 149.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, [1996] ICJ Reports 226, para 78.
2.
Ibid.
3.
Ibid, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, starting at p. 429, at 444.
4.
Ibid, p. 446.
5.
Written statement of the Government of the United Kingdom, http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/8802.pdf, p. 53, para 3.70.
6.
van Herpen 2011, p. 10.
7.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/dod/jp3_12_1.pdf, p. GL-3, accessed 15 September 2012.
8.
Written statement of the Government of the United Kingdom, ibid.
9.
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, para 94.
10.
Reuters, ‘Pakistan builds law yield nuclear capability’, 15 May 2011, www.Dawn.com, accessed 26 June 2012.
11.
Levi 2004, p. 892.
12.
van Herpen, p. 10.
13.
Ibid.
14.
See the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/open-secret.
15.
Woolf 2012, p. 1.
16.
Ibid, p. 2.
17.
Barnaby and Mendelsohn 2003, p. 1.
18.
Ibid, p. 3.
19.
See the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/op-eds/open-secret.
20.
van Herpen 2011 and http://www.voanews.com/content/us-russian-short-range-nuclear-weapons-could-be-on-negotiating-table-146122895/180339.html.
21.
van Herpen 2011, p. 11.
22.
Ibid, p. 10.
23.
Ibid, p. 12.
24.
Pifer 2012, p. 414.
25.
Nuclear Posture Review Report, Department of Defense, Washington, April 2011, p. 27.
26.
Ibid.
27.
Ibid, p. 28.
28.
Woolf 2012, p. 1.
29.
Pifer 2012, p. 414.
30.
Baylor 2011, p. 57.
31.
Ibid, p. 57 and http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat accessed 15 September 2013.
32.
General Orders No. 100, Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, Prepared by Francis Lieber, Promulgated by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863.
33.
Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight, St. Petersburg, November 29 / December 11, 1868.
34.
Ibid.
35.
Ryuichi Shimoda, et al. versus The State, Tokyo District Court, 7 December 1963, Japanese Annual of International Law, No. 8 (1964), p. 212.
36.
Ibid.
37.
Hague Convention II Laws and Customs of War on Land, Hague 29 July 1899 and Convention IV Respecting the Laws and Customs of War and its Annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague (1910) UKTS 10.
38.
Ibid.
39.
Rules concerning the Control of Wireless Telegraphy in Time of War and Air Warfare, drafted by a Commission of Jurists at The Hague, December 1922–February 1923, never adopted [hereinafter 1923 Hague Rules], reprinted in Roberts and Guelff 2000, at p. 139.
40.
Ibid, Article 24(1).
41.
Robertson 1998, p. 197.
42.
Boivin 2006, p. 9.
43.
Roberts and Guelff 2000, at p. 140.
44.
Boivin 2006, p. 10.
45.
Sandoz 2001, pp. 115–116.
46.
Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287, Articles 14, 15, 18, 19, 21–23.
47.
As cited in the written statement of the Government of the United Kingdom, above, n 5, at para 3.52.
48.
Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 August 1977, 1125 UNTS 3.
49.
Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/WebList?ReadForm&id=470&t=com.
50.
Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, above, n. 48.
51.
Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, n. 47 above.
52.
Ibid.
53.
Ibid.
54.
Ibid.
55.
Ibid.
56.
Ibid.
57.
Ibid.
58.
Ibid.
59.
For a history of the United States objections see Solis 2010, pp. 121–129.
60.
Roberts and Guelff 2000, pp. 499–512.
61.
Kalshoven 1985, p. 287; Kalshoven and Zegveld 2011, p. 118.
62.
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, [1996] ICJ Reports 226, para 78.
63.
Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005, Introduction.
64.
Ibid.
65.
Ibid, Chap. 1.
66.
Ibid.
67.
Ibid.
68.
Schmitt 2007, pp. 136–139.
69.
Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005.
70.
Ibid.
71.
Ibid and ICTY, Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Judgement and Opinion, 5 December 2003, para 769.
72.
Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005, Chap. 2.
73.
Ibid.
74.
Schmitt 2007, p. 145.
75.
Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005.
76.
Ibid.
77.
Ibid, Chap. 3.
78.
Ibid.
79.
Schmitt 2007, p. 152.
80.
Ibid.
81.
Ibid.
82.
Ibid.
83.
Ryuichi Shimoda, et al. versus The State, Tokyo District Court, 7 December 1963, Japanese Annual of International Law, No. 8 (1964), p. 212.
84.
Henckaerts and Doswald-Beck 2005, Chap. 3.
85.
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict Manual 2006 as quoted in the update on practice at http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/home accessed 10 September 2012.
86.
Ibid.
87.
United Nations Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects, Geneva 10 October 1980, 1342 UKTS 137.
88.
Written statement of the Government of the United States of America found at http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/8700.pdf p. 23, accessed 15 September 2012.
89.
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, n. 1 above, para 95.
90.
Ibid, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry, p. 499.
91.
Moxley, Burroughs and Granoff, p. 646.
92.
Ibid.
93.
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, n. 1 above, Judge Koroma dissent pp. 566–568.
94.
Ibid, Judge Weeramantry dissent quoting Géza Herczegh, Development of International Humanitarian Law, 1984, p. 93. ‘ABC weapons’ refer to atomic, biological and chemical weapons.
95.
Ibid, Judge Weeramantry dissent quoting Effects of Atomic Weapons, prepared by the United States Atomic Energy Commission in co-operation with the Department of Defense, 1950, cited in Singh and McWhinney (1989), p. 30.
96.
Ibid, Judge Weeramantry dissent quoting Herbert Abrams, ‘Chernobyl and the Short-Term Medical Effects of Nuclear War’, in Proceedings of the IPPNW Congress, p. 12.
97.
Ibid, pp. 277–279.
98.
Nelson 2002, p. 1.
99.
Ibid, p. 1 and 18.
100.
Ibid.
101.
Levi 2004, p. 892.
102.
Ibid, p. 892.
103.
Ibid, p. 892.
104.
Tien 2011, pp. 525–526.
105.
Ibid, pp. 526–527.
106.
Ibid, p. 549.
107.
Moxley et al. 2010–2011, p. 660.
108.
Ibid, p. 661.
109.
Prosecutor versus Martic, Case No. IT-95-11-1, Trial Judgment, ¶ 30 (Mar. 8, 1996), available at http://www.icty.org/case/martic/4.
110.
Ibid.
111.
See Prosecutor versus Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Trial Judgment, ¶ 787 (Mar. 3, 2000), available at http://www.icty.org/case/blaskic/4.
112.
2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, May 3–28, 2010, Final Document, pts. 1, 19, UN Doc. NPT/CONF.2010/50 (Vol. I) (2010).
113.
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, n. 1 above, Judge Shahabudden dissent, p. 382.
114.
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, n. 1 above, Judge Weeramantry dissent, p. 462.
115.
Ibid, p. 463.
116.
http://web.archive.org/web/20080206002959/ http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/bsv/nuclear_explosions/great_britain.html and http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Uk/UKTesting.html, accessed 11 September 2011.
117.
Summary of the tests found at: http://web.archive.org/web/20080206002959/ http://www.seismo.ethz.ch/bsv/nuclear_explosions/great_britain.html and http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Uk/UKTesting.html accessed 11 September 2011.
118.
McClelland Royal Commission 1985, found at: http://www.ret.gov.au/resources/radioactive_waste/Documents/ROYAL%20COMMISSION%20INTO%20BRITISH%20NUCLEAR%20TESTS%20IN%20AUSTRALIA.pdf, para 146.
119.
http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/britbombs/clean-up accessed 16 September 2012.
120.
McClelland Royal Commission, Conclusions para 2, accessed 11 September 2012.
121.
Ibid, Conclusions para 53.
122.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/stories/s295331.htm accessed 11 September 2012.
123.
Ibid.
124.
Ibid, para 180.
125.
P. Dorling, ‘Marilinga Sites need more repair work, files show’ 12 November 2011, found at http://www.theage.com.au/national/maralinga-sites-need-more-repair-work-files-show-20111111-1nbpp.html#ixzz26hXQ5JId, accessed 16 September 2012.
126.
http://www.maralingaclassaction.com.au/web/page/illness accessed 16 September 2012.
127.
http://www.foe.org.au/anti-nuclear/issues/oz/britbombs/clean-up accessed 16 September 2012.
128.
http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/overview accessed 16 September 2012.
129.
Ibid.
130.
Hulme 2005, p. 197.
131.
http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/overview accessed 16 September 2012.
132.
Hulme, pp. 197 and 212.
133.
Ibid, p. 212.
134.
ICTY, Office of the Prosecutor, Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, found at http://www.icty.org/sid/10052 accessed 11 September 2012.
135.
UNEP, The Kosovo Conflict: Consequences for the Environment & Human Settlements” (1999) see p. 10 and Recommendations pp. 72–79.
136.
Ibid, at p. 76.
137.
Egorov 2000, p. 183.
138.
Ronzitti 2000, p. 1017.
139.
Benvenuti 2001, The ICTY Prosecutor and the Review of the NATO Bombing Campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’ pp. 511–512.
140.
International Committee of the Red Cross, 2011, p. 543.
141.
BBC News, “Europe voted for DU Ban”, 17 January 2001.
142.
http://www.bandepleteduranium.org/en/overview accessed 16 September 2012.
143.
Miller 2005.
144.
UN Docs—A/RES/62/30, 31 October 2007, A/RES/63/54, 12 January 2009 and A/RES/65/55, 13 January 2011.
145.
UN Doc. A/RES/65/55, Preamble.
146.
Hulme 2005, p. 294.
147.
Ibid.
148.
Ibid, p. 269.
149.
UN Doc. E/CN.4 /Sub.2/i 9 96/L.1i/Add. 3 (29 August 1996).
150.
Hulme 2005, p. 271.

References

Barnaby F, Mendelsohn J (2003) Low-yield and earth-penetrating nuclear weapons. Oxford Research Group, Global Security Institute, London
Google Scholar
Baylor DJ (2011) Considerations for a US nuclear force structure below a 1,000–warhead limit. Strateg Stud Q 2011:57
Google Scholar
Benvenuti E (2001) The ICTY prosecutor and the review of the NATO bombing campaign against the federal republic of Yugoslavia. EJIL 12(503):511–512
Google Scholar
Boivin A (2006) The legal regime applicable to targeting military objectives in the context of contemporary warfare. Research paper series, No. 2, University Centre for International Humanitarian Law, Geneva
Google Scholar
Egorov SA (2000) The Kosovo crisis and the law of armed conflicts. Int Rev Red Cross 837:183
Google Scholar
Henckaerts JM, Doswald-Beck L (2005) Customary international humanitarian law, volume I: rules. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Hulme K (2005) Radiation warfare: a review of the legality of depleted URANIUM weaponry. Can Yearb Int Law 43:197
Google Scholar
International Committee of the Red Cross (2011) Depleted Uranium Munitions. International Review of the Red Cross 482:543
Google Scholar
Kalshoven F (1985) Arms, armaments and international law (1985-II). Recueil des Cours 191:183–341
Google Scholar
Kalshoven F, Zegveld L (2011) Constraints on the waging of war. An introduction to international humanitarian law, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Levi M (2004) Dreaming of clean nukes. Nature 428:892
Article Google Scholar
Miller A et al (2005) Leukemic transformation of hematopoietic cells in mice internally exposed to depleted uranium. Mol Cell Biochem 279(1–2):97–104
Google Scholar
Moxley CJ, Burroughs J, Granoff J (2010) Nuclear weapons and compliance with international humanitarian law and the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Fordham Int Law J 34:595
Google Scholar
Nelson RW (2002) Low-yield, Earth penetrating nuclear weapons. Sci Glob Secur 19:1
Article Google Scholar
Pifer S (2012) Arms control options for non-strategic nuclear weapons. In: Nichols T, Stuart D, McCausland J, Tactical nuclear weapons and NATO. Strategic Studies Institute, Department of Defense, Washington
Google Scholar
Roberts A, Guelff F (2000) Documents on the laws of war, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Robertson Jr. HB (1998) The principle of the military objective in the law of armed conflict. In: Schmitt MN (ed) The law of military operations–Liber Amicorum Professor Jack Grunawalt, vol. 72, Naval War College International Law Studies, Rhode Island, p 197
Google Scholar
Ronzitti N (2000) Is the non liquet of the final report by the committee established to review the NATO bombing campaign against the federal republic of Yugoslavia acceptable. Int Rev Red Cross 840:1017
Article Google Scholar
Sandoz Y (2001) Role of the ICRC in the evolution and development of international humanitarian law. In: Hasse J, Müller E, Schneider P (eds) Humanitäres Völkerrecht. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden, p 110
Google Scholar
Schmitt M (2007) The law of targeting. In: Wilmshurst E, Breau S (eds) Perspectives on the ICRC study on customary international humanitarian law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Singh N, McWhinney E (1989) Nuclear weapons and contemporary international law. Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht
Google Scholar
Solis G (2010) The law of armed conflict: international humanitarian law in war. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Tien L (2011) On the legality of the development of nuclear weapons. Nat Taiwan Univ Law Rev 6:521
Google Scholar
van Herpen MH (2011) Russia’s embrace of tactical nuclear weapons. Cicero Foundation Great Debate Paper No. 11/04, September 2011
Google Scholar
Woolf AE (2012) Nonstrategic Nuclear Weapons. Congressional Research Service, 29 May 2012
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

School of Law, University of Reading, Foxhill House, Whiteknights Road, Reading, RG6 7BA, UK
Susan Breau

Authors

Susan Breau
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susan Breau .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

School of Management - Law, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey, United Kingdom
Jonathan L. Black-Branch
Cologne, Germany
Dieter Fleck

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Breau, S. (2014). Civilian Casualties and Nuclear Weapons: The Application of the Rule of Distinction. In: Black-Branch, J., Fleck, D. (eds) Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law - Volume I. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-020-6_5

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-020-6_5
Published: 23 July 2014
Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague
Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-019-0
Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-020-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

TMC Asser Press (opens in a new tab)