Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Jus ad Bellum: Nuclear Weapons and the Inherent Right of Self-Defence

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law

  • 879 Accesses

Abstract

The lawfulness of a State’s recourse to the ‘nuclear option’ as a means of self-defence is still a discussion which sits uncomfortably amongst most scholars, partly, because the seminal advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons delivered by the International Court of Justice in 1996 remains shrouded in legal uncertainty and, perhaps more importantly, because the threshold needed to lawfully invoke the doctrine of self-defence is set so high, and rightly so. Only under exceptional circumstances would a State meet the cardinal requirements of ‘necessity’ and ‘proportionality’. The use of a nuclear weapon as a means of self-defence lies at the very edge of the spectrum. That is not to say that recourse to conventional weapons automatically fulfils the necessity and proportionality requirements.

LLB (Hons) (Nottingham), LLM (Reading), PhD (Reading), Senior Lecturer in Public International Law, University of Buckingham, UK; Member of the ILA Committee on Nuclear Weapons, Non-Proliferation and Contemporary International Law.

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)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    This chapter will confine itself to solely discussing the jus ad bellum and not the jus in bello. See below nn. 21–25 and accompanying text.

  2. 2.

    See more recently, Green 2015; Sadoff 2009; Green 2009a; Green 2006; Murphy 2005; Rockefeller 2004; Pierson 2004; Martinez 2003; Byers 2003.

  3. 3.

    See generally, Gray 2008.

  4. 4.

    Orakhelashvili 2006.

  5. 5.

    Green 2010.

  6. 6.

    On this, we can note Green 2015 who refers to the International Law Commission, Text of the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, included in the Report of the International Law Commission, 53rd session, UN Doc. A/56/10, 2001, Chapter IV, www.un.org/documents/ga/docs/56/a5610.pdf, Commentary to Articles 22, 177 (‘the existence of a general principle admitting self-defence as an exception to the prohibition against the use of force in international relations is undisputed’, emphasis added).

  7. 7.

    Green and Grimal 2011, p. 299.

  8. 8.

    Greig 1991, pp. 366–402.

  9. 9.

    Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. U.S.), 1986 ICJ 14, para 191.

  10. 10.

    Green and Grimal 2011, p. 300, see also Constantinou 2000.

  11. 11.

    Letter from Daniel Webster to Henry S. Fox (April 24, 1841), in 29 British and Foreign State Papers (1841–1842), pp. 1129–1139 (1857).

  12. 12.

    Green and Grimal 2011, p. 300 and see generally Green 2009b.

  13. 13.

    Green and Grimal 2011.

  14. 14.

    Ibid., p. 301.

  15. 15.

    Constantinou 2000, pp. 159–161, Badr 1980, pp. 25–26, Kretzmer 2005, pp. 187–188.

  16. 16.

    Green and Grimal 2011, p. 301 and also Judge Higgins’s Dissenting Opinion, para 5, p. 583 in Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 ICJ 226 (July 8).

  17. 17.

    See generally Garwood-Gowers 2004.

  18. 18.

    See Green 2015 in his conclusion.

  19. 19.

    Ibid.

  20. 20.

    Ibid.

  21. 21.

    Ibid. And, as helpfully signposted by the anonymous reviewer, this would cover ‘Crimea-type’ scenarios whereby the ‘defending state’ has since been occupied.

  22. 22.

    Ibid. and Garwood-Gowers 2004.

  23. 23.

    I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer for this observation/question.

  24. 24.

    Sarvarian 2014, pp. 247–273.

  25. 25.

    Ibid., p. 271.

  26. 26.

    Ibid.

  27. 27.

    Ibid.

  28. 28.

    See generally Grimal 2012, Chap. 5.

  29. 29.

    Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 ICJ 226 (July 8).

  30. 30.

    Bodansky 1999, p. 153.

  31. 31.

    See the declaration of President Bedjaoui in Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 ICJ 226 (July 8) whose view was supported by Judges Schwebel and Higgins in their dissenting opinions.

  32. 32.

    Sheldon 1996, p. 184.

  33. 33.

    Greenwood 1999, pp. 258–263.

  34. 34.

    Gardam 1999, p. 286.

  35. 35.

    See also Mullerson 1999, pp. 267–270; Spierman 1999, p. 148.

  36. 36.

    See generally Alexandrov 1996; Bowett 1958; Ruys 2010; Green 2009b.

  37. 37.

    See generally Gardam 2004; Green and Grimal 2011.

  38. 38.

    Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 ICJ 226 (July 8).

  39. 39.

    See Sect. 15.2.

  40. 40.

    See Sect. 15.2.

  41. 41.

    See for example, Antonopoulos 2008.

  42. 42.

    Dinstein 2012, at pp. 203–204, Dinstein refers to ‘interceptive self-defence’.

  43. 43.

    See generally Green 2015, who refers back to Lubell 2015, p. 702.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., at pp. 702–705.

  45. 45.

    Green 2015 and Lubell 2015.

  46. 46.

    See https://www.gov.uk/government/policies/maintaining-an-effective-independent-nuclear-deterrent.

  47. 47.

    Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 ICJ 226 (July 8), paras 90–97.

  48. 48.

    The author is grateful for a helpful discussion with James A. Green on this point.

  49. 49.

    For a full discussion on the lawfulness of action in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, please see Gazzini 2005, p. 219; Falk 1997, p. 69; Falk 1965, p. 759. On the point concerning the devastating nature of the use of atomic weapons, see Roberts 1994, pp. 131–132. The above literature is quick to note that Japan was not far off from being defeated, and that the use of atomic weapons was ‘unnecessary’ in the strict sense.

  50. 50.

    Gazzini 2005, p. 219.

  51. 51.

    Singh 1956, pp. 32–34.

  52. 52.

    See Kennedy and Andreopolous 1994, pp. 217–218. Again, I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer for this helpful observation.

  53. 53.

    Shimoda case (Compensation claim against Japan brought by the residents of Hiroshmina and Nagasaki), Tokyo District Court, 7 December 1963. Again, I am grateful to the anonymous reviewer for this helpful observation.

  54. 54.

    Gazzini 2005, p. 219.

  55. 55.

    Ibid.

  56. 56.

    Singh 1956, pp. 32–34.

  57. 57.

    See, for example, Grimal 2012.

  58. 58.

    See Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 ICJ 226, para 47.

  59. 59.

    Grimal 2012, p. 61 and Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 ICJ 226, para 47.

  60. 60.

    Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 ICJ 226, para 47.

  61. 61.

    Judge Shi’s dissenting opinion in Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 ICJ 226.

  62. 62.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/07/us-korea-north-attack-idUSBRE9260BR20130307. Accessed 28 January 2015.

  63. 63.

    Grimal 2012, p. 61.

  64. 64.

    Ibid.

  65. 65.

    Ibid.

  66. 66.

    Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 1996 ICJ 226, para 47; Brownlie 1963, p. 63; see Grimal 2012, Introduction and Chaps. 2 and 4.

  67. 67.

    Green and Grimal 2011; Roscini 2007, p. 245.

  68. 68.

    Green and Grimal 2011, p. 321.

  69. 69.

    Ibid., at p. 322.

  70. 70.

    Ibid.

  71. 71.

    Ibid.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., at p. 324.

  73. 73.

    Ibid.

  74. 74.

    Ibid.

References

  • Alexandrov SA (1996) Self-defense against the use of force in international law. Kluwer Law International, The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Antonopoulos C (2008) Force by armed groups as armed attack and the broadening of self-defence. Neth Int’l L Rev 55:159–180

    Google Scholar 

  • Badr GM (1980) The exculpatory effect of self-defense in state responsibility. Ga J Int’l Comp L 10:1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Bodansky D (1999) Non-liquet and the incompleteness of international law. In: Boisson de Chazournes L, Sands P (eds) International law, the International Court of Justice and nuclear weapons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 153–170

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowett D (1958) Self-defence in international law. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Brownlie I (1963) International law and the use of force by states. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Byers M (2003) Preemptive self-defense: hegemony, equality and strategies of legal change. J Polit Philisophy 11:171–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Constantinou A (2000) The right of self-defence under customary international law and article 51 of the United Nations charter. Ant. N. Sakkoulas, Bruylant, Athènes Bruxelles

    Google Scholar 

  • Dinstein Y (2012) War aggression and self-defence. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Falk R (1965) The Shimoda case: a legal appraisal of the atomic attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagaasaki. AJIL 59:759–793

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk R (1997) Nuclear weapons, international law and the world court: a historic encounter. AJIL 91:64–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardam J (1999) Proportionality and necessity in the nuclear weapons case. In: Boisson de Chazournes L, Sands P (eds) International law, the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 275–292

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardam J (2004) Necessity, proportionality and the use of force by states. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Garwood-Gowers A (2004) Self-defence against terrorism in the post-9/11 world QUTLJJ, vol. 4, Issue 2

    Google Scholar 

  • Gazzini T (2005) The changing rules on the use of force in international law. Manchester University Press, Manchester

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray C (2008) International law and the use of force. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Green JA (2006) Docking the Caroline: understanding the relevance of the formula in contemporary customary international law concerning self-defense. Cardozo J Int’l Comp L 14:429–480

    Google Scholar 

  • Green JA (2009a) Fluctuating evidentiary standards for self-defence in the international court of justice. Int Comp Law Q 58:163–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green JA (2009b) The international court of justice and self-defence in international law. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Green JA (2010) Questioning the peremptory status of the prohibition of the use of force. Mich J Int’l L 32:215–257

    Google Scholar 

  • Green JA (2015) The ratione temporis elements of self-defence. J Use Force Int Law 2(1) (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Green JA, Grimal F (2011) The threat of force as an action in self-defense under International Law. Vand J Transnat’l L 44:285–329

    Google Scholar 

  • 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, Cambridge, pp 247–266

    Google Scholar 

  • Greig D (1991) Self-defence and the Security Council: what does article 51 require? Int Comp Law Q 40:366–402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grimal F (2012) Threats of force: international law and strategy. Routledge, Abingdon

    Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy P, Andreopolous GJ (1994) The laws of war: some concluding reflections. In: Howard M, Andreopoulos G, Shulman MR (eds), The laws of war. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 414–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Kretzmer D (2005) Killing of suspected terrorists: extra judicial executions or legitimate means of defence? Eur J Int’l L 16:171–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubell N (2015) The problem of imminence in an uncertain world. In: Weller M (ed) The Oxford handbook of the use of force in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 697–720

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinez L (2003) September 11th, Iraq and the doctrine of anticipatory self-defense. UMKC LRev 72:123–182

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullerson R (1999) On the relationship between jus ad bellum and jus in bello in the General Assembly advisory opinion. In: Boisson de Chazournes L, Sands P (eds), International law, the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 267–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy S (2005) Doctrine of preemptive self-defense, the symposium: brave new world: U.S. responses to the rise in International Crime. Vill L Rev 50:699–748

    Google Scholar 

  • Orakhelashvili A (2006) Peremptory norms in international law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Pierson C (2004) Preemptive self-defense in an age of weapons of mass destruction: operation Iraqi freedom. Denv J Int’l L Pol’y 33:150–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts A (1994) Land warfare from Hague to Nuremberg. In: Howard M, Andreopoulos G, Shulman MR (eds) The laws of war. Yale University Press, New Haven, pp 116–139

    Google Scholar 

  • Rockefeller M (2004) Imminent threat requirement for the use of preemptive military force: is it time for a non-temporal standard, the 2004 Sutton colloquium: 2003–2004 Leonard V.B. Sutton Award. Denv J Int’l L Pol’y 33:131–149

    Google Scholar 

  • Roscini M (2007) Threats of armed force and contemporary international law. Neth Int’l L Rev 45:229–274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruys T (2010) ‘Armed attack’ and article 51 of the UN charter: evolutions in customary law and practice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sadoff D (2009) Striking a sensible balance on the legality of defensive first strikes. Vand J Transnat’l L 42:441–500

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarvarian A (2014) The lawfulness of a use of force upon nuclear facilities in self-defence. J Use Force Int Law 1(2):1–26

    Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon JM (1996) Nuclear weapons and the laws of war: does customary international law prohibit the use of nuclear weapons in all circumstances? Fordham Int Law J 20:181–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh N (1956) The right of self-defence in relation to the use of nuclear weapons. Indian Yearb Int Aff 5:3–37

    Google Scholar 

  • Spierman O (1999) Lotus and the double structure of international legal argument. Boisson de Chazournes L, Sands P (eds), International law, the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 131–152

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Law, University of Buckingham, Hunter Street, Buckingham, MK18 1EG, UK

    Francis Grimal

Authors
  1. Francis Grimal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francis Grimal .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Management - Law, Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, Surrey, United Kingdom

    Jonathan L. Black-Branch

  2. Cologne, Germany

    Dieter Fleck

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Grimal, F. (2016). Jus ad Bellum: Nuclear Weapons and the Inherent Right of Self-Defence. In: Black-Branch, J., Fleck, D. (eds) Nuclear Non-Proliferation in International Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-075-6_15

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-075-6_15

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-074-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-075-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation