Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Legal aspects of the Israeli attack on a UN compound in Lebanon

Legal aspects of the Israeli attack on a UN compound in Lebanon whether it can be imagined that, in apply- ing these standards, the threat or use of nuclear weapons could be legal in excep- tional circumstances. It is on this question that the Court is split. By seven votes to seven, the casting vote of the President being decisive, the Court rules as follows: '... 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 ; however, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude de- finitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or un- lawful in an extreme circumstance of self defence, in which the very survival of a state would be at stake ...' 9 The real dividing lines existing within the Court are not appropriately reflected by reference to the vote only. They invite some comment. Three judges which said that there is clearly no exception to the prohibition (Judges Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry and Koroma) voted against the holding. The four other judges voting against the ruling http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Journal of International Peacekeeping Brill

Legal aspects of the Israeli attack on a UN compound in Lebanon

Journal of International Peacekeeping , Volume 3 (2-3): 66 – Jan 1, 1996

Loading next page...
 
/lp/brill/legal-aspects-of-the-israeli-attack-on-a-un-compound-in-lebanon-LLIivH0oD8

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Brill
Copyright
© 1996 Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands
ISSN
1875-4104
eISSN
1875-4112
DOI
10.1163/187541196X00071
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

whether it can be imagined that, in apply- ing these standards, the threat or use of nuclear weapons could be legal in excep- tional circumstances. It is on this question that the Court is split. By seven votes to seven, the casting vote of the President being decisive, the Court rules as follows: '... 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 ; however, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude de- finitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or un- lawful in an extreme circumstance of self defence, in which the very survival of a state would be at stake ...' 9 The real dividing lines existing within the Court are not appropriately reflected by reference to the vote only. They invite some comment. Three judges which said that there is clearly no exception to the prohibition (Judges Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry and Koroma) voted against the holding. The four other judges voting against the ruling

Journal

Journal of International PeacekeepingBrill

Published: Jan 1, 1996

There are no references for this article.