Webinar 5: The legality of nuclear weapons under the law of self-defence and the law of armed conflict, thirty years after the ICJ Advisory Opinion
In its 1996 AO, the ICJ famously held that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the principles and rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, but that in view of the state of international law at the time and of the facts at its disposal, it could not conclude definitively on the lawfulness or unlawfulness of such threat or use “in an extreme circumstance of self-defence in which the very survival of the State would be at stake”. How have the facts and the law about the threats and use of nuclear weapons changed since the 1996 AO? If it is extremely doubtful that nuclear weapons could ever be used in accordance with the principles and rules of IHL, is it ever lawful to use nuclear weapons in self-defence? Can jus ad bellum ever override jus in bello? If deterence policies imply a threat to use nuclear weapons, under what conditions would a threat to use nuclear weapons be considered legal?
Speakers
Opening Remarks: Dr. Deepshikha K. Vijh, Executive Director
The Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy Jus ad bellum and jus in bello in the 1996 ICJ AO and today: separation or conflation?Dr. Jasmine Moussa, Legal Adviser, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Egypt
Can the right of self-defence ever release a State from its obligations under international law, in particular international humanitarian law?Marcelo Kohen, Professor Emeritus, Geneva Graduate Institute
The legality of self-defence with nuclear weapons in the new global orderProfessor Antony Anghie, National University of Singapore Faculty of Law, and University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law
How nuclear deterrence policies hold up to international law in the 1996 ICJ AO and today- Kimiaki Kawai, Vice Director and Professor, Research Centre for Nuclear Weapons Abolition, University of Nagasaki
