Tactical Nuclear Weapons Cannot Comply with The Law of Armed Conflict
Tactical Nuclear Weapons Cannot Comply with The Law of Armed Conflict
Abstract: The Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion is one of the most important pieces of the International Court of Justice’s jurisprudence. Delivered in 1996, only a few years after the end of the Cold War, the world watched as the Court proclaimed that no body of international law explicitly bans the use of nuclear weapons in every scenario. This Note analyzes that ruling and its subsequent interpretations and argues that it is short sighted. The Court believed that use of all nuclear weapons may be illegal, but that the Court lacked sufficient facts to determine whether that was true in every scenario. The exemplary issue showcasing legality was self-defense. This Note argues that the Court should have distinguished tactical from strategic nuclear weapons and should have prohibited any use of tactical nuclear weapons. As will be discussed, tactical nuclear weapons are incapable of providing self-defense when the very survival of the state is at risk, provide no greater military advantage than conventional weapons, and cause indiscriminate effects in the form of the uncontrollable spread of radiation. This Note, like the Court in its opinion, does not comment on or argue about deterrence as a matter of policy. Nor does this Note comment on the legality of use of strategic nuclear weapons in self-defense. The scope of this Note is limited to arguing that the Court should have held that tactical nuclear weapons are different than strategic nuclear weapons, and should have held that the use of tactical nuclear weapons is, or would be, per se illegal.
Recommended Citation: Evan Richardson, Tactical Nuclear Weapons Cannot Comply with The Law of Armed Conflict, 45 Fordham Int'l L.J. 429 (2021).