23 (2001) pp Hiroshima Peace Science 23 (2001) ISSN jus in bello jus ad bellum Nuclear Weapons and International Humanitarian Law as Ju

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "23 (2001) pp Hiroshima Peace Science 23 (2001) ISSN jus in bello jus ad bellum Nuclear Weapons and International Humanitarian Law as Ju"

せとかののした
5 years ago
Views:

1 23 (2001) pp Hiroshima Peace Science 23 (2001) ISSN jus in bello jus ad bellum Nuclear Weapons and International Humanitarian Law as Jus Cogens: The Problem of jus in bello and jus ad bellum or Law and Politics in the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Use and the Threat of Nuclear Weapons Hideaki SHINODA Institute for Peace Science, Hiroshima University 1

2 SUMMARY The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the use and the threat of nuclear weapons on July 8, 1996, was a historic achievement in the history of debates on the legality of nuclear weapons. It drew great attention of academics, governments, and civil society organizations and is now recognized as an important milestone for those who are interested in the issue of nuclear weapons. However, this does not mean that the Opinion concluded the debate on the legality of nuclear weapons. Rather, it stimulated further discussions and created new problems on the issue of the legality of nuclear weapons. This article is intended to examine the Opinion in order to identify the polemics that concern the very normative framework of current international society. The main focal point is the jus cogens character of international humanitarian law, which the Court avoided. In so doing, this article identifies the confusion in the Opinion and among the Judges about the relationship between jus in bello and jus ad bellum applied to the use and the threat of nuclear weapons. The article also argues that the notorious concept of an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake was an unfortunate result of sterile understanding of the relationship between law and politics. 2

3 jus ad bellum jus in bello 1 2 jus ad bellum jus in bello jus ad bellum jus in bello 3 3

5 5 (dispositif) (authorize) 5

6 1969 jus cogens

7 jus ad bellum jus ad bellum

8 jus ad bellum jus in bello jus in bello (should) jus in bello jus in bello 8

9 jus ad bellum jus in bello 3 jus ad bellum 14 jus ad bellum jus in bello (would generally be contrary to) 9

10 It follows from the above-mentioned requirements (in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake) 10

12 (Kriegsraison) 23 jus ad bellum jus ad bellum jus in bello jus ad bellum jus in bello jus in bello jus ad bellum jus in bello jus in bello jus in bello jus ad bellum 12

13 jus in bello 24 13

14 jus ad bellum jus in bello 2 4 jus ad bellum jus in bello jus ad bellum jus in bello

15 jus ad bellum jus in bello 30 15

16 jus in bello jus in bello jus ad bellum (I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 22) (intransgressible) 16

17 33 jus ad bellum jus in bello 17

20 IPSHU NO (jus ad bellum) (jus in bello) See Hideaki Shinoda, Re-examining Sovereignty: From Classical Theory to the Global Age (London: Macmillan, 2000) See, for instance, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Oda. See also Christopher Greenwood, Jus ad bellum and jus in bello in the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, in Laurence Boisson de Chazournes and Philippe Sands (eds.), International Law, the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp

21 See the website of the ICJ: (necessity) (proportionality) jus ad bellum jus in bello See Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996 on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, paragraphs (a) See Georg Schwarzenberger, The Legality of Nuclear Weapons (London: Stevens & Sons Limited, 1958), p Letter dated 16 June 1995 from the Legal Adviser to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, together with Written Statement of the Government of the United Kingdom. See also Oral Pleadings, CR/95/34 (15 November 1995), and Letter dated 20 June 1995 from the Acting Legal Adviser to the Department of State, together with Written Statement of the Government of the United States of America. See also Oral Pleadings, CR/95/34 (15 November 1995). 13 See Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, paragraphs See Greenwood, jus ad bellum and jus in bello, pp , Rein Müllerson, On the Relationship between Jus ad bellum and Jus in bello in the General Assembly Advisory Opinion, in Boisson de Chazournes and Sands (eds.), International Law, the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons, p , and Judith Gardam, Necessity and Proportionality in Jus ad bellum and Jus in bello, in ibid., pp

22 (nation) nation state Marcelo G. Kohen, The Notion of State Survival in International Law, in Boisson de Chazournes and Sands (eds.), International Law, the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons, pp See Lettre en date du 20 juin 1995 du Ministre des affaires étrangères de la République française, accompagnée de l exposé écrit du Gouvernement de la République française, Oral Pleadings, CR/95/23 (01 November 1995), and Written Statement of the Government of the United Kingdom Pierre-Marie Dupuy, Between the Individual and the State: International Law at a Crossroads?, in Boisson de Chazournes and Sands (eds.), International Law, the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons. 22 See Daniel Warner, The Nuclear Weapons Decision by the International Court of Justice: Locating the raison behind raison d etat, Millennium: Journal of International Studies, vol. 27, no. 2. (Politics among Nations) II Greenwood, Jus ad bellum and jus in bello, p. 264; Müllerson, On the Relationship, p. 271; and Gardam, Necessity and Proportionality, p

23 Lauri Hannikainen, Peremptory Norms (Jus Cogens) in International Law: Historical Development, Criteria, Present Status (Helsinki: Finnish Lawyers Publishing Company, 1988), Chapter 12; Jacob Werksman and Ruth Khalastchi, Nuclear Weapons and Jus Cogens: Peremptory Norms and Justice Pre-empted?, in Boisson de Chazournes and Sands (eds.), International Law, the International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons, pp Advisory Opinion, paragraph (state of necessity) 33 See Kohen, The Notion of State Survival, pp Gardam, Necessity and Proportionality, pp Greenwood, Jus ad bellum and jus in bello, p Werksman and Khalastchi, Nuclear Weapons and Jus Cogens, p Advisory Opinion, paragraph jus ad bellum jus in bello Kohen, The Notion of State Survival, pp See E.H. Carr, The Twenty Years' Crisis (London: Macmillan, 1939), and Hans J. Morgenthau, Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1948) See Christopher Weeramantry, The 23

24 Law, Nuclear Weapons, and the Real World, William M. Evan and Ved P. Nanda (eds.), Nuclear Proliferation and the Legality of Nuclear Weapons (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1995), pp

核兵器の合法性に関する国際司法裁判所の勧告的意見

核兵器の合法性に関する国際司法裁判所の勧告的意見 1996 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-3-1 1-3-2 1-4 1-5 2-1 119 2-2 2-2-1 2-2-2 2-2-3 2-2-4 3-1 3-2 3-2-1 3-2-2 3-2-3 3-2-3 3-2-3 3-3 3-3-1 3-3-2 3-3-3 3-3-4 3-3-5 3-3-6 3-4 120 1 1996 7 8 2 3 1 1979 1986 1992 1986 Hisakazu