NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, so, I have heard various opinions behind Mordechai Vanunu. Some call him a patriot, some call him a worthless rebel. What are your views?

Okay, so, I have heard various opinions behind Mordechai Vanunu. Some call him a patriot, some call him a worthless rebel. What are your views?

He is a worthless piece of shit, who should be permanently locked up for treason.

Anyone named Mordechai is automatically creepy. Especially in a corn field.

Who?

He is a worthless piece of shit, who should be permanently locked up for treason.

how do you feel about Johnathon Pollard?

I think he's a hero.

If your employer does something bad, then in any Western society a person has the right to be a whistleblower.
Simply declaring something "secret" in the interest of "public safety" is not enough to make this any less of a good deed.

And the way he's been treated since he spoke out has been atrocious and would be better becoming of Zimbabwe than Israel.

Israel is not special, and I reject any notion that blowing the whistle on Israel would be any worse than blowing the whistle on any other nation - especially if it is working on a nuclear program the legality (and I don't support India or Pakistan having nukes either) or purpose of which could be disputed (and should at least be open to public debate).

Who?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanunu

I like his name.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanunu
Oh... Good reading material.

Who?
Israeli Nuke Whistle blower.


He defianiatly is not a Patriot but he is a Hero.

It is a crock of shit how Israel can be 'protected' by America and slap the International community in the face.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Pollard

Anyone who considers Mordechai Vanunu a traitor while hailing Jonathan Pollard as a hero at the same time is pretty much a disingenuous ultranationalist lacking conscience. Leaking the fact that your government is conducting a secret nuclear weapons program hardly pales in comparison to spying against your own government for a foreign power. The sentencing he was pretty much a slap in the wrist as well; if Pollard had been spying for any other country besides Israel, he'd have been executed like Julius and Ethel Rosenburg.

I like his name.

Indeed, it has a sort of Kaiser Soze ring about it.

Pollard, and Vanunu are both traitors, and both should have been hanged (I'll leave you guys to work out which body part they should have been hanged by). It does not matter that Vanunu committed a fashionable form of treason, or the Pollard was spying on behalf of the most maligned, and hated nation and people on earth, they betrayed their respective countries.

Israel's nuclear weapons program is essential to Israel's defence, they are surrounded, and vastly outnumber by dictators who mean to finish Hitler's work, and Vanunu swore not to reveal his country's secrets, as did Pollard. You're right that Pollard should not have been spared, whatever one thinks of giving information to Israel, one cannot overlook the possibility of a "false flag" recruitment (a spy claims to represent a friendly country, but actually represents an enemy, read/watch The Fourth Protocol for more)

It does not matter that Vanunu committed a fashionable form of treason, or the Pollard was spying on behalf of the most maligned, and hated nation and people on earth, they betrayed their respective countries.
The same thing happened with hundreds of Germans in WWII who felt that their government was no longer doing the right thing. They betrayed it, and many paid dearly.
Vanunu felt that what his government was doing was no longer the right thing, and he spoke out about it. Forget whatever you consider to be right and wrong...it is our value system that requires people to make such decisions for themselves.

The difference between those Germans and Vanunu was that the Germans opposed illegal actions, Vanunu did not unmask criminal activity. The criminality of Hitler's regime is not disputed by anyone with a working brain. Asserting that Israel building the means of self-defence is criminal is clearly wrong.

I think he's a hero.

If your employer does something bad, then in any Western society a person has the right to be a whistleblower.
Simply declaring something "secret" in the interest of "public safety" is not enough to make this any less of a good deed.

And the way he's been treated since he spoke out has been atrocious and would be better becoming of Zimbabwe than Israel.

Israel is not special, and I reject any notion that blowing the whistle on Israel would be any worse than blowing the whistle on any other nation - especially if it is working on a nuclear program the legality (and I don't support India or Pakistan having nukes either) or purpose of which could be disputed (and should at least be open to public debate).

Seconded.

The difference between those Germans and Vanunu was that the Germans opposed illegal actions, Vanunu did not unmask criminal activity. The criminality of Hitler's regime is not disputed by anyone with a working brain.
Don't you see that it is utterly irrelevant what we think about the Nuclear Program?
The man did what his conscience told him to do. I'd rather have that happen than have a bunch of blindly following zombies.

Asserting that Israel building the means of self-defence is criminal is clearly wrong.
My issue with it is simply that
a) they didn't tell the world about it - and still claimed they wouldn't be the first side to introduce nukes into the Middle East Conflict and
b) it was never up for public debate. It was a secret project, potentially endangering the existence of the state of Israel itself, and it probably cost billions.

i'm of jewish ancestry though i'm an athiest(i'm jewish enough to get israeli citazenship) but I hate israel.

if the surrounding countries are antisematic now its because of the zionists fucking them over so much.

and the zionists are not nice people.

israel shouldn't exist

i'm against it in all ways

it definitly shouldn't have NBC weapons no country should.

Don't you see that it is utterly irrelevant what we think about the Nuclear Program?

Where did you get that in the passage you quoted. The key point is that what the German resisters opposed was clearly criminal, whereas Vanunu opposed government policy that was not criminal. An objection to policy, where that policy does not break the law does not warrant what Vanunu did. If his conscience was pricked (as opposed to his politics), then he should have resigned, and honoured his obligations in terms of secrecy.

My issue[s] with it [are] simply that

Neither issue is relevant, and it justifies nothing. Frankly, the idea of Israel needing to tell the world of what it may build in self-defence is absurd. It is no one's business except Israel's, and anyone stupid, and malignant enough to attack it.

Pantycellen, anti-semitic drivel=/=relevant point.

If his conscience was pricked (as opposed to his politics), then he should have resigned, and honoured his obligations in terms of secrecy.
And let that which bugged him happen anyways? His conscience was against building a nuclear weapon in Israel, against introducing this most dangerous of weapons into the most unstable place.
Simply resigning does not change that.

And as for criminal vs not criminal...that depends on the time and the place. The Nazi government would have said their actions were fine, and not criminal. Yet the people who decided to resist made that decision for themselves, using their own conscience.

Whether you agree with the decision or not, there is simply no difference in principle.

Israel is a sovereign nation and thus have a right to defend itself against attacks,and as history should show very clearly this has been necessary on a number of occasions.So yeah i can understand if Israel feels the need for a nuclear arsenal:the facts remain Israel is sorrounded by potentially hostile nations who has shown no hesitations about attacking in the past.

However:the thread is about Mordechai Vanunu.What ive read about the way he has been treated,basically sounds more like something you would expect from a non-democratic nation.in his case i don't think the punishment is appropriate to his 'crime' (no i dont consider his actions criminal)
Im not sure though if its that much different from the way he would have been treated in,say,India or Pakistan (or any other 'nuke wanting nation' for that matter, had he spilled the beans on the state of their nuclear programs.)

/rant off
it doesn't have to make sense ;)

Vanunu is a not very sane pathological liar, whose rightful place is in the insane asylum. Every time he opens his mouth he makes a fool of himself, and if it wasn't for the slow-witted bureaucrats of the Israeli Prison Service, who keep trying to make him abide by the court's demands, he would not have had any credibility left by now.

Then again, what else can one expect from a man who calls himself "a symbol of freedom"?

Vanunu is a not very sane pathological liar, whose rightful place is in the insane asylum. Every time he opens his mouth he makes a fool of himself, and if it wasn't for the slow-witted bureaucrats of the Israeli Prison Service, who keep trying to make him abide by the court's demands, he would not have had any credibility left by now.

Then again, what else can one expect from a man who calls himself "a symbol of freedom"?


This begs the question then:why was he working for the israeli government on their nuclear program? (seeing as he is 'a not very sane pathological liar' apparently ).Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?

Where did you get that in the passage you quoted. The key point is that what the German resisters opposed was clearly criminal, whereas Vanunu opposed government policy that was not criminal. An objection to policy, where that policy does not break the law does not warrant what Vanunu did. If his conscience was pricked (as opposed to his politics), then he should have resigned, and honoured his obligations in terms of secrecy.



Neither issue is relevant, and it justifies nothing. Frankly, the idea of Israel needing to tell the world of what it may build in self-defence is absurd. It is no one's business except Israel's, and anyone stupid, and malignant enough to attack it.

Pantycellen, anti-semitic drivel=/=relevant point.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/

Allthough Israel didn't sign it (As of early 2000 a total of 187 states were Parties to the NPT. Cuba, Israel, India, and Pakistan were the only states that were not members of the NPT), it does support him. If you aren't prepared to condemn israel for acquiring nukes, you can't accuse iran or north korea for trying to do so (once they just leave the treaty).

This begs the question then:why was he working for the israeli government on their nuclear program? (seeing as he is 'a not very sane pathological liar' apparently ).Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?
Check out his theories about who killed Kennedy:D Or his speech upon being released from the prison. Hilarious stuff.

This begs the question then:why was he working for the israeli government on their nuclear program? (seeing as he is 'a not very sane pathological liar' apparently ).Do you have any evidence to back up your claim?

Agreed

The difference between those Germans and Vanunu was that the Germans opposed illegal actions, Vanunu did not unmask criminal activity. The criminality of Hitler's regime is not disputed by anyone with a working brain. Asserting that Israel building the means of self-defence is criminal is clearly wrong.
Under some interpretations of international law, nuclear weapons ARE illegal. I remember hearing of a case where three Scottish women were acquitted of attacking a nuclear sub, because Scottish law allows illegal actions to be performed to prevent greater illegal actions - namely, the use of nuclear weapons.
Secondly, under German law at the time, what the Nazis were doing was not illegal. The killing of the Jews was mandated by Hitler. It WAS wrong. So are nuclear weapons (in my opinion anyways.)

http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/

Allthough Israel didn't sign it (As of early 2000 a total of 187 states were Parties to the NPT. Cuba, Israel, India, and Pakistan were the only states that were not members of the NPT), it does support him. If you aren't prepared to condemn israel for acquiring nukes, you can't accuse iran or north korea for trying to do so (once they just leave the treaty).

There were a lot more than just thos four who didn't sign. If I'm not mistaken, Brazil didn't sign either. How can yhou say there were 187 out of 200 who signed and then in the next breath say that there were only 4 that didn't sign? You only mentioned the states that best served your agenda.

In fact, the difference between Iran, North Korea and Israel is the motive behind their attempts to acquire nukes. Iran and North Korea have no intrinsic defensive rationale for the need for a deterrent such as a nuclear weapon. Israel, meanwhile, not only could be attacked at any given moment, but HAS BEEN.

It is exclusively the result of Israel's military deterrent that they have managed to have relative peace outside its borders for the past 25 years. Egypt and Jordan have given up hope of ever overpowering Israel, as they had tried to do on at least 3 occasions before. Syria has had to resort to puppet organizations such as Hizbollah to conduct their attacks for fear of Israeli reprisals.

Israel has the constant fear of attack from those around her who wish to see her demise. With Iraq workingon a reactor in the early-80's and Iran actively working on obtaining nukes now, Israel has had all the more reason to seek the ultimate defense.

As for Pollard, if the US government had been sharing the info it had on Iraq's reactor with Israel as it was supposed to, there would have been no need for Pollard to spy. That doesn't excuse him, however.

Nonetheless, the comparison to the Rosenbergs is ridiculous. The US hasn't executed spies since then. Aldrige Ames is also sitting in jail with a far lesser term than Pollard, and Ames spied for an enemy.

The funniest hing is that most Americans should be thanking Pollard. Had he not passed on the info about Iraq's reactor to Israel, Israel wouldn't have bombed it, and the US would have had a helluva time dealing with a nuclear-armed Iraq in 1991.

Under some interpretations of international law, nuclear weapons ARE illegal. I remember hearing of a case where three Scottish women were acquitted of attacking a nuclear sub, because Scottish law allows illegal actions to be performed to prevent greater illegal actions - namely, the use of nuclear weapons.
Secondly, under German law at the time, what the Nazis were doing was not illegal. The killing of the Jews was mandated by Hitler. It WAS wrong. So are nuclear weapons (in my opinion anyways.)

I'm simply amazed that you can on the one hand mention Scottish law acquiting someone for protecting the greater good, but on the other hand gloss over the issue of greater good when it came to the Nazi atrocities.

Are you saying that because Hitler said so, genocide wasn't illegal, but was rather just "wrong"?! I believe international law would (and did) overrule Hitler.

The moral equivilencies you make are astounding. Hitler was OK because it was "legal", but just "wrong", but nuclear development in self-defense is "illegal" and therefore seemingly worse? Unreal.

In fact, the difference between Iran, North Korea and Israel is the motive behind their attempts to acquire nukes. Iran and North Korea have no intrinsic defensive rationale for the need for a deterrent such as a nuclear weapon.

I wouldn't say so. Having WMD seems to be a good deterrent against being invaded for having WMD.

my point is either everyone should have them or no one should have them.

and in my view no one should have them

And let that which bugged him happen anyways? His conscience was against building a nuclear weapon in Israel, against introducing this most dangerous of weapons into the most unstable place.
Simply resigning does not change that.

Resigning clears his conscience. His actions should have pricked his conscience as he undertook an obligation to the State of Israel, and its people.

I don't believe his conscience was pricked, I believe his politics were. A public servant who objects to government policy, and cannot carry out his work under all the conditions under which it is to be done has no business being a public servant.

And as for criminal vs not criminal...that depends on the time and the place.

The difference between genocide (and all other National Socialist crimes) and the building of arms for self defence merely depends on time and place?

Rubbish.

The law with regard to the National Socialists is clear, many were convicted and executed under it.

Allthough Israel didn't sign it ... it does support him.

No, it doesn't. Israel cannot be held to agreements it did not make, no matter how "in vogue" they are.

If you aren't prepared to condemn israel for acquiring nukes, you can't accuse iran or north korea for trying to do so (once they just leave the treaty).

As you said, Israel did not sign the treaty, and Iran and North Korea were in material breach before they left, and made separate agreements not to develop nuclear weapons.

However:the thread is about Mordechai Vanunu.What ive read about the way he has been treated,basically sounds more like something you would expect from a non-democratic nation.

What is undemocratic about his treatment? He committed a crime, was given a fair trial, convicted, and sent to gaol. The fact that you consider an act of treason to be less than criminal is irrelevant.

my point is either everyone should have them or no one should have them.

and in my view no one should have them

That was not your point. Your point was that Israel has no right to defend itself because it should not exist.

my point is either everyone should have them or no one should have them.

and in my view no one should have them

Great. I'll tell you what...

Israel would more than gladly end its program once all the other nations who have them destroy all of theirs and ensure that no one will ever develop that technology again.

Of course, how you are ever going to ensure such a thing, especially when there are 1 billion people surrounding Israel who want her destruction by any means (even going so far as to blow themselves up in the process), is beyond me.

Don't let your distaste for Israel cause you to be naive.

Vanunu is rector of my University...

We supported him because he stood up for his belief that the Israeli authorities were wrong to pursue a clandestine nuclear program and is now a victim of overbearing authorities that clearly have no regard for human rights. He is a representation of the ideals of free speech and open government.



Under some interpretations of international law, nuclear weapons ARE illegal. I remember hearing of a case where three Scottish women were acquitted of attacking a nuclear sub, because Scottish law allows illegal actions to be performed to prevent greater illegal actions - namely, the use of nuclear weapons.

Actually, they attempted to use that defence, but it wasn't successful. (I'm 99% certain)

Also W.H.O sought a ruling from the ICJ that nuclear weapons were illegal, and the ICJ refused to rule on the point (saying that WHO could not make such an application to the court)

I'm simply amazed that you can on the one hand mention Scottish law acquiting someone for protecting the greater good, but on the other hand gloss over the issue of greater good when it came to the Nazi atrocities.

Are you saying that because Hitler said so, genocide wasn't illegal, but was rather just "wrong"?! I believe international law would (and did) overrule Hitler.

The moral equivilencies you make are astounding. Hitler was OK because it was "legal", but just "wrong", but nuclear development in self-defense is "illegal" and therefore seemingly worse? Unreal.
There's a difference between illegal and wrong, that was my point. It's not moral equivalency, rather showing the gap between law and morals. The law in Scotland covers the greater good, international law doesn't. What Hitler did wasn't illegal under international law at the time, that's why there was such a fuss about the legitimacy of the Nuremberg tribunals. Not saying I'm not glad they hung the b*stards though.
I never said what Hitler did was OK, just legal by his laws. Something being legal doesn't make it right. And obviously genocide is far far worse than possessing nuclear weapons.

Secular Europe, they were acquitted (unless there was more than one case?) The people I'm talking about (and I assume you're talking about) were the Loch Goil Ploughshares. I only found out the details just now - they actually wrecked an acoustics testing barge that would have found. And the judge in that case (a sheriff actually) ruled that nuclear weapons were illegal under international law. I can't find anything on further appeals, so I'm guessing that was that.

Secular Europe, they were acquitted (unless there was more than one case?) The people I'm talking about (and I assume you're talking about) were the Loch Goil Ploughshares. I only found out the details just now - they actually wrecked an acoustics testing barge that would have found. And the judge in that case (a sheriff actually) ruled that nuclear weapons were illegal under international law. I can't find anything on further appeals, so I'm guessing that was that.

Ah yes, I looked it up and you're right, they were aquitted in the Sheriff Court case.


However, there was then a Lord Advocate's Reference to the Court of Session (for anyone not au fait with the system: a question to clarify a point of law in the highest court in Scotland [ignoring the House of Lords] ) about the point, and the Court of Session essentially said the nuclear weapons were legal in international law and the Sheriff court had been wrong. That didn't change the decision in the case of the Loch Goil people, but it did change the legal position in Scotland for anyone else thereafter.

Summary: Held, determining the issues arising, that (1) in a Scottish criminal trial, evidence could not be led as to the content of customary international law. A rule of customary international law was a rule of Scots law and the jury were not entitled to consider expert evidence but must be directed thereon by the judge; (2) the conduct of the UK government had not been illegal because the peacetime deployment of Trident as a deterrent was not a threat. Furthermore there was no rule of customary international law justifying the commission of a crime in order to prevent the commission of another crime even in times of war; (3) the belief of Z, R and M that the deployment of Trident was in breach of customary international law did not provide a defence of justification to the charge of malicious damage, Clark v Syme 1957 J.C. 1 followed, and (4) save for the defence of necessity, it was not a defence to a criminal charge that the relevant actions had been taken to hinder the commission of an offence by another person. Although the defence of necessity could be employed where the malicious damage was remote from the threat to people or property, it was only available where the perceived threat was immediate and there was no alternative to a criminal act in order to avert the threat, Moss v Howdle 1997 J.C. 123 followed. In any event the defence of necessity was not available in the instant case where the actions of the Government had not been shown to be unlawful

That ruling obviously contradicts what the papers all said about Scots law... I'm not surprised though, I doubted a Sheriff's court could make such an important ruling and have it unchallenged. It still seems to be the case, though, that nuclear weapons are illegal under international law - am I correct here?
EDIT: Re-reading your post, it seems that you view the ruling as saying that nuclear weapons AREN'T illegal. I searched for the legal report of the referral, and the most I can make out (don't have time to read 139K of wordage) is that nuclear weapons are not illegal in international law in the view of this court. I found the specific dispositif referred to in the Lord Advocate's reference, and it does say that use of nuclear weapons is illegal UNLESS proportional - that's my reading anyways. http://prop1.org/2000/icjop3.htm, paragraph 42.
The reference in the Lord Advocate's reference is http://prop1.org/2000/icjop5.htm, and here (E) is:
"It follows from the above-mentioned requirements that 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 definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake."
Draw from this what you will. I guess it certainly falls more on the pro-nukes side than I thought it did though.

That ruling obviously contradicts what the papers all said about Scots law... I'm not surprised though, I doubted a Sheriff's court could make such an important ruling and have it unchallenged. It still seems to be the case, though, that nuclear weapons are illegal under international law - am I correct here?

Draw from this what you will. I guess it certainly falls more on the pro-nukes side than I thought it did though.


Not as such, although you're not really wrong either! The International Court says "Nuclear weapons are not illegal as such, but states should make as much effort as possible to stop using them"

What it is really saying is "This is too political a decision for us - we think that nuclear weapons should be banned, but if we say that they're illegal then the nuclear powers will ignore us and the reputation and influence of the court will be severly damaged."

Basically, the only thing that stops nuclear weapons being illegal is the fact that the most powerfull countries in the world have them.

If it was my decision, I would have not abandoned this thread for as long as I have.

For those of you doubting his choices: heroes (or whatever you want to call them) are not created because of a choice made, it is because what a person believes is morally right comes to fruition in the form of an action.

Mordechai Vanunu believed that the people should know the actions of their own government. If it is his conscience you question, refer to his poem 'I am your Spy' found here (http://www.vanunu.org)

Resigning clears his conscience. His actions should have pricked his conscience as he undertook an obligation to the State of Israel, and its people.
If I was in the SS, and we ran a death camp, resigning would not be enough to clear my conscience.

The Government made him do something he felt was wrong. Regardless of what government, what thing and what person, the principle is the same, and agreeing with Stauffenberg and disagreeing with Vanunu is hipocrisy.

I don't believe his conscience was pricked, I believe his politics were. A public servant who objects to government policy, and cannot carry out his work under all the conditions under which it is to be done has no business being a public servant.
That excuse was not enough at Nuremberg either.

The difference between genocide (and all other National Socialist crimes) and the building of arms for self defence merely depends on time and place?

Rubbish.

The law with regard to the National Socialists is clear, many were convicted and executed under it.
And as you see, there are apparently precedences for nuclear weapons to be illegal as well.
And besides, I would've thought you'd be the first to respect the judgement of the individual before the Leviathan.

That was not your point. Your point was that Israel has no right to defend itself because it should not exist.
Nothing like accusing your opponents of anti-semitism hey?

If I was in the SS, and we ran a death camp, resigning would not be enough to clear my conscience.

The difference being that what the SS was doing was illegal, self-defence isn't legal.

The Government made him do something he felt was wrong. Regardless of what government, what thing and what person, the principle is the same, and agreeing with Stauffenberg and disagreeing with Vanunu is hipocrisy.

Not if you understand the difference between a legal policy, and an illegal one. That is the difference.

That excuse was not enough at Nuremberg either.

That is because the actions tried at Nuremburg were illegal.

And as you see, there are apparently precedences for nuclear weapons to be illegal as well.

Refer to Secular Europe's post. Nuclear weapons aren't illegal, and I can't see how a Scottish judgement is relevant to Israel.

And besides, I would've thought you'd be the first to respect the judgement of the individual before the Leviathan.

The individual in this case, imposed obligations upon himself, which he violated over an objection to policy. He betrayed that which he swore to serve, in a situation where Israel had committed no crime.

Nothing like accusing your opponents of anti-semitism hey?

If someone says Israel has no right to exist, it is pretty clear that he is anti-semitic.

The difference being that what the SS was doing was illegal, self-defence isn't legal*....
Not if you understand the difference between a legal policy, and an illegal one. That is the difference....
That is because the actions tried at Nuremburg were illegal.
il·le·gal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-lgl)
adj.
Prohibited by law.
Prohibited by official rules: an illegal pass in football.
Unacceptable to or not performable by a computer: an illegal operation.
And there we have it. Without a law that says something is wrong, something cannot be illegal. Since there were no laws saying "thou should not build death camps" applicable to the SS, it was not illegal, and since...
Nuclear weapons aren't illegal, and I can't see how a Scottish judgement is relevant to Israel.
...I really don't see what difference you're on about.

If someone says Israel has no right to exist, it is pretty clear that he is anti-semitic.
You need to learn that there are nuances in the world.

I can be a Jew, love Israel and serve in its military, and I can still think that introducing nuclear weapons into the middle east is a bad thing.

*Freudian slip? ;)

Refer to Secular Europe's post. Nuclear weapons aren't illegal, and I can't see how a Scottish judgement is relevant to Israel.

Actually, the possession of nuclear weapons isn't illegal, but the development or purchase of them by a state that does not already have them is.

The only reason the possession of nuclear weapons was found illegal was because the majority of states who possess nuclear weapons are major powers to whom the court cannot really dictate what to do with their military - if the court did, then it would be ignored and that would damage it's position in terms of its authority and influence.

As to the relevance of the Scottish judgement - it is possible for national court judgements to provide guidance as to international law. For example, the Eichmann case in Israel. However, that is not the case with this particular case, since it was over-ruled, even in its own domestic system.

And there we have it. Without a law that says something is wrong, something cannot be illegal. Since there were no laws saying "thou should not build death camps" applicable to the SS, it was not illegal, and since...


Well...yes, there was no law that said "thou shall not build death camps" or that genocide was illegal at the time, but murder has always been illegal in every country all over the world, and this was lots of murders, so it's not exactly creating new law. They knew that what they were doing was wrong, or at least, they knew they were committing murder, even if they did not count the people they were murdering as human. Even if the crime of genocide had not been created, the Nazis could still have been tried for multiple murders - all that the crime of genocide did was make it one huge crime rather than millions of individual ones; it tried to say that this is a crime even worse than murder.

Even if the crime of genocide had not been created, the Nazis could still have been tried for multiple murders - all that the crime of genocide did was make it one huge crime rather than millions of individual ones; it tried to say that this is a crime even worse than murder.
Perhaps...but since the government didn't include the people in the camps in the laws (or actually made laws requiring their death), as far as German law was concerned, there was no illegal action committed.
Obviously that is hardly an excuse, but it is pretty much the same Disraeliland uses right now by arguing that building nukes isn't illegal because there is no explicit law against it (which there may well be as you pointed out).

Ultimately a whistleblower makes his or her own decision, based on what that single person believes to be the right thing - independent of the law.
Signing a contract, or even swearing an oath should not be used as a tool to gag whistleblowers, regardless of whether it is in a corporate, military- or political environment.

Actually, the possession of nuclear weapons isn't illegal, but the development or purchase of them by a state that does not already have them is.

Incorrect. It is illegal for a nation that has ratified the NPT to develop nuclear weapons, and it is illegal for a nation that has made some other agreement foreswearing nucelar weapons to develop them, and it is illegal for a nation that currently posseses nuclear weapons to transfer them, or the technology to other nations.

...I really don't see what difference you're on about.

I can't see how a Scottish court's judgement is relevant to Israel.

You need to learn that there are nuances in the world.

Pantycellen said Israel should not exist. Find a nuance in that.

*Freudian slip?

Manual slip, as in typo.

Ultimately a whistleblower makes his or her own decision, based on what that single person believes to be the right thing - independent of the law.
Signing a contract, or even swearing an oath should not be used as a tool to gag whistleblowers, regardless of whether it is in a corporate, military- or political environment.

Why should people not be bound by contracts made in good faith? The only occasions in which whistleblowing is justifiable are illegality, and gross incompetance, if official channels are blocked. Leaking military secrets because one objects to a government policy which is not criminal is not justifiable. He made an agreement in good faith, and he broke that good faith. The Israeli Government did not.

If one does not like a contract made in good faith, and the other party has kept its good faith, then one should withdraw, in good faith, and preserve that good faith.

Vanunu is an hero. He is one of those that choose to do the good, knowing that he will be in trouble with that. A bit like Christ...

I don't think the Nazis would have viewed what they did as murder. Legally, murder is "the unlawful killing of a human being" (with malice aforethought, but that's not really relevant here). Calling it murder under the Nazi system is wrong for two reasons: 1) the Nazis did not view the Jews as human, and they were not legally human (I think, not sure on this point, but I believe this was the case) and 2) killing Jews in death camps was no more illegal under Nazi law than killing murderers is under American state law. An execution is not murder, as it is a lawful killing - same with soldiers in battle. Killing of Jews was lawful at that time, and therefore not murder.
Please not that this is by their own twisted logic, the same sort of logic that can be used to justify the IRA being the legitimate government of Ireland - ie, not logic that would stand up to normal, non-murderous people. It's also applying legal logic too. Well, more accurately, it's using legal logic to explain the twisted beliefs of the Nazis.
Comparing Vanunu to Christ is a bit much. I agree with his stand, to be honest. He revealed something he saw as illegal, which is something I can agree with.

Incorrect. It is illegal for a nation that has ratified the NPT to develop nuclear weapons, and it is illegal for a nation that has made some other agreement foreswearing nucelar weapons to develop them, and it is illegal for a nation that currently posseses nuclear weapons to transfer them, or the technology to other nations.


Actually, the possession of nuclear weapons isn't illegal, but the development or purchase of them by a state that does not already have them is.

I'm sorry, how are these not saying basically the same thing?

If you're saying that I'm incorrect in stating that nations other than those that have signed the NPT or other similar treaties are prohibited from developing/purchasing/procuring nuclear weapons then you are in fact wrong - treaty law is not definitive of international law and a customary norm that covers all states has developed from these treaties. As I said possession in itself does not appear to be illegal for those states already in possession of nuclear weapons.(anyone new to the thread read my earlier posts before you criticise this statement)

I'm sorry, how are these not saying basically the same thing?

No. Your statement is simply a blanket declaration that it is illegal to develop nuclear weapons.

If you're saying that I'm incorrect in stating that nations other than those that have signed the NPT or other similar treaties are prohibited from developing/purchasing/procuring nuclear weapons then you are in fact wrong - treaty law is not definitive of international law and a customary norm that covers all states has developed from these treaties.

A treaty, once ratified, becomes a part of the signing nation's own law, second to the Constitution.

A nation signing and ratifying the NPT effectively makes a law against the development of nuclear weapons, or (if a nuclear state on signing the NPT) a law against transferring the weapons or the technology that created them.

If a nation has not signed the NPT, then it cannot be held to any of its provisions. If a nation has not made some other agreement, or law against developing/procuring nuclear weapons, then it cannot be held to it.

No. Your statement is simply a blanket declaration that it is illegal to develop nuclear weapons.

A treaty, once ratified, becomes a part of the signing nation's own law, second to the Constitution.

A nation signing and ratifying the NPT effectively makes a law against the development of nuclear weapons, or (if a nuclear state on signing the NPT) a law against transferring the weapons or the technology that created them.

If a nation has not signed the NPT, then it cannot be held to any of its provisions. If a nation has not made some other agreement, or law against developing/procuring nuclear weapons, then it cannot be held to it.

Wrong! Customary International Law which applies to all states can develop from treaty law which, at the time of its inception, applies only to those who have signed and ratified the treaty. This is what has happened in the law relating to nuclear weapons, as stated in the ICJ link which appears above.

The minutae of the Treaties are not transferred into customary international law, but the general principles can be.

-snip-
It's still murder. The holocaust was illegal under international law, and the laws of almost every country. Saying it wasn't murder because it wasn't under the nazi's definition is like an apple being an orange because I say it is-not true-and calling it anything other than murder is an insult to those who suffered under the Nazi regeime.

It's still murder. The holocaust was illegal under international law, and the laws of almost every country. Saying it wasn't murder because it wasn't under the nazis definition is like an apple being an orange because I say it is - not true - and calling it anything other than murder is an insult to those who suffered under the Nazi regime.

1. Legally, murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. If killing a human being is legal - for example, when a soldier does it in war, or when someone is executed - then it's not a crime under that nation's law. The Holocaust was legally similar to executions in the US - perfectly OK under that country's laws. Please note that I am ONLY speaking LEGALLY - playing the devil's advocate, in a way. I do not for one second believe that the Holocaust was anything other than genocide and large scale murder - but murder in the moral sense, not the legal sense.

2. The Holocaust was not illegal under international law at the time. As far as I know, Nuremberg was the first time that international law was used against individuals. The Kellogg-Briand pact of 1928 and the Geneva and Hague Conventions provided precedent, but had no specified penalties. Crimes against humanity were not covered by ANY customary international law, as far as I know. The London Agreement establishing the Nuremberg trials basically made everything up. A quote from Frank McLynn's book Famous Trials, which is where I got most of this information:
The defence could not raise the issue of the legitimacy of the tribunal by, for example, pointing out that the crimes listed in the indictment were specified as illegal acts only after the war was over.

The ICJ ruling came well after Israel developed nuclear weapons, and was not conclusive on Israel's nuclear weapons. They stated as much " the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake".

This applies to Israel more than anyone else because of Israel's basic strategic problems in being small, surrounded by enemies, and vastly outnumbered.

Your position:

Actually, the possession of nuclear weapons isn't illegal, but the development or purchase of them by a state that does not already have them is.

Is not consistant with the judgement. In reading it, I found no prohibition on the development of nuclear weapons, nor indeed, no prohibition on the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such. If there is no prohibition on the threat or use of nuclear weapons, it logically follows that there is no prohibition on development. They did express political opinions against nuclear weapons, but these are merely political opinions.

In terms of prohibitions, we are therefore left with soverign governments making, or not making agreements.

If there is no prohibition on the threat or use of nuclear weapons, it logically follows that there is no prohibition on development. They did express political opinions against nuclear weapons, but these are merely political opinions.

In terms of prohibitions, we are therefore left with soverign governments making, or not making agreements.

"E. By seven votes to seven, by the President's casting vote, It follows from the above-mentioned requirements that 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;"

That would be the last point of the judgement...

As for the prohibition on development, I think you'll find that the IAEA is heavily involved in the enforcement of this principle.

That would be the last point of the judgement...

Which they contradicted by saying (immediately after the part you quoted!) "However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake;"

The court effectively judged that nuclear weapons are legal (even though they don't like it) because any development, or possession of nuclear weapons will be justified as being essential to the survival of the state in the most extreme circumstances.

The Court doesn't like nuclear weapons, but it did not actually rule them illegal.

As for the prohibition on development, I think you'll find that the IAEA is heavily involved in the enforcement of this principle.

Sorry, that doesn't establish that a prohobition on development exists. Your point in fact backs my argument.

Here is a headline from an IAEA press release "Nuclear Safeguards: States Granting IAEA More Inspection Authority"

States Granting being the key words there.

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2004/aps.html

Even the IAEA acknowlegdes that its inspection authority comes from nation states!

No, it says that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal.

The exception of extreme circumstances of self-defence means that it is only legal to use nuclear weapons where the state so using them is already being illegally threatened with the use of nuclear weapons. This is a small exception in the general illegality of the use of nuclear weapons, which to come into play requires the general rule of law to be itself broken by another state. Even then, I would imagine that it would be very difficult to consider any actual use of nuclear weapons as legal, since it would conflict with the Geneva Conventions protecting civilians in the time of war and probably the Genocide laws as well.

Again, I said that it ruled that possession of nuclear weapons was ruled illegal, just not the use or threat of use of them.

In any case, even the most statocentric version of Westphalian thought admits that Customary International Law can be created without the consent of all states. The requirements for the existence of Customary International Law are Opinio Juris and an existing pattern state practice. Opinio Juris as to the illegality of the development of nuclear weapons can be found in the form of the aforementioned treaties such as the NPT and the "nuclear-free zone" treaties in Africa, Latin America and other areas, as well as the international reaction from most states and the IAEA to Iran, N. Korea and other states developing nuclear weapons. State practice is pretty easy to find too, particularly due to the fact that most states choose not to develop nuclear weapons and also due to the aforementioned international reactions. This is expressed to some extent in the obiter dicta in ICJ ruling above, but the court was asked to rule on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons and not their development.

The only way to negate such an established customary rule is through the doctrine of the peristent objector - presumably this would be why states who currently have nuclear weapons are exempt from their general illegality. But is is doubtful that this would apply to states such as N.Korea that have only recently attempted to develop nuclear weapons.

In any case, international law is complete mince anyway. It's all about power structures, in reality the general consensus between international jurists is that nuclear weapons are illegal, and I think it's pretty clear that most people would view the use of a weapon that could kill millions of people in an instant and cause absolute devastation to the world's ecosystem would be a heinous crime. The only reason that they are not actually ruled illegal is because the states that have them are the world's most powerful states (paradoxically, this is partly due to their possession of nuclear weapons.) and that therefore, the Court cannot actually rule against them, because they would just ignore a ruling that required them to give up some of their power. This would fatally undermine the position of the court as an effective guardian of international law and therefore, so long as the current state system exists, the court will never rule that nuclear weapons are illegal.

The exception of extreme circumstances of self-defence means that it is only legal to use nuclear weapons where the state so using them is already being illegally threatened with the use of nuclear weapons.

You're reading things into the judgement that simply aren't there. Work from the words.

Again, I said that it ruled that possession of nuclear weapons was ruled illegal, just not the use or threat of use of them.

One can threaten or use nuclear weapons without possessing them?

but the court was asked to rule on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons and not their development.

Yet you're claiming that development of nuclear weapons is illegal (a statement which you so far have refused to back up with evidence), and if it is legal to threaten, or use nuclear weapons in the most extreme circumstance in which the state's survival is threatened, it logically follows that to develop them for that purpose must be legal too.

In any case, international law is complete mince anyway.

From King to mince?

The only reason that they are not actually ruled illegal

So, you admit it, they were not ruled illegal. Whatever the political opinion of the judges, nuclear weapons are legal.

I think that it's the other way round - it's not illegal to possess nuclear weapons per se, but it is illegal for you to use them. And why would you build them if not to use them? This is counting threatening to use them as using them, which seems to be the case.

I think that it's the other way round - it's not illegal to possess nuclear weapons per se, but it is illegal for you to use them. And why would you build them if not to use them? This is counting threatening to use them as using them, which seems to be the case.

That is not in accordance with the judgement to which SE and I have referred.

"However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake;"

You're reading things into the judgement that simply aren't there. Work from the words.


E. By seven votes to seven, by the President's casting vote, It follows from the above-mentioned requirements that 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 definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake;

The exception of extreme circumstances of self-defence means that it is only legal to use nuclear weapons where the state so using them is already being illegally threatened with the use of nuclear weapons. This is a small exception in the general illegality of the use of nuclear weapons, which to come into play requires the general rule of law to be itself broken by another state.



"the threat or use of nuclear weaposn would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict"

Except

"in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a state would be at stake"


Again, I said that it ruled that possession of nuclear weapons was ruled illegal, just not the use or threat of use of them.

One can threaten or use nuclear weapons without possessing them?

Apologies, typo -

"Again, I said that the possession of nuclear weapons was ruled legal, just not the use or threat of use of them."


Yet you're claiming that development of nuclear weapons is illegal (a statement which you so far have refused to back up with evidence), and if it is legal to threaten, or use nuclear weapons in the most extreme circumstance in which the state's survival is threatened, it logically follows that to develop them for that purpose must be legal too.

I backed it up with enough evidence to provide a decent argument in terms of International law. Not all international law is treaty law. A large part of international law is Customary International Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Customary_international_law)which can be proven by the existence of OPINIO JURIS and a pattern of state practice.

OPINO JURIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinio_juris) can be evidenced by the existence of treaty law - ie, the NPT and the various "nuclear free zone" treaties covering, for example, South America, Africa and South Asia as well as state practice in the form of the international reaction to the development of nuclear weapons by Iran and N Korea and the stringent international monitoring system by the IAEA.



State Practice is evidenced by the latter points about international reaction and monitoring as well as the general failure of states to attempt to develop nuclear weapons in the decades since they were developed. States who have nuclear weapons can be considered to have come under the doctrine of the persistent objector.


Customary International Law illegallity of the development of Nuclear weapons is also the collary of the international obligation of states to move towards disarmament. This is the essential reason why development of nuclear weapons is illegal - because there is a clear obligation (even if it is pretty much unenforceable) on existing states to move towards disarmament. This is the over riding principle relating to nuclear weapons in international law.

Virtually the whole of this community appears moreover to have been involved when resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly concerning nuclear disarmament have repeatedly been unanimously adopted. Indeed, any realistic search for general and complete disarmament, especially nuclear disarmament, necessitates the co-operation of all States.

F. Unanimously, There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.


From King to mince?

You misunderstand me. I am merely stating the position in international law here. However I don't think that international law is effective at the moment, as it has always been at the mercy of the most powerful states, formerly the USSR and the US, latterly the US of its own, and increasingly, the EU, China and others. If international law was effective then I have no doubt that nuclear weapons would be illegal (although if international law was effective then we would have no need for nuclear weapons in the first place)





So, you admit it, they were not ruled illegal. Whatever the political opinion of the judges, nuclear weapons are legal.

I told you, I admit that the possession of nuclear weapons is legal, but the development or use of them is not. (bearing in mind that I have already explained that I doubt that they could find that nuclear weapons use would be legal even in the EXTREME circumstances of Self-defence, since it would clearly violate a number of treatiess - the Geneva Conventions relating to the treatment of civilians in the time of war (which incidentally, the allies would have breached repeatedly in WWII had it been in force), the laws against genocide, not to mention various environmental treaties.)

That is not in accordance with the judgement to which SE and I have referred.

"However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake;"

But it does conclude that, apart from these circumstances, they are illegal - SE just wrote that up above me as a matter of fact. I should have put in that caveat of course, but I'm a fool who always expects that people will know what I'mtalking about without explaining it properly...

But it does conclude that, apart from these circumstances, they are illegal - SE just wrote that up above me as a matter of fact.

And every single nuclear weapons program on Earth will be justified in terms of the exception.

in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a state would be at stake

Very true, however, it does not say that the threat to the survival of a state must be nuclear weapons, only a threat to a state's survival. My point that you were reading things into the judgement that simply aren't there stands.

Again, I said that the possession of nuclear weapons was ruled legal, just not the use or threat of use of them

Unless the survival of the state is threatened, and everyone who makes, or is making nuclear weapons justifies doing so in those terms.

State Practice is evidenced by the latter points about international reaction and monitoring as well as the general failure of states to attempt to develop nuclear weapons in the decades since they were developed.

Other country's not liking nuclear weapons should be a higher priority to a government than the survival of the state, and its people? Surely not. The ruling is quite clear, nuclear weapons are permissable if the existance of the state is threatened.

I told you, I admit that the possession of nuclear weapons is legal, but the development or use of them is not.

Which is not a logical statement. If it is legal to possess something, then it logically follows that development of it is legal. You've presented no real evidence that the development of nuclear weapons is in fact illegal.

I doubt that they could find that nuclear weapons use would be legal even in the EXTREME circumstances of Self-defence

No state is going to go before a court and ask for permission to defend itself if it believes its existance if threatened, and no state whose existance is threatened will have time for environmental treaties. In any case, your doubts aside, the court did rule that if a state's existance is threatened, that state may threaten to, or use nuclear weapons.

You speak of international law as though it was analogous to national law.

Your argument is based primarily on your anti-nuclear ideas, you have not backed your points with the evidence. You are simply not understanding that where a state's existance is threatened, any means will be used, the Court, whose judgement you discard when it doesn't suit you, recognises that principle.

And every single nuclear weapons program on Earth will be justified in terms of the exception.
That is, of course, if the Court finds that the in extremis use is justified. The Court DID NOT rule that the use of nuclear weapons was justified in the extreme of self-defence. It ruled that it did not have an opinion on this at the time, meaning that it is in a fuzzy grey area - you don't know whether it's illegal or not.
You say the ruling is quite clear, that nukes are permissible if the survival of the state is threatened. The ICJ says different.
However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake;
That is not, "Nukes are legal", it is, "We're not saying at the minute..."

I can't see Vanunu as a hero, no matter how much my heart starts to bleed. Israel's nuclear weapons policy is essential to its survival, given the hostility its neighbors have shown it. Taking away the option of "nuclear ambiguity" stifled Israel's ability to make an effective policy choice concerning its nuclear weapons.

Further, he's nuts. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanunu)

The arrest came three months after Vanunu said in an interview that Israel was behind the John F. Kennedy assassination. In the interview he had said the assassination was due to "pressure [Kennedy] exerted on then-head of government David Ben-Gurion to shed light on Dimona's nuclear reactor."

That is not, "Nukes are legal", it is, "We're not saying at the minute..."

They did not rule nuclear weapons illegal, they are therefore legal.

And every single nuclear weapons program on Earth will be justified in terms of the exception.

Indeed. Hence the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction.



Very true, however, it does not say that the threat to the survival of a state must be nuclear weapons, only a threat to a state's survival. My point that you were reading things into the judgement that simply aren't there stands.

True...but it would largely depend on the court's interpretation of the words "extreme" and "survival". I doubt there are many circumstances so described that could be taken to be such a threat other than nuclear weapons; at least not involving a state that already has nuclear weapons. I doubt there is very much other than nuclear weapons use that could threaten the existence of the UK, France, China, the US, Russia, India or Pakistan. (Israel...possibly, but I think that that opens up a much more complex set of problems. Israel certainly isn't powerful enough to have the actual use of its weapons found legal - the threatened use of them, yes.)


Unless the survival of the state is threatened, and everyone who makes, or is making nuclear weapons justifies doing so in those terms.

True.


Other country's not liking nuclear weapons should be a higher priority to a government than the survival of the state, and its people? Surely not. The ruling is quite clear, nuclear weapons are permissable if the existance of the state is threatened.

No, that is how Customary International Law works (when the court wants it to).


Which is not a logical statement. If it is legal to possess something, then it logically follows that development of it is legal. You've presented no real evidence that the development of nuclear weapons is in fact illegal.

Who said law had to be logical. The reason it is illogical, as I have already explained is because, essentially, nuclear weapons are illegal in international law, but the court cannot rule this because it would be ignored and would then lose all credibility in every other aspect of its jurisdiction. That is why the law has to work such ridiculously winding paths in these things.



No state is going to go before a court and ask for permission to defend itself if it believes its existance if threatened, and no state whose existance is threatened will have time for environmental treaties.

I didn't say they would. The problem of self-defence is already mentioned in the UN Charter (Art 51, I believe) as an exception to the general prohibition on the use of conventional force.

What I stated refers to the retrospective legality of the actual use of nuclear weapons.

In any case, your doubts aside, the court did rule that if a state's existance is threatened, that state may threaten to, or use nuclear weapons.

No - if you mean may as in "can" or, as in "a state is allowed to", that is incorrect. The court said it was unable to determine whether such use was lawful.

However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake;

As I said, the reason that this is doubtful is because,

1) IF the court said that the use of nuclear weapons was legal in any circumstances, no matter how restrictive, it would essentially appear to give carte blanche legitimacy to the use of nuclear weapons (as soon as you make an exception, that exception is open to manipulation).

2) The use of nuclear weapons is essentially illegal due to Humanitarian Law

i)The Geneva Convention relating to the protection of Civil Persons in the time of War 1949

Article 3
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

1. Persons taking no active part in the hostilities...shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction...

To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

ii) The First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions 1977

Article 35.-Basic rules
1. In any armed conflict, the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited.

2. It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

3. It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.

Article 36.-New weapons
In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapon, means or method of warfare, a High Contracting Party is under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law applicable to the High Contracting Party.

iii) The Convention against the crime of genocide

Article 1

The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.

Article 2

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

It is possible that genocide could be considered to come into play owing to a) the numbers involved, b) the fact that the concentration in a particular country would almost certainly mean it was one national group affected, if not ethnic, racial or religous group. And points (a) to (d) could certainly apply.

iv) Various environmental treaties (which I can't be bothered looking up at the moment.)

As to the applicability of these conventions on countries who have not accepted them - see my point about Customary International Law. Most of these conventions have gone beyond C.I.L to become Jus Cogens.



You speak of international law as though it was analogous to national law.

No i don't. You speak of international law as if it was analogous to national law, as if it is some sort of 'hard' law that can be enforced. All that International law does is express principles - it doesn't particularly matter if they can be broken with impunity. (Take for example the various human rights treaties) I already repeatedly said that the enforcability of international law is in reality all about power relations.


Your argument is based primarily on your anti-nuclear ideas, you have not backed your points with the evidence. You are simply not understanding that where a state's existance is threatened, any means will be used, the Court, whose judgement you discard when it doesn't suit you, recognises that principle.

I do recognise that any means will be used by a state whose existence is threatened, but just because that is true doesn't mean that it isn't illegal for that state to do so. It really all depends which state used a nuclear weapon and what the circumstances were after its use. These factors would affect the ability of the court to find the use illegal.


As to my 'anti-nuclear ideas' - are you suggesting that the use of nuclear weapons is acceptable? That it is OK to wipe out hundreds of thousands of lives to save a state (there being a difference between the life of the state and the life of the citizens)?

In any case, I have backed up my points extensively.

Isreal should have hanged him. The "International Community" already hates them anyway, so they have nothing to lose. Hell, there are dozens of posters here who see no difference between them and Iran.

I doubt there are many circumstances so described that could be taken to be such a threat other than nuclear weapons; at least not involving a state that already has nuclear weapons. I doubt there is very much other than nuclear weapons use that could threaten the existence of the UK, France, China, the US, Russia, India or Pakistan.

Then your thinking is not broad enough. Nor is Israel, in fact, being less than a dozen miles across at some points. The judgement said nothing about what the actual threat had to be.

In any case, the Court are hardly in a position to judge what is and is not a threat to the survival of the state. No such judgement would ever be trusted.

No, that is how Customary International Law works (when the court wants it to).

They were clear that no Customary International Law exists that bans the threat or use of nuclear weapons in the event a state's survival is threatened.

The problem of self-defence is already mentioned in the UN Charter (Art 51, I believe) as an exception to the general prohibition on the use of conventional force.

You're getting close to the point of dishonesty. Article 51 makes so such reference, or exception.

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm (scroll down to the bottom)

Article 51 merely says a state can defend itself until the Security Council steps in. It does not make any reference to the ways and means of that defence.

No - if you mean may as in "can" or, as in "a state is allowed to", that is incorrect. The court said it was unable to determine whether such use was lawful.

As a general principle, nothing is illegal unless expressly banned. If something cannot be found unlawful, it is lawful.

1) IF the court said that the use of nuclear weapons was legal in any circumstances, no matter how restrictive, it would essentially appear to give carte blanche legitimacy to the use of nuclear weapons (as soon as you make an exception, that exception is open to manipulation).

Don't you read? They did make an exception!

2) The use of nuclear weapons is essentially illegal due to Humanitarian Law

That convention would restrict the manner of using nuclear weapons, not their actual use.

All that International law does is express principles - it doesn't particularly matter if they can be broken with impunity. (Take for example the various human rights treaties) I already repeatedly said that the enforcability of international law is in reality all about power relations.

Then you're arguing an irrelevancy. My original point stands, the only way for it to actually be illegal for a nation to produce nuclear weapons is if that nation has ratified the NPT, or has made another agreement against nuclear weapons.

The expression of a principle should not, and could not change a thing. Making a hard agreement can, and must.

As to my 'anti-nuclear ideas' - are you suggesting that the use of nuclear weapons is acceptable?

The question is based on a false premise. The point is that you are letting your anti-nuclear ideas define your thinking. Rather than simply reading what is said, you are twisting it towards a default anti-nuclear position, without justification.

They did not rule nuclear weapons illegal, they are therefore legal.

They ruled that nuclear weapons are illegal except in ONE specified case, and in the specified case they weren't sure whether they were or not... Sounds pretty illegal to me.

You're getting close to the point of dishonesty. Article 51 makes so such reference, or exception.
http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm (scroll down to the bottom)
Article 51 merely says a state can defend itself until the Security Council steps in. It does not make any reference to the ways and means of that defence.
The UN generally prohibits the use of violence. Article 51 allows for it in self-defence. That is what SE said. Nukes were not mentioned.

As a general principle, nothing is illegal unless expressly banned. If something cannot be found unlawful, it is lawful.
They said that they didn't know whether it was illegal or not! The judges of the ICJ said they didn't know which it was. Meaning it is neither. If some of the finest legal minds on the planet can't work it out... And that's one small specific case. The rest of the time, they ARE illegal.

That convention would restrict the manner of using nuclear weapons, not their actual use.
Point is, they can't be used without violating the convention - ANY use would cause long-term environmenal effects and damage to civilians. Not necessarily genocide though.

Then you're arguing an irrelevancy. My original point stands, the only way for it to actually be illegal for a nation to produce nuclear weapons is if that nation has ratified the NPT, or has made another agreement against nuclear weapons.

The expression of a principle should not, and could not change a thing. Making a hard agreement can, and must.
Murder is illegal, yet people still do it... There's an analogy.

The question is based on a false premise. The point is that you are letting your anti-nuclear ideas define your thinking. Rather than simply reading what is said, you are twisting it towards a default anti-nuclear position, without justification.
So you're pro-nuclear? You suppot the extermination of millions of people - perhaps as many as 4 billion? Nice.

They ruled that nuclear weapons are illegal except in ONE specified case, and in the specified case they weren't sure whether they were or not... Sounds pretty illegal to me.

That one specified case covering all nuclear weapons programs apart from Plowshare (Peaceful Nuclear Explosives). Sound pretty legal to me.

Here is an analogy for what you are saying:

The ICJ has said we must all practice absolute chastity, here it is in the judgement "You must practice absolute chastity ... on Thursday afternoon, between 3 and 4, when there is a K in the month". Sex is banned!

Article 51 allows for it in self-defence. That is what SE said. Nukes were not mentioned.

No, he didn't. he said that Article 51 provides for self-defence with conventional weapons.

And that's one small specific case. The rest of the time, they ARE illegal.

The only possible manufacture and use of nuclear weapons that does not apply to tham "small" specific case (which, although small, can be said to cover every nation's nuclear weapons program) is PNE's (Peaceful Nuclear Explosives, look up Plowshare, and if you've high-speed internet, go to these sites for a two part promotional film:http://www.archive.org/details/Plowshar1961 (Part 1) and http://www.archive.org/details/Plowshar1961_2 (Part 2) )

Pretty wierd stuff.

Since any nation's nuclear weapons program will invariably be put forward as vital to the preservation to the state, the only thing the Court actually banned was things like Plowshare, since Plowshare certainly had nothing to do with insuring the survival of the US.

Point is, they can't be used without violating the convention - ANY use would cause long-term environmenal effects and damage to civilians. Not necessarily genocide though.

Not so. Regarding civilian causalties, depends on place, target, and size of warhead. I'll give you a hypothetical example. Have you ever heard of the AIR-2 Genie? It was a nuclear tipped air-to-air rocket. The idea behind it, as you can probably imagine, was to launch it at a formation of Soviet bombers. The warhead was only 1.5kt, and in the initial test, a film crew stood below the explosion, and suffered no ill effects (Genie was a high altitude weapon).

Regarding environmental damage, and military activity can be said to cause environmental damage, and in the case of nuclear weapons, it depends on the weapon.

Murder is illegal, yet people still do it... There's an analogy.

A false analogy. Laws against murder can be, and have been, in perhaps millions of cases, enforced.

So you're pro-nuclear? You suppot the extermination of millions of people - perhaps as many as 4 billion? Nice.

When a man loses an argument, he should admit it, not sink to ad hominem. Save it for the kiddies.

Where have I said that I am pro-nuclear? Where have I said that I support the extermination of 4 billion people? Nowhere, absolutely bloody nowhere! Saying that nuclear weapons are legal, and that one's perceptions of what the law says should not be coloured by political opinions do not constitute support for mass slaughter, and no one has made the case that they do.

Then your thinking is not broad enough. Nor is Israel, in fact, being less than a dozen miles across at some points. The judgement said nothing about what the actual threat had to be.

In any case, the Court are hardly in a position to judge what is and is not a threat to the survival of the state. No such judgement would ever be trusted.

The court can rule on the subject retrospectively. I didn't say that they would do it before hand



They were clear that no Customary International Law exists that bans the threat or use of nuclear weapons in the event a state's survival is threatened.

No they weren't they said that they could not rule either way.




You're getting close to the point of dishonesty. Article 51 makes so such reference, or exception.

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter7.htm (scroll down to the bottom)

Article 51 merely says a state can defend itself until the Security Council steps in. It does not make any reference to the ways and means of that defence.

As a general principle, nothing is illegal unless expressly banned. If something cannot be found unlawful, it is lawful.

Read my point properly before you criticise (and accuse me of dishonesty!) I said that the exception for (as in, in favour of) self defence was already recognised for Conventional force in Article 51.

Article 51 is the exception to the General prohibition on the use of force in Section 2 (4).

I was making the point that just because a general prohibition has an exception doesn't mean it is nullified.

Essentially i have managed to get you from arguing that nuclear weapons were totally legal to arguing for that a very small point of exception to the general rule of prohibition.


Article 51 merely says a state can defend itself until the Security Council steps in. It does not make any reference to the ways and means of that defence.

Correct, but it is supplemented by all the humanitarian and environmental legislation I have mentioned and, again, I was only using it to illustrate the point about minor exceptions to the general over-arching rule.

As a general principle, nothing is illegal unless expressly banned. If something cannot be found unlawful, it is lawful.

The Lotus principle - limitations on sovereignty cannot be presumed. Firstly, this is negated by the ruling of the court that it could not rule that it was lawful or unlawful. The court is expressly saying that it is not lawful. It is also expressly saying that it is lawful. It's obviously not clear, but it does exclude the Lotus principle. It means that contrary to your claims, the use of nuclear weapons in not clearly lawful even in the extreme circumstances of self-defence, and would have to be decided retrospectively in light of the circumstances.

Secondly, the Lotus prinicple is from a different period of international law - before WWII, before the UN and, more importantly, before the last 15 years.


Don't you read? They did make an exception!

Don't you read?

The International Court of Justice

However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake;

That convention would restrict the manner of using nuclear weapons, not their actual use.

Did you read the provisions? You cannot intentionally kill civilians and you cannot cause long term environmental damage. How then would you propose to use nuclear weapons?

And lets not be stupid about the "Plowshare" issue for 2 reasons -

1) This case is about the use of nuclear weapons not nuclear explosives used for peaceful means

2) It's rather dubious to claim that a tool as clumsy and destructive as nukes could have a peaceful use.


Then you're arguing an irrelevancy. My original point stands, the only way for it to actually be illegal for a nation to produce nuclear weapons is if that nation has ratified the NPT, or has made another agreement against nuclear weapons.

The expression of a principle should not, and could not change a thing. Making a hard agreement can, and must.

And how exactly would you enforce such a treaty? It's still all about power relations.

And I'm not arguing an irrelevancy, I'm just pointing out the position in international law which you seem so concerned about.



The question is based on a false premise. The point is that you are letting your anti-nuclear ideas define your thinking. Rather than simply reading what is said, you are twisting it towards a default anti-nuclear position, without justification.

No, I'm just pointing out international law.


Here is an analogy for what you are saying:


Quote:
The ICJ has said we must all practice absolute chastity, here it is in the judgement "You must practice absolute chastity ... on Thursday afternoon, between 3 and 4, when there is a K in the month". Sex is banned!

Here's an analogy for what you're saying

"The ICJ has said we must all practice absolute chastity, here it is in the judgement "You must practice absolute chastity ... except on Thursday afternoon, between 3 and 4, when there is a K in the month" Sex is legal!"

;)

No they weren't they said that they could not rule either way.

If they can't rule something illegal, then it is not illegal.

Read my point properly before you criticise (and accuse me of dishonesty!) I said that the exception for (as in, in favour of) self defence was already recognised for Conventional force in Article 51.

I read Article 51, I posted Article 51, and no reference was made to conventional weapons.

Essentially i have managed to get you from arguing that nuclear weapons were totally legal to arguing for that a very small point of exception to the general rule of prohibition.

Which very small point? It is the main, and only justification anyone will ever use for acquiring nuclear weapons. Your description of the exception as "small" is disingenuous, as no nuclear weapons program has been implemented without reference to it.

You have not shown that the extreme self-defence exception is a small exception. Which nations which either have, had, or are developing nuclear weapons have not justified the programs in these terms?

Firstly, this is negated by the ruling of the court that it could not rule that it was lawful or unlawful.

No, it isn't. Without a definitive ruling, there is no ban. You cannot say that a lack of a definitive decision on whether or not something is lawful means that it is not.

It's obviously not clear, but it does exclude the Lotus principle.

That is not a justifiable conclusion.

Secondly, the Lotus prinicple is from a different period of international law - before WWII, before the UN and, more importantly, before the last 15 years.

Proof? You have provided absolutely no evidence, or even reasoning to support this statement.

Did you read the provisions? You cannot intentionally kill civilians and you cannot cause long term environmental damage. How then would you propose to use nuclear weapons?

Not relevant. The fact is that the international law restricts the manner of using arms.

And lets not be stupid about the "Plowshare" issue for 2 reasons -

1) This case is about the use of nuclear weapons not nuclear explosives used for peaceful means

2) It's rather dubious to claim that a tool as clumsy and destructive as nukes could have a peaceful use.

1) The development of PNE's and nuclear weapons is the same thing. The same technology.

2) Plowshare was done in the 1950's, as I said, pretty wierd stuff. It may be a dubious claim now, but then it was simply an untested claim.

And how exactly would you enforce such a treaty? It's still all about power relations.

Anything from sanctions to force, however, with the NPT, or other agreements, there is a legal basis for such enforcement. The ICJ's judgement provides no such clarity.

Here's an analogy for what you're saying

"The ICJ has said we must all practice absolute chastity, here it is in the judgement "You must practice absolute chastity ... except on Thursday afternoon, between 3 and 4, when there is a K in the month" Sex is legal!"

A false analogy. The exception in the judgement was by no means small and limited to only a few nations in only a few circumstances. It is the standard justification for a nuclear weapons program.

The US, USSR/Russia, the UK, PRC, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Iran, and North Korea all use this justification (past tense for South Africa), and no nation will ask a court for permission to arm in its defence. From this point, the question of nuclear weapons simply becomes one of a purely military nature.

I read Article 51, I posted Article 51, and no reference was made to conventional weapons.

I used Article 51 to illustrate a number of points -

Firstly, it was the basis for the exception of "extreme circumstances of self defence"

Secondly, it was an example of a small exception to the bigger rule - the bigger rule being the general prohibition on the use of force in international relations under Article 2(4) of the UNC. This corresponds to the small exception of "extreme circumstances of self-defence" to the bigger rule of the "general prohibition on the use of force".


Which very small point? It is the main, and only justification anyone will ever use for acquiring nuclear weapons. Your description of the exception as "small" is disingenuous, as no nuclear weapons program has been implemented without reference to it.

You have not shown that the extreme self-defence exception is a small exception. Which nations which either have, had, or are developing nuclear weapons have not justified the programs in these terms?

The reason that the "extreme circumstances of self-defence" are always used to justify nuclear weapons is because it is the only exception. It doesn't make it any bigger an exception just because it is used in this way. In fact, this actually supports the fact that it is a small exception to the bigger rule of illegality, because otherwise they wouldn't even seek to justify it in this way. That is what countries do, manipulate the law to suit them. This can be seen in the US use of "anticipatory self-defence" in Iraq.

It doesn't change the legal position that there is a general prohibition on the threat or use of nuclear weapons.


No, it isn't. Without a definitive ruling, there is no ban. You cannot say that a lack of a definitive decision on whether or not something is lawful means that it is not.

Well, if the fact that it was not a "definitive ruling" (whatever that means) that it was unlawful meant that it was clearly lawful, then why did they say that they could not conclusively decide that it was lawful? The court is well aware of the Lotus principle and if what you said was the case, then they would have said so.

ICj judgments are a lot more complex than you think - they have to take into account a lot of political considerations (international law is not the same as black-letter domestic law).

And secondly, nothing is ever definitively unlawful. Murder is lawful in certain circumstances, and just about every criminal tries to justify it in terms of these defences, but that doesn't mean that murder isn't for the vast majority of the time illegal !


That is not a justifiable conclusion.

Emm...why not?


Proof? You have provided absolutely no evidence, or even reasoning to support this statement.

That the Lotus principle is from another era of international law before WWII, the UN and the last 15 years?

Case of the SS Lotus (France v. Turkey), PCIJ Series A, No. 10, at p. 18 (1927).

Very old in terms of international law.


Not relevant. The fact is that the international law restricts the manner of using arms.

Did you read the provisions? You cannot intentionally kill civilians and you cannot cause long term environmental damage. How then would you propose to use nuclear weapons?


Clearly it is relevant. How would you propose that nuclear weapons would be used (in war, whether for self-defence or otherwise) in a way that you would not knowingly kill thousands of civilians or cause massive long-term damage to the environment? There is no 'manner of use' that would not do this, so clearly it is a highly relevant point.

1) The development of PNE's and nuclear weapons is the same thing. The same technology.

2) Plowshare was done in the 1950's, as I said, pretty wierd stuff. It may be a dubious claim now, but then it was simply an untested claim.

So...it's dubious. And the development being the same doesn't really change my point which was about the use of nuclear weapons for self defence.



Anything from sanctions to force, however, with the NPT, or other agreements, there is a legal basis for such enforcement. The ICJ's judgement provides no such clarity.

Yes...sanctions and force against nuclear weapons. BOOOOOM!!!!


A false analogy. The exception in the judgement was by no means small and limited to only a few nations in only a few circumstances. It is the standard justification for a nuclear weapons program.

A more accurate analogy than yours, for the reasons above.


The US, USSR/Russia, the UK, PRC, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, South Africa, Iran, and North Korea all use this justification (past tense for South Africa), and no nation will ask a court for permission to arm in its defence. From this point, the question of nuclear weapons simply becomes one of a purely military nature.

I know! But this doesn't change what the position of international law is!!!

The difference between those Germans and Vanunu was that the Germans opposed illegal actions, Vanunu did not unmask criminal activity. The criminality of Hitler's regime is not disputed by anyone with a working brain. Asserting that Israel building the means of self-defence is criminal is clearly wrong.

I don't know about strictly 'illegal' activity...

But, didn't Vanunu reveal the fact that Israel were PRETENDING to follow the idea of non-proliferation, whilst, in fact, actually constructing Weapons of Mass Destruction?

(Hmmm... what did the big, brave US do to the LAST nation to play THAT game....?)

That one specified case covering all nuclear weapons programs apart from Plowshare (Peaceful Nuclear Explosives). Sound pretty legal to me.
Even if you assume that ALL nuclear weapons are necessary for the protection of the state, which is patently fase, then, as we have both stated repeatedly, the court did NOT rule them legal. It withheld judgement on whether they were legal. If the judges not being able to rule nukes illegal made them legal, they would have said so.

No, he didn't. he said that Article 51 provides for self-defence with conventional weapons.
Augh! That's what I said he said!

Not so. Regarding civilian causalties, depends on place, target, and size of warhead. I'll give you a hypothetical example. Have you ever heard of the AIR-2 Genie? It was a nuclear tipped air-to-air rocket. The idea behind it, as you can probably imagine, was to launch it at a formation of Soviet bombers. The warhead was only 1.5kt, and in the initial test, a film crew stood below the explosion, and suffered no ill effects (Genie was a high altitude weapon).

Regarding environmental damage, and military activity can be said to cause environmental damage, and in the case of nuclear weapons, it depends on the weapon.
The Genie was something I forgot. So, that is the exception - the environmental damage would be minimal. But can you tell me about a ground-level (or airburst, but attacking ground-level) nuclear weapon that will not cause nuclear fallout? Thta's what I was talking about when I said lasting environmental damage, not the churning up of mud by tank tracks.

A false analogy. Laws against murder can be, and have been, in perhaps millions of cases, enforced.
But these laws don't stop people doing it, do they?

When a man loses an argument, he should admit it, not sink to ad hominem. Save it for the kiddies.

Where have I said that I am pro-nuclear? Where have I said that I support the extermination of 4 billion people? Nowhere, absolutely bloody nowhere! Saying that nuclear weapons are legal, and that one's perceptions of what the law says should not be coloured by political opinions do not constitute support for mass slaughter, and no one has made the case that they do.
If we're gonna start pointing fingers about ad hominem, then yah boo sucks, but you did it... <sticks out tongue> You called SE anti-nuclear and implied that this made his interpretation of the law invalid - that's as ad hominem as you can get. The four billion people was just me throwing mud. A little OTT, I know...

The reason that the "extreme circumstances of self-defence" are always used to justify nuclear weapons is because it is the only exception. It doesn't make it any bigger an exception just because it is used in this way. In fact, this actually supports the fact that it is a small exception to the bigger rule of illegality, because otherwise they wouldn't even seek to justify it in this way.

With, or without that justification, the justification of extreme self-defence has always been used.

The Americans thought that it might be the only way to end the war quickly.

The Russians thought "the capitalist Yankee pigs have nukes, and they might use them on the Rodina, lets get some of our own"

The Poms and the French get nuclear weapons because the Russians threatened them, and they wanted a means to stop them.

Israel, surrounded by the Arabs, who were intent on picking up where Adolf left off, developed nuclear weapons as a last ditch defence.

India's PM announced in 1946 "if India is threatened, she will inevitably try to defend herself by all means at her disposal." By 1974, they had succeeded.

Pakistan thought "if our arch enemies have the bomb, we must have it too".

North Korea and Iran think it will keep the US out, or at least say that is why they are doing it.

South Africa's Apartheid government felt itself threatened by Blacks, both inside and outside South Africa.

Now, in the latter case, the threat had been ended by the reformist policies of the de Klerk government, and the withdrawal of the Cubans in Angola. With the removal of the threat, they decided to end their weapons program, and dissassemble the bombs they had made.


The exception can hardly be considered small when it covers every country's nuclear weapons program. One would have to prove that a nuclear weapons program was solely aggressive in its intent, and even in the case of Iran, this would be difficult.

Well, if the fact that it was not a "definitive ruling" (whatever that means) that it was unlawful meant that it was clearly lawful, then why did they say that they could not conclusively decide that it was lawful?

You answered your own question: political considerations.

And secondly, nothing is ever definitively unlawful. Murder is lawful in certain circumstances, and just about every criminal tries to justify it in terms of these defences, but that doesn't mean that murder isn't for the vast majority of the time illegal !

You are not talking about the crime of murder, you are talking about a justifiable homocide. It is not the same as murder, and cannot be called murder. Murder is "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."

That the Lotus principle is from another era of international law before WWII, the UN and the last 15 years?

Case of the SS Lotus (France v. Turkey), PCIJ Series A, No. 10, at p. 18 (1927).

Very old in terms of international law.

Very old it is, but that does not prove your point. It merely tells me it is very old.

Read this .pdf, page 5. ( http://www.nesl.edu/lawrev/vol35/2/scharf.pdf )

It reads:

the now-venerable Lotus Principle continues to be cited with
approval by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as well as the United
States Government. Most recently, the ICJ confirmed the continuing vitality
of the Lotus Principle in its July 8, 1996, Advisory Opinion on the
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons.

Fifty years later, in its brief to the World Court in the Nuclear Weapons Case, the United States similarly argued:“It is a fundamental principle of international law that restrictions on States cannot be presumed but must be found in conventional law specifically accepted by them or in customary law generally accepted by the community of nations.”25

In the setting of international criminal law, the contemporary logic of
the Lotus Principle is supported by the nature of State sovereignty and the
embryonic status of international law relative to domestic law. The continued
growth and evolution of international criminal law requires a permissive
legal culture, which encourages the collective expansion of extraterritorial
jurisdiction over international crimes.

It may be old, but its still got the touch (we should be so lucky)

How would you propose that nuclear weapons would be used (in war, whether for self-defence or otherwise) in a way that you would not knowingly kill thousands of civilians or cause massive long-term damage to the environment?

You did read Kalmykhia's and my little side discussion? Genie?

Also, nuclear weapons could be used solely against military targets in more remote locations.

A more accurate analogy than yours, for the reasons above.

It is not accurate.

I know! But this doesn't change what the position of international law is!!!

Multiple exclaimation marks do not an argument make. In any case, the exception in terms of last ditch self-defence is there, and everyone has used. Find me a nuclear weapons program that is not justified, or justifiable under that exception, then you can talk about prohibitions.

Even if you assume that ALL nuclear weapons are necessary for the protection of the state, which is patently fa[l]se, then, as we have both stated repeatedly, the court did NOT rule them legal. It withheld judgement on whether they were legal. If the judges not being able to rule nukes illegal made them legal, they would have said so.

Firstly, every nuclear weapons program has been justified in those terms. The only possible exceptions are Iraq's former program, Iran, and North Korea.

If you think that it is patently false to assert that all the states which have nuclear weapons, or are developing them because they are needed to defend the state, point to one or more that certainly aren't. The closest one would find (in current possessing states, or developing states) is Iran because they have said Israel should be wiped out.

From the New England Law Review (q.v. Previous Post):

the now-venerable Lotus Principle continues to be cited with
approval by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as well as the United
States Government. Most recently, the ICJ confirmed the continuing vitality
of the Lotus Principle in its July 8, 1996, Advisory Opinion on the
Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

Fifty years later, in its brief to the World Court in the Nuclear Weapons Case, the United States similarly argued: “It is a fundamental principle of international law that restrictions on States cannot be presumed but must be found in conventional law specifically accepted by them or in customary law generally accepted by the community of nations.

In the setting of international criminal law, the contemporary logic of
the Lotus Principle is supported by the nature of State sovereignty and the
embryonic status of international law relative to domestic law. The continued
growth and evolution of international criminal law requires a permissive
legal culture, which encourages the collective expansion of extraterritorial
jurisdiction over international crimes.

"Restrictions ... cannot be presumed"

Just as a reminder, the case named in the first excerpt is the case linked to previously, and is in fact the judgement to which we all have referred.

From the judgement itself (Page 2):

States are free to threaten or use nuclear weapons unless it can be shown that they are bound not to do so by reference to a prohibition in either treaty law or customary international law. Support for this contention was found in dicta of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the "Lotus" case that "restrictions upon the independence of States cannot . . . be presumed" and that international law leaves to States "a wide measure of discretion which is only limited in certain cases by prohibitive rules" (P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 10, pp. 18 and 19). Reliance was also placed on the dictum of the present Court in the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) that:

"in international law there are no rules, other than such rules as may be accepted by the State concerned, by treaty or otherwise, whereby the level of armaments of a sovereign State can be limited" (I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 135, para. 269)

Firstly, every nuclear weapons program has been justified in those terms. The only possible exceptions are Iraq's former program, Iran, and North Korea.

If you think that it is patently false to assert that all the states which have nuclear weapons, or are developing them because they are needed to defend the state, point to one or more that certainly aren't. The closest one would find (in current possessing states, or developing states) is Iran because they have said Israel should be wiped out.
By that, I meant that not all of the weapons that each nation has can be justified even if you take the extreme self-defence justification as legal - there is no need for 10,000 nuclear weapons.


"Restrictions ... cannot be presumed"

Just as a reminder, the case named in the first excerpt is the case linked to previously, and is in fact the judgement to which we all have referred.

From the judgement itself (Page 2):
States are free to threaten or use nuclear weapons unless it can be shown that they are bound not to do so by reference to a prohibition in either treaty law or customary international law. Support for this contention was found in dicta of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the "Lotus" case that "restrictions upon the independence of States cannot . . . be presumed" and that international law leaves to States "a wide measure of discretion which is only limited in certain cases by prohibitive rules" (P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 10, pp. 18 and 19). Reliance was also placed on the dictum of the present Court in the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) that:
"in international law there are no rules, other than such rules as may be accepted by the State concerned, by treaty or otherwise, whereby the level of armaments of a sovereign State can be limited" (I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 135, para. 269)
Ah, selective quoting. Telling us what the states supporting nuclear weapons saw as a problem and implying it was the court's opinion - the first two sentences of that paragraph (number 21 of the full text of the advisory opinion) are:
The use of the word "permitted" in the question put by the General Assembly was criticized before the Court by certain States on the ground that this implied that the threat or the use of nuclear weapons would only be permissible if authorization could be found in a treaty provision or in customary international law. Such a starting point, those States submitted, was incompatible with the very basis of international law, which rests upon the principles of sovereignty and consent; accordingly, and contrary to what was implied by use of the word "permitted", States are free to threaten or use nuclear weapons unless it can be shown that they are bound not to do so by reference to a prohibition in either treaty law or customary international law.

Here's the full text of the last paragraph of the advisory opinion - the summary, if you will.
LEGALITY OF THE THREAT OR USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Advisory Opinion
The Final Paragraph of the Advisory Opinion reads as follows:
For these reasons, THE COURT, by thirteen votes to one, decides to comply with the request for an advisory opinion;

IN FAVOR: President Bedjaoui; Vice-President Schwebel; Judges Guillaume, Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer, Koroma, Vereshchetin, Ferrari Bravo, and Higgins
AGAINST: Judge Oda

It replies in the following manner to the question put by the General Assembly:
# A Unanimously,
There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons;
# B By eleven votes to three,
There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such;
IN FAVOR: President Bedjaoui; Vice-President Schwebel; Judges Oda, Guillaume, Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer, Vereshchetin, Ferrari Bravo, and Higgins;
AGAINST: Judges Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry, Koroma.
# C Unanimously,
A threat or use of force by means of nuclear weapons that is contrary to Article 2, paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter and that fails to meet all the requirements of Article 51 is unlawful;
# D Unanimously,
A threat or use of nuclear weapons should also be compatible with the requirements of the international law applicable in armed conflict, particularly those of the principles and rules of international humanitarian law, as well as with specific obligations under treaties and other undertakings which expressly deal with nuclear weapons;
# E By seven votes to seven, by the President's casting vote,
It follows from the above-mentioned requirements that 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 definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defense, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake;
IN FAVOR: President Bedjaoui; Judges Ranjeva, Herczegh, Shi, Fleischhauer, Vereshchetin, Ferrari Bravo;
AGAINST: Vice-President Schwebel; Judges Oda, Guillaume, Shahabuddeen, Weeramantry, Koroma, and Higgins.
# F Unanimously,
There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all aspects under strict and effective international control.
So basically, nuclear weapons might be lawful - only might - IF they are used in extreme self-defence AND if they don't cause environmental damage AND if they don't target civilians. Show me a way to use nuclear weapons against groud targets that fulfils those conditions, and I'll show you an Atomic Demolition Munition.

By that, I meant that not all of the weapons that each nation has can be justified even if you take the extreme self-defence justification as legal - there is no need for 10,000 nuclear weapons.

Then you are not really thinking about this. Self-defence in nuclear weapons takes the form of deterrence. Nuclear weapons are held, at the ready, in case of attack, their presence thereby ensuring that such an attack does not take place because of the extreme consequences of their use.

For a deterrent to be credible, it must be survivable. Let's take a hypothetical. Kalmykhia builds 6 bombs, all aircraft delivered missiles, and Disraeliland 3 builds 1000, in aircraft delivered missiles and bombs, as well as land based missiles, and submarine based missiles. What this means is that I can take out all your bombs, while retaining hundreds. Your deterrent would no longer exist, and I can go in. On the other hand, if you had thousands too, in several types of launch platform, there's almost no way for me to take them all out preemptively without you being able to retaliate.

A deterrent must be credible if it is to deter, which means it must be able to survive almost any contingency, and this means redendancy.

nuclear weapons might be lawful - only might - IF they are used in extreme self-defence

The judgement reaffirmed the Lotus principle, as was stated in the passages you and I quoted. The opinion of the states supporting soverignty was not disputed by the court. The restriction simply isn't there. There is no "might".

if they don't cause environmental damage

Shifting the goals? One could contend that almost all military activity creates environmental damage, even lasting environmental damage, all those machines burning fossil fuels, all that carbon going into the atmosphere. Envrionmental complaints are brought up over most military activities.

Of course, the main use of nuclear weapons doesn't cause lasting environmental damage, save that caused by building structures and equipment, or operating machinery, namely sitting in/on the ground, or under the sea, doing nothing.

The threat of using nuclear weapons doesn't do environmental damage.

they don't target civilians

Rather easy, just don't target civilians.

Show me a way to use nuclear weapons against groud targets

Shifting the goal posts? That is not worthy of you.

Then you are not really thinking about this. Self-defence in nuclear weapons takes the form of deterrence. Nuclear weapons are held, at the ready, in case of attack, their presence thereby ensuring that such an attack does not take place because of the extreme consequences of their use.

For a deterrent to be credible, it must be survivable. Let's take a hypothetical. Kalmykhia builds 6 bombs, all aircraft delivered missiles, and Disraeliland 3 builds 1000, in aircraft delivered missiles and bombs, as well as land based missiles, and submarine based missiles. What this means is that I can take out all your bombs, while retaining hundreds. Your deterrent would no longer exist, and I can go in. On the other hand, if you had thousands too, in several types of launch platform, there's almost no way for me to take them all out preemptively without you being able to retaliate.

A deterrent must be credible if it is to deter, which means it must be able to survive almost any contingency, and this means redendancy.
Even given the necessity to survive a counterforce attack, there is still a great surplus of nuclear weapons. But I can feel that I'm going to gradually lose that point, and as it wasn't my main point, I'll give you that. I should have thought of that, but of course I, once again, posted before my brain engaged...

The judgement reaffirmed the Lotus principle, as was stated in the passages you and I quoted. The opinion of the states supporting soverignty was not disputed by the court. The restriction simply isn't there. There is no "might".
The court made no mention of their opinion in its judgement - I'll quote the whole of paragraphs 21 and 22, which we're discussing here, and bold the relevant parts.

21. The use of the word "permitted" in the question put by the General Assembly was criticized before the Court by certain States on the ground that this implied that the threat or the use of nuclear weapons would only be permissible if authorization could be found in a treaty provision or in customary international law. Such a starting point, those States submitted, was incompatible with the very basis of international law, which rests upon the principles of sovereignty and consent; accordingly, and contrary to what was implied by use of the word "permitted", States are free to threaten or use nuclear weapons unless it can be shown that they are bound not to do so by reference to a prohibition in either treaty law or customary international law. Support for this contention was found in dicta of the Permanent Court of International Justice in the "Lotus" case that "restrictions upon the independence of States cannot . . . be presumed" and that international law leaves to States "a wide measure of discretion which is only limited in certain cases by prohibitive rules" (P.C.I.J., Series A, No. 10, pp. 18 and 19). Reliance was also placed on the dictum of the present Court in the case concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) that: "in international law there are no rules, other than such rules as may be accepted by the State concerned, by treaty or otherwise, whereby the level of armaments of a sovereign State can be limited" (I.C.J. Reports 1986, p. 135, para. 269).

For other States, the invocation of these dicta in the "Lotus" case was inapposite; their status in contemporary international law and applicability in the very different circumstances of the present case were challenged. It was also contended that the above-mentioned dictum of the present Court was directed to the possession of armaments and was irrelevant to the threat or use of nuclear weapons. Finally, it was suggested that, were the Court to answer the question put by the Assembly, the word "permitted" should be replaced by "prohibited".

22. The Court notes that the nuclear-weapon States appearing before it either accepted, or did not dispute, that their independence to act was indeed restricted by the principles and rules of international law, more particularly humanitarian law (see below, paragraph 86), as did the other States which took part in the proceedings.

Hence, the argument concerning the legal conclusions to be drawn from the use of the word "permitted", and the questions of burden of proof to which it was said to give rise, are without particular significance for the disposition of the issues before the Court.

So basically, the Lotus principle has no relevance here.

Shifting the goals? One could contend that almost all military activity creates environmental damage, even lasting environmental damage, all those machines burning fossil fuels, all that carbon going into the atmosphere. Envrionmental complaints are brought up over most military activities.

Of course, the main use of nuclear weapons doesn't cause lasting environmental damage, save that caused by building structures and equipment, or operating machinery, namely sitting in/on the ground, or under the sea, doing nothing.

The threat of using nuclear weapons doesn't do environmental damage.
Touché. But, as you know, I'm talking about nuclear fall-out here, which I suppose you could call exceptional lasting envirnonmental damage (as well as exceptionally long-lasting envirnonmental damage). I think that would cross the line between acceptable (after all, carbon dioxide pollution seems to be just fine with most nations) and breaking the law majorly.

Rather easy, just don't target civilians.
The point is, it's very hard to do that with nuclear weapons, given their enormous area of effect. Targetting military zones will automatically kill people - particularly the bases of the nuclear bombers, but even silos in the woods, as the nukes needed to 'kill' these are so large.

Shifting the goal posts? That is not worthy of you.
I don't get this comment... If you're saying that you'd given me an example of a 'safe' nuke and I changed what I wanted, then that's true. But you did give a crazily specific example, and no nukes today (that I know of, and not many if there are any) are designed to be used like that - almost all nukes are designed to be used against ground targets. And all those that are larger than the micro-tactical ADMs or the fabled 'suitcase nukes' cause fall-out and risk attacking civilians - anything larger than a 50kT nuke will more than likely harm civilians living outside the battlezone. Strategic nukes will definitely harm civilians.

Even given the necessity to survive a counterforce attack, there is still a great surplus of nuclear weapons.

Depends on the size of the opposing force. In any case, the only real problem with the surplus is the expenditure, and that is not a problem to me because the government would only fritter the money away on something else.

So basically, the Lotus principle has no relevance here.

They didn't consider it, however, they did not say "the Lotus principle is kaput", so it remains part of international law, and is therefore relevant to the discussion.

Its not like a fundamental legal principle needs to be renewed every 3 years, like a driving license.

The point is, it's very hard to do that with nuclear weapons, given their enormous area of effect. Targetting military zones will automatically kill people - particularly the bases of the nuclear bombers, but even silos in the woods, as the nukes needed to 'kill' these are so large.

You've gone from "target/kill civilians" to "kill people". Small weapons, relatively remote targets (or sea/air targets) mean no civilian casualties.

If you're saying that you'd given me an example of a 'safe' nuke and I changed what I wanted, then that's true.

You asked, I answered. If you don't like the answer, that's not my problem.

anything larger than a 50kT nuke will more than likely harm civilians living outside the battlezone. Strategic nukes will definitely harm civilians.

50kt is 2.5x Little Boy.

They didn't consider it, however, they did not say "the Lotus principle is kaput", so it remains part of international law, and is therefore relevant to the discussion.

Its not like a fundamental legal principle needs to be renewed every 3 years, like a driving license.
No, it's not relevant to the judgement. And therefore not relevant to the discussion. They didn't consider it, therefore it cannot be applied to their judgement.

You've gone from "target/kill civilians" to "kill people". Small weapons, relatively remote targets (or sea/air targets) mean no civilian casualties.
Targetting a military installation with area weapons in a civilian area is targetting civilians - see the bombing raids of WWII.

You asked, I answered. If you don't like the answer, that's not my problem.
Right then, I asked a different question. And I'm trying to show you that the specific exception does not the general case make - although nukes CAN be used in non-environmentally-damaging ways, they aren't generally (or even at all nowadays).

50kt is 2.5x Little Boy.
Yes, but Little Boy was used in a strategic-type role, whereas a 50kT nuke used tactically might not target civilians within the battlezone.

Anyone named Mordechai is automatically creepy. Especially in a corn field.

Heh, Children of the corn :p

Okay, so, I have heard various opinions behind Mordechai Vanunu. Some call him a patriot, some call him a worthless rebel. What are your views?

After reading the wiki, i'd say he's a hero. Funny that Amnesty didn't care about him....

After reading the wiki, i'd say he's a hero. Funny that Amnesty didn't care about him....

Yeah that is strange. He is especially cool becuase who ever heard of a guy with a name anything like Mordechai Vanunu? Coolest. Name. Evar.

No, it's not relevant to the judgement. And therefore not relevant to the discussion. They didn't consider it, therefore it cannot be applied to their judgement.

Are you actually trying to tell me that a fundamental legal principle regarding restrictions on soverignty are not relevant to a case which has the potential to restrict a nation's soverignty? Surely not!

The Lotus Principle is relevant to this case, whether you like it or not, because a judgement that nuclear weapons were in all circumstances illegal would violate this principle.

Targetting a military installation with area weapons in a civilian area is targetting civilians - see the bombing raids of WWII.

You've been pushing the point that any use of nuclear weapons would inevitably involve civilian causalties. I have shown this is not the case. Also, targetting military installations with civilians near them is not targetting civilians. The statement is contradictory. If the civilians are near a military installation, it is their government's job to remove them to safety, therefore the fault for civilian causalties goes to that government. To say otherwise would endorse the conduct of Saddam Hussein in placing military targets in civilian areas, in the hopes that Iraqi civilians would be killed providing propaganda. It is nothing more than legitimising hostage taking.

Right then, I asked a different question. And I'm trying to show you that the specific exception does not the general case make - although nukes CAN be used in non-environmentally-damaging ways, they aren't generally (or even at all nowadays).

No, you told me that any use of nuclear weapons would cause significant environmental damage, and civilian casualties. You were proven wrong. Also, would you mind telling me how many civilian causalties are caused by the main current use of nuclear weapons (sitting in silos/submarines/storage facilities doing absolutely nothing except deterring everyone elses nukes sutting in silos/submarines/storage facilities)?

Yes, but Little Boy was used in a strategic-type role, whereas a 50kT nuke used tactically might not target civilians within the battlezone.

Depends on the battlezone, and 50kt is a bit large for most tactical applications.

Are you actually trying to tell me that a fundamental legal principle regarding restrictions on soverignty are not relevant to a case which has the potential to restrict a nation's soverignty? Surely not!

The Lotus Principle is relevant to this case, whether you like it or not, because a judgement that nuclear weapons were in all circumstances illegal would violate this principle.
I'm not trying to. The ICJ is trying to. Read the last two sentences of paragraph 22. Seems pretty clear to me. The Lotus principle is not relevant to this case.

You've been pushing the point that any use of nuclear weapons would inevitably involve civilian causalties. I have shown this is not the case. Also, targetting military installations with civilians near them is not targetting civilians. The statement is contradictory. If the civilians are near a military installation, it is their government's job to remove them to safety, therefore the fault for civilian causalties goes to that government. To say otherwise would endorse the conduct of Saddam Hussein in placing military targets in civilian areas, in the hopes that Iraqi civilians would be killed providing propaganda. It is nothing more than legitimising hostage taking.
Wrong. That's only the case if the government specifically sites civilians in military installations. If the military installations are near civilians, then that has to be taken into account.

No, you told me that any use of nuclear weapons would cause significant environmental damage, and civilian casualties. You were proven wrong. Also, would you mind telling me how many civilian causalties are caused by the main current use of nuclear weapons (sitting in silos/submarines/storage facilities doing absolutely nothing except deterring everyone elses nukes sutting in silos/submarines/storage facilities)?
I was proven wrong that ANY nuclear weapon would, true. I was not, and still have to be, proven wrong on the count that the use of nuclear weapons of tactical or greater size against ground targets

I'm not trying to. The ICJ is trying to. Read the last two sentences of paragraph 22. Seems pretty clear to me. The Lotus principle is not relevant to this case.

Nevertheless, they Lotus principle was not overturned, it therefore still stands, restrictions in state soverignty cannot be presumed.

The ICJ basically conceded that the Lotus principle was still in force by saying

Finally, it was suggested that, were the Court to answer the question put by the Assembly, the word "permitted" should be replaced by "prohibited".

Removing the presumption of restriction in other words.

Wrong. That's only the case if the government specifically sites civilians in military installations.

The government still has a duty to protect its civilian population.

I was not, and still have to be, proven wrong on the count that the use of nuclear weapons of tactical or greater size against ground targets

1) You have been.

2) Shifting the goal posts is still not OK.

3) Introducing undefinable qualifying terms (tactical or greater size) is likewise, not OK, as it clears the way for introducing a non-falsifiable hypothesis.

As to how nuclear weapons are classified in military terms, size is rarely the question. At the top end of the scale, size becomes relevant, but for arms below 200kt, whether or not the weapon is strategic depends sometimes on the delivery system (artillery shells, for example, are tactical weapons), the range of it (ground launched missiles, Lance vs. Minuteman III, Lance only has a short range, whereas Minuteman III is an ICBM), or even how it is used.

There is no such thing as "tactical size"

Nevertheless, they Lotus principle was not overturned, it therefore still stands, restrictions in state soverignty cannot be presumed.
But if they don't consider it here, then it obviously isn't relevant. I didn't say they overturned it, I just said it doesn't apply to THIS case.

1) You have been.

2) Shifting the goal posts is still not OK.

3) Introducing undefinable qualifying terms (tactical or greater size) is likewise, not OK, as it clears the way for introducing a non-falsifiable hypothesis.

As to how nuclear weapons are classified in military terms, size is rarely the question. At the top end of the scale, size becomes relevant, but for arms below 200kt, whether or not the weapon is strategic depends sometimes on the delivery system (artillery shells, for example, are tactical weapons), the range of it (ground launched missiles, Lance vs. Minuteman III, Lance only has a short range, whereas Minuteman III is an ICBM), or even how it is used.

There is no such thing as "tactical size"
I didn't say tactical SIZE - specifying a size was a bad idea, in retrospect. And the only reason I mentioned tactical is because strategic nukes will DEFINITELY harm civiliains, tactical ones will only PROBABLY harm them.
I didn't see the bit where I was proven wrong on the count that the use of nuclear weapons of tactical or greater size against ground targets was going to cause civilian harm and environmental damage - I mean the USE, and not the possession of.
But let's kill the word tactical. Can you tell me any nuclear weapon that is used against ground targets that will not cause severe and specific (that is, caused by that thing, and only that thing) environmental damage? And can you tell me any nuclear weapon that is used against ground targets that will not be even more harmful to surrounding civilians when used against military targets than the bombing campaigns of WWII? You might be able to find a couple of examples for the second one, true (artillery shells and small bombs when used nowhere near civilians), but can you find anything that satisfies both? And, let me mention once again, I mean used, not sitting in a silo.
As for goalposts, I only moved them because I'm trying to show you that the exception does not make the specific case.

But if they don't consider it here, then it obviously isn't relevant. I didn't say they overturned it, I just said it doesn't apply to THIS case.

There is no basis for that statement.

As for goalposts, I only moved them because I'm trying to show you that the exception does not make the specific case.

No, it is not a legitimate tactic.

With, or without that justification, the justification of extreme self-defence has always been used.The exception can hardly be considered small when it covers every country's nuclear weapons program. One would have to prove that a nuclear weapons program was solely aggressive in its intent, and even in the case of Iran, this would be difficult.

In legal terms, it is a small exception to the general rule. In the reality of international relations, as it is the only exception, it is the one that is used to justify every single weapons program. But legally, it is still a small exception. There is a difference between the legal reality and the objective reality because the legal reality is an attempt to guide the objective reality, it is not a reflection of it.



You answered your own question: political considerations.

Yes the political consideration being that they could not rule the threat or use of nuclear weapons illegal because that ruling would be ignored, but it could not rule them legal because it could not be seen to condone the use of nuclear weapons. It would would also leave scope for them to rule that the threat or use of nuclear weapons as illegal in the future, if there was some senario whereby they were in a position to do so.



And secondly, nothing is ever definitively unlawful. Murder is lawful in certain circumstances, and just about every criminal tries to justify it in terms of these defences, but that doesn't mean that murder isn't for the vast majority of the time illegal !
You are not talking about the crime of murder, you are talking about a justifiable homocide. It is not the same as murder, and cannot be called murder. Murder is "The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice."

Murder or justifiable homicide? Semantics. Perhaps I should have said that homicide is generally illegal. Nonetheless, the point stands - justifiable homicide is an exception to the general rule of murder.

The crime is phrased differently in various jurisdictions, but it is the general rule that killing another human is murder. Not only that, but the term 'unlawful' doe not meaning anything unless you have a definition of it in the law. Murder is unlawful, so to say that murder is an 'unlawful' killing is meaningless.

"Murder - the killing of one human by another, unless justified by the circumstances"

"Murder - the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

'Unlawful' - A killing of one human by another will be considered unlawful in all circumstances except where it is justfied by self-defence or the attacker is suffering from diminished responsibility caused by mental illness"


Very old it is, but that does not prove your point. It merely tells me it is very old.

Read this .pdf, page 5. ( http://www.nesl.edu/lawrev/vol35/2/scharf.pdf )

It reads:

It may be old, but its still got the touch (we should be so lucky)

Yes, while the Lotus principle may have occassional application (and I believe that the point that the Lotus principle in the Advisory Opinion on Nuclear weapons was referred to by some of the parties and not, in fact, the basis of the judgement (which would itself seem to fly in the face of the Lotus Principle), has already been made) it is no longer the over-arching principle of international law.

The Lotus principle came at a time when the idea of International organisations was only beginning to develop under the League of Nations. Limitations on Sovereignty can now be presumed in a number of circumstances under international law - most commonly where there is a resolution of the Security Council (See the Lockerbie case).

And as I have repeatedly said, Customary International Law has always been a source of limitations on sovereignty. And I think I have conclusively demonstrated that the Customary International Law as to the general prohibition is expressed by the court.


You did read Kalmykhia's and my little side discussion? Genie?

A prototype weapon? Tenuous. And I would have to doubt the claims that it had no effect in terms of radioactivity and atmospheric damage - I'm afraid all that energy and radioactive material has to go somewhere.


Also, nuclear weapons could be used solely against military targets in more remote locations.

Presumably on the moon to be out of the ecosphere of the earth.


It is not accurate.

Good argument. Oh yes it is!


Multiple exclaimation marks do not an argument make. In any case, the exception in terms of last ditch self-defence is there, and everyone has used. Find me a nuclear weapons program that is not justified, or justifiable under that exception, then you can talk about prohibitions.

Merely expressing frustration.

I don't need to. You're not listening to what I'm saying.

You are totally missing the point -

The development of nuclear weapons is considered illegal - hence all the fuss whenever a country tries to develop nuclear weapons. (This is due to a number of reasons - there is a general consensus that nuclear weapons are dangerous, there is a general consensus that they damage the environment, there is a general consensus that there are too many around already, the countries that have nuclear weapons don't want any more challenging their power - and as a result, there is customary international law to that effect, as touched upon by the ICJ in its advisory opinion)

The possession of nuclear weapons (once a country has developed them) is not illegal, because no country is going to challenge a country that has nuclear weapons in court. Therefore, there is no need for a country to justify its nuclear weapons once it has them.

The threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally illegal, as has already been established.

There may be an exception to this rule regarding the threat of use or actual use of nuclear weapons. It is probably illegal anyway, but in any case, the use of nuclear weapons is not likely to be challenged once it has occurred, for the simple reason that the country has shown that it is willing to use nuclear weapons. The only way it would then be challenged would be if the state that first used them was subsequently defeated. Then it would be found illegal.

Shifting the goals? One could contend that almost all military activity creates environmental damage, even lasting environmental damage, all those machines burning fossil fuels, all that carbon going into the atmosphere. Envrionmental complaints are brought up over most military activities.

Over a lot of military activities. And most don't do as much damage as nuclear weapons. Any weapons that can cause comparable damage to that caused by the smallest nuclear weapons are banned (chemical and biological weapons).

Of course, the main use of nuclear weapons doesn't cause lasting environmental damage, save that caused by building structures and equipment, or operating machinery, namely sitting in/on the ground, or under the sea, doing nothing.

The threat of using nuclear weapons doesn't do environmental damage.

But just possessing nuclear weapons doesn't constitute a threat to use them.

And it would be illegal to threaten to use them because it is illegal to threaten to use illegal methods in your international relations under the UNC.

There is no basis for that statement.
If they didn't consider it, how can it be relevant? If it WAS relevant and they didn't consider it, there would have been an appeal. Therefore it can't be relevant.

No, it is not a legitimate tactic.
Changing my argument when a flaw is pointed out in it, so that I can avoid that flaw, is not a legitimate tactic? Then how the hell do you propose to have an argument? You pointed out a specific hole in my argument. I then rephrased my argument to cover up that hole, and now you're refusing to counter that argument.

In legal terms, it is a small exception to the general rule.

A gap small enough for everyone to charge through. I'd accept it as a small exception if it only applied in a limited number of cases.

And I think I have conclusively demonstrated that the Customary International Law as to the general prohibition is expressed by the court.

With an exception "small" enough to justify every nuclear weapons program attempted, or implemented. That means the "prohibition" is merely a guideline. It has no strength due to the exception being able to cover every case.


A prototype weapon?

Prototypes are generally not operational for decades.


Murder or justifiable homicide? Semantics.

Not really.


hence all the fuss whenever a country tries to develop nuclear weapons.

You think the fuss is over the breaking of a law?!

The fuss is over either a direct threat, a threat to one's allies, or the general possibility of nuclear war.

It is entirely political, not legal.


general consensus

They say that 50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong. The chap who said that was wrong.


But just possessing nuclear weapons doesn't constitute a threat to use them.

In fairy land, that may be true, but on Earth, the main reason people get nuclear weapons is to threaten to use them.

I'd just like to point out, on the subject of the Genie, that it's been out of service since the early 80's. Meaning that it's totally irrelevant to modern nuclear strategy and obviously not a nuclear weapon at the time of this ruling.

A gap small enough for everyone to charge through. I'd accept it as a small exception if it only applied in a limited number of cases.

Current UN membership - 191 (http://www.un.org/Overview/growth.htm)

Current UN Members (http://www.un.org/Overview/unmember.html)

For the purposes of this calculation, only members of the UN count as states (since there are very few states that aren't members of the UN).


Number of 'Nuclear powers' - 8 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_powers) See also FAS (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/summary.htm)

This number could be considered to be as high as 9, if you count North Korea, but it hasn't actually tested a nuclear weapon and I would imagine that it is any case quite possible that their stockpile is considered illegal.

Anyway...the point is that 8/191 = 4.19%.

Small.

You see, in terms of international law (rather than objective reality) these states that do not have nuclear weapons are not operating a nuclear weapons program as their position is not such that they are subject to a constant threat that could constitute a danger to their state that would require nuclear weapons in a situation of extreme self-defence. There is also evidence of a large number of states which have either had nuclear weapons or were developing them at some point and have been convinced to give them up. The fact that most states do not have nuclear weapons is evidence of acceptance of the general rule.

I know you're going to say "prove it". This is quite difficult to do so in the current medium. However, the point applies to the general prohibition on the use of force in Art 2(4). There have been a number of wars since 1945, but the general idea in international law is that these involve only a few states and the peace between the rest of the states shows that the prohibition is accepted. To find out more, you'll have to read up on international law.

With an exception "small" enough to justify every nuclear weapons program attempted, or implemented. That means the "prohibition" is merely a guideline. It has no strength due to the exception being able to cover every case.


But all international law really is, is a guideline. It's only one factor, albeit quite an influential one, in a political debate. So...your point would be?

Prototypes are generally not operational for decades.

And?


Murder or justifiable homicide? Semantics. Not really.

Why not? See, i provided an explanation, but you didn't explain yours. Why is my explanation wrong?

The general rule is that killing another human is illegal.

The killing of another human is always called 'homicide'

In the worst case, (usually when it is intentional) it is called 'murder'
Where it is unintentional, it is called 'culpable homicide'

The killing of another human is never considered 'legal' but there are exceptions that will prevent punishment - insanity or where the killing is 'justified, ie by the need for self-defence. These are exceptions to the general rule. The only example of 'legal' killing would be euthanasia, if it was ever allowed.

It is semantics to say there is a difference between 'murder' and an intentional killing in self-defence as 'justified homicide', since the latter is just murder which you will not be punished for.

(NB, the above is an attempt to generalise across legal systems. Just because the terminology differs, this does not mean the point is changed. For example in England culpable homicide is 'manslaughter')



You think the fuss is over the breaking of a law?!

The fuss is over either a direct threat, a threat to one's allies, or the general possibility of nuclear war.

It is entirely political, not legal.

The law is always political. Especially international law. There is no over-arching legislature in international law - therefore international law is inherently political and maleable.


They say that 50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong. The chap who said that was wrong.

You are wrong (I am not using this as a serious argument, but that is essentially the same argument you are making)

You also totally missed the point here. Customary International Law is formed where there is a 'general consensus'. It doesn't matter if the consensus is wrong.

In fact, the consensus can't be wrong, because the consensus is the source of the law (in theory) therefore, the consensus can't be wrong about the law.


In fairy land, that may be true, but on Earth, the main reason people get nuclear weapons is to threaten to use them.

But they don't threaten to use them all the time. The knowledge that your opponent has nuclear weapons does not mean that they are threatening to use them against you.

For example, in the recent WTO talks, despite the presence of many nuclear powers and much disagreement and controversy, none of them were saying "If you don't cut your export subsidies/import tariffs then we will nuke you". At least, not to my knowledge.

To threaten to use nuclear weapons literally means that a state has to say "If you do/ don't do X, we will use nuclear weapons against you"....or perhaps more subtley "We could employ much more decisive means against you"