Final exam - international law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words

Final exam - international truth - Essay ExampleThis was in dress to a question certified by the UN General Assembly, Is the threat or use of atomic weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law? The answer was No, nuclear warfare is not permitted. Nevertheless, the Court considers that it does not have sufficient elements to enable it to conclude with certainty that the use of nuclear weapons would necessarily be at variance with the principles and designs of law applicable in armed conflict in any circumstance (The world court and the bomb, n. d) Legally, the above ruling of worldwide court of well(p)ice clearly prohibits country B from victimisation nuclear weapons even if country A uses chemical weapons against them. The unique characteristics of nuclear weapons made it more than dangerous than the chemical weapons. Chemical weapons have less later effects compared to that of the nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons can create immense damage even after years of its use on a particular place. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are better examples of the long term damages nuclear weapons can cause not barely to human generations, but alike to the entire living organisms. At the same time, the question of how can country like Country B defend its sovereignty when countries like Country A uses chemical weapons. ... For example, Iraq was accused of possessing chemical weapons during the Saddam regime. Suppose, Iraq used their chemical weapons to kill Israeli people, how can Israel stay away from using nuclear weapons? That is why the international court of justice stayed away from completely banning the uses of nuclear weapons. 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 special(prenominal) obligations under treaties and other undertakings which expressly deal w ith nuclear weapons (Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, 1996) The international court of justice is of the opinion that use of nuclear weapons result in violation of various international laws like Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Geneva Conventions, The Hague Conventions etc. it urged the countries to think in terms of rule of necessity, rule of proportionality, principle of disinterest etc before using nuclear weapon. In other words, only at unavoidable circumstances like when the countrys sovereignty is jeopardy, Country B can think of using nuclear weapons. Moreover, Country B should attempt to do so only to attain neutrality in the war not for gaining supremacy. The principles of humanitarian law are applicable both to Country A and Country B. If United Nations failed to stop Country A from using chemical weapons against Country B, then Country B would have no other options left behind. The uses of biological and chemical weapons are prohibited just like th e prohibition of nuclear weapons. Under such circumstances, Country B cannot remain silent when their civilian people