|II.||Substantive International Law - Second Part|
Legality of the Threat or Use
of Nuclear Weapons
Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996
I.C.J. Reports 1996, p. 226
[pp. 239-240] 24. Some of the proponents of the illegality of the use
of nuclear weapons have argued that such use would violate the right to life as
guaranteed in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, as well as in certain regional instruments for the protection of human
rights. Article 6, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant provides as
follows: "Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right
shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life."
In reply, others contended that the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights made no mention of war or weapons, and it had never been envisaged that the legality of nuclear weapons was regulated by that instrument. It was suggested that the Covenant was directed to the protection of human rights in peacetime, but that questions relating to unlawful loss of life in hostilities were governed by the law applicable in armed conflict.
25. The Court observes that the protection of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights does not cease in times of war, except by operation of Article 4 of the Covenant whereby certain provisions may be derogated from in a time of national emergency. Respect for the right to life is not, however, such a provision. In principle, the right not arbitrarily to be deprived of one's life applies also in hostilities. The test of what is an arbitrary deprivation of life, however, then falls to be determined by the applicable lex specialis, namely, the law applicable in armed conflict which is designed to regulate the conduct of hostilities. Thus whether a particular loss of life, through the use of a certain weapon in warfare, is to be considered an arbitrary deprivation of life contrary to Article 6 of the Covenant, can only be decided by reference to the law applicable in armed conflict and not deduced from the terms of h Covenant itself.
[p. 507 D.O. Weeramantry] It has been argued that the right to life is not an absolute right and that the taking of life in armed hostilities is a necessary exception to this principle. However, when a weapon has the potential to kill between one million and one billion people, as WHO has told the Court, human life becomes reduced to a level of worthlessness that totally belies human dignity as understood in any culture. Such a deliberate action by an State is in any circumstances whatsoever, incompatible with a recognition by that respect for basic human dignity on which world peace depends, and respect for which is assumed on the part of all Member States of the United Nations.
* For questions of state succession with regard to human rights treaties see I 4.2.6.