International humanitarian law, which regulates war and is sometimes referred to as martial law or the law of armed conflict, is arguably the most important legal regime with respect to the legality of the use of nuclear weapons. In addition to customary international law, the key instrument is Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Several of the rules set out here are of particular importance. Nuclear weapons have always been immoral. Now they are also classified as illegal, just like chemical and biological weapons. This is a big change because it will lead to a change in the public`s perception of these weapons. TPNW is not symbolic. It is rather restrictive given the many forms of prohibition (manufacture, possession, use, transfer, threat of use, etc.). 22. Nick Ritchie, “Trident: The Deal Isn`t Done,” Bradford Disarmament Research Centre, December 2007, p.

1. 11, note 38, www.brad.ac.uk/acad/bdrc/nuclear/trident/trident_deal_isnt_done.pdf. Evidence presented at the Oslo, Nayarit and Vienna conferences showed that the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons are actually worse than many had thought. As the ICRC and others have pointed out, this must have implications for how the legality of the use of nuclear weapons is assessed under international humanitarian law.16 Thus can no longer be called the case. In its 1996 opinion, the ICJ concluded that there was “an obligation to negotiate in good faith and to reach a conclusion leading to nuclear disarmament”. 21 However, an obligation to disarm does not constitute a prohibition. Although not without controversy, British Prime Minister Tony Blair`s statement that the NPT “makes it absolutely clear” that the UK “has the right to possess nuclear weapons”22 is legally correct. Comparing the NPT to biological and chemical weapons regimes, the most striking difference is that while the latter two contain categorical prohibitions on possession and use, 23 the former are not. Given the terrible humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons explosions, this can reasonably be described as a legal vacuum.

Article 5 deals with national implementation. Article 6 obliges us to rehabilitate the environment and to support the victims of the use and testing of nuclear weapons. Article 7 requires States to support each other for these purposes, with a special responsibility on the part of the nuclear Powers. More generally, all States parties cooperate to facilitate the implementation of the Treaty. Article 8 establishes meetings of States Parties, the costs of which are to be shared by States in accordance with the United Nations evaluation key (Article 9). Articles 10 to 12 deal with the possibility of amendments, the settlement of disputes and “the objective of universal adherence by all States to the Treaty”. The NPT has proven to be less effective in terms of nuclear disarmament. As Irish Foreign Minister Charles Flanagan pointed out at the 2015 Review Conference, “not a single nuclear weapon has been disarmed under the NPT or through a multilateral process.” 19 Articles 1, 1c (extending Articles 1 and 2a) prohibit direct or indirect control of nuclear weapons. The adoption of this provision would exclude a common European nuclear force or German funding and a limited decision on the French strike force; both options are sometimes discussed. [35] 2. “Promise presented at the Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Effects of Nuclear Weapons by Austrian Deputy Foreign Minister Michael Linhart,” www.bmeia.gv.at/en/european-foreign-policy/disarmament/weapons-of-mass-destruction/nuclear-weapons-and-nuclear-terrorism/vienna-conference-on-the-humanitarian-impact-of-nuclear-weapons/chairs-summary/.

This is not only an insult to the United Nations, which for 75 years has sought to nail the coffin of the atomic bomb, but also an extremely bellicose attempt by the superpowers to undermine the will of the majority of people in the world to live in peace without the threat of a nuclear holocaust hovering over their heads. Contributing to a nuclear-weapon-free world is a primary objective of the treaties on nuclear-weapon-free zones.17 These zones, which include large geographical areas and a large number of States, represent a legal and political dynamic that is often underestimated in terms of protecting individuals and the environment from nuclear weapons. Currently, more than 100 countries in the world, covering more than 50% of the Earth`s surface, are parties to these treaties. .