Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

The Common Problem: Weapons of Mass Destruction and Anticipatory Self-defence in International Law

Rudin, Lisa LU (2022) LAGF03 20222
Department of Law
Faculty of Law
Abstract
The aim of this essay is to analyse the extent of anticipatory self-defence and
how it is affected by the presence of weapons of mass destruction. As such, it will provide a summary of current law through doctrine, case law, and the treaties concerning the interpretation of article 51 of the UN Charter. Differing arguments will be illustrated with the help of examples, such as the Israeli attacks, which constitutes waypoints of the discussion of immediacy of a threat for an attack. The essay researches the possibility to ban nuclear weapons and how weapon of mass destruction affects the rules of war, the jus ad bellum, and the notion of anticipatory self-defence.

The notion of anticipatory self-defence is controversial within the... (More)
The aim of this essay is to analyse the extent of anticipatory self-defence and
how it is affected by the presence of weapons of mass destruction. As such, it will provide a summary of current law through doctrine, case law, and the treaties concerning the interpretation of article 51 of the UN Charter. Differing arguments will be illustrated with the help of examples, such as the Israeli attacks, which constitutes waypoints of the discussion of immediacy of a threat for an attack. The essay researches the possibility to ban nuclear weapons and how weapon of mass destruction affects the rules of war, the jus ad bellum, and the notion of anticipatory self-defence.

The notion of anticipatory self-defence is controversial within the stage of international security and peace, especially from the perspective of the involvement of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. Currently there is no absolute prohibition of nuclear arms, in comparison to chemical and biological weapons, and there might not be for a foreseeable future due to the stubbornness of states that possess nuclear arms. Different arguments about the lawfulness of nuclear arms have been discussed in the light of the ICJ advisory opinion Legality of the Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons. Despite its disconnection with international humanitarian law, the Court could not rule out its lawfulness as an act of self-defence under extreme circumstances. A general prohibition of production and use of nuclear weapons could therefore not be established.

Jus ad bellum is still obligatory rules, notwithstanding the effect WMDs have
had on them. The notion of anticipatory self-defence seems to be accepted as lawful practice through both state practice and opinio juris in some cases. Its extent, however, is highly controversial, with questions arising from the prerequisites of immediacy and proportionality. Written law or an international consensus is therefore needed to truly reach the reputation required to be considered customary law. The lawfulness of pre-emptive self-defence is however more controversial and are even further from reaching an agreement within the international community. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
Denna uppsats syftar till att analysera omfånget av anteciperat självförsvar
och hur det påverkas av massförstörelsevapnens existens. Därför skall en sammanställning av gällande rätt framföras tillsammans med den doktrin och andra rättskällor som finns om tolkningen av artikel 51 i FN-stadgan. Vissa argument kommer att illustreras med exempel, så som de israeliska attackerna, vilka konstituerar hållpunkter för diskussionen om omedelbarheten av ett hot om en attack. Uppsatsen undersöker möjligheten att förbjuda kärnvapen samt hur massförstörelsevapen påverkar krigets lagar, jus ad bellum och tolkningen av anteciperat självförsvar.

Begreppet anteciperat självförsvar är kontroversiellt inom diskussioner om internationell säkerhet och... (More)
Denna uppsats syftar till att analysera omfånget av anteciperat självförsvar
och hur det påverkas av massförstörelsevapnens existens. Därför skall en sammanställning av gällande rätt framföras tillsammans med den doktrin och andra rättskällor som finns om tolkningen av artikel 51 i FN-stadgan. Vissa argument kommer att illustreras med exempel, så som de israeliska attackerna, vilka konstituerar hållpunkter för diskussionen om omedelbarheten av ett hot om en attack. Uppsatsen undersöker möjligheten att förbjuda kärnvapen samt hur massförstörelsevapen påverkar krigets lagar, jus ad bellum och tolkningen av anteciperat självförsvar.

Begreppet anteciperat självförsvar är kontroversiellt inom diskussioner om internationell säkerhet och fred, speciellt när kärnvapen eller andra massförstörelsevapen är inblandade. För tillfället finns det inget absolut förbud för kärnvapen, till skillnad från kemiska och biologiska vapen, och det lär inte
heller ske inom snar framtid. Detta mycket på grund av envisheten hos de länder som innehar kärnvapen. Olika argument om huruvida kärnvapen är lagliga har diskuterats i ljuset av ICJ:s rådgivande yttrande Legality of the Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons. Trots en bristande samklang med internationell humanitär rätt kunde inte domstolen fastställa att kärnvapen var en olaglig form av självförsvar under extrema omständigheter. Ett generellt förbud mot användning och produktion kunde därför inte fastställas.

Reglerna om jus ad bellum behåller fortfarande sin status som obligatoriska regler, dock har massförstörelsevapen gett en negativ effekt på dessa. Anteciperat självförsvar verkar vara accepterat som en laglig tolkning genom vissa staters opinio juris samt praktiska handlingar. Dess omfattning är samtidigt väldigt kontroversiell, med många oklarheter kring rekvisiten om proportionalitet och omedelbarhet. Skriven lag eller internationellt consensus behövs dock för att verkligen nå ett anseende som sedvanerätt. Lagligheten kring preventivt självförsvar är ännu mer kontroversiellt och är längre ifrån att nå samförstånd inom den internationella församlingen. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Rudin, Lisa LU
supervisor
organization
course
LAGF03 20222
year
type
M2 - Bachelor Degree
subject
keywords
Public international law, Folkrätt, International humanitarian law, Anticipatory self-defence, Pre-emtpive self-defence, Rules of war, Jus ad bellum, Weapons of mass destruction, Jus in bello
language
English
id
9104489
date added to LUP
2023-02-03 16:36:21
date last changed
2023-02-03 16:36:21
@misc{9104489,
  abstract     = {{The aim of this essay is to analyse the extent of anticipatory self-defence and 
how it is affected by the presence of weapons of mass destruction. As such, it will provide a summary of current law through doctrine, case law, and the treaties concerning the interpretation of article 51 of the UN Charter. Differing arguments will be illustrated with the help of examples, such as the Israeli attacks, which constitutes waypoints of the discussion of immediacy of a threat for an attack. The essay researches the possibility to ban nuclear weapons and how weapon of mass destruction affects the rules of war, the jus ad bellum, and the notion of anticipatory self-defence.

The notion of anticipatory self-defence is controversial within the stage of international security and peace, especially from the perspective of the involvement of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. Currently there is no absolute prohibition of nuclear arms, in comparison to chemical and biological weapons, and there might not be for a foreseeable future due to the stubbornness of states that possess nuclear arms. Different arguments about the lawfulness of nuclear arms have been discussed in the light of the ICJ advisory opinion Legality of the Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons. Despite its disconnection with international humanitarian law, the Court could not rule out its lawfulness as an act of self-defence under extreme circumstances. A general prohibition of production and use of nuclear weapons could therefore not be established.

Jus ad bellum is still obligatory rules, notwithstanding the effect WMDs have 
had on them. The notion of anticipatory self-defence seems to be accepted as lawful practice through both state practice and opinio juris in some cases. Its extent, however, is highly controversial, with questions arising from the prerequisites of immediacy and proportionality. Written law or an international consensus is therefore needed to truly reach the reputation required to be considered customary law. The lawfulness of pre-emptive self-defence is however more controversial and are even further from reaching an agreement within the international community.}},
  author       = {{Rudin, Lisa}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{The Common Problem: Weapons of Mass Destruction and Anticipatory Self-defence in International Law}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}