Talk:Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons

message: The government statement is very useful information, so I've placed it in the context of the other stuff on UK law (put under "English Law" previously). What I'm really looking for now is a justification of the government position: they just seem to be stating it in every source I've checked, without backing it up with legal argument. It would be fascinating to hear what their argument is.
Also, I've started using "blockquote" rather than "cquote" as I think that is the style we're supposed to use. --Jim (Talk) 23:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The UK Government's position is explained by generlising paragraph 55 of the ICJ opinion, "The terms have been understood, in the practice of States," and by HMG's reservations on ratification and Accession to Protocol I. It is that under international law as practiced by states (not what some NGO's would like it to be) that they reserve the right to use WMD either for military necessity (as for example the threat in the Cold War to use tactical nukes on massed Soviet armoured columns) or in retaliation if attacked by others using WMD --Article 51 or UN charter {See paragraph 59 of the ICJ opinion}-- (This was the position in the First Gulf War by both Thatcher (UK) and Cheney (US)). I guess if you look hard enough you will find a decent source which explains this better than I can :-) --Philip Baird Shearer 12:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK Reaction 

message: The advisory opinion says the following:
"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."
I think the article should clarify precisely what the court meant by "the current state of international law" and "the elements of fact at its disposal", but I'm not sure what these things mean myself. Anyone got any sources? --Jim (Talk) 10:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two caveats in the Opinion 

message: The lead (intro) is too long. It should be a summary of the article. Can we get the quoted text moved into a section please? See WP:LEAD. --kingboyk (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: No German was tried for the use of indiscriminate bombing of civilians with V2's etc, thus making also nuclear "dehousing" campaigns legal, unless the laws have changes since this paper came out.MILITARY LAW REVIEW VOL. 33 from 1966 --Stor stark7 Speak 23:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nuremberg trials basis 

message: on 26 December Brianm358 added to this article lots about the new weapon development and deployment of  nuclear weapons by state. In doing so Brianm358 also deleted  of the legal arguments for and against the development and deployment of new weapons in the UK, replacing it with:
What Brianm358 dismissed in one sentence "This has caused some debate of the legality of the proposal within the UK." was a whole section looking at the legal arguments for and against deployment of new weapons in the UK based on this ICJ ruling. The section does not need expanding with what the nuclear weapon states are deploying as was done in the new Russian section "Russia introduced a new ICBM missile, the RT-2UTTKh Topol-M in the late 1990s...". but the legal justifications given by the Russians for introduced a new ICBM missiles. -- PBS (talk) 07:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: This article needs legal arguments not descriptions of weapons

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080410131344/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7646.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7646.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070616151407/http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/White%20Paper%20Nuclear%20Deterrent.pdf to http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/White%20Paper%20Nuclear%20Deterrent.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927002435/http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket%2FXcelerate%2FShowPage&c=Page&cid=1163677931589 to http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket%2FXcelerate%2FShowPage&c=Page&cid=1163677931589
*Added  tag to http://www.peacerights.org/aboutus.php
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130113035419/http://www.peacerights.org/reports/195 to http://www.peacerights.org/reports/195
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927193241/http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?&ucidparam=20061123104513 to http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/contentlookup.cfm?&ucidparam=20061123104513
*Added archive https://archive.is/20130113035419/http://www.peacerights.org/reports/195 to http://www.peacerights.org/reports/195
*Added  tag to http://www.peacerights.org/aboutus.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927002435/http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket%2FXcelerate%2FShowPage&c=Page&cid=1163677931589 to http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk/servlet/Front?pagename=OpenMarket%2FXcelerate%2FShowPage&c=Page&cid=1163677931589
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120227095818/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120206131612/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/93/7648.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/93/7648.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229161239/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7497.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7497.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120229160933/http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7521.pdf to http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7521.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified