Assertion: nuclear weapon's use | /r/HasProperty | contrary
Facets:
value: to the rules of international law
type: OTHER
value: generally
type: DEGREE
value: to the laws of humanity
type: OTHER
value: to rules
type: OTHER
value: according to an advisory opinion
type: OTHER
Source sentences:
text: According to an advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice in 1996, the use of (or threat of use of) such weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, but the court did not reach an opinion as to whether or not the threat or use would be lawful in specific extreme circumstances such as if the survival of the state were at stake.
text: The International Court of Justice hands down an advisory opinion in which it found that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to international law, but the court could not conclude if the use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in the case of “extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a state would be at stake”.
text: Sweden did not subscribe to language in preambular paragraph 10 describing international law as it stood today, favouring instead language in the 1996 Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice that the use of nuclear weapons or the threat to use them would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict.
text: In 1996 the International Court of Justice concluded that the use of nuclear weapons would be generally contrary to the principles and rules of IHL.
text: The International Court of Justice hands down an advisory opinion in which it found that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to international law.
text: In its landmark resolution 1653 of 1961, "Declaration on the prohibition of the use of nuclear and thermo-nuclear weapons," the UN General Assembly stated that use of nuclear weaponry “would exceed even the scope of war and cause indiscriminate suffering and destruction to mankind and civilization and, as such, is contrary to the rules of international law and to the laws of humanity”.
text: " The court replied that "the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law; However, 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
text: The only significantly split decision was on the matter of whether "the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict", not including "in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake".