(a) the Treaty of Tlatelolco of 14 February 1967 for the Prohibition of
Nuclear Weapons in Latin America prohibits, in Article 1, the use of nuclear
weapons by the Contracting Parties. It further includes an Additional Protocol
II open to nuclear-weapon States outside the region, Article 3 of which
provides:
"The Governments represented by the undersigned Plenipotentiaries also
undertake not to use or threaten to use Nuclear weapons against the Contracting
Parties of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin
America."
The Protocol was signed and ratified by the five nuclear-weapon States. Its
ratification was accompanied by a variety of declarations. The United Kingdom
Government, for example, stated that "in the event of any act of aggression by a
Contracting Party to the Treaty in which that Party was supported by a
nuclear-weapon State", the United Kingdom Government would "be free to
reconsider the extent to which they could be regarded as committed by the
provisions of Additional Protocol II". The United States made a similar
statement. The French Government, for its part, stated that it "interprets the
undertaking made in article 3 of the Protocol as being without prejudice to the
full exercise of the right of self-defence confirmed by Article 51 of the
Charter". China reaffirmed its commitment not to be the first to make use of
nuclear weapons. The Soviet Union reserved "the right to review" the
obligations imposed upon it by Additional Protocol II, particularly in the event
of an attack by a State party either "in support of a nuclear-weapon State or
jointly with that State". None of these statements drew comment or objection
from the parties to the Treaty of Tlatelolco.
(b) the Treaty of Rarotonga of 6 August 1985 establishes a South Pacific
Nuclear Free Zone in which the Parties undertake not to manufacture, acquire or
possess any nuclear explosive device (Art. 3). Unlike the Treaty of Tlatelolco,
the Treaty of Rarotonga does not expressly prohibit the use of such weapons.
But such a prohibition is for the States parties the necessary consequence of
the prohibitions stipulated by the Treaty. The Treaty has a number of
protocols. Protocol 2, open to the five nuclear-weapon States, specifies in its
Article 1 that:
"Each Party undertakes not to use or threaten to use any nuclear
explosive device against:
(a) Parties to the Treaty; or
(b) any territory within the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone for which a State
that has become a Party to Protocol 1 is internationally responsible."
China and Russia are parties to that Protocol. In signing it, China and the
Soviet Union each made a declaration by which they reserved the" right to
reconsider" their obligations under the said Protocol; the Soviet Union also
referred to certain circumstances in which it would consider itself released
from those obligations. France, the United Kingdom and the United States, for
their part, signed Protocol 2 on 25 March 1996, but have not yet ratified it.
On that occasion, France declared, on the one hand, that no provision in that
Protocol "shall impair the full exercise of the inherent right of self-defence
provided for in Article 51 of the ... Charter" and, on the other hand, that "the
commitment set out in Article 1 of [that] Protocol amounts to the negative
security assurances given by France to non-nuclear-weapon States which
are parties to the Treaty on . . . Non-Proliferation", and that "these
assurances shall not apply to States which are not parties" to that Treaty. For
its part, the United Kingdom made a declaration setting out the precise
circumstances in which it "will not be bound by [its] undertaking under Article
1" of the Protocol.
(c) as to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, at the
time of its signing in 1968 the United States, the United Kingdom and the USSR
gave various security assurances to the non-nuclear-weapon States that were
parties to the Treaty. In resolution 255 (1968) the Security Council took note
with satisfaction of the intention expressed by those three States to
"provide or support immediate assistance, in accordance with the
Charter, to any non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation . . . that is a victim of an act of, or an object of a threat
of, aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
On the occasion of the extension of the Treaty in 1995, the five
nuclear-weapon States gave their non-nuclear-weapon partners, by means of
separate unilateral statements on 5 and 6 April 1995, positive and negative
security assurances against the use of such weapons. All the five nuclear-
weapon States first undertook not to use nuclear weapons against
non-nuclear-weapon States that were parties to the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. However, these States, apart from China,
made an exception in the case of an invasion or any other attack against them,
their territories, armed forces or allies, or on a State towards which they had
a security commitment, carried out or sustained by a non-nuclear-weapon
State party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty in association or alliance with a
nuclear-weapon State. Each of the nuclear-weapon States further undertook, as a
permanent Member of the Security Council, in the event of an attack with the use
of nuclear weapons, or threat of such attack, against a non-nuclear-weapon
State, to refer the matter to the Security Council without delay and to act
within it in order that it might take immediate measures with a view to
supplying, pursuant to the Charter, the necessary assistance to the victim State
(the commitments assumed comprising minor variations in wording). The Security
Council, in unanimously adopting resolution 984 (1995) of 11 April 1995, cited
above, took note of those statements with appreciation. It also recognized
"that the nuclear-weapon State permanent members of the Security Council
will bring the matter immediately to the attention of the Council and seek
Council action to provide, in accordance with the Charter, the necessary
assistance to the State victim";
and welcomed the fact that
"the intention expressed by certain States that they will provide or support
immediate assistance, in accordance with the Charter, to any non-nuclear-
weapon State Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
that is a victim of an act of, or an object of a threat of, aggression in which
nuclear weapons are used."
International Court of Justice Opinion - Continued
World Court Page | Abolition 2000 | Proposition One
Current Events