11. In recent years, threats of nuclear-weapon use have become commonplace. Nuclear threats raise serious concerns from a humanitarian, legal and ethical perspective. It should be stressed that there can be no distinction between so-called responsible and irresponsible threats of nuclear-weapon use. In light of the well documented, catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, and the impossibility of any State or organization adequately preparing for or responding to the massive humanitarian needs that would ensue, the prospect of nuclear-weapon use has a strong destabilizing effect on individuals and entire societies.
12. In addition, nuclear threats increase the probability of such weapons being used, by fuelling tensions and increasing the risk of escalation. Strident nuclear rhetoric and threats to use nuclear weapons, especially when repeated, risk normalizing the potential of nuclear-weapon use in political discourse and public opinion, thus eroding the long-established taboo against their use. Moreover, nuclear threats, in order to be credible, often require corroborating action – such as testing a delivery system or placing nuclear-capable forces on high alert. Such actions themselves increase the risks of nuclear-weapon use and contribute to escalating disputes and conflicts. Lastly, nuclear threats fuel the arms race and may even trigger proliferation, leading States to consider extended deterrence arrangements, or even the development or acquisition of nuclear weapons, as necessary for national self-defence.
13. In its 1996 advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the ICJ stated that “if an envisaged use of weapons would not meet the requirements of humanitarian law, a threat to engage in such use would also be contrary to that law.” It concluded 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”.[7]
14. Since then, threatening to use nuclear weapons has been unequivocally prohibited under the TPNW. Furthermore, nuclear threats are inconsistent with the object and purpose of the NPT, as they fuel proliferation and undermine nuclear disarmament.[8] As noted in the TPNW preamble, any use of nuclear weapons would be abhorrent to the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience. By implying the possibility of actually using nuclear weapons, any threat to use nuclear weapons is – in the ICRC’s view – equally abhorrent.
15. Condemning and stigmatizing threats to use nuclear weapons can effectively reduce the risk of nuclear-weapon use. Consistent and unified condemnation by the international community discourages nuclear threats, lowers the risk of escalation and strengthens the nuclear taboo.
16. When it comes to nuclear deterrence, the ICRC, as a humanitarian organization, cannot but reject as contrary to the principles of humanity and the dictates of public conscience any security theories that rely on the threat of mass suffering and destruction. As a former president of the ICRC observed, the pursuit of theories of nuclear deterrence and mutually assured destruction has ultimately created an unstable balance of fear that continues to threaten all of humankind.[9]
We acknowledge Source link for the information.
