Courting controversy: International law, national norms and American nuclear use

Review of International Studies

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2001, Pages 309-326

  Farrell, Theo ^a   Lambert, Hélène ^a  

^a NONE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0039436404     PISSN: 02602105     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0260210501003096     Document Type: Article

References (163)

1. The Court considered ’the notions of "threat" and "use". to stand together, in the sense that if the use of force in a given case is illegal - the threat to use force will likewise be illegal’. International Court of Justice (ICJ), ’Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons’, General List no. 95, 8 July 1996, para. 47. We obtained the ICJ Opinion and separate and dissenting opinions of the ICJ judges from the following website 〈http://www.dfa.gov.au/intorgs/icj-nuc/icj-nuclear-weapons-html〉. This information may also be obtained from International Legal Materials, 35 (1996), pp. 814-938.
2. ICJ, ’Legality’, para. 105(2) E.
3. Ibid., para. 96.
4. A similar interpretation is offered by ICJ Judge Rosalyn Higgins. See ’Dissenting Opinion of Judge Higgins’, 1996, p. 7, para. 40.
5. This act of recognition even attracted criticism from some ICJ judges. Gilbert Guillaume, ’Opinion individuelle de M. Guillaume’, 1996, p. 4; Abdul G. Koroma, ’Dissenting opinion of Judge Koroma’, 1996, p. 17.
6. This act of recognition even attracted criticism from some ICJ judges. Gilbert Guillaume, ’Opinion individuelle de M. Guillaume’, 1996, p. 4; Abdul G. Koroma, ’Dissenting opinion of Judge Koroma’, 1996, p. 17.
7. Nicholas Grief, ’Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 46 (1997), pp. 686-8; Peter H. F. Bekker, ’Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons’, American Journal of International Law, 91 (1997), pp. 131-2; Dapo Akande, ’Nuclear Weapons, Unclear Law? Deciphering the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion of the International Court’, British Yearbook of International Law 1997, 68 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), pp. 166-8, 200, 202-11.
8. Nicholas Grief, ’Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 46 (1997), pp. 686-8; Peter H. F. Bekker, ’Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons’, American Journal of International Law, 91 (1997), pp. 131-2; Dapo Akande, ’Nuclear Weapons, Unclear Law? Deciphering the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion of the International Court’, British Yearbook of International Law 1997, 68 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), pp. 166-8, 200, 202-11.
9. Nicholas Grief, ’Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons’, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 46 (1997), pp. 686-8; Peter H. F. Bekker, ’Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons’, American Journal of International Law, 91 (1997), pp. 131-2; Dapo Akande, ’Nuclear Weapons, Unclear Law? Deciphering the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion of the International Court’, British Yearbook of International Law 1997, 68 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), pp. 166-8, 200, 202-11.
10. The sole exception that we are aware of is Daniel Warner, ’The Nuclear Weapons Decision by the International Court of Justice: Locating the Raison behind Raison d’État’, Millennium, 27 (1998), pp. 299-324. For an IR perspective which pre-dates the ICJ Opinion, see Adam Roberts, ’Law, Lawyers, and Nuclear Weapons’, Review of International Studies, 16 (1990), pp. 75-84.
11. The sole exception that we are aware of is Daniel Warner, ’The Nuclear Weapons Decision by the International Court of Justice: Locating the Raison behind Raison d’État’, Millennium, 27 (1998), pp. 299-324. For an IR perspective which pre-dates the ICJ Opinion, see Adam Roberts, ’Law, Lawyers, and Nuclear Weapons’, Review of International Studies, 16 (1990), pp. 75-84.
12. Robert Jervis, The Illogic of American Nuclear Strategy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1984), p. 38.
13. Eric Herring, ’The Power of the Nuclear Taboo’, paper presented at the British International Studies Association (BISA) annual conference, Swansea, December 1992; Herring, ’Nuclear Totem and Taboo’, paper presented at BISA annual conference, Leeds, December 1997; Richard Price and Tannenwald, ’Norms and Deterrence; The Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Taboo’, in Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (Columbia, NY: Columbia University Press, 1996), pp. 114-52; Nina Tannenwald, ’The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use’, International Organization, 53 (1999), pp. 433-68.
14. Eric Herring, ’The Power of the Nuclear Taboo’, paper presented at the British International Studies Association (BISA) annual conference, Swansea, December 1992; Herring, ’Nuclear Totem and Taboo’, paper presented at BISA annual conference, Leeds, December 1997; Richard Price and Tannenwald, ’Norms and Deterrence; The Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Taboo’, in Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (Columbia, NY: Columbia University Press, 1996), pp. 114-52; Nina Tannenwald, ’The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use’, International Organization, 53 (1999), pp. 433-68.
15. Eric Herring, ’The Power of the Nuclear Taboo’, paper presented at the British International Studies Association (BISA) annual conference, Swansea, December 1992; Herring, ’Nuclear Totem and Taboo’, paper presented at BISA annual conference, Leeds, December 1997; Richard Price and Tannenwald, ’Norms and Deterrence; The Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Taboo’, in Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (Columbia, NY: Columbia University Press, 1996), pp. 114-52; Nina Tannenwald, ’The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use’, International Organization, 53 (1999), pp. 433-68.
16. Eric Herring, ’The Power of the Nuclear Taboo’, paper presented at the British International Studies Association (BISA) annual conference, Swansea, December 1992; Herring, ’Nuclear Totem and Taboo’, paper presented at BISA annual conference, Leeds, December 1997; Richard Price and Tannenwald, ’Norms and Deterrence; The Nuclear and Chemical Weapons Taboo’, in Peter J. Katzenstein (ed.), The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (Columbia, NY: Columbia University Press, 1996), pp. 114-52; Nina Tannenwald, ’The Nuclear Taboo: The United States and the Normative Basis of Nuclear Non-Use’, International Organization, 53 (1999), pp. 433-68.
17. This is consistent with the views of ICJ Judges Ferrari Bravo and Shi Jiuyong. See ’Déclaration de M. Ferrari Bravo’, 1996, p. 3, and ’Declaration of Judge Shi Jiuyong’, p. 1.
18. This is consistent with the views of ICJ Judges Ferrari Bravo and Shi Jiuyong. See ’Déclaration de M. Ferrari Bravo’, 1996, p. 3, and ’Declaration of Judge Shi Jiuyong’, p. 1.
19. On the merits of such dialogue, see Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 1-35; Martha Finnemore, National Interests in International Society (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996), pp. 139-43; Robert J. Beck, Anthony Clarke Arend, and Robert D. van der Lugt (eds.), International Rules: Approaches from International Law and International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996); Robert O. Keohane, ’International Relations and International Law: Two Optics’, Harvard International Law Journal, 38 (1997), pp. 487-502; Anne-Marie Slaughter, Andrew S. Tulumello, and Stepan Wood, ’International Law and International Relations Theory: A New Generation of Interdisciplinary Scholarship’, American Journal of International Law, 92 (1998), pp. 367-97; Michael Byers, Custom, Power and the Power of Rules: International Relations and Customary International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Anthony Clark Arend, Legal Rules and International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); Richard Falk, ’International Law and International Relations: Collaboration and Tension’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 12 (1999), pp. 14-25.
20. On the merits of such dialogue, see Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 1-35; Martha Finnemore, National Interests in International Society (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996), pp. 139-43; Robert J. Beck, Anthony Clarke Arend, and Robert D. van der Lugt (eds.), International Rules: Approaches from International Law and International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996); Robert O. Keohane, ’International Relations and International Law: Two Optics’, Harvard International Law Journal, 38 (1997), pp. 487-502; Anne-Marie Slaughter, Andrew S. Tulumello, and Stepan Wood, ’International Law and International Relations Theory: A New Generation of Interdisciplinary Scholarship’, American Journal of International Law, 92 (1998), pp. 367-97; Michael Byers, Custom, Power and the Power of Rules: International Relations and Customary International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Anthony Clark Arend, Legal Rules and International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); Richard Falk, ’International Law and International Relations: Collaboration and Tension’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 12 (1999), pp. 14-25.
21. On the merits of such dialogue, see Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 1-35; Martha Finnemore, National Interests in International Society (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996), pp. 139-43; Robert J. Beck, Anthony Clarke Arend, and Robert D. van der Lugt (eds.), International Rules: Approaches from International Law and International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996); Robert O. Keohane, ’International Relations and International Law: Two Optics’, Harvard International Law Journal, 38 (1997), pp. 487-502; Anne-Marie Slaughter, Andrew S. Tulumello, and Stepan Wood, ’International Law and International Relations Theory: A New Generation of Interdisciplinary Scholarship’, American Journal of International Law, 92 (1998), pp. 367-97; Michael Byers, Custom, Power and the Power of Rules: International Relations and Customary International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Anthony Clark Arend, Legal Rules and International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); Richard Falk, ’International Law and International Relations: Collaboration and Tension’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 12 (1999), pp. 14-25.
22. On the merits of such dialogue, see Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 1-35; Martha Finnemore, National Interests in International Society (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996), pp. 139-43; Robert J. Beck, Anthony Clarke Arend, and Robert D. van der Lugt (eds.), International Rules: Approaches from International Law and International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996); Robert O. Keohane, ’International Relations and International Law: Two Optics’, Harvard International Law Journal, 38 (1997), pp. 487-502; Anne-Marie Slaughter, Andrew S. Tulumello, and Stepan Wood, ’International Law and International Relations Theory: A New Generation of Interdisciplinary Scholarship’, American Journal of International Law, 92 (1998), pp. 367-97; Michael Byers, Custom, Power and the Power of Rules: International Relations and Customary International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Anthony Clark Arend, Legal Rules and International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); Richard Falk, ’International Law and International Relations: Collaboration and Tension’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 12 (1999), pp. 14-25.
23. On the merits of such dialogue, see Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 1-35; Martha Finnemore, National Interests in International Society (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996), pp. 139-43; Robert J. Beck, Anthony Clarke Arend, and Robert D. van der Lugt (eds.), International Rules: Approaches from International Law and International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996); Robert O. Keohane, ’International Relations and International Law: Two Optics’, Harvard International Law Journal, 38 (1997), pp. 487-502; Anne-Marie Slaughter, Andrew S. Tulumello, and Stepan Wood, ’International Law and International Relations Theory: A New Generation of Interdisciplinary Scholarship’, American Journal of International Law, 92 (1998), pp. 367-97; Michael Byers, Custom, Power and the Power of Rules: International Relations and Customary International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Anthony Clark Arend, Legal Rules and International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); Richard Falk, ’International Law and International Relations: Collaboration and Tension’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 12 (1999), pp. 14-25.
24. On the merits of such dialogue, see Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 1-35; Martha Finnemore, National Interests in International Society (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996), pp. 139-43; Robert J. Beck, Anthony Clarke Arend, and Robert D. van der Lugt (eds.), International Rules: Approaches from International Law and International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996); Robert O. Keohane, ’International Relations and International Law: Two Optics’, Harvard International Law Journal, 38 (1997), pp. 487-502; Anne-Marie Slaughter, Andrew S. Tulumello, and Stepan Wood, ’International Law and International Relations Theory: A New Generation of Interdisciplinary Scholarship’, American Journal of International Law, 92 (1998), pp. 367-97; Michael Byers, Custom, Power and the Power of Rules: International Relations and Customary International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Anthony Clark Arend, Legal Rules and International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); Richard Falk, ’International Law and International Relations: Collaboration and Tension’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 12 (1999), pp. 14-25.
25. On the merits of such dialogue, see Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 1-35; Martha Finnemore, National Interests in International Society (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996), pp. 139-43; Robert J. Beck, Anthony Clarke Arend, and Robert D. van der Lugt (eds.), International Rules: Approaches from International Law and International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996); Robert O. Keohane, ’International Relations and International Law: Two Optics’, Harvard International Law Journal, 38 (1997), pp. 487-502; Anne-Marie Slaughter, Andrew S. Tulumello, and Stepan Wood, ’International Law and International Relations Theory: A New Generation of Interdisciplinary Scholarship’, American Journal of International Law, 92 (1998), pp. 367-97; Michael Byers, Custom, Power and the Power of Rules: International Relations and Customary International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Anthony Clark Arend, Legal Rules and International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); Richard Falk, ’International Law and International Relations: Collaboration and Tension’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 12 (1999), pp. 14-25.
26. On the merits of such dialogue, see Rosalyn Higgins, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 1-35; Martha Finnemore, National Interests in International Society (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996), pp. 139-43; Robert J. Beck, Anthony Clarke Arend, and Robert D. van der Lugt (eds.), International Rules: Approaches from International Law and International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996); Robert O. Keohane, ’International Relations and International Law: Two Optics’, Harvard International Law Journal, 38 (1997), pp. 487-502; Anne-Marie Slaughter, Andrew S. Tulumello, and Stepan Wood, ’International Law and International Relations Theory: A New Generation of Interdisciplinary Scholarship’, American Journal of International Law, 92 (1998), pp. 367-97; Michael Byers, Custom, Power and the Power of Rules: International Relations and Customary International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); Anthony Clark Arend, Legal Rules and International Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999); Richard Falk, ’International Law and International Relations: Collaboration and Tension’, Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 12 (1999), pp. 14-25.
27. Finnemore, National Interests, p. 22.
28. Thus, norms are not subjective but rather intersubjective: they exist not simply in the beliefs of individuals, but are also embodied in mutual practices and social relations. Mark Neufeld, ’Interpretation and the "Science" of International Relations’, Review of International Studies, 19 (1993), p. 47.
29. David Dessler, ’What’s At Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate?’, International Organization, 43 (1989), pp. 454-8; Friedrich Kratochwil, Rules, Norms and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 24-8.
30. David Dessler, ’What’s At Stake in the Agent-Structure Debate?’, International Organization, 43 (1989), pp. 454-8; Friedrich Kratochwil, Rules, Norms and Decisions: On the Conditions of Practical and Legal Reasoning in International Relations and Domestic Affairs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), pp. 24-8.
31. Paul Kowert and Jeffrey W. Legro. ’Norms, Identity, and their Limits’, in Katzenstein (ed.), Culture of National Security, p. 463.
32. Nicholas Onuf, ’The New Culture of Security Studies’, Mershon International Studies Review, 42 (1998), p. 134.
33. Geoffrey Best, Humanity in Warfare: The Modern History of the International Law of Armed Conflict (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1980), pp. 190-200.
34. Richard Price, The Chemical Weapons Taboo (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997).
35. Theo Farrell, ’Culture and Military Power’, Review of International Studies, 24 (1998), pp. 407-16.
36. Theo Farrell, ’Transnational Norms and Military Development: Constructing Ireland’s Professional Army’, European Journal of International Relations, 7 (2001), pp. 63-102; Dana P. Eyre and Mark C. Suchman, ’Status, Norms, and the Proliferation of Conventional Weapons’, in Katzenstein (ed.), Culture of National Security, pp. 79-113.
37. Theo Farrell, ’Transnational Norms and Military Development: Constructing Ireland’s Professional Army’, European Journal of International Relations, 7 (2001), pp. 63-102; Dana P. Eyre and Mark C. Suchman, ’Status, Norms, and the Proliferation of Conventional Weapons’, in Katzenstein (ed.), Culture of National Security, pp. 79-113.
38. Craig M. Cameron, American Samurai: Myth Imagination, and the Conduct of Battle in the First Marine Division, 1941-1951 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
39. Jeffrey W. Legro, Cooperation Under Fire: Anglo-German Restraint During World War II (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995); Elizabeth Kier, Imagining War: French and British Military Doctrine Between the Wars (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997).
40. Jeffrey W. Legro, Cooperation Under Fire: Anglo-German Restraint During World War II (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995); Elizabeth Kier, Imagining War: French and British Military Doctrine Between the Wars (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997).
41. Kowert and Legro, ’Norms’, pp. 484-5.
42. Ibid, p. 486.
43. This is adopted in Jeffrey W. Legro, ’Which Norms Matter? Revisiting the "Failure" of Internationalism’, International Organization, 51 (1997), p. 42.
44. Martha Finnemore, ’Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights from Sociology’s New Institutionalism’, International Organization, 50 (1996), pp. 325-42; Andrew P. Cortell and James W. Davis, Jr., ’How Do International Institutions Matter: The Domestic Impact of International Rules and Norms?’, International Studies Quarterly, 40 (1996), pp. 451-78; Harold Hingju Koh, ’Why Do Nations Obey International Law?’, The Yale Law Journal, 106 (1997), pp. 2599-2659; Jeffrey Checkel, ’Norms, Institutions and National Identity in Contemporary Europe’, International Studies Quarterly 43 (1999), pp. 83-114.
45. Martha Finnemore, ’Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights from Sociology’s New Institutionalism’, International Organization, 50 (1996), pp. 325-42; Andrew P. Cortell and James W. Davis, Jr., ’How Do International Institutions Matter: The Domestic Impact of International Rules and Norms?’, International Studies Quarterly, 40 (1996), pp. 451-78; Harold Hingju Koh, ’Why Do Nations Obey International Law?’, The Yale Law Journal, 106 (1997), pp. 2599-2659; Jeffrey Checkel, ’Norms, Institutions and National Identity in Contemporary Europe’, International Studies Quarterly 43 (1999), pp. 83-114.
46. Martha Finnemore, ’Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights from Sociology’s New Institutionalism’, International Organization, 50 (1996), pp. 325-42; Andrew P. Cortell and James W. Davis, Jr., ’How Do International Institutions Matter: The Domestic Impact of International Rules and Norms?’, International Studies Quarterly, 40 (1996), pp. 451-78; Harold Hingju Koh, ’Why Do Nations Obey International Law?’, The Yale Law Journal, 106 (1997), pp. 2599-2659; Jeffrey Checkel, ’Norms, Institutions and National Identity in Contemporary Europe’, International Studies Quarterly 43 (1999), pp. 83-114.
47. Martha Finnemore, ’Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights from Sociology’s New Institutionalism’, International Organization, 50 (1996), pp. 325-42; Andrew P. Cortell and James W. Davis, Jr., ’How Do International Institutions Matter: The Domestic Impact of International Rules and Norms?’, International Studies Quarterly, 40 (1996), pp. 451-78; Harold Hingju Koh, ’Why Do Nations Obey International Law?’, The Yale Law Journal, 106 (1997), pp. 2599-2659; Jeffrey Checkel, ’Norms, Institutions and National Identity in Contemporary Europe’, International Studies Quarterly 43 (1999), pp. 83-114.
48. Robert Jervis, The Meaning of the Nuclear Revolution: Statecraft and the Prospects for Armageddon (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989), p. 183.
49. Herring, ’Nuclear Totem’, p. 16; Tannenwald, The Nuclear Taboo’.
50. Herring, ’Nuclear Totem’, p. 16; Tannenwald, The Nuclear Taboo’.
51. Herring, ’Nuclear Totem’, pp. 20-1.
52. Price and Tannenwald, ’Norms and Deterrence’, p. 120. In a later article, Tannenwald discusses ’Truman’s own post-Hiroshima abhorrence of nuclear weapons’. She also argues that the nuclear taboo shaped US responses to the outbreak of the Korea War in 1950. However, she does not discuss events betweeen 1945-50. Tannenwald, ’The Nuclear Taboo’, pp. 442-7.
53. Price and Tannenwald, ’Norms and Deterrence’, p. 120. In a later article, Tannenwald discusses ’Truman’s own post-Hiroshima abhorrence of nuclear weapons’. She also argues that the nuclear taboo shaped US responses to the outbreak of the Korea War in 1950. However, she does not discuss events betweeen 1945-50. Tannenwald, ’The Nuclear Taboo’, pp. 442-7.
54. Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (London: Fontana Press, 1996), pp. 437-97; Paul Boyer, By the Bomb’s Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age, 2nd edn. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994), pp. 291-318.
55. Gar Alperovitz, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb (London: Fontana Press, 1996), pp. 437-97; Paul Boyer, By the Bomb’s Early Light: American Thought and Culture at the Dawn of the Atomic Age, 2nd edn. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1994), pp. 291-318.
56. Barton J. Bernstein, ’Eclipsed by Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Early Thinking about Tactical Nuclear Weapons’, International Security, 15 (1991), p. 159.
57. Michael S. Sherry, Preparing for the Next War: American Plans for Postwar Defense, 1941-45 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1977), p. 210.
58. Peter D. Feaver, Guarding the Guardians: Civilian Control of Nuclear Weapons in the United States (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992), p. 125.
59. Ibid., pp. 87-218; see also Peter J. Roman, ’Ike’s Hair-Trigger: US Nuclear Predeledation, 1953-60’, Security Studies, 7 (1998), pp. 121-64. The assertion of civilian control in post-war America may be seen in the context of the Republic’s history, in which crisis-induced military growth has been typically followed by Congressional-enforced military entrenchment. Aaron L. Friedberg, In the Shadow of the Garrison State (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000).
60. Ibid., pp. 87-218; see also Peter J. Roman, ’Ike’s Hair-Trigger: US Nuclear Predeledation, 1953-60’, Security Studies, 7 (1998), pp. 121-64. The assertion of civilian control in post-war America may be seen in the context of the Republic’s history, in which crisis-induced military growth has been typically followed by Congressional-enforced military entrenchment. Aaron L. Friedberg, In the Shadow of the Garrison State (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000).
61. Ibid., pp. 87-218; see also Peter J. Roman, ’Ike’s Hair-Trigger: US Nuclear Predeledation, 1953-60’, Security Studies, 7 (1998), pp. 121-64. The assertion of civilian control in post-war America may be seen in the context of the Republic’s history, in which crisis-induced military growth has been typically followed by Congressional-enforced military entrenchment. Aaron L. Friedberg, In the Shadow of the Garrison State (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000).
62. Rufus E. Miles, Jr., ’Hiroshima: The Strange Myth of Half a Million Lives Saved’, International Security, 10 (1985), pp. 121-40; Robert Pape, ’Why Japan Surrendered’, International Security, 18 (1993), pp. 154-201; Alperovitz, Decision; Barton J. Berstein, Truman and the A-Bomb: Targeting Noncombatants, Using the Bomb, and his Defending the Decision’, Journal of Military History, 62 (1998), pp. 547-70.
63. Rufus E. Miles, Jr., ’Hiroshima: The Strange Myth of Half a Million Lives Saved’, International Security, 10 (1985), pp. 121-40; Robert Pape, ’Why Japan Surrendered’, International Security, 18 (1993), pp. 154-201; Alperovitz, Decision; Barton J. Berstein, Truman and the A-Bomb: Targeting Noncombatants, Using the Bomb, and his Defending the Decision’, Journal of Military History, 62 (1998), pp. 547-70.
64. Rufus E. Miles, Jr., ’Hiroshima: The Strange Myth of Half a Million Lives Saved’, International Security, 10 (1985), pp. 121-40; Robert Pape, ’Why Japan Surrendered’, International Security, 18 (1993), pp. 154-201; Alperovitz, Decision; Barton J. Berstein, Truman and the A-Bomb: Targeting Noncombatants, Using the Bomb, and his Defending the Decision’, Journal of Military History, 62 (1998), pp. 547-70.
65. Rufus E. Miles, Jr., ’Hiroshima: The Strange Myth of Half a Million Lives Saved’, International Security, 10 (1985), pp. 121-40; Robert Pape, ’Why Japan Surrendered’, International Security, 18 (1993), pp. 154-201; Alperovitz, Decision; Barton J. Berstein, Truman and the A-Bomb: Targeting Noncombatants, Using the Bomb, and his Defending the Decision’, Journal of Military History, 62 (1998), pp. 547-70.
66. David Alan Rosenberg, ’The Origins of Overkill: Nuclear Weapons and American Strategy, 1945-1960’, International Security, 7 (1983), pp. 12-14, 26.
67. Marc Trachtenberg, History and Strategy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991), pp. 106, 123-4.
68. John Lewis Gaddis, The Long Peace: Inquiries into the History of the Cold War (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983), p. 141.
69. Ibid, pp. 140-6.
70. Steven T. Ross, American War Plans, 1945-1950 (London: Frank Cass, 1996), p. 155; Bret J. Cillessen, ’Embracing the Bomb: Ethics, Morality, and Nuclear Deterrence in the US Air Force, 1945-1955’, Journal of Strategic Studies, 21 (1998), pp. 99-103.
71. Steven T. Ross, American War Plans, 1945-1950 (London: Frank Cass, 1996), p. 155; Bret J. Cillessen, ’Embracing the Bomb: Ethics, Morality, and Nuclear Deterrence in the US Air Force, 1945-1955’, Journal of Strategic Studies, 21 (1998), pp. 99-103.
72. Michael S. Sherry, The Rise of American Air Power: The Creation of Armageddon (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987), pp. 1-46.
73. Legro, Cooperation Under Fire, pp. 129-35; Stephen Peter Rosen, Winning the Next War: Innovation and the Modern Military (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991), pp. 150-7; Williamson Murray, ’Strategic Bombing: The British, American, and German Experiences’, in Murray and Allan R. Millet (eds.), Military Innovation in the Intrawar Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 116-27.
74. Legro, Cooperation Under Fire, pp. 129-35; Stephen Peter Rosen, Winning the Next War: Innovation and the Modern Military (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991), pp. 150-7; Williamson Murray, ’Strategic Bombing: The British, American, and German Experiences’, in Murray and Allan R. Millet (eds.), Military Innovation in the Intrawar Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 116-27.
75. Legro, Cooperation Under Fire, pp. 129-35; Stephen Peter Rosen, Winning the Next War: Innovation and the Modern Military (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991), pp. 150-7; Williamson Murray, ’Strategic Bombing: The British, American, and German Experiences’, in Murray and Allan R. Millet (eds.), Military Innovation in the Intrawar Period (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 116-27.
76. Ronald Schafler, Wings of Judgment: American Bombing in World War II (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985); Sherry, Rise, pp. 147-76; John Dower, War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War (New York: Pantheon Books 1986); Tami Davis Biddle, ’British and American Approaches to Strategic Bombing: Their Origins and Implementation in the World War II Combined Bomber Offensive’, and Hays W. Park, ’"Precision" and "Area" Bombing: Who Did Which and When?’, both articles in Journal of Strategic Studies, 18 (1995), pp. 91-174.
77. Ronald Schafler, Wings of Judgment: American Bombing in World War II (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985); Sherry, Rise, pp. 147-76; John Dower, War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War (New York: Pantheon Books 1986); Tami Davis Biddle, ’British and American Approaches to Strategic Bombing: Their Origins and Implementation in the World War II Combined Bomber Offensive’, and Hays W. Park, ’"Precision" and "Area" Bombing: Who Did Which and When?’, both articles in Journal of Strategic Studies, 18 (1995), pp. 91-174.
78. Ronald Schafler, Wings of Judgment: American Bombing in World War II (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985); Sherry, Rise, pp. 147-76; John Dower, War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War (New York: Pantheon Books 1986); Tami Davis Biddle, ’British and American Approaches to Strategic Bombing: Their Origins and Implementation in the World War II Combined Bomber Offensive’, and Hays W. Park, ’"Precision" and "Area" Bombing: Who Did Which and When?’, both articles in Journal of Strategic Studies, 18 (1995), pp. 91-174.
79. Ronald Schafler, Wings of Judgment: American Bombing in World War II (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985); Sherry, Rise, pp. 147-76; John Dower, War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War (New York: Pantheon Books 1986); Tami Davis Biddle, ’British and American Approaches to Strategic Bombing: Their Origins and Implementation in the World War II Combined Bomber Offensive’, and Hays W. Park, ’"Precision" and "Area" Bombing: Who Did Which and When?’, both articles in Journal of Strategic Studies, 18 (1995), pp. 91-174.
80. Ronald Schafler, Wings of Judgment: American Bombing in World War II (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985); Sherry, Rise, pp. 147-76; John Dower, War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War (New York: Pantheon Books 1986); Tami Davis Biddle, ’British and American Approaches to Strategic Bombing: Their Origins and Implementation in the World War II Combined Bomber Offensive’, and Hays W. Park, ’"Precision" and "Area" Bombing: Who Did Which and When?’, both articles in Journal of Strategic Studies, 18 (1995), pp. 91-174.
81. Rosenberg, ’Origins of Overkill’, p. 20.
82. A similar argument is developed in Lynn Eden, Constructing Destruction: Organizations, Knowledge, and the Effects of US Nuclear Weapons (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, forthcoming).
83. Sherry, Preparing, pp. 231-2.
84. Bernstein, ’Eclipsed’, p. 170.
85. Cited in Rosenberg, ’Origins of Overkill’, p. 15; see also Ross, American War Plans, pp. 56-7.
86. Cited in Rosenberg, ’Origins of Overkill’, p. 15; see also Ross, American War Plans, pp. 56-7.
87. Lynn Eden, ’Capitalist Conflict and the State: The Making of United States Military Policy in 1948’, in Charles Bright and Susan Harding (eds.), Statemaking and Social Movements (Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press, 1984), pp. 233-61.
88. Frank Kofsky, Harry S. Truman and the War Scare of 1948 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995).
89. David Goldfischer, The Best Defence: Policy Alternatives for US Nuclear Security from the 1950s to 1990s (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press), pp. 79-146.
90. Samuel R. Williamson, Jr. and Steven L. Reardon, The Origins of US Nuclear Strategy, 1945-1953 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993); Matthew A. Evangelista, ’Stalin’s Postwar Army Reappraised’, International Security, 7 (1982/83), pp. 110-38.
91. Samuel R. Williamson, Jr. and Steven L. Reardon, The Origins of US Nuclear Strategy, 1945-1953 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993); Matthew A. Evangelista, ’Stalin’s Postwar Army Reappraised’, International Security, 7 (1982/83), pp. 110-38.
92. Ross, American War Plans, pp. 107-32; Rosenberg, ’Origins of Overkill’, pp. 16-18.
93. Ross, American War Plans, pp. 107-32; Rosenberg, ’Origins of Overkill’, pp. 16-18.
94. Graham Spinardi, From Polaris to Trident: the Development of US Fleet Ballistic Missile Technology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 32-4.
95. Fred Kaplan, The Wizards of Armageddon (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983), pp. 201-18.
96. Scott D. Sagan, Moving Targets: Nuclear Strategy and National Security (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989), ch. 1.
97. Kaplan, Wizards, pp. 40-2, 104; Peter Pringle and William Arkin, SIOP: Nuclear War from the Inside (London: Sphere, 1983), pp. 24, 30.
98. Kaplan, Wizards, pp. 40-2, 104; Peter Pringle and William Arkin, SIOP: Nuclear War from the Inside (London: Sphere, 1983), pp. 24, 30.
99. Rosenberg, ’Origins of Overkill’, pp. 4-5, 36, 64-9.
100. Fred Charles Ikle, ’Can Nuclear Deterrence Last Out the Century?’, Foreign Affairs, 51 (1973), p. 281.
101. Terry Terriff, The Nixon Administration and the Making of US Nuclear Strategy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995), p. 178. This evidence undermines an earlier assessment that this review of the SIOP did result in real change in US nuclear targeting such that it conformed with international law. George Burns, ’US Law of Nuclear Weapons’, Naval War College Review, 32 (1984), pp. 57-9. Burns also erroneously asserts that US nuclear war plans prior to 1974 ’had not called for killing civilians for the sake of doing so’ (p. 58).
102. Terry Terriff, The Nixon Administration and the Making of US Nuclear Strategy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1995), p. 178. This evidence undermines an earlier assessment that this review of the SIOP did result in real change in US nuclear targeting such that it conformed with international law. George Burns, ’US Law of Nuclear Weapons’, Naval War College Review, 32 (1984), pp. 57-9. Burns also erroneously asserts that US nuclear war plans prior to 1974 ’had not called for killing civilians for the sake of doing so’ (p. 58).
103. Cited in Desmond Ball, Targeting for Strategic Deterrence (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies, 1983, Alephi Paper 185), p. 33. This theme was reiterated in Brown’s annual reports to Congress in 1979 and 1980.
104. US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The Effects of Nuclear War (London: Croom Helm, 1980), pp. 100-1, as cited in Ball, Targeting, p. 43.
105. US Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, The Effects of Nuclear War (London: Croom Helm, 1980), pp. 100-1, as cited in Ball, Targeting, p. 43.
106. Bruce G. Blair, John E. Pike, and Stephen L. Schwartz, ’Targeting and Controlling the Bomb’ in Schwartz (ed.), Atomic Audit (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1998), pp. 199, 205.
107. Bruce G. Blair, The Logic of Accidental Nuclear War (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1993), pp. 42-3.
108. ICJ Statute, art. 38 as reproduced in D. J. Harris, Cases and Materials on International Law (London: Sweet and Maxwell, 1998), Appendix I.
109. ICJ, ’Legality’, paras. 25 and 26.
110. Ibid., para. 30.
111. Ibid., para. 55.
112. Ibid., para. 62.
113. Ibid., para. 34.
114. Ibid., para. 41;
115. Nagenha Sigh, Nuclear Weapons and International Law (London: Stevens and Sons, 1959), pp. 109, 193.
116. ICJ, ’Legality’, para. 43.
117. Caroline Case, British and Foreign State Papers, 29 (1836), pp. 1137-8, and 30 (1837), pp. 195-6.
118. Caroline Case, British and Foreign State Papers, 29 (1836), pp. 1137-8, and 30 (1837), pp. 195-6.
119. William R. Hearn, ’The international legal regime regulating nuclear deterrence and warfare’, British Yearbook of International Law 1990, 61 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), pp. 211-13; Ian Brownlie, International Law and the Use of Force by States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 280.
120. William R. Hearn, ’The international legal regime regulating nuclear deterrence and warfare’, British Yearbook of International Law 1990, 61 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991), pp. 211-13; Ian Brownlie, International Law and the Use of Force by States (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963), p. 280.
121. Nicaragua Case, International Legal Materials, 25 (1986), p. 1068 (para. 194).
122. Naulilaa Case, Reports of International Arbitral Awards, 2 (1928), p. 1012.
123. Higgins, Problems, p. 240.
124. Hearn, ’International’, pp. 216-7. However, some legal scholars recognize the possibility that reprisal may constitute lawful self-defence. Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 216-7; Higgins, Problems, pp. 240-1; Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 786.
125. Hearn, ’International’, pp. 216-7. However, some legal scholars recognize the possibility that reprisal may constitute lawful self-defence. Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 216-7; Higgins, Problems, pp. 240-1; Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 786.
126. Hearn, ’International’, pp. 216-7. However, some legal scholars recognize the possibility that reprisal may constitute lawful self-defence. Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 216-7; Higgins, Problems, pp. 240-1; Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 786.
127. Hearn, ’International’, pp. 216-7. However, some legal scholars recognize the possibility that reprisal may constitute lawful self-defence. Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 216-7; Higgins, Problems, pp. 240-1; Malcolm N. Shaw, International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), p. 786.
128. Michael J. Matheson, ’The opinions of the International Court of Justice on the threat or use of nuclear weapons’, American Journal of International Law, 91 (1997), p. 432.
129. ICJ, ’Legality’, para. 46. For discussion on proportionality in self-defence, anticipatory self-defence, and belligerent reprisal, see Akande, ’Nuclear Weapons’, pp. 191-2.
130. ICJ, ’Legality’, para. 46. For discussion on proportionality in self-defence, anticipatory self-defence, and belligerent reprisal, see Akande, ’Nuclear Weapons’, pp. 191-2.
131. Ibid, para. 75; Best, Humanity.
132. Ibid, para. 75; Best, Humanity.
133. George Schwarzenberger, The Legality of Nuclear Weapons (London: Stevens and Sons, 1958), pp. 10-11.
134. ICJ, ’Legality’, paras. 86 and 87; Matheson, ’opinions’, p. 427.
135. ICJ, ’Legality’, paras. 86 and 87; Matheson, ’opinions’, p. 427.
136. ICJ, ’Legality’, para. 78.
137. Higgins, ’Dissenting Opinion’, pp. 3-4; see also Mohamed Shahabuddeen, ’Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen’, 1996, pp. 19-21.
138. Higgins, ’Dissenting Opinion’, pp. 3-4; see also Mohamed Shahabuddeen, ’Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen’, 1996, pp. 19-21.
139. Burrus Carnahan, ’Lincoln, Lieber, and the Laws of War: The Origins and Limits of the Principle of Military Necessity’, American Journal of International Law, 92 (1998), p. 231.
140. Weeramantry, ’Dissenting Opinion’, p. 48.
141. Matheson, ’Opinions’, p. 429.
142. ICJ, ’Legality’, para. 78.
143. Higgins, ’Dissenting Opinion’, p. 2.
144. Ibid, pp. 4-5.
145. Hearn, ’International’, pp. 235-7.
146. Stephen M. Schwebel, ’Dissenting Opinion of Vice-President Schwebel’, 1996, p. 7.
147. Higgins, ’Dissenting Opinion’, p. 5.
148. ICJ, ’Legality’, paras. 94 and 95.
149. In his testimony to the ICJ, the Australian Foreign Minister, Gareth Evans, was even more forthright in deriding scenarios of ’clean’ nuclear use as ’academic and unreal’. Cited in Christopher G. Weeramantry, ’Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry’, 1996, p. 83.
150. Weeramantry, ’Dissenting Opinion’, p. 48.
151. ICJ, ’Legality’, para. 36.
152. Mohamed Shahabuddeen, ’Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen’, p. 17.
153. Koroma,’Dissenting Opinion’, p. 11.
154. This is also argued in Warner, ’Nuclear Weapons’, pp. 321-4.
155. Most legal scholars agree that opinio juris plays an important role in transforming state practice into customary international law, but there is little agreement as to the precise character of opinio juris. Debate revolves around how to read a sense of legal obligation in state practice. Byers, Custom, chs. 8-9. See also Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), pp. 7-11.
156. Most legal scholars agree that opinio juris plays an important role in transforming state practice into customary international law, but there is little agreement as to the precise character of opinio juris. Debate revolves around how to read a sense of legal obligation in state practice. Byers, Custom, chs. 8-9. See also Ian Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998), pp. 7-11.
157. ICJ, ’Legality’, para. 67.
158. Ibid., para. 195(2) E.
159. Ibid., para. 15.
160. Richard A. Falk, ’Nuclear Weapons, International Law and the World Court: A Historic Encounter’, American Journal of International Law, 91 (1997), p. 71; Christopher Greenwood, ’Jus ad bellum and jus in bello in the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion’, in Laurence Boisson de Chazournes and Philippe Sands (eds.), International Law, the Court of International Justice, and Nuclear Weapons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 261; Higgins, ’Dissenting Opinion’, p. 2.
161. Richard A. Falk, ’Nuclear Weapons, International Law and the World Court: A Historic Encounter’, American Journal of International Law, 91 (1997), p. 71; Christopher Greenwood, ’Jus ad bellum and jus in bello in the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion’, in Laurence Boisson de Chazournes and Philippe Sands (eds.), International Law, the Court of International Justice, and Nuclear Weapons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 261; Higgins, ’Dissenting Opinion’, p. 2.
162. Richard A. Falk, ’Nuclear Weapons, International Law and the World Court: A Historic Encounter’, American Journal of International Law, 91 (1997), p. 71; Christopher Greenwood, ’Jus ad bellum and jus in bello in the Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion’, in Laurence Boisson de Chazournes and Philippe Sands (eds.), International Law, the Court of International Justice, and Nuclear Weapons (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 261; Higgins, ’Dissenting Opinion’, p. 2.
163. To be conclusive, such a finding would require a study of the targeting practice of other nuclear powers which is beyond the scope of this article. A useful step in this direction is: Peter R. Lavoy, Scott D. Sagan, and James J. Wirtz (eds.), Planning the Unthinkable: How New Nuclear Powers Will Use Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Weapons (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000).