Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: The threat or use of nuclear weapons is legal in desperate defense

From Debatepedia

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 07:49, 13 February 2008 (edit)
Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs)

← Previous diff
Current revision (16:29, 5 June 2010) (edit)
Renergy (Talk | contribs)
(Parent debate)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
==Parent debate== ==Parent debate==
-*[[Debate:Nuclear Weapons, Abolition of]]+*[[Debate: Abolition of nuclear weapons]]
- +
==Supporting evidence== ==Supporting evidence==
*'''In 1996, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled''', "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."[http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions_government/article_943.jsp] *'''In 1996, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled''', "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."[http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions_government/article_943.jsp]

Current revision

Parent debate

Supporting evidence

  • In 1996, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled, "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."[1]

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.