Comparative Law Researches

Comparative Law Researches

An Analysis of Strategic Bombing of Civilian Areas and the Policy of Nuclear Deterrence in Light of the 1996 ICJ Advisory Opinion and Military Realities

Document Type : Original Research

Authors
Seyyed Reza Rafiee 1
Hasan Savari 2
1 Ph.D. Student in international law from Bu-Ali Sina University,Hamadan, Iran
2 Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Department of International Law, Tarbiat Modares University,Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
Strategic bombing of population centers and civilian industrial and communication facilities is a widely-used method by involved parties in the wars waged in the 20th century. This strategy which aim at destruction of the economic power and the population morale is in contrast with the principles of international humanitarian law regarding the distinction between belligerents and non-belligerents. In its advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons in 1996, the International Court of Justice, on the one hand insisted on the principle of distinction between combatants and non-combatants and on the other, recognized the deterrence policy as state practice, hence having legal effect. reviewing of some of the technical details and requirements of the deterrence policy leads to the conclusion that this policy is a continuation of the older concepts of total war and strategic bombing. Therefore, the recognition of the deterrence policy in international law is a tacit recognition of the possibility of the principle of distinction being violated in some cases. Hence, the strategy of some States, including the Islamic Republic of Iran for retaliatory attacks on the cities of their adversaries can be legally justified on this basis.
Keywords
total war
strategic bombing
policy of deterrence
1996 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice
principle of distinction

Subjects

7-1. فارسی
1. پایگاه اطلاع‌رسانی رهبری، «بیانات مهم رهبر معظم انقلاب درباره ارزیابی از وضع کنونی و پیشرفت‌های ملت ایران/ مذاکره با آمریکا/ الزامات حماسه اقتصادی/ انتخابات ریاست جمهوری»، بازدید شده در 6 خرداد 1396، قابل دسترسی در: http://www.leader.ir/fa/content/10497
2. خبرگزاری تسنیم، «سرلشکر صفوی: ۸۰ هزارموشک حزب‌الله آماده شلیک به تل آویو و حیفا است»، 21 اردیبهشت 1394، بازدید شده در 6 خرداد 1396، قابل دسترسی در:
https://www.tasnimnews.com/fa/news/1394/02/31/746429/%D8%B3%D8%B1%D9%84%D8%B4%DA%A9%D8%B1-%D8%B5%D9% 81%D9%88%DB%8C-80%D9%87%D8%B2%D8 %A7%D8%B1-%D9%85%D9%88%D8%B4%DA %A9-%D8%AD%D8%B2%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%A2%D9%85%D8 %A7%D8%AF%D9%87 %D8%B4%D9%84%DB% 8C%DA%A9-%D8%A8%D9%87-%D8%AA%D9%84 %D8%A2%D9 %88%DB%8C %D9%88%D9%88%D8%AD%DB%8C%D9%81%D8%A7-%D8%A7 %D8%B3%D8%AA
3. ساعد، نادر، حقوق بشردوستانه و سلاح‌های هسته‌ای، تهران، مؤسسه مطالعات پژوهش‌های حقوقی، 1386.
4. عسگرخانی، ابومحمد، «سیری در نظریه‌های بازدارندگی، خلع سلاح و کنترل تسلیحات هسته‌ای»، سیاست دفاعی، شماره 25، 1377.
7-2. انگلیسی
5. Bowyer, Richard, Dictionary of Military Terms, London, A&C Black Publishers Ltd, third edition, 2007.
6. Brauer, Jurgen and Van Tuyll, Hubert (2008), Castles, Battles, and Bombs: How Economics Explains Military History, London,The University of Chicago Press, 2008.
7. Buckley, John, Air Power in the Age of Total War, London, UCL Press, 2001.
8. Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 1949.
9. Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Geneva, 1949.
10. Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Article 13, Geneva, 1949.
11. Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 1949.
12. Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, (Ottawa Convention), 18 September 1997.
13. Declaration of Judge Herczegh (Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996).
14. Dissenting Opinion of Judge Koroma (Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996).
15. Dissenting Opinion of Judge Schwebel (Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996).
16. Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen (Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996).
17. Dissenting Opinion of Judge Weeramantry (Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996).
18. Encyclopedia Britannica, “Strategic Bombing”, 9 August 2016, available at: http://www.britannica.com/topic/strategic-bombing, retrieved: 11 February 2018.
19. Gardam, Judith (2004), Necessity, Proportionality and the Use of Force by States, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2004.
20. Henckaerts, Jean-Marie and Doswald-Beck, Louise (edited by), Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 1, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009.
21. International Law Commission, ‘Guiding Principles Applicable to Unilateral Declarations of States Capable of Creating Legal Obligations, with Commentaries Thereto’, 2006.
22. Jochnick, Chris af and Normand, Roger, “The Legitimation of Violence: A Critical History of the Laws of War”, Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 35, No. 1, 1994, 49-95.
23. Kristensen, Hans M. and Norris, Robert S., “Slowing Nuclear Weapon Reductions and Endless Nuclear Weapon Modernizations: A Challenge to the NPT”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 70, No. 4, 2014, 94-107.
24. Kristensen, Hans M. and Norris, Robert S.,“Status of World Nuclear Forces”, updated in May 2019, available at: https://fas.org/issues /nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear-forces retrieved: 24 August 2019.
25. Kristensen, Hans M. et al.,“From Counterforce to Minimal Deterrence: A New Nuclear Policy on the Path Toward Eliminating Nuclear Weapons”, Occasional Paper No. 7, 2009, available at: https://fas.org/pubs/_docs/occasionalpaper7.pdf retrieved: 11 February 2018.
26. Kristensen, Hans M., “Non-Strategic Nuclear Weapons”, Federation of American Scientists, Special Report No 3, May 2012, available at: https://fas.org/_docs/Non_Strategic_Nuclear_Weapons.pdf retrieved: 11 February 2018.
27. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, I.C.J. Reports 1996.
28. Levine, Alan J.,The Strategic Bombing of Germany, 1940–1945, Westport,Praeger Publishers, 1992.
29. Malik, John, “The Yields of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki Nuclear Explosions”, Los Alamos National Laboratory, LA-8819, 1985.
30. McSmith, Andy (18 July 2016),“Theresa May Says She Would Kill ‘100,000 Men, Women and Children’ with a Nuclear Bomb”, available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-trident-debate-nuclear-bomb-yes-live-latest-news-a7143386.html retrieved: 11 February 2018.
31. Melzer, Nils, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law, Geneva, International Committee of the Red Cross, 2009.
32. Nuclear Weapon Archive (1997), “The B-41 (Mk-41) Bomb: High Yield Strategic Thermonuclear Bomb”, available at: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/B41.html retrieved: 11 February 2018.
33. Nuclear Weapon Archive, “Big Ivan, The Tsar Bomba (“King of Bombs”): The World's Largest Nuclear Weapon”, 3 September 2007, available at: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html retrieved: 11 February 2018.
34. Office of Technology Assessment of the Congress of United States (1979), “The Effects of Nuclear War”, available at: ota.fas.org/reports /7906.pdfretrieved: 11 February 2018.
35. Office of the [US] Secretary of Defense, ‘Nuclear Posture Review’, 2018, available at: https://media.defense.gov/2018/Feb/02/2001872877 /-1/-1/1/EXECUTIVE-SUMMARY.PDF retrieved: 11 February 2018.
36. Prosecutor vs. Kupreskic and others, IT-95-16-T, 14 January 2000.
37. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
38. Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons (Protocol III), 10 October 1980.
39. Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, 10 October 1980.
40. Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended on 3 May 1996.
41. Richard, Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 1986.
42. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998.
43. Ryall, Julian, “South Korea Threatens to Reduce Pyongyang 'to Ashes'”, 11 September 2016, available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ news/2016/09/11/seoul-threatens-to-reduce-pyongyang-to-ashesretrieved: 11 February 2018.
44. RyuichiShimoda v. The State, District Court of Tokyo, 1963.
45. Sassoli, Marco, “The Implementation of International Humanitarian Law: Current and Inherent Challenges”, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 10, 2007.
46. Smith-Spark, Laura (), “Trump: US Must Be 'Top of the Pack' in Nuclear Weapons Capability”, 24 February 2017, available at: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/24/politics/trump-interview-nuclear-weaponsretrieved: 11 February 2018.
47. Strategic Air Command, “Atomic Weapons Requirements Study for 1959 (sm 129-56)”, 1956, available at: https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/ nukevault/ebb538-Cold-War-Nuclear-Target-List-Declassified-First-Ever/ retrieved: 11 February 2018.
48. United States Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS), Aircraft Division Industry Report, Washington DC, USSBS, 2nd edition, 1947.