The French “Interpretative Declaration” Regarding Nuclear Weapons
by John Burroughs
July 5, 2000
In ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on June 9, 2000, France included an "Interpretative Declaration" (text below) which among other things stated as follows:
2. The provisions of article 8 of the Statute, in particular paragraph 2 (b) thereof, relate solely to conventional weapons and can neither regulate nor prohibit the possible use of nuclear weapons nor impair the other rules of international law applicable to other weapons necessary to the exercise by France of its inherent right of self-defence .... [Emphasis added; for full text of the ''Declaration" and the original, see attachment.]
There is nothing in the Statute which supports this "interpretation". Nor, so far as the Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy is aware, is there anything (except perhaps from France itself) in the negotiating history of the Statute which supports this "interpretation". The fact that nuclear weapons were not included among those weapons whose use was expressly criminalized (expanding bullets, poison, poisonous and analogous materials, Art. 8(2)(b)(xvii), (xviii), and (xix)) has no bearing on whether the other provisions of Article 8 apply. That a weapon was proposed for but not included on the list of prohibited weapons - whether landmine, blinding laser weapon, depleted uranium munition, or nuclear weapon - does not mean, for example, that it can be used to attack civilians, civilian objects, undefended towns, religious buildings, hospitals, combatants who have surrendered, medical units displaying Geneva Convention emblems, or UN peacekeeping personnel, all protected by various provisions of Article 8(2)(b), or that it can be used to carry out an attack causing disproportionate damage to civilian society or the environment (Art. 8(2)(b)(iv)).
It should go without saying that humanitarian law applies to nuclear weapons just as it does to all other weapons. The International Court of Justice observed that the conclusion that humanitarian law did not apply to nuclear weapons "would be incompatible with the intrinsically humanitarian character of the legal principles in question which permeates the entire law of armed conflict and applies to all forms of warfare and to all kinds of weapons, those of the past, those of the present and those of the future." Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996), para. 86, emphasis added. The ICJ also noted that "[n]one of the statements made before the Court in any way advocated a freedom to use nuclear weapons without regard to humanitarian constraints" and quoted statements of three nuclear weapon states (Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) affirming that law governing the conduct of armed conflict applies to nuclear weapons. Para. 86. One of the cardinal principles identified by the ICJ as applying to nuclear weapons, the principle of distinction protecting the civilian population and civilian objects (para. 78, also para. 95), is reflected in the Rome Statute prohibitions of attacking civilians or civilian objects (Art. 8(2)(b)(i) and (ii)).
The Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy urges states to set forth in a written communication the unacceptability of the French "interpretation" regarding nuclear weapons, to counteract any invidious effect the French position may have on the Statute and international law, and to contribute to the continuing delegitimation of nuclear weapons in multiple international settings.
The "interpretation" is subject to challenge first because it amounts to a reservation, and reservations are barred by the Statute, Article 120. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 2(d), defines a reservation as a "unilateral statement, however phrased or named, made by a State, when signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, whereby it purports to exclude or modify the legal effect of certain provisions of the treaty in their application to that State". (Emphasis added.) Here the French "interpretation" purports to modify the legal effect of the Statute's war crimes provisions by denying their applicability to nuclear weapons. See Arbitration between the United Kingdom and France on the Delimitation of the Continental Shelf, Decision of 30 June 1977, 18 I.L.M. 397, 418, para. 55 (1979). The "interpretation" is therefore a reservation, and as such is not permissible or valid pursuant to Article 120 and is a nullity. See Art. 19(a), Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
The "interpretation" is subject to challenge second because even if considered to be a true interpretative statement it is incorrect for the reasons stated above.
States may also wish to address other elements of the "Interpretative Declaration", including but not limited to the reference to "other rules of international law applicable to other weapons necessary to the exercise by France of its inherent right of self-defence" quoted above and provision (1) of the "Declaration" stating that the provisions of the Statute "do not preclude France from exercising its inherent right of self-defence". France's invocation of the right of self-defense notwithstanding, and as the Statute reflects, humanitarian law applies equally to aggressor and defender states. Equal application avoids varying the content of humanitarian law depending on the determination of whether a state is acting in self-defense, a determination that would be made in the first instance by planners of military operations who are nationals of the state in question.
Attachment
"DECLARATIONS" MADE BY FRANCE UPON RATIFYING THE STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, JUNE 9, 2000 (official translation)
I. Interpretative Declarations:
The provisions of the Statute of the International Criminal Court do not preclude France from exercising its inherent right of self-defence in conformity with Article 51 of the Charter.
The provisions of article 8 of the Statute, in particular paragraph 2 (b) thereof, relate solely to conventional weapons and can neither regulate nor prohibit the possible use of nuclear weapons nor impair the other rules of international law applicable to other weapons necessary to the exercise by France of its inherent right of self-defence, unless nuclear weapons or the other weapons referred to herein become subject in the future to a comprehensive ban and are specified in an annex to the Statute by means of an amendment adopted in accordance with the provisions of articles 121 and 123.
The Government of the French Republic considers that the term ‘armed conflict’ in article 8, paragraphs 2 (b) and (c), in and of itself and in its context refers to a situation of a kind which does not include the commission of ordinary crimes, including acts of terrorism, whether collective or isolated.
The situation referred to in article 8, paragraph 2 (b) (xxiii), of the Statute does not preclude France from directing attacks against objectives considered as military objectives under international humanitarian law.
The Government of the French Republic declares that the term ‘military advantage’ in article 8, paragraph 2 (b) (iv), refers to the advantage anticipated from the attack as a whole and not from isolated or specific elements thereof.
The Government of the French Republic declares that a specific area may be considered a ‘military objective’ as referred to in article 8, paragraph 2 (b) as a whole if, by reason of its situation, nature, use, location, total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, taking into account the circumstances of the moment, it offers a decisive military advantage.
The Government of the French Republic considers that the provisions of article 8, paragraph 2 (b) (ii) and (v), do not refer to the possible collateral damage resulting from attacks directed against military objectives.
The Government of the French Republic declares that the risk of damage to the natural environment as a result of the use of methods and means of warfare, as envisaged in article 8, paragraph 2 (b) (iv), must be weighed objectively on the basis of the information available at the time of its assessment.
II. Declaration pursuant to article 87, paragraph 2
Pursuant to article 87, paragraph 2, of the Statute, the French Republic declares that requests for cooperation, and any documents supporting the request, addressed to it by the Court must be in the French language.
III. Declaration under article 124
Pursuant to article 124 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court, the French Republic declares that it does not accept the jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the category of crimes referred to in article 8 when a crime is alleged to have been committed by its nationals or on its territory.
Original of "Interpretative Declarations", part I above:
DECLARATION INTERPRETATIVE DE LA FRANCE
(1) Les dispositions du Statut de la Cour pénale internationale ne font pas obstacle à l’exercise par la France de son droit naturel de légitime défense, et ce conformément à l’article 51 de la Charte.
(2) Les dispositions de l’article 8 du Statut, en particulier celles du paragraphe 2 b), concernent exclusivement les armaments classiques et ne sauraient ni réglementer ni interdire l’emploi éventuel de l’arme nucléaire ni porter préjudice aux autres règles du droit international applicables à d’autres armes, necessaires à l’exercise par la France de son droit naturel de légitime défense, à moins que l’arme nucléaire ou ces autres armes ne fassent l’objet dans l’avenir d’une interdiction générale et ne soient inscrites dans une annexe au Statut, par voie d’amendement adopté selon les dispositions des articles 121 et 123.
(3) Le Gouvernement de la République française considère que l’expression « conflit armé » dans l’article 8, paragraphes 2 b) et c), d’elle-même et dans son contexte, indique une situation d’un genre qui ne comprend pas la commission de crimes ordinaires, y compris les actes de terrorisme, qu’ils soient collectifs ou isolés.
(4) La situation à laquelle les dispositions de l’article 8, paragraphe 2 b) (xxiii) du Statut font référence ne fait pas obstacle au lancement par la France d’attaques contre des objectifs considérés comme des objectifs militaries en vertu du droit international humanitaire.
(5) Le Gouvernement de la République française déclare que l’expression « avantage militaire » à l’article 8 paragraphe 2 b) (iv) désigne l’avantage attendu de l’ensemble de l’attaque et non de parties isolées ou particulières de l’attaque.
(6) Le Gouvernement de la République française declare qu’un zone spécifique peut être considérée comme un « objectif militaire », tel qu’évoqué dans l’ensemble du paragraphe 2 b) de l’article 8, si, à cause de sa situation ou de sa nature, de son utilisation ou de son emplacement, sa destruction totale ou partielle, sa capture ou sa neutrilisation, compte-tenu des circonstances du moment, offre un avantage militaire décisif.
Le Gouvernement de la République française considère que les dispositions de l’article 8 paragraphe 2 b) (ii) et (v) ne visent pas les éventuels dommages collatéraux résultant des attaques dirigées contre des objectifs mlitaires.
(7) Le Gouvernement de la République française considère que la risque de dommages à l’environnement naturel résultant de l’utilisation des méthodes et moyens de guerre, tel qu’il découle des dispositions de l’article 8 paragraphe 2 b) (iv), doit être analysé objectivement sur la base de l’information disponible au moment où il est apprécié.