Iran vs the United States on the legality of using nuclear weapons

Reza Nasri
by Reza Nasri

For those interested in some legal history:

In 1995, the U.N General Assembly asked the following question to the International Court of Justice: "Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstances permitted under international law?"

Some countries, including both Iran and the United States, decided to submit their views in order to help the Court reach a conclusion.

Interestingly, the United States argued that using or threatening to use nuclear weapons is not illegal under international law, while Iran strongly maintained that the threat or use of such weapons is clearly unlawful.

Here are their respective positions:

United States: "In the view of the United States, there is no general prohibition in conventional or customary international law on the threat or use of nuclear weapons . On the contrary, numerous agreements regulating the possession or use of nuclear weapons and other state practice demonstrate that their threat or use is not deemed to be generally unlawful. Moreover, nothing in the body of international humanitarian law of armed conflict indicates that nuclear weapons are prohibited per se."

Iran: "Notwithstanding that the prohibition of threat or use of force is a fundamental principle and a preemptory norm of international law, the humanitarian international law imposes certain restrictions on the conduct of States in times of conflict, for the purpose of alleviating the sufferings of human beings in times of armed conflict….The non-existence of legally binding instruments on the prohibition of certain types of weapons does not mean that States have an absolute right to use them….It is not logical to conclude that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is permitted, when the international community has prohibited other weapons of mass destruction with much less effects on human life."

Now, you be the judge.


more from Reza Nasri

Change of Israeli regime for Fred's sake and all tennis players

by MaryamJoon on

The only way to end Fred's nightmare is to over throw the Israeli government and replace it with Reza Pahlavi so that Fred's time can better be spent on learning to live in peace along side Palestinians and learning to play tennis, like he has always wanted, instead of writing the same thing over and over again on the internet.  Backbreaking and airtight refusal to sell Netanyahu Palestinian hummus and pita bread is a must.   


Lying, Taghieh

by Fred on

It is a matter of undisputed fact that lying, Taghieh,  is a principle of the Messianic Islamist Rapists’ dogma.  

For the past 34 years the Islamist Rapists have claimed among other things that:

They hold no political prisoners,

They did not commit crime against humanity by massacring thousands of Iranians during the Prime Ministership of Mir Hussein Mousavi Khameneh,

They do not commit international terrorist operations,

Now, any first year law student would know what any statement of fact offered by such proven habitual liar is worth.

Their cyber lawyers like it or not, the world has judged and rejected the lying, murdering, raping, terrorist Messianic Islamist Rapists.


Each side is defending its own Interests.

by amirparvizforsecularmonarchy on

The side with nukes, the usa, wants them to have value/uses.

The side without nukes, IRI, wants them to be of no use/worth less. 

Neiher side has respect for Law or acts Lawfully.  This is the key Difference between the USA past and present, the IRI, and the late shahs Iran.  The late shah honored the law and was not busy breaking it, but uphlding it, none of the others were or are behaving on that line.