“According to current doctrine, Russia could use its nuclear arsenal in response to the use of nuclear weapons and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons, when the very existence of the State is in danger, while, according to the formulation of the new doctrine, the spectrum of factors triggering the possible use of nuclear weapons by Moscow would significantly expand”. The lawyer Marco Valerio Verni, representative of the Law area of ’Defense Online’, explains this to Adnkronos, explaining the implications of the words of the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, on the use of nuclear weapons.
Moscow, the lawyer reports, “could draw on its atomic arsenal both preventively, if it received ‘reliable information on the launch of ballistic missiles directed towards the territory of Russia or its allies’ and in the event of a military aggression against Belarus, a country ally, both in the case of a ‘joint attack on the Russian Federation, by a non-nuclear state but with the participation or support of a nuclear state’. In short – continues the expert – a lowering, in some ways, of the threshold of use previously in existence, due, according to Moscow, to the change in current military dynamics”.
As for international law and the possible use of nuclear weapons, the lawyer Verni explains that “generally speaking, the legality or otherwise of the use of nuclear weapons has been a debated issue since the end of the Second World War, after the devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States” but, to date, “has not yet found a certain and definitive answer”. “In fact, among jurists, there are, on the one hand, those who maintain that they would be indiscriminate weapons that would cause unnecessary suffering, the effects of which, moreover, would end up involving also states not participating in the conflict, in contrast, therefore, with the principle of neutrality – underlines the lawyer – and who, on the other hand, theorises their possible use, in conformity with both the principle of non-discrimination and those of neutrality and the prohibition on causing unnecessary suffering, since, as generally happens , the compliance of a weapon with these principles should be assessed in relation to the importance of the military objective and the criteria of necessity and proportionality”.
“On this point – continues the lawyer Verni – the International Court of Justice intervened, through its consultative opinion issued in 1996, following a question posed by the General Assembly of the United Nations as to whether the threat or the use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances'”. Verni reports that if on the one hand the Court affirmed the “general illegality of both the use and, even before that, also of the ‘simple’ threat of the use of nuclear weapons, on the other hand, it did not absolutely exclude the illegality of such a scenario, thus leaving a dangerous vulnerability in this sense”. “Not that – he continues – the opinion ‘from here’ can be considered binding for the States, but it is certainly a non-secondary legal basis of support for those who wish to justify, at the level of international law, their action in this sense “.
“More recently, on January 22, 2021, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons entered into force, thanks to the exceeding of the fifty ratifications foreseen, which, based on the principles and rules of international humanitarian norms, stated, in in particular, the principle that the right of participants in an armed conflict to choose methods of combat is not unlimited, as well as both the rule that all armament must be able to distinguish between civilians and combatants and the prohibition on the use of weapons may cause superfluous wounds or unnecessary suffering – continues the expert – In particular, the use and threat of nuclear weapons are explicitly prohibited, even in the case of retaliation, since the States parties have the obligation not to never resort to atomic weapons.” “What is provided for in this Treaty, however, is of a merely conventional nature and therefore, at the moment, valid only for the States that have signed it”, observes Verni, explaining that “among them there are not those most involved in the current scenario”.
On the possibilities of intervention by Western countries to stem, with the weapons of law, the nuclear threat, Verni observes: “The law can provide for the classic sanctioning measures, which are in part already in place, precisely following the Russian invasion to the detriment of of Ukraine. But they are useful up to a certain point if the hoped-for effects are difficult to arrive or are not those expected. If anything, a diplomatic effort would be needed to avoid a further continuation of the war or a worsening of its intensity”.
#Ukraine #Verni #Defense #Online #Moscows #doctrine #nuclear #power #implies