Pavel Latushka: Deputy Head of the United Transitional Cabinet of Belarus, Head of the National Anti-Crisis Management, Ambassador
Regime propagandists continue to promote the importance of stationing tactical nuclear weapons in Belarus, using this as a justification for Lukashenko's aspirations of nuclear power. However, Lukashenko and his associates have failed to inform the Belarusian people about the potential risks and consequences associated with deploying such weapons in our country. What are these risks?
From a legal standpoint, it is crucial to consider the following aspects:
Legality of the use of nuclear weapons;
Legal consequences for Belarus.
Legality of the use of nuclear weapons
On July 8, 1996, in response to this request, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion on customary international law and the applicability of international humanitarian law to nuclear weapons. The opinion highlighted the following points:
Neither customary nor conventional international law explicitly authorizes the threat or use of nuclear weapons.
There is no comprehensive and universal prohibition on the threat or use of nuclear weapons in either customary or conventional international law.
The threat or use of nuclear weapons, which violates Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and fails to meet the requirements of Article 51, is unlawful.
The threat or use of nuclear weapons must also comply with the relevant provisions of international law applicable in armed conflicts, including principles and rules of international humanitarian law, as well as specific obligations under treaties and other agreements pertaining to nuclear weapons.
Based on these requirements, the threat or use of nuclear weapons generally contradicts the rules of international law applicable in armed conflicts, particularly humanitarian law principles and norms.
However, due to the current state of international law and the evidence presented, the Court was unable to reach a definitive conclusion regarding the legality or illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons in extreme self-defense circumstances where the very survival of a state is at risk.
This opinion took into account extensive legal analysis and scientific evidence presented by states. To date, there is no reason to believe that international law provisions on this matter have undergone significant changes, except for the accession of certain countries to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons on July 7, 2017.
From an international law perspective, it is currently impossible to assert the illegality of threats or the use of nuclear weapons by Belarus or Russia in situations that could be classified as extreme self-defense circumstances, where the survival of the state is at stake. In today's context, it is also impossible to assert the existence of such circumstances that could come from any countries in relation to Belarus (perhaps except Russia) or Russia itself. It is also difficult to envision conditions in which the use of such weapons of mass destruction would comply with the principles of international humanitarian law governing the conduct of hostilities.
Legal consequences for Belarus
To provide an accurate legal assessment, it is crucial to determine who directly uses nuclear weapons (issues the orders and carries out the actions).
In the most obvious scenario, if Russia were to use nuclear weapons (under the orders of its leadership and armed forces) from Belarusian territory, such actions would constitute various forms of aggression by both Belarus (providing territory for an act of aggression) and Russia (bombing the territory of another country).
In this case, the conditions for implementing the provisions of Article 51 of the UN Charter will be triggered, namely the right to individual or collective self-defense. Military objectives and combatants involved in such aggression, or those who potentially might be involved in subsequent attacks, would become legitimate targets for counterstrikes in self-defense. It is important to emphasize that a number of states possessing nuclear weapons directly stated the possibility of using them as a retaliatory measure during the hearings on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. This approach also extends to collective self-defense, that is, for example, in response to an attack using nuclear weapons against Ukraine, third countries exercising collective self-defense can use such weapons to defend Ukraine. At the same time, these states are not exempt from the obligation to comply with the principles of international humanitarian law for the conduct of military operations.
In this case, the provisions of Article 51 of the UN Charter would come into effect, specifically the right to individual or collective self-defense. Military objectives and combatants involved in such aggression, or those potentially involved in subsequent attacks, would become legitimate targets for counterstrikes in self-defense. It is important to emphasize that several states possessing nuclear weapons have explicitly stated the possibility of using them as a retaliatory measure during the International Court of Justice hearings. This approach also extends to collective self-defense, meaning that third countries exercising collective self-defense can employ nuclear weapons to defend Ukraine in response to an attack using such weapons. However, these states remain obligated to comply with the principles of international humanitarian law governing military operations.
Lukashenko's recurring "nuclear dreams" present a significant threat to the security of the country, though the regime's propaganda fails to acknowledge this fact. Nevertheless, both Russia and Belarus will be held accountable for any form of "act of aggression" they may commit. Furthermore, all senior officials of states involved in the aforementioned violations will face criminal charges for their involvement in acts of aggression and war crimes.
Comments