" A threat or use of force by means of nuclear weapons that is contrary to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and that fails to meet all the requirements of Article 51, is unlawful; "

" A threat or use of nuclear weapons should also be compatible with the requirements of the international law applicable in armed conflict, particularly those of the principles and rules of international humanitarian law, as well as with specific obligations under treaties and other undertakings which expressly deal with nuclear weapons; "

" It follows from the above-mentioned requirements that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law; "

" However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake; "

" There exists and obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. "

Of the above quotes, all but the third was voted on unanimously by all fourteen judges. When it came to the third, the judges were split down the middle. Following the publication of the ICJ ruling, official nuclear weapons states used this section to claim that their nuclear stance was within international law. This was despite text in the opinion stating that this section of the judgement should not be used as a 'loophole'!

Friends of the Earth Flanders & Brussels (formerly For Mother Earth) is a member of Friends of the Earth International