Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against Sample Clauses

Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against. Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) (Merits) ICJ Rep 1986, 14. International Court of Justice, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, ICJ Reports 1996, 226. International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa) notwithstanding Security Council Resolution 276 (1970) (Advisory Opinion) 21 June 1971, I.C.J. Rep 1971, 16. International Court of Justice, Case concerning armed activities on the territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), Judgment, (19 December 2005) ICJ Rep 2005, 168. International Court of Justice, Pulp Xxxxx on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, ICJ Rep 2010, 14. Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Moiwana Community v. Suriname, (Series C, No. 124) (15 June 2005). Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Xxxxxxxxx-Xxxxx v. Colombia, Judgment (12 September 2005). Inter-American Court of Human Rights, The Sawhoyamaxa Indigenous Community v. Paraguay Judgment (Merits, Reparations and Costs) (29 March 2006). Inter-American Court of Human Rights, Saramaka People v. Suriname, Series C No. 172 (28 November 2007).

Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities In and Against. Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America); Merits, International Court of Justice (ICJ), 27 June 1986, (available at xxxx://xxx.xxxxxxxx.xxx/cases,ICJ,4023a44d2.html) (last accessed 27 December 2017), paras.193-195. 430 See ICJ Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion (1996), para.35 (“The destructive power of nuclear weapons cannot be contained in either space or time. They have the potential to destroy al1 civilization and the entire ecosystem of the planet. The radiation released by a nuclear explosion would affect health, agriculture, natural resources and demography over a very wide area. Further, the use of nuclear weapons would be a serious danger to future generations. Ionizing radiation has the potential to damage the future environment, food and marine ecosystem, and to cause genetic defects and illness in future generations.”). 431 Note that the ICJ could not definitively conclude that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is per se prohibited under international law, ICJ Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion (1996), para.95 (“In view of the unique characteristics of nuclear weapons, to which the Court has referred above, the use of such weapons in fact seems scarcely reconcilable with respect for such requirements. Nevertheless, the Court considers that it does not have sufficient elements to enable it to conclude with certainty that the use of nuclear weapons would necessarily be at variance with the principles and rules of law applicable in armed conflict in any circumstance.”). The value protected by the crime of aggression is state sovereignty. Environmental harm would be an additional harm but not the core of the criminality targeted by this prohibition. The notion of the state overlaps in several important respects with the notion of the environment, particularly in a legal sense as each state is typically sovereign over its territory and responsible for the environment therein. But the environment as an entity needs protection going beyond state territorial boundaries. There are areas outside of state boundaries, transitory cross-border environmental elements such as migrating birds, and aspects that are of common interest for future generations. This provides a justification for overriding state boundary jurisdictional limits where serious environmental harm threatens international peace and security. However, the crime of aggression is not the vehicle to address such extra-territorial environmental harm.