Date

Oct 31, 1977

Description

The Military Committee’s study, completed past the August 31 deadline, spelled out the implications of Protocol I for alliance military operations. The MC found much of it “militarily acceptable,” as long as the rules did not preclude NATO’s “options to use nuclear weapons.” The literal meaning of Protocol articles 35, 51 and 55 “would inhibit essential uses of nuclear weapons, if they were held to apply to” them. Thus, the detailed review of the Protocol was “based on the understanding that the rules introduced by the Protocol do not affect the use of nuclear weapons, and that member states of the Alliance will coordinate and consult to ensure that their national positions are in harmony and that this understanding shall be legally effective throughout the Alliance.”

The detailed analysis of Articles 35, 51, 55 and 66 made it clear enough why NATO members found them problematic because of their implications for nuclear weapons use. Thus, Article 35 constrained signatories from using “weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.”

Annexes to the Military Committee report included statements made by various NATO country delegates—such as the previously cited statement by George Aldrich—explaining their votes on specific articles and general statements about the work of the conference.

Source

NATO Archives

Document published in following posting(s):

Nuclear Weapons and the Law of War

Jun 6, 2023

Memorandum from Major General R. Torp, Acting Director General, International Military Staff, to Secretary General, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, “Humanitarian Law—Review of Articles 35-60 of Protocol 1,” MCM-76 -77, 31 October 1977, Confidential