The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the use and the threat of nuclear weapons on July 8, 1996, was a historic achievement in the history of debates on the legality of nuclear weapons. It drew attention of academics, governments, and civil society organizations and is now recognized as an important milestone for those who are interested in the issue of nuclear weapons. However, this does not mean that the Opinion concluded the debate on the legality of nuclear weapons. Rather, it stimulated further discussions and created new problems on the issue. This article is intended to examine the Opinion in order to identify the polemics that concern the very normative framework of current international society. The main focal point is the jus cogens character of international humanitarian law, which the Court avoided. In so doing, this article identifies the confusion in the Opinion and among the Judges about the relationship between jus in bello and jus ad bellum applied to the use and the threat of nuclear weapons. The article also argues that the notorious concept of “an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake” was an unfortunate result of sterile understanding of the relationship between law and politics.