Article 25 ARSIWA recognises NECESSITY as a CIRCUMSTANCE PRECLUDING WRONGFULNESS, but only in NARROW circumstances. Necessity may be invoked if:

1. Article 25(1) ARSIWA: 'Necessity may not be invoked by a State as a ground for precluding the wrongfulness of an act not in conformity with an international obligation of that State unless the act: (a) is the only way for the State to safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril; AND (b) does not seriously impair an essential interest of the State or States towards which the obligation exists, or of the international community as a whole.' 2. Article 25(2): in any case, necessity may NOT be invoked if (a) the international obligation excludes its invocation; or (b) the State has contributed to the situation. 3. The ICJ in Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros (1997) considered Hungary's necessity claim under customary international law (rejected on facts). 4. Hence option B is correct. _Source: UN Charter 1945 / Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties 1969 / ICJ Statute / ARSIWA 2001 — ARSIWA 2001, Article 25; Gabčíkovo–Nagymaros (Hungary/Slovakia), 1997 ICJ Rep 7_