Nuclear disarmament panorama: an assessment

by Sergio Duarte

A familiar pattern seen in multilateral disarmament efforts, prevalent since the mid 1990s, also seems to have established itself in the review process of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Commenting on the result of the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee for the NPT 2015 Review Conference, last May, an assiduous and perceptive observer wrote: “This is a typical outcome of NPT meetings, because the review cycle is a process that favors the status quo by pit­ting possible forward momentum against maintaining the ‘stability’ of the ‘regime’. But this status quo is seen as increasingly untenable to the majority of states parties”. A similar assessment can be made about the multilateral nuclear disarmament process as a whole. 
 

Direct action at First Committee

by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

First Committee is set to begin once again in the midst of dynamic and dangerous times. The relevance of its mandate, disarmament and international security, is as pressing as ever. Looking around the world today one can see mounting regional and international tensions, civil wars and revolutions, increasing armed violence, and, overshadowing us all, the threat of nuclear weapons. High levels of military spending, weapons production, trade, and stockpiling, and armed conflict undermine the key objective of the United Nations: preserving international peace and security. Yet one can also see many examples of ordinary people trying to rein back the violence, overcome militarism, and achieve peace.

Reflections on the UN General Assembly general debate 2012

by Ray Acheson, Reaching Critical Will of WILPF

The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) held its general debate from 25 September–1 October. The theme for this year’s debate, set by UNGA President Vuk Jeremić of Serbia, was “adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations by peaceful means”. In his open remarks he specified, “A solution to an international problem can be legitimately achieved only upon renunciation of unilateralism; it can become truly sustainable only when its provisions are willingly accepted and fulfilled in good faith.” 

Law’s Imperative for the Urgent Achievement of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World

by Dr. John Burroughs, Executive Director, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy

Released March 23 by The Simons Foundation and the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) and signed by eminent experts in international law and diplomacy, the Vancouver Declaration affirms that nuclear weapons are incompatible with international humanitarian law (IHL). The declaration observes that with their uncontrollable blast, heat, and radiation effects, nuclear weapons are indeed weapons of mass destruction that by their nature cannot comply with fundamental rules forbidding the infliction of indiscriminate and disproportionate harm.

The declaration builds upon the 2010 NPT Review Conference reaffirmation “of the need for all states at all times to comply with applicable international law, including [IHL],” as well as other developments since the 1996 International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion on nuclear weapons. They include the establishment of the International Criminal Court, the entry into force of the Chemical Weapons Convention, and the achievement of treaty bans on landmines and cluster munitions.

In connection with already banned weapons, the declaration observes: “Reasons advanced for the continuing existence of nuclear weapons, including military necessity and case-by-case analysis, were once used to justify other inhumane weapons. But elementary considerations of humanity persuaded the world community that such arguments were outweighed by the need to eliminate them. This principle must now be applied to nuclear weapons, which pose an infinitely greater risk to humanity.” (Emphasis supplied.) The ICJ had made clear the link between illegality and humanitarian values, stating that the broad participation in Hague and Geneva treaties is “undoubtedly” because “a great many rules of humanitarian law applicable in armed conflict are so fundamental to the respect of the human person and ‘elementary considerations of humanity’.”

The many signatories include Christopher G. Weeramantry, former Vice President of the ICJ and current President of IALANA; Mohammed Bedjaoui, who was ICJ President when it handed down its advisory opinion on nuclear weapons; Louise Doswald-Beck, Professor of International Law, Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, and co-author of a major International Committee of the Red Cross study of IHL; and Gareth Evans, QC, former Foreign Minister of Australia who recently served as Co-Chair of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament.

Especially in view of its endorsement by former ICJ judges and leading international law scholars, it is noteworthy that the declaration resolves issues the ICJ left for another day. It affirms the universally binding character of the prohibition of reprisals against civilian populations, vindicating the position taken by Mexico before the ICJ: “Torture is not a permissible response to torture. Nor is mass rape acceptable retaliation to mass rape. Just as unacceptable is retaliatory deterrence—‘You have burnt my city, I will burn yours.’” The declaration similarly affirms the mandatory nature of the prohibition of the infliction of widespread, severe, and long-term damage to the natural environment. It also unreservedly states the unlawfulness of both specific signals of intent to use nuclear weapons and general policies (“deterrence”) declaring a readiness to resort to nuclear weapons when vital interests are at stake.

On his blog disarmingconflict.ca, analyst Ernie Regehr observes that the international community “has been unforgivably slow in fully facing the profound legal questions raised by the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons,” and praises the Vancouver Declaration for succinctly demonstrating that nuclear disarmament is “not only an urgent political objective and moral imperative, but also an unambiguous legal requirement.” That requirement should now more than ever be central to deliberations of the Disarmament Commission and other governmental bodies charged with achieving peace and security through disarmament.