News

UNHRC about Nuclear Weapons in General Comment No. 36

UNHRC about Nuclear Weapons: The Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy analyses the Comment about Nuclear Weapons by the Human Rights Committee in 2018. The general comment No. 36 considers the threat and use of nuclear weapons incompatible with the right to life.

The statement in the General Comment by the UNHRC about nuclear weapons was found in paragraph 66, stating “the threat or use of weapons of mass destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, which are indiscriminate in effect and are of a nature to cause destruction of human life on a catastrophic scale is incompatible with respect for the right to life and may amount to a crime under international law. States parties must take all necessary measures to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, including measures to prevent their acquisition by non-state actors, to refrain from developing, producing, testing, acquiring, stockpiling, selling, transferring and using them, to destroy existing stockpiles, and to take adequate measures of protection against accidental use, all in accordance with their international obligations. They must also respect their international obligations to pursue in good faith negotiations in order to achieve the aim of nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control. And to afford adequate reparation to victims whose right to life has been or is being adversely affected by the testing or use of weapons of mass destruction, in accordance with principles of international responsibility.”

View the video of the discussion with the title “The Right to Life versus Nuclear Weapons: A Bold Intervention by the UN Human Rights Committee”

Chaired by Dr. John Burroughs (Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy), speakers were Dr. Roger S. Clark (Rutgers Law), Ariana Smith (CUNY School of Law), and Peter Weiss (Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms, European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights).

YouTube

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube’s privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

Learn more about the threat of Nuclear weapons here.IALANA Logo

Threat and use of nuclear weapons contrary to right to life, says UN Human Rights Committee

On 30 October 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), which is in charge of the implementation of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), has adopted its General Comment (GC) no. 36 relating to the right to life (Article 6 ICCPR). It is in many respects a remarkable document and a new example for bridge-building between nuclear arms control and human rights. In para. 66, the HRC considers the threat and use of WMD, in particular nuclear weapons, incompatible with the right to life and reiterates the duties of the States Parties in the field of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.

Continute reading Daniel Rietiker’s text:

Click on the button to load the content from safna.org.

Load content

Japanese Translation by JALANA:
http://www.hankaku-j.org/data/07/181107.html

Read more about the HRC statement here

Renew Nuclear Arms Control, Don’t Destroy It

By Andrew Lichterman and John Burroughs

A hard-earned lesson of the Cold War is that arms control reduces the risk of nuclear war by limiting dangerous deployments and, even more important, by creating channels of communication and understanding. But President Donald Trump and his National Security Advisor John Bolton appear to have forgotten, or never learned, that lesson.

In late October, Trump announced an intent to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo subsequently stated that the US will suspend implementation of the treaty in early February. While US signals have been mixed, initiation of withdrawal at that point or soon thereafter appears likely.

Agreed to in 1987 by the United States and the Soviet Union, the INF Treaty prohibits the two countries from deploying both nuclear and conventional missiles with ranges between 310 and 3420 miles.

The main reason cited for withdrawal is that Russia has tested and deployed ground-launched cruise missiles the treaty prohibits. Russia denies that the missiles violate the treaty and has made its own accusations, foremost that US ballistic missile defense launchers installed in Eastern Europe could be used to house treaty-prohibited cruise missiles.

Continue Reading

Nuclear Crossroads: The Urgent Need for Action to Prevent Catastrophe

We are deeply alarmed by increasing risks that nuclear weapons will be used by intent, miscalculation or accident. The Singapore Summit is an encouraging sign that the dangerous US-North Korea confrontation will give way to a process leading to a peaceful and denuclearized Korean peninsula. Nonetheless, the danger of nuclear war in this new moment may be greater than at the height of the Cold War; it is surely more unpredictable. Global nuclear disarmament – not just preventing the spread of nuclear weapons – is imperative.

This statement addresses the new US-Russian nuclear arms race; the North Korean situation; US actions in relation to the agreement and Security Council resolution regarding Iran’s nuclear program; and ongoing risks of accidents and miscalculations involving nuclear weapons. At the end, we recommend actions to be taken by IALANA affiliates and other civil society actors. Continue reading “Nuclear Crossroads: The Urgent Need for Action to Prevent Catastrophe”

IALANA Statement at UN: Nuclear Arms Racing is Antithetical to the NPT

Civil Society Presentation to NPT PrepCom, Geneva
International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms
25 April 2018
Delivered by Amela Skiljan, Board member, German IALANA

Dear colleagues:

On 22 August 2017, a true hero of the nuclear age, Tony de Brum, passed away. He did many important things in his life. One of them was that as Foreign Minister, he spearheaded the Marshall Islands’ nuclear disarmament cases in the International Court of Justice. When the cases were filed, in April 2014, he said: “Our people have suffered the catastrophic and irreparable damage of nuclear weapons and we vow to fight so that no one else on Earth will ever again experience these atrocities.” Regrettably, by the narrowest of margins the Court refused to adjudicate the cases on their merits. But de Brum’s call to action should serve as an inspiration on other fronts, not least this NPT review process.

We are now faced with a contradictory environment. A majority of the world’s states last year adopted the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Going entirely in the other direction, the two largest nuclear powers, the United States and Russia, appear poised to resume nuclear arms racing reminiscent of the darkest days of the Cold War.

The US Nuclear Posture Review released on February 2 proposes two new capabilities, both aimed at Russia, a low-yield warhead deployed on submarine-launched missiles, and a sea-based, nuclear-armed cruise missile. It also endorses replacement of an air-launched cruise missile with a stealthier, more capable version. And the review emphasizes the role of nuclear weapons in responding to “non-nuclear strategic attacks,” notably cyberattacks.

In a March 1 address, President Vladimir Putin described an array of new nuclear weapons delivery systems, including a nuclear-powered cruise missile, an underwater drone carrying “massive nuclear ordinance”, and a multiple warhead ballistic missile with virtually unlimited range capable of flying over the South as well as the North Pole.

All of this stands in blatant disregard of the NPT. The NPT preamble declares the “intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race”. And of course, Article VI requires the pursuit of negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date.

The concept animating Article VI was that quantitative build-up and qualitative improvement of nuclear arsenals was to be ended prior to negotiations on their elimination. By the mid-1990s, the agenda had been partly achieved. Nuclear arsenals were reducing in size, and nuclear explosive testing was halted. Indeed, in a 1995 declaration, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States welcomed “the fact that the nuclear arms race has ceased.”[*]

But the gains of the 1990s are now being reversed. Hence the need to go back to the basics. Qualitative – and possibly quantitative – nuclear arms racing should now be out of the question. The “early date” has long since passed! Yet there are no negotiations on the subject taking place or in sight, clearly a breach of Article VI, which requires such negotiations to be pursued and concluded. And the weapons development described by Putin and the Nuclear Posture Review is a breach of the legal requirement of good faith in relation to the objectives of Article VI.

As we approach its fiftieth anniversary, the NPT risks losing its appeal as a tool for disarmament, and its viability as a bulwark against proliferation is even in question. The implementation of well-known steps is vital. They include a pledge not to initiate nuclear warfare; hold-out states’ ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty to bring it into legal force; and ending nuclear sharing, the NPT-violative arrangement for five states to host and potentially use US nuclear bombs.

Above all, nuclear-armed states must abandon the myth that ‘nuclear deterrence’ keeps us safe. Now more than ever, it is imperative to comply with the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice: “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control.”

 

[*] NPT/Conf.1995/20, 19 April 1995, Annex.

 

Download the Statement

 

Article by Article – Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons

Brochure by Daniel Rietiker and Manfred Mohr

The events of July 7, 2017 at the United Nations in New York deserve our attention. The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW)
constitutes a real paradigm shift, and the end of a period of stagnation in
nuclear disarmament of more than 20 years. After biological (1972) and
chemical weapons (1993), the remaining type of weapons of mass destruction will be banned once the treaty enters into force. Continue reading “Article by Article – Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons”

Lawyers’ letter released at United Nations nuclear ban negotiations New York, June 23

Yesterday at the United Nations, the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA) released a Lawyers’ letter on the abolition of nuclear weapons in conjunction with UN negotiations on a treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons.

The letter has been endorsed by over 400 lawyers, law professors, attorneys, judges, law students and other legal professionals, including the Rt Hon Geoffrey Palmer (former Prime Minster of New Zealand and Ad Hoc Judge of the International Court of Justice), Prof Herta Däubler-Gmelin (Former Minister of Justice of Germany), Richard Falk (Professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and Senior Vice President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation), Phon van den Biesen (Counsel before the International Court of Justice in Bosnia’s Genocide case and The Marshall Islands’ Nuclear Disarmament Cases), Peter Weiss (Constitutional law expert and pioneer of the universal jurisdiction principle for international crimes), Prof Emilie Gaillard (French legal expert in rights of future generations) and the Hon Matt Robson (former New Zealand Minister of Courts and Minister of Disarmament and Arms Control).

The letter welcomes the UN negotiations, highlights the current illegality of the threat and use of nuclear weapons under general international law, laments the fact that nuclear-armed States are failing to recognise that illegality, and supports its codification in a multilateral prohibition agreement.

The nuclear-armed states and their closest allies have refused to participate in the negotiations and will almost certainly not sign the treaty. However, the letter notes that despite this, ‘the nuclear ban treaty effort constitutes an important affirmation of the norms against nuclear weapons‘. Further, adoption and implementation of the treaty “will be a major step towards negotiation of a comprehensive agreement on the achievement and permanent maintenance of a world free of nuclear arms.”

The lawyers’ letter reinforces key points being made by IALANA to the UN negotiations, including through interventions and working papers (See A/CONF.229/2017/NGO/WP.12 Selected Elements of a Treaty Prohibiting Nuclear Weapons, Submitted by International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms; A/CONF.229/2017/NGO/WP.13 Withdrawal Clauses in Arms Control Treaties: Some Reflections about a Future Treaty Prohibiting Nuclear Weapons, Submitted by International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA); A/CONF.229/2017/NGO/WP.37 Prohibitions and the Preamble: Further Comments. Submitted by International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms and A/CONF.229/2017/NGO/WP.38 Nuclear-Armed States, Positive Obligations, Institutional Issues, and Final Clauses: Further Comments. Submitted by International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms).

John Burroughs, Executive Director of the Lawyers’ Committee on Nuclear Policy (UN office of IALANA), noted at the launch of the letter that whether to include a prohibition of the threat of use of nuclear weapons is a contested issue in the negotiations on a nuclear ban treaty.  He stated that:

‘…while existing law does apply to threats in all circumstances – aggression, self-defense, particular operations and situations during an armed conflict – its application is complicated and not spelled out comprehensively in the UN Charter and in IHL treaties. Inclusion of a prohibition of threat of nuclear weapons in the convention would therefore provide desirable clarity, confirming the illegality of threat under existing law, which should also be declared in the preamble.’

Mr Burroughs also noted that it is the threat of use of nuclear weapons that is central to their possession, not the use of nuclear weapons which has not happened in wartime since 1945. As such ‘The inclusion of an explicit prohibition of threat of use of nuclear weapons, and, if deemed appropriate, of security doctrines providing for use of nuclear weapons, accordingly would advance the achievement of complete nuclear disarmament.’

Commander Robert Green (Royal Navy, ret.) supported Mr Burroughs on the need to include a prohibition on threat of use of nuclear weapons in the treaty.

“Nuclear deterrence, far from providing security, promotes insecurity through stimulating hostility, mistrust, nuclear arms racing and proliferation. What is more, because of these realities and its insoluble credibility problem, it is highly vulnerable to failure. As for extended nuclear deterrence, far from providing a so-called ‘nuclear umbrella’ to non-nuclear US allied states, it acts as a ‘lightning rod’ attracting insecurity to them, because any use of nuclear weapons by the US on their behalf would inevitably escalate to all-out nuclear war… nuclear deterrence is a vast protection racket by a US-led organised crime syndicate, who use it as a counterfeit currency of power, and whose principal beneficiary is the military-industrial complex.”

“This is why the ban treaty must prohibit threat of use, and include language explaining what that means…. The fact that the currently deployed UK Trident submarine is described as on ‘deterrent patrol’, despite being at days’ notice to fire with no assigned target, confirms this need.”

The lawyers’ letter also calls for implementation of well-known measures to reduce nuclear dangers and facilitate nuclear disarmament, including ending nuclear sharing, in which Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Turkey host US nuclear bombs, and ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty by hold-out states, including China, India, Pakistan, and the United States, to bring it into legal force.

The letter’s relevance goes beyond the current negotiations, and IALANA will keep the letter open for additional endorsers from members of the legal community. Sign on at https://www.ialana.info/lawyers-letter/

IALANA working papers on the United Nations conference to negotiate a legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination

Two most recent IALANA working papers have been posted on the UN website:

https://s3.amazonaws.com/unoda-web/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/A-CONF.229-2017-NGO-WP.37.pdf (prohibitions and preamble)

https://s3.amazonaws.com/unoda-web/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/A-CONF.229-2017-NGO-WP.381.pdf  (nuclear-armed states and other issues)

You can get some sense of how the negotiations are going from:

http://reachingcriticalwill.org/disarmament-fora/nuclear-weapon-ban/reports

http://reachingcriticalwill.org/disarmament-fora/nuclear-weapon-ban

https://www.un.org/disarmament/ptnw/index.html