Abolition 2000 is a worldwide network working for a global treaty to eliminate nuclear weapons.

Since the 1995 Review Conference of the NPT, France agreed upon the statement of "nuclear disarmament in good faith" and simultaneously prepared a total renewal and modernization of its nuclear weapon arsenal.

Dominique Lalanne, of Abolition 2000-Europe, and Abolition of Nuclear Weapons/Stop Essais, spoke at the European Social Forum in Malm? on the challenges facing anti-nuclear campaigns in France. (More)

Conference report: "Good Faith, International Law, and the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons: The Once and Future Contributions of the International Court of Justice"

1 May, Warwick Hotel, Geneva.

Good Faith: A Fundamental Principle of International Law
John Burroughs, Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy

"Good faith is a fundamental principle of international law, without which all international law would collapse," declared Judge Mohammed Bedjaoui during the first week of the PrepCom. Bedjaoui was President of the International Court of Justice when it gave its 1996 advisory opinion on nuclear weapons, and more recently, Algerian Foreign Minister. He delivered the keynote address to a conference, "Good Faith, International Law, and the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons: The Once and Future Contributions of the International Court of Justice," held on 1 May at the Warwick Hotel in Geneva.

A major portion of Judge Bedjaoui's address was devoted to the legal significance of the addition of the phrase ?good faith? to NPT Article VI, which requires each state party to ?pursue in good faith negotiations on effective measures ? relating to nuclear disarmament?. The phrase also figures in the Court?s unanimous formulation of the obligation, based on NPT Article VI, ?to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects.? He explained that general legal principles governing good faith negotiation as applied in the NPT context include:

? sustained upkeep of the negotiation; awareness of the interests of the other party; and a persevering quest for an acceptable compromise, with a willingness to contemplate modification of one?s own position

? refraining from acts incompatible with the object and purpose of the NPT; proscription of every initiative the effect of which would be to render impossible the conclusion of the contemplated disarmament treaty

? respect for the integrity of the NPT; no selectivity regarding which provisions to implement

? a general obligation of information and communication

? prohibition of abuse of process such as fraud or deceit

? prohibition of unjustified termination of negotiations

In related observations regarding ?building confidence,? Judge Bedjaoui stated: ?Today more than ever, it is important to attribute a more decisive role to the UN in the coherent, democratic conduct of an integrated process of nuclear disarmament, with a realistic and reasonable schedule.?

Judge Bedjaoui also offered some fascinating comments on the 1996 opinion?s treatment of the question of legality of threat or use of nuclear weapons. He noted the ?radical incompatibility existing in principle between the use of nuclear weapons and respect for international humanitarian law? reflected in the opinion. And he attributed the Court?s failure to advise that threat or use is illegal in all circumstances to the inability of some judges to ignore the ?pseudo-scientific chiaroscuro? of a ?clean? nuclear bomb raised by some states and referred to in paragraph 95 of the opinion.

One of the conference panels considered the strategy of returning to the International Court of Justice to seek its advice on the legal consequences of the disarmament obligation. Phon van den Biesen, an Amsterdam-based lawyer, advocate before the Court, and vice president of the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA), observed that the nuclear weapon states ?pretend there are no specific obligations? flowing from the Court?s 1996 opinion. He said it is time for civil society to rally as it did in supporting the request for the first opinion, and for the UN General Assembly to ?break the stalemate and ask the Court to remind the world that international law is not just text on paper,

but agreed norms and obligations.? Representatives of organizations sponsoring the conference explained the emerging ?good faith? campaign. Among them was John Loretz, program director of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). He said that the initiative to return to the Court and the International Campaign for the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) complement each other.

Other speakers addressing the conference were international lawyers and law professors and NGO analysts. Peter Weiss, vice president of IALANA and of the F?d?ration Internationale des Droits de l?Homme, called the U.S. retrogression from the 13 practical steps for nuclear disarmament agreed at the 2000 NPT conference a ?clear violation? of good faith. Professor Marcelo Kohen of the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, defended the Court?s holding in the 1996 opinion that states are required to ?conclude? negotiations on nuclear disarmament. While that term is not found in Article VI, it is implied by the mandate to achieve the object and purpose of the NPT.

Professor Karima Bennoune of Rutgers Law School, USA, surveyed the human rights critique of nuclear weapons, which she said has been underutilized in both the human rights and disarmament fields. She commented: ?As in the area of nuclear disarmament, in the world of human rights, all too often we see clear and repeated violations of Article 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties which stipulates that ?Every treaty in force is binding upon the parties to it and must be performed by them in good faith.? States are rarely held accountable for these abuses.? She concluded: ?Ultimately, I think that human rights and nuclear disarmament advocates should see a common interest in a vigorous defense of the principle of good faith in international legal process?as it is central to both our sets of projects.?

Ambassador Jaap Ramaker, drawing on his experience as chair of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) negotiations in 1996 when the treaty was adopted, identified political and legal conditions that support successful negotiations. Among them are: prior commitments to negotiation of a treaty (both the Partial Test Ban Treaty and the NPT identify the CTBT as an objective); commitments regarding completion of negotiation (the NPT 1995 Principles and Objectives specified 1996); establishment of a proper negotiating mechanism; and clear circumscription of the scope of the negotiations.

Speaking for the New York-based Lawyers? Committee on Nuclear Policy, I outlined the lack of compliance with the disarmament obligation in the last decade. There have been no negotiations, bilateral, plurilateral, or multilateral, on the reduction and elimination of nuclear arsenals. The only arguable exception, the two-page 2002 U.S.-Russian agreement, was more of a confidence-building measure, lacking provisions on verification or irreversibility.

Jacqueline Cabasso, executive director of the California-based Western States Legal Foundation, characterized the policy of the nuclear weapon states, in particular the USA, UK, and France, as ?fewer but newer,? and increasingly ?capacity- based.? These states, she said, cling to the notion of ?deterrence? while the ?threat? they seek to deter is an unknown and uncertain future. They are modernizing and qualitatively improving their ?enduring? nuclear arsenals, both warheads and delivery systems.

The day-long conference attracted 90 NGOs, students, and diplomats. It was sponsored by the World Court Project to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, a civil society coalition formed by IALANA, IPPNW, International Peace Bureau, World Court Project UK, International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility, Mayors for Peace, and other groups, and by the World Federation of United Nations Associations, the Simons Foundation, and the Stiftung Europ?ische Friedenspolitik. A report and speakers? papers will be available on www.lcnp.org. ?

John Burroughs is executive director of the Lawyers? Committee on Nuclear Policy and author of The Legality of Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons: A Guide to the Historic Opinion of the International Court of Justice (1997).

Toward a Nuclear-Free World
January 15, 2008

The accelerating spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear know-how and nuclear material has brought us to a nuclear tipping point. We face a very real possibility that the deadliest weapons ever invented could fall into dangerous hands.

The steps we are taking now to address these threats are not adequate to the danger. With nuclear weapons more widely available, deterrence is decreasingly effective and increasingly hazardous.

(From: The Wall Street Journal) (More)

Dear Minister :

In the coming weeks the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors will likely be asked to consider a new ?India-specific? safeguards agreement that would cover a limited number of additional ?civilian? reactors. Shortly thereafter, the members of the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) will be asked to take a position on the Bush administration?s proposal to exempt India from longstanding NSG guidelines that require full-scope IAEA safeguards as a condition of supply.

European mayors want withdrawal of US nukes from their territory
and 1,937 Mayors demand global elimination of nuclear weapons by 2020

Brussels, December 6th 2007 - European Mayors on whose territory US nuclear
weapons are deployed demand, in a remarkable common position paper, THE
withdrawAL OF the remaining US nuclear weapons from their municipalites. The
Mayors from Peer (Kleine Brogel - Belgium), Aviano and Ghedi (Italy), Uden
(Volkel - The Netherlands), Incirlik (Turkey), and Buechel (Germany) receive
support for their appeal from the Executive Cities of the Mayors for Peace,
including the Mayors of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Florence, Manchester, and

Madame la Maire,

Vous êtes sensibilisée à la paix et aux problèmes posés par les armes nucléaires puisque votre ville est membre de Mayors for Peace (Maires pour la paix), réseau mondial dont le Maire d’Hiroshima est président .

Abolition2000-Europe travaille étroitement avec ce réseau, c’est pourquoi nous vous adressons ce courrier. Les liens entre ONG et institutions sont une des bases des avancées démocratiques. L’abolition des armes nucléaires (actuellement encore 20.000 bombes sont prêtes à partir !) est toujours un enjeu dramatique de notre survie. Et nos villes sont les cibles privilégiées. Notre objectif coïncide avec celui du projet « Vision 2020 » d’obtenir pour l’année 2020 un traité d’élimination des armes nucléaires.

Pièces jointes : 1- lettre de Mr Tadatoshi Akiba, Maire d’Hiroshima à transmettre aux collègues-Maires que vous solliciterez, 2- un formulaire d’inscription à Mayors for Peace, 3- la lettre des maires belges à leur gouvernement.


Speech by Jonas Gahr Støre (Norwegian Foreign Minister) at the Civil Society Conference at the 10th Anniversary of the Mine Ban Treaty, Towards Human Security, Oslo, Norwegian Red Cross, 17 September 2007.


Thursday 19 April 2007
European Parliament, Brussels
Organised by Abolition 2000 Europe, ISIS Europe, Mayors for Peace, Olof Palme International Center and the Parliamentary Network for Nuclear Disarmament

On Thursday April 19th, members of the European Parliament from across the political spectrum joined with disarmament experts, political leaders and civil society representatives in a conference "A Comprehensive approach towards nuclear disarmament".
The conference explored the possibilities and opportunities for the European Union to become increasingly involved in promoting non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. This conference was very timely in as it took place during the run-up to the next Non-Proliferation Treaty Preparatory Committee from April 30 to May 11 2007.

(download the full report)


Vice President of the European parliament



The following motion was approved by the Scottish Parliament:

"That the Parliament congratulates the majority of Scottish MPs for voting on 14 March 2007 to reject the replacement of Trident, recognises that decisions on matters of defence are matters within the responsibility of the UK Government and Parliament and calls on the UK Government not to go ahead at this time with the proposal in the White Paper, The Future of the United Kingdom's Nuclear Deterrent."

71 Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) voted for this motion, 16 against and 39 abstained.


The two major metalworkers trade unions in Italy (FIM-CISL and FIOM-CGIL), who are members of the Italian Disarmament Network, are pleased to inform nuclear abolitionists that the following amendment was presented by the Italian trade union confederation to the Seville Conference of ETUC. The amendment, which reads as follows, was adopted.

"The European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC) calls on the European Union to work to achieve a world free of weapons of mass destruction within the shortest possible time and, with the aim to convert war economies into peace economies, calls for major reductions in military expenditure which diverts resources from urgent development needs, and for new initiatives to regulate and control world arms production and trade."

A draft briefing paper by the Parliamentary Network for Nuclear Disarmament and the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War – Austrian and Swiss Affiliates.

Over the years there have been a number of proposals to establish nuclear weapon free zones (NWFZs) in Europe. However, due to Cold War
politics none of these were successful. There are a number of recent developments that are making the prospect of a NWFZ in Europe both more pressing and more possible. (More)
Activists today expressed their anger that the Ministry of Defence had transported six, fully armed nuclear warheads along the Edinburgh Bypass just the day after the new Parliament was sworn in. Citizens Weapons Inspectors from the Nukewatch network tracked the warhead convoy from the Atomic Weapons Establishment, Burghfield (50 miles west of London) to RNAD Coulport (35 miles north-west of Glasgow). (More)


Posted by Abolition, 10th May 2007 | Category: Events
During the meeting of Bologna on April 15.2007 it was promoted a project: the “CONVOY AGAINST WAR , FOR PEACE AND DISARMING” that will start on May 19 2007 and will spread from the North-West, the North-East and from the South.

Aim of the “CONVOY” is to awaken public opinion and gather subjects that think to expand the present territorial conflicts on decisive points of a consistent peace engagement



Posted by Abolition, 7th May 2007 | Category: Action/Campaign News

PRAGUE DECLARATION - International Conference against the Militarization of Europe

We say no to the US missile defence system in Europe

Faced with new US military plans to begin official negotiations with the Czech and Polish governments on May 10th, the signatories of this paper declare:

We voice our protest against the plans of the Bush adminstration to install a "national missile defence system" for the US on the territory of the Czech Republic and Poland.

To sign the call, please send a mail to:

Read the complete text of the call here.

At 11.40 am on May 4, the NPT PrepCom Chair, Ambassador Yukiya Amano of Japan, informed delegates to the 2007 PrepCom in Vienna that there was still no agreement on the agenda, and then suspended the meeting until 5 pm, thereby dashing all hope that discussions on nuclear disarmament will get started before the weekend. (More)

Roy Hattersley, The Guardian

The nuclear deterrent changed my life. In the early 60s - having been rejected by a dozen safe Labour constituencies - I decided that London and parliament were not for me. I would remain in the north, administer my small part of the health service, and guide the housing department of Sheffield city council. Then Hugh Gaitskill promised to "fight and fight again to save the party we love". Suddenly, all I wanted was to be a foot soldier in the battle against the forces of unreason demanding unilateral nuclear disarmament. So I set off again on the long and winding road that led to the Sparkbrook division of Birmingham.


The Trident Dispatches: An Overview of the Debate

Posted by Abolition, 5th Feb 2007 | Category: Opinion
Does Britain need to replace its nuclear weapons? The current system, which comprises four nuclear submarines, around 50 U.S. Trident D5 ballistic missiles, and up to 200 warheads similar to the U.S. W76 (around 100 kilotons each), is good to go until well into the 2020s. So why is British Prime Minister Tony Blair so keen for a decision before he departs office?

Guérir de la folie nucléaire,

Posted by Abolition, 5th Jan 2007 | Category: Opinion
Authors :
Henry A. Kissinger, président de la société de consultants Kissinger Associates, secrétaire d'Etat américain de 1973 à 1977 ;
Sam Nunn, ancien président de la commission du Sénat américain chargée des services armés ;
William J. Perry, secrétaire à la défense de 1994 à 1997 ;
George P. Schultz, membre de l'Institut Hoover, secrétaire d'Etat américain de 1982 à 1989.

L’arme nucléaire représente aujourd'hui une menace considérable, mais offre aussi une chance historique. Il revient à la puissance américaine de faire entrer le monde dans une nouvelle ère : celle d'un consensus solide en faveur de la fin du recours mondial à l'arme nucléaire qui permette d'éviter sa prolifération aux mains d'acteurs potentiellement dangereux, pour qu'au bout du compte le nucléaire cesse d'être une menace pour la planète.
by Jeanna Bryner, LiveScience

A small-scale, regional nuclear war could disrupt the global climate for a decade or more, with environmental effects that could be devastating for everyone on Earth, researchers have concluded.

The scientists said about 40 countries possess enough plutonium or uranium to construct substantial nuclear arsenals. Setting off a Hiroshima-size weapon could cause as many direct fatalities as all of World War II.

CND Submits Alternative White Paper on Trident

Posted by Abolition, 4th Dec 2006 | Category: Nuclear Weapon News

Five MPs together with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament are today handing in an Alternative White Paper to Downing Street. Gavin Strang MP, Katy Clark MP, Jeremy Corbyn MP, Linda Riordan MP, and Michael Meacher MP will join CND Chair Kate Hudson in presenting the Alternative White Paper to the Prime Minister’s residence.


Aldermaston Women's Peace Camp today condemned the government's White Paper for its commitment to retaining a UK nuclear weapons system, and for its failure to come clean about measures the government has already taken at AWE Aldermaston to build facilities to test, design and build a new generation of nuclear warheads. (More)

Block the Builders is calling for an immediate stop to all building work at AWE Aldermaston, until there has been a full public debate on today's White Paper on the future of the UK's nuclear weapons.

While Tony Blair was announcing the "options" for the development of a next generation of nuclear submarines, and promising a parliamentary vote in three months time, contractors were continuing their work on buildings at Aldermaston which are now generally acknowledged to make to the site "fit for the purpose" of building the next generation of nuclear weapons. (More)
Article by the Foreign Ministers of Germany and Norway,
Frank-Walter Steinmeier and Jonas Gahr-Støre
published on Friday, November 10, 2006
Unofficial English version

The security situation in Europe has changed dramatically over the last 20 years. The threat of nuclear annihilation, which dominated strategic thinking throughout the Cold War, has abated - fortunately. Unfortunately, the momentum for arms control and disarmament seems to have followed suit, and we are faced with a different – more complex and less predictable – set of challenges to the international non-proliferation and disarmament regime (More)

Press release: 5/11/2006, Block the Builders

As 25,000 people took to the streets of London yesterday calling for action on climate
change, data from scientists, industry bodies and researchers, suggests that the cost of
replacing the Trident nuclear weapons system - "could almost guarantee emission
reductions from 150m tonnes of carbon a year today to the necessary level of around 60m
tonnes by 2030."


Could scrapping Trident save the planet?

Posted by Abolition, 4th Nov 2006 | Category: Opinion

For the same price, Britain could either renew its nuclear arsenal or
tackle climate change

John Vidal, Tania Branigan and James Randerson
Saturday November 4, 2006

After the apocalyptic vision of global catastrophe presented in the
Stern report on climate change, by midweek there was broad political
agreement that countries need to start committing to dramatic cuts in
greenhouse gases. But no one has yet tried to estimate exactly how much
it will cost or where the money will come from to get emissions down by
the 60% minimum scientists say is needed by 2030.

Full Article: Guardian, 4/11/2006

45 youth from many different organisations from all over Germany write an open letter to the German government, in which they demand an end of German participation in NATO nuclear sharing and a withdrawal of the nuclear weapons deployed in Germany. (More)
The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament today strongly condemned North Korea’s underground test of a nuclear weapon early Monday morning.

CND also noted that the failure of the nuclear weapons states to disarm, as required by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, will continue to contribute to nuclear proliferation.

Global proliferation of nuclear weapons has increased dramatically as the five nuclear weapons states signed up to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty have failed to fulfil their obligation to disarm and engage in programmes designed to build new nuclear weapons. (More)
The DPRK has just realised its first nuclear test, thereby confirming its
threats several times uttered since it announced its withdrawal from the
Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2003.
This is very alarming!
The answer chosen by the DPRK face to the permanent threat the Bush's policy constitutes in its view is irresponsible. It is the worst possible for the
Korean people and peoples worldwide.

For Mother Earth Press Release, 9/10/2006
With the detonation of a nuclear test this morning, North Korea has crossed a line which it should have never crossed. For Mother Earth, member of Friends of the Earth international, believes that the North Korean nuclear test is a provocative military activity, and calls for a global ban on the production, use, and testing of nuclear weapons. (More)

Greenpeace: North Korean nuclear test condemned

Posted by Abolition, 9th Oct 2006 | Category: Opinion

Greenpeace Press Release, 9/10/2006

Seoul, Korea, Democratic People's Republic of — Greenpeace has condemned the underground testing of a nuclear weapon by North Korea. South Korea’s intelligence agency detected a 3.58 magnitude seismic tremor confirming the nuclear test announced by North Korea’s Central News Agency (KCNA). By testing the weapon North Korea becomes the ninth country to have a nuclear arsenal.

Six European countries - Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands,Turkey and the United Kingdom - host 480 US owned and controlled nuclear bombs under NATO “nuclear sharing” arrangements. These weapons are illegal, irresponsible and unjustifiable. 2006 brings an opportunity to finally put an end to this dangerous cold war legacy, as NATO begins a review process of its fundamental purpose and objectives.

Download the Greenpeace report

Lest we Forget -1996-2006

Friday, January 27th 2006 marks the 10th anniversary of the end of 30 years French nuclear testing in the Pacific.

From: Peace and Disarmanent Desk, Pacific Concerns Resouce Centre (More)
The International Peace Bureau congratulates the IAEA and Mr El-Baradei on joining the ranks of the Nobel prizewinners. Nevertheless we hope this Prize will not been seen as giving a green light to the development of nuclear energy as a solution to the challenge of global warming and the depletion of fossil fuels. (More)

Mouvement de la Paix statement on Nobel Prize

Posted by Abolition, 12th Oct 2005 | Category: Opinion
Le Mouvement de la Paix welcomes the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize 2005 to the IAEA and its director Mr. Mohammed ElBaradei. (More)

GRACE statement on Nobel Peace Prize for IAEA

Posted by Abolition, 7th Oct 2005 | Category: Opinion
The Nobel Peace Prize Committee has given peace a black eye by awarding its annual honor to the International Atomic Energy Agency and its Director, Mohammed El Baradei, ironically, for working to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.  (More)
ElBaradei's role as head of the pro nuclear International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) calls into question the wisdom of making him a 'Noble' laureate. (More)
Down at Aldermaston they are spending hundreds of millions of pounds of your money on a refit of the production line for nuclear warheads. We are assured this does not mean that any decision has been made to replace the Trident nuclear system. Dear me no, the investment is merely intended to keep open our options.

Originally published in The Guardian, 29/7/2005