Towards a nuclear-weapons free Europe and a nuclear-weapon free world: the case of France
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)1st July 2008, International Conference 40th anniversary NPT at the European Parliament, Brussels
1st July 2008 International Conference marking 40th anniversary NPT at the European Parliament, Brussels
"NUCLEAR ARSENAL IN THE EU AND ITS SECURITY"
Organisers:
EP section of PNND (Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament), Belgian PNND, Mayors for Peace, Abolition 2000 Europe, Abolition 2000 Belgium, International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War, Greenpeace and CNAPD
Please find here more details of the "Parliamentary endorsement of the Nuclear Weapons Convention".
H.E. the Ambassador of Costa Rica has been invited as a guest. Costa Rica submitted the Nuclear Weapons Convention at the UN General Assembly in December 2007
Round table at the European Parliament, 30th June 2008: Representatives of NGOs and EU States discuss the Nuclear Weapons Convention
Monday, June 30th, 7:00pm-10:00pm
At the EU Parliament, Room A1G-2
See also: Conference in EP to mark 40 Years NPT, 1st July
(More)"Good Faith, International Law, and the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons: The Once and Future Contributions of the International Court of Justice"
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).
The European Union and the Nuclear Weapon Convention, meeting during NPT PrepCom, Geneva, 28th April 2008
During the meeting of the NPT Preparatory Committee (28 April - 9 May 2008 at the UN in Geneva), Abolition 2000 Europe and Mayors for Peace 2020 Vision Campaign organise a conference on "The European Union and the Nuclear Weapon Convention".
When: 1:15-2:45pm , Monday, 28 April 2008
Where: NGO room
Contact: Dominique Lalanne, Abolition 2000-Europe; co-sponsored by Mayors for Peace 2020 Vision Campaign
e-mail :
Website: abolition2000europe.org
Step to a nuclear free world: Study and Action at the NPT PrepCom, Geneva
2nd Preparatory Committee for the 2010
Review Conference of the Non-Proliferation-Treaty (NPT Prep Com) at the United Nations in Geneva
25th April to 4th May 2008
Invitation:
BANg is a European youth network. It was founded after the failure of the NPT Conference in 2005 Youth delegations have been participating in the last three confer-ences in New York 2004 and 2005, as well as in Vienna 2007. Our aim is to raise awareness of the nuclear issue because nukes endanger our future. We want to invite all youth to come to the NPT Prep Com and take part in our study and action trip to Geneva.
Register now online!
Germany and Norway call for NATO disarmament initiative
German Foreign Minister Steinmeier and his Norwegian counterpart St?re have called on NATO countries to do more for disarmament. This call comes at a time when important international control regimes such as the CFE Treaty and the Non-Proliferation Treaty are at risk of coming unravelled. The Ministers discussed the proposal Friday (7 December) in Brussels with the other NATO Foreign Ministers. The goal is to identify areas in which NATO can better define its profile on disarmament, arms control and nuclear non-proliferation.
(From: Auswaertiges Amt)
(More)NPT impasse continues: meeting held hostage by Iran over agenda
Two Sides of the Same Coin: Nuclear Non-proliferation and Nuclear Disarmament
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)