[1] Rt Hon Helen Clark, Foreword to The Naked Nuclear Emperor:Debunking Nuclear Deterrence, Robert Green, The Raven Press, Disarmament and Security Centre, Christchurch, New Zealand, 2000.

[2] A more secure world: our shared responsibility: Report of the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, UN Document A/59/565, 2 December 2004.

[3] Report of the Canberra Commission, 1996, www.dfat.gov.au/cc/cchome.html

[4]US Doctrine for Joint Theater Nuclear Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 9February 1996 pI-2

[5] President Bush addresses United Nations General Assembly, The White House, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/09/20030923-4.html

[6]UN Security Council Press Release SC/8076, Security Council decides all States shall act to prevent proliferation of mass destruction weapons. 28 April 2004, http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2004/sc8076.doc.htm

[7]Statement of Ambassador Rastam Mohd Isa, Permanent Representative of Malaysia to the United Nations on behalf of the Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons at the General Debate of the Third Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. New York, 26 April 2004. http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/prepcom04/malaysianam26.pdf

[8]Presentation by Jimmy Carter to “The Future of the Non-Proliferation Treaty”, consultation organised by the Middle Powers Initiative, Atlanta,Georgia, Jan 26-28, 2005.

[9]The North Korean statement on withdrawal from the NPT on 10 Jan 2003 explained “A particular mention should be made of the fact that the IAEA in the recent “resolution” kept mum about the U.S. which has grossly violated the NPT and the DPRK-U.S. Agreed Framework, but urged the DPRK, the victim, to unconditionally accept the U.S. demand for disarmament and forfeit its right to self-defence http://www.wildrooster.com/%7Epnndorg/npt_withdrawal.htm. A press release from the Korean Central News Agency issued on May 13, 2003 further explaining the North Korean withdrawal from the NPT, noted that the US “policy to mount preemptive nuclear attacks on 7 countries including the DPRK was a wanton violation of the basic spirit of the NPT which calls on the nuclear weapons states to refrain from threatening other countries with nukes or using them against other countries” and that “After the demise of the East-West Cold War, the U.S. has escalated nuclear threats and war moves not only on the Korean peninsula but worldwide, styling itself an “international gendarme”and the “world’s only superpower.”

[10] According to the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists this includes about 15,000 operational warheads (USA: 5300, Russia: 7800, China:400, France: 350, UK: ≤200, Israel: ≤200, India: 30-35, Pakistan: 20-40) and about 15,000 warheads in reserve (US: 5000, Russia: ≤10000). NRDC Nuclear Notebook, http://www.thebulletin.org/nuclear_weapons_data/

[11]Under the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty (SORT), the U.S.A. and Russia agree to reduce their deployed strategic weapons to no more than 1700-2200 by December 31, 2012. However, there is no requirement to destroy the warheads removed from deployment.

[12]In addition, US opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and to negotiate a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty is seen as in violation to the agreement on these specific items as part of the indefinite extension of the NPT in 2000.

[13]Presentation by Hon Marian Hobbs, New Zealand Minister of Disarmament, to “The Future of the Non-Proliferation Treaty”, consultation organised by the Middle Powers Initiative, Atlanta, Georgia, Jan 26-28, 2005

[14]In a dualistic system there are two conflicting forces, sometimes called the thesis and anti-thesis or positive and negative poles, depending on the type of system. The system will fluctuate from one pole to the other depending on the nature of the forces at work – and it will continue to see-saw back and forth unless there is a third approach which synthesizes the two poles and takes the system to a new level.

[15]Presentation by Hon Marian Hobbs, New Zealand Minister of Disarmament, to “The Future of the Non-Proliferation Treaty”, consultation organised by the Middle Powers Initiative, Atlanta, Georgia, Jan 26-28, 2005


[17] The US approach to focus Proliferation Security Initiative actions against ‘States of concern’, for example, would fail the principle of universal application of international law, under which acts or behaviours are either permitted or prohibited for all actors, regardless of whether they are a ‘State of concern’ or not.

[18] However, there are differing opinions on this. Abolition 2000, the international network for the abolition of nuclear weapons which was founded in 1995, calls for a time-bound framework for the elimination of nuclear weapons. Mayors for Peace, comprising over 600 mayors from around the world calling for nuclear abolition propose a time-bound framework for the achievement of a nuclear abolition treaty by 2010 and the complete elimination of nuclear weapons by 2020. On the other hand the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention circulated by the United Nations (UN Doc A/C.1/52/7)places more attention on the requirements in each of a series of disarmament phases their actual time frame being the subject of negotiation.

[19] The Conference urges India and Pakistan to accede to the Non-Proliferation Treaty as non-nuclear-weapon States and to place all their nuclear facilities under comprehensive Agency safeguards. 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Final Document, NPT/CONF.2000/28 (Parts I and II), Pp 18-19

[20] India’s nuclear doctrine, for example, provides that In the absence of global nuclear disarmament India's strategic interests require effective, credible nuclear deterrence and adequate retaliatory capability should deterrence fail. Draft Report of the National Security Advisory Boardon Indian Nuclear Doctrine August 17, 1999. Para 2.1 http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/india/doctrine/990817-indnucld.htm#pr

[21]India’s nuclear doctrine for example notes that Global, verifiable and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament is a national security objective. India shall continue its efforts to achieve the goal of a nuclear weapon-free world at an early date. Ibid para 8.1

[22] A press statement released by the Indian government following the 1998 tests noted that "the refusal of the nuclear weapon states to consider the elimination of nuclear weapons...continues to be the single biggest threat to international peace and security. It is because of the continuing threat posed to India by the deployment of nuclear weapons‚ that we have been forced to carry out these tests." Indian Press Statement, May 15, 1998

[23] This includes the development of a nuclear triad (land, sea and air) with flexibility to give nuclear weapons a range of roles and operational tasks and with weapons maintained at a high level of readiness to use.

[24] The Indian statement to the ICJ stated “it is submitted that the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance, whether as a means or method of warfare or otherwise, is illegal or unlawful under international law,” and that “Since the production and manufacture of nuclear weapons can only be with the objective of their use, it must follow that if the use of such weapons itself is illegal under international law, then their production and manufacture cannot under any circumstances be considered as permitted. Besides, the manufacture and stockpiling of nuclear weapons would constitute as a threat of their eventual use.” http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icases/iunan/iunan_ipleadings/iunan_ipleadings_199506_WriStats_12_India.pdf

[25] The statement to the ICJ was during a Congress led government. Subsequently a BJP led government subscribed to the position that nuclear deterrence “Is consistent with the UN Charter, which sanctions the right of self-defence” Draft Report of the National Security Advisory Board on Indian Nuclear Doctrine August 17, 1999. Para 2.1

[26] Report of the Canberra Commission, 1996. www.dfat.gov.au/cc/cchome.html

[27] Verification of a nuclear weapon-free world, Trevor Findlay, VERTIC Brief. May 2003, p2 http://www.vertic.org/assets/BP1_Findlay.pdf

[28]Ibid p11

[29]See The Naked Nuclear Emperor , p87, endnote 40

[30] UN Security Council Resolution 1172, adopted 6 June 1998. http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N98/158/60/PDF/N9815860.pdf?OpenElement

[31] The NWS, each of which hold veto power over Security Council decisions, would be unlikely to allow such a determination unless and until they themselves have abandoned nuclear testing and production.

[32] The pre-ambular text in question reads “welcoming the determination of the five nuclear-weapon States to fulfil their commitments relating to nuclear disarmament under Article VI of that Treaty.”

[33] UN Security Council Resolution 1540 adopted on 28 April 2004. http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/328/43/PDF/N0432843.pdf?OpenElement

[34] The Security Council says in Resolution 1540 that it is “ Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations.”

[35] United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 Report New Zealand, October 2004, p1. http://www.gsinstitute.org/pnnd/NZUNSC1540.htm

[36] Territorial Dispute: Libyan Arab Jamahiriya /Chad (1991), ICJ Judgment of 13 February 1994. http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icases/idt/idtframe.htm. Prior to the ICJ case, Libya and Chad had fought at least three wars over the territorial border. Libya and Chad accepted the ICJ decision, withdrew troops from the previously disputed area and concluded a peace agreement.

[37] Nuclear Test (New Zealand v France (1973) and Australia v France (1973). http://www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/icases/inzf/inzfframe.htm The ICJ case was instrumental in moving France to abandon above ground testing in 1975. See Aotearoa/New Zealand at the World Court, Kate Dewes and Robert Green, Disarmament and Security Centre, Christchurch, New Zealand, 1999.

[38] The United Nations Secretary General, for example, successfully mediated a dispute between New Zealand and France concerning the French sponsored terrorist bombing of the Rainbow Warrior, a peace activist ship, in Auckland harbour.

[39] The Carter Center, established by former US President Jimmy Carter, has successfully mediated a number of international conflicts including the conflict between North Korea and the USA in 1993-94 over North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and which threatened to escalate into armed conflict and possibly nuclear war. See The Carter Center: North Korea http://www.cartercenter.org/activities/showdoc.asp?countryID=44&submenuname=activities# and The Carter Centre Conflict resolution programs http://www.cartercenter.org/peaceprograms/program12.htm

[40] Events that occur in a system can be neutral (have no impact on the system),generate negative feedback (an opposite reaction) or generate positive feedback (a reinforcing action). A thermostat in an oven is an example of a negative feedback loop. When the oven heats up, the thermostat switches the elements off. When the oven cools down, the thermostat turns the elements back on. People often experience positive feedback loops when learning a new skill like an instrument. As they get better, they enjoy the practice more and this stimulates them to put even more effort into the skill.

[41]See for example, Michael Klare, Resource Wars: The New Landscape of Global Conflict, Metropolitan Books, New York, 2001.

[42] Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth, Buckminster Fuller, http://www.bfi.org/operating_manual.htm

[43] The People World-wide Want Nuclear Abolition: Results of Independent Opinion Polls. http://www.abolition2000.org/resources/docs/poll_worldwide.pdf


[45]General Lee Butler, “A Voice of Reason”, The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 54 No. 3, May/June 1998, p60.

[46] Statement on nuclear abolition by retired generals and admirals, 5 December 1996. http://www.nuclearfiles.org/redocuments/1996/961205-admirals.html

[47]Doctrine for Joint Theater Nuclear Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff Pub3-12.1. 9 February 1996.

[48] See Robert Green, The Naked Nuclear Emperor, pp36-51

[49]Ibid p51

[50] On June 21, 2000, religious and military leaders issued a call through Washington National Cathedral for the elimination of nuclear weapons. The Call by Military and Religious Leaders, endorsed by 18 retired flag-rank military officials and 21 heads of America’s pre-eminent religious denominations and organizations, states: “National security imperatives and ethical demands have converged to bring us to the necessity of outlawing and prohibiting nuclear weapons worldwide.” http://www.gsinstitute.org/archives/000018.shtml#000018

[51] As President Bush addressed the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Detroit today, a statement from mayors of major cities in the U. S. and abroad was released, calling on him to reduce and eliminate nuclear weapons "with all deliberate speed," and "to declare your firm commitment to the task of eliminating nuclear weapons from the face of the earth." In addition, minutes before the President's arrival to address them today, the plenary meeting of the U. S. Mayor's Conference reaffirmed from the floor its policy in favor of eliminating nuclear weapons. U.S. Mayors Ask Bush to Commit to Eliminating Nuclear Weapons, Press Release, Kent Communications, June 25, 2001. http://www.gsinstitute.org/archives/000061.shtml#000061

[52] See www.abolition2000.org

[53] See www.abolitionnow.org

[54] For a discussion on the methods used by the UN Security Council to ensure and enforce Iraq’s compliance with obligations to eliminate nuclear weapons and other WMD programs, see Rule of Force or Rule of Law: Legal Responses to Nuclear Threats from Terrorism, Proliferation and War, Alyn Ware, Seattle Journal for Social Justice Vol 2, Issue 1 2003.

[55] Pentagon recommends use of nuclear weapons. Kyoto News, September 19, 2001

[56] UN TV, September 19, 2001

[57] The next terrorist threat. Chicago Tribune, September 24, 2001

[58] Crude Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and the Terrorist Threat, IPPNW,1996

[59]www.ippnw.org/NukeTerrorism01.html, 6 February 2002

[60] Crude Nuclear Weapons: Proliferation and the Terrorist Threat, IPPNW,1996

[61] Most States, particularly democratic States, are built on a strong foundation of respect for the law. While there are differences of opinion on how far international law has developed, the underlying legal foundation for States generates a general tendency to adhere to international law out of principled respect for its authority when such authority is clearly determined. C.G. Weeramantry, former Vice-President of the International Court of Justice, for example, notes that “International law is respected through the weight of its legal authority. The ICJ itself has no enforcement powers, yet over 90% of its decisions are implemented. This includes cases where the states were otherwise prepared to resort to force, such as the case between Libya and Chad” (Submission to the New Zealand Foreign Affairs Select Committee, C.G. Weeramantry, 14 August 2003)

[62] International law is as much about making things work effectively as it is about preventing aggressive acts. For example, international law on airspace management ensures that planes don’t crash into each other.

[63]International law is built to a large degree on either agreements or understandings that adherence by a State to its obligations will result in adherence by other States to their obligations. Thus, it is within the self-interest of States to adhere to the law as it will ensure that others do also.

[64] States have an interest in promoting their image internationally. A positive national image helps in trade, tourism and diplomacy. An image as a law abiding nation assists these. An image as a rogue State is detrimental to these.

[65] The most serious repercussions would be action by the UN Security Council including sanctions and even the possibility of the use of force. However,the UN Security Council isn’t the only body that could take action. Regional and treaty bodies also have such powers. And in some cases, such as crimes against humanity, war crimes and torture, universal jurisdiction has been established enabling States to take action against violators regardless of which State they are a national of.

[66] The US Doctrine for Joint Theater Nuclear Operations, for example, states that “to comply with the law, a particular use of any weapon must satisfy the long-standing targeting rules of military necessity, proportionality,and avoidance of collateral damage and unnecessary suffering… In some circumstances, the use of a nuclear weapon may therefore be inappropriate.”pI-1

[67] “Neither the law of armed conflict nor any other customary or conventional international law prohibits the use of nuclear weapons in armed conflict.” Ibid p I-1

[68] The NWS have acknowledged that they would only use nuclear weapons in ‘an extreme circumstance’ but have not changed their policies to proscribe the use of weapons the destructiveness of which would make them unable to conform to the humanitarian laws of war – a requirement that was not extinguished by the ICJ in the extreme circumstance scenario.

[69] See: Verification of nuclear disarmament: first interim report on studies in to the verification of nuclear warheads and their components: Working paper submitted by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, NPT/Conf.2005/PC.II/WP.I http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/2003statements/Working%20Papers/WP1UK.pdf

[70] New Zealand Nuclear Free Zone, Disarmament and Arms Control Act 1987.http://www.gsinstitute.org/pnnd/docs/nukefree.html

[71] Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998, Section 229 http://www.cwc.gov/Authorities/legislation/cwcIndex_html#sec201


[73]United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 Report New Zealand http://www.gsinstitute.org/pnnd/NZUNSC1540.htm

[74]See Modalities, format and organization of the high-level plenary meeting of the sixtieth session of the General Assembly, Report of the Secretary-General, UN General Assembly Document A/59/545, para 3 and 6.http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N04/583/08/PDF/N0458308.pdf?OpenElement

[75] Verification of nuclear disarmament: first interim report on studies into the verification of nuclear warheads and their components: Working paper submitted by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, NPT/Conf.2005/PC.II/WP.I


[76] Compliance: Working Paper submitted by Germany NPT/CONF.2005/PC.III/WP.16http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/prepcom04/papers/germanyWP16.pdf and Strengthening the NPT against withdrawal and non-compliance, suggestions for the establishment of procedures and mechanisms, Working paper submitted by Germany (NPT/CONF.2005/PC.III/WP.15), http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/prepcom04/papers/GermanyWP15.pdf

[77]New Agenda Coalition Substantive recommendations to the third session of the Preparatory Committee of the 2005 NPT Review Conference, Submitted by the New Agenda Coalition (NPT/CONF.2005/PC.III/11) http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/prepcom04/papers/NACrecs11.pdf

[78]Follow-up to the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, NPT/Conf.2000/MC.I/SB.1/WP.4 http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/NPTDocuments/mc1docs/icjwp.html


[80]Nuclear Weapon Free Zones and the promotion of nuclear non-proliferation,Speech by Edmundo Vargas Carreno, Secretary-General of OPANAL, PNND Conference, Wellington, December 8, 2004.


[82]Strengthening Existing Nuclear Weapon Free Zones, Devon Chaffee, Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellow, and Jim Wurst, New York correspondent for UNWire, http://www.lcnp.org/disarmament/nwfz/StrengtheningExistingNWFZ.htm

[83]Submission to the New Zealand Foreign Affairs Select Committee, C.G.Weeramantry, 14 August 2003

[84]Convention on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects (1981).

[85]See “A Ban against landmines? Never!” Jody Williams, in Peace is Possible,Fredrik Heffermehl (ed) International Peace Bureau, Geneva, 2000.

[86]See Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan for a Nuclear-Weapons-Free World (Draft Convention), Mani Shankar Aiyar MP, presentation at an international parliamentary forum: From Nuclear Dangers to Cooperative Security: Parliamentarians and the Legal Imperative for Nuclear Disarmament. Liu Institute for Global Issues, University of British Colombia, Vancouver, Nov 7-9, 2003, http://www.gsinstitute.org/pnnd/reports.html,and A gaffe, or a historic chance? PRAFUL BIDWAI, Frontline, Volume 22 - Issue 01, Jan. 01 - 14, 2005,http://www.flonnet.com/fl2201/stories/20050114007112400.htm

[87] Model Nuclear Weapons Convention: Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Testing, Production, Stockpiling, Transfer,Use and Threat of Use of Nuclear Weapons and on their Elimination, UN DocA/C.1/52/7 http://www.ippnw.org/nwc2.pdf

[88]This includes informal roundtable meetings with delegates at NPT conferences and the Conference on Disarmament; seminars hosted by governments (Canada and Costa Rica) and scientific bodies (International Network of Engineers and Scientists Against Proliferation, Union of Concerned Scientists); and briefings and resolutions in parliaments (including the US and UK).

[89]Security and Survival: The Case for a Nuclear Weapons Convention, Merav Datan and Alyn Ware, IPPNW, 1999. http://www.ippnw.org/IPPNWBooks.html#NWC.The Nuclear Weapons Convention Monitor, IPPNW. Issue 1 (April 2000) http://www.ippnw.org/NWMonitor1-1.pdf, Issue 2 ( ) http://www.ippnw.org/NWMonitor2.pdf, Issue 3 ( ) http://www.ippnw.org/NWCM3.pdf



<< Previous Page