THE LEGALITY OF THE THREAT OR USE OF

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

INTERNATIONAL LAW

Submitted to: Miss. Mithul Dutta

Submitted by: P.Lavanya

1282057
BBA.LLB (A)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Nuclear weapons3
History of Nuclear weapons...3
The legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons..6
Conclusion.13
Development over the years ..14

NUCLEAR WEAPONS
A nuclear weapon is an explosive device that derives its destructive force from nuclear reactions,
either fission or a combination of fission and fusion. Both reactions release vast quantities of
energy from relatively small amounts of matter. The first fission ("atomic") bomb test released
the same amount of energy as approximately 20,000 tons of TNT. The first thermonuclear
("hydrogen") bomb test released the same amount of energy as approximately 10,000,000 tons of
TNT.

HISTORY OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

The world's first nuclear weapons explosion on July 16, 1945 in New Mexico, when the United
States tested its first nuclear bomb. Not three weeks later, the world changed.
On August 6, 1945, the United States dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of
Hiroshima. It killed or wounded nearly 130,000 people. Three days later, the United States
bombed Nagasaki. Of the 286,00 people living there at the time of the blast, 74,000 were killed
and another 75,000 sustained severe injuries. Japan agreed to an unconditional surrender on
August 14, 1945; it also resulted in the end of World War II.
In subsequent years, the United States, the Soviet Union and Great Britain conducted several
nuclear weapons tests. In 1954, President Jawaharlal Nehru of India called for a ban on nuclear
testing. It was the first large-scale initiative to ban using nuclear technology for mass destruction.
In 1958, nearly 10,000 scientists presented to United Nations Secretary-General Dag
Hammarskjold a petition that begged, We deem it imperative that immediate action be taken to
effect an international agreement to stop testing of all nuclear weapons.
France exploded its first nuclear device in 1960 and China entered the "nuclear arms club" in
October 1964 when it conducted its first test.
The United States, Soviet Union and some sixty other countries signed a treaty to seek the ends
of the nuclear arms race and promote disarmament on July 1, 1968. The treaty bars nuclear

weapons states from propogating weapons to other states and prohibits states without nuclear
weapons to develop or acquire nuclear arsenal. It permits the use of nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes. It entered into force in 1970 and was extended indefinitely and unconditionally on
May 11, 1995.
In 1974, India conducted its first nuclear test: a subterranean explosion of a nuclear device (not
weapon). India declared it to be a "peaceful" test, but it announced to the world that India had the
scientific know-how to build a bomb.
At this time, the five declared nuclear weapons states are the USA, USSR, UK, France and
China.
In December, 1986, The South Pacific Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone was put into effect.
American and North Korean delegations met in Geneva in autumn 1994 to establish a framework
to resolve nuclear issues in the Korean peninsula. Under the agreement, North Korea would sign
a treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in exchange for U.S. support in building
safe nuclear energy facilities and formal assurance against the threat or use of nuclear weapons
by the U.S. against North Korea. Both sides agreed to take steps towards better political and
economic relations. In subsequent years, South Korea and Japan have invested billions to help
build safe nuclear energy plants in North Korea. By 2003, North Korea has cancelled this and all
other international agreements on non-proliferation.
The United Nations, on December 12, 1995, decreed an immediate ban on all nuclear testing and
urged disarmament with the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons. Later that month, ten
Southeast Asian countries signed the Bankok Treaty, establishing the Southeast Asia NuclearWeapon-Free Zone. In Spring 1996, 43 African nations sign the Pelindaba Treaty establishing the
African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone.
On September 10, 1996, the United Nations, in a landslide vote, adopted the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty and two weeks later, the United States was the first to sign. (The U.S. Senate,
however, rejected the treaty three years later.)
On May 11, 1998, India shocked the world by exploding three nuclear devices amounting to
about six times the destructive power of the American bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. The
4

next day, it tested two more nuclear explosions. The world was stunned when Pakistan responded
with six nuclear arsenal tests of its own.
World leaders admonished the two long-time adversaries in breaking the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty (put into force in 1970). The U.S. imposed strict economic sanctions against both
countries and lobbied for the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and other countries to
do the same. The sanctions were lifted in 2001 when the U.S. needed Pakistan and India's
support to fight al Qaeda and other terrorist cells in Afghanistan.
In 1998 North Korea alarmed Japan by test-firing a medium range-missile (without weapons)
over the Japanese mainland. The missile's apparent range, some 1,000 kilometers or 600 miles,
meant that any part of Japan -- and by default any part of South Korea -- was within range of
North Korean weaponry. Japan is the only country ever to have been attacked by nuclear
weapons and anti-nuclear sentiment runs particularly deep.
In 2002, American President George W. Bush named Iran, Iraq and North Korea as the Axis of
Evil, in part due to U.S. suspicions of those countries having weapons of mass destruction. Later
that year, unofficial reports suggest that North Korea has confirmed the existence of nuclear
arsenals, and intelligence reports indicate that the dictatorial power will have enough plutonium
to build five or six nuclear bombs by May 2003.
On October 9, 2006 North Korea tested a nuclear weapon with the approximated power of the
Hiroshima bomb. North Korea announced to the world that it has become the world's eighth
declared nuclear weapons state. Its missiles have the range to hit targets in South Korea, Japan as
well as U.S., Chinese, and Russian territories.
The United States is the only known country to have missles with range to attack any target on
earth, but over thirty countries have unmanned planes that are undetected by missle defense
systems, and can carry nuclear, biological or other weapons of mass destruction.

THE LEGALITY OF THE THREAT OR USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

the use of nuclear weapons is prohibited not because they are or they are [not] called nuclear
weapons. They fall under the prohibition of the fundamental and mandatory rules of
humanitarian law (which long predates them) by their effects, not because they are nuclear
weapons but because they are indiscriminate weapons of mass destruction.

- Judge Ali-Saab.1

Although the nuclear issue had long been a topic of discussion within United Nations bodies and
the Disarmament Commission in Geneva (later called the Disarmament Conference), it was
avoided in preparatory work for the reaffirmation and development of international humanitarian
law, in particular the 1949 Conference that adopted the four Geneva Conventions and the 19741977 Conference that drafted the Protocols additional thereto. As a result, the modern world has
always had to live with the threat of nuclear weapons, that is, nuclear war. That threat loomed
larger during the long years of the Cold War owing to the strategy adopted by the nuclear powers
and their allies; and even now that the Cold War is over it has still not completely disappeared. In
the present circumstances it was public opinio n and the non-nuclear and non-aligned countries
which took the initiative of asking the Court for an opinion, through such international bodies are
the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations General Assembly.
When it comes to war and armed conflict, international law has always sought to balance
military necessity with humanitarian considerations.2 It has done so by constraining state
behaviour through regulating the conduct of belligerents andlimiting the weapons that may be
used3 Since 1945, a major challenge to this balancing process has been the threat of nuclear
weapons.
1 Warner, D., The Nuclear Weapons Decision by the International Court of Justice:
Locating the raison behind the raison detat, Millennium, Volume 27, Number 2,
2000,p. 311.
2 Burroughs, J., The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice and the
Statute of the International Criminal Court, June 15, 1999, Accessed september,
2014, Available at http://www.lcnp.org/wcourt/humlaw.htm, p. 3
3 Sheldon, J., Nuclear Weapons and the Laws of War: Does Customary International
Law Prohibit the Use of Nuclear Weapons in all Circumstances?, Fordham
International Law Journal, Volume 24, 1996-1997, p. 182.
6

As the destruction evidenced in Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrate, in a world of proliferation

(horizontal and vertical) and international terrorism, the international security implications
stemming from the existence and use of such weapons is potentially catastrophic.4
Unfortunately from an international legal point of view the politics of Cold War deterrence
prevented the emergence of a specific treaty prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons following
World War Two.5 This, despite the emergence of treaties prohibiting the use of less destructive
armaments (e.g. landmines) and other weapons of mass destruction (e.g. the Chemical Weapons
Convention) during the same time period (1945-present).
Therefore, in the absence of a specific treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons, lawyers must resort to
basing their arguments on the principles of customary international law. These principles are
often referred to as the laws of armed conflict, or international humanitarian law (IHL), and
when applied to nuclear weapons it becomes quite clear that the use of such a weapon would be
illegal.
International law as it relates to warfare exists in two broad categories: jus ad bellum and jus in
bello. Jus ad bellum,6 focuses on the justifications states rely on in order to wage war. Jus in
bello, another term for IHL, however, is the law of war that governs the conduct of hostilities in
armed conflicts7 Furthermore, jus in bello is itself subdivided into two categories: Hague

4 For an overview of the effects of a nuclear weapon detonation- the Campaign for
Nuclear Disarmaments The Effects of Nuclear Weapons webpage. Available at
http://www.cnduk.org/index.php/information/info-sheets/the-effects-of-nuclearweapons.html
5 McCoubrey, H., and White, N., International Law And Armed Conflict, Dartmouth
Publishing Company, 1992, p. 249; Meyrowitz, E.L., The Opinions of Legal Scholars
on the Legal Status of Nuclear Weapons, Stanford Journal of International Law,
Volume 24, 1987-1988, p. 114
6 Morris, J., Law, Politics, and the Use of Force, in Baylis, J., Wirtz, J., and Gray, C
(eds.), Strategy In The Contemporary World, Oxford University Press,2010, p. 111
7 McCoubrey and White, p. 189
7

law and Geneva law. The term Hague law is in reference to the Hague Conventions of 1899,
1907 and the Additional Protocols I of 1977.
Essentially, Hague law is the branch of IHL that sets limits on the means and methods of warfare
which may legitimately be used in armed conflict (e.g. prohibiting certain types of
weapons).Geneva law is in reference to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and is focused on
protecting the victims of armed conflict and to ameliorate their conditions.
At one level, this subdivision of IHL is rather artificial as both sets of norms rest ultimately
upon a fundamental principle of proscription concerning the infliction of militarily unnecessary
suffering. However, given the importance of customary international law in contributing to the
development of the principles and rules underpinning IHL a brief overview is required before
proceeding onto further analysis.
The whole of international law can be divided into two types: customary law and treaty law. The
principles derived from customary international law come from state practice (what the majority
of states do) and opinion juris (what states say). Customary law, in the case of IHL, includes all
the rules and principles that regulate the conduct of warfare. Customary law is seen as running in
parallel to treaty law unless an international treaty includes an article that strictly overrides a
principal of customary law. In the case of IHL, none of the treaties discussed above override any
of the customary principles. Instead, each treaty expands and codifies the principles as they are.
IHL is now regarded by many scholars as having achieved the status of jus cogens and, as such,
can now be considered to be permanently binding on every state.
IHL has consistently evolved in response to changes in mans military capabilities with a view
toward limiting human suffering and restraining wanton destruction.8 As such, the customary
legal roots of humanitarian law go as far back as 1646 when Hugo Grotius made an attempt to
codify the laws of war and peace for an international community that was evolving with ever
increasing complexity. By the 1860s the application of the latest advanced weaponry on the
battlefield had produced such horrendous results that a number of states came together to issue
what is now regarded as the first international agreement codifying a prohibition on the use of a
8 Bleimaier, J., Nuclear Weapons and Crimes Against Humanity Under International
Law, Catholic Lawyer, Volume 33, Number 2,1990, p. 162.
8

specific weapon in armed conflict, the St. Petersburg Declaration. Issued in 1868, as a response
to the invention of the exploding bullet, the Declaration proclaimed that certain humanitarian
principles apply to warfare, specifically that the right of a nation-state to injure a belligerent is
not unlimited.9 This statement led to the adoption of more general principles which have had a
lasting effect upon the development of the laws of war, chief of which is the principle that a state
cannot use a weapon that that would uselessly aggravate the suffering of disabled men or render
their deaths inevitable. These principles of limiting state conduct in war and prohibiting
unnecessary suffering were eventually incorporated into Articles 22 and 23(e) of the 1907 Hague
Convention and remain binding on all states to this day.10
The next major step in the evolution of IHL was the Hague Convention of 1907. This treaty,
written in light of the carnage of the Boer and Russo-Japanese wars, was the first major
multilateral approach to codifying the laws of war. The relevant contributions of this treaty to
IHL are found in Article 25 which prohibits the bombing of undefended cities; Article 27
which ensures the protection of buildings devoted to cultural and medical purposes.
Unfortunately, during World War II both Axis and Allied states invoked arguments of military
necessity in order to forego restraint in their pursuance (with the exception of chemical
weapons) of strategic bombing policies against civilian populations (e.g. Dresden, Tokyo,
Coventry, Nagasaki). In the aftermath of that war another push was made to codify and expand
IHL, this time with the view of protecting certain classes of people from unnecessary suffering.
The 1949 Geneva Conventions were the product of this move. Constituting four separate
documents, they expanded IHL to include a prohibition on the use of force against hospitals,
prisoner of war camps, churches, and the sick and wounded (both on land and shipwrecked).
However, it was in recognising civilians as a separate group to be protected that the Geneva
Conventions truly made a mark. A follow-up to the 1949 Conventions, the 1977 Additional
Protocol-I codified the protection of civilians from all the effects of war and was seen by many
9 Meyrowitz, E.L., The Laws of War and Nuclear Weapons, Brooklyn Journal of
International Law, Volume 9, Number 2, 1983, p. 234.
10 Art.22: the right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not
unlimited. Art. 23(e): prohibits the use of arms, projectiles or material calculated
to cause unnecessary suffering.
9

international bodies as a repudiation of World War Two strategic bombing. Still, nuclear
weapons were intentionally bypassed in both the 1949 and 1977 conventions with the nuclear
weapons states (of whom the US, France, India, Pakistan, Israel have not ratified the treaty)
declaring that IHL had no effect on use of nuclear weapons and neither regulated nor prohibited
their use.11
However, this view is legally incorrect. This is due to the fact that in customary IHL there is a
rule, known as the Martens Clause, that permits the application of IHL in instances where this
is no specific prohibiting treaty.
Originally found in the preambles of both the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions, the Martens
Clause (named after a Russian Foreign Minister) in effect states that if a particular rule is not to
be found in treaty law, belligerents remain under the protection and authority of customary
international law, the principles of humanity, and the dictates of the public conscious.12 Since
1907 the Clause has been codified into Art 1(2) of the Additional Protocol 1 of 1977 and reads as
follows: In cases not covered by the Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and
combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principle of international law
derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public
conscience.
The ICJ affirmed the relevance and continued existence of this Clause in their 1996 Advisory
Opinion on nuclear weapons declaring that it has proved to be an effective means of addressing
the rapid evolution of military technology. For the case at hand, this means that humanitarian
law, despite what nuclear weapons states may say, applies to any would-be use of a nuclear
weapon. As such, it does not matter whether or not there is no express treaty provision on
11 Fujita, H., The Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the
legality of nuclear weapons, International Review of the Red Cross, Volume 26,
1997, Available at http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jnfn.htm, p.
2
12 Doswald- Beck, L., International humanitarian law and the Advisory Opinion of
the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear
weapons, International Review of the Red Cross, Volume 316, 1997, Available at
http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jnfm.htm, pp. 7-8.
10

prohibiting (or for that matter permitting) the use of nuclear weapons. In other words, the
novelty of a new weapon does not exempt it from the laws of war.13
In rendering their decision in the 1996 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of
Nuclear Weapons the International Court of Justice (ICJ), after having reviewed the customary
law and treaties that make-up IHL, concluded that in IHL there exists four cardinal rules.
1. The first is the requirement that in war states distinguish combatants from noncombatants. Codified in Article 48 of Protocol 1 the aim of this principle is the
prohibiting of states directly targeting civilians. Nuclear weapons do not meet this
requirement. As Meyrowitz writes, it is hard to think of a nuclear weapon that would
not [when used] produce extensive destruction of areas populated by civilians
Hospitals, the sick and wounded, prisoner of war camps, places of worship and civilian
populations in general would be affected if not by direct impact than by radioactive
fallout.
2. The second rule is the prohibition on the use of indiscriminate weapons. With its roots
dating back to the St. Petersburg Declaration and the 1907 Hague Convention, the ICJ, in
its 1996 Advisory Opinion, wrote that States must never make civilians the object of
attack and must consequently never use weapons that are capable of distinguishing
between civilians and military targets.14 Writing in the Advisory Opinion, Judge
Guillaume argued that customary international law contains only one absolute
prohibition: that concerning the use of so-called blind weapons which cannot
distinguish between civilians and military targets.
In other words, if a state uses an indiscriminate weapon such as a nuclear weapon, than
this equates to a deliberate attack on civilians (this is a similar position taken by the
Landmine Convention). A similar conclusion was reached in 1962 by a Japanese
domestic court in the Shimoda case, which saw survivors of Hiroshima sue the
government of Japan for compensation for their injuries.15

13 Meyrowitz, 1987-1988, p. 116

14 International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion (Legality of the Threat or Use of
Nuclear Weapons), 1996
11

Writing as obiter dicta the court ruled that the nuclear attacks on Japan were illegal under
IHL as such actions constituted a form of indiscriminate bombing.16
3. The third rule of IHL is in regard to proportionality in the use of force. Essentially, this
rule means that if military action leads to expected collateral casualties exceeding the
value of the military objective than it is unlawful. The only way civilian casualties can be
incurred is if weapon used is lawful to begin with and if the target chosen for attack is a
military objective within the meaning of IHL.However, the nature of a nuclear weapon
(i.e. its indiscriminate effects) would render its users unable to rely on this exception.
4. Lastly, the final rule is the prohibition on the use of weapons that cause unnecessary
suffering, something which the ICJ calls the cardinal principle of IHL. Dating back to
the St. Petersburg Declaration, the reasoning behind this rule is straightforward:
weapons that render death inevitable are excessive to the needs of war and are thereby
illegal. In writing his dissenting report to the Advisory Opinion, Judge Weeramantry
concluded that the factsare more than sufficient to establish that nuclear weapons
cause unnecessary suffering going far beyond the purposes of war.17
British international legal writers McCoubrey and White make a similar statement saying
that, the strong argument of unnecessary suffering, coupled with the inevitable
escalatory effect of any use of nuclear weapons, tends to support at least a broad
conclusion of use proscription.

15 The 1952 American-Japanese peace agreement prevents Japanese citizens from

suing the US government for injuries and damages inflicted during the course of the
war.
16 Tanaka, Y., and Falk, R., The Atomic Bombing, The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal and
the Shimoda Case: Lessons for Anti-Nuclear Legal Movements, JapanFocus, 2011,
Available at http://japanfocus.org/articles/print_articles/3245, p. 2; Interestingly
enough, in the Nuremberg and Tokyo War Crimes Tribunals charges relating to
indiscriminate bombing during World War Two were intentionally avoided the
implication being that Allied nations would be also liable for such a charge.
17 Weeramantry, J., Dissenting Opinion: Advisory Opinion (Legality of the Threat or
Use of Nuclear Weapons), International Court of Justice,1996.
12

CONCLUSION
Nuclear weapons are illegal under international humanitarian law. Article 1 of the Geneva
Conventions, of which all nuclear states are a party too, states that the High Contracting Parties
undertake to respect and ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.
As such, IHL is binding on all states and, due to the Martens Clause, can, by default, prohibit
specific weapons systems. This reasoning was also reached by the ICJ in their Advisory Opinion,
when the Court concluded that prima facie the use of nuclear weapons would be a violation of
IHL.
Despite reaching that conclusion, the Court also went on to say that a state could still use
nuclear weapons in the event of extreme situations of self-defence.
However, the existence of such a caveat discounts the entire body of IHL which tries to ensure
international security by limiting the amounts of suffering states can inflict on one another.
Nevertheless, it can still be said that when nuclear weapons are subjected to the corpus of IHL
there clearly exists a legal imperative to rid the world of nuclear weapons.

13

DEVELOPMENT OVER THE YEARS

2005: On 11 October, during the thematic debate in the First Committee (Disarmament and
International Security) India submitted a draft resolution calling for the CD to begin negotiations
on a convention banning the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The preambular language
suggested that this would be an important step towards achieving "an international convention
prohibiting the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons, leading to their
ultimate destruction."
2006: During the meeting of the UN General Assembly in December, 125 State Parties,
including China, India, and Pakistan, called for "commencing multilateral negotiations leading to
an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the development, production,
testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons and providing for
their elimination."
2007: An updated model Nuclear Weapons Convention was created by the International
Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). In May, Costa Rica submitted the model
Convention to the NPT PrepCom in Vienna (NPT/CONF.2010/PC.I/WP.17).
In early December, the governments of Costa Rica and Malaysia submitted the model NWC to
the UN General Assembly, which was then circulated as an official document (UN Doc
A/62/650) on 18 January 2008. On 5 December, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution
on the "Follow-up on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of
the Threat or Use of nuclear Weapons."
The 2007 model NWC takes into account relevant changes that have occurred since the drafting
of the 1997 NWC. These include the proliferation of nuclear weapons to countries such as India,
Pakistan and North Korea, technological developments in verification, new Nuclear Weapon
Free Zones in Mongolia and Central Asia, and the criminal controls established through UNSC
Resolution 1540.
2008: On 24 October, UN secretary-general Ban Ki- moon addressed the East-West Institute at
UN Headquarters in New York with a speech entitled "The United Nations and security in a
nuclear-weapon-free world." In this speech the Secretary-General proposed a five-point plan for
nuclear disarmament and urged "the nuclear-weapon States, to fulfill their obligation under the
[Nuclear Non-Proliferation] Treaty to undertake negotiations on effective measures leading to
14

nuclear disarmament....They could pursue this goal by...negotiating a nuclear-weapons

convention, backed by a strong system of verification, as has long been proposed at the United
Nations."
Also on 24 October, the East-West Institute co-sponsored a workshop on "Seizing the Moment:
A One-Day Consultation on Breakthrough Measures to Build a New East West Consensus on
Weapons of Mass Destruction and Disarmament" with the Center for Nonproliferation Studies,
the British-American Security Information Council, the Global Security Institute and the NGO
Committee on Disarmament, Peace and Security. This strategy session focused on stimulating
negotiations on a NWC, primarily addressing the questions of whether to adopt a "Big Bang" or
an incremental approach to the negotiation of a NWC, as well as where and how this negotiation
should occur.
2009: On 5 April, President Barack Obama outlined a vision of "a world without nuclear
weapons" in a speech delivered in Prague, Czech Republic. He also declared that the United
States, as the only State to have used nuclear weapons, has a "moral responsibility" to lead the
way.
At the NPT PrepCom, the first set of draft recommendations released on 7 May included
examining "ways and means to commence negotiations, in accordance with article VI, on a
convention or framework of agreements to achieve global nuclear disarmament." This proposal
gained little traction with the NWS and was absent from subsequent drafts.
On 29 May, the Conference on Disarmament (CD) adopted a program of work for the first time
in a decade. The program of work establishes a working group entitled "Cessation of the nuclear
arms race and nuclear disarmament" that is tasked with exchanging "views and information on
practical steps for progressive and systematic efforts to reduce nuclear weapons with the ultimate
goal of their elimination, including on approaches toward potential future work of multilateral
character."
On 24 September, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) adopted Resolution 1887. This
Resolution, drafted by the United States, calls on all States Parties belonging to the NPT to
"pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to nuclear arms reduction and
disarmament, and on a Treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective
international control." The Resolution also welcomes the nuclear arms reduction and

15

disarmament efforts undertaken by the nuclear-weapon States, but underlines the "need to pursue
further efforts in the sphere of nuclear disarmament."
In October, the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) of the U.N. General
Assembly adopted resolutions entitled "Nuclear Disarmament" (A/RES/ 64/53) and "Towards a
Nuclear-Weapon-Free World: Accelerating the Implementation of Nuclear Disarmament
Commitments" (A/RES/64/57) Both resolutions advocated the global and complete abolition of
nuclear weapons and supported the negotiation of an NWC.
2010: On 28 May, the state parties to NPT adopted the Final Document of the 2010 NPT Review
Conference. The document takes note of the proposal of the U.N. Secretary General to consider
starting negotiations on an NWC. This was the first time an NPT Review Conference outcome
document referred to a nuclear weapons convention.
In June, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) released a report
reviewing the progress made towards a NWC at the 2010 NPT Review Conference. Called
"Towards Nuclear Abolition," the document provides a detailed account of the deliberations on a
NWC during the conference and lays out how the convention could work.
On 24 September, a high-level meeting on "Revitalizing the Conference on Disarmament and
taking forward multilateral disarmament negotiations" was held at the United Nations in New
York. A number of participants urged the CD to commence negotiations on an NWC.
In October, the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) of the UN General
Assembly adopted resolutions entitled "Nuclear Disarmament" (A/RES/65/56) and "Towards a
nuclear-weapon-free world: Accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament
commitments" (A/RES/65/59). Both resolutions advocated the global and complete abolition of
nuclear weapons and supported the negotiation of an NWC.
In November, ICAN released a reported entitled "The Case against Nuclear Weapons." The
document provides an update on the campaign's initiatives towards, and continued rationale for,
an NWC.
2011: On 24 January-1 August, the first session of the Conference on Disarmament discussed a
NWC in the context of greater nuclear disarmament. Though many states expressed support for a
NWC, debate on the issues was limited.

16

On 6 August, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon addressed the Hiroshima Peace
Memorial Ceremony and reiterated his desire to move towards a world without nuclear weapons.
On 3 November, at The Peoples Forum in Mali, the participants issued the Niono Appeal. The
statement calls for the abolition of nuclear weapons and is against nuclear power in Africa.
On 3 December, at the Summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States
(CELAC), the Heads of State expressed their strong commitment to working towards an
international convention on the total elimination of nuclear weapons.
2012: On 12 January, the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved the Doomsday Clock, an indicator
showing how capable mankind is of destroying itself, a minute closer to midnight. The group
cited the failure to disarm the world of nuclear weapons as one of the contributing factors.
On 16 January, ICAN released a study entitled Towards a Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons.
The document states that 146 nations have declared willingness to negotiate a new global
disarmament pact. Four nuclear weapons states - China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea were
included in the group of 146.
On 26 January, many prominent Australians signed a statement calling on Australian Prime
Minister Julia Gillard to play a prominent role in an effort to abolish nuclear weapons. The
Chairmans Summary at the 2012 NPT PrepCom reiterated States parties call for the negotiation
of a nuclear weapons convention.
On 2 June, people worldwide gathered in the streets on Nuclear Abolition Day to demand the
immediate start of negotiations to ban nuclear weapons.
On 22 October, 34 States provided a joint statement to the United Nations First Committee in
New York on the humanitarian dimension of nuclear weapons. The statement highlighted the
growing dialogue on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and pointed to previous
statements outlining their devastating effects. On behalf of the 34 states, Switzerland noted the
ICRC's conclusion that international organizations would be unable to provide the necessary
emergency relief if a nuclear attack were to occur and that universal effects of radiation would
affect agriculture and the environment.
2013: On 4 and 5 March Norway hosted an international Conference on the Humanitarian Impact
of Nuclear Weapons. The Conference established three main points: 1) "It is unlikely that any
17

state or international body could address the immediate humanitarian emergency caused by a
nuclear weapon detonation in an adequate manner and provide sufficient assistance to those
affected"; 2) Despite changes in the political world, the destructive potential of nuclear weapons
remains; 3) A detonated nuclear weapon will not be constrained by national borders and will be
an international issue. Mexico announced it will hold a follow-up conference.
On 18 April U.S. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton introduced HR-1650, the "Nuclear
Weapons Abolition and Economic and Energy Conversion Act," which calls on the U.S.
government to dismantle and eliminate all nuclear weapons, in every country, by 2020 through a
multilateral treaty.
On 24 April during the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2015 Review
Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,
Ambassador Abdul Samad Minty of South Africa read out the names of 74 States that signed a
statement on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons and comprise the newly-formed
Humanitarian Initiative. The joint statement builds upon that given by 35 States in New York on
22 October 2012. The declaration notes nuclear weapons should not be used under "any
circumstances" and is building upon the 2010 NPT Review Conference where the phrase "deep
concern at the catastrophic humanitarian of any use of nuclear weapons" was first used.
The Chairmans Summary at the 2013 NPT PrepCom reiterated States parties call for the
negotiation of a nuclear weapons convention.
On 21 October, Ambassador Dell Higgie spoke on behalf of 125 States on the catastrophic
humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons. The statement called for the total elimination of
nuclear weapons.
On 19 November, ICAN announced that the Red Cross and Red Crescent reconfirmed its
commitment to a nuclear ban. The movements highest governing body met in Sydney, Australia
and adopted a four-year action plan towards the elimination of nuclear weapons.
2014: On 13-14 February, Mexico hosted the Second Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of
Nuclear Weapons. The Conference discussed the transnational and socioeconomic impacts of
nuclear weapons, highlighted the danger of nuclear accidents or abuse, and declared Austria as
18

the host of the Third Conference taking place next year. In addition, about 20 delegations, as well
as the Chair Summary, expressed their support for the elimination of nuclear weapons through an
official ban, diverging from the nuclear weapons states (NWS) policy of step-by-step
disarmament.
On 20 March, the Inter-Parliamentary Union, which represents 164 parliaments, approved a
resolution supporting a nuclear weapons convention or package of agreements and urging
countries to initiate negotiations as soon as possible.
On 28 April-9 May, non-nuclear weapons states (NNWS) took an aggressive stance on nuclear
weapons in their statements at the 2014 Preparatory Committee for the 2015 Review Conference
of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Chile, Ireland, Cuba,
and the Holy See were part of the group of delegations calling for a global ban of nuclear
weapons, as opposed to a step-by-step disarmament method.

19