Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T04:55:07.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The development of the international initiative on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons and its effect on the nuclear weapons debate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 February 2016

Alexander Kmentt
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article describes the genesis of the humanitarian initiative and the political context in which it has developed in the course of the joint cross-regional statements and the three international conferences on this issue in Norway, Mexico and Austria. It examines the key substantive conclusions that have emerged as a result of this debate and assesses their relevance for the global nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime. It concludes that these facts and findings warrant an urgent reassessment of the so-called security value of nuclear weapons and a nuclear deterrence-based notion of stability and security.

Keywords

nuclear weaponshumanitarian initiativehumanitarian impactrisk of nuclear weaponsnuclear deterrenceinternational humanitarian law
Type
The Humanitarian Impact initiative: Changing the discourse at the international and domestic levels
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 97 , Issue 899: The human cost of nuclear weapons , September 2015 , pp. 681 - 709
Copyright
Copyright © icrc 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See, e.g., the Russell–Einstein Manifesto, 9 July 1955, available at: http://pugwash.org/1955/07/ (all internet references were accessed in November 2015).

2 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 729 UNTS 10485, 1 July 1968 (entered into force 5 March 1970), Preamble, para. 1.

3 Jakob Kellenberger, “Bringing the Era of Nuclear Weapons to an End”, statement, 20 April 2010, available at: www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/statement/nuclear-weapons-statement-200410.htm. This document is also available in the “Reports and Documents” section of this issue of the Review.

4 Ibid.

5 Final Document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference, NPT/CONF.2010/50, Vol. 1, 2010, p. 19, available at: www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=NPT/CONF.2010/50%20%28VOL.I%29.

6 Ibid., p. 19.

7 Ibid., p. 20.

8 Barack Obama, “Remarks by President Barack Obama in Prague as Delivered”, 5 April 2009, available at: www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-By-President-Barack-Obama-In-Prague-As-Delivered.

9 Treaty between the United States of America and the Russian Federation on Measures for the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Arms (New START), 8 April 2010 (entered into force 5 February 2011), available at: www.state.gov/t/avc/newstart/c44126.htm.

10 See, e.g, Joint Statement delivered by South Africa on behalf of eighty States, 24 April 2013, available at: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/npt/prepcom13/statements/24April_SouthAfrica.pdf, which reads: “Addressing the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons is an absolute necessity. As an element that underpins the NPT, it is essential that the humanitarian consequences inform our work and actions during the current Review Cycle and beyond.”

11 First Preparatory Committee for the 2015 NPT Review Conference, Joint Statement by Austria, Chile, Costa Rica, Denmark, the Holy See, Egypt, Indonesia, Ireland, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, the Philippines, South Africa and Switzerland, 2 May 2012, available at: www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT2015/PrepCom2012/statements/20120502/SwitzerlandOnBehalfOf.pdf.

12 First Preparatory Committee for the 2015 NPT Review Conference, Statement by Norway, 30 April 2012, available at: www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/NPT2015/PrepCom2012/statements/20120430/PM/Norway.pdf.

13 Ira Helfand, “Nuclear Famine: Two Billion People at Risk? Global Impacts of Limited Nuclear War on Agriculture, Food Supplies, and Human Nutrition”, 2nd ed., briefing paper, IPPNW and Physicians for Social Responsibility, November 2013, available at: www.ippnw.org/nuclear-famine.html.

14 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, 2056 UNTS 211, 18 September 1997 (entered into force 1 March 1999), available at: www.apminebanconvention.org.

15 Convention on Cluster Munitions, 2688 UNTS 39, 30 May 2008 (entered into force 1 August 2010), available at: www.clusterconvention.org.

16 Joint Statement delivered by Switzerland on behalf of thirty-four States, 22 October 2012, available at: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/1com/1com12/statements/22Oct_Switzerland.pdf.

17 Joint Statement delivered by South Africa on behalf of eighty States, above note 10.

18 Joint Statement delivered by New Zealand on behalf of 125 States, 21 October 2013, available at: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/1com/1com13/statements/21Oct_Joint.pdf.

19 Joint Statement delivered by New Zealand on behalf of 155 States, 20 October 2014, available at: http://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/1com/1com14/statements/20Oct_NewZealand.pdf.

20 Joint Statement delivered by Austria on behalf of 159 States, 28 April 2015, available at: http://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/npt/revcon2015/statements/28April_AustriaHumanitarian.pdf.

21 This refers to a guarantee by the United States to defend a non-nuclear allied state, e.g. Japan, South Korea, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (much of Europe, Turkey, Canada), and Australia.

22 See, e.g., “Japan Finally Backs U.N. Statement against Use of Nuclear Weapons”, Asahi Shimbun, 22 October 2013.

23 Joint Statement delivered by Switzerland on behalf of thirty-four States, above note 16.

24 Joint Statement delivered by New Zealand on behalf of 125 States, above note 18.

25 Joint Statement delivered by Australia on behalf of seventeen States, 21 October 2013, available at: http://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/1com/1com13/statements/21Oct_Australia2.pdf.

26 Ibid.

27 For a full list of all 125 States, see the Joint Statement delivered by New Zealand, above note 18.

28 Joint Statement delivered by Austria on behalf of 159 States, above note 20.

29 Joint Statement delivered by Australia on behalf of twenty-four States, 30 April 2015, available at: http://reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/npt/revcon2015/statements/30April_Australia.pdf.

30 Oslo Conference, Chair's Summary, available at: www.regjeringen.no/en/topics/foreign-affairs/humanitarian-efforts/humimpact_2013/id708603/.

31 Ibid.

32 ICAN Civil Society Forum, “Farewell Oslo ¡Hasta Mexico!”, report, 14 March 2013, available at: https://goodbyenukes.wordpress.com/.

33 India and Pakistan, States that possess nuclear weapons but are not parties to the NPT, participated in the Oslo Conference.

34 Joint explanatory note by China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States on non-attendance at the Oslo Conference, 2013, available at: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/oslo-2013/P5_Oslo.pdf.

35 See Second Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons (Nayarit Conference), Chair's Summary, presentations and selected statements, available at: http://en.sre.gob.mx/index.php/humanimpact-nayarit-2014.

36 See John Borrie and Tim Caughley, An Illusion of Safety: Challenges of Nuclear Weapon Detonations for United Nations Humanitarian Coordination and Response, UNIDIR, New York and Geneva, 2014, available at: www.unidir.org/illusionofsafety.

37 Patricia Lewis, Heather Williams, Benoît Pelopidas and Sasan Aghlani, Too Close for Comfort: Cases of Near Nuclear Use and Options for Policy, Royal Institute of International Affairs, April 2014, available at: www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/home/chatham/public_html/sites/default/files/20140428TooCloseforComfortNuclearUseLewisWilliamsPelopidasAghlani.pdf.

38 Eric Schlosser, Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety, Penguin Press, New York, 2013.

39 See also Global Zero Commission on Nuclear Risk Reduction, De-Alerting and Stabilizing the World's Nuclear Force Postures, April 2015, available at: www.globalzero.org/files/global_zero_commission_on_nuclear_risk_reduction_report.pdf.

40 Nayarit Conference, Chair's Summary, above note 35.

41 Austrian Foreign Ministry, “Kurz: ‘Paradigm Shift in Nuclear Disarmament is Overdue’”, press release, 13 February 2014, available at: www.bmeia.gv.at/en/the-ministry/press/announcements/2014/kurz-paradigm-shift-in-nuclear-disarmament-is-overdue/.

42 Video recordings of the statements delivered at the Nayarit Conference are available at: http://en.sre.gob.mx/index.php/humanimpact-nayarit-2014.

43 The United States and United Kingdom were said to have seriously considered attendance and decided against it at the last minute.

44 Video recordings of the statements delivered at the Nayarit Conference available at: http://en.sre.gob.mx/index.php/humanimpact-nayarit-2014.

45 Julie Bishop, “We Must Engage, not Enrage Nuclear Countries”, Sydney Morning Herald, 14 February 2014, available at: www.smh.com.au/comment/we-must-engage-not-enrage-nuclear-countries-20140213-32n1s.html.

46 Nayarit Conference, Chair's Summary, above note 35.

47 See, e.g., ICAN, Nayarit – A Point of No Return: Mexico Conference 2014, report, April 2014, p. 5, available at: www.icanw.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/NayaritReport-email.pdf.

48 Ibid., p. 9. See also ICAN, “Nayarit Point of No Return: Mexico Conference Marks Turning Point Towards Nuclear Weapon Ban”, press release, 14 February 2014, available at: www.icanw.org/campaign-news/nayarit-point-of-no-return-mexico-conference-marks-turning-point-towards-nuclear-weapon-ban-2/.

49 See, e.g., the Conference Report containing all presentations and key findings of the Vienna Conference that was prepared in time for the NPT Review Conference and which was distributed there, “Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, 8–9 Dec. 2014”, available at: www.hinw14vienna.at.

50 B. Obama, above note 8.

51 See Barack Obama, “Remarks by President Obama at the Brandenburg Gate – Berlin, Germany”, 19 June 2013, available at: www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/06/19/remarks-president-obama-brandenburg-gate-berlin-germany.

52 See, e.g., Arms Control Association, “Leading Nuclear Policy Experts and Organizations Call on the United States to Participate in International Conference on Humanitarian Impacts of Nuclear Weapons”, 29 October 2014, available at: www.armscontrol.org/pressroom/press-release/Groups-Urge-United-States-to-participate-in-Vienna-humanitarian-impacts-conference.

53 US Department of State, “United States Will Attend the Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons”, media note, 7 November 2014, available at: www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2014/11/233868.htm.

54 China subsequently informed Austria officially that it would attend the conference with a former diplomat who, however, registered as an academic. China was therefore not an officially registered participant.

55 List of participants available at: www.bmeia.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Zentrale/Aussenpolitik/Abruestung/HINW14/HINW14_participants.pdf.

56 Vienna Conference Programme available at: www.bmeia.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Zentrale/Aussenpolitik/Abruestung/HINW14vienna-Program.pdf.

57 Statements available at: www.bmeia.gv.at/en/european-foreign-policy/disarmament/weapons-of-mass-destruction/nuclear-weapons-and-nuclear-terrorism/vienna-conference-on-the-humanitarian-impact-of-nuclear-weapons/statements/. Setsuko Thurlow, Opening Statement, available at: www.bmeia.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Zentrale/Aussenpolitik/Abruestung/HINW14/HINW14_Speech_Setsuko.pdf.

58 All presentations of the Vienna Conference are available at: www.bmeia.gv.at/en/european-foreign-policy/disarmament/weapons-of-mass-destruction/nuclear-weapons-and-nuclear-terrorism/vienna-conference-on-the-humanitarian-impact-of-nuclear-weapons/presentations/.

59 Using historical weather patterns, a simulation of the explosion of a single 200-kiloton nuclear weapon was shown to lead to radioactive fallout being dispersed within a few days over large parts of Europe. Matthew McKinzie, “Calculating the Effects of a Nuclear Explosion at a European Military Base”, presentation, available at: www.bmeia.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Zentrale/Aussenpolitik/Abruestung/HINW14/Presentations/HINW14_S1_Presentation_NRDC_ZAMG.pdf. For US nuclear weapons in Europe, see Hans Kristensen, “Status of U.S. Nuclear Weapons in Europe 2010”, Federation of American Scientists, 2010, available at: http://fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/images/euronukes2010.pdf. This graph and more information is also available in Hans M. Kristensen and Matthew McKinzie, “The State of Nuclear Arsenals Today: Current Developments, Trends and Capabilities of Nuclear Weapons”, in this issue of the Review.

60 Vienna Conference, Chair's Summary, available at: www.bmeia.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Zentrale/Aussenpolitik/Abruestung/HINW14/HINW14_Chair_s_Summary.pdf.

61 Ibid.

62 ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, summary available at: www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?sum=498&code=unan&p1=3&p2=4&case=95&k=e1&p3=5.

63 Nobuo Hayashi, “The Fundamental Ethical and Moral Principles on which International Legal Regulations of Nuclear Weapons Are Based”, presentation, available at: www.bmeia.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Zentrale/Aussenpolitik/Abruestung/HINW14/Presentations/HINW14_S4_Presentation_Nobuo_Hayashi.pdf.

64 Holy See, “Nuclear Disarmament: Time for Abolition”, position paper, available at: www.bmeia.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Zentrale/Aussenpolitik/Abruestung/HINW14/HINW14_Holy_See_Contribution.pdf.

65 Ibid., p. 4.

66 Ibid., p. 11.

67 Vienna Conference, Chair's Summary, above note 60.

68 All statements are available at: www.bmeia.gv.at/en/european-foreign-policy/disarmament/weapons-of-mass-destruction/nuclear-weapons-and-nuclear-terrorism/vienna-conference-on-the-humanitarian-impact-of-nuclear-weapons/statements/.

69 Ibid.

70 Austrian Pledge available at: www.bmeia.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Zentrale/Aussenpolitik/Abruestung/HINW14/HINW14_Austrian_Pledge.pdf.

71 Ibid.

72 Due to the large number of States associating themselves with this document, the Austrian Pledge was “internationalized” and renamed the Humanitarian Pledge in May 2015 during the NPT Review Conference. The list of States (120 by mid-2015) endorsing the Humanitarian Pledge is available at: www.bmeia.gv.at/fileadmin/user_upload/Zentrale/Aussenpolitik/Abruestung/HINW14/HINW14vienna_update_pledge_support.pdf.

73 See the 2015 NPT Review Conference website, available at: www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2015/.

74 The US, UK and Canadian delegations stated that they were not in a position to accept the draft final document that had been presented by the chair of the conference due to issues related to the Middle East. This document subsequently became Working Paper No. 58, available at: www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=NPT/CONF.2015/WP.58. The US closing statement is available at: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/npt/revcon2015/statements/22May_US.pdf. The UK closing statement is available at: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/npt/revcon2015/statements/22May_UK.pdf.

75 Final Document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference, above note 5.

76 Joint Statement delivered by Austria on behalf of 159 States, above note 20; Joint Statement delivered by Australia on behalf of twenty-four States, above note 20.

77 See Acheson, Ray, “Editorial: We the People”, NPT News in Review, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2015Google Scholar, available at: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/disarmament-fora/npt/2015/nir/9732-4-may-2015-vol-13-no-2.

78 See, e.g., Working Papers No. 15, 16, 27, 29, 30, 40, 42, 44 and 52, as well as national reports, available at: www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2015/documents.shtml.

79 See Joint Statement by Austria et al., above note 11. Norway and Denmark decided not to co-sponsor this working paper, which was, however, supported by Sweden, which had not been part of the original Group of 16. Working Paper No. 30 was finally introduced by Austria, Chile, Costa Rica, Egypt, the Holy See, Indonesia, Ireland, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, the Philippines, South Africa, Sweden and Switzerland, available at: www.un.org/en/conf/npt/2015/pdf/NPT%20CONF2015%20WP.30_E.pdf.

80 A large part of the disarmament negotiations took place in a subsidiary body of the conference without written records. Summaries of the discussions and selected statements are available at: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/disarmament-fora/npt/2015.

81 See Working Paper No. 30, above note 79.

82 Chair's Draft Final Document, issued subsequently as Working Paper No. 58, above note 74.

83 See, e.g., the Joint Closing Statement delivered by Austria on behalf of forty-nine States at the 2015 Review Conference, 22 May 2015, available at: www.reachingcriticalwill.org/images/documents/Disarmament-fora/npt/revcon2015/statements/22May_Austria.pdf.

84 US closing statement, above note 74; UK closing statement, above note 74.

85 See, e.g., Ray Acheson, “2015 NPT Review Conference Outcome is the Humanitarian Pledge”, Peace and Health Blog, IPPNW, 23 May 2015, available at: http://peaceandhealthblog.com/2015/05/23/npt-outcome-is-pledge/.

86 Final Document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference, above note 5, p. 19.

87 For more information on the CD, see the United Nations Disarmament Commission website, available at: www.un.org/disarmament/HomePage/DisarmamentCommission/UNDiscom.shtml.

88 For more information on the UNDC, see ibid.

89 B. Obama, above note 8.

90 See, e.g., Hans M. Kristensen, “Nuclear Weapons Modernization: A Threat to the NPT?”, Arms Control Today, 1 May 2015, available at: www.armscontrol.org/act/2014_05/Nuclear-Weapons-Modernization-A-Threat-to-the-NPT. See also H. M. Kristensen and M. McKinzie, above note 59.

91 Final Document of the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, available at: www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/1995-NPT/1995NPT_OfficialDocs.shtml. The Final Document of the 2000 NPT Review Conference is available at: www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/2000-NPT/pdf/FD-Part1and2.pdf.

92 See Alexander Kmentt, “Nuclear Deterrence as a Belief System”, Security Index (International Edition), Vol. 103, No. 2, 2013, available at: www.pircenter.org/en/security-index/160-security-index.

93 See Eric Schlosser, “The Most Dangerous Machines”, presentation given at Vienna Conference, available at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTzbIE69Q4U&index=3&list=PLOX6GHcKYM_vZ-oSBpe2KTzgJrMxl-u6D.

94 NATO, for example, has stated that “[a]s long as nuclear weapons exist, NATO will remain a nuclear alliance”. See NATO, “Active Engagement, Modern Defence: Strategic Concept for the Defence and Security of the Members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation adopted by Heads of State and Government in Lisbon”, 23 May 2012, available at: www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_68580.htm.