Subscribe to this feedEvent Reports
February 22-23, 2013
Creating the Conditions and Building the Framework for a Nuclear Weapons-Free World was the title of the Middle Power Initiative's Berlin Framework Forum, a new initiative designed to help implement the decisions of the 2010 NPT Review Conference leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons.
(L-R): Amb. Mohamed Higazy (Egypt); Amb. Hellmut Hoffmann, (Germany); Ms. Uta Zapf, MP, Germany, PNND Co-President; Dr. Ernst Hillebrand, Friedrich Ebert Foundation; Amb. Rolf Nikel, Commissioner of the German Federal Government for Arms Control and Disarmament; MPI Chairman Dr. Tadatoshi Akiba; H.E. Mr. Ralph Scheide, (Austria); Dr. Wolfgang Maier, Konrad Adenauer Foundation; Ms. Susanne Baumann, Head of Division, Nuclear Disarmament, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, Foreign Ministry of Germany.
26 governments, 12 parliamentarians (from Germany as well as other states), the United Nations and some of the preeminent research institutions in the field took part in the February 20-22 event.
The conference was presided over by Dr. Tadatoshi Akiba, in his first public function as the Chairman of MPI, and by Ambassador Rolf Nikel, Commissioner of the German Federal Government for Arms Control and Disarmament. The Forum was sponsored by MPI and Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament, with the support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Germany, the Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs of Austria, the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, and Rissho Kosei-kai.
GSI is a founding member of the Middle Powers Initiative.
For more on the Berlin Framework Forum, read here.
I myself have no arms to hug you, but a heart as big as the open space of Kazakhstan ready to embrace the world for peace and nuclear disarmament.
Karipbek Kuyukov, Honorary ATOM Project Ambassador
The ATOM Project, an exciting new initiative to build global support for nuclear abolition, was launched at a parliamentary assembly in Astana, Kazakhstan on 29 August, the International Day Against Nuclear Tests.
The project, entitled Abolish Testing: Our Mission (ATOM), highlights the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of the use of nuclear weapons – particularly the nuclear tests conducted in Kazakhstan that have adversely affected the health and lives of nearly two million people. The images of the survivors, though sometimes difficult to witness, are featured in the campaign in order to raise awareness surrounding the damage nuclear testing can cause.
Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev opening the parliamentary assembly
Kazakhstan President Nursultan Nazarbayev launched the project at the opening plenary of the assembly which included participants from over 70 parliaments from around the world including from nuclear weapons possessing states and nuclear allies, and which was organised by Parliamentarians for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament (PNND), the parliament of Kazakhstan, and the Nazarbayev Centre.
"We have an opportunity to once more remind the world about the tragic consequences of the nuclear testing, and push the global community towards more decisive actions to achieve final and definitive ban of such testing" said President Nazarbayev. " In this regard, Kazakhstan launches today the international campaign, the ATOM Project."
German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle commended Kazakhstan at the assembly for launching the project and gave his support.
Honorary ATOM Project Ambassador Mr. Karipbek Kuyukov, an heroic survivor from the effects of nuclear tests, spoke at the assembly about the horrific impact of the tests on the lives of Kazakhstan peoples – "Many of my relations have died from the radiation from the nuclear tests" he said. "In one family first the father then the mother then all the children passed away – the whole family of 10. I myself have no arms to hug you, but a heart as big as the open space of Kazakhstan ready to embrace the world for peace and nuclear disarmament."
German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle speaking at the parliamentary assembly
Dr Lassina Zerbo, representing the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organisation (CTBTO) noted that "Since the CTBT was adopted in 1996, the genie of nuclear testing has virtually been pushed back into the bottle. In contrast to of some 400 explosions every decade since 1945, there were only two tests in the last decade. However, until we seal the bottle once and for all, until we bring the Treaty into force, none of us can feel safe."
Douglas Roche, founding chair of PNND and the Middle Powers Initiative (MPI), called on parliamentarians to strengthen their actions in their legislatures – guided by the Parliamentary Appeal for Nuclear Abolition adopted at the assembly. Mr Roche outlined the MPI Framework Forum – an informal process of governments exploring what would be required for establishing the framework for a nuclear weapons-free world – and announced the next meeting to be hosted by the German Foreign Ministry in Berlin in February 2013.
Roche also called for a new effort of heads of government – similar to the Six Nation Initiative of 1984-1989 – to elevate the call and commence the process to achieve a nuclear-weapons-free world. His proposal was explored in more detail by Jonathan Granoff, President of the Global Security Institute, in a subsequent panel of the assembly.
"PNND is honoured to partner with the ATOM Project to educate parliamentarians, governments and civil society about the horrific humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons and the imperative this provides for their abolition," says Alyn Ware, PNND Global Coordinator. "This assembly in Kazakhstan, which included a field trip to the former Soviet nuclear test site in Semipalatinsk, has energized parliamentarians from around the world to step up their action to abolish nuclear weapons, including through the spread of nuclear-weapon-free zones and the promotion of a global treaty to ban nuclear weapons."
The Global Security Institute, the Middle Powers Initiative and the network of Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament were actively engaged in the first Preparatory Committee conference of States parties to the 2015 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. In addition to undertaking quiet advocacy with key delegations, we organized several, highly regarded, well- attended events focusing on a variety of key aspects of the NPT, including verification, the Middle East, and the humanitarian aspects of nuclear weapons.
The PrepCom was held in Vienna April 30-May 11, 2012.
April 20, 2012
Grand Hyatt Hotel, New York City
» Download the full PDF report (includes transcript)
How does, and how should, international humanitarian law (IHL) governing the conduct of warfare apply to nuclear weapons? On April 20, 2012, three highly qualified speakers addressed that question in a well-attended program of the annual meeting of the International Law Section of the American Bar Association. The program was organized by Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP) and Global Security Institute and sponsored by the section’s National Security Committee.
On November 29, 2011, the Widener University School of Law hosted BSG Chairman Thomas Graham for "A Discussion on Nuclear Disarmament with a Great American Ambassador" featuring US Ambassador Thomas Graham, Jr.
Ambassador Graham, chairman of the Bipartisan Security Group and member of the Global Security Institute Board of Directors, has served as a senior US diplomat involved in the negotiation of every major international arms control and non-proliferation agreement during the period 1970-1997. This includes The Strategic Arms Limitations Talks (SALT Treaties), The Strategic Arms Reduction Talks (START Treaties), The Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Extension (NPT), Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Professor Jonathan Granoff teaches International Law, is President of the Global Security Institute, and along with Ambassador Graham serves as co-chair of the International Law Section of the American Bar Associations Task Force on Nuclear Non-Proliferation.
The event was a dialogue-style discussion between Ambassador Graham and Professor Jonathan Granoff, with a Q&A session following the discussion.
Watch a video of the event:
Monday October 24, 2011
Hosted by the Permanent Mission of Germany to the United Nations
On October 24, 2011, Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (PNND) and the Parliamentarian Network for Conflict Prevention (a project of the East-West Institute) co-sponsored a roundtable discussion amongst parliamentarians, parliamentary organisations, diplomats, UN officials, disarmament experts and non-governmental organisations on Parliamentary Actions for Nuclear Disarmament, with a specific focus on building the framework for a nuclear-weapons-free world.
Parliamentarians and parliaments have vital roles in building political momentum, government commitment and elements of the framework for a nuclear-weapons-free world. Parliaments consider security mechanisms including those for lowering or eliminating the role of nuclear weapons. They allocate funds for the diplomatic and technical work required to establish a disarmament regime. They adopt domestic implementation measures including for border control, policing, securing nuclear facilities and materials, criminalising banned activities, ensuring cooperation between government agencies and public education to support nuclear disarmament. They also liaise with colleagues in other parliaments to develop coordinated approaches between countries and regions.
The workshop explored actions already being taken by parliamentarians, how these can be expanded and improved, additional actions required, the relationship between parliaments and governments in forging a nuclear-weapons-free world, and the roles of experts and civil society to support parliamentary action.
The roundtable was hosted by Ambassador Hellmut Hoffmann from Germany, and included over 40 participants. Parliamentary organisations represented included PNND, the Parliamentarian Network for Conflict Prevention, Parliamentarians for Global Action, Inter-Parliamentary Union and the Parliamentary Forum on Small Arms and Light Weapons.
The discussion included actions that parliamentarians could take in their domestic legislatures in addition to collaboration between parliamentarians on regional and global measures.
A number of recommendations were proposed including:
1. Nuclear Weapon Free Zones:
a) Parliamentarians around the world are called upon to endorse the Joint Parliamentary Statement on a Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear Weapons and other WMD;
b) Parliamentarians in circumpolar nations are encouraged to advance the proposal for an Arctic Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone;
c) Parliamentarians in Japan and South Korea are encouraged to endorse the Joint Parliamentary Statement supporting a North East Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone, and to hold hearings in their respective parliaments on the draft treaty released by former foreign Minister Katsuya Okada;
2. Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty:
a) Parliamentarians are encouraged to hold events in parliaments on the UN Day Against Nuclear Tests, demonstrating the value of the CTBT (and the CTBTO) as a measure for nuclear non-proliferation and environmental protection, and as a contributor to Tsunami early warning and radionuclide monitoring from nuclear accidents;
b) Parliamentarians from countries that have not ratified the CTBT are encouraged to take action in their parliaments to advance such ratification;
3. International Humanitarian Law and nuclear weapons:
a) Parliamentarians are encouraged to join with their national Red Cross and Red Crescent societies in public education on the incompatibility of nuclear weapons with IHL and the requirement to achieve nuclear abolition;
b) Parliamentarians are encouraged to endorse the Vancouver Declaration: Law's Imperative for the Urgent Achievement of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free World, and to cite it in parliamentary speeches and debates;
c) Parliaments are encouraged to adopt resolutions affirming the incompatibility of nuclear weapons with IHL, and supporting efforts by their government and others to start the process for global nuclear abolition without waiting for an elusive consensus in the Conference on Disarmament;
4. Domestic legislation prohibiting nuclear weapons and divesting from nuclear weapons corporations:
a) Parliaments are encouraged to adopt legislation to prohibit and criminalise nuclear weapons, similar to the legislation adopted by Austria, Mongolia, New Zealand and the Philippines;
b) Parliaments are encouraged to take action to move public funds (such as Pension Funds) to divest from any corporation involved in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, components, delivery systems or support structures (similar to the divestment of public funds undertaken in Norway and New Zealand);
5. Reducing role of nuclear weapons in security doctrines: Parliaments and parliamentarians of nuclear weapons States and their nuclear allies (those covered by extended nuclear deterrence relationships) are encouraged to examine the role of nuclear deterrence (including its risks and negative impact on non-proliferation and disarmament), and to consider and advance the further development of security through non-nuclear means in order to quickly phase out reliance on nuclear weapons;
6. UN Secretary-General’s Five Point Proposal for Nuclear Disarmament and the Nuclear Weapons Convention:
a) Parliamentarians are encouraged to adopt resolutions in their parliaments supporting the UN Secretary-General’s Five Point Proposal for Nuclear Disarmament including his proposal for negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention or framework of agreements;
b) Parliaments are encouraged to hold hearings on the legal, technical, political and institutional elements for a nuclear-weapons-free world, guided by the Model Nuclear Weapons Convention that has been circulated by the UN Secretary-General. These hearings could also include consideration of the diplomatic process to advance and achieve a nuclear weapons convention or similar framework for a nuclear-weapons-free world.
7. Nuclear weapons budgets
a) Parliamentarians in nuclear weapon States are encouraged to act for the reduction of spending on nuclear weapons, and the reallocation of such funds to assist disarmament and economic and social needs;
b) Parliamentarians in non-nuclear weapon States are encouraged to urge their governments to raise the nuclear weapons spending issue in international forums including the UN Security Council (to implement Article 26 of the UN Charter) and the UN General Assembly.
A number of documents were circulated supporting the recommendations above, including:
1. PNND brochure;
2. Parliamentarians Network for Conflict Prevention flyer;
3. UN Secretary-General’s letter to all parliaments on the role of parliamentarians to advance nuclear disarmament;
4. Annotated list of parliamentary resolutions adopted (and those submitted but not yet adopted) supporting the UNSG’s five-point plan and/or the nuclear weapons convention;
5. Report from the IPU on parliamentary actions for nuclear disarmament;
6. PNND letter to the P5 meeting in Paris on actions that should be undertaken by the P5;
7. Joint Statement of Japanese and South Korean parliamentarians supporting a North East Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone;
8. Article by PNND Canada Chair on an Arctic Nuclear Weapons Free Zone
9. Paper by Rob van Riet (World Future Council) on National Legislative Measures to Advance Nuclear Abolition
10. Freeze the Nukes: Fund the Future, Congressional letter from PNND Co-President Ed Markey endorsed by 65 other members of the US Congress.
11. Short report from the Bi-Partisan Security Group on developments in Washington (including in the US Congress) with respect to nuclear weapons funding, nonproliferation and the CTBT.
Event Report by Rhianna Kreger
October 24, 2011
Forty diplomats and civil society experts gathered at the Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the United Nations to participate in a workshop titled “Nuclear Weapons Convention or Framework of Agreements: Exploring Proposals for Nuclear Disarmament,” organized as an integral component of the high-level consultation “Nuclear Disarmament: A Compass Point for Progress and Accountability,” sponsored by the EastWest Institute, the Global Security Institute and the James Martin Center for Non-proliferation Studies.
Several distinguished panelists discussed various approaches to achieve the widely-shared goal of a secure world without nuclear weapons. While each approach varied in some measure, they all shared a similar strategy such as that expressed by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s Five Point Proposal, one that has at its core the principle of universality.
A route to abolition underscored by the primacy of universalization might best be achieved through the strengthening of the application of international humanitarian law (IHL), as discussed by Ambassador Benno Laggner, Head of the Task Force on Nuclear Disarmament and Non-Proliferation of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs. The acceptance of IHL’s applicability to nuclear weapons use and policy shifts the debate, the Ambassador said, from “whether” to disarm to “why” it is imperative. He discussed the leadership role of the Swiss Government in ensuring IHL’s inclusion in the consensus-based Final Document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference, and asserted that the work now is to “keep the issue on the agenda” as well as to “explore how to strengthen” its applicability in the nuclear field.
Ambassador Laggner claimed that IHL has “mobilizing power” to disarmament advocates, as demonstrated by the efficacy of its use in argumentation behind achieving prohibitions against landmines—via the “Ottawa Process”—and cluster munitions—the “Oslo Process.” He rejects the claim that nuclear weapons are too different from these other categories of weapons to be disarmed by an IHL-based campaign, insisting that IHL helps to highlight the universally humanitarian risks posed by the use of nuclear weapons, just as it helped to highlight the risks of other banned weapons.
(L-R): Ambassador Laggner, Jonathan Granoff, Ambassador Dhanapala, Mani Shankar Aiyar
The need for global abolition efforts to expand beyond the current focus on US and Russia was a major theme of the presentation by Ambassador James Goodby of the Hoover Institution. “The effort to roll back nuclear dangers must become a true joint enterprise,” Ambassador Goodby warned, “or it will not succeed.”
Based in part on his proposal articulated in a recent Arms Control Today article, Ambassador Goodby illustrated a comprehensive framework approach that included immediate unilateral declarations and policy modifications, to be followed by “a more comprehensive international effort… to consolidate and institutionalize” a process leading towards abolition. Such a process would be broad in scope and go beyond “a focus on nuclear issues” which “alone can only go so far in creating the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons.” Such “ancillary agreements” that would establish security mechanisms and infrastructure would build inter-state confidence, enhance transparency and strengthen verification, enabling states to inch ever closer to the goal of “zero”. These steps, in effect, constitute the “building blocks” that would be in place to allow for a nuclear weapons treaty or convention to be most achievable, practical and effective.
To the former President of the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference, Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala, a non-legally binding process such as that articulated by Ambassador Goodby fails to “inject the requisite urgency” of the nuclear weapon risk, thereby running the risk of “going on infinitely.” In his view, an approach to abolition would be much better served within a timebound framework. From the 2000-era “Thirteen Steps” to the 1987 Disarmament and Development Final Document, Ambassador Dhanapala contributed to many substantial political declarations that failed to solicit the requisite commitment to implementation; a nuclear abolition process must go beyond toothless political statements and intentions.
The “Nuclear Weapon States will not lead us towards a nuclear weapon-free world,” Ambassador Dhanapala argued, calling for robust participation from civil society. Expressing fervent support for the utility of IHL, the President of Pugwash offered several routes that could be pursued to strengthen the norm against nuclear weapons, such as the inclusion of nuclear weapons use in the ICC’s Rome Statute to make such use a war crime, the amendment of the Geneva Conventions to make explicit nuclear weapons’ violation of IHL, or a global boycott of banks and institutions that profit from the nuclear weapons industry.
As a seasoned Washington insider, Ambassador Robert Grey, Jr. painted a desultory view of the United States’ disarmament commitment, lamenting the Obama administration’s budgetary “gift” to the nuclear labs as a “bribe” for START. The CTBT, he affirmed, will not be submitted for ratification this next year, and should a Republican win the White House, “you won’t get a CTB for another eight years, if ever” he predicted.
Ambassador Butler makes an intervention during the afternoon workshop co-sponsored by the Permanent Mission of Switzerland titled "Nuclear Weapons Convention or Framework of Agreements: Exploring Proposals for Nuclear Disarmament."
As a discussant, Ambassador Grey disagreed with Ambassador Dhanapala’s view of the potential for NGOs alone to advance the agenda. Instead, he placed great emphasis on the vital role of US allies, particularly middle power countries, to lead efforts away from dysfunctional bodies such as the Conference on Disarmament, such as Canada and Norway did with negotiations to ban landmines and cluster munitions.
The presentations incited a spirited discussion of several possible ways to advance these proposals. One government delegate suggested a possible General Assembly resolution to further strengthen IHL’s applicability to nuclear weapons use. Another, in support for the IHL approach, noted that the 1996 International Court of Justice opinion was instigated, not by security arguments from arms control advocates, but by health arguments put forth by the World Health Organization. Ambassador Richard Butler of the Middle Powers Initiative voiced emphatic support for Ambassador Goodby’s focus on the security of a nuclear weapon-free world, and proposed that MPI work with middle power governments to establish an ongoing discussion of the governance structures that such a world would require.
After the workshop, Mr. Granoff talks with Ambassador Benno Laggne of the Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs, one of the afternoon's panelists who spoke about the application of international humanitarian law to nuclear weapons policy and use.
» Read a report of the full day's events
» View a photo gallery of the day's events
» Read the report of the plenaries by the EastWest Institute
» Read the report of the event from the UN News Centre
» Read the report of Mr. Aiyar's presentation published in The Economic Times
» Download "Nuclear Disarmament: Compass Point for Progress and Accountability," the conference description and program
» Download the full transcript of the Secretary-General's presentation
» Download the report of the Advisory Group to Revitalize the Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan
» Read the entirety of "Pacta Sanct Servanda," Mr. Granoff's presentation
» Read the full transcript of Ambassador James Goodby's presentation
» Read a summary of the accountability workshop at the Kazakh Mission
GSI Event Report
October 25, 2010
A stimulating panel, Humanitarian Law Versus Nuclear Weapons, took as its theme the international community’s reaffirmation earlier this year that law governing the conduct of warfare applies in the nuclear arena. The October 25 event at the UN was co-sponsored by the Global Security Institute, the Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy (LCNP), and the Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the United Nations.
In opening remarks, LCNP President Peter Weiss explained international humanitarian law (IHL) goes back a very long way in recorded history, but that modern IHL begins with the First International Peace Conference held in The Hague in 1899. The conference was intended to abolish war, but managed only to establish a set of principles assuaging the brutality of war. Mr. Weiss observed that not only does IHL challenge continued reliance on nuclear weapons, it is also challenged by those weapons. He quoted the observation of President Mohammed Bedjaoui in his declaration accompanying the 1996 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice: “The very nature of this blind weapon therefore has a destabilizing effect on humanitarian law which regulates discernment in the type of weapon used.”
Global Security Institute President Jonathan Granoff, who served as moderator, stressed the importance of building upon the provision of the May 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference Final Document calling for “special efforts to establish the necessary framework to achieve and maintain a world without nuclear weapons.” That framework, he said, has to rest on the rule of law, and one key aspect of the rule of law is set out in another provision of the Final Document reaffirming that “all states should comply at all times with international law, including international humanitarian law.” An implication, according to Mr. Granoff, is that nuclear weapon states and members of nuclear alliances now have to make their policies and deployments compatible with IHL, and should establish visible processes to do so.
Charles J. Moxley, Jr., adjunct professor at Fordham Law School and a member of LCNP’s Board of Directors, explained the thrust of an article he, John Burroughs, and Mr. Granoff have coming out in the Fordham International Law Journal, "Nuclear Weapons and Compliance with International Humanitarian Law and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty." IHL requires that use of a weapon or means of combat comply with requirements of necessity, proportionality, discrimination, and controllability. In particular due to the inability to control the effects of nuclear weapons, he said, the weapons cannot meet those requirements.
Professor Moxley also critiqued US arguments in favor of the legality of nuclear weapons, for example the claim that “low-yield” weapons could be used in remote areas with limited casualties. He noted that effects in that scenario would still be uncontrollable, and further observed that such scenarios cannot justify the main uses contemplated by doctrine and enabled by the high-yield weapons that make up the bulk of the existing arsenal. He concluded by underscoring the willingness of the authors and their organizations to work with governments and the UN on further development of the application of IHL to nuclear weapons.
LCNP Executive Director Dr. John Burroughs contended that the incompatibility of nuclear weapons with IHL logically requires the prohibition and elimination of those weapons through a global agreement, as has been the case with biological and chemical weapons, landmines, and cluster munitions. On this subject, he recommended the article by Mr. Weiss also forthcoming in the Fordham International Law Journal, Taking the Law Seriously: The Imperative Need for a Nuclear Weapons Convention. Dr. Burroughs also emphasized the significance of the recent outspokenness of the International Committee of the Red Cross about the IHL-based logic for ending the role of nuclear weapons in security policies and eliminating them.
While cautioning of the risk of distraction from the central task of eliminating nuclear forces, Dr. Burroughs suggested for consideration other possible steps. They include: national measures prohibiting involvement of any person in use of nuclear weapons and providing for prosecution or extradition of alleged violators; a treaty banning use in all circumstances and providing for prosecution or extradition, which non-nuclear weapon states could adopt in anticipation of a comprehensive agreement on elimination; and amendment of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to expressly criminalize use of nuclear weapons. He finished by underlining the need for states and civil society alike to seize the new opportunity to make the case for humanitarian nuclear disarmament.
Speaking from the floor, Ambassador Jürg Lindenmann, Deputy Director of the Directorate of International Law at the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, stated the Swiss position that nuclear weapons cannot be used consistently with seven principles of IHL: necessity, proportionality, prohibition of attacks on civilians, discrimination between military targets and non-combatants, prohibition of the infliction of unnecessary suffering, protection of neutral states, and protection of the environment, including prohibition of means of warfare that cause widespread, severe, and long-term damage to the environment.
In a spirited discussion period, one participant questioned a focus on use as opposed to possession, and another raised the issue of whether it is worthwhile for non-nuclear weapon states to pursue steps absent participation of states possessing the weapons. In reply, Mr.Weiss suggested that non-nuclear weapon states have an essential role to play in urging the nuclear weapon states to demonstrate their commitment to a nuclear weapons free world by beginning multilateral negotiations about, or at least consideration of, a nuclear weapons convention.
Mr. Granoff closed the session by quoting the late Senator Alan Cranston, founder of the Global Security Institute: “Nuclear weapons are unworthy of civilization.”
» Download the prepublication version of "Nuclear Weapons and Compliance with International Humanitarian Law and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," in the forthcoming Fordham International Law Journal, by Charles J. Moxley, Jr., John Burroughs and Jonathan Granoff, Winter, 2011, No. 34.