Transcript Nuclear Abolition and Human Security

A NEW APPROACH TO
NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Learning from International Humanitarian Law Success
Dr Patricia M. Lewis
Nuclear weapons characteristics
Massive casualties
 Long lasting horrendous effects
 Distorting international relations
 Spreading & could spread to
non-state armed groups
 Risk of use by
accident or design

Inhumane
•Inherently
indiscriminate
•Illegitimate
•Greater than
required suffering
•Violate the “dictates
of the public
conscience”
Nuclear weapons today




Not militarily useful cannot be used to
take territory in a
military campaign.
They have no role in
today’s conflicts.
Nuclear deterrence
questionable
Proliferation stimulant
Questioning nuclear deterrence





Belief that nuclear weapons provide a special form of
crisis-stable deterrence and that nuclear deterrence
prevented global conflict during the Cold War.
If true, should all states possess nuclear weapons?
But nuclear weapons did not change humanity
fundamentally; we still go to war.
There were long periods without war in Europe in
centuries past, when nuclear weapons played no part.
Historians now doubt the influence of Hiroshima and
Nagasaki and increasingly ascribe the Japanese
surrender to the Soviet declaration of war on August 9,
1945.
Memory of Solferino

In 1862, in his Memory of Solferino, the founder of the
Red Cross Movement, Henri Dunant said


“If the new and frightful weapons of destruction which are
now at the disposal of the nations, seem destined to
abridge the duration of future wars, it appears likely …
that future battle will become more and more murderous”
The use, misuse, control and prohibition of weapons is
woven throughout the history of international
humanitarian law
IHL and the use of weapons in combat



Combatants are prohibited to use weapons which are
inherently indiscriminate or which are of a nature to
inflict suffering greater than that required to take
combatants “out of action”.
Weapons which violate the “dictates of the public
conscience” may also be prohibited on that basis
alone.
The use of weapons which cause widespread, longterm and severe damage to the natural environment is
prohibited.
Chemical Weapons
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And flound’ring like a man in fire or lime . . .
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light,
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
“Dulce et Decorum Est “, Wilfred Owen (1893-1918)
Chlorine, phosgene and mustard



By 1918 the use of use of poison gases had
become widespread, particularly on the Western
Front
Approx 100,000 tons of gas was used in World
War I
Over a million casualties from the use of gas:
100,000 deaths, with survivors left severely
disabled for the rest of their lives
Chem-Bio Controls




1919 Treaty of Versailles: “The use of asphyxiating,
poisonous or other gases and all analogous liquids,
materials or devices being prohibited, their
manufacture and importation are strictly forbidden in
Germany.”
1925, the Geneva Protocol, prohibiting the use in war
of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, was agreed
at the conference for the supervision of the
international trade in arms and ammunition, at the
League of Nations
1972 Bioweapons Convention – abolition
1993 Chemical Weapons Convention - abolition
Inhumane conventional weapons

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons CCW
1980 & Protocols
Mine Ban Convention MBC – 1997

UN Programme of Action on Small Arms - 2001

Convention on Cluster Munitions CCM – 2008

Arms Trade Treaty process & progress

Disarmament as humanitarian action



“The humanitarian perspectives of deminers, landmine
survivors, and humanitarian and medical personnel
among others were vital ingredients.
‘Disarmament as humanitarian action’ reflects the
generic value of diversity of perspective in
multilateral disarmament work.
Seeing security in human terms makes sense. And
problems of human insecurity, augmented by the
availability of weapons, are nearer our doorsteps in
an increasingly interconnected world than we often
imagine.”
Arms Control Community
The treaty isn’t perfect
Not all key players are in the treaty
Unless the key players are
negotiating treaty it is worthless
Unless all the key players join the
treaty is it pointless
We have to get everyone on board
and the terms and conditions agreed
before we start
Humanitarian Community
Nothing is, we will not let the best
be the enemy of the good (and by
the way, show me a perfect arms
control treaty)
The door is open for them to join
If key players water down a treaty,
it has little value
The treaty is having an impact on
all countries inside and outside
We start with knowing what we
what to achieve and begin from
where we are and who wants to
negotiate
Not all weapons have been destroyed Give us time, they will be, and, in
the meantime, lives are being saved
Red Cross and Nuclear Weapons

In 1954 the Board of Governors of the Red
Cross pleaded with all the powers to “work
unceasingly for general disarmament and to
prohibit the use—absolutely and effectively—
of all nuclear weapons as well as chemical and
biological weapons”
ICJ 1996
In 1996, the fourteen judges of the
International Court of Justice issued an
Advisory Opinion about the Legality of
the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons.
 They concluded unanimously that the
principles and rules of international
humanitarian law apply to the use of
nuclear weapons.

The ICRC on the ICJ decision


“Turning now to the nature of nuclear weapons, …….
the ICRC finds it difficult to envisage how a use of
nuclear weapons could be compatible with the rules
of international humanitarian law.
“We are convinced that because of their devastating
effects no one ever wants to see these weapons used.
It is the ICRC’s earnest hope that the opinion of the
Court will give fresh impetus to the international
community’s efforts to rid humanity of this terrible
threat”.
WMD Commission 2006

“Nuclear, biological and chemical arms are the
most inhumane of all weapons. Designed to
terrify as well as destroy, they can, in the hands
of either states or non-state actors, cause
destruction on a vastly greater scale than any
conventional weapons, and their impact is far
more indiscriminate and long-lasting.
IHL application to nuclear weapons


At the heart of the approach is the issue of human
security, the protection of civilians, the application
of the laws of war.
Weapons that are inherently indiscriminate or that
are of a nature to inflict unnecessary suffering that
violate the sense of decency (“dictates of the public
conscience”) and that cause widespread, long-term
and severe damage to the natural environment are
indeed nuclear weapons.
IHL and Disarmament Treaty Law


Disarmament treaty law is rooted in the
already existing norms that have been
established by international humanitarian and
human rights law.
When progress in disarmament has been
achieved, it is because the devastating impact
of the weapons on people has been
understood.
What works

Pragmatic Approach

Essential – people protection measures

Build on what works

Ensure Cognitive Diversity
Steps 1,2,3: Prohibitions

In the first place protect, prevent massacre and the
effects of the weapon. In the second place, remove
the source of the problem—leading us to the
outlawing of nuclear weapons.

Prohibition of First Use

Prohibition of Use

Prohibition of Possession
People-Centered Path



Demand highly effective outcomes not lowest
common denominator results.
One of the most important factors in success is
to keep the bar high – fewer states will agree.
Pragmatism in the way things get done is far
more effective than emotionally clinging to
obsolete methods and practice.
Results Matter



The key focus on human security and
humanitarian perspectives means making
proposals that will make a difference in reality.
Focusing on the results that a negotiation will
produce is no less than the public deserves.
NWS and others should not be feeling happy,
comfortable and unaffected during the
negotiations.
Getting there






Ambition is required
A core group of states, NGOS and international
organizations
A variety of strategies are required - mix of
multilateral, plurilateral, bilateral and unilateral
Engagement of the public is critical
Well-targeted, successful campaign and adequate
financing
A multilayered approach to the issues is required
and different types of players and negotiations are
required for different types of measures