Simultaneously, an ever-increasing number of states signed up to cross-regional statements expressing concerns about the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.At the 2015 NPT Review Conference, 159 states expressed concerns over the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any nuclear weapons use and declared, “it is in the interest of the very survival of humanity that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances.” The humanitarian initiative has become the most dynamic movement for engaging the public, exploring new constituencies and re-energizing civil society around the issue of nuclear weapons in the past several decades.Through a General Assembly established working group in Geneva, tasked with “taking forward multilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations,” support for such a treaty has grown significantly among the non-nuclear weapon states.
Simultaneously, an ever-increasing number of states signed up to cross-regional statements expressing concerns about the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons.Tags: Of A Salesman Flashback EssayEssays On Art And LanguageVirtual Reality Research PaperRoman HomeworkPhd Thesis Evolutionary AlgorithmTopic For Research ProposalTechnology Effect On Education EssayPlato Essay CaveResearch Papers Written For You
The first conference was held in March 2013 in Oslo, Norway where 128 states participated; the second in Nayarit, Mexico, in February 2014 where 146 states participated; and the third in Vienna, Austria in December 2014 with 158 states participating.
All included the voices of relevant United Nations agencies, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, academia and non-governmental organizations.
Both in the scale of the devastation they cause, and in their uniquely persistent and hazardous radioactive fallout, they are unlike any other weapons.
A single nuclear bomb detonated over a large city could kill millions of people.
While the pledge does not specifically call for a ban, a majority of the more than 120 states endorsing it see the pledge as a political commitment towards negotiating a legally binding instrument that would prohibit nuclear weapons.
The prohibition of weapons typically precedes their elimination, not the other way around.Over the past six years, an increased focus on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons has emerged in multilateral nuclear disarmament discussions and has led to a strong push by non-nuclear armed states to jumpstart an international process to prohibit nuclear weapons.On October 27, 2016, the United Nations took a giant step towards a legally binding prohibition on nuclear weapons by voting 123 to 38 to begin formal negotiations in March 2017.While civil society organizations such as the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons have campaigned for a new treaty banning nuclear weapons — even without the participation of the nuclear-armed states — since the Oslo conference, the “Austrian Pledge” was a sign that government involvement in the humanitarian initiative had entered a new phase.State actors were moving from simple fact-based discussions about the humanitarian consequences, to discussions about what political steps should be taken.By changing the way the world perceives nuclear weapons, a treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons would have meaningful impact beyond those states that may formally adopt such an instrument at the beginning.The ban treaty, once in force, could challenge the notion that possessing nuclear weapons is legitimate for some states.Just a few weeks before the 2010 NPT Review Conference, Mr.Kellenberger emphasized that: Nuclear weapons are unique in their destructive power, in the unspeakable human suffering they cause, in the impossibility of controlling their effects in space and time, in the risks of escalation they create, and in the threat they pose to the environment, to future generations, and indeed to the survival of humanity.While nuclear-armed states remain opposed to a treaty banning nuclear weapons, it can still be undertaken by non-nuclear weapon states.Of course, like the biological and chemical weapons conventions, a nuclear weapons ban would allow nations with stockpiles of these weapons to join so long as they agree to eliminate them within a specified timeframe.