Practice Relating to Nuclear Weapons

Note. This practice document is still incomplete. In particular, the sections on military manuals and national legislation are still being completed. In addition, the section on the United Nations contains only resolutions from the period 20032007.
Antarctic Treaty
Article I of the 1959 Antarctic Treaty provides:
1. Antarctica shall be used for peaceful purposes only. There shall be prohibited, inter alia, any measure of a military nature, such as the establishment of military bases and fortifications, the carrying out of military manoeuvres, as well as the testing of any type of weapon.
2. The present Treaty shall not prevent the use of military personnel or equipment for scientific research or for any other peaceful purpose. 
Antarctic Treaty, Washington, 1 December 1959, Article I.
Tlatelolco Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean
The preamble and Article 1 of the 1967 Tlatelolco Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean provide:
[T]he Governments of the States which sign the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean;
Convinced:
That nuclear weapons, whose terrible effects are suffered, indiscriminately and inexorably, by military forces and civilian population alike, constitute, through the persistence of the radioactivity they release, an attack on the integrity of the human species and ultimately may even render the whole earth uninhabitable;
Have agreed as follows:
Article 1: Obligations
1. The Contracting Parties hereby undertake to use exclusively for peaceful purposes the nuclear material and facilities which are under their jurisdiction, and to prohibit and prevent in their respective territories:
(a) The testing, use, manufacture, production or acquisition by any means whatsoever of any nuclear weapons, by the Parties themselves, directly or indirectly, on behalf of anyone else or in any other way, and
(b) The receipt, storage, installation, deployment and any form of possession of any nuclear weapons, directly or indirectly, by the Parties themselves, by anyone on their behalf or in any other way.
2. The Contracting Parties also undertake to refrain from engaging in, encouraging or authorizing, directly or indirectly, or in any way participating in the testing, use, manufacture, production, possession or control of any nuclear weapon. 
Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (Treaty of Tlatelolco), Mexico City, 14 February 1967, preamble and Article 1.
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
The preamble and Articles I and II of the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons provide:
The States concluding this Treaty …
Believing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons would seriously enhance the danger of nuclear war,
Have agreed as follows:
Article I
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices.
Article II
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. 
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, London, Moscow and Washington, 1 July 1968, preamble and Articles I–II.
Rarotonga Treaty on a South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone
The preamble and Article 3 of the 1985 Rarotonga Treaty on a South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone provide:
The Parties to this Treaty,
Convinced that all countries have an obligation to make every effort to achieve the goal of eliminating nuclear weapons, the terror which they hold for humankind and the threat which they pose to life on earth;
Have agreed as follows:
Article 3
Renunciation of Nuclear Explosive Devices
Each Party undertakes:
(a) not to manufacture or otherwise acquire, possess or have control over any nuclear explosive device by any means anywhere inside or outside the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone;
(b) not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture or acquisition of any nuclear explosive device;
(c) not to take any action to assist or encourage the manufacture or acquisition of any nuclear explosive device by any State. 
South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Rarotonga), Rarotonga, 6 August 1985, preamble and Article 3.
Bangkok Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone
The preamble and Article 3 of the 1995 Bangkok Treaty on the Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone provide:
The States Parties to this Treaty:
Determined to take concrete action which will contribute to the progress towards general and complete disarmament of nuclear weapons, and to the promotion of international peace and security;
Article 3
Basic Undertakings
1. Each State Party undertakes not to, anywhere inside or outside the Zone:
(a) develop, manufacture or otherwise acquire, possess or have control over nuclear weapons;
(b) station or transport nuclear weapons by any means; or
(c) test or use nuclear weapons
2. Each State Party also undertakes not to allow, in its territory, any other State to:
(a) develop, manufacture or otherwise acquire, possess or have control over nuclear weapons;
(b) station nuclear weapons; or
(c) test or use nuclear weapons.
3. Each State Party also undertakes not to:
(a) dump at sea or discharge into the atmosphere anywhere within the Zone any radioactive material or wastes;
(b) dispose radioactive material or wastes on land in the territory of or under the jurisdiction of other States except as stipulated in Paragraph 2(e) of Article 4; or
(c) allow, within its territory, any other State to dump at sea or discharge into the atmosphere any radioactive material or wastes.
4. Each State Party undertakes not to:
(a) seek or receive any assistance in the commission of any act in violation of the provisions of Paragraphs 1, 2 and I of this Article; or (b) take any action to assist or encourage the commission of any act in violation of the provisions of Paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of this Article. 
Southeast Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Bangkok), Bangkok, 15 December 1995, preamble and Article 3.
Pelindaba Treaty on the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone
The preamble and Article 3 of the 1996 Pelindaba Treaty on the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone provide:
The Parties to this Treaty
Convinced of the need to take all steps in achieving the ultimate goal of a world entirely free of nuclear weapons, as well as of the obligations of all States to contribute to this end,
Article 3
Renunciation of nuclear explosive devices
Each Party undertakes:
a. Not to conduct research on, develop, manufacture, stockpile or otherwise acquire, possess or have control over any nuclear explosive device by any means anywhere;
b. Not to seek or receive any assistance in the research on, development, manufacture, stockpiling or acquisition, or possession of any nuclear explosive device;
c. Not to take any action to assist or encourage the research on, development, manufacture, stockpiling or acquisition, or possession of any nuclear explosive device. 
African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Pelindaba Treaty), Cairo, 11 April 1996, preamble and Article 3.
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty
The preamble and Article I of the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty provide:
The States Parties to this Treaty …
Stressing therefore the need for continued systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons, and of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control,
Recognizing that the cessation of all nuclear weapon test explosions and all other nuclear explosions, by constraining the development and qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons and ending the development of advanced new types of nuclear weapons, constitutes an effective measure of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in all its aspects
Have agreed as follows:
Article I
Basic Obligations
1. Each State Party undertakes not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion, and to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion at any place under its jurisdiction or control.
2. Each State Party undertakes, furthermore, to refrain from causing, encouraging, or in any way participating in the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion.  
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 50/245, 17 September 1996, preamble and Article I.
Semipalatinsk Treaty on a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia
The preamble and Article 3 of the 2006 Semipalatinsk Treaty on a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia provide:
The Parties to this Treaty,
Stressing the need for continued systematic and consistent efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons, and of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, and convinced that all states are obliged to contribute to that end,
Have decided to establish а nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia and have agreed as follows:
Article 3 Basic Obligations
Each Party undertakes:
(а) Not to conduct research on, develop, manufacture, stockpile or otherwise acquire, possess or have control over any nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device by any means anywhere;
(b) Not to seek or receive any assistance in research on, development, manufacture, stockpiling, acquisition, possession or obtaining control over any nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device. 
Treaty on a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Central Asia, Semipalatinsk, 8 September 2006, preamble and Article 3.
Cartagena Declaration on Weapons of Mass Destruction
In December 1991, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela adopted the Cartagena Declaration on Weapons of Mass Destruction and agreed as follows:
1. They welcome the initiative of the Government of Peru concerning the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction in Latin America and the Caribbean as the beginning of a gradual process to strengthen security and mutual trust in the region;
2. They proclaim the commitment of their Governments to renounce the possession, production, development, use, testing and transfer of all weapons of mass destruction, whether nuclear, bacteriological (biological), toxin or chemical weapons, and to refrain from storing, acquiring or holding such categories of weapons, in any circumstances. 
Cartagena Declaration on Renunciation of Weapons of Mass Destruction, signed by Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru and Venezuela, Cartagena de Indias, 4 December 1991, §§ 1–2.
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states:
4.45 The United Nations General Assembly has condemned nuclear weapons as illegal, although the international community itself is divided on this question. In 1996 the International Court of Justice handed down an advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons determining that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law”. The Court could not however, conclude definitely whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a state would be at stake.
4.46 The commentary to G. P. I [1977 Additional Protocol I] states that “there is no doubt that during the four sessions of the Conference agreement was reached not to discuss nuclear weapons”. Nevertheless, general humanitarian law principles aimed at limiting unnecessary suffering and protecting the civilian population, as further clarified by G. P. I, must be considered in the employment of all weapons of war, including nuclear weapons. The International Court of Justice took the view that only in cases of extreme necessity, where the very survival of the nation is at stake, would the use of a nuclear weapon possibly be appropriate. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 4.45–4.46.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Brazil
Brazil’s Operations Manual for the Evacuation of Non-Combatants (2007) states in a chapter on “Brazil and its Foreign Policy”:
2.5 Brazil’s support for the principles of peaceful settlement of disputes, non-intervention and protection of peace requires strengthening and universalizing the international regimes for disarmament and non-proliferation. Brazil makes every effort in support for the objective set out by the international community of achieving the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation are mutually reinforcing processes and require that continuous and irreversible progress be made towards both objectives. The objective of non-proliferation shall be achieved through the systematic and progressive elimination of nuclear weapons in an extensive, universal, non-discriminatory and verifiable manner.
2.11 Brazil … has signed the [(1968)] Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and highlights the need for compliance with article VI, which provides for the obligation of nuclear disarmament by the nuclear powers. 
Brazil, Manual de Operações de Evacuação de Não-Combatentes, Ministério da Defesa, Estado-Maior de Defesa, MD33-M-08, Ordinance No. 1351/EMD/MD of 11 October 2007, published in Diário Oficial da União, No. 198, 15 October 2007, §§ 2.5 and 2.11.
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states that “there are weapons whose use is prohibited … [such as] nuclear weapons”. 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 17; see also Part I bis, pp. 2 and 33.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states:
In its opinion of 8 July 1996 regarding the following question posed by the WHO and the UN General Assembly: “Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law?”, the ICJ said:
The radiation released by a nuclear explosion would affect health, agriculture, natural resources and demography over a very wide area. … The nuclear weapon has unique characteristics, in particular its destructive capacity, its capacity to cause untold human suffering, and its ability to cause damage to generations to come. 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 236, § 551.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter entitled “Restrictions on the use of weapons”:
1. The United Nations General Assembly has condemned nuclear weapons as being illegal, although the international community itself is divided on this question. While nuclear weapons are not specifically prohibited by any international treaty, there is a strong argument to be made that the use of nuclear weapons would violate International Law on a variety of grounds including:
a. they would cause superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering;
b. their effect would be indiscriminate; or
c. their use would cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.
2. At the request of the United Nations General Assembly, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an advisory opinion with respect to the legality of nuclear weapons in 1996. The majority of the judges ruled that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the LOAC and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law. However, the ICJ went on to state that it could not reach a final decision on whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons was illegal in extreme circumstances of self-defence where the very survival of a state is at stake.
3. When Canada deposited its ratification of Additional Protocol I, the following reservation was made:
“It is the understanding of the Government of Canada that the rules introduced by Protocol I were intended to apply exclusively to conventional weapons. In particular, the rules so introduced do not have any effect on and do not regulate or prohibit the use of nuclear weapons.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 526.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in its Book IV (Instruction of heads of division and company commanders):
II.2.4. Nuclear weapons
The United Nations General Assembly has condemned nuclear weapons as illegal, while the international community is divided on this question. Although nuclear weapons are not specifically prohibited by any international treaty, it would be possible to argue that the use of nuclear weapons would violate international law in various matters, since:
- they would cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering;
- they would strike without distinction;
- their use would cause long-term and severe damage to the natural environment.
In 1996, at the request of the United Nations General Assembly, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) produced an advisory opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons. The judges stated by majority that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law. However, the ICJ continued by declaring that it could not render a final decision on the legality of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances of self-defence or when the survival of a State is at stake. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 57.
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) provides: “Numerous texts aim to control or limit nuclear weapons. International law does not prohibit, in all circumstances, their use or the threat of their use.”  
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 25.
Germany
Germany’s Soldiers’ Manual (2006) states:
German service men or service women are prohibited from using in particular the following means of combat in armed conflicts:
- nuclear weapons. 
Germany, Druckschrift Einsatz Nr. 03, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, Erarbeitet nach ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten –Handbuch, DSK SF009320187, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, R II 3, August 2006, p. 5.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states:
A nuclear weapon … is a weapon like any other and is therefore subject to the usual rules applicable to weapons. Its use against civilians is forbidden. It can be put to tactical use against military targets, although apparently it is impossible to avoid its effect beyond a military target. As for the collateral damage to the surroundings and to civilians, clearly it would be forbidden to use nuclear weapons where there is no threat to the existence of the survival of a country. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 22.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states:
Section 14 - Nuclear weapons
0468. The ICRC, in its explanation of the drafting of the Additional Protocols in 1973, stated that it was not its intention, in submitting these drafts, to raise questions relating to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, since these issues formed the subject of international treaties and negotiations. In view of what the nuclear and other powers said about this during the Diplomatic Conference of 1974–77, it can be assumed that the Conference accepted that the nuclear powers were not ready to place the use of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction on the agenda of this Conference.
0469. In its ratification of AP I [1977 Additional Protocol I], the Netherlands issued an explanatory declaration which elaborated on this approach. The import of the declaration was that the rules of AP I on the use of weapons were deliberately written to take no account of nuclear weapons; yet, this does not mean that other rules of international law do not apply to such weapons. On the latter point, the principles of the humanitarian law of war which contemplate the use of weapons in general must, in any case, be borne in mind:
- the prohibition on directing attack against the civilian population;
- the obligation to distinguish between participants in hostilities and the civilian population, and to spare the latter as far as possible. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, §§ 0468–0469.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Regulation on Legal Bases for Conduct during an Engagement (2005) states:
232 International law does not explicitly prohibit recourse to nuclear weapons, but in the framework of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons the majority of States have already renounced possession of such weapons. In consideration of the principles of the international law of armed conflict (cf. in this respect the four basic principles of the international law of armed conflict, para. 158 et seq.), legitimate recourse to nuclear weapons is, however, severely restricted. 
Switzerland, Bases légales du comportement à l’engagement (BCE), Règlement 51.007/IVf, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance on the Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports of 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, § 232. The German language version of the first sentence of § 232 notes: “International law does not explicitly prohibit nuclear weapons [“Zwar sind Nuklearwaffen völkerrechtlich nicht explizit verboten.”].”
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
6.17. There is no specific rule of international law, express or implied, which prohibits the use of nuclear weapons. The legality of their use depends upon the application of the general rules of international law, including those regulating the use of force and the conduct of hostilities. Those rules cannot be applied in isolation from any factual context to imply a prohibition of a general nature. Whether the use, or threatened use, of nuclear weapons in a particular case is lawful depends on all the circumstances. Nuclear weapons fall to be dealt with by reference to the same general principles as apply to other weapons. However, the rules introduced by Additional Protocol I “apply exclusively to conventional weapons without prejudice to any other rules of international law applicable to other types of weapons. In particular, the rules so introduced do not have any effect on and do not regulate or prohibit the use of nuclear weapons.”
6.17.1. The threshold for the legitimate use of nuclear weapons is clearly a high one. The United Kingdom would only consider using nuclear weapons in self-defence including the defence of its NATO allies, and even then only in extreme circumstances.
6.17.2. The United Kingdom has given a unilateral assurance that it will not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 1968. The assurance does not apply in the case of an invasion or any other attack on the United Kingdom, its Overseas Territories, its armed forces, its allies or on a state towards which it has a security commitment, carried out by a non-nuclear weapon state in association or alliance with a nuclear weapon state. An assurance in virtually identical terms has been given in memoranda signed with Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine. Further, the United Kingdom has given treaty based assurances in the same terms to the states in Latin America and the South Pacific which are parties to the treaties establishing nuclear weapons-free-zones in those regions. The Antarctic Treaty prohibits any nuclear explosion in Antarctica. There are various other prohibitions, for example on installing or testing nuclear weapons on the seabed and in outer space. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 6.17–6.17.2.
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (2007) states:
There are no rules of customary or conventional international law prohibiting nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict. In the absence of such an express prohibition, the use of nuclear weapons against enemy combatants and other military objectives is not unlawful. Employment of nuclear weapons is, however, subject to the following principles: the right of the parties to the conflict to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited; it is prohibited to launch attacks against the civilian population as such; and distinction must be made at all times between combatants and civilians to the effect that the latter be spared as much as possible. Given their destructive potential, the decision to authorize employment of nuclear weapons should emanate from the highest level of government. For the United States, that authority resides solely with the President. 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, § 10.2.1.
Australia
Australia’s South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Act (1986), as amended in 2001, states:
8. Manufacture, production and acquisition of nuclear explosive devices prohibited
(1) A person who undertakes or engages in the manufacture or production of a nuclear explosive device is guilty of an offence against this subsection.
(2) A person who acquires a nuclear explosive device is guilty of an offence against this subsection.
9. Research and development relating to manufacture or production of nuclear explosive devices prohibited
A person who undertakes or engages in research or development for the purpose of, or directed towards, the manufacture or production (whether by that person or otherwise) of a nuclear explosive device is guilty of an offence against this section.
10. Possession of, or control over, nuclear explosive devices prohibited
A person who: (a) possesses a nuclear explosive device; or (b) has control over a nuclear explosive device;
is guilty of an offence against this section. 
Australia, South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty Act, 1986, as amended on 26 May 2001, taking into account amendments up to Act 35 of 2001, Part II, §§ 8–10, p. 6.
Australia
Australia’s Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act (1987), as amended to 2007, states:
A person shall not use nuclear material to cause:
(a) the death of, or serious injury to, any person; or
(b) substantial damage to property or to the environment.
Penalty: Imprisonment for 20 years. 
Australia, Non-Proliferation (Safeguards) Act, 1987, as amended to 2007, Part III, § 35, p. 32.
Australia
Australia’s Weapons of Mass Destruction (Prevention of Proliferation) Act (1995), as amended to 2003, states:
9 Prohibition on supplying goods for WMD program
(1) If:
(a) a person supplies any goods to another person; and
(b) the first-mentioned person believes or suspects, on reasonable grounds, that the goods will or may be used in a WMD program; and
(c) the supply of the goods is not authorised by a permit or is in contravention of a condition stated in a permit; and
(d) the Minister has not given a written notice to the first-mentioned person under section 12 stating that the Minister has no reason to believe or suspect that the goods will or may be used in a WMD program;
the first-mentioned person is guilty of an offence punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not more than 8 years.
10 Prohibition on exporting goods for WMD program
(1) If:
(a) a person exports any non-regulated goods; and
(b) the person believes or suspects, on reasonable grounds, that the goods will or may be used in a WMD program; and
(c) the export of the goods is not authorised by a permit or is in contravention of a condition stated in a permit; and
(d) the Minister has not given a written notice to the person under section 12 stating that the Minister has no reason to believe or suspect that the goods will or may be used in a WMD program;
the person is guilty of an offence punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not more than 8 years.
11 Prohibition on providing services for WMD program
(1) If:
(a) a person provides any services to another person; and
(b) the first-mentioned person believes or suspects, on reasonable grounds, that the services will or may assist a WMD program; and
(c) the provision of the services is not authorised by a permit or is in contravention of a condition stated in a permit; and
(d) the Minister has not given a written notice to the first-mentioned person under section 12 stating that the Minister has no reason to believe or suspect that the provision of the services will or may assist a WMD program;
the first-mentioned person is guilty of an offence punishable on conviction by imprisonment for not more than 8 years. 
Australia, Weapons of Mass Destruction (Prevention of Proliferation) Act, 1995, as amended to 2003, §§ 9–11, pp. 6–7.
Australia
Australia’s Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Act (1998), as amended in 2007, states: “A person who causes a nuclear weapons test explosion or any other nuclear explosion is guilty of an offence. … Penalty: Imprisonment for life.” 
Australia, Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Act, 1998, as amended on 16 April 2007, taking into account amendments up to Act 50 of 2007, Part 2, § 8, p. 6.
Denmark
Denmark’s Weapons and Explosives Act (2009), as amended to 2012, states: “It is prohibited to import, export, transport, purchase, transfer, possess, carry, use, manufacture, develop or to develop research into … radiological or nuclear weapons and delivery systems specifically designed or modified for such weapons”. 
Denmark, Weapons and Explosives Act, 2009, as amended to 2012, Article 5.
France
France’s Code of Defence (2004), as amended in 2007, states: “The mission, composition and conditions of engagement of the nuclear forces are the subject of decisions made by the council of defence.” 
France, Code of Defence, 2004, as amended by Decree No. 2007-583 on 23 April 2007, Article R.* 1411-1; see also Articles R.* 1411-3 to R.* 1411-6 and Articles D. 1411-14 to D. 1411-21.
France
France’s Penal Code (1994), as amended in 2010, states:
Employing a nuclear weapon, or any other weapon not prohibited by an international convention to which France is a party, in order to perform an act necessary for France to exercise its right of self-defence, does not constitute a [war crime]. 
France, Penal Code, 1994, as amended in 2010, Article 462-11.
Georgia
Georgia’s Law on Nuclear and Radioactive Security (2012) states:
1. In accordance with international obligations assumed by Georgia, nuclear materials can only be used for peaceful purposes.
2. On the Georgian territory, it is prohibited to produce, possess or transfer nuclear weapons or other explosive devices containing nuclear materials, as well as to seek and accept assistance in creating nuclear weapons and other explosive devices containing nuclear materials. 
Georgia, Law on Nuclear and Radioactive Security, 2012, Article 44.
Iraq
The Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period (2004) states:
PREAMBLE
This Law is now established to govern the affairs of Iraq during the transitional period until a duly elected government, operating under a permanent and legitimate constitution achieving full democracy, shall come into being.
CHAPTER ONE – FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES
Article 2.
(A) The term “transitional period” shall refer to the period beginning on 30 June 2004 and lasting until the formation of an elected Iraqi government pursuant to a permanent constitution as set forth in this Law, which in any case shall be no later than 31 December 2005, unless the provisions of Article 61 are applied.
CHAPTER THREE – THE IRAQI TRANSITIONAL GOVERNMENT
Article 27.
(E) The Iraqi Transitional Government shall respect and implement Iraq’s international obligations regarding the non-proliferation, non-development, non-production, and non-use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and associated equipment, materiel, technologies, and delivery systems for use in the development, manufacture, production, and use of such weapons. 
Iraq, Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period, 2004, Preamble and Articles 2(A) and 27(E).
Iraq
Iraq’s Constitution (2006) states:
The Iraqi Government shall respect and implement Iraq’s international obligations regarding the non-proliferation, non-development, non-production, and non-use of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and shall prohibit associated equipment, materiel, technologies, and delivery systems for use in the development, manufacture, production, and use of such weapons. 
Iraq, Constitution, 2006, Article 9(1)(E).
Iraq
Iraq’s Law on the National Monitoring Authority to Ban Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Weapons (2012) states:
Article (3)
The National Monitoring Authority to ban nuclear, chemical and biological weapons is hereby established and is affiliated to the Ministry of Science and Technology.
Article (6)
The Authority aims to prohibit the use of the Republic of Iraq’s territories and its regional waters and aerospace, as well as every location subject to Iraqi sovereignty, for any banned activities related to agreements and conventions on [the] non[-]proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons that the country is part of.
Article (7)
The Authority shall achieve its objectives through the following means:
First. Establishment of a national system for monitoring, authentication, and inspection, that ensures compliance of Iraq [with] international agreements and conventions on the non-proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
Second. Monitoring of peaceful activities to ensure that they are not turned into banned activities in accordance with agreements and conventions on the non-proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons in all parts of Iraq[,] including production, ownership, use, storage, export, import, shipment, transfer, disposal of, and management of any materials, equipment, and technologies or any other activities defined by the authority.
Article 8
The Authority assumes the following tasks:
First. Pursue and follow-up [the] implementation of Iraq’s commitments to international, regional, and bilateral agreements and conventions and [their] attached protocols and control systems of import and export of materials related to nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and consider the same as part of the Iraqi law.
Second. To ensure that no nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and any material related thereto are designed, or developed, or produced, or used, or transferred, or shipped, or imported, or exported within the territories of the [R]epublic of Iraq. 
Iraq, Law on the National Monitoring Authority to Ban Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Weapons, 2012, Articles 3, 6, 7(1)–(2) and 8(1)–(2).
Ireland
Ireland’s Nuclear Test Ban Act (2008) states:
(1) A person who carries out, or causes the carrying out of, a nuclear explosion in the State shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) An Irish citizen who carries out, or causes the carrying out of, a nuclear explosion outside the State shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) A person who—
(a) attempts, or
(b) conspires with, or incites, a person,
to commit an offence under subsection (1) or (2) shall be guilty of an offence.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on conviction on indictment, to—
(a) a fine, or
(b) imprisonment for life or such lesser term as the court may determine, or both.
(5) In this section “nuclear explosion” includes a nuclear weapon test explosion. 
Ireland, Nuclear Test Ban Act, 2008, § 2.
Pakistan
Pakistan’s Export Control Act (2004) states:
2. Definitions. – In this Act unless there is anything repugnant in the subject or context. –
(i) “nuclear weapon” means any weapon designed to kill or cause destruction or harm [to] people on a large scale through the effects of a nuclear explosion;
4. Control Lists
(4) The Federal Government shall control export, re-export, transhipment, transit of goods, technologies, material and equipment, subject to the provisions of this Act, which may contribute to the designing, development, production, stockpiling, maintenance or use of nuclear and biological weapons and their delivery systems.
5. Licensing
(3) An exporter is under legal obligation to notify to the competent authority if the exporter is aware or suspects that the goods or technology are intended, in their entirety or in part, in connection with nuclear or biological weapons or missiles capable of delivering such weapons. 
Pakistan, Export Control on Goods, Technologies, Material and Equipment related to Nuclear and Biological Weapons and their Delivery Systems Act, 2004, Sections 2(i), 4(4) and 5(3).
Philippines
The Philippines’ Republic Act No. 8438 (1997) provides: “It is the policy of the Cordillera Autonomous Region to prohibit the development, storage, use or transport of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons within the region.” 
Philippines, Republic Act No. 8438, 1997, Section 19.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Federal Law on War Equipment (1996), as amended to 2013, states:
Article 7 Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons
1 It is prohibited:
a. to develop, produce, broker, acquire, transfer to anyone, import, export, carry in transit, or store nuclear, biological or chemical weapons (NBC weapons) or to possess them in any other way;
b. to incite anyone to carry out an act mentioned in letter a above;
c. to assist anyone to carry out an act mentioned in letter a above.
2 The foregoing prohibition does not apply to acts that are intended:
a. to enable the destruction of NBC weapons by the agencies responsible therefor; or
b. to provide protection against the effects of NBC weapons or to combat such effects.
3 The prohibition also applies to acts carried out abroad, irrespective of the law at the place of commission, if:
a. the acts violate international law agreements to which Switzerland is a party; and
b. the perpetrator is Swiss or is domiciled in Switzerland. 
Switzerland, Federal Law on War Equipment, 1996, as amended to 2013, Article 7.
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan’s Defence Law Amendment Act (2001) states:
The main principles of the national defence policy are:
– renunciation of the production, development, acquisition, storage, distribution and deployment of nuclear weapons. 
Uzbekistan, Defence Law Amendment Act, 2001, Article 4.
Japan
In its judgment in the Shimoda case in 1963, Japan’s District Court of Tokyo stated:
[I]t is right that the use of a new weapon is legal, as long as international law does not prohibit it. However, the prohibition in this case is understood to include … also the case where it is necessarily regarded that the use of a new weapon is prohibited, from the interpretation and analogical application of existing international laws and regulations (international customary laws and treaties). Further, we must understand that the prohibition includes also the case where, in the light of principles of international law which are the basis of the above-mentioned positive international laws and regulations, the use of a new weapon is admitted to be contrary to the principles.
The destructive power of the atomic bomb is tremendous … It is a deeply sorrowful reality that the atomic bombing on both cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki took the lives of many civilians … In this sense, it is not too much to say that the pain brought by the atomic bombs is severer than that from poison and poison-gas, and we can say that the act of dropping such a cruel bomb is contrary to the fundamental principle of the laws of war that unnecessary pain must not be given. 
Japan, Shimoda et al., v The State, Tokyo District Court, 7 December 1963, 7 December 1963, as reproduced in International Law Reports, Vol. 32, pp. 626–642, at 628, 634.
Algeria
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Algeria stated:
The adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which my country has signed, emerged from this willingness of States to put an end to the nuclear-arms race and to continue the process of nuclear disarmament.
In that context, we believe that the cessation of the manufacture of fissile materials should be combined with the ban on nuclear-weapons tests and related measures to make the disarmament process genuine and to speed effective progress towards the elimination of nuclear weapons.
Today, the international community is more united than ever in its recognition of the fact that the complete elimination of all nuclear weapons is an objective of paramount importance. 
Algeria, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.5, 16 October 1996, p. 10; see also, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.18, 11 November 1996, p. 8.
Algeria
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Algeria stated:
The cause of nuclear disarmament has now made a qualitative leap forward, and is strengthened by the unanimous response of the Court that obligations exist to continue and complete negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective control. 
Algeria, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.20, 12 November 1996, p. 1.
Argentina
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Argentina stated:
The recent Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice provides stimulating ideas that, contrary to what might be thought, are widely applicable, since the spirit of the document clearly encompasses all countries. The force of all these ideas has led my country to change the way it acts and to move towards building a new framework for inter-State relations. 
Argentina, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, (UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.3, 14 October 1996, p. 25; see also Argentina, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.22, 14 November 1996, p. 11.
Australia
In response to a question on notice in the House of Representatives on 8 December 1983 as to whether the Australian Government considered nuclear weapons to be illegal, the Minister for Foreign Affairs stated: “No. The Government notes that the subject of the legality of the use of nuclear weapons is a matter of continuing debate within the international community”. 
Australia, House of Representatives, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Question on Notice: Legality of Nuclear Weapons, Hansard, 8 December 1983.
Australia
In response to a question on notice in the Senate on 21 December 1988, regarding the use of nuclear weapons, the minister representing the Attorney-General stated:
The Federal Government … takes the view that Protocol 1 Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions does not apply to nuclear weapons and nuclear warfare … The use of nuclear weapons is still governed by principles of international law although they fall outside the ambit of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols. 
Australia, Senate, Minister representing the Attorney-General, Question on Notice: Nuclear Warfare, Hansard, 21 December 1988.
Australia
In a media release dated 15 May 1995, issued in response to a nuclear test conducted by China on that day, Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs condemned the test and further stated:
China’s continued testing is out of step with the positive atmosphere of the CTBT [Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty] negotiations, as well as with China’s own support for nuclear disarmament and its stated commitment to negotiation of a CTBT.
China, and other nuclear weapon states, must come to terms with the imminent fact of a ban on nuclear testing for all time and in all environments. 
Australia, Media release from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, “Australia Condemns Chinese Nuclear Test”, 15 May 1995.
Australia
In a media release dated 14 May 1998 and entitled “Australian Response to Indian Nuclear Tests”, Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs stated:
The Government has now decided upon further actions in response to the outrageous acts perpetrated by India in conducting no less than five nuclear tests this week …
The Government considers that India’s actions could have the most damaging consequences for security in South Asia and globally … India must immediately sign the CTBT [Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty], join the international nuclear non-proliferation regime and foreswear forever the use of nuclear weapons.
The international community cannot let India’s actions pass without a strong and substantive response.
Australia has and will continue with vigour to use regional and international forums to make clear Australia’s opposition to Indian nuclear testing and has made direct representations here in Australia and to the Indian Government in New Delhi to leave India in no doubt about the strength of our condemnation of its decision to conduct nuclear tests. In addition, I recalled Australia’s High Commissioner to India for consultations.
But in light of the ill-judged actions of India the Government has concluded that further action is required, both to register our concern to the Indian Government and to send a message to other nations that might be considering the testing or development of nuclear weapons about the consequences of such action.
In this regard the Government has decided to implement the following actions, effective immediately:
- suspension of bilateral defence relations with India, including the withdrawal of Australia’s Defence Adviser stationed in New Delhi, the cancellation of ship and aircraft visits, officer exchanges and other defence-related visits. Australian Defence Force personnel currently training in India will be withdrawn. Australia will request the immediate departure of three Indian defence personnel currently at defence colleges in Australia;
- suspension of non-humanitarian aid;
- suspension of Ministerial and Senior Official visits.  
Australia, Media release from Minister for Foreign Affairs, “Australian Response to Indian Nuclear Tests”, 14 May 1998.
Australia
In a media release dated 29 May 1998, entitled “Pakistan Indian Nuclear Tests”, Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs stated:
Following Pakistan’s ill-advised decision to conduct nuclear tests overnight, I am today announcing a series of measures the Australian government will apply against Pakistan [there follow a series of measures similar to that imposed by Australia on India following that country’s nuclear tests conducted earlier in May 1998].
I spoke this morning with the Pakistan High Commissioner to convey to him Australia’s strong condemnation of his country’s action. Pakistan’s action is a flagrant defiance of international non-proliferation norms and has serious implications for global and regional security. It is sad and deeply disappointing that Pakistan has turned its back on the direct pleas of Australia and others to exercise restraint. Instead Pakistan has decided to join India in isolation from the rest of the international community.
I call again on both Pakistan and India immediately to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty without condition, and accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. 
Australia, Media release from Minister for Foreign Affairs, “Pakistan Nuclear Tests”, 29 May 1998.
Australia
In 2008, in a ministerial statement on national security before the House of Representatives, Australia’s Prime Minister stated:
The Australian government is strongly committed to increasing Australia’s role in international efforts to strengthen nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament, and will work with our friends and neighbours to advance practical, effective steps to achieve this goal. That is why we have established the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament. 
Australia, House of Representatives, Prime Minister, Ministerial statement: National Security, Hansard, 4 December 2008, p. 12552.
Australia
In 2009, in a statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the ambassador and permanent representative of Australia stated:
The Australian Government is committed to … nuclear disarmament …
Australia fully endorses the UN Security Council’s historic resolution 1887 of 24 September which we view as an expression of the international community’s commitment to increased global security, including creating the conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons. 
Australia, Statement by the ambassador and permanent representative before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, 6 October 2009.
Australia
In 2009, in a statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the ambassador and permanent representative of Australia to the UN Conference on Disarmament stated:
Australia has a history of determined activism in support of nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament and the goal of a nuclear weapon-free world. …
A world without nuclear weapons requires an equally strong commitment by non-nuclear weapon states not to acquire nuclear weapons and to accept stringent international safeguards on their civil nuclear facilities. 
Australia, Statement by the ambassador and permanent representative of Australia to the UN Conference on Disarmament before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, 13 October 2009.
Australia
In 2010, in a statement before the UN Conference on Disarmament, the deputy permanent representative of Australia to the UN Conference on Disarmament stated:
Australia remains determined to achieve progress towards nuclear disarmament. We are committed to the Conference on Disarmament as the right place to begin work to implement the practical steps towards nuclear disarmament. 
Australia, Statement by the deputy permanent representative to the Conference on Disarmament before the UN Conference on Disarmament, 26 January 2010.
Australia
In 2010, in a statement on behalf of Australia and New Zealand before the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Ambassador for Disarmament of New Zealand stated:
It is my honour on behalf of Australia and New Zealand to introduce a proposal for systematic reporting on the implementation of Article VI commitments, often described as “transparency”. …
Our proposal on reporting has a clear rationale and a practical purpose. The fundamental objective of transparency is the building of confidence through practices that demonstrate the accountability of NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] States Parties and underpin the credibility of the Treaty regime.
In the words of the opening preambular paragraphs of the Treaty, we need to have confidence in each other to ensure that nuclear weapons will never be used again. We need to have confidence in each other to prevent the wider dissemination of nuclear weapons.
Key to building this confidence, we believe, is increased reporting by the nuclear-weapon States of progressive efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons from their national arsenals and the means of their delivery. Reporting by all states parties would provide further evidence of our shared commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons.
The proposal also calls on non-nuclear weapon states to report on their efforts to bring about nuclear disarmament, including with respect to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. 
Australia, Statement by the New Zealand Ambassador for Disarmament on behalf of Australia and New Zealand at the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 12 May 2010.
Austria
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Austria stated: “Austria furthermore urges an acceleration of the process of nuclear disarmament, which ultimately should lead to a nuclear weapons convention.” 
Austria, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, (UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.22, 14 November 1996, p. 9)
Bahrain
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Bahrain stated:
We believe that the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones consolidates both regional and global security. To that end, the States of a given region must reach mutually agreed arrangements in which they recognize the general principles of international law and the norms of international behaviour. Such recognition would make a valuable contribution to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, but would not be a substitute for full accession to the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty], which remains the cornerstone of the international nuclear non-proliferation system. 
Bahrain, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.11, 22 October 1996, p. 16.
Bangladesh
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Bangladesh stated: “Bangladesh, as a member of the Conference on Disarmament, has been involved in the elaboration of the programme of action for the elimination of nuclear weapons.” 
Bangladesh. Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.8, 18 October 1996, p. 7
Belgium
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Belgium, also speaking on behalf of Luxembourg and the Netherlands, stated:
[N]uclear disarmament is a priority objective … that has been constantly recalled and tirelessly pursued by our Governments. It would work against bilateral nuclear disarmament, which is now on the right track, as well as impede multilateral action, whose recent success in the field of non-proliferation should not distract from what remains to be done. The ultimate aim of the total elimination of nuclear weapons and the need to add to the arsenal of non-proliferation are matters of priority for our countries. We do not wish to – nor can we – take any risks in this connection. 
Belgium, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.22, 14 November 1996, pp. 2–3.
Bolivia
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Bolivia stated:
My delegation is pleased that during the past year the international community has taken two essential steps to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons. One was the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice regarding the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, and the other the adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. These are both historic documents that establish commitments to eliminate nuclear weapons. 
Bolivia, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.7, 18 October 1996, p. 1.
Botswana
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Botswana stated:
We welcome the adoption of a Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) as a step in the right direction towards the complete elimination of nuclear weapons … Our hope was that such a Treaty would not only ban nuclear explosions, but cover all aspects of activity related to the further development of nuclear weapons, such as computer simulations. We hope and pray that this was not a deliberate drafting ploy, by those with the wherewithal, to rid themselves of an obsolete and controversial exercise while leaving room for the exploitation of their unmentioned but known capacity. 
Botswana, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.13, 24 October 1996, p. 3.
Brazil
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Brazil stated:
Nuclear weapons diminish the security of all States, including the States that possess them. They have no military utility other than that of deterring a comparably equipped opponent from using them. The continuation of the present situation, however, poses intolerable risks. The only way to reduce these risks is a progressive series of steps that would lead to complete elimination of that category of weapons.
In this context it is important to add that the International Court of Justice unanimously determined that there is a legal obligation not only to negotiate in good faith measures for nuclear disarmament in all its aspects, but also to bring those negotiations to a conclusion – that is to say, to eliminate nuclear weapons. The landmark Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice constitutes a new term of reference for all the efforts of the international community towards nuclear disarmament. 
Brazil, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.4, 15 October 1996, p. 5.
Brazil
In 2005, Brazil’s president adopted the National Defence Policy, which states:
4.7 Brazil supports an international order based on … the prohibition of … nuclear weapons …
4.14 In accordance with the quest for international peace and security, … [Brazil] is a party to the [1968] Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and highlights the need for compliance with its article VI, which provides for negotiations towards the complete elimination of nuclear weapons by the nuclear powers. 
Brazil, National Defence Policy, approved by decree of the President of the Republic, Decree No. 5.484, 30 June 2005, published in Diário Oficial da União, 1 July 2005, §§ 4.7 and 4.14.
Brazil
In 2008, Brazil’s president adopted the National Defence Strategy, which states:
Brazil has committed to the strictly peaceful use of nuclear energy, pursuant to [its] Federal Constitution and to [its] adherence to the [1968] Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons …
Due to a constitutional imperative and international treaty, Brazil abstains from employing nuclear energy for any non-peaceful purpose. It does so under several premises, among which the most important is the progressive nuclear disarmament by nuclear powers.
… [Brazil] shall not adhere to protocols to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons aimed at increasing the restrictions imposed by such treaty while the nuclear powers have not made progress on the central premise of the treaty: their own nuclear disarmament. 
Brazil, National Defence Strategy, approved by decree of the President of the Republic, Decree No. 6.703, 18 December 2008, published in Diário Oficial da União, 19 December 2008, Section I.
Brunei Darussalam
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Brunei Darussalam stated:
Brunei Darussalam endorsed the General Assembly resolution on the CTBT [Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty], and my delegation is of the view that its signing represents an important first step towards worldwide nuclear disarmament.
My delegation is also encouraged by the establishment of other nuclear-weapon-free zones: the Treaty of Pelindaba for Africa, the Treaty of Tlatelolco for Latin America and the Caribbean, and the Treaty of Raratonga for the South Pacific. The establishment of these nuclear-weapon-free zones is a testimony to the determination and genuine aspirations of the peoples of the various regions to be free of the nuclear threat. Brunei Darussalam welcomes the initiative of Brazil aimed at establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the southern hemisphere and adjacent areas to further strengthen the existing nuclear-weapon-free zones, thus gradually freeing the whole southern hemisphere and adjacent areas of such weapons. 
Brunei Darussalam, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.13, 24 October 1996, p. 17.
Burundi
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Burundi stated:
[M]y delegation believes that the Advisory Opinion handed down by the International Court of Justice is very important. It stipulates that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is contrary to the provisions of international law applicable to armed conflict and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law. The nuclear Powers should begin negotiations on an international treaty to halt and prohibit the development and production of all nuclear weapons and, ultimately, to destroy all nuclear weapons arsenals, with a view to ensuring that the world is free of nuclear weapons. 
Burundi, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.13, 24 October 1996, p. 9.
Canada
In 2003, in response to a question relating, inter alia, to the use of nuclear weapons, the Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that “we are opposed to the use of nuclear weapons or any weapons of mass destruction”. 
Canada, House of Commons Debates, Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, 21 February 2003, Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 2003, volume XLI, p. 494.
Chile
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Chile stated:
It is not accurate to say that the International Court of Justice accepted that self-defence constitutes an exception to the prohibition on the threat or use of nuclear weapons.
It is not simply the doctrine of the Court but also a progressive trend in the international community, as considered in treaties and in the practices of States, that are contributing to establish a basis for this obligation, which is incumbent upon all countries. Specific and realistic ways and means of addressing that challenge may be open to discussion, but not the basic premise of the obligation to negotiate. Some delegations have given quite interesting and specific examples of concrete initiatives to put this process into practice, but it is important to understand that there can be no areas here that are exclusive, reserved or off-limits to the action of the international community. 
Chile, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.22, 14 November 1996, p. 11.
China
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, China stated:
China has consistently advocated the complete prohibition and total elimination of nuclear weapons.
China also made an unconditional commitment not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States and nuclear-weapon-free zones. The delegation of China is of the view that the most realistic solution to the question of the non-use or the non-threat of use of nuclear weapons is to conclude legally binding international instruments through negotiation. We have on many occasions appealed to other nuclear-weapon States to join China in negotiating a treaty on the mutual non-first use of nuclear weapons and also to conclude a legally binding international instrument on the question of the non-use and the non-threat of use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States or nuclear-weapon-free zones. If these objectives are realized, the possibility of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons will simply not exist. 
China, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.22, 14 November 1996, p. 7.
China
In 2003, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, China stated:
Under current circumstances, it is of great significance to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in international political and military affairs. In this regard, nuclear-weapon States have special and unshirkable responsibilities. It is against the trend of the times to lower the threshold of nuclear war by developing new types of nuclear weapons which are easier to use in actual combat, to refuse to undertake, in a legally binding manner, no use or threat of the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States, or even to list other countries as targets of nuclear attack. 
China, Statement in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/58/PV.3, 7 October 2003.
China
In 2004, in a position paper submitted to the 59th Session of the UN General Assembly, China stated:
China stands for complete prohibition and thorough destruction of all kinds of weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) including nuclear, biological and chemical weapons, and firmly opposes the proliferation of WMDs and their means of delivery.
China has always endorsed the conclusion of international legal instruments on the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons, and has maintained that all countries seriously implement nuclear weapon reduction treaties already reached in a verifiable and irreversible way. Security should be shared by all countries so as to create a positive and favorable international security environment for possible progress in nuclear disarmament. 
China, Position Paper submitted to the 59th Session of the UN General Assembly, 5 August 2004.
China
In 2004, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, China stated:
While strengthening international non-proliferation efforts, we should not neglect the importance of advancing the process of arms control and disarmament, in particular nuclear disarmament. China advocates the complete prohibition and total destruction of nuclear weapons and never shies away from its responsibilities with respect to nuclear disarmament. China has undertaken unconditionally not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States or against nuclear-weapon-free zones. China urges all nuclear-weapon States to make the same commitment and to conclude a legally binding international instrument to that end. In the meantime, we call upon the countries bearing special responsibility for nuclear disarmament to further substantially and irreversibly reduce their nuclear arsenals, thus creating favourable conditions for complete nuclear disarmament. 
China, Statement in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/59/PV.3, 5 October 2004.
China
In a white paper on “China’s National Defense in 2004” published in 2004, China stated:
China consistently stands for complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons. It always pursues a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons, and undertakes unconditionally not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free zones. China did not and will never engage in a nuclear arms race with any other country. It supports the international community in its efforts to start substantive discussions on nuclear disarmament.
In the current situation, the importance and urgency of providing security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon states has become more prominent. China supports the negotiation and conclusion of an international legally binding instrument on this issue. China is the only country among the five nuclear weapon states to commit itself not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free zones. China appeals to the four other nuclear weapon states to make the same commitment. 
China, White Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China: China’s National Defense in 2004, December 2004.
China
In 2005, in a position paper on the UN reforms, China stated:
- China has always stood for the comprehensive prohibition and thorough destruction of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and opposed any forms of proliferation of WMD and their delivery systems. China has been actively promoting the international nuclear disarmament process.
- All nuclear weapon states should conclude a treaty on non-first use of nuclear weapons. They should also commit themselves unconditionally to not using or threatening to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapon countries or regions and conclude a binding international legal instrument in this regard. 
China, Position Paper of the People’s Republic of China on the United Nations Reforms, 7 June 2005.
China
In 2005, in a white paper on “China’s Endeavours for Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation”, China stated:
It is the shared aspiration of the international community as well as the goal of China to thoroughly destroy nuclear weapons and free the world from such weapons.
Before the goal of complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons is achieved, nuclear-weapon states should commit themselves to no first use of nuclear weapons and undertake unconditionally not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states or nuclear-weapon-free zones. Nuclear-weapon states should abandon the policies of nuclear deterrence based on the first use of nuclear weapons and reduce the role of nuclear weapons in their national security.
China has always stood for the complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons.
China’s development of nuclear weapons has always been for the purpose of self-defense. Since the first day when it came into possession of nuclear weapons, the Chinese government has solemnly declared that it would not be the first to use such weapons at any time and in any circumstance. Whether confronted with the nuclear threat and nuclear blackmail during the Cold War, or faced with the great changes that have taken place in the international security environment after the Cold War, China has always stayed true to its commitment. China’s policy in this regard will remain unchanged in the future. 
China, White Paper of the Government of the People’s Republic of China: China’s Endeavours for Arms Control, Disarmament and Non-Proliferation, 1 September 2005.
Colombia
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Colombia stated:
My country has actively participated in the process of strengthening the Treaty of Tlatelolco, a pioneering instrument in the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones. We will continue to support the strengthening of the regime established under that Treaty. It is gratifying to note that the number of States of the region that are parties to the Treaty today has increased to 31.
My delegation wishes to emphasize that at the Non-Aligned Movement summit last year, the Heads of State or Government encouraged the unification of the nuclear-weapon-free zones already established with those that are now being finalized. In this connection my delegation commends the initiative by Brazil with a view to the consolidation of the southern hemisphere as a nuclear-weapon-free zone. 
Colombia, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.4, 15 October 1996, p. 24.
Costa Rica
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Costa Rica stated:
Without nuclear disarmament, our great progress and the great leap forward to the third millennium lose all meaning. The twenty-first century must be a century of comprehensive peace. This is why Costa Rica believes that the time has come to initiate negotiations within the United Nations on the total and unconditional abolition of nuclear weapons.
Costa Rica agrees with His Excellency the President of the Court that the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons has a destabilizing effect on international humanitarian law. Above all, Costa Rica endorses the need for the Members of the United Nations to initiate negotiations in good faith, on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects and to establish strict and effective international controls on nuclear weapons. 
Costa Rica, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.8, 18 October 1996, p. 13.
Cuba
In 1996 during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Cuba stated:
Cuba wishes once again to reiterate its firm position in favour of establishing on a priority basis an ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament in the Conference on Disarmament. In this respect, the programme of action proposed by a significant number of delegations in Geneva, including Cuba, is a tangible contribution that we hope will be properly taken into account in the negotiating exercise. 
Cuba, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.10, 21 October 1996, p. 3.
Cuba
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Cuba stated:
In our view, nuclear disarmament is still the highest-priority task on the disarmament agenda. As we approach the end of the decade, we must work tirelessly to achieve our goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons and the creation of a nuclear-free world, so that by the dawn of the twenty-first century, we will have achieved what the international community has so tirelessly been striving for: the total elimination of nuclear weapons for all time. 
Cuba, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.18, 11 November 1996, p. 9.
Cuba
In 2009, in a statement during the general debate of the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Cuba stated:
Despite the proclaimed end of the cold war, there are still more than 23,500 nuclear weapons in the world today, 8,392 of which are ready to be used immediately and are more powerful than those that sowed terror and death on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Nuclear weapons modernization programmes have not stopped. The sole existence of nuclear weapons and doctrines that prescribe their possession and use constitute a grave threat to international peace and security.
The prohibition and total elimination of nuclear weapons remains an unresolved and urgent task. It is and must continue to be the highest priority in the sphere of disarmament.
We hope that the declarations made in the framework of the Security Council summit on nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament that took place on 24 September … mark the beginning of specific actions to achieve the goal of nuclear disarmament. A legal instrument must be adopted, without further delay, setting a specific time frame for the destruction of nuclear arsenals and guaranteeing a transparent, irreversible and verifiable process for which the vast majority of States have been calling for many years. 
Cuba, Statement by the representative of Cuba during the general debate of the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, 6 October 2009, pp. 1–2.
Cuba
In 2009, in a statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly during the thematic debate on nuclear weapons, the representative of Cuba stated:
Despite the proclaimed end of the cold war, there are still more than 23,500 nuclear weapons in the world today, 8,392 of which are ready to be used immediately.
The sole existence of nuclear weapons and doctrines that prescribe their possession and use constitute a grave threat to international peace and security. The very ownership of nuclear weapons provides an irresponsible incentive for their proliferation.
Nuclear disarmament is and must continue to be the highest priority in the sphere of disarmament.
In complete disregard for the 1996 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons and the growing calls of the international community for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, some States that possess nuclear weapons refuse to renounce the use of such weapons in their security doctrines, which are based on so-called nuclear deterrence, and continue to pursue modernization programmes.
Cuba considers that the use of nuclear weapons constitutes a completely immoral and unlawful act that cannot be justified under any circumstances or security doctrine. Their use constitutes a flagrant violation of the international norms related to the prevention of genocide.
It is therefore of grave concern that not all nuclear-weapon States are prepared to reaffirm their unequivocal commitment, undertaken by consensus at the 2000 Review Conference, to completely eliminate their nuclear arsenals in order to achieve nuclear disarmament pursuant to the provisions of Article VI of the NPT [1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons].
Countries possessing nuclear weapons must honour their obligations to conduct good-faith negotiations aimed at achieving nuclear disarmament and signing a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.
Cuba reiterates the need to fully honour the commitments that have already been made, including the 13 practical steps agreed on at the 2000 NPT Review Conference.
We hope that the declarations made in the framework of the Security Council summit on nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament that took place on 24 September will not be confined to mere media impact and trust that they mark the beginning of specific actions to achieve the goal of nuclear disarmament. Without further delay, a Convention must be adopted prohibiting the development, production, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons, setting a specific time frame for the destruction of nuclear arsenals and guaranteeing a transparent, irreversible and verifiable process.
It is unfortunate that the resolution adopted by the [UN] Security Council almost exclusively stresses issues of non-proliferation, leaving aside specific courses of action towards nuclear disarmament.
Cuba, in addition to being a State Party to the NPT, firmly supports resolutions of the UN General Assembly that advocate for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, such as [resolution] 63/46 on “Nuclear Disarmament” and [resolution] 63/75 [on the] “Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons”. As a member of the Conference on Disarmament, Cuba also supports the priority convening of negotiations on a phased programme of nuclear disarmament that would culminate in the total elimination of nuclear weapons, and has co-authored specific initiatives on this subject by the Group of 21. This position in favour of nuclear disarmament extends to participation in the Disarmament Commission of the United Nations, in which, together with other State members of the Non-Aligned Movement, Cuba has proposed various recommendations to achieve nuclear disarmament.
The establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones is a positive step forward and an important measure to reach the objective of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation in the world. In this context, Cuba believes that it is essential for nuclear-weapon States to unconditionally guarantee to all States of these zones that they will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons.
Cuba supports … world efforts towards nuclear disarmament.
Cuba reiterates its firm commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons and its full willingness to work to turn this aspiration into a reality for all of humankind. 
Cuba, Statement by the representative of Cuba before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly during the thematic debate on nuclear weapons, 14 October 2009, pp. 1–2.
Cuba
In 2010, in a statement before the Review Conference of the Parties to the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the head of the delegation of Cuba stated:
My delegation fully associates itself with the positions stated by the Group of Non-Aligned States parties to the NPT, mainly when considering nuclear disarmament our highest priority in the field of disarmament.
The satisfactory outcomes of the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] safeguard inspections, welcomed in recent years in a transparent atmosphere, have shown our strong commitment with the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. Cuba is a party to the [1979] Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials, to the [2005] International Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism, and to the rest of the international treaties on the subject. Cuba is also part of the group of countries participating in the IAEA database on illicit trafficking in nuclear material, and no incident of that sort has been reported so far.
Nonetheless, Mr. President, we share the deep concern expressed by other delegations and NAM [Non-Aligned Movement] about the slow advance towards nuclear disarmament and the lack of progress among nuclear-weapon States in the total elimination of their arsenals. …
… In relation to the concern that weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, can be used in terrorist acts, Cuba reiterates [that] the best way to fight nuclear terrorism is precisely by eliminating all nuclear-weapon arsenals without further delay or unacceptable pretexts.
Until that goal is achieved, work must be done as a matter of priority to obtain universal, unconditional, and legally-binding security assurances for non nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of such weapons. In this context, there is a need for a clear undertaking of no first use of nuclear weapons by all nuclear-weapon States. [Without a] … doubt, this will strengthen the NPT and will be a demonstration of political will.
It remains very important [to ensure] the full application of the 13 practical steps adopted in the 2000 NPT Review Conference for the systematic and progressive efforts to implement the disarmament obligations of the Treaty, particularly the unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals.
… Cuba is greatly concerned that nuclear deterrence continues to be essential in the defence and security doctrines of some powers …
Cuba agrees that, as a transcendental outcome of this Conference, the adoption of a clear plan of action will be required to comply with the implementation of all the provisions of the Treaty, mainly with the nuclear disarmament obligations. The Plan should establish a concrete schedule for the gradual reduction of nuclear weapons in a transparent, irreversible, verifiable and legally-binding manner. We must ratify this Plan until the complete elimination of these weapons by 2025.
A balanced and non-discriminatory implementation of the three pillars of the NPT is essential to achieve the objectives of the Treaty effectively. …
Last month, the new draft of the Nuclear Posture Review … was made public. It seems to include significant changes in relation to the draft published in 2002, mainly in terms of negative security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States.
However, we agree with those considering that they are cosmetic changes and that conditionalities on the non-use of nuclear weapons remain. It is an insufficient approach that merely focuses on the promotion of non-proliferation and the fight against nuclear terrorism but does not include a strong commitment to nuclear disarmament or to the beginning of concrete multilateral negotiations on the matter.
We observe with concern the imposition of unilateral recipes and interference by other organs, such as the Security Council, in the decisions in which the NPT recognizes the IAEA as the sole competent authority to verify the fulfillment of the obligations undertaken under the respective safeguards agreements of Member States.
Cuba considers [that] this sort of concerns must be addressed in the framework of the existing legally binding international instruments on disarmament and non-proliferation, as well as in the relevant international organizations, in which the vast majority of the countries participate. In this regard, Cuba is willing to continue to cooperate and implement concrete actions in the area of such treaties and international organizations, particularly the NPT and the IAEA.
Cuba considers that the creation of Nuclear-weapon-Free Zones [NWFZs] is an important contribution of States to disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. This has been evidenced by the recently held second conference on NWFZs, and we hope to see the creation of new NWFZs worldwide, including areas of higher nuclear weapons concentration, until the planet is turned into a big NWFZ.
We reaffirm the imperative of the prompt creation of a Zone in the Middle East, for no serious effort has been made to implement the resolution in this respect, adopted 15 years ago, since the 1995 Review Conference; not to mention the numerous resolutions of the Security Council, UNGA [UN General Assembly], IAEA, and other fora, which include the same request.
The Review Conference must adopt a mechanism for the concrete implementation of this resolution, which is of vital importance for the security and stability in the Middle East. That is why Cuba supports the idea of convening, next year, an international conference to commence the negotiations on the creation of a NWFZ in that region.
Making that dream come true, necessarily implies that Israel, the only country in the region that is not party to the NPT and that has not declared its willingness to do so, accede to the Treaty without further delay and place its nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards and perform its related nuclear activities in accordance with the non-proliferation regime. It also implies … [stopping] the transfer to Israel of nuclear-related equipment, information, material and facilities, resources, and devices. Assistance to that country in nuclear-related scientific and technological areas must also cease. 
Cuba, Statement by the head of the Cuban delegation at the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 5 May 2010.
Cuba
In 2010, in a statement during the plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament, the ambassador and deputy permanent representative of Cuba stated:
The sole existence of nuclear weapons and doctrines that prescribe their possession and use constitute a grave threat to international peace and security. The very ownership of nuclear weapons provides an irresponsible incentive for their proliferation.
Cuba considers that the use of nuclear weapons constitutes a completely immoral and unlawful act that cannot be justified under any circumstances or security doctrine. Their use constitutes a flagrant violation of the international norms related to the prevention of genocide.
Taking into account these elements, Cuba considers, together with many other countries, that maximum priority must be given in our work to nuclear disarmament.
We support the creation of an ad hoc committee and urge that negotiations be initiated on an instrument establishing a gradual program for the total elimination of nuclear weapons, within a determined period of time and under strict international control.
Cuba opposes the intentions of some actors who seek to ignore or minimize the relevance of nuclear disarmament and to impose a selective non-proliferation approach.
We also oppose the selective implementation of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. …
It is therefore of grave concern that not all nuclear-weapon States are prepared to reaffirm their unequivocal commitment – undertaken by consensus at the 2010 Review Conference of the [1968] Treaty on the Non-Proliferation [of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)] – to completely eliminate their nuclear arsenals in order to achieve nuclear disarmament pursuant to the provisions of Article VI of the NPT.
… [T]he establishment of nuclear-weapon free zones are a positive advancement and an important measure towards achieving the goal of disarmament and worldwide nuclear non-proliferation. In this context, Cuba considers that it is fundamental that nuclear-weapon States unconditionally guarantee to all States in these zones, that they will not use or threaten to use such weapons against them. 
Cuba, Statement by the ambassador and deputy permanent representative of Cuba during the plenary meeting of the Conference on Disarmament, 10 August 2010, p. 2.
Cuba
In 2010, in a statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Cuba stated:
The sole existence of nuclear weapons and of doctrines that prescribe their possession and use constitutes a grave threat to international peace and security.
The prohibition and total elimination of nuclear weapons is and must continue to be the highest priority in the sphere of disarmament.
The results of the Review Conference of the Parties to the NPT [1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons] of 2010 are a step forward. …
[Nevertheless,] … [s]everal of the highly relevant proposals of the non-aligned [movement] countries, particularly regarding the Action Plan on Nuclear Disarmament, were reflected in the Final Document of the Review Conference only as vague aspirations and were diluted or simply left aside.
We made every effort possible to ensure that the Action Plan included a calendar with well-defined actions fixing 2025 as the maximum deadline for achieving the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, the fierce opposition of some Nuclear States prevented [reaching] an agreement on this.
The modest progress achieved by the Review Conference must give momentum to continue working toward nuclear disarmament and the full implementation of all the provisions of the NPT. Nuclear disarmament cannot continue to be continuously postponed and [beset with] conditions. 
Cuba, Statement by the representative of Cuba before the First Committee of the General Assembly, 8 October 2010.
(emphasis in original)
Cuba
In 2010, in a statement before the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Cuba stated: “Cuba reiterates its firm commitment to the total prohibition and elimination of all nuclear weapons and its absolute opposition to the use of nuclear energy for war purposes.” 
Cuba, Statement by the first secretary on behalf of the Cuban delegation before the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly on Issue 49: The Effects of Atomic Radiation, 28 October 2010, p. 1.
Cuba
In 2010, at the 12th Annual Meeting of the High Contracting Parties to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the delegation of Cuba stated:
The call for a general and complete disarmament, under strict and efficient verification, is a priority for Cuba taking into account the great destructive power not only of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction but also of modern conventional weapons.
The support of Cuba may be counted upon for all disarmament issues, as long as they are not discriminatory or selective, and do not interfere in the internal affairs of each State nor limit their legitimate right of self-defence. 
Cuba, Statement by the delegation of Cuba at the 12th Annual Meeting of the High Contracting Parties to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 25 November 2010.
Cuba
In 2011, in a statement during the general debate of the United Nations Disarmament Commission, the ambassador and deputy permanent representative of Cuba stated:
For Cuba, it is of primary importance that the Commission adopts recommendations this year in order to achieve nuclear disarmament and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Our country, together with the other members of the Non-Aligned Movement have presented an extensive and detailed Working Document to Working Group I of the Commission, which contains concrete recommendations to achieve nuclear disarmament and the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. We propose that this document be used as the basis for reaching an agreement on this important issue.
… [T]he existence of nuclear weapons, in Cuba’s opinion, constitutes [one of the] principal challenges to the survival of the human species. …
… The sole existence of nuclear weapons and of doctrines that prescribe their possession and use constitute a grave threat to international peace and security. For this reason, nuclear disarmament is and must continue to be the highest priority in the sphere of disarmament.
The only guarantee that nuclear weapons cannot be used is there total elimination and absolute prohibition. …
We must definitively abandon the doctrine of “nuclear deterrence”, which far from contributing to nuclear disarmament, promotes the perpetual possession of such weapons.
Cuba is ready to negotiate in parallel with the Disarmament Conference a treaty that eliminates and prohibits nuclear weapons; … a treaty that provides effective security guarantees for non-nuclear weapon States; and a treaty prohibiting the production of fissile material for the production of nuclear weapons.
We consider that the negotiation of a treaty on fissile material is a positive but insufficient measure if the subsequent steps to achieve nuclear disarmament are not defined.
We made every effort possible to ensure that the Action Plan adopted at the Review Conference included a calendar with well-defined actions fixing 2025 as the maximum deadline for achieving the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, this was not retained in the Final Document because of the position of some nuclear weapon States interested in preserving the unacceptable status quo.
Nuclear disarmament cannot continue to be an objective that is continuously postponed and subject to conditions. It is simply unacceptable that in today’s world tens of thousands of nuclear weapons with the capacity to destroy the world several times over continue to exist. 
Cuba, Statement by the ambassador and deputy permanent representative of Cuba during the general debate of the United Nations Disarmament Commission, 5 April 2011, pp. 1–2.
Cuba
In 2011, in a response to UN General Assembly Resolution 63/51 on the observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control, the representative of Cuba stated:
The Republic of Cuba has accumulated vast experience in the adoption and application of laws and policies that allow it to observe environmental norms … including their application in various International Instruments in the field of disarmament and arms control to which it is a State Party: [including] … the [1968] Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), among others.
Despite the efforts made by the UN General Assembly and international disarmament mechanisms, some countries continue to apply policies directed at unleashing wars of aggression in different parts of the world; they use aggressive strategies that include pre-emptive attacks; they continue using all types of arms in an indiscriminate manner, including the possibility of using nuclear weapons; and they reject the adoption, at the multilateral level, of new commitments with regard to nuclear disarmament.
Cuba affirms that the only truly effective solution to avoid the dire consequences of the use of weapons of mass destruction continues to be the total elimination of this type of weapons, and considers the universalisation of international treaties that prohibit them of great importance. The existence and continuous refinement of weapons of mass destruction constitute the most serious threat to international peace and security, the fragile environmental balance of our planet and the sustainable development of all peoples without distinction.
In the area of nuclear disarmament, it is urgent that the Conference on Disarmament open negotiations on a treaty for the total elimination of such weapons, within a definite timeframe and under strict international control. An international treaty on nuclear disarmament must include measures for protecting the environment. 
Cuba, Response by the representative of Cuba to UN General Assembly Resolution 63/51 on the observance of environmental norms in the drafting and implementation of agreements on disarmament and arms control, 7 June 2011, pp. 1–2.
Cuba
In 2011, in a statement during the initial session of Cuba’s presidency of the Conference on Disarmament, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba stated:
[T]he existence of nuclear weapons today constitutes [one of the] principal challenges to the survival of the human species.
The sole existence of nuclear weapons and doctrines that prescribe their possession and use constitute a grave threat to international peace and security.
It is simply unacceptable that in today’s world there are almost 23,000 nuclear weapons, 7,560 of which are ready to be deployed immediately.
For this reason, nuclear disarmament is and must continue to be the highest priority in the sphere of disarmament.
We are convinced that the Disarmament Commission has the capacity to negotiate a parallel treaty on the elimination and prohibition of nuclear weapons; … a treaty that provides effective security guarantees for those States that, like Cuba, do not possess nuclear weapons; and a treaty prohibiting the production of fissile material for the production of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
Cuba considers that the negotiation of a treaty on fissile material is a positive but insufficient measure if subsequent steps to achieve nuclear disarmament are not defined.
The Non-Aligned Movement has presented a proposal that deserves to be considered and sets out an Action Plan with a concrete calendar for the gradual reduction of nuclear weapons until their total elimination and prohibition in 2025 at the latest. It also includes the creation of Nuclear-Weapon Free Zones. It urges the establishment of such a zone in the Middle East. …
The Group of 21 [Non-Aligned States in the Conference on Disarmament], has signalled the urgency of eliminating the threat posed by nuclear weapons to international security …
It is time to fulfill the mandate of this forum. We must urgently start our substantive work and guarantee the right of human beings and peoples to … a world without nuclear weapons and interventionist wars. 
Cuba, Statement by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs of Cuba during the initial session of Cuba’s presidency of the Conference on Disarmament, 22 August 2011, pp. 2–3.
Cuba
In 2011, in a statement before the UN General Assembly in commemoration of the International Day against Nuclear Tests, the ambassador and permanent representative of Cuba stated:
The sole existence of nuclear weapons constitutes a grave threat to international peace and security.
The prohibition and total elimination of nuclear weapons remains an unresolved and urgent task.
Pending the achievement of the goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons, it is imperative that non-nuclear weapon States receive effective, legally binding, international guarantees that nuclear weapons will not be used or threatened to be used against them at any time and under any circumstances.
… [N]uclear disarmament cannot continue to be an objective that is continuously postponed and subject to conditions. …
Cuba stands firm in the fight for a better world, free of nuclear weapons. 
Cuba, Statement by the ambassador and permanent representative of Cuba during an informal session of the UN General Assembly in commemoration of the International Day against Nuclear Tests, 2 September 2011, pp. 1–2.
Cuba
In 2011, in a statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Cuba stated:
[T]he prohibition and total elimination of nuclear weapons remains an unresolved and urgent task.
International peace and security continues to be threatened by the existence of more than 23,000 nuclear warheads, half of which are ready to be deployed immediately …
The entry into force of an agreement between the major nuclear powers to reduce their strategic offensive nuclear weapons is a positive signal, but is insufficient.
The nuclear powers have failed to fulfill their commitments under Article VI of the [1968] Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), to negotiate an international convention on the elimination of nuclear weapons.
Concrete steps should be promoted that lead to the total elimination of nuclear weapons, which are binding, non-discriminatory, transparent, verifiable and irreversible.
The establishment of nuclear weapon free zones is a necessary and important contribution to disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation efforts. We support the establishment without delay of a nuclear weapon free zone in the Middle East.
The Non-Aligned Movement has presented a proposal that deserves to be considered and sets out an Action Plan with a concrete calendar for the gradual reduction of nuclear weapons until their total elimination and prohibition in 2025 at the latest.
Within the framework of the 50th anniversary of the Non-Aligned movement a “Declaration on the total elimination of nuclear weapons” was adopted, which reaffirms nuclear disarmament as the highest priority of the Movement in the field of disarmament and declares its firm commitment to convene a high-level international conference on disarmament and declares its firm commitment to convene a high-level international conference to determine ways and means of eliminating nuclear weapons at the earliest practicable time.
… The Conference must urgently initiate negotiations on a convention prohibiting the development, production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons and on their destruction, leading to the global, non-discriminatory and verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons in accordance with a specified timeframe.
Although the negotiation of a treaty that prohibits the production of fissile material for the manufacture of nuclear weapons would be a positive action, it is insufficient on its own if subsequent steps to achieve nuclear disarmament are not defined.
As advocated by Cuba during its last Presidency of the Conference on Disarmament, this organ is prepared to negotiate a treaty, in parallel, on the elimination and prohibition of nuclear weapons; … a treaty that provides effective security guarantees for those States that, like Cuba, do not possess nuclear weapons; and a treaty prohibiting the production of fissile material for the production of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.  
Cuba, Statement by the representative of Cuba before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, 5 October 2011, pp. 1–2.
Ecuador
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Ecuador stated:
[D]uring the various Rio Group summit meetings, our Heads of State or Government have recalled that the Latin American and Caribbean region was established as the first nuclear-weapon-free zone on the basis of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, and reiterated the urgent need for the international community to prohibit forever the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, as well as the need to eliminate nuclear arsenals, whose continued existence poses an imminent danger for humankind. Ecuador sees this as the only appropriate path if we are to achieve the objective for which the international community has been struggling, namely general and complete disarmament under effective international control. 
Ecuador, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.4, 15 October 1996, pp. 9–10.
Egypt
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Egypt stated:
The immense destructiveness of nuclear weapons was made clear in the message of warning issued in the August 1996 report of the Canberra Commission. Its thrust is that the doctrine of nuclear deterrence is militarily redundant and dangerous … I also wish to express our desire for serious consideration of the practical steps referred to therein … All these resolutions, provisions and opinions reaffirm once again the clear resolve of the international community to pursue nuclear disarmament. It is therefore incumbent upon us to continue to give impetus to efforts aimed at achieving the universality of all international instruments relating to disarmament. 
Egypt, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.4, 15 October 1996, pp. 15–16.
France
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, France stated:
In this respect, I should like to recall that France’s nuclear doctrine is exclusively deterrent and defensive in nature. France’s deterrence is aimed at preventing war; it constitutes an element of stability and contributes to the maintenance of international peace and security. As far as France is concerned, nuclear weapons could in no way constitute an instrument of coercion or a combat weapon. Nuclear deterrence, as seen by France, is aimed at prohibiting any infringement of our vital interests, and the obvious conclusion of this is that the advisory opinion of the Court is fully compatible with France’s deterrence doctrine. 
France, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.22, 14 November 1996, p. 4.
France
In 2005, a French Government publication entitled “Fighting Proliferation, Promoting Arms Control and Disarmament: France’s Contribution” states:
As a Nuclear Weapon State, France considers that the purpose of its deterrent forces is to guarantee that its vital interests will never be threatened by any other power. As such, the French deterrent is not directed against any particular country. French nuclear weapons form no part of any strategy based on the military use of such weapons and have never been considered by France to be war-fighting assets. 
France, Government, Publication on Fighting Proliferation, Promoting Arms Control and Disarmament: France’s Contribution, 2005, p. 64.
France
In a White Paper on “Defence and National Security” published in 2008, France’s Ministry of Defence stated:
The fight against the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery will indeed continue to be a priority …
In order to be efficient, the fight against proliferation must be based on … the universalization and full implementation of the international conventions signed by the vast majority of States ([including the] Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, or NPT … ).
The Proliferation Security Initiative or PSI … initially comprised 11 States. It now includes almost 90 signatories. It aims at improving operational cooperation among governmental actors in order to identify and prohibit the transfer of materials or equipment that may contribute to programmes on … nuclear weapons and their means of delivery …
Regarding the G8, an action plan against proliferation was adopted at the G8 Sea Island Summit. This plan advocates in particular for the suspension of all nuclear cooperation with a country that has violated its international commitments, as well as for measures aimed at restricting the transfer of sensitive fuel cycle and heavy water technologies (enrichment, reprocessing) …
In December 2003, the European Union adopted … an action plan against the proliferation of CBRN weapons [chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons], which covers all aspects of the fight against proliferation. In particular, the EU made the implementation of its commercial or cooperation agreements with third countries conditional on the latter’s respect for their international commitments regarding non-proliferation …
The UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1540 in June 2004, co-sponsored by the United States, the United Kingdom and France. This resolution, adopted pursuant to Chapter VII of the UN Charter, qualified the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery as a “threat to international peace and security”. It also called upon all States to strengthen their controls over export, and acknowledged their responsibility over all activity undertaken by non-State actors within their territories. The Security Council also responded to the two major current proliferation crises by adopting resolutions and sanctions against Iran and North Korea.
These measures complemented the traditional instruments for the fight against proliferation, which are the international conventions and suppliers’ regimes.
… [T]he NPT … , signed in 1968 and extended indefinitely in 1995, included in 2008 all UN member States apart from India, Pakistan and Israel. The status of North Korea regarding the treaty is ambiguous since it announced its withdrawal in 2003 through irregular procedures. All States parties, with the exception of the United States, Russia, China, the United Kingdom and France, undertake “not in any way to assist, encourage, or induce any non-nuclear-weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, or control over such weapons or explosive devices”.
The NPT provides also for nuclear-weapon-free zones, the most extensive of which are South America (Tlatelolco Treaty [for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean]), Africa (Pelindaba Treaty [on the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone]) and the Pacific (Rarotonga Treaty [on a South Pacific Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone]). There are currently ongoing reflections on how to strengthen this treaty, in particular by restricting the possibilities of a withdrawal, and how to fight against the dissemination of fuel cycle technologies without undermining the right of States to [use] nuclear energy for civilian purposes.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which was created in 1957, is in charge of verifying the respect by States members of their commitments regarding non-proliferation. The Nuclear Suppliers Group, or NSG, brings together the possessors of nuclear technologies, united by the will to fight proliferation and which undertake to respect several directives when they envisage export.
Finally, France is committed to nuclear disarmament. It was the first State, along with the United Kingdom, to sign and ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty [CTBT]. It was the first State to decide to shut down and dismantle its facilities for the production of fissile material for explosive purposes. It is the only State to have dismantled, in a transparent manner, its nuclear test site in the Pacific. It dismantled its ground-to-ground nuclear missiles. It voluntarily reduced the number of its nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines by a third. In accordance with the principle of strict sufficiency, the number of nuclear weapons, missiles and aircraft in the airborne component will also be reduced by a third, starting in 2008. With this reduction, the French nuclear arsenal will comprise less than 300 warheads, that is, half of the highest number of warheads owned by France during the Cold War.
On 21 March 2008, France also proposed an ambitious plan for pursuing multilateral nuclear disarmament. It encourages respect for three principles: sufficiency, transparency and reciprocity.
Nuclear disarmament: the plan of action proposed by France.
- Ratification of the [CTBT] by all States (China and the United States signed it in 1996, but have not yet ratified it).
- Commitment by the nuclear powers to dismantle all their nuclear test sites in a transparent and open manner before the international community.
- Launch, without delay, of negotiations over a treaty on the prohibition of the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.
- Immediate moratorium on the production of this material.
- Adoption by the five nuclear powers recognized by the [NPT] of transparency measures with regard to their arsenals.
- Opening of negotiations on a treaty prohibiting short- and intermediate-range ground-to-ground nuclear missiles.
- Accession of all States and commitment to implement the Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation.
[Carrying out] missions for the fight against proliferation and control over disarmament agreements will be among the objectives of both the armed forces and civil security, taking into account the predictable increase in control activities. Priority will be given to means of safely destroying illegal … nuclear installations, as well as to means of defence and protection.
France will continue to maintain its nuclear forces at a level of strict sufficiency. It will be permanently adjusting [its nuclear forces] to the lowest level possible that is compatible with its security. It will not seek to acquire all of the means made possible by its technological capacity. The level of its forces will not depend on the level of other actors equipped with nuclear weapons, but on its perception of risks and its efficiency analysis of deterrence for the protection of our vital interests.
The level of sufficiency will continue to be the object of both a quantitative assessment, concerning the number of [nuclear weapon] holders, missiles [and] weapons, and a qualitative [assessment] taking into account the defences French forces are likely to face.
Keeping the credibility of our deterrence will largely depend on the scientific and technical means necessary for preserving our nuclear capacity across time. Our ability to ensure in the long term, in an independent manner, the production of reliable and safe weapons must be guaranteed.
In the absence of nuclear tests and installations for the production of fissile material for explosive purposes, the simulation programme is thus a key element of deterrence. It is not aimed at developing new types of nuclear weapons but at preserving their adaptation according to the weapon ageing process, the evolution of defences as well as scientific and technical mutations.
Using the results obtained in the last campaign of tests, this programme aims to ensure nuclear warheads’ guaranteed functioning despite the lack of nuclear tests.
The credibility of the deterrence depends also on the guarantee assured to the President of the Republic that he/she can, at any moment, give orders to nuclear forces.
The technological and industrial priorities deriving from the national security strategic objectives until 2025
Nuclear sector. The capacity to conceive nuclear weapons, to develop and produce them and to ensure their safety continues to be a domain of sovereignty. This priority must lead to the establishment of laboratories, scientific centres and centres for the production of human, technical and industrial resources necessary for the nuclear deterrence strategy.
Conclusions
Nuclear deterrence continues to be a fundamental pillar of French strategy. It is the ultimate guarantee of its security and independence. Its only object is to avoid an aggression originated by a State against the vital interests of the country, regardless of the origin or form of such aggression. Considering the diverse situations that we could face in the context of globalization, the deterrence credibility lies in the possibility for the head of State to dispose, in an independent manner, of a sufficiently large range of options and sufficiently diverse means. This implies modernizing the two components, ballistic missile and airborne missile. Even if there is currently no threat of a direct aggression against France, the capacity of our country to preserve its freedom of action despite any form of blackmail against our vital interests must be guaranteed. France will have the resources to keep its capacities for as long as nuclear weapons will be necessary for its security. However, France will continue to take the initiative in the field of nuclear disarmament. It will be particularly active in the fight against the proliferation of nuclear … weapons, as well as of missiles that could deliver such weapons. 
France, Ministry of Defence, Defence and National Security: The White Paper, 17 June 2008, pp. 117–121, 161–162, 170–172, 266 and 315.
[emphasis in original]
France
In 2009, the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of France stated:
France has always fully supported the [Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban] Treaty and has met its commitments in favor of nuclear disarmament through strong action.
- Thus, by dismantling its centre for nuclear tests in the Pacific, completely renouncing to such tests.
- Thus, by proposing the implementation of an immediate moratorium on the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons pending negotiations that could swiftly lead to a treaty interdicting the production of this material …
… The multilateral logic is at the centre of the efforts for non-proliferation …
To conclude, I would like to make a solemn call to the nine States whose ratification is still necessary for the entry into force of the treaty … Through their ratification, they will send a message of hope strengthening the international regime for non-proliferation and collective security. 
France, Speech by the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs at the Conference on the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, 24 September 2009.
Gabon
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Gabon stated:
The past half-century has clearly demonstrated that it is possible to maintain international peace and security without recourse to nuclear weapons. That incontrovertible fact highlights not only the importance of instruments and machinery for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons but also, and above all, the need for the ongoing mobilization of the international community in the cause of nuclear disarmament.
We therefore appeal wholeheartedly for the adoption of concrete measures for conventional disarmament that can provide all nations, and in particular those that are daily facing the horrors of war, with better opportunities to strengthen their security. The delegation of Gabon is prepared to support any resolution on this issue. 
Gabon, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc A/C.1/51/PV.7, 18 October 1996, p. 18.
Germany
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Germany stated:
Though we have opposed the draft resolution as it was introduced, my delegation attaches great importance to stressing that the German Government welcomes the thorough and balanced content of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, and in particular – as is reflected in our vote on operative paragraph 3 – the German Government fully shares the conclusion of the Court quoted in operative paragraph 3 of the draft resolution. Therefore, despite our negative vote on the draft resolution as a whole, there can be no doubt about the high esteem in which Germany holds the International Court of Justice and, in particular, this advisory opinion. 
Germany, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.22, 14 November 1996, p. 10.
Germany
In a white paper on “German Security Policy and the Future of the Bundeswehr” published in 2006, the German Federal Ministry of Defence noted:
A debate on the role of deterrence in the security environment of the 21st century has been initiated in the Alliance, the results of which will be incorporated in a new NATO Strategic Concept at the appropriate point in time. Besides conventional means, the Alliance will continue to need nuclear assets in the foreseeable future as a credible deterrence capability.
The Alliance members’ nuclear forces have a fundamentally political purpose, this being to preserve peace, prevent coercion and war of any kind. The allies’ common commitment to preventing war and the credible demonstration of Alliance solidarity, as well as the fair sharing of burdens, require Germany to make a contribution towards nuclear participation commensurate with its role in the Alliance and the principles laid down in the Strategic Concept of 1999.
At the same time, the Federal Government continues to pursue the goal of worldwide abolition of all weapons of mass destruction. Germany itself has entered into a binding obligation under international law to renounce possession of such weapons. 
Germany, Federal Ministry of Defence, White Paper 2006 on German Security Policy and the Future of the Bundeswehr, 25 October 2006, pp. 26–27.
Ghana
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Ghana stated:
As a non-nuclear-weapon State, Ghana abides by the word and spirit of the Treaty and in 1995 joined our sister States of the African continent to sign the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty, also known as the Pelindaba Treaty. This Treaty, together with the Treaties of Tlatelolco in Latin America and Rarotonga in the South Pacific, the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty and the Antarctic Treaty, enhances the prospects of achieving a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere, which we hope will materialize with the cooperation and support of States parties to the various treaties and the nuclear-weapon States, in particular. In this respect, it is our hope and prayer that conditions in the Middle East and South Asia will, in the near future, generate enough confidence among the States of those regions to enable them freely to conclude regional nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties, in pursuit of our common objective of nuclear non-proliferation as a first step to the eventual elimination of all nuclear weapons. 
Ghana, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.7, 18 October 1996, pp. 15–16.
Holy See
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the Holy See stated:
[T]he Holy See understands that these are steps towards general and total disarmament, which the international community as a whole should accomplish without delay. This progress in achieving nuclear disarmament is augmented by the swelling support of people throughout the world for moving more decisively towards the abolition of nuclear weapons. The Holy See, which has always promoted nuclear disarmament, sees in all this activity signs of hope.
The Holy See would like to invite all States to review their positions in the light of these recent developments. It is not possible to postpone indefinitely the setting of guidelines through a programme to drive the process inexorably towards the elimination of nuclear weapons at the earliest possible time. 
Holy See, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.12, 24 October 1996, p. 9.
Iceland
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Iceland stated:
The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons is an important development in the area of international law. Unfortunately, the text contained in draft resolution A/C.1/51/L.37 does not give a balanced view of the nuanced pronouncement of the Court on this issue. The text makes no pretence of presenting the Court’s opinion in a fair and even-handed manner. Instead, it makes highly partial use of selected aspects of the opinion to further an arms control agenda that is nowhere to be found in the opinion itself. This includes an unhelpful attempt to subordinate bilateral nuclear disarmament negotiations, a primary responsibility of the nuclear-weapon States, to the Conference on Disarmament. Indeed, notwithstanding the well-meaning objective of the authors of the draft resolution to promote the worthy objective of nuclear disarmament, such a tendentious attempt to place the Court’s opinion in a context extraneous to the opinion itself can only diminish the value of the contribution the Court has made by rendering its opinion. 
Iceland, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.22, 14 November 1996, pp. 4–5.
India
At the CDDH, India voted against a Philippine amendment to include the use of dum-dum bullets, chemical and biological weapons in the list of grave breaches of Article 85 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I because:
The proposal does not include all the categor[ies] of weapons which are equally inhuman or rather more inhuman, inter alia the nuclear weapons. Nobody in this Conference can deny that these weapons fall into the most inhuman category of weapons. But, for the reasons best known to the sponsor of the proposal, nuclear weapons have been excluded. Whatever may be the political or other reasons for the exclusion of nuclear weapons from this proposal, the Indian delegation finds it difficult to support a proposal in principle which is unjust and perpetuates illogical discrimination. 
India, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.44, 30 May 1977, p. 301.
India
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, India stated:
We are aware that there continues to be a refusal by the nuclear-weapon States to engage in any meaningful discussions on the elimination of these weapons. The continued retention of these weapons by a few States which insist that they are essential to their security and that of their allies yet deny that same right to others has led to a situation in which the shadows become a smoke screen, a situation that is not only discriminatory but dangerously unstable. We view this situation with apprehension. We urge our colleagues here to take a closer look at the situation in the clear light of day. This is not a situation that can, or indeed should, be viewed with any sense of self-satisfaction. Nuclear weapons are still in existence. They are still being tested, improved and modernized. Our security and the security of the entire world remains at risk.  
India, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.7, 18 October 1996, p. 12.
India
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, India stated:
India and several other countries, including non-nuclear developing countries of the group of non-aligned and other developing countries, have for some years been proposing and underlining through a call for a legally binding prohibition on the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons the need for a convention on this issue. We have always been encouraged by the fact that a majority of Member States support this proposal. 
India, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.14, 4 November 1996, p. 16.
India
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, India stated:
The continued existence of nuclear weapons clearly remains the concern of the international community.
This idea – working towards the elimination of nuclear weapons – is one whose time has come. Governments, non-governmental organizations and even some think-tanks closely associated with establishments in nuclear-weapon States are questioning the relevance of nuclear weapons today. The call for the elimination of nuclear weapons is now almost universal. Thinking with regard to the security requirements of States in a nuclear-weapon-free world has already started. 
India, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.18, 11 November 1996, p. 10.
India
In 1999, at the release of the Draft Report of India’s National Security Advisory Board on Indian Nuclear Doctrine, India’s National Security Adviser introduced the Draft Report with Opening Remarks:
1. Preamble
1. The use of nuclear weapons in particular as well as other weapons of mass destruction constitutes the gravest threat to humanity and to peace and stability in the international system. Unlike the other two categories of weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical weapons which have been outlawed by international treaties, nuclear weapons remain instruments for national and collective security, the possession of which on a selective basis has been sought to be legitimised through permanent extension of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) in May 1995. Nuclear weapon states have asserted that they will continue to rely on nuclear weapons with some of them adopting policies to use them even in a non-nuclear context. These developments amount to virtual abandonment of nuclear disarmament. This is a serious setback to the struggle of the international community to abolish weapons of mass destruction.
2. Objectives
0. In the absence of global nuclear disarmament India’s strategic interests require effective, credible nuclear deterrence and adequate retaliatory capability should deterrence fail. This is consistent with the UN Charter, which sanctions the right of self-defence.
3. The fundamental purpose of Indian nuclear weapons is to deter the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons by any State or entity against India and its forces. India will not be the first to initiate a nuclear strike, but will respond with punitive retaliation should deterrence fail.
4. India will not resort to the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against States which do not possess nuclear weapons, or are not aligned with nuclear weapon powers.
8. Disarmament and Arms Control
0. Global, verifiable and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament is a national security objective. India shall continue its efforts to achieve the goal of a nuclear weapon-free world at an early date.
1. Since no-first use of nuclear weapons is India’s basic commitment, every effort shall be made to persuade other States possessing nuclear weapons to join an international treaty banning first use.
2. Having provided unqualified negative security assurances, India shall work for internationally binding unconditional negative security assurances by nuclear weapon states to non-nuclear weapon states.
Ladies & Gentlemen,
I am happy to present to you the draft of the Nuclear Doctrine prepared by the National Security Board … Please note that this is a draft proposed by the NSAB and has not yet been approved by the Government …
As our thinking on the nuclear tests has been fairly well publicised, I do not intend to go over the ground again. Suffice it to say that this was a step necessitated by the security environment and our need to ensure for ourselves the element of strategic autonomy in decision making which we will need in the coming years. Our position has all along been that global security would be enhanced by the universal elimination of all nuclear weapons, and this remains our conviction today. Unfortunately, the indefinite extension of the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1995 was in the reverse direction.
Our nuclear weapons are not country-specific but, as I mentioned earlier, are aimed at providing us the autonomy of exercising strategic choices in the best interest of our country, without fear or coercion in a nuclearised environment. That being so, we have adopted a policy of minimum deterrence as the basic building block of our nuclear thinking. Minimum but credible deterrence is the watchword of our nuclear doctrine. From this, flows the decision to adopt a no-first-use posture. We have therefore given unconditional guarantees to States that do not have nuclear weapons, or are not aligned with nuclear weapon powers. 
India, Opening remarks by the National Security Adviser at the release of the Draft Report of the National Security Advisory Board on Indian Nuclear Doctrine, 17 August 1999.
India
In April 2010, the Prime Minister of the Republic of India, the President of the Federative Republic of Brazil and the President of the Republic of South Africa met in Brasília, Brazil, for the Fourth Summit of the India-Brazil-South Africa Dialogue Forum:
3. Recalling the Declarations and Communiqués issued during the previous Summits, they took the opportunity to deliberate on the topics hereunder.
Disarmament and Non-Proliferation
22. The Leaders reaffirmed their commitment to the goal of complete elimination of nuclear weapons in a comprehensive, universal, non-discriminatory and verifiable manner, and expressed concern over the lack of progress in the realization of that goal. They underlined the need for reducing the role of nuclear weapons in strategic doctrines and expressed their support for effective international agreements to assure non-nuclear weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. The Leaders expressed support for an International Convention Prohibiting the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Nuclear Weapons, leading to their destruction. They reiterated that nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation are mutually reinforcing processes, requiring continuous irreversible progress on both fronts. 
India, Declaration of the Heads of State/Government of India, Brazil and South Africa at the Fourth Summit of IBSA Dialogue Forum, 15 April 2010, §§ 3 and 22.
India
In 2010, in a speech at the National Defence College entitled “The Role of Force in Strategic Affairs”, India’s National Security Adviser stated:
The Indian nuclear doctrine … reflects this strategic culture, with its emphasis on minimal deterrence, no first use against non-nuclear weapon states and its direct linkage to nuclear disarmament. We have made it clear that while we need nuclear weapons for our own security, it is our goal to work for a world free of nuclear weapons, and that we are ready to undertake the necessary obligations to achieve that goal in a time-bound programme agreed to and implemented by all nuclear weapon and other states. 
India, Speech by the National Security Adviser at the National Defence College entitled “The Role of Force in Strategic Affairs”, 21 October 2010.
India
In 2013, in a statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the permanent representative of India stated:
India has been unwavering in its support for universal and non-discriminatory nuclear disarmament and the complete elimination of nuclear weapons and other WMDs [weapons of mass destruction]. Our policy is consistent with the highest priority to the goal of nuclear disarmament enshrined in the Final Document of the First Special Session of UN General Assembly on Disarmament and the Rajiv Gandhi Action Plan of 1988 for a Nuclear Weapon Free and Non-violent World Order. Speaking at the 68th session of the UNGA, on 28th September 2013, Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh voiced India’s support for time bound, universal, non-discriminatory, phased and verifiable nuclear disarmament. India remains convinced that its security would be strengthened in a nuclear weapon free and non-violent world order. …
India firmly believes that the goal of nuclear disarmament can be achieved by a step-by-step process underwritten by universal commitment and an agreed multilateral framework that is global and non-discriminatory. There is need for a meaningful dialogue among States possessing nuclear weapons to build trust and confidence and for reducing the salience of nuclear weapons in international affairs and security doctrines. India’s resolutions in the First Committee give expression to some of these ideas and have found support from a large number of States as steps for the progressive de-legitimization of nuclear weapons. Our Working Paper submitted to the UN General Assembly in 2006 also outlined a number of specific steps in this regard. India welcomes the high level political commitment shown by UN Members to nuclear disarmament at the High Level Meeting held on September 26, which was addressed by Shri Salman Khurshid, India’s Minister for External Affairs. India supports the proposed NAM [Non-Aligned Movement] resolution on follow up to the High Level Meeting on Nuclear Disarmament.
As a responsible nuclear power India has adopted the policy of credible minimum deterrence and a posture of no-first-use and non-use against non-nuclear weapon States and is prepared to convert these undertakings into multilateral legal arrangements. Our proposal for a Convention banning the use of nuclear weapons remains on the table. 
India, Statement by the permanent representative of India before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, 9 October 2013.
Indonesia
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Indonesia stated: “My delegation is of the view that the decisions of the Court constitute an extremely important element towards our achievement of the goal of nuclear disarmament.” 
Indonesia, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.20, 12 November 1996, p. 5.
Indonesia
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Indonesia stated:
It should also be emphasized that the CTBT [Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty] does not constitute the ultimate goal of our decades-long effort but should lead to concerted endeavours by all States, in particular nuclear powers, to attain our priority objective of nuclear disarmament. Having signed the Treaty on that basis, it is my delegation’s hope that it will eventually be supported by the entire membership so that it will become an effective instrument to move towards the goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons.  
Indonesia, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.3, 14 October 1996, p. 19.
Indonesia
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Indonesia, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, stated:
There exists, as in many agreements, and recently reiterated by the unanimous decision by the International Court of Justice, the obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. It follows then that the ultimate and complete elimination of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction must be accorded priority. 
Indonesia, on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.9, 21 October 1996, p. 4.
Iraq
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Iraq stated:
My country, along with a group of 27 other members of the Conference on Disarmament, coordinated by the delegation of Egypt, had the honour to propose a programme of action for the elimination of nuclear weapons (CD/1419). We hope that this programme will form a realistic basis for the work of the ad hoc committee on nuclear disarmament of the Conference on Disarmament, which we hope will be established at the beginning of the next session of the Conference. We also hope that the Conference’s next document will give impetus to the efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament through the drafting of a convention prohibiting the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons so as to prevent the horizontal and vertical proliferation of these materials. We also witnessed last year the conclusion of conventions and the submission of initiatives to establish or to expand nuclear-weapon-free zones. 
Iraq, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.13, 24 October 1996, p. 1.
Iraq
In 2012, in a speech at the ministerial meeting of the member States of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq stated:
Iraq supports and works within the framework of [the] international community to have the Middle East free from mass destruction weapons, and nuclear weapons in particular, and supports efforts to hold the UN meeting [on a Middle East Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone] in Helsinki, Finland[,] next December to come out with positive results regarding making such area free of [] said weapons, as failure of such meeting could only lead to more armament races in an area that is in dire need of stability and peace. 
Iraq, Speech by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq at the ministerial meeting of the member States of the Non-Aligned Movement, Tehran, 28–29 August 2012, pp. 4–5.
Ireland
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Ireland stated:
We would have preferred that the draft resolution set down as its principal operative conclusion a firm call on the international community to consider further the fundamental and challenging questions that the advisory opinion poses. The particular means of pursuing negotiations leading to the elimination of nuclear weapons contained in operative paragraph 4 of the draft resolution are not the sole possible means of pursuing this end, and the vote has shown that they do not command the agreement of all delegations. We have voted in favour of the draft resolution to underline our view that the present moment, in the wake of the Court’s opinion, offers a particular opportunity for a new signal of resolve to pursue the goal of complete nuclear disarmament and to emphasize our firm intention to support all efforts in good faith to that end. 
Ireland, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.22, 14 November 1996, p. 9.
Ireland
In 2008, in a written response to a question on nuclear disarmament, Ireland’s Minister for Foreign Affairs stated:
From Ireland’s national standpoint, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) remains the corner-stone of the non-proliferation regime. It is the main international mechanism for controlling the spread of nuclear weapons, and contains the only multilateral obligation to nuclear disarmament in the text of a treaty by the five recognised nuclear weapons States (US, UK, France, the Russian Federation and China).
At the Seventh Review Conference in May 2005, there were fundamental differences between those who wanted the conference to focus on proliferation, and those – the majority – who emphasised the lack of serious nuclear disarmament by the nuclear weapons States. The failure of the 2005 Review Conference to reach an outcome makes it more important than ever to have a successful Conference in 2010, and Ireland will work hard to bring this about. 
Ireland, Dáil Eireann (House of Deputies), Minister for Foreign Affairs, Written Answers – Nuclear Disarmament Initiative, Dáil Eireann debate Vol. 666 No. 1, 5 November 2008.
Islamic Republic of Iran
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the Islamic Republic of Iran stated:
The non-aligned members of the newly expanded Conference on Disarmament adopted a programme of action for nuclear disarmament in a time-bound framework. The adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty by an overwhelming majority of Member States – aside from the Treaty’s shortcomings and the manner in which it was adopted – was perceived to be a step towards nuclear disarmament. The establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in Africa and South-East Asia, and the consolidation of existing nuclear-weapon-free zones, have also intensified the global move towards creating a world free from nuclear weapons. 
Islamic Republic of Iran, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.13, 24 October 1996, p. 17.
Islamic Republic of Iran
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the Islamic Republic of Iran stated:
We associate ourselves with the words of support expressed by previous speakers for this particular draft resolution. In the considered view of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Myanmar draft is a timely initiative that addresses in a succinct manner the highest-priority issue on the disarmament agenda, namely nuclear disarmament. Nuclear weapons constitute a serious threat to international peace and security. Their irrelevance has given added momentum and a sense of urgency to the process of their elimination, in the light of the historic advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice in 1996. 
Islamic Republic of Iran, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.18, 11 November 1996, p. 9.
Islamic Republic of Iran
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the Islamic Republic of Iran stated: “We sympathize with the basic thrust of that draft resolution, entitled ‘Bilateral nuclear arms negotiations and nuclear disarmament’.” 
Islamic Republic of Iran, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.20, 12 November 1996, p. 6.
Islamic Republic of Iran
In 2002, in an appearance before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the permanent representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran stated:
Today, nuclear weapons serve no other purpose than to antagonize, and are, in fact a persistent menace to international peace and security. Nuclear weapons continue to inhibit genuine confidence so essential in reforming international relations and enhancing cooperation. The threats of nuclear arms are thus not removed until and unless such weapons are eradicated and a nuclear weapons free world is established. 
Islamic Republic of Iran, Statement by the permanent representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran before the First Committee of the 57th Session of the UN General Assembly, 4 October 2002.
Japan
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Japan stated:
Japan, which has experienced the calamity of atomic bombing, fervently hopes that nuclear weapons, which cause incomparable human suffering, will never again be used and firmly believes that continuous efforts should be made towards a nuclear-weapon-free world. Japan believes that because of nuclear weapons’ immense power to cause destruction, death and injury to human beings, their use is clearly contrary to the spirit of humanity that gives international law its philosophical foundation.
Japan firmly believes that we must take concrete measures to achieve steady progress in nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. 
Japan, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.22, 14 November 1996, p. 7.
Kenya
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Kenya stated:
Kenya affirms its belief in such regional agreements as a useful means of reducing tension, encouraging sustainable socio-economic development, promoting confidence and enhancing regional stability and security. These agreements are also intended to encourage peaceful uses of nuclear technology and should, to that extent, be used as vehicles for the transfer of technology. In this connection, we support the initiative of the delegation of Brazil to promote a nuclear-free zone in the southern hemisphere. We are convinced that nuclear technology will play an instrumental role in the socio-economic sphere and in this regard look forward with anticipation and hope to the sixth Review Conference of the States parties to the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty]. 
Kenya, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.11, 22 October 1996, p. 22.
Lao People’s Democratic Republic
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic stated:
The recent adoption of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty by the fiftieth session of the General Assembly was an important event in United Nations history in the field of disarmament. Quite naturally, like many other developing countries, we regret that the Treaty did not include a specific fixed time-frame for the total elimination of all nuclear weapons at the global level. We nevertheless decided to join the world community in adopting the Treaty because we regarded its adoption as an important step towards a gradual achievement of nuclear disarmament. Despite its imperfections, the Treaty, in our opinion, if rigorously implemented, would help prevent the nuclear-weapon States from upgrading their nuclear arsenals and the non-nuclear-weapon States from acquiring them. This is how, we believe, nuclear disarmament can be gradually achieved.
The establishment of such nuclear-weapon-free zones demonstrates the genuine aspiration of the peoples of the regions concerned to be free from nuclear threat or annihilation. This positive trend deserves our full encouragement and support. 
Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.10, 21 October 1996, p. 15.
Lao People’s Democratic Republic
In 2011, in a statement during the general debate of the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the permanent representative of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic stated:
Over the past one and [a] half year[s], we have seen positive developments in the field of disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control. The successful conclusion of the 2010 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, the [2010 New] START [Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty] … [and] the Arms Trade Treaty [adopted in 2013] are important encouraging aspects [of moving] towards disarmament and a world free from nuclear weapons. … Notwithstanding these achievements, the world is still facing multiple emergencies such as the deadlock of the disarmament machinery, the slow progress in nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation …
… The Lao [PDR] wishes to underscore the need for strong political commitments and collective effort to overcome the difficult impasse and reemphasize the importance of multilateral approaches for achieving the ultimate goals of disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control.
The continued existence of Weapons of Mass Destruction, in particular nuclear weapons, poses serious fear of their possible use or threat of use. The total elimination of nuclear weapons is the only absolute guarantee. The NPT is the cornerstone for nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament, and States should adhere to their commitments and obligations. We join others in the call for implement[ation of] the 64-step action plan towards nuclear disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy contained in the Final Document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference. We also welcome the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) signed by the United States and [the] Russian Federation to further cut their strategic and tactical nuclear weapons, and urge other nuclear weapons [S]tates to follow their example.
This year marks the Fifteenth Anniversary of the opening for signature of the [1996] Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT). Achieving universal adherence to the Treaty and accelerating its early entry into force are … important matter[s] and should [occur] without further delay. …
The creation of Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zones has significantly contributed to strengthening regional and global peace and security. This year marks the Tenth Anniversary of the [1995] Treaty on the South-East Asia Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (SEANWFZ) and we encourage the Nuclear-Weapons States to provide the negative security assurances and to accede, at the earliest, to the Protocol of the Treaty, with a view to improv[ing] further its full operation and implementation.
Likewise, the establishment of a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in the Middle East, as reinforced by the 2010 NPT Review Conference, would contribute to lasting peace for the region. We certainly, as an international community, aspire to make the entire planet a nuclear-weapon-free zone and a key step would be to make real the Secretary-General’s [October 2008] call for a Convention against Nuclear Weapons, one [element] of the Five-Point Plan for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. 
Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Statement by the permanent representative of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic during the general debate of the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, 66th session, 7 October 2011, pp. 1–2.
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya stated:
Secondly, my country has always hastened to support all measures to free the world from the nuclear threat. In addition to having been a party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) for over 20 years, we signed in April 1996 the Treaty of Pelindaba on the denuclearization of Africa, demonstrating our genuine will to free the world from nuclear terror. 
Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.10, 21 October 1996, p. 13.
Malaysia
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Malaysia stated:
The Malaysian delegation attaches vital importance to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) as a global instrument to check nuclear proliferation. It is the hope of my delegation that the review process to strengthen the NPT, which is due to begin in 1997, will provide us with the opportunity to consider further steps that could be taken by States Parties to fulfil their Treaty obligations, particularly in respect of those stipulated in article VI of the Treaty. We also hope that the review process will seriously consider efforts that could be made to bring into the NPT regime those few countries that remain outside, so as to achieve its much-desired universality. While we would have preferred a categorical ruling by the Court outlawing the threat or use of nuclear weapons, my delegation nevertheless considers the Court’s Advisory Opinion to be an important development in the overall disarmament context.
My delegation is encouraged by the accelerating trend of the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones.
My delegation also lauds the signing of the Cairo Declaration on 11 April 1996, which formally established the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone through the Pelindaba Treaty. The establishment of these zones, in addition to those established in Latin America and the Caribbean through the Treaty of Tlatelolco and in the South Pacific through the Treaty of Rarotonga, reflects the genuine aspiration of the peoples of these regions to be free of nuclear insecurity. 
Malaysia, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.3, 14 October 1996, p. 24.
Malaysia
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Malaysia stated:
The call for the commencement of negotiations leading to the conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention is a necessary one. It is necessary because the existence of a legal obligation would require early, indeed immediate, action. The existence today of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons in the arsenals of the nuclear-weapon States, 28 years after the signing of the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty], is a sobering reminder that negotiations on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects have been carried out neither in good faith nor in earnest. In the days of the cold war the heightened tension between East and West was blamed for the lack of progress in nuclear disarmament. With the demise of that destructive phase of human history there is no longer that excuse. On the contrary, the current constructive phase in international relations would argue for more serious and concerted efforts on the part of the international community to strive for more concrete achievements in the field of nuclear disarmament. This opportunity should not be lost to the international community. It should be grasped, and grasped firmly, as it might not present itself again. 
Malaysia, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.15, 6 November 1996, pp. 5–6.
Marshall Islands
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of the Marshall Islands stated:
The leaders of my region also warmly welcome the signature and ratification by Vanuatu of the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, the signature of Tonga and the signing of the Protocols to the Treaty by France, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. As a result of these developments, all States within the Treaty area have now given their support to the Treaty, and all five nuclear-weapon States have undertaken to respect its provisions. We welcome the ratification by France of the Protocols, and the Forum also urges early ratification of the Protocols by the United Kingdom and the United States of America. 
Marshall Islands, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.6, 17 October 1996, p. 17.
Mexico
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Mexico stated:
Mexico therefore expresses its full support for the initiative taken by Brazil concerning the recognition that the various Treaties establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones are gradually freeing the southern hemisphere and adjacent areas of nuclear weapons. We need to develop mechanisms of cooperation among the various zones as part of the efforts to consolidate the respective regimes. While negotiations on these Treaties have responded to the characteristics of each region, they have also largely taken into account the experience of those areas where similar regimes already existed.
Mexico had argued before the Court the existence of rules of international law that leave no doubt about the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance. 
Mexico, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.3, 14 October 1996, pp. 6–7.
Mexico
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Mexico stated:
The illegality of the use of [nuclear] weapons was the subject of the Court’s Advisory Opinion. However, we believe that a legally binding instrument would be an important step in a phased programme towards the complete elimination of nuclear weapons within a time-bound framework. 
Mexico, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.18, 11 November 1996, p. 12.
Mexico
In 2009, Mexico submitted a proposal to the UN Secretary General to amend Article 8(2)(c) of the 1998 ICC Statute in accordance with Article 121(1) of the Statute, stating:
[T]he Mexican Delegation wishes to reassert its amendment proposal to article 8 of the Rome Statute to criminalize the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons as a war crime [in international armed conflict].
Criminalizing the use of weapons of mass destruction – including nuclear weapons – is not a new issue for States Parties to the ICC Statute. Deliberations over this topic were not concluded when the ICC Statute was adopted, despite efforts displayed by Mexico and other like-minded delegations. Consistent with Mexico’s advocacy for the total prohibition of nuclear weapons, the Mexican delegation confirms its conviction of criminalizing the use of nuclear weapons as a war crime.
Proposed amendment
Add to article 8, paragraph 2, b), the following:
(...) Employing nuclear weapons or threatening to employ nuclear weapons.  
Mexico, Proposal of Amendment to Article 8(2)(c) of the 1998 ICC Statute, submitted to the UN Secretary General in accordance with Article 121(1) of the ICC Statute, 29 September 2009, p. 2.
[emphasis in original]
Mexico
In 2009, during the assembly of the States Parties to the 1998 ICC Statute, the representative of Mexico stated:
I would like to briefly refer to my country’s proposal to include the use of nuclear weapons and the threat to use nuclear weapons as war crimes in the Rome Statute. … [F]or Mexico, the use of nuclear weapons and the threat to use nuclear weapons are prohibited under international law. The unnecessary damage and suffering which a nuclear explosion would cause during an armed conflict clearly justifies its absolute prohibition and classification as a war crime. 
Mexico, Statement by the representative of Mexico during the 8th session of the Assembly of the States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, The Hague, 19 November 2009.
Mexico
In 2010, during the general debate of the Review Conference of the 1998 ICC Statute, the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs of Mexico stated: “[W]e are convinced that the [1998] Rome Statute will not be complete until the use of nuclear weapons is included as a war crime.” 
Mexico, Statement by the Undersecretary for Foreign Affairs of Mexico during the general debate of the Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Kampala, 31 May 2010, p. 1.
Mexico
In 2010, during a debate in the UN General Assembly on the Report of the International Criminal Court, the legal adviser of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated:
I would like to reiterate my country’s belief that the [1998] Rome Statute will not be complete until the use of nuclear weapons is classified as a war crime. We will therefore continue to promote that cause in the working group to be established by the Assembly of States Parties during its next session. 
Mexico, Statement by the legal adviser of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs before the 65th session of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc A/65/PV.39, 28 October 2010, p. 24.
Mongolia
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Mongolia stated:
Mongolia welcomes these positive developments in the field of disarmament and the strengthening of global security. However, systematic and bolder efforts are needed on the part of the international community drastically to reduce the arsenals of warfare and further to ensure security. To this end, the international community should, in our view, define the priorities and programme for further disarmament. As a member of the Group of 21 in the Conference on Disarmament, Mongolia believes that following the extension of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the conclusion of the CTBT and the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice, the international community should address in earnest the question of the total elimination of nuclear weapons. The three-phase draft programme of the Group of 21 to eliminate nuclear weapons by the year 2020 and the report of the Canberra Commission on the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons could form the basis for such an approach and for negotiations. 
Mongolia, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.10, 21 October 1996, pp. 6–8.
Myanmar
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Myanmar stated:
Undoubtedly, there is a need for the nuclear-weapon States to review and revise their nuclear doctrines and policies. It is our view that, with the cold war and the East-West confrontation behind us, the nuclear-weapon States no longer need to rely on nuclear weapons to defend their vital security interests.
In this context, we welcome the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice dated 8 July 1996. In its advisory opinion, the Court ruled that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the international law applicable to armed conflict and, in particular, the principles and rules of humanitarian law … Although the advisory opinion of the Court is not legally binding, it will certainly be helpful in the crystallization in due course of customary legal norms on the non-use of nuclear weapons. It also further reinforces our moral and legal arguments and rationale for nuclear disarmament with a view to total elimination of nuclear weapons within a time-bound framework. 
Myanmar, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.6, 17 October 1996, p. 9.
Myanmar
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Myanmar stated:
The historic Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice, dated 8 July 1996, gave further impetus to the international clamour for nuclear disarmament. All judges of the Court reaffirmed by a unanimous decision that there exists an obligation for all States to pursue in good faith and to bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under safe and effective international control. Moreover, there has been a ground swell of interest and support for nuclear disarmament worldwide. The number of nuclear-weapon-free zones and proposals for the establishment of new nuclear-weapon-free zones is on the increase. 
Myanmar, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.18, 11 November 1996, p. 4.
Namibia
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Namibia stated:
Despite the fact that the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) does not address all aspects of nuclear disarmament, Namibia has signed it, because we believe that the Treaty demonstrates the international community’s willingness to halt the spread of nuclear weapons. In this connection, my delegation welcomes the Proposal for a Programme of Action for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, submitted by the Group of 21 non-aligned members to the Conference on Disarmament, which calls for the phased elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2020. Namibia believes that once the nightmare of nuclear weapons is removed from this world, humankind can live in peace and harmony. 
Namibia, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.12, 24 October 1996, p. 19.
Nepal
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Nepal stated:
The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) was adopted and opened for signature last month. We believe that these events have brought us another step closer to our dream of a nuclear-weapon-free world. In addition, my country, Nepal, signed the Treaty, demonstrating once again its commitment to nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation.
My delegation believes that the adoption of a treaty on a time-bound elimination of nuclear weapons is possible. We hope that the necessary steps in this direction will be taken, particularly by the nuclear-weapon States. 
Nepal, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.11, 22 October 1996, p. 17.
New Zealand
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, New Zealand stated:
The NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] principles and objectives for nuclear, non-proliferation and disarmament also signalled the desire of many States to see security assurances by the nuclear weapon States given the form of a legally binding instrument. The importance many, including New Zealand, attach to such a legal commitment has been underscored in the past year by the progress made in establishing nuclear-weapon- free zones … Taken together, the four nuclear-weapon-free zone Treaties represent the aspirations of nearly two thirds of the membership of this Assembly to be free of nuclear weapons. New Zealand, like a number of other countries party to a nuclear-weapon-free zone treaty, would like to build on that common objective. We have, accordingly, cosponsored a resolution urging further cooperation between zone members to consolidate efforts that have made over half the world, including most of the southern hemisphere, nuclear free. We take this opportunity to thank Brazil for leading on this initiative and commend the text to the representatives to this Committee. 
New Zealand, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.8, 18 October 1996, p. 3.
New Zealand
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, New Zealand stated:
As the New Zealand Minister of State said in his general debate address last September:
“New Zealand believes that in 1997 all States, including nuclear-weapon States, should pursue negotiations on a phased programme of nuclear disarmament, with the ultimate goals of the complete elimination of nuclear weapons and a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”(Official Records of the General Assembly, Fifty-first Session, Plenary Meetings, 13th meeting, p. 2). 
New Zealand, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.22, 14 November 1996, p. 8.
New Zealand
In 2009, in a statement before the Sixth Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Article XIV Conference, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of New Zealand stated:
We strongly support the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty [CTBT] as an important milestone along the path to a world free of nuclear weapons.
The CTBT has a vital place in today’s multilateral framework for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. It already contributes to global stability. Its entry into force would be a major step towards a world free of nuclear weapons – which must be our ultimate destination. 
New Zealand, Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the Sixth Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Article XIV Conference, New York, 24 September 2009.
New Zealand
In 2009, in a statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the Ambassador for Disarmament of New Zealand stated:
The CTBT [Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty] has a vital place in today’s multilateral framework for nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation, with a strong contribution to make to global security. Its entry into force would be a major step toward a world free of nuclear weapons …
I would like to take this opportunity to introduce our resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere, which is put forward jointly by Brazil and New Zealand. The resolution has been adopted by an overwhelming majority in past years and we look forward to an even stronger outcome this year.
We welcome the entry into force earlier this year of the Treaty of Pelindaba and note that the entire network of nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties which span the southern hemisphere is now in force.
Nuclear-weapon-free zones are a powerful demonstration of the strong collective will that exists at a regional level to rid the world of nuclear weapons. In this connection, we are cognisant of the fact that nuclear-weapon-free zones contribute strongly to both nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation objectives. 
New Zealand, Statement by the Ambassador for Disarmament before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, 14 October 2009.
New Zealand
In 2010, in a statement before the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Ambassador for Disarmament of New Zealand stated:
New Zealand continues to be a strong advocate for greater progress towards the achievement of a world free of nuclear weapons ….
A diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security strategies should be our guiding principle. …
The entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty would represent a very significant milestone towards the goal of a world free of nuclear weapons. New Zealand continues to call on all States that have not yet done so to ratify the Treaty without any further delay. 
New Zealand, Statement by the Ambassador for Disarmament at the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 11 May 2010.
New Zealand
In 2010, in a statement on behalf of New Zealand and Australia before the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Ambassador for Disarmament of New Zealand stated:
It is my honour on behalf of Australia and New Zealand to introduce a proposal for systematic reporting on the implementation of Article VI commitments, often described as “transparency”. …
Our proposal on reporting has a clear rationale and a practical purpose. The fundamental objective of transparency is the building of confidence through practices that demonstrate the accountability of NPT States Parties and underpin the credibility of the Treaty regime.
In the words of the opening preambular paragraphs of the Treaty, we need to have confidence in each other to ensure that nuclear weapons will never be used again. We need to have confidence in each other to prevent the wider dissemination of nuclear weapons.
Key to building this confidence, we believe, is increased reporting by the nuclear-weapon States of progressive efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons from their national arsenals and the means of their delivery. Reporting by all states parties would provide further evidence of our shared commitment to a world free of nuclear weapons.
The proposal also calls on non-nuclear weapon states to report on their efforts to bring about nuclear disarmament, including with respect to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and a treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons. 
New Zealand, Statement on behalf of Australia and New Zealand by New Zealand’s Ambassador for Disarmament at the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 12 May 2010.
New Zealand
In 2010, in a statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the Ambassador for Disarmament of New Zealand stated:
We were pleased that the NPT [Non-Proliferation Treaty] Review Conference reinforced the CTBT [Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty] as a vital step on the road to the elimination of nuclear weapons. …
The NPT Review Conference’s recognition of the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that would result from any use of nuclear weapons should further reinforce the need for all states to take urgent steps towards their elimination. New Zealand welcomes all efforts towards this goal. 
New Zealand, Statement by the Ambassador for Disarmament before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, 14 October 2010.
Nicaragua
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Nicaragua stated:
Nicaragua also welcomes the signing of the Treaties of Bangkok and Pelindaba, which together with the Treaty of Tlatelolco will contribute to achieving a more secure world free from the threat of nuclear weapons … My delegation considers that the prompt conclusion of a treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons, together with the entry into force of the CTBT, will undoubtedly facilitate progress on the always difficult but still practicable path towards more effective nuclear disarmament. 
Nicaragua, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly (UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.13, 24 October 1996, p. 14.
Nigeria
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Nigeria stated:
For our part, as the Minister for Foreign Affairs of Nigeria indicated in plenary meeting earlier this month, we hope to sign the Treaty in due course. All this is remarkable. It reflects the conviction of the international community that the Treaty holds out the distinct hope of contributing to our collective commitment to a safer, more secure and nuclear-weapon-free world. The Treaty has imposed on the nuclear-weapon States in particular the unique responsibility of joining with the rest of humankind in working for a complete end to all forms of nuclear-weapons testing. 
Nigeria, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.12, 24 October 1996, p. 1.
Norway
In 2009, in a statement on “Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament” submitted to the UN Security Council for consideration, Norway stated:
Norway fully subscribes to the overall political objective of creating a safer world without nuclear weapons.
Norway considers the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to be the main avenue for achieving the elimination of nuclear weapons. 
Norway, Statement on “Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament”, submitted to the UN Security Council for consideration, 24 September 2009.
Norway
In 2009, in a statement on “Nuclear and Humanitarian Disarmament” made before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated:
Norway expects the Review Conference [of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)] to stake out a clear path towards irreversible and unequivocal elimination of nuclear arms. The NPT must agree on specific steps to close any loopholes in the nuclear non-proliferation and security regimes. The NPT must pave the way for peaceful use of nuclear applications, which will be important for reaching the UN Millennium Development Goals. And the NPT must agree on a review process that holds us all accountable for fulfilling our legal obligations and commitments.
Such an outcome is not guaranteed, however, and a firm, determined and cooperative effort is required by all states parties to the NPT. If not, we run the risk of the NPT compact gradually dissolving. 
There can be no doubt that nuclear weapons are the most inhuman and indiscriminate weapons ever created. Nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation are essential from a humanitarian perspective. 
Norway, Statement on “Nuclear and Humanitarian Disarmament” made before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, 6 October 2009.
Oman
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Oman stated:
It is no secret that disarmament in all its aspects remains the main focus of the international community. While, as we know, the cold war is over, our mission to achieve international peace and security is not yet complete. Based on these developments, we in the Sultanate of Oman agree that nuclear weapons still pose the greatest threat to international peace and security. Consequently, we share the conviction that the international community should focus more intensely than ever in the future on the complete elimination of these weapons through national and international efforts. 
Oman, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.12, 24 October 1996, p. 20.
Pakistan
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Pakistan stated:
Pakistan is aware of the need for restraint and responsibility in the production and trade of all armaments, conventional and non-conventional. We are prepared to work for internationally negotiated regimes in sensitive areas. … The post-cold-war period has created a historic window of opportunity to realize the goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. Nuclear Powers are no longer locked in a strategic contest. They do not need nuclear weapons against each other and they certainly do not need them against non-nuclear States. If this opportunity to realize nuclear disarmament is not seized, it may not return. Great Power rivalries may revive. A multipolar nuclear world could multiply the dangers of deliberate or accidental use of nuclear weapons. 
Pakistan, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.10, 21 October 1996, p. 17.
Pakistan
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Pakistan stated:
In the informal discussions that we have held on the subject of nuclear disarmament, my delegation has noted with satisfaction that the nuclear-weapon States have confirmed that they too are committed to the ultimate goal of the elimination of nuclear weapons. That being so, we believe that agreement can be achieved on a course of action to promote negotiations on nuclear disarmament, especially in the Conference on Disarmament.  
Pakistan, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.18, 11 November 1996, p. 4.
Papua New Guinea
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Papua New Guinea stated:
My country firmly believes that the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones at the regional level will build confidence and provide an opportunity for many non-nuclear-weapon States to continue to combat the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. In this regard, Papua New Guinea welcomed the recent signing on 25 March 1996 of the relevant Protocols of the South Pacific Nuclear-Free Zone Treaty – the Treaty of Rarotonga – by nuclear Powers France, United Kingdom and the United States of America. Papua New Guinea believes that by doing so, these nuclear-weapon States have consciously agreed to stop all forms of nuclear testing, manufacturing and stockpiling, as well as the trans-shipment of nuclear wastes to and from the South Pacific region. 
Papua New Guinea, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.11, 22 October 1996, p. 19.
Paraguay
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Paraguay stated:
Given its commitment to this great undertaking of general disarmament, and nuclear disarmament in particular, our country will be one of the sponsors of the draft resolution of Brazil, which declares that the Treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Bangkok, Pelindaba and the Antarctic are helping gradually to turn the southern hemisphere and adjacent areas into a vast nuclear-weapon-free space. 
Paraguay, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.5, 16 October 1996, p. 5.
Peru
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Peru stated:
[W]e shall continue to support concerted action among the countries signatories to the treaties establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones in Latin America, Africa and Asia, with a view to inviting countries committed to that objective to accede to them, thereby extending them to new areas. 
Peru, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.10, 21 October 1996, p. 12.
Philippines
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of the Philippines stated:
In my region, where cold war tensions once reigned supreme, we have established a nuclear-weapon-free zone. There was a time when this would not have been possible. In 1991, the Philippine Senate rejected the agreement that would have allowed the biggest overseas United States military facilities to continue to remain in our country. In so doing, we removed the final obstacle for negotiations to begin in the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) for a South-East Asia nuclear-weapon-free zone. Four years later, the gathered heads of the ASEAN nations and their counterparts from the rest of South-East Asia signed in Bangkok a Treaty that announced to the world the determination of the countries of South-East Asia to be free from nuclear weapons. 
Philippines, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.11, 22 October 1996, pp. 8-9.
Portugal
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Portugal stated:
Though agreeing in principle with the ultimate goal of the elimination of nuclear weapons, Portugal cannot support a programme of nuclear disarmament such as the one proposed in some of the paragraphs of this draft resolution. In this regard, Portugal regrets that the Court’s advisory opinion, which we consider very complex and balanced, is not fully contained in this draft resolution. 
Portugal, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.22, 14 November 1996, p. 9.
Republic of Korea
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of the Republic of Korea stated:
This year, we have witnessed one of the most remarkable achievements in the field of non-proliferation and disarmament. The successful conclusion of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) represents the culmination of the long-standing and determined aspirations of the international community to end nuclear-test explosions once and for all. As a staunch supporter of the CTBT, my delegation firmly believes that it represents a critical step towards nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation … Only when all States make a committed effort to pursue further measures for nuclear disarmament can we take meaningful steps towards the eventual world-wide abolition of nuclear weapons and realize our ultimate goal of a totally denuclearized world. 
Republic of Korea, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly (UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.6, 17 October 1996, p. 18.
Russian Federation
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the Russian Federation stated:
In its willingness to contribute to the effort of African States to create a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Africa, the Russian Federation decided to sign Protocols I and II to the relevant Treaty signed in Cairo on 11 April 1996. We are also pleased to note that all nuclear-weapon States have subscribed this year to the respective Protocols to the Treaty of Rarotonga. In our view, it is important that the existing zones set a good example for achieving similar agreements for the Middle East and South Asia. 
Russian Federation, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.6, 17 October 1996, p. 3.
Samoa
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Samoa stated:
My own country places considerable faith in the importance of nuclear-weapon-free zones and the vital role they play in the disarmament process. We note with satisfaction the almost complete regional adherence to the Treaty of Tlatelolco and the establishment of the Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones in South-East Asia and Africa, with the signing, respectively, of the Bangkok and Pelindaba Treaties. 
Samoa, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.6, 17 October 1996, p. 22.
Saudi Arabia
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Saudi Arabia stated:
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia supports and participates in international and regional efforts aiming at the elimination of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. In this connection, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia signed the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction, on 9 August 1996 before the Convention entered into force. Thus, Saudi Arabia has become party to all Treaties related to weapons of mass destruction. 
Saudi Arabia, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.10, 21 October 1996, p. 5.
Sierra Leone
In 2012, in a statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly on the humanitarian dimension of nuclear disarmament made on behalf of a number of countries, including Sierra Leone, the ambassador of Switzerland stated:
The sheer horror of the use of nuclear weapons informed the very first resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1946 and was later reflected in key multilateral documents. The NPT Preamble refers to the “devastation that would be visited upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples”. The First Special Session of the General Assembly devoted to Disarmament (SSOD-1) stressed in 1978 that nuclear weapons pose the greatest danger to mankind and to the survival of civilization. Several decades after their adoption, these expressions of concern are as pertinent as ever and will remain so for as long as nuclear weapons remain.
If such weapons were to be used, be it intentionally or accidentally, immense humanitarian consequences would be unavoidable. As the ICRC has already concluded, international organisations providing emergency relief would be unable to fulfill their mandates. In addition to the immediate fatalities, survivors of the horrendous effects of a nuclear explosion would endure immeasurable suffering. Studies have shown that the radiation released by even a single nuclear weapon would affect populations, agriculture and natural resources over a very wide area and also constitute a very real threat for future generations. Further studies conclude that even a “limited nuclear exchange” – in itself a contradiction in terms – would cause a global climate change with such a serious and long-lasting impact on the environment and food production that it could cause a global famine affecting over a billion people.
The grave humanitarian concerns resulting from the unique destructive capacity and uncontrollable effects in space and time of nuclear weapons also raise important legal issues. All rules of international humanitarian law apply fully to nuclear weapons, notably the rules of distinction, proportionality and precaution, as well as the prohibition on causing superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering and the prohibition against causing widespread, severe and long-term damage to the environment. In November last year, the Council of Delegates of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement adopted a Resolution emphasizing not only the incalculable human suffering resulting from any use of nuclear weapons but also stressing that it is difficult to envisage how any use of nuclear weapons could be compatible with the rules of international humanitarian law.
It is of utmost importance that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances. The only way to guarantee this is the total, irreversible and verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons, under effective international control, including through the full implementation of Article VI of the NPT [1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons]. All States must intensify their efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons and achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. Civil society plays a crucial role in raising the awareness about the devastating humanitarian consequences as well as the critical IHL implications of nuclear weapons.
The catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons concern the community of States as a whole. Accordingly, the United Nations General Assembly has a particularly important role in addressing this matter in a comprehensive fashion.  
Sierra Leone, Statement by the ambassador of Switzerland before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly on the humanitarian dimension of nuclear disarmament made on behalf of Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, the Philippines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Thailand, Uruguay, Zambia and Switzerland, as well as the Observer State Holy See, 22 October 2012.
South Africa
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, South Africa stated:
Recent years have seen many accomplishments in the area of disarmament. On the multilateral and global level, these have included … the strengthening of the network of nuclear-weapon-free zones with the recent conclusion of the Pelindaba Treaty and the Bangkok Treaty, which have had the effect of extending nuclear-weapon-free zones to cover the entire southern hemisphere. These initiatives are a clear demonstration of the continued commitment of non-nuclear-weapon States to the goal of ridding the world of nuclear weapons. 
South Africa, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.9, 21 October 1996, p. 2.
Sri Lanka
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Sri Lanka stated:
While Sri Lanka calls upon the States that are still outside the Treaty to enter the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] fold, the States parties also have a responsibility to examine ways and means of attracting these remaining States to the Treaty. One of the most important objectives of Decision 2 was nuclear disarmament. In this regard it is important to recall the fact that the nuclear-weapon States reaffirmed their commitment made in 1968 to pursue in good faith negotiations on effective measures relating to nuclear disarmament. The time has now come for these States to translate their words into deeds. 
Sri Lanka, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.5, 17 October 1996, p. 2.
Sri Lanka
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Sri Lanka stated:
Sri Lanka firmly believes that while the nuclear-weapon States are engaged in a phased approach to reducing their nuclear arsenals, the international community as a whole has the responsibility of swiftly engaging in multilateral negotiations towards eliminating the existing nuclear weapons and ensuring that no country will ever be permitted to manufacture, stockpile or use such weapons in the future. Nuclear weapons threaten the security of all, including the possessors of such weapons. Furthermore, they threaten the existence of mankind and of everything else in this fragile environment. Hence, Sri Lanka does not agree with the view expressed by some speakers in this forum that negotiations for the reduction or, for that matter, the elimination of nuclear weapons should be undertaken by the nuclear-weapon States among themselves. 
Sri Lanka, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.18, 11 November 1996, p. 6.
Sudan
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the Sudan stated:
The International Court of Justice advisory opinion issued in July of this year on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons was viewed with respect and appreciation by all States. It stressed unequivocally the need to pursue endeavours to achieve nuclear disarmament under effective international control. That advisory opinion revived hope in nuclear disarmament. 
Sudan, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.12, 24 October 1996, p. 19.
Sweden
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Sweden stated:
It is imperative that the momentum of recent years in nuclear disarmament be maintained and further strengthened. For this reason, my delegation voted in favour of the draft resolution. However, the Swedish Government welcomes and supports all efforts, in the appropriate forums, to achieve the complete elimination of nuclear weapons. In this regard, negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament and further effective measures by the nuclear-weapon States themselves both have an important role to play. 
Sweden, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.22, 14 November 1996, p. 11.
Switzerland
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Switzerland stated:
The Swiss authorities are also following with interest all initiatives that can serve the goal of a safer world in which the possession of nuclear weapons will no longer be necessary. The recent progress made with the extension of nuclear-weapon-free zones in Africa, South-East Asia and in the South Pacific is encouraging. The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996 on the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, as well as proposals for the elimination of nuclear weapons made by the Canberra Commission, are other examples. 
Switzerland, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.4, 15 October 1996, p. 19.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s ABC of International Humanitarian Law (2009) states:
Nuclear weapons
This category of weapon includes atomic bombs, hydrogen bombs (thermonuclear) and neutron bombs. While atomic bombs such as those dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 are not banned as such by international law, they are affected by other bans – on testing, manufacture, stockpiling, etc. According to a 1996 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the use of nuclear weapons is usually a violation of international humanitarian law due to the scale of their impact, even though there is no comprehensive ban in Customary international law, nor indeed in international treaty law.
Weapons
… Although not expressly prohibited, the use of Nuclear weapons is in basic contradiction to international humanitarian law, in particular with regard to the principles of Distinction and Proportionality.
Weapons of mass destruction
The definition of weapons of mass destruction includes Nuclear weapons as well as Biological and Chemical weapons. They differ from other Weapons in their capability to injure and kill people and destroy property on a massive scale, as well as to cause extensive and lasting damage to the environment. 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ABC of International Humanitarian Law, 2009, pp. 32 and 40–41.
Switzerland
In 2009, in its Report on Foreign Policy, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
Disarmement and non-proliferation
The current world still knows large arsenals and the risk of the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. With changing relations of power in the world, disarmament and non-proliferation are of particular importance. This is a domain in which Switzerland has always been strongly engaged; it will continue to pursue and intensify its efforts, particularly on the issue of nuclear non-proliferation. 
Switzerland, Federal Council, Report on Foreign Policy 2009, 2 September 2009, Summary, p. 5677.
[emphasis in original]
The Federal Council further stated in the section on disarmament and non-proliferation:
Switzerland’s second priority focuses on the total elimination of all weapons of mass destruction and the prevention of their dissemination … The absence of progress, in particular on nuclear and biological weapons, more and more erodes the value of the instruments concerning them.
… This is the reason that Switzerland seeks to reinforce the multilateral aspects of the nuclear non-proliferation regime and supports the efforts of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to prevent nuclear proliferation. … In view of the NPT [1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons] review conference in 2010, it will also seek to achieve a balanced compromise between disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. …
In order to contribute to the reinforcement of the multilateral disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation structure, Switzerland presented in 2007 and 2008, with five other States, a resolution before the United Nations General Assembly calling for the reduction of the alert status of nuclear weapons. The issue of “de-alerting” is being further considered through a study requested by Switzerland, the review of which will be carried out in the medium term.
Switzerland foresees the intensification of its engagement in the field of nuclear disarmament in the following years. It will offer its good offices in disarmament negotiations and will engage in favour of the prohibition of the use of nuclear weapons and the transparency of nuclear arsenals. 
Switzerland, Federal Council, Report on Foreign Policy 2009, 2 September 2009, section 3.3.5.2, pp. 5786–5787.
[footnotes in original omitted; emphasis in original]
Switzerland
In 2010, in its Report on Foreign Policy, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
Nuclear weapons: the [1968] Treaty on [the] Non-Proliferation [of Nuclear Weapons] (NPT) is an essential part of maintaining the stability and security of the international system. This treaty has unfortunately experienced a certain erosion during the last decade. …
The fact that the NPT Review conference of 2010 was able to adopt a final consensus document … is … a positive event. … [T]he final document establishes for the first time a link between the use of nuclear weapons and the need to respect international humanitarian law, and alludes for the first time to the negotiation of a convention on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. In contrast, the final document does not contain a precise calendar for the disarmament actions to be undertaken … In any case, the final document and the action plan it contains provide a new basis for the work in the years to come.
Convinced of the need to move forward on the road of nuclear disarmament, Switzerland … notably established an interdepartmental task force in 2008, which concentrated on several Swiss initiatives in this domain. This applies, for example, to the issue of dealerting – reduction of the alert status of nuclear weapons – where Switzerland and a group of States introduced a new resolution before the United Nations General Assembly in 2007.  
Switzerland, Federal Council, Report on Foreign Policy 2010, 10 December 2010, Section 4.5.2, p. 1137.
[emphasis in original]
The Federal Council further stated: “As the Federal Council indicated in its Report on Foreign Policy 2009 and its Report on Security Policy 2010, nuclear disarmament will be a top priority.” 
Switzerland, Federal Council, Report on Foreign Policy 2010, 10 December 2010, Section 4.5.3, p. 1143.
Switzerland
In 2011, Switzerland’s Federal Council issued a “Communiqué on the continuation of measures promoting peace and human security 2012–2016”, which stated:
Unlike other weapons of mass destruction – chemical and biological weapons – nuclear weapons are not yet prohibited. Still, their use would not spare the civilian population and would violate humanitarian law. The moment to open the negotiations on a convention prohibiting nuclear weapons has yet to come. Nevertheless, the ground could and should be prepared to facilitate such negotiations. It is a question of delegitimising the use of nuclear weapons, highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of such use and the resulting breach of humanitarian law. Switzerland promoted this approach at the Eighth Review Conference of the [1968] Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NTP) in 2010 and will reinforce its action in this field.  
Switzerland, Federal Council, Communiqué on the continuation of measures promoting peace and human security 2012–2016, 29 June 2011, pp. 5928-5929.
Switzerland
In 2012, in its Report on Foreign Policy 2011, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
In Switzerland, the interdepartmental taskforce, established in 2008 to support various activities in the area of disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation, has stepped up its work. It promotes initiatives that aim to challenge the legitimacy of nuclear weapons by emphasizing the humanitarian impact that any recourse to these weapons would trigger and resulting violations of international humanitarian law. The taskforce equally supports highly practical initiatives aiming to achieve progress in the short-term, such as decreasing the alert level of nuclear weapons or application of the principle of irreversibility in nuclear disarmament. 
Switzerland, Federal Council, Report on Foreign Policy 2011, 18 January 2012, p. 2790.
Switzerland
In 2012, Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs issued a press release entitled “Official visit to Bern by the Israeli Foreign Minister”, which stated: “Switzerland has declared its positions in favour of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation. In this context, it has in particular mentioned the objective of holding a conference in the coming months on establishing a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East.” 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, “Official visit to Bern by the Israeli Foreign Minister”, Press Release, 24 April 2012.
Switzerland
In 2012, in a statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly on the humanitarian dimension of nuclear disarmament, made on behalf of a number of countries, the ambassador of Switzerland stated:
The sheer horror of the use of nuclear weapons informed the very first resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1946 and was later reflected in key multilateral documents. The NPT Preamble refers to the “devastation that would be visited upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war and to take measures to safeguard the security of peoples”. The First Special Session of the General Assembly devoted to Disarmament (SSOD-1) stressed in 1978 that nuclear weapons pose the greatest danger to mankind and to the survival of civilization. Several decades after their adoption, these expressions of concern are as pertinent as ever and will remain so for as long as nuclear weapons remain.
If such weapons were to be used, be it intentionally or accidentally, immense humanitarian consequences would be unavoidable. As the ICRC has already concluded, international organisations providing emergency relief would be unable to fulfill their mandates. In addition to the immediate fatalities, survivors of the horrendous effects of a nuclear explosion would endure immeasurable suffering. Studies have shown that the radiation released by even a single nuclear weapon would affect populations, agriculture and natural resources over a very wide area and also constitute a very real threat for future generations. Further studies conclude that even a “limited nuclear exchange” – in itself a contradiction in terms – would cause a global climate change with such a serious and long-lasting impact on the environment and food production that it could cause a global famine affecting over a billion people.
The grave humanitarian concerns resulting from the unique destructive capacity and uncontrollable effects in space and time of nuclear weapons also raise important legal issues. All rules of international humanitarian law apply fully to nuclear weapons, notably the rules of distinction, proportionality and precaution, as well as the prohibition on causing superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering and the prohibition against causing widespread, severe and long-term damage to the environment. In November last year, the Council of Delegates of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement adopted a Resolution emphasizing not only the incalculable human suffering resulting from any use of nuclear weapons but also stressing that it is difficult to envisage how any use of nuclear weapons could be compatible with the rules of international humanitarian law.
It is of utmost importance that nuclear weapons are never used again, under any circumstances. The only way to guarantee this is the total, irreversible and verifiable elimination of nuclear weapons, under effective international control, including through the full implementation of Article VI of the NPT [1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons]. All States must intensify their efforts to outlaw nuclear weapons and achieve a world free of nuclear weapons. Civil society plays a crucial role in raising the awareness about the devastating humanitarian consequences as well as the critical IHL implications of nuclear weapons.
The catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons concern the community of States as a whole. Accordingly, the United Nations General Assembly has a particularly important role in addressing this matter in a comprehensive fashion. 
Switzerland, Statement by the ambassador of Switzerland before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly on the humanitarian dimension of nuclear disarmament, made on behalf of Algeria, Argentina, Austria, Bangladesh, Belarus, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, Iceland, Indonesia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Malaysia, Malta, Marshall Islands, Mexico, New Zealand, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, the Philippines, Samoa, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Swaziland, Thailand, Uruguay, Zambia, and Switzerland, as well as the Observer State Holy See, 22 October 2012.
Switzerland
In 2012, in a report on Switzerland’s arms control and disarmament policy, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated: “Switzerland is in favour of the prohibition of all types of weapons of mass destruction, as these pose heavy threats against international security as well as against populations”. 
Switzerland, Report of the Federal Council on Switzerland’s arms control and disarmament policy, 30 November 2012, p. 10.
In the report, Switzerland’s Federal Council also stated:
Switzerland has been working for a long time to stigmatize the use of nuclear weapons, following the example of the recourse to chemical or biological weapons, as well as to prohibit, in a verifiable way, the possession of nuclear weapons. It encourages and supports unilateral and bilateral efforts aiming at abandoning the existing stockpiles.
… Switzerland views the following aspects of the final document [of the 2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons] as of key importance:
- At the initiative of Switzerland, special mention has been given to the humanitarian dimension of nuclear disarmament: the conference declared itself profoundly concerned about the catastrophic humanitarian consequences that the use of nuclear weapons would have and called on all States to respect applicable international law, including international humanitarian law.
… Furthermore, within the framework of the Geneva Conference on Disarmament (CD) which has been deadlocked for years, Switzerland pursues formal adoption of a work plan to negotiate other legally binding instruments on nuclear disarmament.
With the progress achieved in the area of disarmament within the existing institutional framework remaining generally unsatisfactory, together with other like-minded countries Switzerland has started to work on the development of approaches to nuclear disarmament that would lead to effective and credible results. That is why it pursues its efforts to delegitimize nuclear weapons and continue to demand a global approach to the problem of nuclear weapons. 
Switzerland, Report of the Federal Council on Switzerland’s arms control and disarmament policy, 30 November 2012, pp. 11–12.
In the report, Switzerland’s Federal Council further stated:
In the nuclear area, [Switzerland] shall focus in particular on preparing the ground for the prohibition of nuclear weapons. The disarmamament perspective in its “classic” understanding must be extended in order to integrate humanitarian aspects. It will be necessary to delegitimize both the possession and the use of nuclear weapons by highlighting the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of such a use and the violation of international humanitarian law it entails. 
Switzerland, Report of the Federal Council on Switzerland’s arms control and disarmament policy, 30 November 2012, p. 30.
Switzerland
In 2013, in its Report on Foreign Policy 2012, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
In 2012, Switzerland continued in its efforts to redefine the terms of the debate on nuclear disarmament, placing the humanitarian question at its heart. On the basis of a Swiss proposal, this dimension was introduced in the review process of the [1968] Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 2010. During the First Session of the Preparatory Committee of the 2015 NPT Review Conference (Vienna, April-May 2012), Switzerland and sixteen other States issued a joint statement. In October 2012, during the session of the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, this group has expanded to include 35 States, showing a growing interest in this topic, which, furthermore, has been reinforced by a study financed by Switzerland about the concrete negative effects that even a limited use of nuclear weapons would have on the global climate and, by extension, on food production and security. Moreover, the humanitarian imperative of nuclear disarmament was underlined by Switzerland during the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul and at the 2012 NATO Summit in Chicago. 
Switzerland, Federal Council, Report on Foreign Policy 2012, 9 January 2013, pp. 921–922.
Switzerland
In 2013, in a statement at the Fourth Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, the ambassador of Switzerland stated: “[C]luster munitions have been now classified in Swiss law in the category of prohibited arms, which already include nuclear, biological and chemical weapons as well as anti-personnel mines.” 
Switzerland, Statement by the ambassador of Switzerland at the Fourth Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, 10 September 2013.
Switzerland
In 2013, in a statement before the First Committee of UN General Assembly, the permanent representative of Switzerland stated:
Preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and achieving a world free of such arms remain objectives that the international community must pursue with resolution and determination. Recent efforts have underlined that the use of nuclear weapons would have devastating immediate and long-term effects that could not be effectively addressed. Such humanitarian consequences would be unacceptable. 
Switzerland, Statement by the permanent representative of Switzerland before the First Committee of UN General Assembly, 7 October 2013, p. 6.
Thailand
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Thailand stated:
While it is the duty of Governments to negotiate nuclear disarmament and the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons, it should be the prerogative of the international community and civil society to forge a global consensus against these and other abhorrent weapons of mass destruction. It is with this belief that Thailand welcomes the historic Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. While the Court’s decision fails categorically to spell out the illegality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons in all circumstances, it does, in effect, provide a firm foundation for world public opinion towards nuclear weapons. 
Thailand, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.10, 21 October 1996, p. 11.
Togo
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Togo stated:
[M]y delegation welcomes the signing, in April 1996 in Cairo, of the Pelindaba Treaty and its protocols, making Africa a nuclear-weapon-free zone. We also welcome the many other positive developments, including, among others, the entry into force of the SALT I Treaty, the signing of the SALT II Treaty by the parties concerned, the adoption on 10 September 1996 of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), the ratification by 64 States of the Convention banning chemical weapons, which we hope will soon enter into force, and the signing in December 1995 of the Bangkok Treaty, making South-East Asia a nuclear-weapon-free zone. This long list of positive acts bears witness to the constantly growing interest shown by the community of nations in questions of disarmament, which are considered to be one of the ways that will permit the establishment or safeguarding of international peace and security. 
Togo, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.13, 24 October 1996, p. 7.
United Arab Emirates
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the United Arab Emirates stated:
The United Arab Emirates recently signed the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty and last year signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in the context of international efforts to promote the universality of those two Treaties. We have also welcomed the long-term multilateral efforts of all parties to achieve a broad consensus on the question of nuclear disarmament and the international non-proliferation regime. This consensus recently resulted, as the Secretary-General points out in his report, in the accession of the five nuclear-weapon States to the Protocol to the Treaty of Rarotonga establishing the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone, which made them full parties to that Treaty. 
United Arab Emirates, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.8, 18 October 1996, p. 2.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in reply to a written question in the House of Commons, the UK Secretary of State for Defence wrote:
The Government do not comment on hypothetical scenarios involving the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.
The Government have made clear on many occasions that the use of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland nuclear weapons would only be contemplated in extreme circumstances of self defence. We made clear in the Strategic Defence Review New Chapter that aggression against us will not secure political or military advantage, but invite a proportionately serious response. Those, at every level, responsible for any breach of international law relating to the use of weapons of mass destruction will be held personally accountable. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Secretary of State for Defence, Hansard, 10 February 2003, Vol. 399, Written Answers, col. 510W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in reply to a written question in the House of Commons, the UK Prime Minister wrote: “As has repeatedly been made clear, the British Government would only contemplate the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances of self-defence. We would not use our weapons, whether conventional or nuclear, contrary to international law.” 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Prime Minister, Hansard, 9 December 2003, Vol. 415, Written Answers, cols. 374W–375W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2006, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons concerning “whether it is Government policy that first strike use of UK nuclear weapons is ruled out”, the UK Secretary of State for Defence stated:
The United Kingdom Government would be prepared to use nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances of self-defence. We would not use our weapons, whether conventional or nuclear, contrary to international law.
A policy of no first use of nuclear weapons would be incompatible with our and NATO’s doctrine of deterrence. We have made clear, as have our NATO allies, that the circumstances in which any use of nuclear weapons might have to be contemplated are extremely remote. Our overall strategy is to ensure uncertainty in the mind of any aggressor about the exact nature of our response, and thus to maintain effective deterrence. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Secretary of State for Defence, Hansard, 22 May 2006, Vol. 446, Written Answers, cols. 1331W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2006, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons concerning “which international legal obligations would have to be met by the United Kingdom if it was decided to use its nuclear weapons”, the UK Secretary of State for Defence stated:
The UK would consider using nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances of self-defence and in accordance with our international legal obligations, including those relating to the conduct of armed conflict. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Secretary of State for Defence, Hansard, 24 July 2006, Vol. 449, Written Answers, col. 779W.
United Republic of Tanzania
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of the United Republic of Tanzania stated:
In this respect, my delegation commends the timely advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice which asserts that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally contrary to the rules of international humanitarian law applicable to armed conflicts. This opinion has opened a new chapter in the legal framework of nuclear disarmament by rightly recognizing that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith, and to bring to conclusion, negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. Once again, this ruling reminds us of an obligation already undertaken by nuclear-weapon States under article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. 
United Republic of Tanzania, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.11, 22 October 1996, p. 3.
United States of America
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the United States stated:
The United States takes its NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] article VI obligations very seriously. In fact, we reaffirmed them in the Principles and Objectives document of the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the parties to the NPT. 
United States, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.22, 14 November 1996, p. 3.
United States of America
In September 2009, in a speech before the UN General Assembly, the US President stated:
I have outlined a comprehensive agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. In Moscow, the United States and Russia announced that we would pursue substantial reductions in our strategic warheads and launchers. At the Conference on Disarmament, we agreed on a work plan to negotiate an end to the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. And this week, my Secretary of State will become the first senior American representative to the annual Members Conference of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Today, let me put forward four pillars that I believe are fundamental to the future that we want for our children: non-proliferation and disarmament; the promotion of peace and security; …
First, we must stop the spread of nuclear weapons, and seek the goal of a world without them.
This institution was founded at the dawn of the atomic age, in part because man’s capacity to kill had to be contained. For decades, we averted disaster, even under the shadow of a superpower stand-off. But today, the threat of proliferation is growing in scope and complexity. If we fail to act, we will invite nuclear arms races in every region, and the prospect of wars and acts of terror on a scale that we can hardly imagine.
A fragile consensus stands in the way of this frightening outcome, and that is the basic bargain that shapes the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It says that all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy; that nations with nuclear weapons have a responsibility to move toward disarmament; and those without them have the responsibility to forsake them. The next 12 months could be pivotal in determining whether this compact will be strengthened or will slowly dissolve.
America intends to keep our end of the bargain. We will pursue a new agreement with Russia to substantially reduce our strategic warheads and launchers. We will move forward with ratification of the Test Ban Treaty, and work with others to bring the treaty into force so that nuclear testing is permanently prohibited. We will complete a Nuclear Posture Review that opens the door to deeper cuts and reduces the role of nuclear weapons. And we will call upon countries to begin negotiations in January on a treaty to end the production of fissile material for weapons. 
United States, Remarks by the President to the UN General Assembly, New York, 23 September 2009.
United States of America
In December 2009, in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, the US President stated:
Those regimes that break the rules must be held accountable. Sanctions must exact a real price. Intransigence must be met with increased pressure – and such pressure exists only when the world stands together as one.
One urgent example is the effort to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, and to seek a world without them. In the middle of the last century, nations agreed to be bound by a treaty whose bargain is clear: All will have access to peaceful nuclear power; those without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and those with nuclear weapons will work towards disarmament. I am committed to upholding this treaty. It is a centerpiece of my foreign policy. 
United States, Remarks by the President at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, Oslo, 10 December 2009.
United States of America
In May 2010 the US President issued the 2010 National Security Strategy, which stated:
Reverse the Spread of Nuclear and Biological Weapons and Secure Nuclear Materials
The American people face no greater or more urgent danger than a terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon. And international peace and security is threatened by proliferation that could lead to a nuclear exchange. Indeed, since the end of the Cold War, the risk of a nuclear attack has increased. Excessive Cold War stockpiles remain. More nations have acquired nuclear weapons. Testing has continued. Black markets trade in nuclear secrets and materials. Terrorists are determined to buy, build, or steal a nuclear weapon. Our efforts to contain these dangers are centered in a global non-proliferation regime that has frayed as more people and nations break the rules.
That is why reversing the spread of nuclear weapons is a top priority. Success depends upon broad consensus and concerted action, we will move forward strategically on a number of fronts through our example, our partnerships, and a reinvigorated international regime. The United States will:
Pursue the Goal of a World Without Nuclear Weapons: While this goal will not be reached during this Administration, its active pursuit and eventual achievement will increase global security, keep our commitment under the NPT [1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons], build our cooperation with Russia and other states, and increase our credibility to hold others accountable for their obligations. As long as any nuclear weapons exist, the United States will sustain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal, both to deter potential adversaries and to assure U.S. allies and other security partners that they can count on America’s security commitments. But we have signed and seek to ratify a landmark New START Treaty with Russia [New START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) signed on 8 April 2010] to substantially limit our deployed nuclear warheads and strategic delivery vehicles, while assuring a comprehensive monitoring regime. We are reducing the role of nuclear weapons in our national security approach, extending a negative security assurance not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against those non-nuclear nations that are in compliance with the NPT and their nuclear non-proliferation obligations, and investing in the modernization of a safe, secure, and effective stockpile without the production of new nuclear weapons. We will pursue ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. And we will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in nuclear weapons.
Strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: The basic bargain of the NPT is sound: countries with nuclear weapons will move toward disarmament; countries without nuclear weapons will forsake them; and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy. To strengthen the NPT, we will seek more resources and authority for international inspections. … We will pursue a broad, international consensus to insist that all nations meet their obligations. And we will also pursue meaningful consequences for countries that fail to meet their obligations under the NPT or to meet the requirements for withdrawing from it. 
United States, Report by the President, “2010 National Security Strategy”, The White House, Washington DC, 26 May 2010, p. 23; see also pp. 3, 4, 8 and 20.
Uruguay
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Uruguay stated:
The process of denuclearization must be pursued further. The beginning of the review process of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), scheduled for 1997, should, inter alia, give fresh impetus to our work to reduce nuclear arsenals. The renewed efforts to bring about a nuclear-free world by means of a decisive reduction in the arsenals of nuclear-weapon States should not be limited to the successes we have already seen, such as the CTBT and the indefinite extension of the NPT. Completion of the preparatory work for the Review Conference of the NPT, to be held in the year 2000, should be given our enthusiastic support. 
Uruguay, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.10, 21 October 1996, pp. 1–2.
Venezuela
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Venezuela stated:
The treaties of Rarotonga, Bangkok, Pelindaba and the Antarctic are clear examples of the desire of peoples to be free of the threat of the terrible nuclear nightmare. Venezuela firmly supports the creation of additional nuclear-weapon-free zones and encourages the States that have not yet done so to become parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, instruments that are essential to the ban on these weapons. My delegation will support unreservedly all initiatives by the international community to establish such zones throughout the world. 
Venezuela, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.7, 18 October 1996, p. 6.
Yemen
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, Yemen stated:
The main efforts and initiatives in establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones in various parts of the world will strengthen the NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] system and thereby strengthen international peace and security. They will also lead to confidence-building among countries and peoples that have suffered from armed conflict. We believe that all of these efforts will lead to a commitment to the total elimination of nuclear weapons in conflict areas. In this regard we wish to reaffirm our support for the efforts being made in this area and to the General Assembly resolutions related to the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. 
Yemen, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.12, 24 October 1996, p. 13.
Zambia
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the representative of Zambia stated:
My delegation wishes to reaffirm the view commonly held by the members of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries that a phased programme, with agreed timeframes, to achieve a nuclear-weapon-free world by the year 2020 is the only meaningful way of conclusively tackling the issue of nuclear disarmament. It underscores the Movement’s unremitting drive for early attainment of a nuclear-weapon-free world. 
Zambia, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.12, 24 October 1996, p. 11.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, the UN Security Council:
Affirming that the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery, constitutes a threat to international peace and security,
Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,
1. Decides that all States shall refrain from providing any form of support to non-State actors that attempt to develop, acquire, manufacture, possess, transport, transfer or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery;
2. Decides also that all States, in accordance with their national procedures, shall adopt and enforce appropriate effective laws which prohibit any non-State actor to manufacture, acquire, possess, develop, transport, transfer or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery, in particular for terrorist purposes, as well as attempts to engage in any of the foregoing activities, participate in them as an accomplice, assist or finance them. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1540, 28 April 2004, preamble and §§ 1–2, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, the UN General Assembly:
1. Reaffirms the urgent need to reach an early agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons;
2. Notes with satisfaction that in the Conference on Disarmament there is no objection, in principle, to the idea of an international convention to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, although the difficulties with regard to evolving a common approach acceptable to all have also been pointed out. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/35, 8 December 2003, §§ 1–2, voting record: 119-0-58-14.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 concerning the prohibition of the dumping of radioactive wastes, the UN General Assembly:
1. Takes note of the part of the report of the Conference on Disarmament relating to a future convention on the prohibition of radiological weapons;
2. Expresses grave concern regarding any use of nuclear wastes that would constitute radiological warfare and have grave implications for the national security of all States;
4. Requests the Conference on Disarmament to take into account, in the negotiations for a convention on the prohibition of radiological weapons, radioactive wastes as part of the scope of such a convention;
5. Also requests the Conference on Disarmament to intensify efforts towards an early conclusion of such a convention and to include in its report to the General Assembly at its sixtieth session the progress recorded in the negotiations on this subject. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/40, 8 December 2003, §§ 1–2 and 4–5, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the follow-up to the advisory opinion of the ICJ on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the UN General Assembly:
Convinced that the continuing existence of nuclear weapons poses a threat to all humanity and that their use would have catastrophic consequences for all life on Earth, and recognizing that the only defence against a nuclear catastrophe is the total elimination of nuclear weapons and the certainty that they will never be produced again,
Reaffirming the commitment of the international community to the goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons and the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free world,
Mindful of the solemn obligations of States parties, undertaken in article VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, particularly to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear-arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament,
1. Underlines once again the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control;
2. Calls once again upon all States immediately to fulfil that obligation by 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. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/46, 8 December 2003, preamble and §§ 1–2, voting record: 124-29-22-16.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on nuclear weapons, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming that, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, States should refrain from the use or the threat of use of nuclear weapons in settling their disputes in international relations,
8. Calls upon the nuclear-weapon States, pending the achievement of the total elimination of nuclear weapons, to agree on an internationally and legally binding instrument on a joint undertaking not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, and calls upon all States to conclude an internationally and legally binding instrument on security assurances of non-use and non-threat of use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States;
11. Underscores the importance of the unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States, in the Final Document of the Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons … to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament, to which all States parties are committed under article VI of the Treaty, and the reaffirmation by the States parties that the total elimination of nuclear weapons is the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/56, 8 December 2003, preamble and §§ 8 and 11, voting record: 112-45-20-14.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, the UN General Assembly:
1. Reaffirms the urgent need to reach an early agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons;
2. Notes with satisfaction that in the Conference on Disarmament there is no objection, in principle, to the idea of an international convention to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, although the difficulties with regard to evolving a common approach acceptable to all have also been pointed out;
3. Appeals to all States, especially the nuclear-weapon States, to work actively towards an early agreement on a common approach and, in particular, on a common formula that could be included in an international instrument of a legally binding character. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/64, 3 December 2004, §§ 1–3, voting record: 118-0-63-10.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on nuclear disarmament, the UN General Assembly:
Bearing in mind that the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction of 1972 and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction of 1993 have already established legal regimes on the complete prohibition of biological and chemical weapons, respectively, and determined to achieve a nuclear weapons convention on the prohibition of the development, testing, production, stockpiling, loan, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons and on their destruction, and to conclude such an international convention at an early date,
Noting the support expressed in the Conference on Disarmament and in the General Assembly for the elaboration of an international convention to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, and the multilateral efforts in the Conference on Disarmament to reach agreement on such an international convention at an early date,
Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, issued on 8 July 1996, and welcoming the unanimous reaffirmation by all Judges of the Court that there exists an obligation for all States to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control,
8. Calls upon the nuclear-weapon States, pending the achievement of the total elimination of nuclear weapons, to agree on an internationally and legally binding instrument on a joint undertaking not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, and calls upon all States to conclude an internationally and legally binding instrument on security assurances of non-use and non-threat of use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/77, 3 December 2004, preamble and § 8, voting record: 117-43-21-10.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 concerning the follow-up to the advisory opinion of the ICJ on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the UN General Assembly:
Desiring to achieve the objective of a legally binding prohibition of the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, threat or use of nuclear weapons and their destruction under effective international control,
Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, issued on 8 July 1996. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/83, 3 December 2004, preamble, voting record: 132-29-24-6.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 entitled “Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons”, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming that any use of nuclear weapons would be a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and a crime against humanity, as declared in its resolutions 1653 (XVI) of 24 November 1961, 33/71 B of 14 December 1978, 34/83 G of 11 December 1979, 35/152 D of 12 December 1980 and 36/92 I of 9 December 1981. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/102, 3 December 2004, preamble, voting record: 125-48-12-6.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, the UN General Assembly:
1. Reaffirms the urgent need to reach an early agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons;
2. Notes with satisfaction that in the Conference on Disarmament there is no objection, in principle, to the idea of an international convention to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, although the difficulties with regard to evolving a common approach acceptable to all have also been pointed out;
3. Appeals to all States, especially the nuclear-weapon States, to work actively towards an early agreement on a common approach and, in particular, on a common formula that could be included in an international instrument of a legally binding character. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/53, 8 December 2005, §§ 1–3, voting record: 120-0-59-12.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on nuclear disarmament, the UN General Assembly:
Bearing in mind that the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction of 1972 and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction of 1993 have already established legal regimes on the complete prohibition of biological and chemical weapons, respectively, and determined to achieve a nuclear weapons convention on the prohibition of the development, testing, production, stockpiling, loan, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons and on their destruction, and to conclude such an international convention at an early date,
Noting the support expressed in the Conference on Disarmament and in the General Assembly for the elaboration of an international convention to assure non- nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, and the multilateral efforts in the Conference on Disarmament to reach agreement on such an international convention at an early date,
Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, issued on 8 July 1996, and welcoming the unanimous reaffirmation by all Judges of the Court that there exists an obligation for all States to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control,
8. Calls upon the nuclear-weapon States, pending the achievement of the total elimination of nuclear weapons, to agree on an internationally and legally binding instrument on a joint undertaking not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, and calls upon all States to conclude an internationally and legally binding instrument on security assurances of non-use and non-threat of use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States.  
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/70, 8 December 2005, preamble and § 8, voting record: 113-45-20-13.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on a follow-up to the advisory opinion of the ICJ on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the UN General Assembly:
Convinced that the continuing existence of nuclear weapons poses a threat to all humanity and that their use would have catastrophic consequences for all life on Earth, and recognizing that the only defence against a nuclear catastrophe is the total elimination of nuclear weapons and the certainty that they will never be produced again,
Recognizing the need for a multilaterally negotiated and legally binding instrument to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the threat or use of nuclear weapons,
Desiring to achieve the objective of a legally binding prohibition of the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, threat or use of nuclear weapons and their destruction under effective international control,
Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, issued on 8 July 1996,
2. Calls once again upon all States immediately to fulfil that obligation by 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. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/76, 8 December 2005, preamble and § 2, voting record: 126-29-24-12.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on reducing nuclear danger, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed that “any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would constitute a violation of the Charter of the United Nations”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/79, 8 December 2005, preamble, voting record: 115-49-15-12.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 entitled “Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons”, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming that any use of nuclear weapons would be a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and a crime against humanity, as declared in its resolutions 1653 (XVI) of 24 November 1961, 33/71 B of 14 December 1978, 34/83 G of 11 December 1979, 35/152 D of 12 December 1980 and 36/92 I of 9 December 1981. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/88, 8 December 2005, preamble, voting record: 111-49-13-18.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, the UN General Assembly:
1. Reaffirms the urgent need to reach an early agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons;
2. Notes with satisfaction that in the Conference on Disarmament there is no objection, in principle, to the idea of an international convention to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, although the difficulties with regard to evolving a common approach acceptable to all have also been pointed out;
3. Appeals to all States, especially the nuclear-weapon States, to work actively towards an early agreement on a common approach. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/57, 6 December 2006, §§ 1–3, voting record: 119-1-59-13.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on nuclear disarmament, the UN General Assembly:
Bearing in mind that the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction of 1972 and the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction of 1993 have already established legal regimes on the complete prohibition of biological and chemical weapons, respectively, and determined to achieve a nuclear weapons convention on the prohibition of the development, testing, production, stockpiling, loan, transfer, use and threat of use of nuclear weapons and on their destruction, and to conclude such an international convention at an early date,
Noting the support expressed in the Conference on Disarmament and in the General Assembly for the elaboration of an international convention to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, and the multilateral efforts in the Conference on Disarmament to reach agreement on such an international convention at an early date,
8. Calls upon the nuclear-weapon States, pending the achievement of the total elimination of nuclear weapons, to agree on an internationally and legally binding instrument on a joint undertaking not to be the first to use nuclear weapons, and calls upon all States to conclude an internationally and legally binding instrument on security assurances of non-use and non-threat of use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/78, 6 December 2006, preamble and § 8, voting record: 115-48-18-11.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on follow-up to the advisory opinion of the ICJ on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the UN General Assembly:
Desiring to achieve the objective of a legally binding prohibition of the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, threat or use of nuclear weapons and their destruction under effective international control,
Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, issued on 8 July 1996. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/83, 6 December 2006, preamble, voting record: 125-27-29-11.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 entitled “Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons”, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming that any use of nuclear weapons would be a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and a crime against humanity, as declared in its resolutions 1653 (XVI) of 24 November 1961, 33/71 B of 14 December 1978, 34/83 G of 11 December 1979, 35/152 D of 12 December 1980 and 36/92 I of 9 December 1981. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/97, 6 December 2006, preamble, voting record: 119-52-10-11.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, the UN General Assembly:
1. Reaffirms the urgent need to reach an early agreement on effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons;
2. Notes with satisfaction that in the Conference on Disarmament there is no objection, in principle, to the idea of an international convention to assure nonnuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, although the difficulties with regard to evolving a common approach acceptable to all have also been pointed out;
3. Appeals to all States, especially the nuclear-weapon States, to work actively towards an early agreement on a common approach. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/19, 5 December 2007, §§ 1–3, voting record: 121-1-56-14.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the prohibition of the dumping of radioactive wastes, the UN General Assembly:
1. Takes note of the part of the report of the Conference on Disarmament relating to a future convention on the prohibition of radiological weapons;
2. Expresses grave concern regarding any use of nuclear wastes that would constitute radiological warfare and have grave implications for the national security of all States;
4. Requests the Conference on Disarmament to take into account, in the negotiations for a convention on the prohibition of radiological weapons, radioactive wastes as part of the scope of such a convention;
5. Also requests the Conference on Disarmament to intensify efforts towards an early conclusion of such a convention and to include in its report to the General Assembly at its sixty-fourth session the progress recorded in the negotiations on this subject. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/34, 5 December 2007, §§ 1–2 and 4–5, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on follow-up to the advisory opinion of the ICJ on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the UN General Assembly:
Recognizing the need for a multilaterally negotiated and legally binding instrument to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the threat or use of nuclear weapons,
Desiring to achieve the objective of a legally binding prohibition of the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, threat or use of nuclear weapons. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/39, 5 December 2007, preamble, voting record: 127-27-27-11.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 entitled “Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons”, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming that any use of nuclear weapons would be a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and a crime against humanity, as declared in its resolutions 1653 (XVI) of 24 November 1961, 33/71 B of 14 December 1978, 34/83 G of 11 December 1979, 35/152 D of 12 December 1980 and 36/92 I of 9 December 1981. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/51, 5 December 2007, preamble, voting record: 120-52-10-10.
International Atomic Energy Agency
In 2005, at the 2005 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the IAEA stated:
If we, the global community, accept that the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology are essential to our health, our environment, and our social and economic development, then we owe it to ourselves to ensure that we have a framework in place that can effectively prevent the military applications of this technology from leading to our self-destruction.  
IAEA, Statement before the Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 2005, p. 2.
International Conference of the Red Cross (1948)
In a resolution on non-directed weapons, the 17th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1948 requested States “to undertake to prohibit absolutely all recourse to such weapons and the use of atomic energy or any similar force for purposes of warfare”. 
17th International Conference of the Red Cross, Stockholm, 20–30 August, 1948, Res. XXIV.
International Conference of the Red Cross (1952)
In a resolution on atomic weapons, the 18th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1952 urged States “to agree, within the framework of general disarmament, to a plan for the international control of atomic energy which would ensure the prohibition of atomic weapons and the use of atomic energy solely for peaceful purposes”. 
18th International Conference of the Red Cross, Toronto, 22 July–8 August 1952, Res XVIII.
International Conference of the Red Cross (1965)
In a resolution on the protection of civilian populations against the damages of indiscriminate warfare, the 20th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1965 stated:
[I]n its endeavours for the protection of the civilian population … [the Conference] request[s] Governments to agree … to a plan for the international control of atomic energy which would ensure the prohibition of atomic weapons and the use of atomic energy. 
20th International Conference of the Red Cross, Vienna, 2–9 October 1965, Res. XXVIII.
International Conference of the Red Cross (1977)
In a resolution on weapons of mass destruction, the 23rd International Conference of the Red Cross in 1977:
noting that these weapons are in contradiction to the aspirations of all men of good will for the further relaxation of international tension and the establishment of a lasting peace in the world,
invites all governments to take urgent measures to reach agreement on the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction. 
23rd International Conference of the Red Cross, Bucharest, 15–21 October 1977, Res. XII.
International Court of Justice
In its Advisory Opinion in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1996, the ICJ stated:
42. The proportionality principle may … not in itself exclude the use of nuclear weapons in self-defence in all circumstances. But at the same time, a use of force that is proportionate under the law of self-defence, must, in order to be lawful, also meet the requirements of the law applicable in armed conflict which comprise in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law.
74. The Court not having found a conventional rule of general scope, nor a customary rule specifically proscribing the threat or use of nuclear weapons per se, it will now deal with the question whether recourse to nuclear weapons must be considered as illegal in the light of the principles and rules of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflict and of the law of neutrality.
75. A large number of customary rules have been developed by the practice of States and are an integral part of the international law relevant to the question posed. The “laws and customs of war” – as they were traditionally called – were the subject of efforts at codification undertaken in The Hague (including the Conventions of 1899 and 1907), and were based partly upon the St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868 as well as the results of the Brussels Conference of 1874. This “Hague Law” and, more particularly, the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, fixed the rights and duties of belligerents in their conduct of operations and limited the choice of methods and means of injuring the enemy in an international armed conflict. One should add to this the “Geneva Law” (the Conventions of 1864, 1906, 1929 and 1949), which protects the victims of war and aims to provide safeguards for disabled armed forces personnel and persons not taking part in the hostilities. These two branches of the law applicable in armed conflict have become so closely interrelated that they are considered to have gradually formed one single complex system, known today as international humanitarian law. The provisions of the Additional Protocols of 1977 give expression and attest to the unity and complexity of that law.
76. Since the turn of the century, the appearance of new means of combat has – without calling into question the longstanding principles and rules of international law – rendered necessary some specific prohibitions of the use of certain weapons, such as explosive projectiles under 400 grammes, dum-dum bullets and asphyxiating gases. Chemical and bacteriological weapons were then prohibited by the 1925 Geneva Protocol. More recently, the use of weapons producing “non-detectable fragments”, of other types of “mines, booby traps and other devices”, and of “incendiary weapons”, was either prohibited or limited, depending on the case, by the Convention of 10 October 1980 on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. The provisions of the Convention on “mines, booby traps and other devices” have just been amended, on 3 May 1996, and now regulate in greater detail, for example, the use of anti-personnel land mines.
77. All this shows that the conduct of military operations is governed by a body of legal prescriptions. This is so because “the right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited” as stated in Article 22 of the 1907 Hague Regulations relating to the laws and customs of war on land. The St. Petersburg Declaration had already condemned the use of weapons “which uselessly aggravate the suffering of disabled men or make their death inevitable”. The aforementioned Regulations relating to the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the Hague Convention IV of 1907, prohibit the use of “arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering” (Art. 23).
78. The cardinal principles contained in the texts constituting the fabric of humanitarian law are the following. The first is aimed at the protection of the civilian population and civilian objects and establishes the distinction between combatants and non-combatants; States must never make civilians the object of attack and must consequently never use weapons that are incapable of distinguishing between civilian and military targets. According to the second principle, it is prohibited to cause unnecessary suffering to combatants: it is accordingly prohibited to use weapons causing them such harm or uselessly aggravating their suffering. In application of that second principle, States do not have unlimited freedom of choice of means in the weapons they use.
The Court would likewise refer, in relation to these principles, to the Martens Clause, which was first included in the Hague Convention II with Respect o the Laws and Customs of War on Land of 1899 and which has proved to be an effective means of addressing the rapid evolution of military technology. A modern version of that clause is to be found in Article 1, paragraph 2, of Additional Protocol 1 of 1977, which reads as follows:
“In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience.”
In conformity with the aforementioned principles, humanitarian law, at a very early stage, prohibited certain types of weapons either because of their indiscriminate effect on combatants and civilians or because of the unnecessary suffering caused to combatants, that is to say, a harm greater than that unavoidable to achieve legitimate military objectives. If an envisaged use of weapons would not meet the requirements of humanitarian law, a threat to engage in such use would also be contrary to that law.
79. It is undoubtedly because a great many rules of humanitarian law applicable in armed conflict are so fundamental to the respect of the human person and “elementary considerations of humanity” as the Court put it in its Judgment of 9 April 1949 in the Corfu Channel case (I.C.J. Reports 1949, p. 22), that the Hague and Geneva Conventions have enjoyed a broad accession. Further these fundamental rules are to be observed by all States whether or not they have ratified the conventions that contain them, because they constitute intransgressible principles of international customary law.
85. Turning now to the applicability of the principles and rules of humanitarian law to a possible threat or use of nuclear weapons, the Court notes that doubts in this respect have sometimes been voiced on the ground that these principles and rules had evolved prior to the invention of nuclear weapons and that the Conferences of Geneva of 1949 and 1974–1977 which respectively adopted the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the two Additional Protocols thereto did not deal with nuclear weapons specifically. Such views, however, are only held by a small minority. In the view of the vast majority of States as well as writers there can be no doubt as to the applicability of humanitarian law to nuclear weapons.
86. The Court shares that view. Indeed, nuclear weapons were invented after most of the principles and rules of humanitarian law applicable in armed conflict had already come into existence; the Conferences of 1949 and 1974–1977 left these weapons aside, and there is a qualitative as well as quantitative difference between nuclear weapons and all conventional arms. However, it cannot be concluded from this that the established principles and rules of humanitarian law applicable in armed conflict did not apply to nuclear weapons. Such a conclusion would be incompatible with the intrinsically humanitarian character of the legal principles in question which permeates the entire law of armed conflict and applies to all forms of warfare and to all kinds of weapons, those of the past, those of the present and those of the future. In this respect it seems significant that the thesis that the rules of humanitarian law do not apply to the new weaponry, because of the newness of the latter, has not been advocated in the present proceedings. On the contrary, the newness of nuclear weapons has been expressly rejected as an argument against the application to them of international humanitarian law:
“In general, international humanitarian law bears on the threat or use of nuclear weapons as it does of other weapons.
International humanitarian law has evolved to meet contemporary circumstances, and is not limited in its application to weaponry of an earlier time. The fundamental principles of this law endure: to mitigate and circumscribe the cruelty of war for humanitarian reasons.” (New Zealand, Written Statement, p. 15, paras. 63–64.)
None of the statements made before the Court in any way advocated a freedom to use nuclear weapons without regard to humanitarian constraints. Quite the reverse; it has been explicitly stated,
“Restrictions set by the rules applicable to armed conflicts in respect of means and methods of warfare definitely also extend to nuclear weapons” (Russian Federation, CR 95129, p. 52);
“So far as the customary law of war is concerned, the United Kingdom has always accepted that the use of nuclear weapons is subject to the general principles of the jus in bello” (United Kingdom, CR 95134, p. 45);
and
“The United States has long shared the view that the law of armed conflict governs the use of nuclear weapons - just as it governs the use of conventional weapons” (United States of America, CR 95134, p. 85).
87. Finally, the Court points to the Martens Clause, whose continuing existence and applicability is not to be doubted, as an affirmation that the principles and rules of humanitarian law apply to nuclear weapons.
94. The Court would observe that none of the States advocating the legality of the use of nuclear weapons under certain circumstances, including the “clean” use of smaller, low yield, tactical nuclear weapons, has indicated what, supposing such limited use were feasible, would be the precise circumstances justifying such use; nor whether such limited use would not tend to escalate into the all-out use of high yield nuclear weapons. This being so, the Court does not consider that it has a sufficient basis for a determination on the validity of this view.
95. Nor can the Court make a determination on the validity of the view that the recourse to nuclear weapons would be illegal in any circumstance owing to their inherent and total incompatibility with the law applicable in armed conflict. Certainly, as the Court has already indicated, the principles and rules of law applicable in armed conflict – at the heart of which is the overriding consideration of humanity - make the conduct of armed hostilities subject to a number of strict requirements. Thus, methods and means of warfare, which would preclude any distinction between civilian and military targets, or which would result in unnecessary suffering to combatants, are prohibited. In view of the unique characteristics of nuclear weapons, to which the Court has referred above, the use of such weapons in fact seems scarcely reconcilable with respect for such requirements. Nevertheless, the Court considers that it does not have sufficient elements to enable it to conclude with certainty that the use of nuclear weapons would necessarily be at variance with the principles and rules of law applicable in armed conflict in any circumstance.
105. For these reasons,
The Court,
(2) Replies in the following manner to the question put by the General Assembly:
A. Unanimously,
There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons;
B. By eleven votes to three,
There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such;
D. Unanimously,
A threat or use of nuclear weapons should also be compatible with the requirements of the international law applicable in armed conflict, particularly those of the principles and rules of international humanitarian law, as well as with specific obligations under treaties and other undertakings which expressly deal with nuclear weapons;
E. By seven votes to seven, by the President’s casting vote,
It follows from the above-mentioned requirements that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law;
However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake. 
ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, §§ 42, 74–79, 85–87, 94–95 and 105.
ICRC
In 1996, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the ICRC stated:
We were pleased to see the reaffirmation of certain rules which the Court defined as “intransgressible” (A/51/218, annex, para. 79), in particular the absolute prohibition on the use of weapons that are by their nature indiscriminate, as well as the prohibition of the use of weapons that cause unnecessary suffering. We also welcome the Court’s emphasis that humanitarian law applies to all weapons without exception, including new ones. In this context we would like to underline that there is no exception to the application of these rules, whatever the circumstances.
The ICRC finds it difficult to envisage how a use of nuclear weapons could be compatible with the rules of international law. We are convinced that because of their devastating effects no one ever wants to see these weapons used. It is the ICRC’s hope that the opinion of the Court will give fresh impetus to the international community’s efforts to rid humanity of this terrible threat. 
See the statement of the ICRC before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.1/51/PV.8, 18 October 1996, p. 10, also reproduced in IRRC, No. 316, 1997, pp. 118–119.
ICRC
In 1995, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the ICRC stated:
[W]e would like to recall, on the occasion of the fiftieth anniversary of the nuclear age and the commencement of considerations by the international Court of Justice of the legality of the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons, the position of the ICRC on this matter. Any use of weapons which would violate the norms of existing international humanitarian law, including customary law, is already prohibited. In addition, we hope that any deliberations on nuclear weapons will take into account what would probably happen if the threshold were breached and nuclear weapons were actually used. The ICRC has already indicated its opinion that the only effective solution for particularly dangerous weapons is their total prohibition and this has been achieved for chemical and biological weapons and for blinding laser weapons. We hope that the end of the cold war will allow States to work towards achieving the same result for nuclear weapons. 
ICRC, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, 26 October 1995.
ICRC
In a press release issued in 1995 on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the ICRC reminded the international community that
the use of weapons of mass destruction, whose effects are by definition indiscriminate, is contrary to international humanitarian law and quoted the ICRC President Sommaruga in saying that the political environment prompting States to regard nuclear weapons as a deterrent has all but disappeared, while the danger of uncontrolled proliferation – and possible use – of nuclear arms is greater today than ever. It is therefore a matter of urgency for the international community to eliminate the nuclear threat once and for all. The ICRC welcomes the moves made by the United Nations General Assembly to question the legality of this type of weapon. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 31, Hiroshima and Nagasaki: never again!, 30 August 1995.
ICRC
In 2009, during a debate in the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, the ICRC stated:
[T]he ICRC can only welcome the fact that the elimination of nuclear weapons is now back on the international agenda. We welcome, in particular, the agreement in the Conference on Disarmament to resume addressing nuclear weapons issues, the recent Security Council Summit on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Nuclear Disarmament, and the initiatives taken by a variety of States before next year’s Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The ICRC notes that in 1996 the International Court of Justice confirmed that the principles of distinction and proportionality found in international humanitarian law apply to nuclear weapons. In applying these principles to nuclear weapons the Court concluded that “the use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the principles and rules of international humanitarian law.”
Given the unique characteristics of nuclear weapons the ICRC, as a humanitarian organisation, goes beyond a purely legal analysis. 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 and in the threat they pose to the environment, to future generations, indeed, to the survival of humanity. The ICRC appeals to all States to ensure that these weapons are never used again, regardless of their views on the legality of such use.
Preventing the use of nuclear weapons means preventing their proliferation and combating the transfer of materials and technology needed to produce them. It requires the fulfilment of existing obligations to pursue negotiations to prohibit and completely eliminate such weapons. The ICRC urges all States to seize with determination and urgency the unique opportunities now available to achieve these noble objectives. 
ICRC, Statement before the First Committee of the UN General Assembly, 9 October 2009.
No data.