Schlüsselwörter
(Deutsch)
|
Nuclear weapons, nuclear disarmament, humanitarian, treaty banning nuclear weapons, Hiroshima, NPT, nuclear ban, non proliferation
|
Schlüsselwörter
(Englisch)
|
Nuclear weapons, nuclear disarmament, humanitarian, treaty banning nuclear weapons, Hiroshima, NPT, nuclear ban, non proliferation
|
Schlüsselwörter
(Französisch)
|
Nuclear weapons, nuclear disarmament, humanitarian, treaty banning nuclear weapons, Hiroshima, NPT, nuclear ban, non proliferation
|
Schlüsselwörter
(Italienisch)
|
Nuclear weapons, nuclear disarmament, humanitarian, treaty banning nuclear weapons, Hiroshima, NPT, nuclear ban, non proliferation
|
Kurzbeschreibung
(Deutsch)
|
The humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapon use are more destructive than those of any other weapon developed throughout history. Humanitarian organisations such as the UN relief agencies and the ICRC have made it clear that they would not have the capacity to respond meaningfully to the impacts of a nuclear weapon explosion. The use of a single nuclear weapon in an urban area would cause hundreds of thousands of casualties and massive social and economic destruction. The use of multiple nuclear weapons could have longer-term consequences on a global level, with recent research showing that soot from massive firestorms could cause climate disruption affecting food production worldwide and causing large-scale famine.This paper argues for the agreement of a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It argues that the humanitarian consequences of a nuclear weapon attack make it vital to avoid their use, and this in turn makes the elimination of nuclear weapons an imperative. Existing multilateral instruments and approaches provide building blocks towards a prohibition, but currently too much special status and authority is given to the states that are armed with nuclear weapons. In order to delegitimise nuclear weapons within those countries, and so take the next necessary step towards the elimination of these weapons, committed states need to develop and agree an instrument that makes the illegality of nuclear weapons explicit. This can be done even if the nuclear-armed states will not participate.Section 1 of this paper draws on existing research to provide a brief introduction to the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapon use and explains why little can be done to alleviate the grave suffering of those directly affected by a nuclear explosion, or to effectively address the wide-ranging and long-term consequences it would cause. Section 2 surveys some of the key multilateral instruments and approaches that have been put in place to address nuclear weapons. It finds potential in all of them to act as building blocks for an instrument providing a clearer rejection of nuclear weapons. Section 3 calls for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It develops further the justification and key elements of such a treaty.
|
Kurzbeschreibung
(Englisch)
|
The humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapon use are more destructive than those of any other weapon developed throughout history. Humanitarian organisations such as the UN relief agencies and the ICRC have made it clear that they would not have the capacity to respond meaningfully to the impacts of a nuclear weapon explosion. The use of a single nuclear weapon in an urban area would cause hundreds of thousands of casualties and massive social and economic destruction. The use of multiple nuclear weapons could have longer-term consequences on a global level, with recent research showing that soot from massive firestorms could cause climate disruption affecting food production worldwide and causing large-scale famine.This paper argues for the agreement of a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It argues that the humanitarian consequences of a nuclear weapon attack make it vital to avoid their use, and this in turn makes the elimination of nuclear weapons an imperative. Existing multilateral instruments and approaches provide building blocks towards a prohibition, but currently too much special status and authority is given to the states that are armed with nuclear weapons. In order to delegitimise nuclear weapons within those countries, and so take the next necessary step towards the elimination of these weapons, committed states need to develop and agree an instrument that makes the illegality of nuclear weapons explicit. This can be done even if the nuclear-armed states will not participate.Section 1 of this paper draws on existing research to provide a brief introduction to the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapon use and explains why little can be done to alleviate the grave suffering of those directly affected by a nuclear explosion, or to effectively address the wide-ranging and long-term consequences it would cause. Section 2 surveys some of the key multilateral instruments and approaches that have been put in place to address nuclear weapons. It finds potential in all of them to act as building blocks for an instrument providing a clearer rejection of nuclear weapons. Section 3 calls for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It develops further the justification and key elements of such a treaty.
|
Kurzbeschreibung
(Französisch)
|
The humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapon use are more destructive than those of any other weapon developed throughout history. Humanitarian organisations such as the UN relief agencies and the ICRC have made it clear that they would not have the capacity to respond meaningfully to the impacts of a nuclear weapon explosion. The use of a single nuclear weapon in an urban area would cause hundreds of thousands of casualties and massive social and economic destruction. The use of multiple nuclear weapons could have longer-term consequences on a global level, with recent research showing that soot from massive firestorms could cause climate disruption affecting food production worldwide and causing large-scale famine.This paper argues for the agreement of a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It argues that the humanitarian consequences of a nuclear weapon attack make it vital to avoid their use, and this in turn makes the elimination of nuclear weapons an imperative. Existing multilateral instruments and approaches provide building blocks towards a prohibition, but currently too much special status and authority is given to the states that are armed with nuclear weapons. In order to delegitimise nuclear weapons within those countries, and so take the next necessary step towards the elimination of these weapons, committed states need to develop and agree an instrument that makes the illegality of nuclear weapons explicit. This can be done even if the nuclear-armed states will not participate.Section 1 of this paper draws on existing research to provide a brief introduction to the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapon use and explains why little can be done to alleviate the grave suffering of those directly affected by a nuclear explosion, or to effectively address the wide-ranging and long-term consequences it would cause. Section 2 surveys some of the key multilateral instruments and approaches that have been put in place to address nuclear weapons. It finds potential in all of them to act as building blocks for an instrument providing a clearer rejection of nuclear weapons. Section 3 calls for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It develops further the justification and key elements of such a treaty.
|
Kurzbeschreibung
(Italienisch)
|
The humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapon use are more destructive than those of any other weapon developed throughout history. Humanitarian organisations such as the UN relief agencies and the ICRC have made it clear that they would not have the capacity to respond meaningfully to the impacts of a nuclear weapon explosion. The use of a single nuclear weapon in an urban area would cause hundreds of thousands of casualties and massive social and economic destruction. The use of multiple nuclear weapons could have longer-term consequences on a global level, with recent research showing that soot from massive firestorms could cause climate disruption affecting food production worldwide and causing large-scale famine.This paper argues for the agreement of a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It argues that the humanitarian consequences of a nuclear weapon attack make it vital to avoid their use, and this in turn makes the elimination of nuclear weapons an imperative. Existing multilateral instruments and approaches provide building blocks towards a prohibition, but currently too much special status and authority is given to the states that are armed with nuclear weapons. In order to delegitimise nuclear weapons within those countries, and so take the next necessary step towards the elimination of these weapons, committed states need to develop and agree an instrument that makes the illegality of nuclear weapons explicit. This can be done even if the nuclear-armed states will not participate.Section 1 of this paper draws on existing research to provide a brief introduction to the humanitarian impacts of nuclear weapon use and explains why little can be done to alleviate the grave suffering of those directly affected by a nuclear explosion, or to effectively address the wide-ranging and long-term consequences it would cause. Section 2 surveys some of the key multilateral instruments and approaches that have been put in place to address nuclear weapons. It finds potential in all of them to act as building blocks for an instrument providing a clearer rejection of nuclear weapons. Section 3 calls for a treaty banning nuclear weapons. It develops further the justification and key elements of such a treaty.
|
Auftragnehmer
(Englisch)
|
Article 36
|
Belastetes Budget
(Englisch)
|
SDC / DEZA / DDC / DSC / COSUDE
|
Gesetzliche Grundlage
(Englisch)
|
Art. 57 Abs. 1 RVOG Art. 57 al. 1 LOGA Art. 57 cpv. 1 LOGA
|
Impressum
(Englisch)
|
Copyright, Bundesbehörden der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft | Droits d'auteur: autorités de la Confédération suisse | Diritti d'autore: autorità della Confederazione Svizzera | Dretgs d'autur: autoritads da la Confederaziun svizra | Copyright, Swiss federal authorities
|
Auskunft
(Englisch)
|
Division for Security Policy
|
