Post on 25-Jan-2023
National Students’ Conference on International Humanitarian Law
Nirma university, Ahmadabad
Theme: Mapping the Humanitarian threat of Weapons of Mass
Destruction
“THE PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION AND INTERNATIONAL
HUMANITARIAN LAW”
1
Contents
Introduction
International Humanitarian
Law......................................................
...........................3-5
The proliferation of weapons of mass
destruction..............................................
........6-8
Nuclear programs in various
nations..................................................
......................9-10
British nuclear weapons program
India’s nuclear weapons program2
Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program
Anti-personal Landmines and Explosive Remnants of
War...................................10-11
The response to the problem: the Mine Ban
Treaty...................................................
..10
International response to proliferation of
WMD......................................................
....11
The proliferation phase
Power above
humanity............................................
........................................12
Humanity above
power...............................................
................................13-14
Concluding
Remarks..................................................
..................................................15
Bibliography.............................................
.........................................................
...........17
3
Introduction to International Humanitarian Law
International humanitarian law is part of Public international
law, which is the body of rules governing relations between
States. International law is contained in agreements between
States , treaties or conventions , in customary rules, which
consist of State practise considered by them as legally
binding, and in general principles. International humanitarian
law (IHL), also known as ‘the laws of war’ and ‘the law of
armed conflict’, is the legal framework applicable to
situations of armed conflict and occupation. The 2 principles
are fundamental to IHL to limit the effects of armed conflict1:
1. The protection of persons who are not, or are no longer,
participating in hostilities; and
2. The right of parties to an armed conflict to choose
methods and means of warfare is not unlimited.
1http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/what_is_ihl.pdf .( last accessedon 3/2/2014))
4
The aim of IHL is to ‘humanise’ warfare by limiting the human
suffering caused by armed conflict by creating legal
boundaries. The rules of IHL strike a ‘careful balance between
concerns for humanity and military necessity’. It is important
to distinguish between the rules applicable during armed
conflict, the jus in bello,and the law relating resort to force,
that is, the jus ad bellum. The latter is regulated by the United
Nations Charter2.
IHL is rooted in the rules of ancient civilizations and
religions because warfare has always been subject to certain
principles and customs. The beginning of modern IHL i.e.,
Universal codification of IHL began in the 19thcentury. The
process of drafting and adopting rules has mainly taken place
in The Hague and in Geneva. The so-called ‘Hague law’ is
concerned with the means and methods of warfare whereas
‘Geneva law’ is concerned with the protection of
individuals.As the international community has grown, an
increasing number of States have contributed to the
development of those rules. IHL forms today a universal body of law.
Many provisions of IHL are now accepted as customary law –
that is, as general rules by which all States are bound.
IHL is applicable in the event of armed conflict, whether
international or non-international in nature. The law applies
only once a conflict has begun, and then equally to all sides
regardless of who started the fighting.International armed
conflicts arethose in which at least two States are involved.2http://www.asser.nl/default.aspx? site_id=9&level1=13336&level2=13374&level3=13476.(last accessed on 3/2/2014)
5
They are subject to a wide range of rules, including those set
out Article23 in the four Geneva Conventions and Additional
Protocol I4. There is no definition of a non-international
armed conflict in international humanitarian law. Non-
international armed conflicts are those restricted to the
territory of a single State, involving either regular armed
forces fighting groups of armed dissidents, or armedgroups
fighting each other. A more limited range of rules apply to
internal armed conflicts and are laid down in Article 35 common
to the four Geneva Conventions as well as in Additional
Protocol II6.
According to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the following
persons are provided with protection during war7:
Wounded and sick members of the armed conflicts on land;
Sick, wounded and shipwrecked members of the armed forces
at sea;
Prisoner of wars;
Civilians, including foreign civilians and refugees on
the territory where the hostilities take place and
civilians in occupied territories.
Besides these four main categories protection is also afforded
to personnel of civil defence units, medical and religious3Article 2 of 1949 Geneva Convention: “Application of the Convention.”4Protocol I (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of InternationalArmed Conflicts.5Article 3of 1949 Geneva Convention - “Conflicts not of an internationalcharacter”.6Protocol II (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts.7http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/protected-persons/overview-protected- persons.html.(last visited on 4/2/2014)
6
personnel. These categories of person are entitled to respect
for their lives and for their physical and mental integrity.
They also enjoy legal guarantees. They must be protected and
treated humanely in all circumstances, with no adverse
distinction.There are also detailed rules governing the
conditions of detention for prisoners of war and the way in
which civilians are to be treated when under the authority of
an enemy power. This includes the provision of food, shelter
and medical care, and the right to exchange messages with
their families. IHL prohibits all means and methods of warfare
which8:
1. fail to discriminate between those taking part in the
fighting and those, such as civilians, who are not, the
purpose being to protect the civilian population,
individual civilians and civilian property;
2. cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering;
3. cause severe or long-term damage to the environment.
Humanitarian law has therefore banned the use of many weapons,
including exploding bullets, chemical and biological weapons,
blinding laser weapons and anti-personnel mines. IHL also
affords protection to certain objects. One of the main reasons
for affording protection is that these objects are crucial for
human beings to survive. The destruction of these objects will
have a detrimental effect on the civilian population. The
protected objects include9:
8http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/what_is_ihl.pdf. (last accessedon 5/2/2014 )9http://www.asser.nl/default.aspx? site_id=9&level1=13336&level2=13374&level3=13476.(last accessed on
7
Civilian objects: all objects which are not qualified as
military objectives;
Cultural objects and religious sites;
The natural environment;
Objects indispensable to the survival of civilian
population, such as water;
Works and installations containing dangerous forces, such
as dams, dykes and nuclear plants;
Medical equipment including the means of transport;
IHL has made a difference by protecting civilians, prisoners,
the sick and the wounded, and in restricting the use of
barbaric weapons.
As this body of law applies during times of extreme violence,
implementing the law will always be a matter of great
difficulty. So, striving for effective compliance remains as
urgent as ever. Measures must be taken to ensure respect for
IHL. States have an obligation to teach its rules to their
armed forces and the general publicand must enact laws to
punish the most serious violations of the Geneva Conventions
and Additional Protocols, which are regarded as war crimes.
The States must also pass laws protecting the redcross and red
crescent emblems. Measures have also been taken at an
international level. Tribunals have been created to punish
acts committed in two recent conflicts (the former Yugoslavia
and Rwanda). An international criminal court, with the
responsibility of repressing inter alia war crimes, was
created by the 1998 Rome Statute. We all either as individuals
5/2014/)
8
or through governments and various organizations can make an
important contribution to compliance with IHL.
Introduction To Weapons of mass destruction
“The gravest danger our Nation faces lies at the crossroads of radicalism and
technology. Our enemies have openly declared that they are seeking weapons of
mass destruction, and evidence indicates that they are doing so with determination.
The United States will not allow these efforts to succeed. ...History will judge
harshly those who saw this coming danger but failed to act. In the new world
we have entered, the only path to peace and security is the path of action.”
President Bush
The National Security Strategy of the United States of America
September 17, 2002
Being a former Soviet military term “Weapons of mass
destruction”, which was euphemistically used to denote
nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. It is now widely
used, despite debate over its appropriateness, and its
definition has broadened to include radiological weapons.
WMD10 use involves mass casualties, especially deaths. In some
situations, traditional weapons have created “mass
destruction,” such as the fire bombings by Allied troops
during the Second World War. The Civilians were targeted, and
10 Weapons of mass destruction
9
the deaths numbered in the tens of thousands for Dresden and
100,000 for Tokyo. A true WMD would create similar casualties
with a single weapon which can be a nuclear weapon or chemical
weapon or biological weapon.11
Nuclear weapons destroy not only human lives but also the
infrastructure surrounding that place. The atomic bombs
dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki the destructive power of
these weapons is still present in the environment. In
Hiroshima, the 15-kiloton bomb killed 140,000 people; in
Nagasaki, the 21-kiloton device killed 70,000. Both of these
cities were turned into wastelands from the blasts’ shock
waves and associated fires. Modern nuclear weapons in the
stockpiles of nuclear weapons states (of which there are about
30,000) average more than 100 kilotons yield.
A chemical weapon attack on a city could be expected to
produce a maximum of thousands
of deaths. Moreover, the lethality of a chemical weapons
attack depends on whether the targets are defended. Gas masks
and protective clothing provide full protection against
chemical weapons—defences that do not exist for explosive or
incendiary attack.
Biological weapons are more difficult to characterize in terms
of lethality than the chemical weapons. The reason for this is
perhaps that a large-scale biological weapons attack using
well-dispersed agent has never occurred. The Office of
Technology Assessment estimated that depending on climate
conditions, 100kg of anthrax could result in 130,000 to
11 Weapons of mass destruction :terror threat by Steve bowman
10
3,000,000 dead in an urban region of 3,000 to 10,000 people
per square kilometre.
number of studies which have been recently conducted of
biological weapons suggest that lethality generate an
enormous range, from 66 deaths to 88 billion deaths per
kilogram of agent used for anthrax. This variance underscores
the uncertainty involved in predicting the lethality of these
agents as weapons. A National Academy of Science report
pointed out that “modeling efforts over the past decade, at
least those publicly available, tend to emphasize worst-case
scenarios—broadscale attacks involving millions of human
casualties, if not fatalities.”12
The September 11, 2001 attacks showed that the intention of
the terrorists have become clear on causing as much death and
destruction as possible. There are numerous reports that Al
Qaeda has sought to acquire WMDs.Terrorists are not the only
ones interested in such weapons: currently there are eight
states with nuclear weapons, sixteen with chemical weapons
programs, and five to twelve with biological weapons programs.
In response to the attack on world trade centre, the United
States has based recent nuclear weapons targeting policy on
the concept of a broadly conceived WMD threat, equating
nuclear weapons with biological and chemical ones. Moreover,
the United States is still involved in a war in Iraq that it
waged in large part because of the WMD threat. The United
States spends $7 billion on bio defence but less than $2
12 All weapons of mass destruction are not equal by Allison macflarne
11
billion preventing a nuclear attack. These developments give
rise to the question that are biological and chemical weapons
really as threatening to the United States as nuclear weapons?
The first step in trying to answer this question is to
determine how the concept of weapons of mass destruction is
used, what these weapons can actually do, and whether we can
protect ourselves against them. Then it will be clearer
whether these weapons really occupy the same category. The new
perspective we gain on the concept of weapons of mass
destruction will help us grasp the implications for foreign
and domestic policies.13
13 All weapons of mass destruction are not equal by Allison macflarne
12
Nuclear programs in various nations
British nuclear weapons program
On 8th january1947 prime minister of England Attlee headed a
six member committee that recommended Britain proceed with an
atomic weapons program.william g penny led the effort of
making this program.penny had been part of the british team
that assisted with the manhatten project during world war II.
The first british reactor went critical at windscale in
October 1950. The first fission weapon named “hurricane” was
detonated on October 3 1952. The british tested their first
hydrogen bomb, named “grapple 1” or “short granite” on may 15
1957. The U.K. is a signatory of the non proliferation treaty.
13
India’s nuclear weapons program
India having border tensions with china and china’s pursuit of
nuclear weapons, which led India to develop its own nuclear
weapons program. India began construction of a plutonium-
separation facility during the 1950s at trombay, near Bombay.
The separation plant began operation in 1964. The plutonium
probably came from a Canadian-built reactor at the bhabha
atomic research center (BARC), A 40-MW Canadian-indian heavy
water research reactor(also called “circus”). India detonated
its first atomic bomb,called the “smiling budha”, on may 18
1974, at pokhran, rajasthan desert, india. India has several
CANDU reactors (Canadian deuterium-moderated reactor) in
addition to the circus. during may11-15, 1998, India tested
several more nuclear weapons and declared itself a nuclear
state.14
Pakistan’s nuclear weapons program
As a reaction to the nuclear strategic program concerns
generated from the India, Pakistan initiated the engineering
research laboratories(ERL) in 1976. The Pakistani program was
based on a domestically engineered centrifuge uranium-
enrichment plant. The facility used technology misappropriated
from the European uranium centrifuge consortium URENCO
(Britain, germany, and the Netherlands are the participants).
14 Non proliferation Issues For Weapons of Mass Destruction By Mark A. Prelas, Michael Peck
14
Dr. Abdul qader khan, the dutch partner of URENCO, who worked
for ultracentrifuge nederland (UCN), led the Pakistani
program. In 1992 foreign minister shahryranr stated that
Pakistan had the components necessary to assemble nclear
weapons.
Pakistan has a Chinese built power reactor. in addition, it
has self-engineered a 50 MW heavy water-moderated nuclear
reactor now under construction. After india tested nuclear
weapons in may 27-30, 1998, Pakistan also tested nuclear
weapons and declared itself to be a nuclear state.
Pakistan has not signed the non-proliferation treaty.
Anti-personal Landmines and Explosive Remnants of
WarDesigned to kill or maim, anti-personnel landmines and
explosive remnants of war (ERW) continue to inflict death and
injury. Every year anti-personnel landmines (APL) and
explosive remnants of war (ERW) kill or injure up to 10,000
people, many of whom are civilians, including children.
Despite international efforts to eliminate APL, approximately
65 countries are still affected by mines and unexploded
ordnance. The appalling casualties caused by APL and their
impact on human security prompted EU action in this area.15
Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) denotes explosive ordnance
(such as mortar bombs, grenades, cluster submunitions and air-
dropped bombs) which have not exploded and are left as a
hazard in the post conflict environment. This results from
15 http://eeas.europa.eu/anti_landmines/index_en.htm
15
ordnance being fired but failing to explode (unexploded
ordnance – UXO) or from ordnance stores being abandoned during
the fighting (abandoned explosive ordnance – AXO).
They land into no-go zones, hindering fertile agriculture and
development. In post-conflict societies APL and ERW can impede
the return of refugees and internally displaced people, hinder
reconciliation, stabilisation and economic recovery. Once
triggered, mines are indiscriminate as they do not distinguish
between soldiers and civilians. And by mutilating so many
people, they place heavy care burdens on families and
communities.16
The response to the problem: the Mine Ban Treaty
The determination to be rid of anti-personnel landmines dates
back to the mid 1990s, when heated debates on banning the use
of these weapons took place in international fora. The
international campaign against landmines reached its climax in
1997 when the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use,
Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines
and on Their Destruction i.e. Ottawa Convention, also known as
Mine Ban Treaty, was concluded. The preamble of Ottawa
Convention states that “The States Parties are Determined to
put an end to the suffering and casualties caused by anti-
personnel mines, that kill or maim hundreds of people every
week, mostly innocent and defenceless civilians and especially
children, obstruct economic development and reconstruction,
inhibit the repatriation of refugees and internally displaced
persons, and have other severe consequences for years after16 Explosive remnants of war and mines other than anti-personnel mines
16
emplacement, Believing it necessary to do their utmost to
contribute in an efficient and coordinated manner to face the
challenge of removing anti-personnel mines placed throughout
the world, and to assure their destruction”17
It legally obliges all States parties to the treaty to cease
the production, transfer, stockpiling and use of anti-
personnel landmines.
International response to proliferation of WMD
Access to WMD and WMD technologies is becoming increasingly
easier. The dissolution of the soviet union itself raised
immediate issues relating to clandestine diversion of WMD and
weapon scientists and technocratslooking for jobs and funds
The UN can claim to have contributed directly or indirectly,
to the adoption of some weapon- related disarmament treaties.
They include, the partial test ban treaty 1963, the outer
space treaty 1967, nuclear non-proliferation treaty 1968,
bacteriological (biological) and toxic weapons convention
1972, environmental modification convention 1976, the moon
treaty 1979, the ‘inhuman’ weapons convention 1980, including
its protocol on blinding laser weapons 1995, chemical weapons
convention 1993, comprehensive test ban treaty 1996, and anti
–personal mines convention 1997. The general assembly has also
encouraged evolution of regional nuclear weapons free zone.
The most recent addition to the increasing list of export
control regimes is the hague international code of conduct
17 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction
17
against ballistic missile proliferation,launched on 25
november 2002 ‘to prevent and curb the proliferation of
ballistic missile systems capable of delivering weapons of
mass destruction’18
The proliferation phase: Prefreing power or humanity
Power above humanity:
Although the use of nuclear weapons is widely recognised as
being inhumane, and despite an international agreement reached
some 41 years ago to further the goal of nuclear disarmament,
some states continue to aspire to possess them as a symbol of
their power. There are around 19,000 nuclear weapons in the
world. Developing or maintaining nuclear weapons is not a
symbol of strength, but rather a constant reminder of the
catastrophic humanitarian suffering which was cause in Japan
during second world war. This may occur again. The
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their
delivery systems remaining one of the greatest threats to
international peace and security, and a nuclear weapon
detonation, whether intentional or accidental, could have
catastrophic short- and long-term humanitarian, economic,
developmental and environmental effects and further having
detonation would have global implications.
18 Paul kerr: ‘code of conduct aims to stop ballistic missile proliferation’, arms control today, January/February 2003
18
Some states are known to be armed with nuclear weapons: the
United States (US), Russia, China, France, United Kingdom
(UK), India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea. Five more host
US nuclear weapons on their soil - Belgium, the Netherlands,
Germany, Italy and Turkey. About 90% of total stock lies with
the two superpowers, i.e., US and Russia. Israel neither
confirms nor denies that it has nuclear weapons.19
The nuclear weapons states have failed to act to eliminate
their nuclear military establishment, will likely result in
the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other nations. It may
be possible that if the nuclear state continue to maintain
position that nuclear weapons preserve there secuirity then it
may be possible that other less powerful country may also
decide that there secuirity must also be governed by the
Nuclear weapons. Without substantial progress toward nuclear
disarmament, the Non-Proliferation Treaty .20
Nuclear weapons weakens the democracy by giving a few
individuals the power to destroy the world as we know it. No
one should have this much power. Everyone will have to pay for
their sins.
Humanity above power: The proliferation of
humanity
Discontinuing testing of nuclear weapons, ending the
production of bomb materials, having open examinations of all19 ISS Africa: Africa and the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons by Noel Stott, Senior Research Fellow20http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/issues/nuclear-weapons/10-reasons-abolish- nw.htm (lastaccesed on 7/2/2014)
19
nuclear power plants and facilities, and establishing a
reliable global security system is required to insure that the
abolition of nuclear weapons becomes a lasting part of the
world. In addition, the hundreds of tons of plutonium and
thousands of tons of highly enriched uranium that these bombs
use as their explosive power need to be disposed of.21
Biological and chemical weapons should also be treated in a
similar manner. Their position as banned methods of warfare
should be renewed and their elimination from the planet dealt
with as quickly as possible.
The dominant international legal activity on WMD22 has
traditionally been focusing on the negotiation and
implementation of arms control treaties with different
objectives; the objective of deterring the use of such
weapons; the objective of prohibiting their emplacement and
testing in specific areas; the final objective of promoting
disarmament. The authors think there is a
growing awareness of the need of revisiting, refining ,
adapting the international humanitarian law to new threats
that, as in the case of WMD, are particularly complex and
challenging.
It was the humanitarian factor what initially encouraged the
international community to engage in the field of disarmament
and non proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The
21http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_a/interact/ www.worldgame.org/wwwproject/what17.shtml (last accessed on 6/02/2014)
22 Weapons of mass destruction
20
casualties and sufferings caused by chemical weapons during
World war I led to the Geneva Protocol of 1925 prohibiting
the use in war of chemical and biological weapons.
The nuclear arm factor was introduced into the strategic
equation after World War II, which changed the general
outlook with regard to the weapons of mass destruction issue.
Their very existence and possession by some states had an impact on the strategic
balance and obliged the international community to go beyond the humanitarian
factor. Chemical, biological and nuclear arsenals became the
essential element of the disarmament, arms control and non
proliferation agenda. The prohibition of their use, prompted
by humanitarian reasons, was also extended to include
production and possession, destruction of existing stocks, non
proliferation and verification. The ban contained in the
Geneva Protocol was therefore enlarged and strengthened by the
adoption of the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972 and the
Chemical Weapons Convention in 1993 which provide both for a
total ban.23
In authors view , the Chemical Weapons Convention is a
“success story”. It is the most advanced instrument reached so
far: it prohibits a whole category of weapons of mass
destruction; it establishes a permanent international
implementation structure -the OPCW- and sophisticated
verification instruments.
23 A report on conference on Current challenges on Weapons of mass destruction and humanitarian law held in Sanremo,Italy.
21
CONCLUDING REMARKS
Is it the power/dominance or is it the humanity. The two basic
terms often used while there is conflict in international
laws. Every country wants its domination over others in one
way or the other but that doesn’t mean that humanity must be
compromised with.
What took place in Hiroshima and Nagasaki must never-ever be
repeated again because that would not only destroy but would
22
take the country 50 years back and returning from there is
just not easies in todays super-fast developing world.
A joint statement on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear
weapons was delivered by New Zealand today at the United
Nations General Assembly in New York. Expressing deep concern
for the catastrophic consequences that any use of nuclear
weapons would entail, as well as for their uncontrollable
destructive capability and indiscriminate nature, the New
Zealand statement was signed by 123 other member states. The
International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), a
campaign coalition with more than 300 members in 80 countries
welcomes the statement and the initiative shown by non-
nuclear-weapon states including some nuclear-umbrella states
to drive a new discourse around the global humanitarian threat
posed by nuclear weapons, a discourse that can only conclude
with the decision to make these weapons illegal once and for
all.
Some countries, in order to show and prove dominance have
often led an nuclear or chemical weapon attack on other
countries and hence the humanity factor has often been
defeated by the factor of dominance. Many a meetings have been
held, many summits , many conferences took place but still the
thought processes of some of the countries have yet not been
changed.
Although these Nuclear weapons have the capability to destroy
and kill but they are not capable enough to pick out and leave
those who are innocent, because when destruction takes place,
23
it doesnot really cares about who are innocents and who are
not.
The US being the most developed nation of the world, and to
some extent , the most powerful nation. But US can’t claim
that the innocent didn’t lose their lives in Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, and the effect of that attack is still being
witnessed in the present generation.
Concluding the paper we would like to tell all of you to care
about the humanity and not the dominance because whatever we
give to other we are going to receive the same. When others
commit mistake we expect him to be punished but when we do the
same we want others to forgive us.
24
Bibliography:
Web-Links
http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/
what_is_ihl.pdf .
http://www.asser.nl/default.aspx?
site_id=9&level1=13336&level2=13374&level3=13476.
http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/protected-persons/
overview-protected-persons.html.
http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/
what_is_ihl.pdf.
25
http://www.asser.nl/default.aspx?
site_id=9&level1=13336&level2=13374&level3=13476
http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/issues/nuclear-weapons/
10-reasons-abolish-nw.htm
http://www.unesco.org/education/tlsf/mods/theme_a/
interact/www.worldgame.org/wwwproject/what17.shtml
Books and Articles Article 2 of 1949 Geneva Convention: “Application of the
Convention.”
Protocol I (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims
of International Armed Conflicts.
Article 3of 1949 Geneva Convention - “Conflicts not of an
international character”.
Protocol II (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims
of Non-International Armed Conflicts.
Paragraphs 138 of the United Nation's 2005 World Summit
Outcome
Weapons of mass destruction :terror threat by Steve
bowman
All weapons of mass destruction are not equal by Allison
macflarne
Weapons of mass destruction: terror threat by steve
bowman
All weapons of mass destruction are not equal by Allison
macflarne
The use of force against states that might have weapons
of mass destruction by mathew waxman
26
Non proliferation Issues For Weapons of Mass Destruction
By Mark A. Prelas, Michael Peck
Explosive remnants of war and mines other than anti-
personnel mines
Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling,
Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on
Their Destruction
Paul kerr: ‘code of conduct aims to stop ballistic
missile proliferation’, arms control today,
January/February 2003
ISS Africa: Africa and the humanitarian consequences of
nuclear weapons by Noel Stott, Senior Research Fellow
A report on conference on Current challenges on Weapons
of mass destruction and humanitarian law held in
Sanremo,Italy.
27