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