Personal tools
 
Views

Argument: A nuclear abolition treaty is feasible with worldwide unanimity

From Debatepedia

Revision as of 18:29, 15 June 2010; Lenkahabetinova (Talk | contribs)
(diff) ←Older revision | Current revision | Newer revision→ (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting evidence

1. The treaty would have to be unanimous before entering into force, because neither the U.S. nor the other declared nuclear weapon states will agree to relinquish and renounce nuclear weapons unless all other states do so also. Unless unanimity is required, a treaty banning nuclear weapons would largely duplicate the current NPT, which has over 170 non-nuclear signatories. Arms control treaties in general have not required unanimity, but unanimity is necessary before entry into force of a nuclear ban treaty and reductions-to-zero of warheads.
The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties purports that treaty signatories should not flout the intent of treaties while awaiting their entry into force. Since a worldwide nuclear ban treaty would have to go into effect for all states simultaneously, such a treaty would have the following provision: 'Notwithstanding the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, States party to this treaty have no obligations whatsoever under this treaty until it enters into force six months after all States have become ratifies signatories and deposited their instruments of accession.'"

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits
.