Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT)

Britain is committed to eliminate its nuclear arsenal under Article VI of the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which states that:

"Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes 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, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control."

At the 2000 NPT Review Conference, Britain agreed to make an "unequivocal commitment" to "accomplish the elimination" of its nuclear weapons, and signed up to a programme of action for nuclear disarmament. Britain agreed to make "further efforts" to reduce nuclear weapons unilaterally, to increase transparency, to reduce the operational status of its nuclear weapons, to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in its military strategy, and to engage in the process leading to the elimination of all nuclear weapons.

The Government is yet to do anything to implement the 2000 NPT agreement or to fully implement Article VI. Instead it appears determined to maintain Trident indefinitely. This is viewed as hypocrisy by most non nuclear weapon states - why should they abide by the NPT when the UK (and the four other nuclear weapon states) have no intentions of abiding by their obligations?

For further information see CND's briefing for the NPT Preparatory Committee in 2003.

International Court of Justice ICJ

On 8th July 1996 the International Court of Justice gave an advisory opinion on the legality of nuclear weapons. The Court concluded 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." (para 2E)

"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." (para 78)

The basis of humanitarian law is that parties to any conflict should seek to distinguish between civilian and military targets. This is repeated in the basic rules of the 1949 Geneva Convention.

The Geneva Convention Protocol 1977 prohibits attacks on civilians and methods of warfare which are intended, or may be anticipated, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment. (Article 35)

The inherent impossibility of distinguishing between civilian and military targets and the obvious fact that the use of Trident would result in a massive number of casualties in a wide area, clearly renders the use or threat of Trident illegal. It is clear that the use of Trident would result in a massive number of casualties across a wide area.

The use of nuclear weapons would generally breach all of the following declarations and conventions:

• Declaration of St. Petersburg, 1868, because unnecessary suffering would be caused and there would be no avoidance or minimising of incidental loss of civilian life; Hague Convention, 1907, because unnecessary suffering would be caused and there would be no guarantee of the inviolability of neutral nations;
• Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948, because long-lasting radioactive contamination would interfere with innocent people's right to life and health;
• Geneva Conventions, 1949, because protection of the wounded, sick, the infirm, expectant mothers, civilian hospitals and health workers would not be ensured;
• The Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions, 1977, because there would be massive incidental losses of civilian lives and widespread, long-term and severe damage to the environment.

For further information on the legality of nuclear weapons, see Putting Nuclear Weapons on Trial, by Angie Zelter.


Back to Top

Privacy Statement | Sitemap