Agreement Nuclear Program

Many non-nuclear members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), as well as Australia[56] and Japan[57] are also resistant to a prohibition treaty because they believe that U.S. nuclear weapons enhance their security. [50] Several NATO members (many from France, the United States, the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom, the nuclear-weapon States within NATO) made a statement stating that the treaty would be “ineffective in the elimination of nuclear weapons” and called for The swift implementation of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. [58] On 5 and 19 August, the United Nations held the third session of the second PDCE in Geneva on the introduction of a legal ban on nuclear weapons. The OEWG has released a final report outs setting out several key factors: the importance of the NWS for the implementation of the necessary measures, as outlined at the NPT Review Conference in 2000, the importance of new multilateral negotiations and the lack of guidelines for the implementation of Article VI of the NPT. The document also provided a number of legal mechanisms for the international community to implement Article VI of the NPT, including the prohibition of weapons, their use, NWFZ or any new legal ban on nuclear weapons or their use. At the three open meetings of the 2016 working group in Geneva, participating states discussed the locomotion strategies of the nuclear disarmament programme. Many countries, such as Algeria, Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa, have expressed support for the opening of negotiations on a ban treaty. The nuclear states present rejected this accelerated approach to disarmament and supported the “modular” or “progressive” approach. Proponents of a ban were successful and, at the third OEE meeting, states voted in favour of adopting the final report recommending that the UN General Assembly convene a conference on the prohibition of nuclear weapons in 2017. The vote was held by 68 votes to 22 and 13 abstentions. All nine nuclear-armed states boycotted the OEWG, and all dissenting voices came from U.S.

allies. The United States, which did not attend the OEWG meetings, rejected the final report, calling the efforts to ban nuclear weapons “unrealistic.” In June 2010, the UN Security Council approved a new round of sanctions under UN Security Council Resolution 1929, which focused on Iran`s nuclear investments; three subsidiaries of the national shipowner Of the Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines (IRISL), which have already been the target of unilateral US and European sanctions; and the body of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. [54] In 2011, the United States increased the pressure on IRISL and several companies and individuals were accused of assisting IRISL in conducting fraudulent transactions at nine major New York-based banks. [55] In October 2011, the United States sanctioned a network of six defence companies in Panama that, according to the June 2011 indictment, took control of certain IRISL vessels. [56] In October 2016, the First Committee of the UN General Assembly responded to this recommendation by adopting a resolution setting out a mandate for negotiations on the Non-Proliferation Treaty in 2017 (with 123 states voting in favour and 38 against and 16 abstentions). [22] North Korea was the only country with nuclear weapons that voted in favour of the resolution, although it did not participate in the negotiations. [23] [24] [24] [best source required] nuclear physicists, military, non-proliferation experts and more than 100 countries around the world have all expressed support for the nuclear agreement with Iran, as it is the best available solution to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon without taking military action.

Publikováno v Nezařazené