[ad_1]
The treaty bans the manufacture, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons.
– This means that it will be international law. It will be binding international law for the states that have signed the agreement. This is what Kjølv Egeland, a postdoctoral fellow in international security at Science Po in Paris, tells NRK.
The treaty banning nuclear weapons was adopted by the UN General Assembly in 2017.
The decision meant that the ban would only go into effect when 50 countries had ratified it.
It happened on Saturday when the UN was informed that Honduras had ratified the treaty. It will enter into force after 90 days, that is, on January 22.
– Historic moment
The Secretary General of the UN, António Guterres, emphasizes that this draws attention to the catastrophic consequences of nuclear weapons.
“This is a significant commitment to the total elimination of all nuclear weapons, which is the UN’s highest priority,” Guterres said.
Bernt G. Apeland, who is the Secretary General of the Red Cross in Norway, says this is a historic moment.
“The Red Cross movement has been involved in work to ban the use of nuclear weapons ever since our delegates witnessed the suffering in Hiroshima in August 1945. 75 years later, nuclear weapons, the most terrible weapon ever, were finally banned. inhumane ever made, “he said. Apeland.
Signed by 84 countries
Kjølv Egeland has a PhD in nuclear disarmament from the University of Oxford.
Photo: Private
A total of 84 countries have signed the UN treaty, although so far only 50 have ratified it. Ratification is a step beyond signing and means that a country formally decides to adhere to a treaty.
However, all states that have signed the agreement will be legally bound by the treaty’s prohibitions and obligations.
None of the nuclear powers or NATO countries, and therefore Norway, have not supported the decision.
Therefore, none of the nine countries that currently have nuclear weapons are covered by the treaty.
However, Egeland believes that the treaty may also have an impact on countries outside the agreement.
– This is the case of international law, which is both political and legal. It is often seen that international agreements also have effects in countries that have not signed and ratified themselves, says Egeland.
May lead to pressure on others
In 2017, the International Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) received the Nobel Peace Prize.
ICAN now hopes that the ban on nuclear weapons will create pressure, as seen in previous treaties against landmines and cluster munitions.
– We have seen before that companies stop producing weapons that are prohibited and that financial institutions withdraw their investments from the industry, says Tuva Widskjold at ICAN Norway to NTB.
According to Egeland, the production of cluster munitions has stopped almost everywhere, despite the fact that several major powers are still out of the agreement. In a way, they have complied with the ban anyway.
– In a long-term perspective, one can imagine that this can have a snowball effect where more and more countries adhere to the Ban Treaty and thus increase the pressure on nuclear-weapon states to disarm, says Egeland. .
In August, it was 75 years since the United States dropped its atomic bombs on Nagasaki (pictured) and Hiroshima. Several countries ratified in the months after the nuclear ban, including Nigeria, Malaysia, Ireland, Malta and Tuvalu.
Photo: PHILIP FONG / AFP
Nigeria, Thailand and the Philippines
One of the countries that has signed the agreement is Nigeria, the most populous country in Africa. Egeland says it’s important
– It is a country that not long ago threatened to develop nuclear weapons. South Africa is another important country among those who have signed. They have previously had nuclear weapons, he says.
The researcher also notes that Thailand, the Philippines and Kazakhstan have signed.
These are countries that are allied with nuclear-weapon states. Thailand and the Philippines are in alliance with the United States and Kazakhstan are in alliance with Russia.
– Many believe that allies of nuclear-weapon states are helping to legitimize nuclear weapons and that they somehow stand in the way of disarmament, Egeland says.
Therefore, it can be a help in disarmament work if allied countries adhere to the ban treaty.
– When someone asks the United States to disarm, the United States responds; Which is partly true, that these are not issues that concern us only, they are about the whole of NATO, explains Egeland.
The United States has asked countries to withdraw
According to the AP news agency, the United States has sent letters to all countries that have ratified the treaty and asks them to withdraw the ratification.
Egeland says he’s never heard of anything like this happen before. He believes that it will not yet prevent the treaty from entering into force.
“It is stated in the Vienna Convention that an agreement remains in force even if the number of states that have ratified it falls below what was originally required for the agreement to enter into force,” he says.
The Vienna Convention is a kind of constitution of international law that, among other things, establishes how agreements should be interpreted.
A test launch in California, USA, of a long-range missile that can carry nuclear weapons in October 2019. Russia and the US Together have more than 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons.
Photo: JT Armstrong / AP
It can be a turning point
On Sunday, NRK has contacted the Foreign Ministry, but they will not comment on the situation after it is clear that the treaty will enter into force.
Egeland believes that in the future there will be pressure on countries allied with the nuclear powers to adhere to the agreement.
– It is easy to understand that it is uncomfortable for Norway, because the United States is so strongly against the agreement, he says.
When NRK asks Egeland how he thinks the world will view the treaty in 30 years, he responds that the future is wide open.
– We may have abolished all nuclear weapons and look back on the ban treaty as the undisputed turning point. But we also have to be so honest that in 2050 we won’t be there at all, Egeland says.
At the same time, he points out that things can change extremely quickly in international politics.
– Few thought that the Cold War would end only a few months before it disappeared, says Kjølv Egeland.
