Who's Online

We have 940 guests online

Popular

Canada Peace Articles
Ottawa calls for investigation into Saudi Arabia’s apparent use of Canadian-made armoured vehicles against citizens PDF Print E-mail
Peace News
Posted by Joan Russow   
Saturday, 29 July 2017 03:59

SAUDI ARMS DEAL

Ottawa calls for investigation into Saudi Arabia’s apparent use of Canadian-made armoured vehicles against citizens

Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland’s department says she is “deeply concerned” that Saudi Arabia’s rulers appear to be deploying Canadian-made armoured vehicles in an escalating conflict with Saudi citizens.

Ms. Freeland has asked officials to investigate the matter. Global Affairs Canada released a statement shortly after The Globe and Mail published a story Friday on the apparent use of Canadian-made combat vehicles in Saudi Arabia’s violence-plagued Eastern Province.

Read more...
 
Defence Policy Review Unveiled on June 7: ``a waste and misuse of resources`` PDF Print E-mail
Peace News
Posted by Joan Russow   
Wednesday, 07 June 2017 04:06

Funds must not be for promulgating militarism but for Addressing Climate Change, for promoting `common security, for supporting the Convention on the Abolition of Nuclear Weapons, and for reallocating, not increasing the military budget 

 

by Joan Russow PhD

Global Compliance Research Project

 

Image result for image  peace AND DISARMAMENT

 

 

 

As The Doom’s Day clock  moves  to 2 ½ Minutes to Midnight  because of threats of climate change and nuclear arms, the discrepancy, in Canada, between funds proposed for militarism to satisfy NATO’s demands and those spent to address obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate  Change (UNFCCC) , widens. Rather than doubling the military budget to 2% of GDP, Canada should withdraw from NATO, a nuclear arms alliance that espouses nuclear policies that violate the Non-proliferation  Treaty (NPT), should  increase funds to address climate change and discharge obligations  under the UNFCCC, and should support, at the UN, a Treaty to Abolish Nuclear Arms.

Last Updated on Wednesday, 07 June 2017 10:08
Read more...
 
Be wary of Vimy myth, urges author featured at peace summit PDF Print E-mail
Peace News
Posted by Joan Russow   
Sunday, 14 May 2017 10:53

 

RICHARD WATTS / TIMES COLONIST

MAY 12, 2017 10:35 PM

 

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/local/be-wary-of-vimy-myth-urges-author-featured-at-peace-summit-1.19712767

  •  
 
 

The Battle of Vimy Ridge has become a Canadian myth, and citizens of modern Canada should be wary of how it influences their political present, says author Jamie Swift.

Swift, co-author of The Vimy Trap, argues the battle — touted as a triumphant, seminal, founding moment for Canada — has formed a simplistic, even dangerous ethos he and co-author Ian McKay call “Vimy-ism.”

“And we argue Vimy-ism is this toxic form of military-based, Canadian patriotism,” Swift said in a telephone interview. “It’s all: ‘Canadians do great things fighting together and winning.’ We argue the reality is much more complex and nuanced.”

Swift will be a keynote speaker at the Provincial Peace and Disarmament Summit, being held Saturday at the University of Victoria.

Read more...
 
In his address to the United Nations,Trudeau must address the abolition of nuclear weapons PDF Print E-mail
Peace News
Posted by Joan Russow   
Saturday, 17 September 2016 11:18

 

By Joan Russow PhD

Global Compliance Research Project

 

Image result for photo of the un

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In September 2016, Prime Minister Trudeau has a chance when he addresses the United Nations General Assembly to take the lead on the abolition of nuclear Weapons.

“Canada is committed to making meaningful contributions to solving important global challenges, such as …. international peace and security, and …. There will be a lot more leadership from Canada in the months and years to come.”

Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada

 

To make a meaningful contribution to peace and security, in his address. he has the opportunity to reverse Canada’s position on abolition of nuclear weapons

Read more...
 
SUBMISSION TO THE CANADIAN DEFENCE REVIEW: MOVING FROM MILITARIZED SECURITY TO COMMON SECURITY PDF Print E-mail
Peace News
Posted by Joan Russow   
Monday, 25 July 2016 07:38

 

PREVENTING WAR AND ARMED CONFLICT BY MOVING FROM MILITARIZED SECURITY TO COMMON SECURITY

SUBMISSION TO THE CANADIAN DEFENCE REVIEW 

By Joan Russow PhD

Peace Earth and Justice Project

Global Compliance Research Project

OUTLINE

OVERVIEW

SECTION A WHAT CANADA SHOULD NOT BE DOING

SECTION B. WHAT CANADA SHOULD BE DOING IN CANADA

SECTION C ACTIONS THAT COULD BE PROMOTED, BY CANADA ,            INTERNATIONALLY

1. Changing the UN system by abiding with principles in the charter of the UN

2. Reallocating military expenses

3. Opposing militarism by member states of the United Nations

4. Abolishing nuclear weapons

5. Disbanding NATO

6. Determining what constitutes real threat

7 Determining what constitutes real terrorism

8. Redefining what constitutes global security

 

D. CONCLUSION

E. RESPONSES TO DEFENCE QUESTIONNAIRE

 

F.  ANNEX: INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS

Last Updated on Monday, 15 August 2016 21:55
Read more...
 
PREVENTING WAR AND ARMED CONFLICT BY MOVING FROM MILITARIZED SECURITY TO COMMON SECURITY PDF Print E-mail
Peace News
Posted by Joan Russow   
Thursday, 09 June 2016 08:27

13alt

 

 

PREVENTING WAR AND ARMED CONFLICT BY MOVING FROM MILITARIZED SECURITY TO COMMON SECURITY

SUBMISSION TO THE CANADIAN DEFENCE REVIEW 

 

By Joan Russow PhD

Peace Earth and Justice Project

Global Compliance Research Project

OUTLINE

 

OVERVIEW

SECTION  A WHAT CANADA SHOULD NOT BE DOING

SECTION  B. WHAT CANADA SHOULD BE DOING IN CANADA

SECTION C ACTIONS THAT COULD BE PROMOTED, BY CANADA ,            INTERNATIONALLY

1. Changing the UN system by abiding with principles in the charter of the UN

2. Reallocating military expenses

3. Opposing militarism by member states of the United Nations

4. Abolishing nuclear weapons

5. Disbanding NATO

            6. Determining what constitutes real threat

            7 Determining what constitutes real terrorism

            8. Redefining what constitutes global security

    

D. CONCLUSION

 

             E.  ANNEX: INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS

 

 

OVERVIEW

It is 2016! It istime to “seriously abandon a decade of diplomatic inactivity, with the foreign ministry largely sidelined and marginalized by efforts to promote Canada as a “warrior nation,

https://www.opencanada.org/features/seven-ways-global-affairs-canada-can-step-its-game. The Defence Policy Review Public Consultation Document, however appears to be still promoting  Canada as a ‘Warrior  Nation” . I have tried to answer Question 1 in Section C. 5.6.7.8 , and Question 5 in Sections A, B. and  in Section C.2.3,and 4.

 

There needs to be a new vision beginning in 2016: Preventing War and Armed Conflict by Moving from militarized Security to Common Security, including redefining what constitutes ``threats, terrorism, and security``, converting bases to peaceful purposes, ending arms  production, reallocating the military budget, instituting a fair and just transition, for those affected, into a socially equitable and environmentally sound energy and transportation system, preventing and mitigating disasters. Perhaps  a vision delineated in the Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace approved by General Assembly resolution 39/11 of 12 November 1984) which affirmed the following:

Expressing the will and the aspirations of all peoples to eradicate war from the life of mankind [humankind] and, above all, to avert a world-wide nuclear catastrophe (Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace approved by General Assembly resolution 39/11 of 12 November 1984).

Solemnly declares that the preservation of the right of peoples to peace and the promotion of its implementation constitute a fundamental obligation of each State (2. Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace approved by General Assembly resolution 39/11 of 12 November 1984)

Emphasizes that ensuring the exercise of the right of peoples to peace demands that the policies of States be directed towards the elimination of the threat of war, particularly nuclear war, the renunciation of the use of force in international relations and the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations (3. Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace approved by General Assembly resolution 39/11 of 12 November 1984)

Convinced that life without war serves as the primary international prerequisite for the material well-being, development and progress of countries, and for the full implementation of the rights and fundamental human freedoms proclaimed by the United Nations (Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace approved by General Assembly resolution 39/11 of 12 November 1984)

Solemnly proclaims that the peoples of our planet have a sacred right to peace (1. Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace approved by General Assembly resolution 39/11 of 12 November 1984)

 

A. 

A WHAT CANADA SHOULD NOT BE DOING

 

 

Aware that under the International human rights instrument – the International Covenant, of Civil and Political Rights negotiated in 1966,  has been signed and ratified by most countries including Canada

 All governments incurred an obligation reflected in this statement  “Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law (Art. 20, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966)

                (i)  Permitting CANSEC- the annual arms Trade Fair in Ottawa

(ii) Not canceling the $15 billion deal to export armoured vehicles to Saudi Arabia and not phasing out the production of and trade in arms

(iii) Subsidizing the corporations that produce weapons and the fossil fuel industries;

(iv)  Funding  universities for the production of drones that are configurable for military purposes;

(v)   Using armed drones in Canadian missions because they

contravene the principles delineated in the Geneva Protocol on prohibited weapons;

(vi)  Permitting the circulating of nuclear powered and nuclear arms capable vessels in Canadian harbours and waters;

(vii)  Engaging in war games and exercises such as Exercise Trident Fury or Northwest Training Range complex;

(viii) Opposing the ICAN ban of nuclear arms on May13 2016;

(ix)   Opposing  declaring a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East

(x)   Abstaining on the UN Resolution on depleted uranium;

(xi )  Participating in the development of Ballistic Missile Defence or revisiting the 2005 decision against Ballistic Missile Defence;

(xii)  Conceiving of the role of “contributing to international peace and security” as the one to intervene with  armed  forces in sovereign states or to use so-called “defence diplomacy” (DPR);

(xiii)  Not repealing C-51, the Anti-Terror Act, which contravenes  the international Covenant on Civil and Political Rights  and fails to clearly define what constitutes real “threats”, “real terrorism” and “true security”  (see below);

 (xiv) Selling uranium to nuclear arm states and because of the fungibility principle, Canadian uranium could be in many of the nuclear arsenals;

(xv)    Not phasing out nuclear energy and or not establishing a time –table for phasing our fossil fuel and nuclear energy and for the rapid development of solar and other forms of non-polluting energy, and for more efficient energy use (1992 Nobel Laureate Declaration);

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJp0yBgisATo

(xvi)  Funding universities for the development of drones which are configurable for military purposes;

(xvii) Caving into threats by Lockheed Martin and purchasing F35; 

(xviii) Participating in NATO- generated wars and to seriously abandon a decade of diplomatic inactivity, with the foreign ministry largely sidelined and marginalized by efforts to promote Canada as a “warrior  nation,”https://www.opencanada.org/features/seven-ways-global-affairs-canada-can-step-its-game/;

(xix)   Permitting the dumping of military wastes in pristine watersheds;

 

B.   

WHAT CANADA SHOULD BE DOING, IN CANADA

 (i) Strengthening a public service diplomacy which is well versed in the rule of international law promoting respect for a chapter vi of the United Nations Charter – the Peaceful resolution of disputes, and the Court of International  Court of Justice;

(ii ) Ensuring that all ratified instruments are put on the floor of the house so that the necessary legislation will be enacted so that these instruments will be implemented;

(iii), Cleaning up sites contaminated by military action and production and by as well as by the environmental costs from resource production(see Jeff Rubin`s comment http://www.cpac.ca/en/programs/public-record/episodes/47991703/),  And embarking  on a concerted action to mitigate nuclear waste;

(iv) Phasing out nuclear energy, and supporting the call from the World Uranium Symposium in Quebec City,  for an international movement to be launched to ban uranium mining worldwide;

.(v) Supporting ICAN  International Campaign to abolish Nuclear Weapons

 Humanitarian Pledge http://www.icanw.org/pledge/;

(vi) Supporting the Mayors for Peace campaign calling for a nuclear disarmament weapons Convention that prohibits the production possession and  threat to use nuclear arms;

(vii) Supporting the campaign to establish Nuclear Weapons Free Zones including in the Middle  East and in Alaska;

(viii) Supporting the Mayors for Peace campaign call for a nuclear weapons Convention that prohibits the production possession and threat to use nuclear arms;

(ix) Developing and implementing policies to end violence in all its forms and promoting  peaceful conflict resolution as required the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (Goal #16)

(x) Instituting positive and  negative screens, and redefining what constitutes due diligence  in the Canadian pension plan and ending investment in the nuclear energy and nuclear arms  industry as well as in fossil fuels

(xi) Supporting “Conscience Canada”;

(xii) Investing in and building a green economy that achieves -zero greenhouse gas  emissions by 2050 and sustains resilient communities as recommended in the  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 5th Assessment report, and to make an international commitment to reduce greenhouse gases by 25 % below 1990 levels by 2020 to reflect the commitments in the UNFCCC;

(xiii)  Hosting the land mines ban conference

 (xiv) Celebrating the 40th Anniversary of Habitat I Conference which was held in Vancouver in 1976, honouring the commitment to prevent the waste and misuse of resources in war and armaments.

 

C.

 

ACTIONS THAT COULD BE PROMOTED BY CANADA INTERNATIONALLY

 

1. Changing the UN system

2. Reallocating military expenses

3. Opposing militarism by member states of the United Nations

4. Abolishing nuclear weapons

5. Disbanding NATO

            6. Determining what constitutes real threats

            7 Determining what constitutes real terrorism

            8. Redefining what constitutes global security

 

1        Proposing changes to the UN system and international instruments

 

 

a. The UN Security Council is the organ of the Nations that determines whether an invasion is deemed legal through being “seized of the matter” under chapter VII of the Charter. It is disturbing to note that all the permanent members with the veto, are nuclear weapons states. In addition, the existence of the UNSC itself, with the veto, even a fundamental principle of the Charter-the sovereign equality of states. (The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members – Article.2.1)

Since the Security Council is controlled by the nuclear armed states, the Security Council should be reformed, and a rotational council should be selected from the membership   of the General Assembly. (Russow. proposal for a treaty 1999). Article 27 should be invoked whenever there are votes on nuclear arms or on other issues which would involve a conflict of interest.

The new council could be called the “Common Security Council”

 b. Delegitimize war- Given the social, environmental, health human rights, economic consequences of war, under no conditions or circumstance is war legal or just. (.All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.(Article.2.3)

 c. End any attempt to undermine the international resolve to prevent the scourge of war; this would include not engaging in intimidation, in cajoling or in offering economic incentives in exchange for support, at the UN Security Council, for military interventions.

 d. End the misconstruing of Article 51 (self-defence) of the Charter of the United Nations to justify premeditated non-provoked military aggression, or to use various such pretexts for invading other sovereign states.

 e. End the practice of invoking Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations rather than invoking Chapter VI - the peaceful resolutions of disputes – and refusing  to be judged by the International Court of Justice or even recognizing the jurisdiction of the ICJ.(All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.- Article 2.3).

f. Advocate that all states should respect the jurisdiction and decisions of the International Court of Justice.

g Call on all states to ratify the Rome Statute and to reaffirm that no leader  regardless of how powerful he or she is, is immune from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court

h. Discourage the practice of not including the role of women in the      prevention of war under UN Security Council Solution 1325:

Urges Member States to ensure increased representation of women at all decision-making levels in national, regional and international institutions and mechanisms for theprevention, management, and resolution of conflict;

 

2.Reallocating military expenses  to social and environmental priorities

The member states of the United Nations spend 1.7 trillion per year on the

             military budget at a time when many basic and fundamental rights have not been fulfilled: the right to affordable and safe housing; the right to unadulterated food (pesticide-free and genetically engineered-free food); the right to safe drinking water; the right to a safe environment; the right to universally accessible, not for profit health care; and the right to free and accessible education.

 

           Throughout the years, through international agreements, member states of the United Nations have recognized that the military budget has been a waste and misuse of resources. Unfortunately, institutional memory is either short or member states ignore precedents:
 

a.       In 1976 at Habitat 1, member states of the United Nations affirmed the following in relation to the military budget:


"The waste and misuse of resources in war and armaments should be prevented. All countries should make a firm commitment to promote general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control, in particular in the field of nuclear disarmament. Part of the resources thus released should be utilized so as to achieve a better quality of life for humanity and particularly the peoples of developing countries" (II, 12 Habitat 1).

b. In 1981, in the General Assembly resolution entitled Resolution on the reduction of the military budget, the member states

(i) reaffirmed "the urgent need to reduce the military budget, and agreed to freeze and reduce the military budget";

(ii) recognised that "the military budget constitutes a heavy burden for the economies of all nations, and has extremely harmful consequences on international peace and security";
(iii) reiterated the appeal "to all States, in particular the most heavily armed States, pending the conclusion of agreements on the reduction of military expenditures, to exercise self-restraint in their military expenditures with a view to reallocating the funds thus saved to economic and social development, particularly for the benefit of developing countries" (Resolution on the Reduction of Military .budgets, 1981).

c. These appeals were further reinforced in a 1983 General Assembly Resolution on the Relationship between Disarmament and Development that curbing the arms build-up would make it possible to release additional resources for use in economic and social development, particularly for the benefit of the developing countries." Also in the 1993 resolution, member states considered that "the magnitude of military expenditures is now such that their various implications can no longer be ignored in the efforts pursued in the international community to secure the recovery of the world economy and the establishment of a new international economic order."

d. In the 1984 General Assembly Resolution entitled the Right of Peoples to Peace, there were "Appeals to all States and international organizations to do their utmost to assist in implementing the right of peoples to peace through the adoption of ...measures at both the national and the international level." (4. Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace approved by General Assembly resolution 39/11 of 12 November 1984).

e. In 1985 all states affirmed: “Safeguarding world peace and averting a nuclear catastrophe is one of the most important tasks today in which women have an essential role to play, especially by supporting actively the halting of the arms race followed by arms reduction and the attainment of a general and complete disarmament under effective international control...”(Par 250 Nairobi Forward Looking strategy for the Advancement of women, 1985).

f. In 1992, all member states recognized that "Warfare is inherently destructive of sustainable development" (Rio Declarations. Principle 24, UNCED, 1992), and in Chapter 33, of Agenda 21, member states of the United Nations made a commitment to the "the reallocation of resources presently committed to military purposes" (33.18e).

g.  In 1994, in adopting the statement from the International Conference on Population and Development, the member states of the United Nations concurred that the attainment of ?quantitative and qualitative goals of the present Programme of Action clearly require additional resources, some of which could become available from a reordering of priorities at the individual, national and international levels. However, none of the actions required nor all of them combined are expensive in the context of either current global development or military expenditures." (Article 1.19).


h. In 1995, similarly, states adopted the statement from the Social Development Summit calling for the reallocation of military spending to ensure a greater pocket of resources to expand public services. Again, in the same year, member states of the United Nations reconfirmed these commitments by adopting the Platform of Action at the UN conference on Women, Equality, Development and Peace. In the Platform of Action, States have made a commitment to maintain peace and security at the global, regional and local levels, together with the prevention of policies of aggression ... and the resolution of armed conflict? (Art. 14) and to reduce "...military expenditures" (Art. 15), states have also made a commitment to the prevention and resolution of conflicts? (Art.15) and to increase and hasten, ... the conversion of military resources and related industries to development and peaceful purposes" (145a).

And yet, in 2016, global military spending has increased to 1.7 trillion and  inequality has increased and civilian deaths from aggressive states has increased

.

It is time for the member states of the United Nations to give substance to the years of commitments to substantially reduce the military budget.


  3.Opposing militarism  by member states of the United Nation To call upon states to do  the following:

 

a. To counter the guises for military intervention such as the following: “human security" (Iraq 1991), "Humanitarian intervention" (Kosovo, 1999), “self-defence” (Afghanistan 2001), "Pre-emptive/ preventive" attack (Iraq, 2003) "Responsibility to Protect (Haiti, 2004, Libya, 2011) or "will to intervene" (Mali, 2013)  

b. To abandon the guise of the pre-emptive/preventive attack policy that has resulted in aggressive attacks on sovereign states and that has been in violation of the Article 2 of United Nations and international law as being the 'supreme' international crime of a war of aggression.

c. To condemn the practice of targeting or assisting in the assassination of leaders of other sovereign states, and of engaging in "regime change". 

d. To end tolerance of the practice of mollifying public opposition to war  by couching aggressive acts in euphemistic "operations" such as "Operation Just Cause", "Operation Iraqi Freedom", "Operation Enduring Freedom. Etc.

e. To condemn the occupation of sovereign states

f. To end the production of land mines, as required in the convention against landmines and end the procrastination, by those responsible, to remove land mines from all areas of the world where land mines are known to exist.

 g. To end the destabilization of states and regions through the sale of arms, including through the guise of "foreign aid’ or through infiltration of NGOs, such as USAID, NED, Freedom House or through fundamentalist Christians in groups such as Operation Rescue.

h. To end the use of weapons that are prohibited under Article 36, which reads:

In the study, development, acquisition or adoption of a new weapons, means or method of warfare, states are under an obligation to determine whether its employment would, in some or all circumstances, be prohibited by this Protocol or by any other rule of international law (Art 36. New weapons provision) Also in the additional Geneva protocol there are imposed limitations on the development of new weapons. Determine whether drones are prohibited by the Geneva Protocol on prohibited weapons and to treat depleted uranium as a prohibited weapon under article 36 and ending the use of weapons that are prohibited .

i. To suffocate the production of uranium, end importing and exporting of uranium, prohibit the use of weapons such as those with depleted uranium and cluster bombs and end the continued profit-making from the sale of arms and trade in small arms.

 j. To end "War Games" or "Military Exercises".

Prohibit propaganda for war as per International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), including establishing military bases, engaging in war games, producing and selling of armaments, and holding arms exhibition. End government investment in weapons systems.

 k. To end the production, circulation and berthing of nuclear powered or nuclear arms-capable vessels throughout the world.

 l. To end the disregard for the obligations under the 1967 Outer Space Treaty to      ensure that exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other       celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind [humanity].

m. To end the practice of "rendering"- sending "persons of interests" to countries which are known to condone torture.

 

4.Abolishing nuclear weapons

a. The UN Security Council is the organ of the Nations that determines whether an invasion is deemed legal through being “seized of the matter” under chapter VII of the Charter. It is disturbing to note that all the permanent members with the veto are nuclear weapons states. In addition, the existence of the UNSC itself, with the veto, even contravenes a fundamental principle of the Charter-the sovereign equality of states. (The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members – Article.2.1).

Since the Security Council is controlled by the nuclear armed states, the Security Council should be dismantled, and a rotational council should be selected from the membership   of the General Assembly. (Russow. proposal for a treaty 1999). Article 27 should be invoked whenever there are votes on nuclear arms.

 b. To sponsor a resolution in the 71st Session of the UN General Assembly, that seeks a mandate to negotiate a legally binding Convention that prohibits the production, possession, threat to use and use of nuclear weapons and leads to their elimination thereafter.

 c. To seek to initiate in 2017  with a view to concluding a Nuclear Weapons     conventions as recommended by  Mayors for Peace representing 7000 cities world-wide, including Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 d. To ensure that NPT  treaty negotiations are conducted, in a forum that is open   to all member states, except nuclear weapons states, to use Article 27 of the Charter, to justify the exclusion of the nuclear states, to use democratic rules of procedure modelled upon those of the General Assembly; and to welcome and encourage the input of civil society.

e. To promote the international Campaign for the abolition of nuclear weapons (ICAN).

 f. To support the campaign to establish Nuclear Weapons Free Zones.

 g. To call on all states with nuclear weapons to sign and ratify the Non Proliferation Treaty, and enact the necessary legislation to ensure compliance with the (NPT).

 h. To call on nuclear arms states to comply with Article VI of the Nuclear Non- (Article VI commits all parties to pursue negotiations in good faith on measures to end the nuclear arms race and to achieve disarmament.). 

 i. To advocate the revision of Article 4 of the Non-proliferation Treaty; ``the inalienable right to the peaceful use of nuclear energy. Since 1950s, nuclear arms have been developed from nuclear energy imports.

 j. To call for the adjustment of the NATO charter to take out the provision for nuclear deterrence for all. 

 k. To call for the removal of US nuclear weapons based in five NATO       countries: Turkey, Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, and Germany.

 l.  To offer to host the nuclear weapons ban conference.

             m. To oppose the multi-billion dollar nuclear arsenal modernization

                  http://www.ipsnews.net/2016/06/worlds-nuclear-arsenal-declines-   but-multi-billion-dollar-modernization-continues.

n. To phase out nuclear energy, and support the call from WorldUranium Symposium   in Quebec City, for an international movement was launched to ban uranium mining   worldwide.

o. to profile the inextricable link between civil nuclear energy and the development of nuclear arms

p. to address the fact that the  International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) violates the principle; a regulator should not a promoter because at numerous international conferences the IAEA has been promoting nuclear energy as a solution to climate change. and to call  upon the IAEA to no longer promote nuclear energy as a solution to climate change

q. To call for the ending of  the production, circulation and berthing of nuclear powered or nuclear arms capable vessels and of the cancelling of  permission for the berthing of these vessels in urban harbours.

 

 

5.

DISBANDING NATO

 

NATO must be disbanded for the Following Reasons: 

a. NATO must be disbanded for contributing to the scourge of war, and for defying peremptory norms particularly for the provocative eastern expansion after promising Russia to that, if Russia agreed to the unification of Germany, NATO would not move one more inch to the East.

b. NATO is a dangerous and provocative  institution  which has perpetuated the scourge of war, and conflict through its offensive actions.

c. NATO, through "War Games" or "Military Exercises" such as Exercise Trident Fury or Northwest Training Range complex etc., NATO has violated the following principle:

``Prohibit propaganda for war as per International Covenant on Civil and   Political Rights  (ICCPR); this prohibition could include establishing military bases, engaging in war  games, producing and selling of armaments, and holding arms exhibition.``

 d. The NATO states collectively spend Approximately 70% of the current 1.75 trillion global military budget in contravention of years of international Commitments are reallocate military expenses. 
e NATO has condoned the possession of nuclear weapons by "friendly states², but has been willing to entertain strikes on the nuclear facilities of a" NATO-designed rogue states "and risk the release of radiation.

f. NATO has destabilized an area by offering one state an association with NATO; In 2006, during the election in El Salvador, NATO offered El Salvador a special association with NATO; this association intimidated both Nicaragua and Honduras (2006 Article in the Nicaraguan newspaper).
g. NATO, through its engaging in numerous military Interventions and occupations such as Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan, has used depleted uranium (1999 testimony by NATO at the international Court of Justice in the case of Yugoslavia vs NATO).

http://www.countercurrents.org/jamail190313.htm

 h. NATO has been using depleted uranium [the effect of Which in part is similar to That of a nuclear weapon], and has  failed to act on its undertaking that deem "that the use of nuclear weapons would be a violation of the Charter of the United Nations and a crime against humanity², (Resolutions 1653 (XVI) of 24 November 1961, 33/71 B of 14 December, 1978, 34/83 G of 11 December 1979, 35/152 D of 12 December, 1980 and 36 / 92 I of 9 December 1981.

i. NATO through using depleted uranium, which could be deemed to have the effect of a nuclear weapon, has disregarded the decision of the International Court of Justice That the use or the threat to use nuclear weapons is contrary is International humanitarian law (World Court Project, 1996).

j. NATO has not abandoned the option of a "first use nuclear weapons policy", and has failed to act on its undertaking under the General Assembly Resolution Entitled the Condemnation of Nuclear War A / RES / 38/75, 1983 "to condemn the formulation , propounding, dissemination and propaganda of political and military Doctrines and concepts the intended to provide 'legitimacy' for the first use of nuclear weapons and in general to justify the "admissibility" of unleashing nuclear war (2, Condemnation of Nuclear War General Assembly Resolution A / RES / 38/75, 1983.

 k. NATO still has article V – which states an attack on one is an attack on all.
l. NATO has violated the Geneva Protocols on prohibited weapons.

m. NATO has undermined the United Nations through Contributing to the failure

(i)                 to discharge obligations under International Conventions, Treaties, and covenants,

(ii)               to act through Commitments made under Conference Action Plans

(iii)             to fulfill the expectations created through General Assembly Resolutions.

n. NATO has condoned the misinterpretation of Article 51 - self-defence- in the Charter of the United Nations in its support for the invasion of a sovereign state, and has used the Pretext of "human security" and "humanitarian intervention" and "pre-emptive / preventive "aggression to justify the invasion and occupation of other states.
o. NATO has continually ignored Chapter VI - Peaceful Resolution of Disputes, of the Charter of the United Nations, and the provisioning in Chapter VI Disputes to take to the International Court of Justice.
p. NATO has failed to act on the commitment made under the Platform of Action of the UN Conference of Women This [Encourage diplomacy, [preventive diplomacy,] negotiation and peaceful settlement of Disputes in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, in Particular Article 2, paragraphs 3 and 4] (Art. 147 b., Advance Draft, Platform of Action, the UN Conference on Women, May 15); 
q. NATO has failed to discharge its obligations under the Convention Entitled (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva, 1949) that protect "persons taking no active part in the hostilities²; 
r. NATO has violated the Convention Against Torture; in some case. Members have redefined what constitute Torture.
s. NATO has failed to discharge its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to "prohibit any propaganda of war", Article 20, and to "prohibit any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred constitutes incitement That is discrimination, hostility or violence (Article 20 -2). 
t. NATO has failed to fulfill the undertaking under the General Assembly Resolution Entitled the Declaration on the Use of Scientific and Technological Progress in the Interests of Peace and for the Benefit of Humanity, 1975) is a scientific and technological Prevent Achievements entailing dangers for the civil and political rights of the individual or of the group and for human dignity’
u. NATO has failed to discharge its obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child is the ensure respect for the rules of international humanitarian law relevant to the child in armed conflict (Art. 18, Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989).
v. NATO campaigns have  failed to fulfill the expectation under the General Assembly Resolution, Entitled "Effects of Atomic Radiation" and  to Prevent harmful effects on present and future generations, the Resulting from the levels of radiation which man [humans] are exposed.
w. NATO has failed to discharge its obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity is Prevent the loss or reduction of biodiversity in a region rich in biodiversity, and has contributed it irreversible environmental devastation; 
x NATO has failed to act on a commitment it Eliminate the production of weapons of mass destruction at the United Nations Conference on Humans and the Environment (UNCHE, 1972) [through its continued support for the mining and distribution of uranium both for civil nuclear reactors and for nuclear weapons];.
y. NATO has failed to act on its undertaking under numerous UN Resolutions.
z. NATO has engaged in war games, such as Exercise Trident Fury, which have been flagrant displays of militarism and which flout the rules related to the prohibition of the propaganda of war under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

 

6. Determining what constitutes real threats

The Common Security Threat list-- a list of actions, by governments, which are "threats to public security" and "put lives danger" Here is an excerpt from the Common Security Threat (CST) list.

 

a. All governments that have failed to sign, failed  to ratify, or failed to enact the necessary legislation to ensure compliance with international Conventions, Covenants and Treaties; and government that have failed to act on commitments made through UN Conference Action Plans, or that have failed to fulfill expectations created through General Assembly Resolutions.

b. All governments that refuse to respect the jurisdiction and the decisions of the International Court of Justice or International Criminal Court.

c. All governments that have produced weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear, chemical, and biological, in defiance of the global commitment made, in 1972, at UNCHE, at Stockholm to eliminate the production of weapons of mass destruction, and under specific treaties or conventions.

d. All governments that have proliferated nuclear arms by selling civil nuclear technology such as CANDU reactors to other states.

e. All governments that are circulating and berthing nuclear powered or nuclear arms capable vessels or permitting the berthing of these vessels in urban harbours.

f. All governments that mine and sell uranium for use in nuclear weapon systems.

g. All governments that have planted land mines throughout the world.

h  All governments that have permitted the sale of arms around the world

i All governments that support a military organization like NATO that has a first strike policy in violation of the ruling of the International Court of Justice that the use or threat to use nuclear weapons was contrary to international humanitarian law.

j. All governments that permit the production of toxic, hazardous, atomic waste

k. All governments that do not prevent the transfer to other states of substances or activities that are harmful to human health and the environment (principle 14, Rio Declaration).

l. All governments that perceive of justice in terms of revenge through military intervention rather than respecting the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice

m. All governments that have set up military bases in other sovereign nations.

n. All governments that have failed to reduce their military budget and transfer the savings into global social justice as undertaken through numerous UN Conference Action Plans and UN General Assembly Resolutions.

o. All governments that have failed to ensure the human right to safe drinking water, the human right to unadulterated (non-genetically engineered pesticide-free food), the human right to safe accessible housing, the human right to be clothed, the human right to education, the human right to universally accessible not for profit publicly funded health care that stresses the importance of prevention of environmentally induced diseases, and poverty related illnesses. ( Many of these rights have been protected through international human rights instruments, including the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights).

p. All governments that have denied civil and political rights including the right to freedom of speech and the right of peaceful assembly, and fundamental labour rights

q. All governments that have approved genetically engineered foods and crops and have led to a deterioration of the food supply, and heritage seeds..

r. All governments that have ignored the warnings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change and have failed to discharge obligations under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, and Kyoto Protocol and to use 1990 as a baseline.

s.  All governments that have withdrawn from key international Conventions such as the UN Convention to Combat Desertification and Drought.

t. All governments that have supported , and individuals that have participated in the proselytizing of religion and the undermining of other cultures.

u. All governments and individuals that have discriminated against the following

grounds:

- race, tribe, or culture;

- colour, ethnicity, national ethnic or social origin, or language;

nationality, place of birth, or nature of residence (refugee or

immigrant, migrant worker);

- gender, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status, or form

of family,

- disability or age;

- religion or conviction, political or other opinion, or - class, economic

position

 

v. All governments that have failed to revoke charters and licences of corporations that have violated human rights, including labour rights, that have contributed to war, armed conflict and violence, and that have led to the destruction of the environment.

w. All governments that have supported the development of weapons of mass destruction, all corporations that have produced weapons of mass destruction  and all citizens and groups that have invested in companies that have produced weapons of mass destruction.

x. All governments that have been willing to accept corporate donations, and still delude the public into thinking that citizens live in a democracy.

y. All governments that have promulgated globalization, deregulation and privatization through promoting trade agreements that undermine the rule of international public trust law, and undermine true security- common security.

 

7. Need to redefine what constitutes  Real terrorism

All aspects of the civil nuclear and the nuclear arms industry along with  the reluctance of states to seriously embark on the elimination of the production of nuclear arms and of the existing arsenal

 

a. To clarify UN definition of Terrorism. The UN has no internationally-agreed to definition of terrorism. The definitional impasse has prevented the adoption of a Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism. Even in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the UN failed to adopt the Convention, and the deadlock continues to this day. The reluctance has been the failure to define terrorism to exclude armed struggle for liberation and self-determination. In addition many states wish to include state terrorism which would include most of the military intervention listed above.

b. To  examine the implication of Article 20 of the legally binding Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Under article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights is the following:

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

Propaganda for war could include the multiple statements by States calling for military intervention in other states, the establishing of military bases on foreign soil, war games etc.

c.To end the misconstruing article 51- self-defence of the Charter of the United Nations  such  as qualifying the preconditions for anticipatory self-defence are, "necessity," "proportionality," and "immediacy. There is an inexorable link among security, threats and terrorism Governments continue to  intervene into Iraq and extend the mission into Syria through conflating security, threats and terrorism. Some governments believe that through the increased intervention, terrorism will end or be reduced. This conflation has contributed to governments misconstruing Article 51 of the UN Charter

 d. to fully analyze the underlying causes of “terrorism” in all its forms

Kofi Annan, the former UN secretary general, said the US-led invasion of Iraq was a mistake and helped to create the Islamist State militant group. He also blamed regional powers for making the conflict worse. 

His comment builds on the statement made by at the Nuremberg Trial

"In Nuremberg trials there was a reference to the “supreme international crime” - the crime of aggression. That crime was defined clearly enough by Justice Robert Jackson, Chief of Counsel for the United States at Nuremberg. An “aggressor,” Jackson proposed to the Tribunal in his opening statement, is a state that is the first to commit such actions as “invasion of its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State 

If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.”

at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=345_1315751483#by7PvtecKDMYeSEE.99

If we adopt the principle of universality: if an action is right (or wrong) for others, it is right (or wrong) for us. Those who do not rise to the minimal moral level of applying to themselves the standards they apply to others—more stringent ones, in fact—plainly cannot be taken seriously when they speak of appropriateness of response; or of right and wrong, good and evil."[6] Chomsky 2002 TERROR AND JUST RESPONSE. ZNet.

e. To stress that measures against terrorism must comply with international law

United Nations a/res/69/127 General Assembly distr.: general 18 December 2014 sixty-ninth session agenda item 107 14-66984 (e) *1466984*

Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 10 December 2014 [on the report of the Sixth Committee (A/69/506)] 69/127.

Measures to eliminate international terrorism The General Assembly, Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

Affirming that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with all their obligations under international law and must adopt such measures in accordance with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law,

 Recalling Security Council resolution 1624 (2005) of 14 September 2005, and bearing in mind that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law,

 

5. Reiterates its call upon all States to adopt further measures in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the relevant provisions of international law, including international standards of human rights, to prevent terrorism and to strengthen international cooperation in combating terrorism and, to that end, to consider, in particular, the implementation of the measures set out in paragraphs 3 (a) to (f) of General Assembly resolution 51/210;

 13. Reaffirms that international cooperation as well as actions by States to combat terrorism should be conducted in conformity with the principles of the Charter, international law and relevant international conventions;

 Sixty-ninth session Agenda item 107 14-66984 (E) *1466984 Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 10 December 2014 [on the report of the Sixth Committee (A/69/506)] 69/127. Measures to eliminate international terrorism. The General Assembly, Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations. 

 

8. Promoting true security: common security

 

 There is a need to redefine what constitutes security; common security must trump militarized security. True security is not militarized security, or collective security or "human security which has been used as various pretexts for war. True Common Security [conceived by Olof Palme] through the compliance with international peremptory norms reflected in the years of international instruments; these norms can be derived from international instruments that have the following objectives:

a. to achieve a state of peace, and disarmament; through reallocation of military expenses;

b. to create a global structure that respects the rule of law and the International Court of Justice;

c. to enable socially equitable and environmentally sound employment, and ensure the right to development and social justice;

d. to promote and fully guarantee respect for human rights including labour rights, civil and political rights, social and cultural rights-- right to food, right to housing, right to safe drinking water and sewage, right to education and right to universally accessible not for profit health care system;

e to ensure the preservation and protection of the environment, the respect for the inherent worth of nature beyond human purpose, the reduction of the ecological footprint and move away from the current model of unsustainable and over-consumptive development.

 

D. CONCLUSION

 

To promote common security, all states should be encouraged to ratify the following instruments and enact the necessary legislation to ensure compliance

1951 Convention related to the Status of Refugees 

1963 International Convention for the Elimination of all Forms  of Racism

1966 International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and its Optional Protocols 

1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and its Protocols

1968 Non- Proliferation Treaty

1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

1972 UN Convention for the Protection of Cultural and Natural Heritage

 1972 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction

1973 Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

1975 Convention  the Elimination of all forms of  Discrimination Against Women and its protocol

1976 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Seas

1984 Convention Against Torture

1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child 

1990 Convention on the rights of migrant Workers and their families

1990 Rome Statute International Criminal Court

1992 Convention on Biological Diversity

1992 UN Framework convention on climate change

1992 Convention to Combat Desertification and Drought

1993 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction

1997 Ottawa Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Treaty

1997 The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone 

2007 THE UN DECLARATION ON THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES

 

 



D. ANNEX

RELEVANT INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS RELATED TO WAR AND ARMED CONFLICT


VICTIMS OF ARMED CONFLICTS

Hague Convention on Hospital Ships, 1904

Ratification / Accession: 26.03.1907

Hague Convention (XI) on Restrictions of the Right of Capture, 1907

Ratification / Accession: 27.11.1909

Final Act of the Geneva Conference, 1949

Signature: 12.08.1949

Geneva Conventions, 1949

Ratification / Accession: 02.08.1955
Reservation / Declaration: 02.08.1955;04.03.1975;31.12.1974

Final Act of the Diplomatic Geneva Conference, 1974-1977

Signature: 10.06.1977

Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977

Signature: 12.12.1977

Additional Protocol (II) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977

Signature: 12.12.1977

Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989

Signature: 16.02.1995

Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, 2000

Ratification / Accession: 23.12.2002
Reservation / Declaration: 23.12.2002

Additional Protocol (III) to the Geneva Conventions, 2005

Ratification / Accession: 08.03.2007


METHODS AND MEANS OF WARFARE

Hague Convention (II) on the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 1899

Ratification / Accession: 09.04.1902

Hague Convention (IV) on War on Land and its Annexed Regulations, 1907

Ratification / Accession: 27.11.1909

Hague Declaration (XIV) on Explosives from Balloons, 1907

Ratification / Accession: 27.11.1909

Geneva Protocol on Asphyxiating or Poisonous Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods, 1925

Ratification / Accession: 10.04.1975
Reservation / Declaration: 10.04.1975

Convention on the Prohibition of Biological Weapons, 1972

Ratification / Accession: 26.03.1975

Convention prohibiting Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), 1980

Ratification / Accession: 24.03.1995
Reservation / Declaration: 24.03.1995

CCW Protocol (I) on Non-Detectable Fragments, 1980

Ratification / Accession: 24.03.1995
Reservation / Declaration: 24.03.1995

CCW Protocol (II) prohibiting Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, 1980

Ratification / Accession: 24.03.1995
Reservation / Declaration: 24.03.1995

CCW Protocol (III) prohibiting Incendiary Weapons, 1980

Ratification / Accession: 21.01.2009
Reservation / Declaration: 21.01.2009

Convention prohibiting Chemical Weapons, 1993

Ratification / Accession: 25.04.1997
Reservation / Declaration: 25.04.1997

CCW Protocol (IV) on Blinding Laser Weapons, 1995

Ratification / Accession: 21.01.2009
Reservation / Declaration: 21.01.2009

CCW Protocol (II) prohibiting Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, amended, 1996

Ratification / Accession: 24.05.1999
Reservation / Declaration: 24.05.1999

Convention prohibiting Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW ), amended Article 1, 2001

Ratification / Accession: 21.01.2009

CCW Protocol (V) on Explosive Remnants of War, 2003

Ratification / Accession: 21.01.2009
Reservation / Declaration: 21.01.2009

 

VICTIMS OF ARMED CONFLICTS

Hague Convention on Hospital Ships, 1904

Ratification / Accession: 26.03.1907

Hague Convention (XI) on Restrictions of the Right of Capture, 1907

Ratification / Accession: 27.11.1909

Final Act of the Geneva Conference, 1949

Signature: 12.08.1949

Geneva Conventions, 1949

Ratification / Accession: 02.08.1955
Reservation / Declaration: 02.08.1955;04.03.1975;31.12.1974

Final Act of the Diplomatic Geneva Conference, 1974-1977

Signature: 10.06.1977

Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977

Signature: 12.12.1977

Additional Protocol (II) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977

Signature: 12.12.1977

Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989

Signature: 16.02.1995

Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict, 2000

Ratification / Accession: 23.12.2002
Reservation / Declaration: 23.12.2002

Additional Protocol (III) to the Geneva Conventions, 2005

Ratification / Accession: 08.03.2007


METHODS AND MEANS OF WARFARE

Hague Convention (II) on the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 1899

Ratification / Accession: 09.04.1902

Hague Convention (IV) on War on Land and its Annexed Regulations, 1907

Ratification / Accession: 27.11.1909

Hague Declaration (XIV) on Explosives from Balloons, 1907

Ratification / Accession: 27.11.1909

Geneva Protocol on Asphyxiating or Poisonous Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods, 1925

Ratification / Accession: 10.04.1975
Reservation / Declaration: 10.04.1975

Convention on the Prohibition of Biological Weapons, 1972

Ratification / Accession: 26.03.1975

Convention prohibiting Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW), 1980

Ratification / Accession: 24.03.1995
Reservation / Declaration: 24.03.1995

CCW Protocol (I) on Non-Detectable Fragments, 1980

Ratification / Accession: 24.03.1995
Reservation / Declaration: 24.03.1995

CCW Protocol (II) prohibiting Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, 1980

Ratification / Accession: 24.03.1995
Reservation / Declaration: 24.03.1995

CCW Protocol (III) prohibiting Incendiary Weapons, 1980

Ratification / Accession: 21.01.2009
Reservation / Declaration: 21.01.2009

Convention prohibiting Chemical Weapons, 1993

Ratification / Accession: 25.04.1997
Reservation / Declaration: 25.04.1997

CCW Protocol (IV) on Blinding Laser Weapons, 1995

Ratification / Accession: 21.01.2009
Reservation / Declaration: 21.01.2009

CCW Protocol (II) prohibiting Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, amended, 1996

Ratification / Accession: 24.05.1999
Reservation / Declaration: 24.05.1999

Convention prohibiting Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW ), amended Article 1, 2001

Ratification / Accession: 21.01.2009

CCW Protocol (V) on Explosive Remnants of War, 2003

Ratification / Accession: 21.01.2009


Reservation / Declaration: 21.01.2009


NAVAL AND AIRWARFARE

Hague Convention (VIII) on Submarine Mines, 1907

Ratification / Accession: 27.11.1909

Hague Convention (IX) on Bombardment by Naval Forces, 1907

Ratification / Accession: 27.11.1909

Hague Convention (XI) on Restrictions of the Right of Capture, 1907

Ratification / Accession: 27.11.1909

Hague Convention (XIII) on Neutral Powers in Naval War, 1907

Ratification / Accession: 03.12.1909
Reservation / Declaration: 03.12.1909

Havana Convention on Maritime Neutrality, 1928

Ratification / Accession: 22.03.1932
Reservation / Declaration: 22.03.1932

London Treaty on Limitation and Reduction of Naval Armaments, 1930

Ratification / Accession: 27.10.1930

Procès-verbal on Submarine Warfare of the Treaty of London, 1936

Signature: 06.11.1936


CULTURAL PROPERTY

Roerich Pact for the Protection of Artistic and Scientific Institutions, 1935

Ratification / Accession: 13.07.1935

Final Act on the Protection of Cultural Property, The Hague, 1954

Signature: 14.05.1954

Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, 1954

Ratification / Accession: 13.03.2009


CRIMINAL REPRESSION

Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal, 1945

Signature: 08.08.1945

Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998

Signature: 31.12.2000


OTHER TREATIES RELATING TO IHL

Hague Convention (III) on the Opening of Hostilities, 1907

Ratification / Accession: 27.11.1909

Hague Convention (V) on Neutral Powers in case of War on Land, 1907

Ratification / Accession: 27.11.1909

Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide, 1948

Ratification / Accession: 25.11.1988
Reservation / Declaration: 25.11.1988

Convention prohibiting environmental modification techniques (ENMOD), 1976

Ratification / Accession: 17.01.1980

Arms Trade Treaty, 2013

Signature: 25.09.2013

 

Last Updated on Thursday, 28 July 2016 05:52
 
CANSEC 2016– warfare exhibit in Ottawa : Ottawa defies international law- Warmongers on Display“ PDF Print E-mail
Peace News
Posted by Joan Russow   
Wednesday, 25 May 2016 08:06

CANSEC is Canada's Global Defence and Security Tradeshow, a 2 day event, from 25th May to the 26th May 2016 at the EY Centre in Ottawa, Canada.

 

- Joan Russow (PhD)

Global Compliance Research Project

 

 

“The two-day trade show will be held on May 25-26, 2015, with the business development program extended to a third day, May 30th. CANSEC 2015 will also feature over 53 new exhibit booths, bringing the total number of booths to over 695. Come and join the projected 11,000 registrants and over 30 international delegations and embassies at CANSEC 2016”

Last Updated on Wednesday, 25 May 2016 21:03
Read more...
 
NDP youth speak out on Gaza: 'It's time to call a spade a spade'NDP's Youth Wing Chides Mulcair For Not Condemning Israeli Attacks In Gaza PDF Print E-mail
Peace News
Posted by Joan Russow   
Saturday, 02 August 2014 06:39

By New Democratic Youth of Canada http://rabble.ca/news/2014/08/ndp-youth-speak-out-on-gaza-its-time-to-call-spade-spade

| August 1, 2014

An ocean away from Palestine, Canadians have watched on in absolute horror as the death toll continues to mount. In three short weeks, hundreds of people in Gaza, a majority of them civilians, have been wiped out at the discretion of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).

Last Updated on Saturday, 02 August 2014 06:48
Read more...
 
Canada does not need fighter jets, period PDF Print E-mail
Peace News
Posted by Joan Russow   
Friday, 11 July 2014 18:27
 By Charles Nixen
 
Tuesday, Jul. 08 2014, 7:38 AM EDT 
 
C.R. (Buzz) Nixon was deputy minister of National Defence from 1975 to 1983.
 
An F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter takes off on a training sortie at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida in this March 6, 2012 file photo. (US AIR FORCE/REUTERS)
 
 
It appears Ottawa has put on hold its decision to purchase next-generation F-35 fighter jets. It should go one step further and junk the purchase of any new fighters, period – saving $45-billion in the process. Canada does not need fighter aircraft.
 
New Canadian fighters would almost certainly never be involved in serious strike or aerial combat operations and are not required to protect Canada’s populace or sovereignty. They would only be of symbolic assistance (such as Canada currently is doing in Eastern Europe via NATO) and could provide support of ground forces in low-combat hostilities, which could be had more effectively and at lower cost by other types of aircraft.
Last Updated on Friday, 11 July 2014 18:32
Read more...
 
Canada does not need fighter jets, period PDF Print E-mail
Peace News
Posted by Joan Russow   
Friday, 11 July 2014 14:08

An F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter takes off on a training sortie at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida in this March 6, 2012 file photo. (US AIR FORCE/REUTERS)
An F-35A Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter takes off on a training sortie at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida in this March 6, 2012 file photo.
(US AIR FORCE/REUTERS)

It appears Ottawa has put on hold its decision to purchase next-generation F-35 fighter jets. It should go one step further and junk the purchase of any new fighters, period – saving $45-billion in the process. Canada does not need fighter aircraft.

Read more...
 
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Latest News