Skip to main content

STUDY ON NON - PROLIFERATION TREATY

 STUDY ON NON - PROLIFERATION TREATY


INTRODUCTION

The five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) agreed to limit the spread of nuclear weapons and to avoid nuclear conflict at the start of the year 2022.

Ahead of a review of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) 1970, the vow was made in a rare joint declaration.

The comment came as tensions between Russia and the United States reached levels not seen since the Cold War as a result of Russia's force build-up near the Ukrainian border.

The statement was also made as international powers try to reach an agreement with Iran on reviving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) 2015, which was put on hold when the United States pulled out of the pact in 2018.


THE PLEDGE:

It is necessary to prevent the spread of such weapons. A nuclear war is unwinnable and should never be conducted. As our primary obligations, we must avert nuclear war between nuclear-weapon states and reduce strategic threats. For as long as nuclear weapons exist, they should be used to defend the country, discourage aggression, and avert conflict. They intend to retain and strengthen their national safeguards against the unintentional or unauthorised use of nuclear weapons.

NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY

The NPT is an international treaty whose mission is to prevent nuclear weapons and weapons technology from spreading, to promote peaceful uses of nuclear energy, and to advance the goal of disarmament.

In 1968, the pact was signed, and it went into effect in 1970. It currently has 190 member states. It requires countries to abandon any current or future ambitions to create nuclear weapons in exchange for access to nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. It is the only multilateral pact that contains a legally binding commitment to the aim of nuclear disarmament by nuclear-weapon states. Nuclear-weapon states are those that manufactured and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device before January 1, 1967, as specified by the NPT.

INDIA’S STAND:

India is one of only five countries that either did not sign the NPT or signed but later withdrew, joining Pakistan, Israel, North Korea, and South Sudan on the list. The NPT has long been viewed as discriminatory by India, which has refused to sign it. India had rejected non-proliferation treaties since they were selectively applicable to non-nuclear countries and legitimised the monopoly of the five nuclear armed states.


CONCLUSION

Rising energy demands have prompted an increase in the number of countries seeking nuclear energy, and many countries desire to be energy self-sufficient in order to assure a reliable and sustainable domestic energy supply. Every country requires clean energy, progress, and peaceful cohabitation.

As a result, the international community faces a difficult task in reconciling states' need for energy independence with their desire to lessen the intrusiveness of IAEA safeguards while also reducing the risk of proliferation.Non-nuclear weapon states also support New START and other initiatives, but want to see more tangible steps taken to reduce the role of nuclear weapons in national security doctrines, lower alert levels, increase transparency, and other measures.More regions around the world, preferably including non-nuclear weapon states, should agree to establish nuclear-weapon-free zones. In addition, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is a positive step toward nuclear disarmament.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Effects of Non-Registration

 Effects of Non-Registration The Companies Act, 2013 evidently highlights that the main essential for any organization to turn into a company is to get itself registered. A company cannot come into existence until it gets registered. But no such obligation has been imposed for firms by the Indian Partnership Act, 1932. If a firm is not registered it does not cease to be called as a firm, it still exists in the eyes law. Certainly, such a big advantage is not absolute but is subjected to a lot of limitations which we will study further. Non-registration of a firm simply means that the business skips the formalities of incorporation and ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. section 58 of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 deals with the procedure of incorporation. Likewise, the meaning of non-registration is the exact opposite of registration, meaning when a firm does not go through the procedure of incorporation or start carrying on activities without getting registered. Effects of Non-
Post a Comment
Read more