The nuclear weapons policies of Canada and France have recently been challenged in the UN Human Rights committee as being in violation of the Right to Life

Posted: 29th May 2021

The nuclear weapons policies of Canada and France have recently been challenged in the UN Human Rights committee as being in violation of the Right to Life, a right enshrined in Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Politicial Rights (ICCPR).

The challenges have come from groups of civil society organisations in submissions made as part of the periodic review of the obligations of Canada and France under the ICCPR.

The submissions also include recommendations to the governments on actions they could take in order to conform to the Right to Life with respect to protection of this right from the threat or use of nuclear weapons. These included that, at the very least, France adopt a policy never to initiate a nuclear exchange (no-first-use) and advance a goal to achieve the total global elimination of nuclear weapons before the 100th anniversary of the UN, and that, at the very least, Canada announce support for no-first-use policies and propose that NATO adopt such a policy, along with a commitment to become a non-nuclear alliance within 10 years.
 

Nuclear weapons and the Right to Life

In October 2018, the UN Human Rights Committee adopted General Comment 36 which affirmed that:

• the threat or use of nuclear weapons ‘is incompatible with respect for the right to life and may amount to a crime under international law,’
• States parties to the ICCPR must ‘refrain from developing, producing, testing, acquiring, stockpiling, selling, transferring and using them, to destroy existing stockpiles, and to take adequate measures of protection against accidental use, all in accordance with their international obligations,’
• States parties ‘must also respect their international obligations to pursue in good faith negotiations in order to achieve the aim of nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control and to afford adequate reparation to victims whose right to life has been or is being adversely affected by the testing or use of weapons of mass destruction.’

Since then, civil society organisations have been challenging nuclear armed and allied states on their nuclear weapons policies as their turn came up for review under the ICCPR. In addition to Canada and France, this has included submissions relating to the policies of Iceland, North Korea, Russia and the United States.

In addition, the nuclear weapons policies of Denmark have been challenged as part of the periodic review of their obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women.

• development, testing, productionand maintenanceof nuclear weapons;
• deployment, threat to use and preparations to use nuclear weapons in a wide range of security scenarios, including the option to use nuclear weapons first in an armed conflict;
• failure to provide adequate reparations to people impacted by French nuclear tests;
• opposition to initiatives and processes for multilateral nuclear disarmament.

Recommendations to Canada

At least three submissions were made to the UN Human Rights committee regarding the nuclear weapons policies of Canada.

Submissions from the Canadian Network to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and from the Canadian Pugwash Group & Rideau Institute recommend that:
“Canada should proceed on a national basis to disavow the policy of nuclear deterrence and cease any activity, within NATO or elsewhere, in support of that policy and the nuclear forces associated with it.“

A more detailed submission from Aotearoa Lawyers for Peace, Basel Peace Office, Canadian Voice of Women for Peace, Religions for Peace Canada, World Federalist Movement Canada, World Future Council and Youth Fusion, recommends that Canada:

• Welcome the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, and participate in the First Conference of States Parties as an observer country;
• Initiate a diplomatic initiative to engage nuclear armed and allied states in negotiating a nuclear weapons convention or package of agreements for the global prohibition and phased elimination of nuclear weapons under strict and effective verification and compliance;
• Announce support for the adoption of no-first-use policies by all nuclear armed states;
• Propose to the next NATO Summit adoption of a policy of No-First-Use of nuclear weapons and a goal for NATO to eliminate nuclear deterrence from its security policy within 10 years;
• Reaffirm the Reagan-Gorbachev dictum that ‘a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought’, and propose that the 2021 Review Conference of States Parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) also adopt this dictum along with supportive policy measures, such as No-First-Use and a commitment to achieve the global prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons no later than 2045, the 75th anniversary of the NPT and the 100th anniversary of the United Nations.
   

 

Recommendations to France

There were two submissions on French nuclear policy.

A submission by Aotearoa Lawyers for Peace, Basel Peace Office, Initiatives pour le Désarmement Nucléaire, World Future Council and Youth Fusion recommends that France:

• Enter into strategic dialogue with the other four nuclear armed members of the NPT with a view to advancing joint nuclear disarmament commitments and initiatives at the next NPT Review Conference scheduled for August 2021;
• Initiate a dialogue amongst all nuclear-armed States in the UN Conference on Disarmament on the necessary elements for a nuclear weapons convention or package of agreements for the global prohibition and phased elimination of nuclear weapons, taking into consideration the security requirements of all;  
• Adopt a French national policy never to be the first to use nuclear weapons (no-first-use policy), and call on all other nuclear armed states to adopt a similar policy;
• Propose to the next NATO Summit adoption of a policy of No-First-Use of nuclear weapons and a goal for NATO to eliminate nuclear deterrence from its security policy within 10 years;
• Reaffirm the Reagan-Gorbachev dictum that ‘a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought’, and propose that the 2021 Review Conference of States Parties to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) also adopt this dictum along with supportive policy measures, such as No-First-Use and a commitment to achieve the global prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons no later than 2045, the 75th anniversary of the NPT and the 100th anniversary of the United Nations.

A submission from the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms, Japan Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms, Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, Swiss Lawyers for Nuclear Disarmament and Western States Legal Foundation does not make recommendations as such, but asks a number of questions of France, including:

• What steps will be taken to bring policy and doctrine regarding threat or use of nuclear weapons into conformity with the right to life?
• What steps will be taken to fulfill the international obligation to pursue in good faith negotiations in order to achieve the aim of nuclear disarmament under strict and effective international control?
• What steps will be taken to refrain from vertical proliferation—the development and production of nuclear weapons—and to destroy the existing stockpile, in accordance with the right to life?
• What is France’s assessment of the issues raised by the report, Moruroa Files, concerning the adequacy of France’s scheme for compensation of victims of nuclear explosive testing?
• What steps will be taken to ensure that adequate reparation is afforded to victims of nuclear explosive testing?

Yours sincerely
UNFOLD ZERO