Disarmament Diplomacy

2008 First Committee Resolutions

Nuclear Weapons

Back to the Index of Resolutions

63/41 (L.5) Decreasing the operational readiness of nuclear weapons systems. Introduced by Switzerland.

In its second year, this resolution, unchanged from resolution 62/36, was carefully drafted to attract support from NATO states and to seek common ground on moving the issue forward. The only substantive point in the parsimonious operative portion of the resolution "Calls for the taking of further practical steps to decrease the operational readiness of nuclear weapons systems, with a view to ensuring that all nuclear weapons are removed from high alert status." The resolution also non-exhaustively welcomes steps already taken to reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons.

First Committee: 134-3-32
General Assembly: 141-3-34

This year Malaysia joined Chile, New Zealand, Nigeria, Sweden, and Switzerland as a sponsor. France, the United Kingdom, and the United States again voted against the resolution as a bloc. Russia, which did not participate in the vote in 2007, abstained. The resolution did not attract any new support from NATO, with the same bloc of seven delegations-Belgium, Germany, Iceland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, and Spain-voting in favour while other NATO delegations abstained.

Back to the top of page

63/39 (L.7*)
Conclusion of effective international arrangements to assure non-nuclear-weapon States against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.

Introduced by Pakistan.

Originating in the 1960s and tabled annually by Pakistan since 1990, this largely unchanged resolution recommends that the CD should "actively continue intensive negotiations" and reach early agreement on effective international arrangements. It appeals to all states, especially the nuclear weapon states, to work toward a common approach, noting that there is no objection in principle to an international convention.

First Committee: 110-1-55
General Assembly: 122-1-58

Pakistan has carried this resolution forward with few changes over the years, despite its own nuclear tests and assertion of its nuclear weapon status. The resolution serves largely as statement of the Non-Aligned Movement position on the issue, reaffirming the outcome of various NAM meetings that have dealt with the matter.

For a third consecutive year, the United States, which had previously abstained, cast the lone vote against this resolution. The US delegation declined to explain its vote as it has in the past, but the vote reflects its past-stated opposition to legally-binding security assurances.

While most states do indeed support some sort of legally-binding arrangement on security assurances, there continues to be disagreement over where those negotiations should take place. Many view this issue as most appropriate within the context of the NPT, where such assurances could conceivably take the form of an additional protocol to the Treaty, rather than a separate instrument negotiated by the CD as this resolution calls for.

Back to the top of page

63/46 (L.14)
Nuclear disarmament.

Introduced by Myanmar (Burma).

This lengthy, annual omnibus resolution serves as a compendium of NAM positions including, inter alia, its call for nuclear disarmament within a time-bound framework, agreement on legally-binding negative security assurances, and an international conference on disarmament. Largely unchanged over the years, the most recent version places greater emphasis on disarmament measures by amending its call for nuclear weapons states to take such measures, adding "at the earliest possible time". In its call for de-alerting, it notes such measures cannot be a substitute for disarmament.

First Committee: 105-45-20
General Assembly: 117-45-19

Following the same pattern as in previous years, NATO and most European Union-affiliated states opposed this resolution, China voted in favour, and Russia abstained. India and Pakistan also abstained, citing the references to the NPT. The Japanese delegation again explained that they would prefer that the resolution take a different approach.

Back to the top of page

63/75 (L.15)
Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons.

Introduced by India.

Unchanged from previous years, this annual resolution argues that a multilateral, universal and binding agreement prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would contribute to the total elimination of nuclear threats. It requests the Conference on Disarmament to commence negotiations on an international convention "prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances" and to report the results to the General Assembly.

First Committee: 110-50-11
General Assembly: 121-50-10

With no discussion on what is arguably an important issue, this unchanging text continues to be opposed by NATO and European states. The only purpose of this resolution seems to be to compel the General Assembly to endorse the positions of the Non-Aligned Movement, without seeking a way to move the issue forward.

Back to the top of page

63/47 (L.16*)
Reducing nuclear danger.

Introduced by India.

First introduced in 1998, this annual de-alerting resolution focuses on the adoption of measures to prevent accidental launch of nuclear weapons related to computer or other technical malfunctions. It includes reference to taking nuclear forces off "hair-trigger alert", a term that the United States finds inaccurate and objectionable. Other key provisions include a call for the review of nuclear doctrines, specifically by the five NPT nuclear weapon states. It also calls for the Secretary-General to intensify efforts to implement the seven recommendations in the report of the Secretary-General's Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters and the Millennium Declaration, including creating consensus for an international conference on reducing nuclear dangers and the risks of nuclear war.

First Committee: 108-50-13
General Assembly: 118-50-14

This unchanging resolution, which is supported primarily by members of the Non-Aligned Movement, continues to be opposed by NATO and European states, despite broad support for the overall objective of the resolution. Another factor ensuring continued NATO and European opposition is India's questionable sincerity in sponsoring such a resolution, as neither India nor Pakistan have the capability yet to maintain nuclear forces on "hair-trigger" alert. The resolution thus mainly serves as a criticism of certain nuclear weapon states without running the risk of being applied to India itself. The relevance of this resolution has been further overshadowed by subsequent developments, including the endorsement of further reductions in the operational status of nuclear forces in the 2000 NPT Review Conference final document and the adoption by broader majorities of two other-arguably more innovative-resolutions that deal with de-alerting.

Back to the top of page

63/49 (L.19)
Follow-up to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons.

Introduced by Malaysia.

Introduced annually since 1996, this resolution underlines the International Court of Justice's major unanimous conclusion that "there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control". It links this finding to a call for "commencing multilateral negotiations leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention prohibiting the development, production, testing, deployment, stockpiling, transfer, threat or use of nuclear weapons and providing for their elimination". Its preamble recalls many international obligations, including the principles and objectives adopted at the 1995 NPT Review Conference, the 2000 Review Conference thirteen steps, the various nuclear weapon free zones, and traditional NAM positions, such as a time-bound framework for nuclear disarmament. The current, unchanged resolution features an expanded list of co-sponsors, exclusively from the Non-Aligned Movement.

First Committee: 118-30-22
General Assembly: 127-30-23

The voting pattern on this resolution has remained static in recent years. A cross-regional group of states continue to support it, including many members of the Non-Aligned Movement, some Western states, and some nuclear weapons-possessing states, including China, India, and Pakistan. NATO votes against it as a bloc, except Canada, which abstains. Israel and Russia also vote against it. Japan, which supports the judgement of International Court of Justice, abstains, emphasizing the need for a step-by-step disarmament process.

Back to the top of page

63/55 (L.27)
Missiles.

Introduced by Iran.

Following the conclusion of the Third Panel of Government Experts on Missiles and its adoption of a consensus report, this follow-up resolution follows the basic approach of past resolutions in calling for a comprehensive, balanced, and non-discriminatory approach to the issue of missiles. It welcomes the report of the Secretary-General, submitted pursuant to resolution 59/67 (2004), and directs the Secretary-General to seek the views of states and to submit them to the 65th session of the General Assembly.

First Committee: 112-9-50
General Assembly: 120-10-50

Iran, with co-sponsors Egypt and Indonesia, continued to incrementally push for a more comprehensive approach to missiles through the UN system. Against the objections of NATO and European states, the Non-Aligned Movement has continued to support this process as an effort to promote discussion of the issue in a universal forum. In the First Committee, the US delegation, on behalf of itself and the United Kingdom, pointed to the lack of consensus on the issue, noting that the Panel's report was largely descriptive. The US/UK statement expressed advanced opposition to additional studies on the subject.

The Third Panel, which convened in 2007 and 2008 pursuant to resolution 59/67 (2004), released it report, A/63/176, in July 2008. The Panel, which could not find consensus on many basic substantive issues, concluded that the UN should provide a more structured and effective mechanism to continue deliberations and build consensus on the increasingly complex issue. The Panel agreed a step-by-step approach was needed but could not reach agreement on any particular set of actions. Possible steps could include: developing a common understanding on missiles and how they impact on global and regional security; refining export controls; improving reporting to UN mechanisms; broadly engaging in efforts to settle disputes peacefully; and developing voluntary transparency and confidence-building measures.

Back to the top of page

63/58 (L.30)
Towards a nuclear-weapon-free world: accelerating the implementation of nuclear disarmament commitments.

Introduced by South Africa on behalf of the New Agenda Coalition.

The New Agenda Coalition (Brazil, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, New Zealand, South Africa, and Sweden) continued to revise their annual resolution in 2008, focusing it on the 2010 NPT Review Conference. A new operative paragraph calls on the upcoming third Preparatory Committee meeting to identify where urgent progress is required to achieve a nuclear weapon free world, building on the outcomes of previous NPT conferences. The resolution continues to 1. reaffirm that the outcome of the 2000 NPT Review Conference "sets out the agreed process for systematic and progressive efforts towards nuclear disarmament", 2. call for the nuclear weapon states to accelerate their implementation of these efforts, and 3. urge all states to comply fully with their nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation commitments. The current resolution notably omits reference to the CTBT in its operative section, which it had included in resolution 62/25 for the first time since 2004, although it does emphasize its importance in a preambular paragraph. The resolution further stresses the need to achieve universal implementation of the NPT and calls for India, Israel, and Pakistan to join the Treaty as non-nuclear weapon states.

First Committee: 145-5-6; OP4: 141-4-5
General Assembly: 166-5-7; OP4: 165-4-6

The Coalition substantially revised this resolution in 2005, adopting a less prescriptive tone in order to build greater consensus leading into the 2010 NPT review process. Although the sponsors have continually revised language on the nuclear situation on the Korean Peninsula since the DPRK's 2006 nuclear explosive test, the DPRK continues to object to the call for it to rejoin the NPT.

The key remaining abstainers continued to be Russia, Pakistan, which dropped its opposition in 2006, and the United Kingdom, which dropped its opposition in 2007.

As in past years, India, Israel, Pakistan, and the United States remained largely isolated in their opposition to the paragraph (OP4) calling for the universality of the NPT and for India, Israel, and Pakistan to accede as non-nuclear weapon states.

Back to the top of page

63/64 (L.38)
The Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation.

Introduced by France on behalf of the European Union.

Last introduced in 2005-although it appeared on the agenda in 2006-this unchanged resolution only included technical revisions to resolution 60/62. The resolution, which focuses exclusively on preventing the proliferation of ballistic missiles capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction, invites all state to subscribe to the Code of Conduct and encourages exploration of other ways and means to deal with ballistic missile proliferation.

First Committee: 146-1-19
General Assembly: 159-1-18

As in past years, a broad cross-regional group of Non-Aligned states cast abstaining votes, although the number of co-sponsors has continued to rise to more than 100. Other key abstainers continued to be missile-possessing India, Pakistan, and Syria. The resolution also lost ground among Arab states, as Qatar, Oman, and Yemen switched from votes in favour to abstentions. As in 2005, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates did not participate in the vote. Non-HCOC-subscriber Brazil voted in favour, but expressed reservations. HCOC-subscriber Venezuela abstained.

Abstaining delegations, including Cuba, India, Malaysia, Syria, Pakistan, and Algeria, generally expressed the view that the issue of missiles should be dealt with comprehensively-addressing both horizontal and vertical proliferation-and within the UN. The Russian delegation, which voted in favour, said it considered the HCOC and the UN Panel of Experts to be a step toward an international instrument, and again took time during the First Committee to promote its initiative to globalize the Treaty on Intermediate Nuclear Forces.

Some delegations, including Cuba and Iran, faulted the drafters of the resolutions for not considering amendments to their text. Iran, however, did not repeat its attempts in 2004 and in 2005, with Egypt and Indonesia, to introduce amendments broadening the scope of the resolution. In both years, the First Committee voted overwhelmingly to reject those amendments, which, inter alia, would have expanded its scope to also endorse constraining development of ballistic missiles as well as their proliferation.

Back to the top of page

Decision (L.54)
United Nations conference to identify appropriate ways of eliminating nuclear dangers in the context of nuclear disarmament.

Introduced by Mexico.

This decision puts the item entitled "United Nations conference to identify ways of eliminating nuclear dangers in the context of nuclear disarmament" onto the agenda of the 64th session of the General Assembly.

First Committee: 121-3-45
General Assembly: 130-3-46

Mexico continued without success get this conference off the ground. The voting pattern has been identical for years, with opposition by France, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Most European states abstained and the New Agenda Coalition voted in favour.

Back to the top of page

63/87 (L.55)
Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty.

Introduced by Mexico.

This annual resolution is jointly led by Australia, Mexico and New Zealand, who take turns introducing it. Originally introduced in 2000 and every year since 2002, it underlines the continuing urgency of the Treaty and calls for the CTBT's early entry-into force. The updated resolution welcomes the September 2008 Joint Ministerial Statement as well as recent signatures and ratifications of the Treaty, and calls for a verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. It continues to call upon states to continue upholding voluntary moratoria on explosive nuclear testing and to refrain from taking any actions that would undermine the purpose of the Treaty pending to its entry-into-force.

First Committee: 168-1-3
General Assembly: 175-1-3

As in past years, the United States cast the lone vote against this resolution, restating its opposition to the Treaty. India, Mauritius, and Syria abstained. After voting against in 2006, the DPRK did not participate in the vote for the second consecutive year. The European Union, which continues to place utmost importance on the early entry into force of the Treaty, delivered its annual statement of support. The Syrian delegation continued to complain that the CTBT does not constrain the qualitative development of nuclear weapons. Colombia, which ratified the CTBT in January 2008, switched its long-standing abstention to a vote in favour.

Back to the top of page

63/73 (L.58*)
Renewed determination toward the total elimination of nuclear weapons.

Introduced by Japan.

Japan made a few minor revisions to the current version of its annual resolution, which underwent a major overhaul in 2005, placing greater emphasis on steps to be taken by the United States and Russia. New elements in the operative portion call for increased transparency and confidence-building from the two nuclear superpowers and call for a legally-binding post-START arrangement. The resolution continues to emphasize the importance of the NPT, the entry-into-force of the CTBT, the conclusion of a fissile materials cut-off treaty, universalization of the IAEA Additional Protocol, and implementation of the recommendations of the UN study on disarmament and non-proliferation education. It also notably continues to call for reductions in the operational status of nuclear weapons and diminishing their role in security doctrines, using language to avoid the opposition that such calls engender when invoked in other resolutions. The resolution also continues to call upon states not party to the NPT to accede to the Treaty as non-nuclear weapon states without delay or preconditions.

First Committee: 163-4-6
General Assembly: 173-4-6

The United States repeated its justification from previous years that while it views this resolution as the most balanced of those dealing with nuclear disarmament, it opposes the resolution's support for the CTBT. China, which voted in favour of the two other nuclear disarmament resolutions, abstained again, citing unspecified measures contained in the resolution that are "not feasible in current circumstances".

Notably this year, all members of the New Agenda Coalition supported Japan's resolution, as Egypt dropped its abstention to vote in favour. Another previous Coalition hold-out, Brazil, voted in favour again, describing the thrust of the resolution as being compatible with L.30, although it cautioned it does not support the call for universalization of the International Atomic Energy Agency Additional Protocol.

Along with China, the other abstaining delegations were Bhutan, Cuba, Iran, Myanmar (Burma), and Pakistan. As this remains the only resolution calling on the DPRK to comply with recent Security Council resolutions, the DPRK continued to oppose the resolution, angrily denouncing it as unfair. India continued to reject all calls for it accede to the NPT as a non-nuclear weapon state and for any voluntary moratorium on fissile material production, hence its vote against.

Back to the top of page

Back to the Index of Resolutions

© 2009 The Acronym Institute.