.jpg)
Paper Code: AIJACLAV12RP2024
Category: Research Paper
Date of Submission for First Review: Nov 16, 2024
Date of Publication: December 21, 2024
Citation: Shivam Aggarwal & Prof. (Dr.) Rupam Jagota, “Nuclear Weapons, Environmental Degradation, and Human Rights: A Case Study on the Israel-Hamas War", 4, AIJACLA, 125, 125-137 (2024), <https://www.aequivic.in/post/nuclear-weapons-environmental-degradation-and-human-rights-a-case-study-on-the-israel-hamas-war>
Author Details: Shivam Aggarwal, Author, Research Scholar, Department of Laws, GNDU Regional Campus, Jalandhar &
Prof. (Dr.) Rupam Jagota, Corresponding Author, Professor, Department of Laws & Associate Dean (AA & SW), GNDU Regional Campus, Jalandhar
Abstract
The escalating global and regional tensions have heightened the risk of nuclear warfare, posing an existential threat to humanity. The devastating legacy of wars includes intergenerational trauma, family displacement, and ecological destruction. The usage of nuclear weapons further exacerbates the devastating impacts of wars as these weapons have the potential to imperil not only the environment but also the regime of human rights.
In the ongoing Israel- Hamas War calls for the usage of nuclear weapons have been given by a few political figures from Israel and The United States of America. The disastrous impacts of this war are already visible in the form of groundwater contamination, the release of excessive amounts of greenhouse gases, and the destruction of sewage treatment plants. Any form of usage of nuclear weapons in this region will cause long-term ecological destruction. It will unleash a catastrophe at an unprecedented level that will threaten the global community.
At the international level, several treaties such as the Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons 2023, Chemical Weapons Convention 1993, Hague Convention 1907, etc. prohibit the use of nuclear weapons and seek to promote disarmament mainly to contain the consequences of these weapons. In the year 2023 at the G7 Summit, the Hiroshima Vision on Nuclear Disarmament aiming at the creation of a world without nuclear weapons was adopted. In the New Delhi Declaration that was adopted at the 2023, G20 Summit the usage of nuclear weapons was termed as inadmissible.
e efforts that have been taken to eliminate the usage of nuclear weapons have also been highlighted. This paper tries to examine the environmental and human rights impacts of the usage of nuclear weapons during wars with a special focus on The Israel-Hamas War. The researchers have discussed the meaning of nuclear weapons, their types, the types of nuclear weapon states, and the existing legal regimen related to these weapons. The Additionally, how humans and the environment bear the brunt of these weapons has also been elucidated. The researchers have also put forward certain suggestions for mitigating the impacts of nuclear weapons on the environment as well as on human rights to create a peaceful and safer world.
Keywords: Environment, Nuclear Weapons, Sustainability, Human Rights.
INTRODUCTION:
The catastrophic potential of nuclear weapons poses a significant threat to human populations and the environment. The Israel-Hamas conflict has resulted in substantial environmental damage, with some experts characterizing the damage as ecocide. The calls for the usage of nuclear weapons have also been given by the politicians raising concerns of a possible nuclear war. This scenario necessitates an examination of the intricate relationships between nuclear weapons, environmental harm, and human rights violations.
This research paper makes an in-depth analysis of the intersections between nuclear weapons, environmental degradation, and human rights, with a special reference to the Israel-Hamas War by examining research papers, reports, international conventions, etc. An overview of nuclear weapons, their types, nuclear disarmament efforts, and their legal status along with their environmental and human rights effects has been discussed in this paper.
1) NUCLEAR WEAPONS: MEANING AND TYPES
Meaning of Nuclear Weapons: With the escalating tensions the threat of the usage of nuclear weapons has escalated manifolds. Nuclear explosions have a multitude of negative consequences, the most important of them is radioactive fallout which lasts for a few seconds but remains dangerous for several years.[1]
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, nuclear weapons refer to weapons that release a tremendous amount of energy in the form of an explosion either due to the process of nuclear fusion or due to the process of nuclear fission or a combination of both. The enormous amount of energy which is released from the usage of nuclear weapons is measured in kilotons.[2]
These nuclear weapons were used for the very first-time during World War II when the USA dropped nuclear bombs on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Today many countries in the world have nuclear weapons with them and these nuclear weapons are even more dangerous than the ones that wreaked havoc in the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[3]
Types of Nuclear Weapons:
The destructive force of a nuclear weapon is a result of either nuclear fission chain reactions or the combination of nuclear fission and fusion reactions. In case in a nuclear weapon enriched uranium or plutonium is turned into a supercritical mass that produces explosive yields equivalent to five hundred kilotons of TNT, then such weapons are called fission weapons.
But if a weapon uses the heat generated by a fission bomb for compressing and igniting a nuclear fusion stage, then such weapons fall in the category of thermonuclear weapons. These weapons have a significantly higher explosive yield than the fission weapons that is calculated in megatons rather than in kilotons.[4]
Neutron bombs are a form of thermonuclear weapon that yield a comparatively small explosion but an excessive amount of neutron radiation and in this way, they have the potential to inflict massive causalities.[5] Salted bombs can cause a considerable quantity of radioactive contamination with the potential to cause 150 times more fallout than traditional nuclear weapons. The idea of these bombs emerges from the imagination of Leo Szilard.[6]
Nuclear and Non-Nuclear Weapon States:
Article IX of the Treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 1968 defines a nuclear-weapon State as a state that has not only manufactured but has also exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear explosive device before 1 January 1967.[7]
Nuclear weapon states can be categorized into de jure and de facto nuclear weapon states. There are five de jure nuclear weapon states; USA, Soviet Union, UK, France, and China. These states manufactured and exploded nuclear weapons before the year 1967, so they were recognized as nuclear weapon states under NPT 1968 and are exempted from the prohibition related to the development of nuclear weapons.[8]
De facto nuclear weapon states are those states which possess nuclear weapons but are not recognized under the NPT. At present, there are three de facto nuclear weapon states; India, Israel, and Pakistan. Even though these countries had never signed NPT, still they possess nuclear weapons. North Korea also possesses Nuclear Weapons but earlier it was a member of the NPT and was under an obligation to not develop these weapons. But in 2003, it withdrew from NPT and since 2006 despite international sanctions has tested nuclear weapons several times.[9]
All other states in the world fall under the category of non-nuclear weapon states. Article I of the NPT forbids the non-nuclear weapon states from assisting, encouraging, or inducing any non-nuclear weapon state to acquire nuclear weapons, or nuclear explosive devices or to have control over the same. [10]Article II of NPT makes it obligatory for the non-nuclear weapon states to make certain undertakings such as not receiving, transferring, or controlling any nuclear weapons and explosive devices either directly or indirectly.[11]
Nuclear Proliferation and Nuclear Non- Proliferation
The word proliferation means to increase in number or quantity.[12], thus nuclear proliferation means to increase the number and quantity of nuclear weapons. Nuclear proliferation can be classified into two categories; horizontal proliferation and vertical proliferation.
Horizontal proliferation means a situation under which nation-states and non-state entities that are not having nuclear weapons are either acquiring, nuclear weapons or developing the capability and materials which are required for producing them.[13] Vertical proliferation refers to a situation in which the nation states that already have the possession of nuclear weapons increase their stockpiles improve their technical sophistication or develop new weapons.[14]
The term non-proliferation refers to the act of stopping the proliferation of something.[15] Therefore, nuclear non-proliferation can be described as doing something that is aimed at reducing the number or quantity of nuclear weapons or curbing the practices such as production, manufacturing transferring, etc. of nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons can cause unlimited human suffering in case they are detonated whether by accident, miscalculation, or by design.[16]
Difference between Nuclear and Conventional Weapons
Both nuclear and conventional weapons cause damage and destruction but still, they differ in many ways. Nuclear weapons have the potential to destroy on a much larger scale as compared to conventional weapons. Nuclear explosives have a lesser mass and the temperature that is reached as a result of a nuclear weapon explosion is much higher than that of a conventional weapon. The invisible rays in the form of nuclear radiation released as a result of nuclear weapon explosions are also a distinct feature of these weapons.[17]
2) IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Nuclear weapons have the potential to wipe out cities and kill tens of millions of people. Their effects can be categorized into the following categories:
· Mass Destruction: Nuclear weapons can cause unprecedented loss of life, injury, and property damage, with far-reaching shockwaves, burns, and radiation exposure, affecting entire cities and regions. [18]
· Socio-Economic Devastation: Large-scale nuclear war would disproportionately affect marginalized groups, hinder development, divert funds from essential services, and set back global progress. [19]
· Radiation Risks: Ionizing radiation from nuclear weapons causes immediate and long-term health consequences, including cancer, genetic damage, and radiation sickness, affecting not only the immediate victims but also future generations.[20]
· Indiscriminate Harm: Nuclear weapons fail to distinguish between civilians and military targets, resulting in widespread harm to non-combatants, including women, children, and the elderly.[21]
· Wastage of Public Funds: Spending money on nuclear weapons is nothing short of a waste of public funds. States that are armed with nuclear weapons spend around 225 Million US Dollars daily on nuclear forces and their maintenance. This money could easily be spent on vital social services and to uplift the needy and marginalized sections.[22]
· Widespread Implications to Health and Environment: Nuclear weapons are more of a liability. Those with these weapons find it difficult to fully control them and any accident might result in widespread implications for health and the environment.[23]
· Difficulty in Providing Humanitarian Aid: Providing humanitarian aid will become an uphill task. Physicians and first responders will find working in a devastated and radioactively contaminated area difficult. Any relief system that has been built in advance will also get overwhelmed and an unmatched refugee crisis will make the situation even worse.[24]
3) STEPS TAKEN FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT
Given the destructive nature of these weapons, many countries and other organizations right from the decade of 1950s have been advocating for nuclear non-proliferation.
· Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty 1963
It was the first international agreement that attempted to control the testing of nuclear weapons and was initiated by John F. Kennedy in 1963. It prohibited nuclear test explosions in the atmosphere, in space, or undersea. Even after LTBT, nuclear weapons tests are conducted, but these tests are now conducted either underground or by simulation.[25]
· The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 1968:
The Treaty has been termed a ‘grand bargain’. Under this treaty, the nuclear weapon states were put under an obligation to not transfer these weapons to any other state and eventually to disarm and eliminate their arsenals. It was in exchange for this obligation, that the non-nuclear weapon states agreed to forsake the option of nuclear weapons.[26] Under this treaty, all the parties have been guaranteed an inalienable right to the peaceful usage of nuclear technology.[27]Article VII of the NPT extends support to the establishment of nuclear-weapons-free zones.[28] These zones have two essential components; the total absence of nuclear weapons within the zone and the presence of an international control and verification machinery.[29]
· Strategic Arms Limitation Talks 1969-1972
These talks took place from November 1969 to May 1972. In this period, the USA and USSR negotiated the first agreements to place limitations on crucial nuclear weapons systems.[30]
· Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems Treaty 1972
The 1972 ABM Treaty between the US and USSR limited anti-ballistic missile systems to one deployment area, either near the capital city or a single Intercontinental Ballistic Missile Site (ICBM), However, in 2002, the US withdrew to pursue a national missile defense system. Despite the treaty becoming outdated, Russia remains a party to it.[31]
· International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion 1996:
In the year 1996, this Advisory Opinion was given by ICJ on the request made by the General Assembly of the United Nations and by the World Health Organization, regarding the legality of the use or threat of using nuclear weapons by a state in an armed conflict. The Court could not conclusively determine whether the threat to use or use of the nuclear weapon in case of self-defense would be lawful or not owing to the existing status of international law and the facts of the case that was brought before it. However, it was unanimously ruled by the court that there existed obligations on the part of states to pursue the process of nuclear disarmament.[32]
· Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty 1996
It was adopted by the General Assembly of the UN in 1996. This treaty is of unlimited duration and any party can withdraw from it by quoting supreme national interest. The treaty has still not come into force as it was supposed to be ratified by the USA and 43 other countries that participated in CTBT negotiations before it could come into force but out of 43 countries, 8 have still not ratified it.[33]
· Model Nuclear Weapons Convention 1997:
In 1997, the United Nations General Assembly catalyzed a series of negotiations culminating in the formulation of this convention. Notable provisions of this Convention include; a blanket prohibition on the development, testing, production, stockpiling, transfer, and utilization of nuclear weapons, a stipulation mandating the destruction of nuclear arsenals by possessor states within a 15-year time frame, and a five-phase framework for the systematic elimination of nuclear weapons.[34]
· Nuclear Suppliers Group:
The Nuclear Suppliers Group is a group of 47 countries[35]And was established in 1974, to contribute to nuclear non-proliferation through the implementation of Guidelines for both nuclear imports and exports. The guidelines of NSG contain the Non-Proliferation Principle. The NSG Guidelines complement legally binding instruments and are implemented by each participating government's national laws and practices.[36]
· General Assembly Resolution A/Res/56/24 (2001):
On January 10, 2002, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on General and Complete Disarmament, urging states to review nuclear doctrines, prevent proliferation, and renew disarmament commitments. The resolution emphasized that practical disarmament measures and reaffirmed international commitment to total nuclear elimination are crucial for achieving global peace.[37]
· Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons 2017:
The 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons establishes a set of prohibitions development, testing, acquisition, and possession of nuclear weapons State parties are obligated to prevent and suppress such activities, assist affected individuals and communities, and undertake environmental remediation measures.[38]
· Hiroshima Vision on Nuclear Disarmament 2023
The "G-7 Leaders' Hiroshima Vision for Nuclear Disarmament" marks a significant shift in approach, as it is the first G-7 document to exclusively focus on nuclear disarmament. It excludes Russia as a partner in disarmament and non-proliferation and accuses it of engaging in nuclear coercion and augmenting its nuclear capabilities. The Vision also reaffirms the commitment of G-7 leaders to achieve a nuclear weapons-free world and emphasizes the norm of non-use of nuclear weapons.[39]
· G20 New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration 2023
Any threat to use nuclear weapons or using them is inadmissible as per this declaration. The declaration further states that on the lines of the UN Charter, the countries must refrain from using force or threatening to use force to acquire territories from another country along with respecting each other's borders, independence, and sovereignty.[40]
4) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Nuclear weapons have long-term impacts on the environment. The environmental effects of nuclear weapons are multi-faceted. Climate change and nuclear weapons are interconnected in several ways.
It won’t be wrong to remark them as man-made twin existential threats. If nuclear weapons are used at a large scale then the smoke and dust from firestorms would prevent sunlight from reaching the surface of Earth and the global temperatures will abruptly drop. This would result in a nuclear winter that would wreak havoc on the fragile ecosystems.[41]
Nuclear winter will result in shorter growing seasons and an overall decrease in global agricultural production. According to a recent study published in Nature Food after a global nuclear war, the average caloric production will reduce by about 95% in 3-4 years and the resulting famine would kill around 5 billion people. Even a limited regional nuclear conflict could wipe out around 2 billion people off the planet.[42]
Even if the global temperatures fall, it will not in any way reverse the negative consequences of global warming. A nuclear war will cause more harm to the environment. It will lead to ocean acidification and damage to the ozone layer. An increase in levels of UV radiation will cause excessive damage to the flora and fauna.[43]
It would be next to impossible to work in a radioactively contaminated area. Displacement due to nuclear weapon explosions will produce a refugee crisis at an unprecedented level and as a result of all this, the effects of global warming will also be exacerbated.[44]
The ionizing radiation produced by nuclear weapons contaminates the environment and causes cancer and genetic damage. It is estimated that owing to the atmospheric nuclear tests conducted between 1945 and 1980, 2.4 million people will die worldwide.[45]
But it is worth noting that nuclear weapons start harming the environment, way before they are used. The mining of uranium, testing, and production of nuclear weapons along with the dumping of radioactive nuclear waste contaminates both; the earth and the sea. With the changing climate risks of catastrophe are increasing day by day. For example; In the Marshall Islands, the rising sea levels are causing a threat to not only the Islands but also to a concrete dome underneath which the radioactive waste of 43 nuclear tests is buried. If this dome crumbles into this it will unleash a catastrophe for not only the inhabitants but also for the environment.[46]
Climate change and environmental damage are not only a consequence of nuclear war but can also be the cause of the same. Due to climate change insecurity regarding food and water is increasing, and a large number of people are getting displaced worldwide as a result of this, there is an upsurge in armed conflicts. This increasing insecurity can push the world towards a possible nuclear war.[47]
It is worth noting that the environmental impacts of nuclear weapons are disproportionate. The vulnerable communities experience serious health issues due to the mining of uranium and environmental damage. The money that could be spent on sustainable and green energies is spent on nuclear weapons. The maintenance cost of nuclear weapons is equivalent to running 203 commercial windmills in a year. The embedded economic interests of certain sections make it difficult to take action against nuclear weapons. The commercial interests of a few sabotage the efforts towards disarmament and environmental protection.[48]
5) HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Article 6 of ICCPR states that every individual has an inherent right to life and this right must be protected by law. It is worth noting that the right to life includes within its ambit the right to live in a healthy and clean environment and a right to food, clothing, shelter, health, and education - the necessities of life. [49]
According to the General Comment (paragraph 3) of Article 6 of ICCPR, the Right to Life, as codified in Article 6 of the Covenant, the right to life includes the right to be free from any form of acts and omissions that may cause premature and unnatural death. It also includes the right to enjoy life with dignity. It further adds that no derogation from this right should be allowed and this right must be respected even in situations of emergency and armed conflicts. This right is a prerequisite for enjoying any of the other rights.[50]
On October 30, 2018, under new General Comment No. 36, the UN Human Rights Committee concluded that any threat or use of nuclear weapons is a crime under international law and is also incompatible with the Right to Life. This comment further affirms that there is an obligation on the parties to the ICCPR to end not only the production of Weapons of Mass Destruction but also destroy their existing stockpiles. In addition to this, the parties are also required to provide reparation to the victims of the testing and use of WMD.[51]
6) LEGALITY OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW
Whether any usage of nuclear weapons during wars is legal or not is decided as per the rules of international law, mainly; jus ad bellum and jus in bello.
There are two fundamental rules of International Humanitarian Law; the Rule of Distinction and the Rule of Proportionality. This means that any weapon that is used must be capable of distinguishing between military and civilian objects and the harm that is caused by it must be in proportion to the direct and concrete military advantage. A combined reading of both these principles implies that if a weapon cannot distinguish between civilian and military targets and causes excessive damage then usage of such a weapon is unlawful under international humanitarian law. Given the fact that nuclear weapons cannot distinguish between civilian and military targets and cause disproportionate destruction to life and property, these weapons and their usage shall be termed as unlawful.
In the Nuclear Advisory Opinion, the ICJ concluded that any form of usage of nuclear weapons is contrary to the rules of international humanitarian law that are applicable in armed conflicts.[52]
Fixing accountability for the usage of nuclear weapons falls under the ambit of international criminal law. Under certain circumstances, the usage of nuclear weapons might amount to genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes. [53]
International human rights can also be resorted to determine the legality of nuclear weapons. To determine the legality, it is checked whether sufficient effort was made to avoid or limit the loss of life or not. Under human rights law, positive obligations have been put on the states to ensure respect for human rights. If nuclear weapons are used outside an armed conflict then, it will amount to genocide if it is committed to destroy any national, racial, religious, or ethnic group either in whole or in part. If these acts are done as a part of some widespread or systematic attack against a particular civilian population then it will amount to a crime against humanity. [54]
7) ENVIRONMENTAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACTS OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS IN ISREAL-HAMAS WAR
The right to life includes within its ambit, the right to live in a clean and healthy environment. According to the Euro-Med Human Rights Report since the commencement of the Israel-Hamas War, the number of explosives that have been dropped by Israel on the Gaza Strip is equivalent to that of two nuclear bombs.[55]
The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) suggests that any form of heavy bombardment contaminates soil and groundwater in the long run. As per estimates, by January 2024, 22.9 million tonnes of debris have been created as a result of the bombing by Israel. This rubble contains heavy metals, harmful chemicals, and human remains all of which have the potential to contaminate the surrounding soil, atmosphere, and groundwater. Agricultural land has been destroyed and attempts are being made to deprive the Palestinian population of other critical resources. As a result of power cuts around 100,000 cubic meters of sewage is seeping into the sea regularly. Owing to the extent of deliberate and negligent environmental destruction that has taken place in Gaza, many political and legal experts believe that it must be put into the category of Ecocide.[56]
Israel is a de facto nuclear weapon country. It is estimated that Israel has around 90 nuclear warheads and fissile material stockpiles for around 200 weapons.[57] In May 2024, one US Republican Senator suggested the use of nuclear weapons to defeat Hamas in Gaza.[58] But it must be noted that employing nuclear arms in the Israel-Hamas conflict would make the situation even worse and will unleash an unprecedented humanitarian and environmental disaster that will imperil the lives of hundreds of thousands and cast a long shadow over future generations. Nuclear weapons would cause irreparable harm to the already damaged environment and will exacerbate the rate of damage to ecosystems and biodiversity loss.
The use of nuclear weapons would constitute a grave violation of human rights, including Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights according to which everyone has been conferred with the right to life, liberty, and security of person.[59], and Article 25 of the UDHR: according to which every human being has the right to a standard of living that is adequate for not only his health and well-being but also that of his family.[60]
The utilization of nuclear weapons would result in widespread radioactive fallout. This fallout will have far-reaching consequences, such as; contamination of environmental matrices, including soil, air, and water, thereby affecting not only the immediate conflict zone of Israel and Palestine but also adjacent countries, such as Jordan, Egypt, and Lebanon. This fallout would pose a significant threat to human health and affect millions of individuals in the region. Exposure to ionizing radiation would increase the risk of adverse health effects, including genetic disorders, cancer, and other radiogenic diseases.
In this way, the deployment of nuclear weapons would constitute a grave violation of human rights, specifically the right to life, health, and well-being, and in this way would contravene fundamental principles of international humanitarian law and human rights norms.
The ongoing bombardment of Gaza appears to be aimed not only at killing people but also at extinguishing the hope of returning home that still survives in the hearts of Palestinians.[61] Reports indicate that since the commencement of the Israel-Hamas War, approximately 1.9 million civilians have been forcibly displaced.[62]
The use of nuclear weapons in the region would lead to a large-scale refugee crisis, compelling even individuals living in nearby countries to seek refuge elsewhere due to the danger of nuclear radiation. This would place immense pressure on the existing resources of host countries, disproportionately affecting the vulnerable populations within the host communities, including women, youth, and low-skilled individuals.[63]
Article 26 of the UDHR confers upon every human being the right to education.[64], and Article 25, suggests that every person has a right to adequate housing and livelihood.[65]
The escalating refugee crisis resulting from the Israel-Hamas conflict will inevitably lead to widespread violations of human rights, affecting both the displaced populations and the host communities. This will result in disrupted access to quality education, insufficient access to healthcare services, limited job opportunities, and inadequate housing and living conditions, ultimately perpetuating poverty, economic instability, and exploitation. The severity of these human rights violations, including the right to education, health, employment, and livelihood, will be felt by both refugees and the host population.
The environmental and human rights impact of nuclear weapons would have global implications, including a potential nuclear winter, that will affect food production, and exacerbate climate change and the rate of global warming.
8) SUGGESTIONS
Using nuclear weapons is nothing short of a catastrophic mistake. It will result in grave human rights violations and environmental damage. For a healthy and sustainable future, it is imperative that a nuclear-weapon-free world is created and the usage of nuclear weapons is discouraged. The following suggestions might be taken into account for containing the environmental and human rights impacts of nuclear weapons:
· All the countries must join hands and sign as well as implement the NPT in letter and spirit.
· Using nuclear weapons shall be declared as a war crime under the International Humanitarian Law.
· In case the use of nuclear weapons cannot be banned then steps shall be taken to reduce the environmental and human rights impacts of nuclear and ordinary weapons to the bare minimum.
· Steps shall be taken to ensure environmental sustainability both; during wars and at the time of peace.
· More and more countries must cooperate to provide humanitarian aid to the victims of ecocide in the Israel-Hamas War and also to encourage the use of technology related to nuclear weapons only for peaceful purposes.
· Israel and Palestine must opt for bilateral talks to settle the dispute amicably. Neutral countries in this dispute may also offer their good offices for requisite debates and deliberations over this issue.
· The two-nation theory must be implemented to settle the Israel-Palestine dispute once and for all. Powerful nations such as; the USA, UK, and Saudi Arabia must support this idea as it will pave the path for peace and tranquillity in this region.
· Pressure must be put at the international level so that certain states cannot fuel this dispute anymore for their selfish interests.
· Israel must be compelled to stop the attacks and proceed towards a ceasefire. Palestinians and Hamas are not the same. Israel must understand this and must end indiscriminate attacks against Palestine on an urgent basis.
· Destruction of the environment during wars especially through the usage of nuclear weapons must be declared as a war crime and any state that causes damage to the environment during wars and armed conflicts must be held liable for causing gross human rights violations. Additionally, it should also be asked to make reparations for the same. A separate legally binding instrument containing this provision must be brought up at the international level.
[1] Joseph Siracusa, Nuclear Weapons: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press) 2008.
[2] Nuclear Weapons <https://www.britannica.com/technology/nuclear-weapon> accessed 24th August 2024.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Nuclear Weapons under International Law (International Law and Policy Institution) 2013.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Salted Nukes: A Very Dangerous Nuclear Thought Experiment <http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph241/muhammad-shittu2/> accessed 25th August, 2024.
[7] Article IX, The Treaty of the Non- Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 1968.
[8]Overview of the Nuclear Disarmament Resource Collection <https://www.nti.org/analysis/articles/overview-of-the-nuclear-disarmament-resource-collection> accessed August 24th, 2024.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Article I, The Treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 1968.
[11] Article II, The Treaty of the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 1968.
[12] Proliferation <https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/proliferation> accessed August 24th 2024.
[13]Victor W Sidel and Barry S Levy, “Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: Opportunities for Control and Abolition” [2007] American Journal of Public Health.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Non- Proliferation< https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonproliferation> accessed 24th August, 2024.
[16] Disarmament and Non- Proliferation <https://www.dfa.ie/our-role-policies/international-priorities/peace-and-security/disarmament> accessed 24th August 2024.
[17] Samuel Glasstone And Philip J. Dolan, The Effects of Nuclear Weapons, United States Department of Defence and The Energy Research And Development Administration.
[18] What happens if nuclear weapons are used<https://www.icanw.org/catastrophic_harm> accessed 25th August 2024.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid.
[25] Ibid.
[26] Nuclear Weapons under International Law (n 4).
[27] Article IV, The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 1968.
[28] Article VII, The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons 1968.
[29] Nuclear Weapons under International Law (n 4).
[30] The Strategic Arms Limitation Talks 1969-1972.
[31] Treaty Between The United States of America and The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on The Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM Treaty) <https://2009-2017.state.gov/t/avc/trty/101888.htm >accessed 24th August, 2024.
[32] Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons <https://www.icj-cij.org/case/95> accessed 24th August, 2024.
[33] Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty 1996.
[34] Model Nuclear Weapons Convention 1997.
[35] Participants <https://www.nuclearsuppliersgroup.org/en/participants1> accessed 25th August, 2024..
[36] About the NSG <https://www.nuclearsuppliersgroup.org/en/about-nsg> accessed 25th August, 2024.
[37] A/RES/56/24 <https://www.undocs.org/A/RES/56/24> accessed 25th August, 2024.
[38] Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons 2017 <https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/tpnw/> accessed 25th August 2024.
[39] Hiroshima Vision on Nuclear Disarmament 2023.
[40] G20 New Delhi Leaders’ Declaration 2023.
[41] Climate Change, Famine and Nuclear Weapons < https://www.icanw.org/climate_disruption_and_famine> accessed 25th August 2024.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Ibid.
[44] Ibid.
[45] Ibid.
[46] Ibid.
[47] Ibid.
[48] Ibid.
[49] Nuclear Weapons and Human Rights <https://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/nuclear-weapons-and-human-rights> accessed 27th August, 2024.
[50] Ibid.
[51] Ibid.
[52] Ibid.
[53] Ibid
[54] Ibid.
[55] Israel hits Gaza Strip with the equivalent of two nuclear bombs <https://euromedmonitor.org/en/article/5908/Israel-hits-Gaza-Strip-with-the-equivalent-of-two-nuclear-bombs> accessed August 31st, 2024.
[56] Ecocide in Gaza’: does scale of environmental destruction amount to a war crime? < https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/29/gaza-israel-palestinian-war-ecocide> accessed August 24th, 2024.
[57] Nuclear Weapons: Who Has What at a Glance <https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/nuclear-weapons-who-has-what-glance> accessed August 31st, 2024.
[58] Talk of Nuclear Use in Gaza Draws Backlash < https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2024-06/news/talk-nuclear-use-gaza-draws-backlash> accessed August 31st, 2024.
[59] Article 3, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.
[60] Article 25, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.
[61] As Israel’s Aerial Bombardments Intensify, ‘There Is No Safe Place in Gaza’, Humanitarian Affairs Chief Warns Security Council < https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15564.doc.htm> accessed August 31st, 2024.
[62] Ibid.
[63] Theory and evidence on the impact of refugees on host communities <https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/dev4peace/theory-and-evidence-impact-refugees-host-communities> accessed August 31st, 2024.
[64] Article 26, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.
[65] Article 25, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.