Month: March 2023

UK to Give Ukraine Depleted Uranium Shells Despite Russian Warnings

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)

Russia’s defense minister says the move brings the world closer to a ‘nuclear collision,’ Putin vows to respond

UK to Give Ukraine Depleted Uranium Shells Despite Russian Warnings

Related:

[2019] New Study Documents Depleted Uranium Impacts on Children in Iraq

“Depleted Uranium (DU) is a toxic, radioactive heavy metal that is the waste byproduct of the uranium enrichment process when producing nuclear weapons and uranium for nuclear reactors. Because this radioactive waste is plentiful and 1.7 times more dense than lead, the United States government uses DU in munitions/ammunition which are extremely effective at piercing armored vehicles. However, every round of DU ammunition leaves a residue of DU dust on everything it hits, contaminating the surrounding area with toxic waste that has a half-life of 4.5 billion years, the age of our solar system, and turns every battlefield and firing range into a toxic waste site that poisons everyone in such areas. DU dust can be inhaled, ingested, or absorbed through scratches in the skin. DU is linked to DNA damage, cancer, birth defects, and multiple other health problems. The United Nations classifies Depleted Uranium ammunitions as illegal Weapons of Mass Destruction because of their long-term impact on the land over which they are used and the long-term health problems they cause when people are exposed to them.”

The Pentagon denies that they’re sending depleted uranium ammunition (if you can even believe them)!

Australia’s nuclear waste from AUKUS deal raises treaty violation concerns

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)1 Comment

By: Romita Chattaraj | March 20, 2023 – 2:06pm

On March 14, 2023, Australia, the US, and UK concluded a deal that will extend nuclear powered submarines to the Australian Navy, a key part of the AUKUS security agreement between the three countries. The AUKUS deal requires the Australian government to dispose of nuclear waste containing radioactive materials produced by the submarines. While Australia has facilities to store low through intermediate-level waste, no facilities exist to store high-level waste for the decades or centuries such waste requires. This has raised concerns about violating Article 2 of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) which does not permit non-nuclear states to “receive nuclear explosive devices or seek their manufacture.” However, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reaffirmed Australia’s commitment to the NPT and stated that the country will work in “close cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).” One other violation concern has been raised regarding the Treaty of Rarotonga, also known as the South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone Treaty, which does not allow signatories to “acquire, possess, or have control over any nuclear explosive device” but allows reservations in Article 14. Reservations, as defined by Article 14 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, permits a state to exclude the application of certain provisions, creating a loophole for Australia’s ability to store nuclear reactors. US submarines will start visits to Australia this year with UK submarines expected by 2026. Full nuclear capability is expected by the early 2030s.

Australia’s nuclear waste from AUKUS deal raises treaty violation concerns

US & UK make the submarines, Australia stores the waste.

[2002] U.S. Announces Intent Not to Ratify International Criminal Court Treaty

Tina Marie (Ms. Cat)1 Comment

U.S. Announces Intent Not to Ratify International Criminal Court Treaty

On May 6, 2002, the Bush Administration announced that the United States does not intend to become a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. John Bolton, the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, sent a letter to Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, stating that “the United States does not intend to become a party to the treaty,” and that, “[a]ccordingly, the United States has no legal obligations arising from its signature on December 31, 2000.” [1]

…

While the policy merits of the Bush Administration’s announcement are of course open to debate, the announcement appears to be consistent with international law. There is nothing in international law that obligates a signatory to a treaty to become a party to the treaty, [6] and the Rome Statute itself (in Article 125) states that it is “subject to ratification, acceptance or approval by signatory States.” In addition, Article 18 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties provides that, upon signing a treaty, a nation is “obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose” of the treaty “until it shall have made its intention clear not to become a party to the treaty.” The Vienna Convention thus contemplates that nations may announce an intent not to ratify a treaty after signing it.

Related:

International Criminal Court: Letter to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan

Secretary Rumsfeld Statement On The ICC Treaty

American Foreign Policy and the International Criminal Court

President Clinton Statement on Signature of the International Criminal Court Treaty

Modern Treaty Law and Practice: Third Edition (PDF)

International law : cases and materials