📰 Rising temperatures drive up farmer suicides in India: U.S. study
Researchers say that a warmer climate reduces crop yields, aggravates distress
•Climate change may have led to over 59,000 farmer suicides over the last 30 years in India, argues a research report from the University of California, Berkeley in US.
•Even a 1°C increase in temperature above 20° C in a single day during the crop growing season results in about 70 suicides on average.
•The increase in temperature during the cropping season reduces crop yields, resulting in increased suicides, according to a study published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences .
•The study was carried out using data for all States and Union Territories.
•It has several limitations, though, including the fact that it has not looked at other factors that could have contributed to suicides.
•Endorsing the temperature-crop yield link, agricultural scientist Prof. M.S. Swaminathan said, “The effect of increased temperature on crop yield is real. In the late 1980s we found that when the temperature increases by 1 - 1.5° C the duration of the crop reduces by one month. Since the duration reduces, the yield drops by 300-400 kg.”
•Tamma A. Carleton from the University of California, Berkeley and the author of the paper, tested the link between climate change, crop yields and suicide by comparing the number of suicides across India between 1967 and 2013 with crop yield and climate data. Data on suicides were collected from the National Crime Records Bureau.
An additional burden
•She found crop losses due to heat damage cause additional burden on farming households and this at times leads to suicides.
•Dr. Carleton found suicides reported when a single day’s temperature increased by 1°C only during the crop growing season. Similar increase in temperature during other seasons did not result in a rise in suicides.
•Crop yield data from 13 States from 1956 to 2000 were compared with climate change data. Dr. Carleton found annual yield falling when the temperature was above 20°C during the crop-growing season.
•An increase in rainfall by 1 cm during the growing season leads to a decrease of about 0.8 deaths per 100,000, thus lowering the suicide rate by 7% on average, she writes.
•The effect of climate variation reveals that past growing season temperature strongly influences suicide rates in the following years up to about five years.
•For instance, when there is abundant rainfall during one growing season, the suicide rates dip for the next two or three years. Drought apparently does not seem to have any effect on suicide rates, the researcher found.
•The study says South India, which is generally hotter, has higher farmer suicide rates.
•Comparing the yields to growing season temperature for 13 States, the author found that States where the yields are more affected by high temperatures are also the States which report higher suicide rates. Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh not only show severe suicide responses to temperature but crop yield is also more negatively affected by higher temperature.
•The study did not find any adaptive behaviour to prevent suicides in response to climate change.
Weak studies in India
•“We must undertake anticipatory research using genetic checkmating for potential changes in climate such as changes in precipitation, and temperature. I don’t think we have done such research as seriously as we should have,” says Prof. Swaminathan. “Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia are the most vulnerable regions and we would be the most affected.”
•India’s average temperature is expected to increase by 3°C by 2050.
📰 Panel to draft data protection Bill, SC told
‘Privacy argument will hit governance’
•Highlighting the need for a comprehensive law on data protection, the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) informed a nine-judge Bench of the Supreme Court on Tuesday that the Centre has constituted a committee of experts, led by former Supreme Court judge, Justice B.N. Srikrishna, to identify “key data protection issues” and suggest a draft data protection Bill.
•Appearing before the Bench led by Chief Justice of India J.S. Khehar hearing the question whether privacy is a fundamental right, UIDAI, the nodal agency for implementation of Aadhaar, said privacy is not a fundamental right; privacy is subjective and dependent on human behaviour. Any attempt by the court to robe it in the status of a fundamental right would damage the nation and stymie the government's efforts for good governance.
•Instead, Additional Solicitor General Tushar Mehta pointed out that the government's focus is now on framing overarching principles for data protection. He said the Justice Srikrishna Committee was constituted on July 31, 2017. “The government is cognisant of the growing importance of data protection in India. The ,” Mr. Mehta read out from the Office Memorandum appointing the Justice Srikrishna panel.
📰 Somalia signs pact on convicts
Boost for joint anti-piracy operation
•Opening a new front for collaboration in anti-piracy operation in Eastern Africa, India and Somalia on Tuesday signed an agreement for transfer of sentenced convicts. A statement from the Ministry of External Affairs said the agreement was the highlight of the ongoing visit of the Foreign Minister of Somalia.
Transfer of prisoners
•“During the visit, the Somalian Minister held meetings with External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj and Minister of State for External Affairs M.J. Akbar. The entire gamut of India-Somalia bilateral relations, including the issue of piracy and maritime security, were discussed between the two sides during the meetings. Further, discussions on regional issues pertaining to developments in the Gulf region and India’s neighbourhood were held. An agreement for transfer of sentenced persons between India and Somalia was also signed during the visit,” said the statement from the MEA after Ms. Swaraj sealed the document with her Somalian counterpart Yusuf-Garaad Omar.
•The collaboration between two sides will be significant due to the incidents of piracy that have affected Indian interests in the Indian Ocean region near the Horn of Africa. India has in recent years extended development assistance to Somalia which has included mini buses to the war-battered country.
•Diplomatic contacts between India and Somalia have been infrequent, however, Somalia had participated in the 2015 India-Africa Forum Summit.
📰 With rates low, it is easier to buy than rent homes
Housing loan interest rates dipping in past few months
•Lower interest rates and stagnant property prices, in combination with the interest subsidy under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY), have markedly improved the economics for home buyers, bankers said.
•With interest rates falling about 200 basis points (one basis point is equal to 1/100th of 1%) in the last 15 months, EMIs (equated monthly instalments) for small and medium ticket home loans in some cases have fallen below the rent paid for the same property.
•According to bankers, for a home loan of Rs. 25 lakh, when the current interest rate of 8.5-9% is coupled with the subsidy benefit under the PMAY, the real interest rate for a home buyer with an income of Rs. 12 to Rs. 18 lakh per annum works out to just 4%, after adjusting for tax benefits. The subsidy amount would be higher if the income is lower.
Economics changed
•“Housing loan interest rates have been going down the past few months. While the trend may not continue at the same pace, the reduction in interest rates, in combination with the credit-linked subsidy scheme, has certainly changed the economics guiding the home buying versus renting argument,” Rajiv Anand, executive director, Axis Bank said. The PMAY scheme is available for first time home buyers with family income up to Rs. 18 lakh and for property size up to 110 square metres (1,100 sq. ft. carpet area). “For buyers whose household income is not more than Rs6 lakhs per annum and who are therefore eligible for the 6.5% interest rate subsidy under the PMAY, this is clearly the right time to consider buying a property by availing of a small ticket housing loan,” Mr Anand added.
•Keki Mistry, vice chairman, Housing Development and Finance Corporation (HDFC), the country’s largest mortgage financier, said that both interest rates and property prices are favourable for buyers. “Interest rates are not the only aspect. Property prices have not gone up in the last 2-3 years. This is the best time to buy a property,” Mr Mistry told The Hindu. “Don’t look at interest rate in isolation. There is a government subvention scheme that you get today. Consider the interest net of tax benefits.”
📰 Manufacturing PMI at 47.9, records steepest contraction since Feb. ’09
New orders, output decreased, reversing June’s expansion
•Manufacturing activity in July slowed to 47.9, the lowest level since February 2009, according to the Nikkei Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index, due almost entirely to the introduction of the Goods and Services Tax on July 1.
•The reading was significantly lower than the 59.9 seen in June. A score above 50 implies an expansion of activity while one below 50 denotes a contraction.
‘GST weighs heavily’
•“PMI survey data indicated that the introduction of the goods & services tax (GST) weighed heavily on the Indian manufacturing industry in July,” the report said. “New orders and output decreased for the first time since the demonetisation-related downturn recorded in December last year, with rates of contraction the steepest since February 2009 in both cases.”
•“According to Indian manufacturers, higher tax rates sparked greater cost burdens in July,” the report added. “However, the pace at which input costs rose was moderate and much weaker than its long-run average.”
•The report also said that the 12-month outlook for output remained positive in July due to companies’ expectation that greater clarity on GST would bolster growth. “The downturn was broad-based across all sub-sectors covered by the survey, with output scaled back among firms in the consumer, intermediate and investment goods categories amid falling order books,” Pollyanna De Lima, principal economist, IHS Markit and the report’s author, said.
📰 Breaking addiction
Lower nicotine content in cigarettesis an idea whose time has come
•The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has struck panic among tobacco companies by announcing a comprehensive proposal to reduce the amount of nicotine in cigarettes to non-addictive levels. This is aimed at striking at the root of the problem of smokers getting addicted, and being unable to quit the habit. While the proposal is at an early stage and it may take a while before it gets implemented, if at all, it outlines a powerful strategy. Nicotine does not directly cause cancers and other diseases that kill people, but is extremely addictive. By keeping smokers addicted for the long term, nicotine exposes them to nearly 7,000 chemicals, many of them deadly, every time they smoke. Reducing nicotine in cigarettes to non-addictive levels would therefore have multiple benefits — reduce the likelihood of new users (those in the 15-24 age group) getting hooked to cigarettes, increase the chances of habitual smokers being able to quit, and cut smoking-related disease and death burden overall. In the U.S. alone, nearly half a million smoking-related deaths are reported each year. While more studies are required to establish clear causality, a paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2015 showed smokers using reduced-nicotine cigarettes lit up fewer cigarettes a day compared with those smoking standard cigarettes.
•The FDA, however, has no plans to regulate nicotine content in electronic cigarettes and other nicotine-replacement products, which are seen to be alternatives to help smokers quit the habit. A study published a few days ago in the journal BMJ found that a “substantial increase” in e-cigarette use among adult smokers had led to a “significant increase” in the quitting rate among smokers. By making it illegal a year ago to sell e-cigarettes to children, the FDA has effectively addressed the growing concern about children taking to vaping. Yet, the U.S. has much to learn from India on tobacco control measures. While India is yet to prohibit the sale of e-cigarettes to minors, it has followed most of the measures mentioned in the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control guidelines. Unlike the U.S., India banned tobacco advertisements long ago, introduced pictorial warnings (covering 85% of the front and back of packages of tobacco products), and prohibited the use of descriptors such as light, mild and low as well as the sale of flavoured cigarettes. Threatened by the dwindling number of young smokers, there is the possibility that tobacco companies will target developing countries such as India with renewed vigour. While they may pull out all the stops to subvert or dilute tobacco control measures, the government should remain resolute in not losing the gains made in the last few years — the number of tobacco users reduced by more than eight million between 2010 and 2016.
📰 Barriers to well-being
The extent of society’s responsibility for child health care needs clarity
•The recent controversy around the health care of Charlie Gard, a terminally-ill 11-month-old baby in the United Kingdom who was finally taken off life support and passed away on July 28, got huge media coverage, polarised public debate and unleashed tense legal battles around complex ethical issues related to the health care of a baby. The infant was born with a serious mitochondrial disorder that led to the wasting of his muscles and brain. There is no definitive treatment and the baby was on life support since last October.
Protecting a child’s interests
•His parents wanted to take Charlie to the United States where an experimental therapy of nucleosides would have been attempted, with an estimated 10% chance of benefit. Doctors at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London said that his clinical condition ruled out any benefit and felt it unethical to subject the baby to the turmoil of a “futile” journey. As serial scans showed severe brain damage, they held out no hope of survival and felt that the boy should be allowed to die with dignity. The parents wanted to try out the experimental therapy and repeatedly took the hospital to court. They failed to convince British courts and the European Court of Human Rights which deferred to the hospital’s assessment. The U.S. Congress intervened to grant extraordinary citizenship to Charlie so that he could travel for treatment but the British court did not permit his release from the hospital. Last week, the parents finally gave up after the American expert said that the latest scan ruled out any possible benefit at this stage.
•The ethical and legal tangles involve questions of what is in the best interest of the baby. Here, the court decided on behalf of the baby after hearing all the parties in an emotionally drenched contest. As expected, public opinion mostly supported the parents while the legal verdict upheld the medical recommendation not to prolong or aggravate the baby’s suffering. The key message that emerged is that society has the final responsibility to protect the child’s interests, however determined.
The monetary angle
•Still, there is a strange deviation from this rule when it comes to paying for the treatment of a child with serious conditions such as heart disease or treatable leukaemia. In countries with high levels of treatment coverage under a system of universal health coverage (UHC), this cost is covered in part or full. In many countries it is not, especially when the cost of the procedure is high. The child gets treated only if the parents can afford it or risk bankruptcy to save their child. Is this fair?
•In countries where social services are very sensitive to child rights, the child is taken away from the parents if the child is abused or even neglected. The responsibility of a civilised society to protect the child is thereby affirmed. How is it then that the neglect of a child’s medical problem is not seen as a failure not just on the part of parental care but of the obligation of society too to protect the vulnerable child?
•Economists will say that UHC cannot cover all treatments for everybody because resources are finite. They are right. However, how does this stance reconcile with society’s duty to protect the child? Even if complex diseases with limited benefit from treatment are excluded, should not UHC cover conditions that seriously affect the health and the well-being of the child but have treatments available that add many years of functional life? What about funding for improving the functionality of children with disabilities?
•While allocating resources in the health sector, economists also prioritise public good over private good. Immunisation programmes, for example, protect persons from infectious diseases which can spread across a population and are, therefore, regarded as a public good. Personal health care is regarded as a private good. In case of children, where society assumes a caring custodial responsibility, how does this distinction hold?
•In the Indian context, costly treatments that can provide high returns of longevity and functionality for children are obtained through sporadic philanthropy or limited coverage social insurance schemes funded by the government. These do not remove the barriers of access and affordability. It is time health professionals, policy makers, economists, ethicists, legal experts, parent representatives and community leaders are brought together to decide by consensus on the dimensions and delivery pathways of societal responsibility for child health care.
📰 ‘India and Bhutan are questioning the new normal’
A former Ambassador to China says only reciprocal withdrawal by India and China can ease the Doklam stand-off.
• Ashok Kantha served as India’s Ambassador to China from 2013 to 2015. Earlier he was part of the negotiation team that ended the decade-long stand-off in Sumdorong Chu, which began in 1986. He is currently director of the Institute of Chinese Studies in Delhi. In an interview to The Hindu, Mr. Kantha spoke about the Doklam stand-off. Excerpts:
Does the Doklam stand-off indicate the dominance of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA)over the Politburo of the Communist Party of China?
• I don’t think that is the case. I don’t see what’s happening in Doklam being a case of the party versus the PLA. The Chinese system of domestic politics is very opaque. It’s very difficult for us to say with certainty how certain things are decided. However, what we can fathom is that the party has asserted its control over the PLA. Under Hu Jintao, the military had become powerful, but Xi Jinping is in control of the PLA and has taken action against several dozen senior PLA personnel under the anti-corruption campaign. Secondly, restructuring and reform of Chinese military establishment has led to the party reasserting its control over the PLA. The present trend is towards greater control of the party over the PLA.
• China’s behaviour in Doklam is part of a larger pattern wherein China is pursuing contested territorial claims, most importantly in the South China Sea. Reports from China suggest that the Chinese policy on the South China Sea is personally driven by Xi Jinping. China is asserting its territorial claim by the so-called Nine-Dash Line. They have gone ahead with setting up civil and military facilities and built artificial islands in the South China Sea. What is happening in Doklam is part of that trend. In the case of Doklam, just like in the case of the South China Sea, China says that its claim in Doklam is indisputable and that is why it has gone ahead with building activities in the region.
Does that mean there will be ‘20 and half front’ territorial disputes around China?
• China has, in fact, settled most of the land boundary issues with most neighbouring countries. It has outstanding issues with India and Bhutan. It has serious issues in the South China Sea and East China Sea. On the remaining territorial issues, it is adopting an assertive posture in which it is changing facts on the ground. In the South China Sea, other claimants are adjusting to the new normal. Others are unable to do anything meaningful to change the ‘new normal’ that is emerging. China reclaimed 3,200 acres of artificial islands in the South China Sea. Other claimants and the U.S. do not have any effective strategy to counter this. India and Bhutan did not follow the script. We are questioning this new normal. Bhutan on June 29 questioned the construction of the mountain road in Doklam region and asked Beijing to restore the status quo as before June 16, 2017. We also came out with a clear statement on June 30.
Was China surprised by India’s action?
• We can only speculate, as it is very difficult to understand how China decides. China did not anticipate that both Bhutan and India would come out strongly. What China was doing earlier can be described as ‘creeping intrusion’. But [with] construction of a motorable road, a new set of facts were being built in Doklam. This would have had a negative impact on India’s security atmosphere. Doklam is south of the tri-junction, which is near Batang La. According to Indian and Bhutanese maps, Doklam is Bhutanese territory.
What are the chances of escalation under the present circumstances?
• If you compare the present scenario with what happened in 2013-2014 — that is the Depsang, Demchok and Chumar cases — we managed to sort out the issue in four weeks time. In the case of Doklam, pronouncements are belligerent from Chinese officials and the official media — almost warlike. This is one difference: that the rhetoric emanating from China is very heated, and that apart, China has placed a precondition for withdrawal for any meaningful talks. Also, this is getting protracted and no one knows how long it can go on.
How long can this stand-off go on?
•It can go on for years. In 1986, Chinese troops set up a post in the Sumdorong Chu valley, south of Thag La ridge. Then there was action taken by both sides and sharp escalation followed. There was action taken by both sides and sharp escalation followed. That was the last time that the India-China border became ‘live’. This situation of heightened tension continued till 1987. In August 1995 finally disengagement took place. De-escalation in tension took place by the end of 1987.At that time also China was very vituperative. They had given a precondition for pull-back by India.
The biggest difference now is the introduction of Bhutan.
•Yes, the introduction of Bhutan is the difference. But both sides have maintained sobriety on the ground, though the language coming from the Chinese side is rather strong. In contrast, India has maintained a measured posture.
But has India intruded into Chinese territory?
•Look at the facts. Bhutan maintains that Doklam is Bhutanese territory, which they said in the June 29 statement which was echoed in the Indian statement. But China claims the territory. However, China is committed through the bilateral agreements of 1988 and 1998 with Bhutan to respect the status quo and not to change the status quo unilaterally. Its actions are in direct violation of agreements with Bhutan and India.
•But China is changing the tri-junction unilaterally in violation of such agreements. In mountainous areas, defences are along ridge lines. The Chinese are trying to bring down the tri-junction point to Geymochen, which is the last major ridge line between the Siliguri corridor and the Chumbi Valley, which would have hit security.
But how long will Bhutan stay with India in this stand-off?
•There have been 24 rounds of border negotiations between Bhutan and China. As far as the Bhutanese position [goes], the Doklam area belongs to Bhutan. On June 29 also, Bhutan requested China to restore the status quo as of June 16, 2017, and Bhutan has not weakened its position. Please remember, any change in the status quo will hurt Bhutan first as it will lose a very strategic territory and it will lose access to India through the Siliguri corridor. For Bhutan too there are vital strategic interests involved in any compromise.
Is China erring by taking on Bhutan?
•China is changing the status quo unilaterally with a relatively small neighbour, Bhutan. It is a clear case of browbeating both Bhutan and India. Through this action, China was trying to drive a wedge between Bhutan and India. But China perhaps thought that Bhutan would not protest. But Bhutan came out with a public protest like India. China has also landed in a situation that it did not anticipate.
What is the solution? Mutual withdrawal?
•The provocation for India was that the Chinese construction party was building a road unilaterally. If China pulls back from the area, listening to the very sensible suggestion from Bhutan, there would be no need for India to have military personnel. For India, any unilateral withdrawal will be impossible as there will be serious consequences. There can only be reciprocal withdrawal.
So differences remain in Indian and Chinese positions.
•The response of the Indian government has been measured and effective so far. We have clearly eschewed temptations to respond through tit for tat polemics. We have not risen to China’s bait. We need to question the narrative emanating from China. The narrative is that the boundary of the Sikkim sector is all settled and demarcated. That is not the case as the alignment of the boundary in the Sikkim sector is basically agreed on but there are well-known differences as far as the tri-junction points of India, China and Bhutan are concerned.
•There are also differences on interpretations of the watershed boundary in northern and eastern Sikkim. In fact, post-1962, the most serious armed skirmish was at Nathu La in eastern Sikkim in 1967 because of differences in the interpretation of the watershed boundary.
Has India violated international law through the Doklam venture?
•It is China that has violated agreements with Bhutan and India. Bhutan pointed out that China violated the 1988 and 1998 agreements. China is also violating agreements with India.
Can China hit India in some other area of the border?
•The present situation is under control as no major troop mobilisation has taken place. The border has not become ‘live’ so far, like 1987. But we cannot preclude the possibility of China probing our defences in the Indian border. But hopefully that will not happen because any expansion of the differences will lead to damaging peace and tranquillity in the border areas. One needs to ensure that differences do not expand and are contained. At the same time, we need to take preventive measures. Second, the move towards de-escalation. For that China needs to scale down its comments.
Have the NSA-level talks helped?
•The Chinese rhetoric has slowed down a bit, but it’s too early to come to a conclusion. I would not interpret Xi Jinping’s speech on the occassion of the 90th anniversary of the Chinese PLA as something in the context of what’s going on in Doklam.
Can India and Bhutan try the International Court of Justice as an option?
•That is not quite the policy of India and China as we are very clear that our bilateral boundary disputes will be dealt with through bilateral consultations. That is the track we adopt for India-China border differences. Likewise, no indication has come from Bhutan that it will approach the international court. You know the PCA (Permanent Court of Arbitration) gave a verdict on the South China Sea but China completely rubbished the PCA award and went ahead with activities for military and civil facilities.
Should appeasement be the policy to deal with China’s territorial claims?
•When it comes to the India-China border, we have to rely on ourselves. We need to persist with the present approach that the border areas remain peaceful and we need to ensure that there is requisite deterrence available on the ground to discourage China.
•Deterrence has to be in terms of military capability and infrastructure on the ground. Our posture should be defensive and sometimes a mix of offensive and defensive capabilities.
In this context, can the BRICS summit be successful?
•I do not want to prejudge. Even if the Doklam stand-off continues, we can still have a fairly successful BRICS summit in China. In this context, we can compare with the 1987 situation when the border went ‘live’. However, that is not the case today. Tension had gone up in 1987 and we prepared Rajiv Gandhi’s visit to China in 1988, which was a turning point in India-China ties. But the situation continued till 1995. The Doklam issue can continue minus the tension and noise, and we can approach the difference in a businesslike manner. Though ideally we should terminate the military stand-off as early as possible. Frankly, talks are taking place between India and China, India and Bhutan, and between Bhutan and China. There is no communication breakdown.
What does the Doklam issue indicate for bilateral ties between China and India?
•The narrative of the relationship has been affected, but there is something more structural that is going on. China is becoming increasingly assertive in pursuit of its global and regional goals. The Belt and Road project is one such example, which is above all a major geopolitical project. It is aimed at China trying to put together a continental and maritime domain where China is the lead player. This is apart from the fact that the project affects Indian sovereignty as it passes through Pakistan-occupied Kashmir. But the rise of China is also taking place simultaneously with the rise of India. China wants to be the pre-eminent power. But India would like to see a multipolar world. That is the contradiction. Our preference is for a bipolar Asia. India-China ties also have positive aspect and there will be an uncertain mix of cooperation and competition and how we manage the relationship will be a big challenge. It is possible but will be a challenging position.
📰 For a nuclear-free world
The new treaty has a sound basis. But its effectiveness could be jeopardised by the nine countries resisting it
•The adoption of the historic United Nations pact to ban nuclear weapons underscores a paradigm shift in the discourse on global disarmament. Foremost, the universal goal of total elimination of these weapons of mass destruction has been disentangled from the narrow focus on the maintenance of a deterrent by the nuclear weapons states against threats from one another. Instead, the case for abolition, under the treaty finalised in July, is premised on the potential danger to the very survival of civilisation from another holocaust. Such a position seems incontestable, as modern weapons are designed to inflict a great scale of destruction, without regard to national or geographic boundaries. The imperative, as the architects of the new treaty see it, is an immediate legal prohibition leading to the total elimination of nuclear weapons, given the impossibility of fashioning a humanitarian response to any future offensive. The new treaty, which 122 nations have approved, outlaws the entire range of activity relating to the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons. The ban on the conduct of underground explosions envisaged under Article 1 is a breakthrough. The 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty has not entered into force because many among the 44 designated nuclear-capable states, whose ratification is mandatory under the pact, have not come on board.
•Last year, the Marshall Islands suffered a legal setback to secure compensation for the victims of radiation exposure during the U.S. nuclear tests conducted in the 1950s. But the litigation at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has underpinned the need to codify a strong provision on the protection of victims. Assistance for people exposed to extreme radiation and contamination of the environment has been spelt out explicitly under Article 6 of the current treaty. The most central provision is Article 1(d) which categorically prohibits the use of nuclear weapons, or a threat to that effect, under all circumstances. The ICJ’s 1996 advisory opinion was that the use of these deadly arms, or even a threat, was generally illegal. It was, however, indecisive on the question of their legitimacy in the exceptional case of a state’s very survival. Support for the new treaty has steadily grown over the years to cover nearly two-thirds of the UN member states which adopted it last month. It is hence not unreasonable to anticipate that the required 50 instruments of ratification for its entry into force would be submitted swiftly. Moreover, the nuclear weapons treaty marks the completion of a process to enforce an international ban on all categories of weapons of mass destruction following the prohibition of biological and chemical arms. This is another strong incentive for its early ratification, about a century after the deadliest deployment of chlorine gas in Ieper, Belgium during the First World War unleashed an arms race. The world’s nuclear powers, which boycotted the negotiations on the landmark agreement, have remained defiant ever since its adoption. Their continued resistance will no doubt jeopardise its effectiveness. But that does not take away from its sound basis in moral and legal principles.
