INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE ADVISORY OPINION ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS SUBJECT OF ONE OF NINE DRAFT TEXTS APPROVED IN FIRST COMMITTEE

Press Release
GA/DIS/3160

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE ADVISORY OPINION ON NUCLEAR WEAPONS SUBJECT OF ONE OF NINE DRAFT TEXTS APPROVED IN FIRST COMMITTEE

Others Concern Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones, Nuclear Weapons Convention, Nuclear Doctrines, Biological Weapons, Landmines, Small Arms in Africa

The General Assembly would once again underline the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that an obligation existed to conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control, according to one of eight draft resolutions and one draft decision approved this morning by the First Committee (Disarmament and International Security).

By further terms of the draft, approved by a recorded vote of 98 in favour to 27 against with 21 abstentions, the Assembly would call upon all States immediately to fulfil that obligation by commencing multilateral negotiations in 2000 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. (For details of the vote, see Annex VIII.)

Prior to the approval of the draft, the Committee held two separate votes. The first was on operative paragraph 1, which had underlined the Court's unanimous conclusion on the obligation to conclude nuclear disarmament negotiations. The Committee approved the paragraph by a vote of 137 in favour to 2 against (Russian Federation, United States), with 3 abstentions (Bulgaria, Israel, United Kingdom) (Annex VI).

By a recorded vote of 94 in favour to 25 against, with 22 abstentions, the Committee also approved operative paragraph 2, which called upon all States to fulfil immediately their obligation by commencing multilateral negotiations in 2000 leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention (Annex VII).

A second nuclear disarmament text approved today on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere would have the Assembly call upon the States parties and signatories to existing nuclear-weapon-free-zone Treaties, in order to pursue the common goals envisaged in those Treaties and to promote the nuclear-weapon- free status of the southern hemisphere and adjacent areas, to explore and implement further ways and means of cooperation among themselves and their treaty agencies.

First Committee - 1a - Press Release GA/DIS/3160 23rd Meeting (AM) 4 November 1999

The text was approved by a vote of 136 in favour to 3 against (France, United Kingdom, United States), with 5 abstentions (Federated States of Micronesia, India, Israel, Russian Federation, Uzbekistan) (Annex V).

Prior to the approval of the draft, the Committee held two separate votes. The first concerned whether to retain the words “and South Asia” in the third operative paragraph. The words were retained by a vote of 128 in favour to 1 against (India), with 10 abstentions (Annex III).

Also by a vote of 128 in favour to 1 against (India), with 10 abstentions, the Committee retained operative paragraph 3 as a whole, which calls upon States to consider all relevant proposals for the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones, including in the Middle East and South Asia (Annex IV).

Under a further nuclear disarmament draft, the Assembly would call for a review of nuclear doctrines and, in that context, immediate and urgent steps to reduce the risks of unintentional and accidental use of nuclear weapons. It would request the five nuclear-weapon States to undertake measures towards implementation of that provision. The text was approved by a recorded vote of 90 in favour to 42 against, with 14 abstentions (Annex I).

The Assembly would stress that an international convention on nuclear weapons would be an important step in a phased programme towards their complete elimination, within a specified framework of time, by the terms of another nuclear disarmament text, approved by a recorded vote of 89 in favour to 40 against, with 18 abstentions (Annex II).

Acting without a vote, the Committee approved a draft resolution that would have the Assembly call upon African States to sign and ratify the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone Treaty (Pelindaba Treaty), so that it could enter into force without delay.

Also acting without a vote on a draft decision, the Committee approved a text by which the Assembly would decide to include the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia in the provisional agenda of its fifty- fifth session.

In the category of other weapons of mass destruction, the Committee approved without a vote a text that would have the Assembly call upon all States parties to the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (Biological Weapons Convention) to accelerate the negotiations for a protocol, including possible verification measures, to strengthen the Convention.

Also without a vote, the Committee approved two drafts on conventional weapons, by which the Assembly would: urgently call upon all States to take all measures to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons and its Protocols and, in particular, to amended Protocol II on Prohibitions or

First Committee - 1b - Press Release GA/DIS/3160 23rd Meeting (AM) 4 November 1999

Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices; and welcome the Declaration of a Moratorium on the Importation, Exportation and Manufacture of Small Arms and Light Weapons in West Africa, adopted by the Conference of Heads of State and Government of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) at Abuja on 30 October 1998, and urge the international community to support the implementation of the moratorium.

Also today, the Committee heard the introduction of an amendment to the draft resolution on the preservation of and compliance with the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty), by which the Assembly would recall the widespread concern about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery, and urge all Member States to support efforts aiming at stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.

Introducing the amendment, the representative of France said it was well known that a decision had been taken by certain States to plan for programmes of anti-ballistic national defence. His country was “seriously concerned” by such ballistic proliferation, and was participating in all efforts to combat that tendency, but projects for anti-missile defence were not an appropriate response. Moreover, the risk of ballistic proliferation had not justified calling into question the ABM Treaty, which remained the cornerstone of strategic stability.

Statements on the drafts were made by the representatives of the Russian Federation, Algeria, Egypt, Spain, India, Israel, United States, Japan, Saudi Arabia, China, Pakistan, Chile, United Kingdom, Cuba, Belgium (on behalf of Netherlands, Luxembourg, Spain and Greece), Germany and Iran.

Introductions of revised drafts were made by the representatives of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Hungary, India and Egypt.

The Committee will meet again at 10 a.m., Friday, 5 November, to continue taking action on all disarmament- and security-related drafts.

Committee Work Programme

The First Committee (Disarmament and International Security) met this morning to continue taking action on disarmament- and security-related draft resolutions. It was also expected to hear the introduction of revised draft resolutions on: reducing nuclear danger; maintenance of international security and stability and development of South-Eastern Europe; biological weapons; and the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East.

The Committee had before it five draft resolutions and one decision on nuclear-weapons related topics; one on other weapons of mass destruction; and two on conventional weapons.

A draft resolution sponsored by Burkina Faso, on behalf of the Group of African States on the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty (Treaty of Pelindaba) (document A/C.1/54/L.17), would have the Assembly call upon African States to sign and ratify the Treaty as soon as possible so that it could enter into force without delay. It would call upon the State contemplated in Protocol III to the Treaty that had not yet done so to take all necessary measures to ensure the speedy application of the Treaty to territories for which they were, de jure or de facto, internationally responsible and which lay within the limits of the geographical zone established in the Treaty.

The Assembly would call upon the African States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) which had not yet done so to conclude comprehensive safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), thereby satisfying the requirements of the Treaty when it entered into force and to conclude additional protocols to their safeguards agreements on the basis of the Model Protocol approved by the Board of Governors on 15 May 1997.

In a related provision, the Assembly would express appreciation to the nuclear-weapon States which had signed the Protocols that concerned them, and call upon those which had not yet ratified them to do so as soon as possible.

Under a draft text on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (Biological Weapons Convention) (document A/C.1/54/L.19/Rev.1), the Assembly would call upon all States parties to accelerate the negotiations for a protocol, including possible verification measures, to strengthen the Convention, and to redouble their efforts within the ad hoc group to formulate an efficient, cost-effective and practical regime and seek early resolution of the outstanding issues through renewed flexibility in order to complete the protocol on the basis of consensus at the earliest possible date.

In that context, the Assembly would welcome the progress achieved so far negotiating a protocol to strengthen the Convention and would reaffirm the decision of the fourth review conference, urging the conclusion of the negotiations by the ad hoc group as soon as possible before the commencement of the fifth review conference and to submit its report, which shall be adopted by consensus, to the States parties to be considered at a special conference.

The Assembly would also reaffirm the call on all signatory States that had not yet ratified the Convention to do so without delay. It would also call upon those States that had not yet signed the Convention to become parties to it at an early date, thus contributing to the achievement of universal adherence, duly noting the forthcoming anniversary of the twenty-fifth year of its entry into force.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Ecuador, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, New Zealand, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and the United States.

By the terms of a draft text on assistance to States for curbing the illicit traffic in small arms and collecting them (document A/C.1/54/L.25), the Assembly would welcome the Declaration of a Moratorium on the Importation, Exportation and Manufacture of Small Arms and Light Weapons in West Africa, adopted by the Conference of Heads of State and Government of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) at Abuja on 30 October 1998, and urge the international community to support the implementation of the moratorium.

The Assembly would encourage the Secretary-General to continue his efforts to curb the illicit circulation of small arms and to collect such arms in the affected States that so requested. It would also encourage the setting up in the countries of the Saharo-Sahelian subregion of national commissions against the proliferation of small arms, and invite the international community to support their smooth functioning.

It would express its full support for the appeal launched by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) at its thirty-fifth ordinary session, for a coordinated African approach to the problems posed by the illicit proliferation and circulation of and traffic in small arms, bearing in mind the experiences and activities of the various regions.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Bangladesh, Belgium, Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Canada, Chad, Congo, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Fiji, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Japan, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Sierra Leone, Senegal and Togo.

Under a draft resolution sponsored by India on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/54/L.31/Rev.1), the Assembly would call for a review of nuclear doctrines and, in that context, immediate and urgent steps to reduce the risks of unintentional and accidental use of nuclear weapons. It would request the five nuclear-weapon States to undertake measures towards implementation of that provision.

In a related provision, the Assembly would call upon Member States to take the necessary measures to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in all its aspects and to promote nuclear disarmament, with the ultimate objective of eliminating nuclear weapons. It would request the Secretary-General, within existing resources, to seek inputs from the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters on information with regard to specific measures that significantly reduced the risk of nuclear war and to report to the Assembly at its next session.

According to a draft resolution on a nuclear weapons convention (document A/C.1/54/L.33), stressing that such an international convention would be an important step in a phased programme towards the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, within a specified framework of time, and noting with regret that the Conference on Disarmament, during its 1999 negotiations, had been unable to undertake such negotiations, the General Assembly would reiterate its request to the Conference to commence negotiations, in order to reach agreement on an international convention prohibiting the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Bangladesh, Bhutan, Brunei Darussalam, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Egypt, Guyana, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Malaysia, Mexico, Nepal and Viet Nam.

According to a draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/54/L.34), the Assembly would call upon the States parties and signatories to the Treaties of Tlatelolco, Rarotonga, Bangkok and Pelindaba, in order to pursue the common goals envisaged in those Treaties and to promote the nuclear-weapon-free status of the southern hemisphere and adjacent areas, to explore and implement further ways and means of cooperation among themselves and their treaty agencies. The Assembly would also call for the ratification of those Treaties by all regional States and for all concerned States to facilitate adherence to the protocols to nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties by all relevant States that had not yet done so.

The Assembly would welcome the steps taken to conclude further nuclear- weapon-free-zone treaties on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at among the States of the region concerned and call upon all States to consider all relevant proposals, including those reflected in its resolutions on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in the Middle East and South Asia. It would reiterate the important role of nuclear-weapon-free zones in strengthening the nuclear and non-proliferation regime and in extending the nuclear-weapon-free areas of the world. The Assembly would call upon all States, with particular reference to the nuclear-weapon States, to support the process of nuclear disarmament, with the ultimate goal of eliminating all nuclear weapons.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Angola, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbardos, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Indonesia, Iran, Kenya, Krygyzstan, Liberia, Malaysia, Mali, Mexico, Mongolia, Mozambique, Namibia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Samoa, Senegal, Sao Tome and Principe, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sudan, Suriname, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam and Zambia. Under a draft decision sponsored by Uzbekistan on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia (document A/C.1/54/L.35), the Assembly would decide to include that in the provisional agenda of its fifty-fifth session.

Under the terms of a draft on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/54/L.43*), the Assembly would underline once again the unanimous conclusion of the Court that there existed 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.

In that connection, the Assembly would call upon all States immediately to fulfil that obligation by commencing multilateral negotiations in 2000 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.

The Assembly would request all States to inform the Secretary-General of the efforts and measures they had taken to implement the present text and nuclear disarmament. It would request the Secretary-General to apprise the Assembly of that information at its next session.

The draft is sponsored by Algeria, Bangladesh, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Colombia, Congo, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Egypt, Fiji, Ghana, Guyana, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Kenya, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Mexico, Mongolia, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Peru, Philippines, Samoa, San Marino, Singapore, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Thailand, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Viet Nam, Zambia and Zimbabwe.

By the terms of a text on the Convention on the Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects (Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons) (document A/C.1/54/L.52), the Assembly would urgently call upon all States that had not yet done so to take all measures to become parties, as soon as possible, to the Convention and its Protocols, and in particular to amended Protocol II on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices. The Assembly would call upon successor States to take appropriate measures towards universal adherence to those measures.

The Assembly would express satisfaction that the Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons (Protocol IV) had entered into force on 30 July 1998. It would welcome the entry into force on 3 December 1998 of the amended Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby Traps and Other Devices (Protocol II) and call upon all States parties that had not yet done so to notify the Secretary-General of their consent to be bound by Protocols II and IV.

In that connection, the Assembly would welcome the convening, from 15 to 17 December, of the first annual conference of High Contracting Parties to Protocol II and call upon all High Contracting Parties to address at the conference, among other things, the issue of holding the second annual conference in 2000, and recall the decision of States parties to the Convention to convene the next review conference no later than 2001, preceded by the preparatory committee.

The draft resolution is sponsored by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Ecuador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay.

Statements

The Committee Chairman, RAIMUNDO GONZALES (Chile), said that, concerning the draft resolution on the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) (document A/C.1/54/ L.1/Rev.1), an informal amendment from the delegation of France had just come to his attention. Procedurally, verbal amendments could be made to drafts, but for the sake of the “atmosphere” and the substantive results being sought, the Committee should not embark on “procedural skirmishes”. Some delegations who would have to call for instructions from their governments would be in a difficult position. Careful consideration could only be achieved on the basis of official United Nations documentation, with enough time provided for various delegations to consult their capitals.

He said there had been some informal consultations before the meeting, and other delegations had conveyed the same message. He would, therefore, ask the Committee not to take action on the text today, until all required conditions had been made available, which he was told would be on Monday, 8 November.

Speaking on a point of order, the representative of the Russian Federation sought clarification on the readiness of the document by the French delegation.

The CHAIRMAN said that the official document would be circulated on Friday morning, and action on it would be taken on Monday. He had merely wished to explain why.

The representative of the Russian Federation said the co-sponsors of the draft were now engaged in active consultations linked to the new aspects, among others, the French amendment. He would ask the Chairman to return to the question of when action would be taken. He would propose a break to discuss the circumstances, or start work today using the plan proposed by the Chairman, leaving aside the question of the draft on the ABM Treaty. In a few minutes, there would be full clarity about when the co-sponsors would be able to take a decision on their draft resolution.

The CHAIRMAN restated that the essence of his proposal was the wish to provide enough time to everyone to apprise themselves of the content of the amendment, which was of great importance. He had taken note of the proposal of the Russian Federation and, if there were no objections, he would proceed to the following drafts.

On a point of order, the representative of Egypt asked when a delegation could present an amendment to a draft, since his delegation had wished to do so.

The CHAIRMAN replied that amendments could be presented at any time.

Introduction of Revised Drafts

NASTE COLOVSKI (The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) spoke on behalf of the co-sponsors of the draft resolution on maintenance of international security and stability and development of South-Eastern Europe (document A/C.1/54/L.40), which now included Ukraine, United States, Croatia and the Czech Republic.

He said that changes had been made in two important paragraphs. A new ninth preambular paragraph would read, as follows: “noting, inter alia, the importance of the Process of Stability and Good Neighbourliness in South-East Europe (Royamont Initiative), the South-East European Cooperative Initiative, the South-East European Cooperation Process, the Central European Initiative and the Black Sea Economic Cooperation for the implementation of the Stability Pact of South-Eastern Europe.”

The new preambular paragraph had been inserted on the basis of intensive consultations and the wish of the co-sponsors to mention and underline those important initiatives in the Balkans, he said. It was important to mention those, in the context of the draft, as a positive development.

He said the second addition was a new operative paragraph 9, as follows:

“Emphasizes the importance of regional efforts in South-Eastern Europe on arms control, disarmament and confidence-building measures.”

The aim of the paragraph was to strengthen all ongoing disarmament and confidence-building measures in the region, he said. In the context of the draft, it was important to bear those in mind because achieving the goals of the text could not be separated from disarmament and confidence-building measures and various arms control agreements. In the opinion of the co-sponsors, the draft was now complete and merited approval by consensus.

ATTILA ZIMONYI (Hungary) introduced the revised draft concerning the Biological Weapons Convention (document A/C.1/54/L.19/Rev.1). He said the text had first been introduced on 22 October. Upon request of one delegation, consultations had taken place since then with a view to accommodate concerns in connection with operative paragraph 5, which concerned a request of the Secretary-General to continue to render the necessary assistance to the depository governments of the Biological Weapons Convention and to provide such services as may be required for the implementation of the decision and recommendations of the Review Conferences.

He said the consultations had been conclusive and had produced a mutually acceptable text, which would add the words “as confirmed by the Fourth Review Conference” to the end of operative paragraph 5, so that it would read, as follows: “Requests the Secretary-General to continue to render the necessary assistance to the depositary Governments of the Convention and to provide such services as may be required for the implementation of the decisions and recommendations of the Review Conferences, as well as the decisions contained in the final report of the 1994 Special Conference, including all necessary assistance to the Ad Hoc Group and the special conference that is to consider the report of the Ad Hoc Group, in accordance with its mandate, as confirmed by the Fourth Review Conference.”

SAVITRI KUNADI (India) presented a revised draft resolution on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/54/L.31/Rev.1), which had been co-sponsored by Bhutan, Mauritius, Sudan, Fiji and Kenya. She said that following consultations, the revision was introduced on 2 November. The only change had been made in operative paragraph 4, which, in its amended version, reads, as follows:

“Requests the Secretary-General, within existing resources, to seek inputs from the Advisory Board on Disarmament Matters on information with regard to specific measures that significantly reduced the risk of nuclear war and to report to the General Assembly at its fifty-fifth session.”

Having taken on broad suggestions from delegations, she said she hoped the Committee would proceed to take action on the text.

ISMAIL KHAIRAT (Egypt) introduced a revision to the draft text on the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East (document A/C.1/54/L.8/Rev.1), on behalf of the League of Arab States, which had been published as an official document yesterday. Following consultations on the text with various interested delegations, he said the revised text had been submitted and a reference to “nuclear materials” had been deleted from operative paragraph 1, which now read, as follows:

“Calls upon the only State in the region that is not Party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, to accede to the Treaty without further delay and not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, and to renounce possession of nuclear weapons, and to place all its unsafeguarded nuclear facilities under full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards as an important confidence-building measure among all States of the region and as a step towards enhancing peace and security.”

He said, in that light, the text was in consonance with the one adopted last year by an absolute majority. He hoped the present text would be adopted by such a majority, or by consensus.

Action on Texts

The representative of Algeria said that Africa attached great importance to the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Africa (Treaty of Pelindaba) (document A/C.1/54/L.17). Consultations over the last several weeks had resulted in the broadest possible consensus on all the text’s paragraphs. However, despite such consultations, there was one State that could not agree on operative paragraph 3 of the text, which called upon the State to take all measures to ensure the speedy application of the Treaty in territories within the limits of the geographical zone established in the Treaty. That paragraph was exactly the same as one that had been adopted in 1997, and the African Group believed that no major development justified that position. He hoped the situation could develop positively and aid the efforts to free Africa of nuclear weapons.

The representative of Egypt said that efforts to establish a nuclear-free- zone in Africa had begun over 30 years ago. His country saw such a development as not only an important confidence-building measure for the States in the region, but also as strengthening the stability and security of all Africa.

The draft resolution was approved without a vote.

In explanation of position, the representative of Spain said she welcomed the adoption of the resolution by consensus, and believed that nuclear-weapon- free zones formed an important contribution to the non-proliferation regime and efforts leading to disarmament. She wished to go on record, however, that her Government was not in consensus on operative paragraph 3 of the text.

Her Government had carefully considered the invitation extended to it to join the Treaty in accordance with paragraph 3 of the draft resolution, she said, but had concluded that the territory covered by the zone belonged to the area included in the European Union, and was covered by other treaties. For those reasons, those portions of Spain could not be covered in the area included by the Treaty on a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Africa. Spain was already observing commitments that went well beyond those stated in the Treaty of Pelindaba and had no intention of modifying that policy.

The representative of India said that she respected the sovereign choice of States in establishing zones free of nuclear weapons and wished to commend the efforts that had resulted in the Pelindaba Treaty.

The representative of Israel said that his country had joined the consensus on the draft resolution, as in general it reflected Israel’s position. It was unfortunate, however, that the Middle East was mentioned in the text, as it had no relation to the zone in consideration. It, therefore, disassociated itself with the references to the Middle East as mentioned in text.

The Committee then approved the draft on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/54/L.31/Rev.1), by a recorded vote of 90 in favour to 42 against, with 14 abstentions (Annex I).

The draft on a nuclear weapons convention (document A/C.1/54/L.33) was approved by a recorded vote of 89 in favour to 40 against, with 18 abstentions (Annex II).

The representative of the United States, in explanation of vote, said his delegation had voted “no”, as in past years, on the draft calling for a nuclear weapons convention. The United States would never, notwithstanding its commitment to nuclear disarmament, negotiate or approve the convention being called for in the text, as that was not a practical approach. Considerable progress towards that goal had been achieved to date through a realistic, step- by-step process that had embraced bilateral, multilateral and unilateral efforts. His country had no intention of “detouring down the dead end approach” represented by the text.

The representative of Japan, also in explanation of vote, said his delegation had abstained in the vote. His country, which had experienced the sorrow of atomic bombings, fervently desired that the use of those weapons would never be repeated and continuous efforts should be made towards a world free of nuclear weapons. As far as the draft was concerned, his country was convinced that the only way to realize that goal in the present international reality was to achieve a steady and step-by-step process in nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament.

Thus, he said his country had attached particular importance to the following: the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) and to renewed and collective efforts by the international community towards that end; the early conclusion of negotiations for a fissile material cut-off treaty; progress in the START process, and by the five nuclear- weapon States; discussions on multilateral steps following a fissile material cut-off treaty, as well as the strengthening the regime of the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

The Committee took up the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the southern hemisphere (document A/C.1/54/L.34).

The representative of Saudi Arabia spoke to emphasize the importance of nuclear-weapon-free zones, strengthening the NPT, and calls for a nuclear-weapon- free world. It, therefore, joined as a co-sponsor of the draft resolution.

The Committee Secretary said that Jamaica had also become a co-sponsor of the draft. In a separate recorded vote on the last three words of operative paragraph 3, “and South Asia”, the words were approved by a vote of 128 in favour to 1 against (India), with 10 abstentions (Annex III).

The representative of India, on point of order, said she had requested a separate vote on the entire operative paragraph 3.

In a separate recorded vote on operative paragraph 3, the paragraph was approved by 128 in favour to 1 against (India), with 10 abstentions. Operative paragraph 3 would, therefore, remain in the draft text (Annex IV).

The draft resolution as a whole was approved by a vote of 136 in favour to 3 against (France, United Kingdom, United States), with 5 abstentions (Federated States of Micronesia, India, Israel, Russian Federation, Uzbekistan) (Annex V).

The representative of the United States spoke, also on behalf of France and the United Kingdom, to explain their no votes. He said that despite continuous consultations, the text remained unacceptably vague regarding maritime rights and freedoms. Without explicit assurances that would protect such fundamental freedom, those counties could not support such a draft.

The representative of China said that treaties needed to be consistent with the United Nations Charter, as well as norms of international law, and should not include the continental shelf or areas where there were territorial disputes. China noted that the resolution did mention applicable laws of freedom of seas and did not seek to add any new regulations. Therefore, China had voted in favour of the draft.

The representative of Uzbekistan said he had wanted to vote in favour of the resolution, but mistakenly pressed the abstention button.

The representative of India said that there was no consensus on the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in South Asia. If the sponsors wished to promote the resolution, they needed to take into account the new realities in the region. The proposal had as much validity as nuclear-weapon- free zones in East Asia, Europe or North America. Because of India’s opposition to operative paragraph 3, it had abstained on the resolution as a whole.

The representative of Pakistan said he had asked for the separate vote on the last three words of paragraph 3, then abstained from that vote, although he had voted for the draft text as a whole. Efforts to establish a nuclear-weapon- free zone in South Asia had collapsed after May 1998, when the region had become “nuclearized”. Such a zone could no longer apply to the region.

The draft resolution on establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Central Asia (document A/C.1/54/L.35) was approved without a vote.

The representative of Chile, speaking before the vote on the draft resolution on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/54/L.43), said his country had attached great importance to international law and, in that context, to the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice. It had felt, therefore, that a solid doctrinal basis was to be found in the advisory opinion. That opinion had contained a number of elements, including that there had been no precedent for the threat or use of nuclear weapons.

He said that, once again, the Court had unanimously concluded that the use of nuclear weapons must be compatible with international law, in particular, the principles and standards of humanitarian law, as well as with the concrete obgliations undertaken in treaties and international instruments related to nuclear weapons. Again, in a unanimous view, the Court had stated that there had existed an obligation to pursue, in good faith, nuclear weapons negotiations. Because of their devastating effects and scope, the use of those weapons showed the link between disarmament affairs and humanitarian international law.

Further, he said the mere possession of nuclear weapons in regions of great instability could be construed as the use of force, based on international law. The draft had called for preventive diplomacy, in keeping with the times, to precipitate solutions that would prevent a damaging impact on international relations. His country had emphatically considered that the advisory opinion had posed a conceptual frame of reference that could not be ignored in building confidence and avoiding any complication of catastrophic implications for all humanity.

The representative of the United Kingdom said his country had been committed to the goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons. It had given that commitment practical expression by undertaking certain national steps, and had repeatedly made clear that, when satisfied with verified progress it that regard, it would ensure that British nuclear weapons were included in multilateral negotiations. It had also taken seriously its obligations under the NPT.

Given that the draft had contained highly selective quotations from the Court’s advisory opinion, he said he would abstain in the vote on the first operative paragraph, which would have the Assembly underline once again the Court’s unanimous conclusion of the obligation to conclude nuclear disarmament negotiations in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. Also, in view of that selectivity, and on account of the unrealistic call in the second operative paragraph for multilateral negotiations in 2000 leading to an early conclusion of a nuclear weapons convention, he would oppose the draft as a whole.

The representative of Cuba said that, as in the past, his delegation would vote in favour of the draft. More than three years had elapsed since the International Court of Justice had announced its historic advisory opinion. Deplorably, and essentially as a result of the lack of political will of certain political Powers, none of the conclusions of the international Court had led to concrete action, including the legal obligation to carry out, in good faith, nuclear disarmament negotiations. In keeping with the importance his country had attached to that initiative, his Government had referred a great deal of information to the Secretary-General on efforts made to implement the previous resolution and move towards nuclear disarmament. When the present text was first introduced on 29 October, the representative of Malaysia had provided convincing responses to queries raised by delegations in connection with the text. Hopefully, his explanations had secured even broader support for the draft.

The representative of Saudi Arabia said, proceeding from his country’s belief that continuing presence of nuclear weapons had constituted a threat to humanity, and as a reaffirmation of the advisory opinion of the Court on 8 July 1996, his delegation wished to join the list of co-sponsors of the text.

Before taking action on the draft, the Committee Secretary-Secretary announced that Bolivia and El Salvador had also become co-sponsors.

The Committee then approved operative paragraph 1 by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to 2 against (Russian Federation, United States), with 3 abstentions (Bulgaria, Israel, United Kingdom) (Annex VI).

The second operative paragraph of the draft was approved by a recorded vote of 94 in favour to 25 against, with 22 abstentions (Annex VII).

The draft resolution as a whole was approved by a recorded vote of 98 in favour to 27 against, with 21 abstentions (Annex VIII).

The representative of the United States said, as each year, he had voted no on the draft, as well as in the separate paragraph votes. The 1996 opinion had been used as a justification to repeat the calls made in other drafts for immediate multilateral negotiations on the time-bound elimination of nuclear weapons. The United States’ position on the matter had not changed. It had opposed the idea and remained unconvinced that the step- by-step process under way had encompassed unilateral, bilateral and multilateral efforts yielding concrete results in nuclear disarmament. That process had remained, for the time being, the only realistic approach in that field. As unilateral and bilateral efforts had continued to progress, a multilateral role could continue to be played.

He said that negotiations for a fissile material cut-off treaty should resume in January 2000, as such an agreement would be a key element of the international community’s nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation objectives. It would be illogical if the next step were delayed further. In that context, it was “puzzling” that the text had not made one express mention of the fissile material cut-off treaty, especially since its chief sponsor was one of newest members of the Conference on Disarmament and had signalled its readiness to commence work on that important treaty.

The draft had also mischaracterized the NPT principles and objectives by omitting crucial references to general and complete disarmament, he continued. It had distorted the article VI obligation in ways that would appear to relieve the non-nuclear-weapon States of any responsibilities. The reference to the advisory opinion by the first and second operative paragraphs of the draft resolution had attempted to turn the opinion into a legal edict requiring immediate and rapid negotiations in a legal form. The opinion was simply not binding, and, in any case, the draft had misrepresented and distorted its findings. His country took very seriously its NPT obligations. The Court’s statement that there had existed an obligation to bring to a conclusion nuclear disarmament had not altered the substance of the article VI duty in any way, since that responsibility had inherently involved seeking a successful conclusion to negotiations.

The representative of Belgium, also spoke, on behalf of the representatives of the Netherlands and Luxembourg, as well as Spain and Greece, on the vote. As his delegation had said in the past during the vote on the subject, those countries had attached great importance to the advisory opinion and had considered it with great attention, but they were not authorized to engage in a selective reading of the opinion, which could not be reduced to a single paragraph in a resolution. That would only destroy the balance of the whole opinion and wipe out the contribution made by the Court. Thus, those countries had opposed the draft, which had selectively and wrongly made use of the Court’s opinion.

The representative of Japan said his delegation had abstained. As he had stated earlier, in order not to repeat the tragic experience of the use of nuclear weapons, continuous efforts should be made to rid the world of those weapons. Because of their immense power to cause destruction and death, their use was clearly contrary to basic humanitarian principles that had formed the philosophical foundation of international law. Indeed, the advisory opinion of the Court, addressed by the text, had demonstrated the complexity of the subject. His country had supported the unanimous opinion of the Judges of the existence of an obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament and conclude negotiations in good faith. It had firmly believed that concrete measures must be taken in a steady, step-by-step process.

He said that priority should be given to: bringing the CTBT into force as soon as possible; commencing and concluding a fissile material cut-off treaty; and commencing multilateral discussions on possible steps that should follow the conclusion of those negotiations. Such practical steps should be pursued with intensity, rather than by jumping, in two months, to a negotiation leading to a nuclear weapons convention.

The representative of Germany said he had welcomed the complete elimination of nuclear weapons and had observed with concern the stalling of the nuclear disarmament process, as witnessed over the controversy surrounding the CTBT and ABM Treaty. However, he could not support the draft because of his position that nuclear disarmament could be achieved only through a step-by-step process and not through the path proposed in the draft.

The representative of the Russian Federation, speaking on the nuclear weapons category of the text, said he asked for the floor on behalf of the co-sponsors of the draft resolution on the ABM Treaty (document A/C.1/54/L.1/Rev.1). He thanked all delegations for their patience and understanding in connection with the need to take some more time regarding consideration of the draft. He would report that now the co-sponsors were ready for consideration of the draft, and would request the Committee to do so.

The representative of France said he had submitted written amendments to the draft on the ABM Treaty, in conjunction with the timetable laid down by the bureau. He had, indeed, spoken to his Russian and Chinese friends during the course of the morning, and those would very much like the debate, to take place today. Following those consultations, he was not necessarily opposed to convening the debate, if that would speed up the procedure. But, naturally, since the amendments had been distributed only a few minutes ago, no country in the room should feel pressed about the need to request for more time to consult their capitals. It was an important debate on an important subject, and those were important amendments.

The representative of Bolivia said he had clearly understood and agreed with the Chairman’s proposal at the beginning of the discussion on the nuclear weapons cluster that the amendments to the ABM Treaty text be circulated, to enable delegations, such as his own, to have time to consult their capitals. That suggestion should remain in force.

The representative of Mexico said his delegation was confused. As he had understood it, the debate had wound up more than one week ago. It was now time for declarations of a general nature and explanations of vote, but debate was no longer on the menu. When the time came to take action or not on the draft in question, the rules were straightforward: any delegation could ask for a postponement, and if the co-sponsors did not agree to defer, then the draft was pressed to a vote.

The CHAIRMAN said he agreed with the previous two speakers. To restate and clarify his position, with respect to what the Bolivian representative had said, the Chairman’s proposal made at the beginning of the meeting had been designed to protect, to the utmost, the rights of each and every delegation. He had, therefore, understood very clearly the problems that a delegation such as Bolivia might experience, in terms of having to hold consultations, but that position had remained subject to delegations.

Regarding the intervention by the Mexican delegation, he said he could rest assured that only procedural matters could be taken up now, including statements of a general nature on a particular cluster of drafts and explanations of vote. The time for general debate was “well and truly over”, he added. I think that representative had wished to say that he was asking for action.

The representative of the Russian Federation said he understood that, following the issuance of the French amendments in all of the official languages, 24 hours were required. Then, yet another 24 hours were needed before those were voted upon. The Chairman’s first prediction had not come about, because the amendments had already been distributed in all languages, and the Secretariat had demonstrated it could work effectively. He did not know who advised the Chairman about waiting 24 hours before effective colleagues in the Secretariat could distribute two lines in all languages. Secondly, on behalf of the co-sponsors, he would propose that the Chairman invite the delegation of France to introduce the amendments (document A/C.1/54/L.56), and then set the vote for tomorrow.

The CHAIRMAN said he thought the representative of the Russian Federation had provided a good avenue for action. He would ask the representative of France to introduce his amendment.

The representative of France said the vote should take place tomorrow, which would then allow delegations to review the text and consult their capitals, if necessary. It was well known that a decision had been taken by certain States to plan for programmes of anti-ballistic national defence. His country, for its part, was “seriously concerned” by such ballistic proliferation, and was actively participating in all efforts being conducted to combat that tendency, but projects for anti-missile defence of a territory were not an appropriate response.

He said preservation of the ABM Treaty, in light of the strategic imbalances which the Treaty had underlied, was of the utmost importance. The risk of ballistic proliferation did not justify calling into question the ABM Treaty, which remained the cornerstone of strategic stability. For that reason, it was timely for the General Assembly to reaffirm its support for the ABM Treaty. The treatment of that important question by the Assembly required the adoption of a global and balanced approach. It was essential for the Assembly, therefore, to express in one single text its dedication to both the ABM Treaty and the prevention of ballistic proliferation. That was the meaning of the amendments before the Committee.

By the terms of the provisional amendment (document A/C.1/54/L.56), a seventh preambular paragraph would be added, as follows:

“Recalling finally the widespread concern about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.”

After operative paragraph 4, a new paragraph would be added, as follows:

“Urges all Member States to support efforts aiming at stemming the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery.”

The representative of the United Kingdom said he wished to have it recorded that he had intended his vote on the second operative paragraph of the draft resolution on the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice (document A/C.1/54/L.43) to register “no”.

The representative of Iran said his delegation had shared the main thrust of the amendment just proposed by the French delegation; however, there was some room for improving it, although he did not have specific language at present. Weapons of mass destruction and their means of delivery had always been a real concern of the international community, but new developments had occurred in the context of disarmament and the expression of concern on the continued possession of those weapons. He would be in contact with the French delegation and some other colleagues from the Non-Aligned Movement to consider improvements to the amendment. Hopefully, a successful conclusion of those consultations could be reached to enable action to be taken on the text today or tomorrow, as suggested.

The Committee took up draft resolution on the Biological Weapons Convention (document A/C.1/54/L.19/Rev.1).

The representatives of Mongolia and Monaco added their countries as co-sponsors to the draft resolution. The Committee Secretary announced that Chile, Haiti, Russian Federation, Armenia and Iran had also become co-sponsors.

The Committee Secretary then read a statement on the draft resolution indicating that the Secretary-General considered that his mandate, under the draft resolution, to render the necessary assistance and required services for the implementation of the decisions and recommendations of the Review Conferences and Special Conference had no financial implications for the regular budget of the United Nations, and that the associated costs would be met in accordance with the financial arrangements to be made by the Conference of the States parties to the Convention.

The draft resolution on the Biological Weapons Convention (document A/C.1/54/L.19/Rev.1) was approved without a vote.

The Committee took up the draft resolution on assistance to States for curbing illicit small arms traffic and their collection (document A/C.1/54/L.25).

The Secretary announced that Haiti, Bolivia, Guatemala, Jamaica and Burkina Faso had also become co-sponsors. The representative of Monaco added his name to the list of co-sponsors.

The draft resolution was approved without a vote.

The Committee then took up the draft resolution on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (document A/C.1/54/L.52).

The representative of France spoke on the text, saying that this year the First Committee would vote on two draft resolutions concerning anti-personnel mines. France would support both, by co-sponsoring them. His Government believed in the total elimination of anti-personnel landmines. A total ban, as laid down by Ottawa Convention, must be universal.

He said he regretted that some States had remained outside the Convention, but that was a fact that could not be ignored. Still, some of those States did support the objectives of the Convention and, rather than hurling invectives, new steps needed to be taken in the proper direction. The game of all or nothing reflected a dangerous complacency on the issue. He also regretted that all States had not reflected the flexibility needed in the process, but rather had placed technical aspects above long-term goals and the interests of mine victims. He called upon all States not signed on to the Ottawa Convention to do so.

The representative of Guatemala asked that his country be added as a co-sponsor.

The draft resolution on the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons was adopted without a vote.

The representative of Cuba said he had supported the draft, because he attached the highest priority on the First Committee sending a signal on Optional Protocol II, on the prohibitions or restrictions on the use of mines, booby traps or other explosive devices. He said that the Protocol was potentially the most effective instrument the international community had in solving the problem of anti-personnel mines, and efforts should be directed towards achieving its universality.

The representative of Israel said his Government had joined consensus on the resolution and supported efforts to extend the Convention to as many States as possible, particularly in the Middle East. However, it was necessary to find a balance between humanitarian concerns and security concerns. He reiterated the call for all States in the Middle East to accede to the Convention, to enhance security and stability in the region.

The representative of Algeria requested that meetings of the First Committee not overlap with the General Assembly’s consideration on the report of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

(annexes follow)

ANNEX I

Vote on Reducing Nuclear Danger

The draft resolution on reducing nuclear danger (document A/C.1/54/L.31/Rev.1) was approved by a recorded vote of 90 in favour to 42 against, with 14 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Argentina, Armenia, Belarus, Brazil, China, Georgia, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, San Marino, Solomon Islands, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Cameroon, Chad, Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Jordan, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Tajikistan, Tonga.

(END OF ANNEX I)

ANNEX II

Vote on Convention on Prohibiting Nuclear Weapons

The draft resolution on the Convention on the Prohibition of the Use of Nuclear Weapons (document A/C.1/54/L.33) was approved by a recorded vote of 89 in favour to 40 against, with 18 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Comoros, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Federated States of Micronesia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, China, Cyprus, Georgia, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation, San Marino, Solomon Islands, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Cameroon, Chad, Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Jordan, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Tajikistan, Tonga.

(END OF ANNEX II)

ANNEX III

Vote on Words `And South Asia’ in Operative Paragraph 3 of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere

The words “and South Asia” in operative paragraph 3, of the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/54/L.34), was approved by a recorded vote of 128 in favour to 1 against, with 10 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: India.

Abstain: Bhutan, Cuba, Cyprus, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Mauritius, Myanmar, Pakistan, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, France, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Jordan, Kiribati, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Syria, Tonga, Uganda, Viet Nam.

(END OF ANNEX III)

ANNEX IV

Vote on Operative Paragraph 3 of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere

Operative paragraph 3, concerning nuclear-weapon-free zones on the Middle East and South Asia, of the draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/54/L.34), was approved by a recorded vote of 128 in favour to 1 against, with 10 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: India.

Abstain: Bhutan, Cuba, Cyprus, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Mauritius, Myanmar, Pakistan, United Kingdom, United States.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, France, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Jordan, Kiribati, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Tajikistan, Tonga, Uganda, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam.

(END OF ANNEX IV)

ANNEX V

Vote on Nuclear-Weapon-Free Southern Hemisphere

The draft resolution on a nuclear-weapon-free southern hemisphere and adjacent areas (document A/C.1/54/L.34) was approved by a recorded vote of 136 in favour to 3 against, with 5 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: France, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: India, Federated States of Micronesia, Israel, Russian Federation, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Bangladesh, Belize, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Jordan, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Tajikistan, Tonga.

(END OF ANNEX V)

ANNEX VI

Vote on Operative Paragraph 1 of ICJ Advisory Opinion

Operative paragraph 1, concerning the International Court of Justice conclusion that there is an obligation to pursue nuclear disarmament negotiations under international control, of the draft resolution on the ICJ advisory opinion on the legality of the use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/54/L.43), was approved by a recorded vote of 137 in favour to 2 against, with 3 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Andorra, Angola, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Canada, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Latvia, Lebanon, Libya, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Russian Federation, United States.

Abstain: Bulgaria, Israel, United Kingdom.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, France, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Tajikistan, Tonga, Uganda, Uzbekistan.

(END OF ANNEX VI)

ANNEX VII

Vote on Operative Paragraph 2 of ICJ Advisory Opinion

Operative paragraph 2, which calls for commencing multilateral negotiation in 2000 for a nuclear weapons convention of the draft resolution on the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the legality of the use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/54/L.43), was approved by a recorded vote of 94 in favour to 25 against, with 22 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Georgia, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Israel, Italy, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkey, United States.

Abstain: Andorra, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, Ireland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Malta, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Sweden, Turkmenistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Cameroon, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, France, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Monaco, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Tajikistan, Tonga, Uganda, Uzbekistan.

(END OF ANNEX VII)

ANNEX VIII

Vote on ICJ Advisory Opinion on Use of Nuclear Weapons

The draft resolution on the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the legality of the use of nuclear weapons (document A/C.1/54/L.43) was approved by a recorded vote of 98 in favour to 27 against, with 21 abstentions, as follows:

In favour: Algeria, Angola, Argentina, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cape Verde, Chile, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Côte d'Ivoire Cuba, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Djibouti, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kuwait, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Libya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Qatar, San Marino, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uruguay, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Against: Andorra, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States.

Abstain: Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Finland, Georgia, Iceland, Japan, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Norway, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan.

Absent: Afghanistan, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Cameroon, Chad, Comoros, Congo, Dominica, Equatorial Guinea, Federated States of Micronesia, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Kiribati, Lesotho, Malawi, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Tajikistan, Tonga.

* *** *