Examples of using Unconditional security assurances in English and their translations into Russian
{-}
-
Official
-
Colloquial
Non-nuclear-weapon States parties had a legitimate right to unconditional security assurances from nuclear-weapon States.
It is of value only if it is considered as the starting-point for the negotiation of a multilateral convention which is legally binding andoffers comprehensive and unconditional security assurances.
Take practical measures towards the conclusionof a universal and legally binding instrument on unconditional security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty.
Unconditional security assurances to non-nuclear States against the use of nuclear weapons have become a vital issue for nuclear disarmament and in the context of the purpose of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty NPT.
Until nuclear disarmament is realized,the nuclear-weapon States should give unconditional security assurances to the non-nuclear-weapon States.
Therefore, the provision of unconditional security assurances by the nuclear-weapon States to all non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons has been and still is an important and vital issue.
Calls for the conclusion of aninternational legal instrument or instruments on adequate and unconditional security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States;
Giving the NPT non-nuclear-weapon States parties clear and unconditional security assurances on the basis of a legally binding document could significantly bolster the nuclear non-proliferation regime.
The need for the development of a comprehensive and legally binding agreement on the provision of unambiguous and unconditional security assurances to non-nuclear States is more than urgent.
The United Arab Emirates, which had acceded to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons(NPT), the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty(CTBT) and the Chemical Weapons Convention(CWC) out of a firm belief in the importance of the universality of such treaties, was concerned about the distinction between the nuclear States' commitment to reducing and eliminating their nuclear weapons andthe right of non-nuclear States to unconditional security assurances.
One of the priorities of the current review cycle was for nuclear-weapon States to provide non-nuclear-weapon States with legally binding and unconditional security assurances against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.
The practical steps taken by some nuclear-weapon States, including[no-first use]de-targeting,[unconditional security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States,] the removal of warheads and the relaxation of alert states are all positive signs indicative of the spirit and objectives of the Treaty.
We are of the view that any such international legal instrument orprotocol must clearly stipulate that the five nuclear-weapon States offer unconditional security assurances to all non-nuclear-weapon States.
The Conference recalls United Nations Security Council resolution 984(1995) noting the unilateral statements by each of the nuclear-weapon States,in which they give conditional or unconditional security assurances against the use and the threat of use of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty and the relevant protocols established pursuant to nuclear-weapon-free zones, recognizing that the treaty-based security assurances are available to such zones.
Accordingly, the delegations of Myanmar, Nigeria and the Sudan consider that the time is now opportune to negotiate andconclude a protocol to the Treaty, providing comprehensive and unconditional security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States.
Ironically, not only do some nuclear-weapon States not take steps towards the total elimination of their arsenals, andgive no real and unconditional security assurances to non-nuclear States parties, they also threaten to use their weapons against States parties to the Treaty on the NonProliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
The Review Conference must arrive at practical steps for the systematic andprogressive elimination of nuclear weapons through a legally binding international instrument and provide unconditional security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States.
The Conference also recalled United Nations Security Council resolution 984(1995),noting the unilateral statements by each of the nuclear-weapon States, in which they gave conditional or unconditional security assurances against the use and the threat of use of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, and the relevant protocols established pursuant to nuclear-weapon-free zones, recognizing that treaty-based security assurances are available to such zones.
They underlined the agreement by consensus at the 2010 Review Conference of the NPT on practical steps for systematic and progressive efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons; the implementation of the resolution on the Middle East adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the NPT; andon a legally binding international instrument on unconditional security assurances to Non-Nuclear Weapon States.
Ironically, not only do some nuclear-weapon States not take steps towards the total elimination of their arsenals andgive no real and unconditional security assurances to all non-nuclear-weapon States parties, but they also threaten to use their weapons against States parties to the Treaty.
They underlined the importance to establish subsidiary bodies to the relevant Main Committees of the 2010 Review Conference of the NPT to deliberate on practical steps for systematic and progressive efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons; to consider and recommend proposals on the implementation of the resolution on the Middle East adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the NPT; and to consider andadopt a legally binding international instrument on unconditional security assurances to non nuclear weapon states.
In such circumstances, the nuclear powers, it was thought, might be prepared rapidly to conclude agreements for nuclear disarmament and,at the same time, to offer binding and unconditional security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States until all nuclear weapons had been eliminated.
They underlined the importance to establish subsidiary bodies to the relevant Main Committees of the 2010 Review Conference of the NPT to deliberate on practical steps for systematic and progressive efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons; to consider and recommend proposals on the implementation of the resolution on the Middle East adopted by the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the NPT; and to consider andadopt a legally binding international instrument on unconditional security assurances to non nuclear weapon states.
Pending the achievement of the goal of nuclear disarmament, it is of paramount importance to begin, as a matter of priority,international negotiations to conclude a treaty offering universal and unconditional security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States concerning the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons.
The States parties to the NPT underline the importance for establishing bodies subsidiary to the relevant main committees of the 2010 Review Conference of the NPT to deliberate on practical steps for systematic and progressive efforts to eliminate nuclear weapons, to consider and recommend proposals on the implementation of the resolution on the Middle East adopted at the 1995 NPT Review andExtension Conference and to consider and adopt a legally binding international instrument on unconditional security assurances to non-nuclear-weapon States.
We propose that the Conference on Disarmament establish an ad hoc committee to negotiate on a draft legally binding instrument on the illegality of use of nuclear weapons and providing unconditional security assurances by nuclear-weapon States to non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the NPT as a matter of urgency.
The Islamic Republic of Iran continues to firmly believe that the Conference on Disarmament should also at the earliest possible time establish a working group,to work on a draft legally binding instrument on providing unconditional security assurances by the five nuclear-weapon States to all non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty on a non-discriminatory basis.
These States parties are of the view that all States parties to the Treaty must take effective measures for nuclear disarmament,a ban on fissile materials, conclusion of an international legally binding instrument providing comprehensive and unconditional security assurances for non-nuclear-weapon States, promotion of the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and universal adherence to the Treaty.
The Conference affirms the legitimate interest of non-nuclear-weapon States in receiving security assurances and recalls in this respect Security Council resolution 984(1995), noting the unilateral statements by each of the nuclear-weapon States,in which they give conditional or unconditional security assurances against the use and the threat of use of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty.
The Conference stresses the importance of, and encourages the search for, further measures to[register significant progress on][complement][strengthen] Security Council resolution 984(1995), and recognizes[that it is] the view of[an overwhelming majority of][many]States parties that early conclusion of a multilateral legally binding instrument on unconditional security assurances would effectively ensure the security of non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty until such time as nuclear weapons are eliminated.