It will be interesting to see exactly which customs the Vatican is going to allow from the past rich five centuries of Anglican worship, life and thought.
Quote of the day
 ColumnsPaul Rogers Li Datong Fred Halliday Mary Kaldor Daniele Archibugi The World
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
Who's linking?NavigationOur Authors around the Web
|
 |
wmd: proliferation & verificationWeapons of mass destruction are arguably the most serious threat to international security. For four months between 27 November 2002 and 20 March 2003, UN inspectors were again in Iraq to track down and destroy any arsenal and/or development capacity for weapons of mass destruction. They didn’t succeed in their mission as US war overtook UN work. What does this mean for international efforts to limit proliferation? The Non-proliferation Treaty, Chemical Weapons Convention and Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention - Is it now time to give up on them?
The time is right to get the threat or use of weapons of mass destruction defined as a crime
Although Moldova's elections were largely fair, the country's politics now risk going the way of Ukraine's, warns Louis O'Neill.
The chemical-weapons convention came into force on 29 April 1997. But the political manipulation of its lead organisation makes it hard for Bob Rigg, a former insider, to celebrate.
The international convention on chemical weapons is an example of what international cooperation in the global interest can achieve, says Ron G Manley.
The Iraq Survey Group has just published its interim report on the Saddam regime’s weapons programmes and capabilities. Ron Manley, a chemical weapons expert who oversaw the United Nations inspection operations in Iraq in the early 1990s, assesses it.
In both the United States and Britain, there is passionate contest over the legitimacy and honesty of government attempts to justify war with Iraq – especially claims of the existence of active Iraqi chemical weapons programmes. In an interview of profound insight, the man responsible for chemical weapons destruction operations in Iraq from 1991-94 talks to Anthony Barnett and Caspar Henderson of openDemocracy about the true extent of Iraq’s capacity to produce, store and deliver weapons of mass destruction.
International efforts to limit the proliferation of dangerous weapons have focused recently on questions of verification. But there may be a deeper problem in the way that the spread of destructive power across the world is fuelled by the subjection of science and technology to political ambition.
Achilles Skordas recently argued in openDemocracy that legalising nuclear weapons could help ensure they are never used. Now, a former Naval Commander makes the opposite case: not only must the use of nuclear weapons remain illegal, but the dangerous current crisis offers an opportunity to push for their complete abolition.
What is the best means of defence against attack by nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons? A former member of the US military offers a practical, purposeful guide for his fellow-citizens. The ingredients of survival: calmness, common sense - and canned food.
Recorded use of weapons of mass destruction goes back to the Middle Ages. Whenever the rules of war fell into disregard, the target moved from the enemy’s soldiers to his people. The weapon of choice against a civilian enemy became biological, then chemical and nuclear, as soon as scientific advancement and technological development made them available. This timeline aims to give a broad overview, in time as well as space, of the development of WMDs as a lengthy prelude to recent events in Iraq.
The use of nuclear weapons, the ultimate nightmare of contemporary warfare, has never been properly judged as lawful or not in international law. This ‘gap’ is the starting point for a subtle, provocative and challenging argument: could a right to use nuclear weapons in law be the best defence against their use in practice?
Of all weapons of mass destruction biological weapons are the hardest to detect. Only a miniscule amount of agent is required to have the same deadly large-scale effect as chemical or nuclear weapons. None the less, at this point in time UNMOVIC is looking for them in Iraq. The political and scientific framework of their mission is outlined here.
A former official at the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons describes how an effective international system to reduce the threat from weapons of mass destruction was sabotaged by the US government. Can the resulting ‘Darwinisation’ of international relations be halted?
Before taking action in Iraq, the United States is writing a new chapter in the law of nations, by recognising the need for evidence. But the factual cornerstone for Bush’s policy remains contested.
|
|
|
Recent comments
8 hours 20 min ago
10 hours 46 min ago
14 hours 25 min ago
17 hours 47 min ago
18 hours 21 min ago
19 hours 49 min ago
19 hours 58 min ago
21 hours 42 min ago
22 hours 40 min ago
1 day 2 hours ago