Disarmament or development?

ILPI Publications > Background Papers

Linkages between international development frameworks and nuclear weapons

By Melissa Sabatier

Development and disarmament are inextricably linked. In this background paper, Melissa Sabatier discusses the effect of a nuclear detonation on international development efforts, and the way in which international development frameworks incorporate ideas about disarmament. The article ends with a discussion of how disarmament could be fitted into the post-2015 development agenda.

Background Paper No 7/2014 Published: June 2014

Download full article as PDF | Download as presentation

Introduction

Since the adoption of the NPT Review Conference Outcome Document of 2010, recognizing the ‘catastrophic humanitarian consequences of any use of nuclear weapons’,[1] the global discourse on nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament has become much more open and dynamic. Two multilateral conferences, one in Norway, and another in Mexico, have been exclusively devoted to deepening the international community’s knowledge and understanding of the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. A third conference will be convened in Austria in December 2014.

In addition to adding some much needed dynamism to official discussions between states, the reframing of the nuclear weapons discourse has sparked new research and analyses, engaged a wider range of actors, and produced a new sense of urgency to the international community’s pursuit of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

Owing to their devastating consequences, and the fact that their effects will not be constrained by national boarders, nuclear weapon detonations have ramifications for all sectors of society. In this context, it is important to assess how nuclear disarmament relates to other shared ambitions of the international community. Indeed, one notable effect of the renewed focus on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons is that the issue has come to be seen not only as a security issue, but increasingly also as a development issue. In this paper, the relationship between nuclear disarmament and the international development agenda is discussed, with a view to exploring how the humanitarian discourse on nuclear weapons is relevant for development stakeholders and humanitarian organizations.

The paper is divided into three main sections. In the first, the implications of the production and potential use of nuclear weapons for international development are explored. How might nuclear weapons affect the international development agenda? In the second section, the international development frameworks are scrutinized: How is the issue of peace and security in general, and nuclear disarmament in particular, presented in the international development discourse? Lastly, the paper ends with a brief discussion of whether nuclear disarmament should be part of the Post-2015 development agenda.

Nuclear weapons and development

Both the development and use of nuclear weapons pose challenges to international development. In this section, two main issues are discussed. First, the development and production of nuclear weapons absorbs financial and institutional capacity that could otherwise be invested in a country’s development agenda and socio-economic priorities. For developing countries, this opportunity cost is arguably even more serious than for developed ones. Second, in the event of a nuclear detonation, both the immediate and long-term consequences would undermine sustainable development. Agriculture would be hampered and the global food supply could decrease considerably. In today’s connected global economy, a disaster occurring in a major economic hub would furthermore have repercussions on the global economy. This would imply serious ramifications for low-income countries and the world’s most vulnerable people.

Opportunity costs

The pursuit of nuclear armament is costly. According to the NGO Global Zero, an estimated USD 91 billion was spent on nuclear weapons the single year of 2010.[2]  By way of comparison, it was estimated in 2012 that an additional USD 121 billion (about twice the value of the overseas development assistance (ODA) currently donated by OECD countries per year)[3] would be sufficient to accomplish the millennium development goals (MDGs) related to poverty, education and health by 2015.[4]

The pursuit of nuclear armament, then, diverts resources from other priorities. For developing countries – many of them suffering from pressing poverty and lack of institutional capacity – the opportunity costs are significant.[5] India and Pakistan, for example, both allocate more than one per cent of their entire government spending on their nuclear weapon programmes. This amounted to approximately USD 3,4 billion for India in 2010, and to USD 0,8 billon for Pakistan. The same year, total defence expenditures came to 16,7 per cent of the total government expenditures in India, and 18,7 per cent in Pakistan.[6] In comparison, spending on public health made up 6,8 per cent of India’s government expenditures, and 4,7 per cent of the Pakistani expenditures.[7] Considering their ranks on the Human Development Index (Pakistan ranking 146th and India 136th out of 187 countries and territories), and the range of pressing policy issues they are faced with, it is reasonable to question whether spending on nuclear weapons is a pertinent priority.[8] For example, funds used for developing and maintaining nuclear weapons could be invested in development-inducing measures, such as education, job creation and health care.

The 33 States Parties to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (commonly known as the Tlatelolco Treaty) have acknowledged precisely this opportunity cost, and arrived at the antithetical position to the Indians and Pakistanis. The preamble of the Treaty reads that ‘the existence of nuclear weapons […] would inevitably set off […] a ruinous race in nuclear weapons which would involve the unjustifiable diversion, for warlike purposes, of the limited resources required for economic and social development.’[9]

While nuclear weapons are often portrayed to offer security benefits,[10] they are unfit to deal with poverty, economic inequality, global warming, food insecurity, natural resources shortage, pandemic diseases, civil war and organized crime.[11] Spending public resources on alleviating such problems would likely contribute much more to peace, security and general well being. As they are engaged in long-term efforts for economic development, organizations such as the IMF, the World Bank, DFID, USAID and NORAD should be concerned about the obstacle to economic progress and sustainable development the development of nuclear weapons implies.

The case of a nuclear weapon detonation: humanitarian and developmental impact

Immediate consequences

The immediate effect of a nuclear weapon detonation would be a powerful blast, and the release of heat waves and an electro-magnetic pulse. The ensuing radiation would add to the destruction, extending widely around ground zero.[12] While the 16-kiloton (kt) bomb used on Hiroshima killed 140,000 people and injured 78,000, the 21kt bomb on Nagasaki killed 73,000 people and injured another 75,000 people.[13] Today’s nuclear powers are believed to possess nuclear warheads that are roughly 100kt, or five times the size of the nuclear bomb dropped on Nagasaki.[14]

In the event of a nuclear detonation, then, a large number of people would be killed. Public organs would be incapacitated and infrastructure destroyed. Communications and power supplies would likely be inoperable, making coordination of emergency services and evacuation difficult or impossible.[15] In developing countries, where response capacity is already limited, the effects of a nuclear blast would be even more serious than in industrialized countries.

Should a nuclear attack occur in a low-income country, it is reasonable to expect that the national capacity would be instantly overwhelmed, immediately requiring the prompt activation of international assistance.[16] While international organizations would surely mobilize, they would likely take several days to reach the affected area. Restrictions on fuel might impact their capacity to move around, and to access those in need. An attack on the capital city of a smaller developing country would likely also destroy any secondary or tertiary health infrastructure. This would make it very difficult to provide care for the bomb survivors, especially those requiring specialized medical assistance. It would furthermore impact on the people who were in need of assistance already prior to the attack, and on the government’s capacity to provide essential services such as education, infrastructure, and health care, seeing as much of the state apparatus would have to be rebuilt from scratch. Increased international assistance would probably be needed for a long period of time following the blast.

During relief efforts, national authorities might request the UN to activate its ‘cluster approach’ to coordinate the international assistance.[17] UNOCHA would be asked to help coordinate the implementation of different phases of the response, delegating specialized tasks to relevant UN agencies. WHO would likely be called upon to provide first-hand expertise on burn-injuries and exposure to radiation, as well as to coordinate the activities of the NGOs providing health assistance to those injured by the blast and fragmentation, such as Doctors Without Borders (MSF), Doctors of the World and the ICRC. UNHCR and IOM might be tasked to coordinate resettlement efforts and manage camps in cooperation with other partners, such as, for example, national Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, CARE and the International Rescue Committee (IRC).  WFP and the FAO, together with partners such Action Against Hunger and Oxfam, could work to ensure that those affected have access to food.

Impact on the environment, agriculture and food supply

Radionuclides would likely contaminate farmlands over a large area. Following the 1957 nuclear disaster in Kyshtym in the Soviet Union, hazardous materials were spread out over thousands of square kilometres, much of which was used for agriculture.[18] As developing countries are typically reliant on natural resources and agriculture, contamination of the natural environment could have severe implications for their economies. Even when the land could be cultivated again, products from formerly contaminated areas could be stigmatized in international trade, hampering the economy from recovering.[19]

Nuclear detonations also impact on the climate. The detonation of 100 Hiroshima-size nuclear warheads (15kt) in a regional nuclear exchange – say between India and Pakistan – have been predicted to result in a massive black carbon cloud expanding globally, blocking sunlight from the earth’s surface. The ensuing frosts and drought would shorten growing seasons across the globe.[20]

The climatic disturbances resulting from a nuclear war would likely exert significant pressure on global food supplies, putting millions of people at risk of famine. Researchers have calculated that the injection of 5 Tg (5 million tons) black carbon into the upper troposphere caused by the detonation of 100 15kt nuclear warheads could result in the rice production of Mainland China to drop by 21 per cent for a four year period, and 10 per cent for the next six years.[21] The same nuclear war could cause the corn production of the US Midwest to decline by 10 to 40 per cent over a ten-year period.[22] As China is the world’s largest rice producer, and the United States the world’s top producer and exporter of corn, the effects of such a disruption to the global food supply would have serious global effects.

A decline in the global food supply would pose a threat to the world’s poorest, especially those living in countries dependent on food imports. The significant progress made on the first MDG – eradicating extreme poverty and hunger[23] – could thus be undermined. According to a study from 2011, the estimated rise in food prices associated with the scenario described above could cause an additional 40 million people to become malnourished per year. Over a ten-year period, a total of 215 million people could become threatened by famine.[24] Furthermore, because of the limited safety nets and public welfare programmes in many developing states, people living in such countries would be more vulnerable to additional hazards, such as disease, extreme weather and economic shocks. Typical development indicators, such as child mortality and maternal health would likely also be impacted.[25]

Lower-income countries would likely be affected more adversely by an economic disaster than higher-income countries, as their weaker institutional capacity and limited access to tools to mitigate their effects (such as access to insurance and credit) make them more vulnerable to economic shocks. This could reverse years of hard won economic and developmental progress.[26]

As a result, developing countries are likely to require international assistance for a long period of time. First, the effects of the nuclear detonation would likely have left tens of thousands of people with problematic health conditions and various forms of disabilities. Additional health and rehabilitation services for disabled people would be needed for decades, and require aid from specialized organizations such as Handicap International and the ICRC. Second, communities whose sources of income have been destroyed or become inaccessible due to radioactive contamination would find themselves short on options to sustain their livelihood. To support national and community-based organizations to implement programmes aimed to promote local economic development opportunities, national authorities would have the option of calling on UN agencies such as the UN Development Programme (UNDP), the World Bank, UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) and the International Labour Organization (ILO), as well as NGOs such as Oxfam, ActionAid and Norwegian People’s Aid. This might include building capacities for entrepreneurship, providing new skills and enhancing the general economic and social conditions of the region. UNICEF and partners such as Save the Children would ensure that children are not deprived of education. In terms of achieving their long-term goals, a nuclear weapon detonation would almost certainly entail major setbacks for all of these organizations.

In addition, the estimated effects of nuclear detonations on the environment and global food supply would pose further challenges to a wide range of already resource-strained governments and NGOs. In the event that a regional nuclear war disturbs the supply of essential food items, low-income countries in particular would be likely to face shortages. Organizations such as the World Food Programme (WFP), the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and international partners such as Action Against Hunger, CARE and others, might be called on to address the immediate needs for essential humanitarian relief, and to find longer term solutions to sustain food provision. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR), the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and organizations such as the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP), Human Right Watch, Amnesty International, World Wildlife Fund (WWF), Greenpeace and others would also face setbacks to their programmatic goals of ensuring human rights and environmental standards. Considering their goals and range of work, both UN agencies and NGOs with a stake in humanitarian, environmental and developmental issues ought to recognize the catastrophic consequences of any use of nuclear weapons, and include advocacy for global nuclear disarmament in their work.

Nuclear disarmament in international development frameworks 

Peace and security as a precondition for development – and vice versa

The recognition of the symbiotic relationship between peace, development, and human rights has informed the humanitarian development discourse for a long time, and is acknowledged in all the authoritative documents on the field.

The Charter of the United Nations (UN) was adopted in 1945, with a view to ‘save succeeding generations from the scourge of war’,[27] and to promote ‘higher standards of living, full employment, and conditions of economic and social progress and development.’[28] The latter were acknowledged as important components in creating the conditions for ‘stability and well-being necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations’.[29] The Charter of the United Nations, then, strongly suggests that socio-economic development is an important condition for people’s enjoyment of human rights and the promotion of peace and security.

Adopted half a century after the UN Charter, the Millennium Declaration of 2000 was a key instrument in setting the international development agenda for the 21st century. Like the UN Charter, the Millennium Declaration identifies development, human rights, and disarmament as key objectives in the pursuit of upholding human dignity, and for ensuring equality, peace and security.[30] Other important documents in the field of humanitarian development offer similar conclusions: For example, the 1986 Declaration on the Rights to Development and the UN Secretary General’s report from 2005 both point to the close relationship between disarmament and development identified in the Charter.[31] The Secretary General’s report from 2005 even went a step further, stressing that peace and development are not only independently imperative, but mutually reinforcing: ‘[W]e will not enjoy development without security, we will not enjoy security without development.’[32]

The Millennium Declaration from 2000 identifies freedom as one of the fundamental values ‘essential to international relations in the twenty-first century’.[33] According to the Declaration and its Signatories, ‘men and women have the right to live their lives and raise their children in dignity, free from hunger and fear’. Evidently, the concept of freedom is interpreted broadly, consisting of both ‘freedom from hunger’ (to be understood as a sub category of the more inclusive concept of ‘freedom from want’) and ‘freedom from fear’.  The latter denotes a situation wherein ‘people’s lives and livelihoods are not ripped apart by violence and war’, and where people enjoy the right to security.[34] Alluding to Johan Galtung’s distinction between personal (or direct) violence and structural violence,[35] the 2005 Report notes that, in this context, ‘fear’ goes beyond the fear arising from direct threats such as international war and conflict, civil violence, organized crime, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. As their effects could be equally catastrophic, ‘freedom from fear’ must also include freedom from poverty, disease and environmental degradation.[36]

The United Nations has long seen development and disarmament as two of the international community’s most important tools for building a world free from want and fear.[37] In addition to alleviating socio-economic needs, development increases the capacity of states to respond to contingencies that could lead to war, instability, terrorism and organized crime.[38] Disarmament, on its side, is often a clear precondition for the freedom from fear, but could also contribute to freedom from want, in the event that resources previously allocated to the military industry is shifted towards alleviating socio-economic needs.

Nuclear disarmament and the international development discourse

Since the establishment of the United Nations, nuclear weapons have been recognized as one of the main threats to international peace and security.[39] Already in 1946, the General Assembly adopted a resolution that called for ‘the elimination from national armaments of atomic weapons and of all other major weapons adaptable to mass destruction’.[40]

The implications of nuclear detonations on international development have also been recognized. In a similar vein to the 1946 Resolution, the Millennium Declaration urges states ‘to strive for the elimination of weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons’.[41] While the Declaration does not go far in spelling out the link between weapons of mass destruction and development (rather taking it as a given), a 1987 UN report on sustainable development entitled ‘Our Common Future’, explicitly warns that the ‘possibility of nuclear war’ is among the gravest dangers facing the environment, ‘making other threats […] pale into insignificance’.[42] The 2005 Report by the Secretary General also acknowledges the effects of nuclear weapons on development, postulating that ‘development would be at best hindered and at worst reversed in a world riven by violent conflict or mesmerized by the fear of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction’.[43] Due to their catastrophic humanitarian consequences – both short- and long-term – nuclear weapon detonations have the capacity to reverse years of progress made in reaching the MDGs launched by the Millennium Declaration.

Could nuclear disarmament be part of the post-2015 development agenda?

Since 2000, the international development agenda has been guided by eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), with a set target date of 2015.[44] Significant progress has been made on several of the Goals. For example, the goal of halving poverty has already been fulfilled, and access to primary education has improved immensely. Yet, many of the world’s most vulnerable people remain excluded from development processes, and many issues, such as threats to the global climate, appear more serious than ever before.[45] The process of setting goals for the period following 2015 was begun in 2011, when the UN Secretary General tasked the UN System Task Team to coordinate the preparations for a Post-2015 UN Development Agenda.

As an overarching goal, the Task Team proposes to pursue sustainable development through ‘the promotion of an economically, socially and environmentally sustainable future for our planet and for present and future generations’.[46] Achieving peace and security is also set to be a top priority for Post-2015,[47] no doubt owing to the growing recognition of the interconnectedness of peace and development.[48]

In addition to emphasizing the traditional peace and security topics of conflict prevention and access to justice, the Post-2015 development agenda seeks to place the threats posed by food shortage, climate change, lack of jobs and epidemics in a peace and security perspective – as do the Millennium Declaration and other authoritative documents on development.[49] Nuclear weapons and disarmament, however, have been all but absent from the Post-2015 discussions. Considering the catastrophic humanitarian and developmental consequences the use of nuclear weapons would imply, this is an obvious flaw. States, international organizations, civil society, and other development stakeholders should reaffirm the importance of nuclear disarmament in the 21st century post-2015: There are still about 17,000 nuclear warheads in the world.[50] As long as nuclear weapons exist and continue to be proliferated, the possibility of their use remains. Development frameworks should take into account nuclear weapons as a potential threat to the implementation of the global development agenda, and call for their elimination.

Owing to their dependence on natural resources, lower purchasing power and lack of institutional capacity, developing countries are especially vulnerable to the effects of nuclear war. The detonation would not have to take place on the territory of a developing state for its impact to threaten (international) development: Since the effects of a nuclear detonation ‘cannot be constrained in either space or time’,[51] third-party states are bound to be affected. Curbing the development and production of nuclear weapons would furthermore free up significant resources, which could then be allocated to more benign purposes.

Only the total elimination of nuclear weapons would ensure that these weapons do not set back efforts to promote sustainable development. Post-2015 constitutes an opportunity to reaffirm the interdependent relationship between development and disarmament. As put in the UN High-Level Panel on the Post-2015 Development Agenda: ‘Without peace, there can be no development. Without development, there can be no enduring peace.’[52] The old adage that ‘an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure’ is particularly relevant for nuclear weapons.


Endnotes

[1]       2010 Review Conference of the Parties to the NPT, ‘Final Document: Volume I’, New York, p. 19.

[2]       Bruce G. Blair and Matthew A. Brown, ‘World spending on nuclear weapons surpasses $1 trillion per decade,’ Global Zero Technical Report, Nuclear Weapons Cost Study, June 2011. According to the report’s definition of ‘cost’,  ‘core costs’ include research, development, procurement, testing, operating, maintaining and upgrading the nuclear arsenal’s key nuclear command-control-communications and early warning infrastructure.

[3]       In 2012, net ODA was USD 127 billion. See OECD, ‘Aid to poor countries slips further as governments tighten budgets’, http://www.oecd.org/newsroom/aidtopoorcountriesslipsfurtherasgovernmentstightenbudgets.htmm (accessed 21.05.2014).

[4]       OECD, ‘Financing the MDGs: How much? Who Pays?’ Issue Paper, 2012, http://www.oecd.org/dev/partnerships-networks/49893979.pdf (accessed 21.05.2014).

[5]       Ramesh Thakur and John Page, ‘Nuclear Weapons: The Opportunity Costs’, ISN, Center for Security Studies, February 2014 http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail/?lng=en&id=176683 (accessed 26.03.2014).

[6]       Data on military expenditures available at World Bank Online, http://data.worldbank.org (accessed 22.03.2014).

[7]       Data on health expenditures available at World Bank Data http://data.worldbank.org (accessed 22.03.2014).

[8]       See India’s and Pakistan’s HDI profile at: http://hdr.undp.org/fr/countries (accessed 22.03.2014).

[9]       Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean, adopted 14 February 1967, in force 22 April 1968.

[10]      See for example ‘Nuclear Necessity and Other Myths’ by Ward Wilson, International Law and Policy Institute (ILPI), Policy Paper 7, February 2014, http://nwp.ilpi.org/?p=2280 (accessed 25.03.2014).

[11]      See for example: UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, ‘The World is Over-Armed and Peace is Under-Funded’, 30 August 2012, http://www.un.org/disarmament/update/20120830/ (accessed 25.03.2014); World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim, ‘Within Our Grasp: A world Free of Poverty’, speech delivered at Georgetown University on 2 April 2013, http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/speech/2013/04/02/world-bank-group-president-jim-yong-kims-speech-at-georgetown-university (accessed 25.03.2014).

[12]      For more information on the consequences of a nuclear detonation, see for example Stein-Ivar Lothe Eide, Torbjørn Graff Hugo and Christian Holmboe Ruge, ‘Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons’, Conference Report no. 1, July 2013, http://nwp.ilpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/HINW-REPORT-by-ILPI-2013_WEB.pdf (accessed 21.05.2014); Article 36, ‘Humanitarian Consequences’, 2013; Reaching Critical Will, ‘Unspeakable suffering – the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons’, 2013.

[13]      Masao Tomonaga, ‘If another 16kt atomic bomb detonates on a modern city; a study based on Hiroshima/ Nagasaki cases’, presentation delivered at the Second Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, Nayarit, Mexico, Feb 13-14, 2014, http://www.sre.gob.mx/en/images/stories/cih/nagasakiatomicbombhospital.pdf (accessed 25.03.2014).

[14]      Article 36, ‘Humanitarian Consequences’, February 2013; Toon, O.B., Turco, R.P., Robock, A., Bardeen, C., Oman, L., and Stenchikov, G.L.: ‘Atmospheric effects and societal consequences of regional scale nuclear conflicts and acts of individual nuclear terrorism’, Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 7, 1973–2002, 2007.

[15]      Article 36, ‘Humanitarian Consequences’, February 2013.

[16]      UNIDIR, ‘Preliminary findings of the UNIDIR study on challenges to UN emergency preparedness, humanitarian coordination and response in the event of nuclear weapon detonation events’, presented by UNIDIR at the Second Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, Nayarit, Mexico, 13 February 2014. Shared by John Borrie (UNIDIR) by email on the 25th March 2014.

[17]      For more details on the UN Cluster Approach see for example, http://www.unocha.org/what-we-do/coordination-tools/cluster-coordination or http://www.who.int/hac/techguidance/tools/manuals/who_field_handbook/annex_7/en/

[18]      Thomas Rabi, ‘The nuclear disaster of Kyshtym 1957 and the politics of the Cold War’, Environment and Society Portal, 2012, http://www.environmentandsociety.org/arcadia/nuclear-disaster-kyshtym-1957-and-politics-cold-war (accessed 20.05.2014).

[19]      UNDP, ‘Recovery for Chernobyl & other Nuclear Emergencies: Experiences and Lessons Learnt’, Knowledge Product, April 2013.

[20]      Lili Xia and Alan Robock, ‘Impacts of a nuclear war in South Asia on rice production in Mainland China’. Climatic Change, 116, 2013, pp. 357–372. Mills, M.J., Toon O.B., Lee-Taylor J., and Robock A. ‘Multidecadal global cooling and unprecedented ozone loss following a regional nuclear conflict’, Earth’s Future, 2, 2014.

[21]      Xia and Robock, ‘Impacts of a nuclear war in South Asia on rice production in Mainland China’ Climatic Change 116, 2013, pp. 357–72.

[22]      Özdoğan M., Robock A., and Kucharik C.J., ‘Impacts of a nuclear war in South Asia on soybean and maize production in the Midwest United States’, Climatic Change, January 2013, Volume 116, Issue 2, pp. 373–87.

[23]      UN, ‘Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger’, 2013, http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/poverty.shtml (accessed 21.05.2014).

[24]      Ira Helfand, ‘Nuclear Famine: A billion people at risk. Global Impacts of Limited Nuclear War on Agriculture, Food Supplies, and Human Nutrition’, http://www.ippnw.org/pdf/nuclear-famine-ippnw-0412.pdf (accessed 1.04.2014); P. Webb et all, ‘Projected Impacts of a Regional Nuclear Conflict on Global Food Supply, Consumption and Undernutrition’, 2011, http://ippnw.org/pdf/projected-impacts-webb.pdf (accessed 1.04.2014).

[25]      Irin News, ‘Africa: Poverty to rise in the wake of recent terror attacks – World Bank’, 1 October 2011, http://www.irinnews.org/fr/report/27361/africa-poverty-to-rise-in-the-wake-of-recent-terror-attacks-world-bank (accessed 1.04.2014).

[26]      World Bank, World Development Report 2014, Risk and Opportunity: Managing Risk for Development, 2014, Chapter 8.

[27]      UN, Charter of the United Nations, adopted 26 June 1945, in force 24 October 1945, Preamble

[28]      UN, Charter of the United Nations, adopted 26 June 1945, in force 24 October 1945, Article 55(1).

[29]      UN, Charter of the United Nations, adopted 26 June 1945, in force 24 October 1945, Article 55.

[30]      UN, ‘United Nations Millennium Declaration’, 55/2, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly at the 8th plenary meeting on 8 September 2000.

[31]      UN, Declaration on the Right to Development, A/RES/41/128 adopted by the UN General Assembly at the 97th plenary meeting on 4 December 1986, Article 7.

[32]      UN, ‘In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all’, Report of the Secretary General, Fifty-ninth session, Agenda items 45 and 55, 31 March 2005.

[33]      UN, ‘United Nations Millennium Declaration’, op.cit.

[34]      UN, ‘In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all’, Report of the Secretary General, Fifty-ninth session, Agenda items 45 and 55, 31 March 2005.

[35]      Johan Galtung, ‘Violence, Peace, and Peace Research’, Journal of Peace Research 6 (3), 1969.

[36]      UN, ‘In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all’, Report of the Secretary General, Fifty-ninth session, Agenda items 45 and 55, 31 March 2005.

[37]      UN, “In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all’, Report of the Secretary General, Fifty-ninth session, Agenda items 45 and 55, 31 March 2005.

[38]      UN, ‘A more secure world: Our shared responsibility’, Report of the Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, 2004.

[39]      UN, ‘A more secure world: Our shared responsibility’, Report of the Secretary-General’s High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, 2004; UN, ‘The relationship between disarmament and development in the current international context’, Disarmament Study Series 31, 2004.

[40]      UNODA, ‘Nuclear Weapons’, http://www.un.org/disarmament/WMD/Nuclear/ (accessed 21.05.2014).

[41]      UN, ‘United Nations Millennium Declaration’, 55/2, Resolution adopted by the General Assembly at the 8th plenary meeting on 8 September 2000.

[42]      UN, ‘Our Common Future’, A/42/427, Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, para 18.

[43]      UN, ‘In larger freedom: towards development, security and human rights for all’, Report of the Secretary General, Fifty-ninth session, Agenda items 45 and 55, 31 March 2005.

[44]      See http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/.

[45]      UN, ‘Realizing the Future We Want for All’, Report to the Secretary General, UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda, June 2012.

[46]      UN, ‘The Future We Want’, Outcome document adopted at Rio+20, 2012; See also, UN, ‘Realizing the Future We Want for All’, Report to the Secretary General, UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda, June 2012 and UN, ‘A New Global Partnership: Eradicate poverty and transform economies through sustainable development’, The Report of the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, 2013.

[47]      UN, ‘Realizing the Future We Want for All’, Report to the Secretary General, UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda, June 2012.

[48]      UN, ‘A New Global Partnership: Eradicate poverty and transform economies through sustainable development’, The Report of the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, 2013.

[49]      UN, ‘Realizing the Future We Want for All’, Report to the Secretary General, UN System Task Team on the Post-2015 UN Development Agenda, June 2012; UN, ‘A New Global Partnership: Eradicate poverty and transform economies through sustainable development’, The Report of the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, 2013.

[50]      SIPRI, ‘World Nuclear Forces’, 2013, http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2013/06 (accessed 21.05.2014).

[51]      ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion, 8 July 1996, para. 35

[52]      UN, ‘A New Global Partnership: Eradicate poverty and transform economies through sustainable development’, The Report of the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, 2013.