sign in sign up
<<
Home , Ernest Titterton, Marcel Junod, Nuclear weapons debate

iinternationalnternational hhumanitarianumanitarian llawaw magazine IssueIssue 2, 2 2011

nnuclearuclear wweaponseapons: a uniqueunique threatthreat ttoo humanityhumanit y Inside this issue Editorial

status of the world’s nuclear arsenal This edition of our international humanitarian law magazine – by Tim Wright, Australian director, focuses on the most dangerous weapons of all: nuclear International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear weapons. The disastrous effects of nuclear weapons were made Weapons (ICAN) – page 3 violently clear during the fi nal stages of the Second World , the legal framework regulating when two atomic bombs were deployed against the cities of nuclear weapons – by John Carlson, and . Since that time there has been an Visiting Fellow at the Lowy Institute, and alarming proliferation of these weapons and today they remain a counsellor to the Washington-based Nuclear uniquely destructive threat to all of humanity and the environment. Threat Initiative (NTI) on non-proliferation, The Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement has been at the disarmament and verifi cation issues centre of the nuclear weapons debate from the very outset. From – page 4 1945 to 2011, the Movement has consistently voiced its deep nuclear war - the environmental concerns about these weapons of mass destruction and the impacts – by Ira Helfand, emergency need for the prohibition of their use. Red Cross’ role in developing physician and past president of Physicians IHL led to the creation of the Additional Protocols to the for Social Responsibility – page 7 Conventions in 1977. Key provisions of the Additional Protocols reaffi rm and strengthen the IHL principles of distinction between nuclear weapons: a threat to combatants and civilians, and that no unnecessary suffering survival and health – by Tilman Ruff, is caused in times of war. It would be impossible to imagine Associate Professor in the Nossal Institute for Global Health, circumstances in which nuclear weapons would abide by these and Australian Red Cross International principles. Medical Advisor – page 10 This year, Australian Red Cross is launching a campaign to raise nuclear weapons: use and progress awareness of the unacceptable humanitarian consequences of towards eradication – page 12 nuclear weapons and the imperative necessity of the prohibition of their use. Part of our campaign includes this magazine, blinded by the bomb: the story of which has articles detailing the humanitarian and environmental Yami Lester – page 14 consequences of nuclear weapons, the current legal framework the ICRC’s approach – by Peter Herby, surrounding their use, a personal account of an individual whose Head of the Arms Unit in the Legal Division life was forever changed by their destructive effects, and Red of the International Committee of the Red Cross’ role to date in raising awareness around the issue. I Cross – page 16 would like to sincerely thank all the contributors for their time and expertise and also note our appreciation to Mallesons for their the nuclear weapons case – by support of this magazine. Reverend Professor Michael Tate AO, former Federal Minister for Justice and Despite its overwhelming humanitarian appeal, convincing States Ambassador to the Netherlands – page 18 to prohibit nuclear weapons will not be without its challenges. In no way, however, should this dissuade us in our efforts. In an raising awareness about the era where the number of nuclear powers is growing, it is time for humanitarian consequences of the international community to ensure that nuclear weapons are nuclear weapons – by Petra Ball, made a thing of the past rather than a threat to our future. International Humanitarian Law Offi cer for Red Cross in South Australia and Chris Kwong, co-opted member of the National Youth Advisory Committee – page 20

Cover Image: Robert Tickner The Prefectural Industrial Promotion Hall, better Chief Executive Offi cer know today as Gembaku Australian Red Cross Domu or Atomic Bomb Dome, in Hiroshima was one of the few buildings left standing within a two kilometre radius when the atomic bomb was dropped on the city in Disclaimer: The articles contained within represent the views of the August 1945. UN Photo. authors and not necessarily those of Australian Red Cross. status offth the world’s nuclear arsenal

Tim Wright is the The military doctrines for using The explosives Australian director of the nuclear weapons differ from one International Campaign country to another. China, for used in all to Abolish Nuclear example, has said that it would throughout human Weapons (ICAN). only be prepared to use its nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear history amount There are still at least 20,000 nuclear attack and never as a preventative weapons in the world. They have a measure, while others have to around combined destructive force equivalent expressed a willingness to use 10 Mt. The largest to approximately 150,000 Hiroshima nuclear weapons pre-emptively bombs. Around 3000 of them are against a variety of threats, including maintained on launch-ready alert at chemical, biological and conventional. ever detonated, all times. A global norm has developed against Nine countries possess nuclear the testing of nuclear weapons. The in Russia on weapons. In addition, fi ve European North Korean tests in 2006 and 2009 30 October 1961, nations host nuclear weapons on their are the only critical nuclear tests to territory as part of a NATO nuclear- have taken place in the last decade. was 50 Mt in size. sharing arrangement. More than 20 However, the continues other countries, including Australia, to test nuclear weapons ‘sub- Ukraine – while a number of others have maintain military doctrines that rely on critically’, that is, no chain reaction abandoned programs to develop them. nuclear weapons. occurs. The last such test took place More than 140 nations have called for a treaty to outlaw and eliminate all nuclear Unlike other weapons, they derive in March 2011. weapons in a verifi able, irreversible and their explosive force from nuclear Since the end of the , four time-bound manner. fi ssion (the splitting of a large atom countries have done away with their into smaller ones) or nuclear weapons – South Africa, (the fusing of two or more lighter Belarus, Kazakhstan and the atoms into a large atom). The core ingredient of a nuclear bomb Global nuclear forces in 2011 is either highly enriched or No. of . The former is a naturally Country warheads occurring element, while the latter United States 8500 is a by-product of generation. A basic Russia 11,000 design uses around 15kg of uranium Britain 225 or 5kg of plutonium and has an explosive yield 20 times that of the France 300 Hiroshima bomb. China 240 Nuclear weapons can be launched India 80-110 from the ground, air or sea. Their Top: The United States’ B2 can carry up Pakistan 90-110 delivery vehicles are typically to 16 nuclear bombs. US Air Force Photo. (intercontinental) ballistic missiles, Israel 80 Above: was the name given to the nuclear heavy or submarines. There North Korea <10 weapon dropped on Hiroshima. Here it is in a bomb are more than 110 bases with nuclear pit on Tinian Island before being loaded into Enola Total >20,520 weapons worldwide. Gay’s bomb bay. Photo courtesy US Government.

IHL magazine 3 the legal framework regulating nuclear weapons

By John Carlson – Although the imperative to eliminate monopoly on nuclear weapons and Visiting Fellow at nuclear weapons was recognised share nuclear secrets with the Soviet the Lowy Institute, at the very outset of the nuclear Union, in exchange for: and counsellor to age, currently there is no general • an agreement against developing the Washington- prohibition against the possession further nuclear weapons; or use of nuclear weapons. The based Nuclear Threat fi rst resolution of the United Nations • establishment of an inspection Initiative (NTI) on General Assembly – Resolution 1 system; and non-proliferation, of 24 January 1946 – established • punishment for violations, not disarmament and the United Nations Atomic Energy subject to Security Council veto. verifi cation issues. Commission to address ‘the problems The responded that the raised by the discovery of atomic United States should eliminate its energy’. The Commission was to nuclear weapons fi rst, before controls United Nations Secretary-General Ban make proposals for, inter alia, ‘the and inspections could be considered. Ki-moon urges nations to make nuclear elimination from national armaments The United States, however, insisted disarmament targets a reality during the of atomic weapons’. 2010 review conference of the on retaining nuclear weapons until Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In the Commission the United States satisfi ed with the effectiveness UN Photo. presented proposals to abandon its of international control. So this fi rst attempt to eliminate nuclear International Atomic Energy Agency • 1995 Bangkok Treaty weapons failed, and relations safeguards on all their nuclear (South East Asia); between the United States and the material to verify observance of the • 1996 Pelindaba Treaty (Africa); and Soviet Union degenerated into the commitment against the further Cold War and a . proliferation of nuclear weapons. • 2006 Semipalatinsk Treaty (Central Asia). Following the Soviet Union’s fi rst In 2008 the UN Secretary-General nuclear test in 1949, attention issued a Five-Point Proposal for In addition, in 1992 Mongolia declared turned to how to stop the further urging all NPT itself a single-State nuclear-weapon- proliferation of nuclear weapons. Parties to fulfi ll their NPT obligation free zone. These efforts eventually led to the to undertake negotiations on Nuclear arms negotiation of the Nuclear Non- effective measures leading to Treaty (NPT), which was disarmament. He noted they could control treaties pursue this goal by agreement on opened for signature in 1968. By Currently there are three bilateral that time the number of nuclear- a framework of separate, mutually reinforcing instruments, or they agreements between the US and weapon States had grown to fi ve – Russia: United States, Soviet Union, United could consider negotiating a nuclear Kingdom, France and China. weapons convention, for which the • 1974 Threshold Test Ban Treaty – model convention offered “a good prohibiting underground tests Nuclear point of departure”. above 150 kilotons; Non-Proliferation In addition to the NPT, restrictions on • 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear specifi c aspects of nuclear weapons Forces (INF) Treaty – eliminating Treaty are established by the following missiles with a range of 500 to The NPT prohibits the acquisition treaties. 5500 kilometres; and of nuclear weapons by non- Treaties on • 2010 New START (Strategic nuclear-weapon States who are Arms Reduction Treaty) – limiting party to the Treaty, but recognises nuclear-weapon- the number of strategic nuclear the status of those defi ned by the free zones and warheads deployed by each side Treaty as nuclear-weapon States to 1550. (the fi ve mentioned above), and geographical has no application to states not regions Multilateral party to the Treaty. This includes India, Israel, Pakistan – and, There are eight such treaties, nuclear test-ban depending on the validity of its prohibiting acquisition, possession, treaties stationing, testing and use of nuclear withdrawal from the NPT, North The 1963 Partial Test Ban Treaty weapons in the areas concerned: Korea. All parties to the Treaty prohibits all nuclear test detonations undertake ‘to pursue negotiations • 1959 Antarctic Treaty; except underground. The in good faith on effective measures • 1967 Outer Space Treaty; Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban relating to cessation of the nuclear Treaty (CTBT) will prohibit test • 1967 Treaty of Tlatelolco arms race at an early date and to detonations in all environments. (Latin America); nuclear disarmament’, but specifi c The CTBT opened for signature in commitments are left to further • 1971 Seabed Arms Control Treaty; 1996 but is still awaiting ratifi cation negotiation. The non-nuclear- • 1985 Raratonga Treaty by specifi ed States before it can enter weapon States undertake to accept (South Pacifi c); into force.

IHL magazine 5 International use of technology where its scope of use, or threat of use, of nuclear of destruction cannot be limited. weapons. The Court concluded humanitarian law Therefore, a war in its totality that that ‘the use of nuclear weapons (IHL) does not distinguish between would generally be contrary to the civilian and military targets would rules of international law … and in In the absence of any general be in violation of IHL. Protocol I also particular the principles and rules of prohibition of nuclear weapons, prohibits means of warfare that “cause humanitarian law … However … the international humanitarian law (set widespread, long-term, and severe Court cannot conclude defi nitively out in the , damage to the natural environment”. whether the threat or use of nuclear Protocols and customary international It is diffi cult to see how the use of weapons would be lawful or unlawful law) is of fundamental importance nuclear weapons – the ultimate in an extreme circumstance of self- in moderating states’ behaviour weapon of mass destruction – defence, in which the very survival of a regarding nuclear weapons. The basic could ever be consistent with these State would be at stake.’ principles relating to war include: principles. Relevant considerations Proposed • distinction – the parties must include: distinguish between combatants • the destructive power of even nuclear weapons and civilians; “small” nuclear weapons; convention • military necessity – an action must • the deliberate targeting of In 1997 a group of experts drafted a be aimed at a military objective; cities (which are described as model nuclear weapons convention and “countervalue” targets); providing for the prohibition and elimination of nuclear weapons. • proportionality – harm caused to • the inevitable spread of radioactive Costa Rica submitted this to the UN civilians must be proportional contamination; and Secretary-General as a discussion and not excessive in relation to the • the prospect of nuclear draft. The International Campaign to anticipated military advantage. winter – smoke and dust in the Abolish Nuclear Weapons launched Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions upper atmosphere causing severely an updated version in 2007, which the prohibits indiscriminate attacks cold weather over an extended UN Secretary-General circulated to all on civilian populations, including period, leading to the death of UN members. many millions, even human extinction. The 2009 Report by the Australia/ International Commission 1996 Advisory on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament outlined the stages Opinion of the required in an overall disarmament International Court strategy – e.g. the CTBT, fi ssile of Justice material cut-off (which prevents production of fi ssile material for Considerations such as those nuclear weapons in the future), further outlined above led the UN General strengthening non-proliferation, further Assembly to seek an advisory opinion arms reduction agreements, and the on the following question: “Is the inclusion of all nuclear-armed states. threat or use of nuclear weapons The Commission recommended in any circumstances permitted further development of the model under international law?” The Court nuclear weapons convention to inform found ‘[t]here is in neither customary and guide multilateral disarmament nor conventional international law negotiations as they gain momentum, any comprehensive and universal and urged governments to support prohibition of the threat or use of this development with appropriate The memorial marking the site of the fi rst nuclear weapons as such.’ However, resources. atomic test, carried out in the desert near it affi rmed that international Alamogordo, New Mexico, on July 16, 1945. humanitarian law applies in cases nuclear war: theenvironmental impacts

By Ira Helfand – We have known for many years that a even more catastrophic. The fi res would emergency physician major nuclear war between the nuclear propel some 5 million metric tons of and past president of super powers would have catastrophic soot into the upper atmosphere. Within Physicians for Social effects far beyond their own borders. a matter of days temperatures across Recent studies suggest that, because the planet would fall an average of Responsibility. of the impact on climate, a much more 1.250 C. In the interior regions of North limited nuclear war would also be a America and Eurasia the decline would disaster on a global scale. be much greater. In addition there would be a major decline in precipitation Alan Robock and Brian Toon and their throughout the world. These effects colleagues have examined the impact would persist for nearly a decade. on global temperature and precipitation of a limited regional nuclear war in At this time there are still no detailed In a matter of days after a nuclear strike, South Asia. Their scenario assumes estimates of the impact such climate temperatures across the planet would fall the use of about 100 Hiroshima sized changes would have on global food an average of 8o C. In the interior regions bombs on major cities. The direct production, but studies, coordinated of North America and Eurasia they would fall 20o C to 30o C. Agriculture would effects of the blast and fi restorm by the International Physicians for the stop, ecosystems collapse, and many, would be devastating: some 20 million Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), many species, would become extinct. people dead in a matter of days. But are currently underway. Historical IFRC Photo. the impact on global climate would be data from past natural cooling events

IHL magazine 7 Basic staples like corn and rice would be in short supply following even a limited nuclear strike. IFRC Photo. suggest that the impact would be very Middle East and East Asia who do Preliminary signifi cant. The eruption of the Tamboro not experience signifi cant malnutrition studies suggest volcano in Indonesia in 1815 dropped today but who are very dependent on temperatures across the planet an food imports. These people would also that food average of 0.70 C the following be at risk if abrupt climate changes year, producing what was known in disrupted agricultural production and production North America as the “year without the international trade in food. a summer”. Killing frosts occurred in Given these conditions even a very would fall much June, July and August with widespread small decline in agricultural output could more than destruction of crops. The price of have devastating effects. At the time of food rose dramatically and there was the Great Bengal Famine in 1943, food fi ve percent widespread hunger. The situation was production fell by only fi ve percent from much more severe in the more densely the average of the fi ve preceding years, following a populated Old World, with famine but that was enough to cause panic, reported in many countries in Europe as hoarding, and a fi ve-fold increase in limited nuclear well as in Egypt and India. food prices. As a result, 3 million people war in South The situation following a limited nuclear starved to death. war would be much more severe, both Preliminary studies suggest that food Asia. ... well because the climate disruption would production would fall much more than be greater and because the world fi ve percent following a limited nuclear over one billion is especially ill prepared to deal with war in South Asia. As a result, we would people would food shortages at this time. There are expect to see hoarding on a global already over one billion people in the scale as food producing countries be at risk of world who suffer from protein calorie suspended exports to meet domestic malnutrition, and several million of them, needs. Prices of basic staples like corn starvation. mainly children, die from starvation each and rice would rise steeply making year. Further, world food reserves are food inaccessible to hundreds of at historic lows totaling less than 10 millions of the world’s poorest, already weeks of consumption. Finally there malnourished precisely because they are several hundred million people cannot afford food at today’s prices. living in countries in North Africa, the Adding in the 300 million people living in In a matter of days after a nuclear strike, temperatures across the planet would fall an average of 8o C. ... Agriculture would stop, ecosystems collapse, and many, many species would become extinct.

countries dependent on imported food networks, the public health system The international community must and well over one billion people would – would be destroyed and most of confront this danger directly. The be at risk of starvation. the rest of the population would die recent New Strategic Arms Reduction in the following months. A United Treaty between the United States These fi ndings have enormous States counter attack on Russia would implications for nuclear weapons and Russia was a welcome step to policy. They suggest that the arsenals produce the same level of destruction reduce the size of the world’s nuclear of even “small” nuclear powers pose there. arsenals, but it was a very modest step. We need to pursue a number an intolerable threat, not just to their As with a limited nuclear war in South of other initiatives. The countries own citizens, but to the entire human Asia, these direct consequences, family. And they suggest that the horrible as they are, are not the main which have not yet signed or ratifi ed recently negotiated reductions in the problem. If the full strategic arsenals the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty large nuclear arsenals of the United of the nuclear powers were drawn into which bans all nuclear test explosions States and Russia, while clearly a step the confl ict, some 150 million metric need to do so. We need to conclude in the right direction, are inadequate. tons of soot would be injected into the a treaty banning the further production Even a small fraction of the remaining upper atmosphere. In a matter of days of weapons grade fi ssile material. United States and Russian arsenals temperatures across the planet would The United States and Russia need to could trigger a global famine. o fall an average of 8 C. In the interior take their weapons off high alert status A large-scale nuclear war between regions of North America and Eurasia to lessen the danger of accidental o o the nuclear powers would pose an they would fall 20 C to 30 C. For nuclear war, and they need to begin existential threat to our species. A three years there would not be a day negotiations for the next round of study conducted in 2002 by IPPNW’s free of frost in the temperate regions of reductions in their nuclear arsenals. United States affi liate, Physicians for the Northern Hemisphere. Agriculture Finally, all of the nuclear weapons Social Responsibility, showed that would stop, ecosystems collapse, and states need to begin negotiations for if only 300 warheads in the Russian many, many species, including perhaps a Nuclear Weapons Convention to arsenal detonated over cities in the our own, would become extinct. United States, nearly 100 million eliminate all nuclear weapons. It will people would die in the fi rst half We face many huge humanitarian not be easy to negotiate such a treaty hour as a direct result of blast and crises in the world today. None pose but it can be done and the alternative heat. The economic infrastructure on as great a threat as the possibility of is simply not acceptable. Humanity which the population depends – the nuclear war, and none demands our can not continue to be held hostage to communication and transportation attention more urgently. threat of nuclear annihilation.

IHL magazine 9 nuclear weapons:

A Nagasaki victim receiving medical treatment in late August 1945. UN Photo/Eiichi Matsumoto.

By Tilman Ruff – Associate The physical effects of nuclear become confl uent, generating large Professor in the Nossal weapons include an initial pulse of fi restorms with hurricane-force winds Institute for Global Health, heat and light, electromagnetic pulse, and temperatures above boiling University of Melbourne blast wave generating powerful point, within which all people, even in winds, and release of radioactivity and Australian Red Cross underground shelters, would die from through a direct burst of neutrons smoke, heat, burns or asphyxiation. International Medical Advisor. and gamma rays, and subsequent dispersal by wind, rain and water For a “small” to average strategic size The highly- of hundreds of different radioactive warhead of 100 kt, this area would bomb of 15 kt (thousands of tons substances (isotopes). A blast wave extend 8 km in every direction from of high explosive yield) exploded injures directly through lung trauma, . The lethal area for an over Hiroshima on 6 August 1945 eardrum rupture and damage to above-ground blast for a larger 1 razed and burnt the city, causing internal organs; and indirectly through Mt explosion is about 150 square 140,000 deaths by the end of 1945, penetrating and blunt trauma as km; the associated fi re confl agration and increased rates of cancer and objects like shattered windows, and would be lethal over 350 square km. chronic disease for the survivors, people themselves, are turned into In a city like Mumbai with population which continue now 66 years later. missiles. densities in some areas of 100,000 By today’s standards, this was a people per square km, a Hiroshima “small” tactical-size weapon. A 21 The initial fl ash vaporises or size bomb is estimated to cause up to kt plutonium bomb exploded over incinerates those at close range; 870,000 deaths in the fi rst weeks. A Nagasaki three days later levelled further away causes blindness and 1 Mt bomb could promptly kill several 6.7 square km and killed 90,000 burns to exposed skin; and heat fl ux million. people by the end of 1945. Ground of 7-10 calories per square centimetre temperatures in both cities reached ignites widespread fi res. In urban and The electromagnetic pulse from a 7000°C, and black radioactive rain industrial centres densely loaded with high altitude nuclear explosion could poured down. combustible materials, fi res would damage and interfere with electrical, including communication and animals used for food. A number of ‘it is obvious that no health service in medical equipment, over hundreds or biologically important isotopes, like any area of the world would be capable thousands of kilometres. plutonium and carbon-14, persist over of dealing adequately with the hundreds geological timeframes of hundreds of of thousands of people seriously injured The release of large amounts of thousands or millions or years. by blast, heat or radiation from even a ionising radiation is unique to nuclear single 1Mt bomb.’ They concluded that weapons, and a consequence which High doses of radiation can cause ‘…the only approach to the treatment is particularly indiscriminate and acute injury and death; lower doses of the health effects of nuclear unable to be confi ned in time and can cause an increase in chronic explosions is primary prevention of such space. Ionising radiation packages disease; all doses increase the long- explosions, that is, the prevention of energy into a form which is particularly term risk of cancer and genetic atomic war.’ The Assembly identifi ed injurious to living cells, and especially damage. The greater the dose the the role of health workers in the to DNA, the long chains of complex greater the risk, and there is no preservation and promotion of peace molecules which make us and are the threshold dose of radiation below as the most signifi cant factor for the most precious inheritance we receive which there is no increase in cancer attainment of health for all, and that and pass to our children. A lethal dose risk. Women are overall 40 percent ‘nuclear weapons constitute the of radiation may contain no more more susceptible to radiation-induced greatest immediate threat to the health energy than the heat in a sip of hot cancer than men, and foetuses and and welfare of mankind.’ coffee. infants are three to four times more susceptible than adults. While the total number of nuclear Radiation comes in different forms, weapons has been reduced, their some more damaging, like alpha Past atmospheric nuclear test capacity to produce global catastrophe particles; some highly penetrating like explosions in the atmosphere are jeopardizing the survival of complex life gamma rays. Exposures to radiation estimated to cause 2.4 million cancer is undiminished. The recent International can occur both externally immediately deaths. A Hiroshima-size bomb Commission on Nuclear Non- following a nuclear blast and from detonated in a shipping container in proliferation and Disarmament (ICNND), the radioactive fallout it creates; or the port of New York is estimated to established by the governments of internally through radioactive isotopes cause 200,000 deaths from radiation Australia and Japan, reaffi rmed what entering wounds, inhaled into the alone. many previous sober assessments have athreat to survival andhealth lungs or swallowed in food or water. Medical services are concentrated in concluded: ‘So long as any state has city centres. In Hiroshima, 90 percent nuclear weapons, others will want Like a , a nuclear bomb of physicians and nurses were killed them. So long as any such weapons amplifi es the radioactivity present or injured; 42 of 45 hospitals were remain, it defi es credibility that they in the starting material roughly one rendered non-functional; 70 percent will not one day be used, by accident, million times, and produces hundreds of victims had combined injuries, and miscalculation or design. And any of different isotopes with different over 90 percent of these involved such use would be catastrophic. It is characteristics. Some decay in burns. Combined injuries and burns sheer luck that the world has escaped seconds or minutes, others persist are among the most diffi cult and such catastrophe until now’. for centuries, millennia, or billions of resource-demanding conditions to years. Some of the most important All the aspects which make chemical treat. All the dedicated burn beds are iodine -131, which concentrates in and biological weapons, landmines in the world would be insuffi cient to the thyroid gland; cesium-137 which and cluster munitions unacceptable care for the surviving burn victims of a our body treats like potassium, a main apply writ large to nuclear weapons. single Hiroshima size bomb on a city. ion inside our cells; strontium-90, Each of these other types of In Hiroshima and Nagasaki most of which our body handles like calcium, indiscriminate and inhumane weapons the victims died without any care to concentrated in bones and teeth; and are addressed by a global treaty. Only ease their suffering. plutonium-239, particularly harmful nuclear weapons are not. It is clear when inhaled. Some of these isotopes The World Health Assembly in 1984 that eradicating nuclear weapons is a are concentrated thousands of times endorsed the conclusions of a World necessary precondition for the survival up the food chain in plants and Health Organisation expert report that and health of humanity.

IHL magazine 11 1905 publishes the Annus Mirabilis papers, including “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend upon Its Energy Content”, regarding the equivalence of matter and energy, e=mc2. The equation is later used in the development of the atomic bomb. 1950 - 1955 The effect of the nuclear bombing continues to have serious health consequences for the people of Hiroshima 29 July 1957 and Nagasaki. The number The Statute of the of survivors contracting International Atomic leukaemia increases Energy Agency comes noticeably fi ve to six years into force. The Agency is after the bombing. Ten established to facilitate 6 August 1945 years after the bombing, the peaceful uses of survivors begin contracting nuclear energy. A uranium bomb, named thyroid, breast, lung and “Little Boy” is dropped on other cancers at higher than Hiroshima, Japan. normal rates. Many of these effects continue today.

nuclear weapons: use and p

9 August 1945 “”, a plutonium nuclear bomb, 24 January is dropped on Nagasaki, Japan. 27 January 1946 1957 The fi rst resolution of the The Treaty on Principles United Nations General Governing the Activities of Assembly seeks ways to States in the Exploration eliminate atomic weapons and Use of Outer Space, from national armaments including the Moon and through the establishment of Other Celestial Bodies is the United Nations Atomic opened for signature. Energy Commission.

16 July 1945 1956 - 1963 The world’s fi rst atomic bomb test is carried out in British nuclear tests are the desert near Alamogordo, conducted at New Mexico. in South Australia. 14 February 1967 The fi rst nuclear weapons free zone is established in Latin America and the Caribbean. The Treaty of Tlatelolco bans the manufacture, storage, or testing of nuclear weapons and the devices for launching them. 8 April 2010 The United States and Russia sign the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, reducing by half the number of strategic 11 February 1971 nuclear missile launchers. The Treaty on the Prohibition of the Emplacement of Nuclear Weapons and Other Weapons of Mass Destruction on the 8 July 1996 Sea-Bed and the Ocean Floor The International Court of Justice and in the Subsoil Thereof is issues an advisory opinion on opened for signature. the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. rogress towards eradication

24 September 1996 1July 1968 The Comprehensive May 1998 Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty The Treaty on the India and Pakistan conduct is signed by over 90 Non-Proliferation of Nuclear a series of underground countries. It bans all Weapons (NPT) is opened for nuclear tests. nuclear tests above and signature in London, Moscow below the Earth’s surface. and Washington. The NPT The treaty has not yet commits nuclear and entered into force. non-nuclear weapon States to nuclear non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Photo credits 1905 Photo courtesy US Library of Congress 6 August 1945 UN Photo/Eluchi Matsumoto 9 August 1945 UN Photo/Eiichi Matsumoto 24 Jan 1946 UN Photo 1950-55 UN Photo 1 July 1968 UN Photo/Jean-Marc Ferre 8 July 1996 UN Photo/Andrea Brizzi 24 Sept 1996 Photo courtesy US Government 2010 Photo courtesy US State Department

Complied with the assistance of Zoe Hutchinson, Sarah Hickey and Nika Dharmadasa, Mallesons Stephen Jaques.

IHL magazine 13 blinded by the bomb: the story of Yami Lester

Between 1952 and 1963, the United sort of sound. And there were a lot we should sit inside our houses for a Kingdom tested a total of ten nuclear of them too, like a series of sounds. couple of days, shut the doors and weapons in Australia. One of these The earth shook at the same time, we shut the windows. But we didn’t have tests was done in the Monte Bello could feel the whole place move. We any houses – we were camped! So he islands off the northern coast of didn’t see anything though. Us kids told us to dig a hole in the sand and Western Australia, and the other nine had no idea what it was. Some of the cover ourselves up in it. took place near Maralinga and Emu elders said “that must be the bomb ‘A few hours after the black smoke Junction, in South Australia. Yami the patrol offi cer was telling us about”. came we all got crook, every one of Lester’s homeland is Walatina, which I just kept playing, I was a kid – I us. None of us could hunt, so we is around 100 miles from where one didn’t know any better! couldn’t have our traditional bush of the nuclear tests at Emu Junction, ‘It wasn’t long after that a black tucker. We were all vomiting, we had Totem 1, was carried out. About 50 smoke came through. A strange black diarrhea, skin rashes, and sore eyes. people lived in Walatina at the time. smoke, it was shiny and oily. We I had really sore eyes. They were so Yami was 10 years old when Totem 1 thought maybe it was a dust storm, sore I couldn’t open them for two or was detonated on 15 October 1953, but we knew it wasn’t. Dust storms three weeks. But we were all crook. and he still remembers the day vividly. come from the west; this was coming Some of the older people, they died. ‘It was in the morning, around seven. from the south. And it was different They were too weak to survive all I was just playing with the other kids. from a dust storm – it was quiet. Dust of the sickness. The closest clinic That’s when the bomb went off. I storms are windy and noisy. It didn’t was 400 miles away at Ernabella remember the noise, it was a strange take long till this black smoke was all Presbyterian mission, and we didn’t noise, not loud, not like anything I’d over us, moving quietly through the have a car, so we couldn’t get there. ever heard before. It made a shaking mulga trees. I can’t remember how We just stayed sick, living off the long it lasted, maybe a day? It was food from the local station. After a big too, we could see it everywhere. few weeks some of us got better It covered the sun, this black, shiny, and we could go hunting again, living quiet smoke. The sun couldn’t shine off our normal bush tucker. I didn’t through, everything went dark. I had understand what was happening, I no idea what it was, but the elders, was too young, I didn’t understand they called it “mamu mamu”, which in why this black smoke had come and our language, Yankunytjatjara, means made us all crook. devil, or evil spirit; they knew it was ‘After two or three weeks I fi nally bad. managed to open my eyes. My left ‘I remember a couple of days before one could see a little bit, but my right a patrol offi cer had come to us in eye had gone totally blind. After a bit Walatina. He was a good man, a nice of time my left eye started to get better fella, he carried a book with a list of and I could see some more. But then names in it, he was writing down over time it got worse again, and in how many people were there and so 1957 I became totally blind. I went on. He told us they were going to do to Adelaide for treatment – they gave Yami Lester. Photo courtesy Rosemary Lester. some dangerous explosions and that me drops and the sight in my left eye recovered. They didn’t ask me about the bomb, I didn’t even know that it was the bomb that caused this, I was still young. ‘Then a few months later I was working in Granite Downs, I got a contract to put in a windmill and a water tank. It was really hot, and I could feel my eye was getting sore again and I was losing sight. A few hours later, when I was getting taken to Oodnadatta Presbyterian Clinic, I lost all my sight. I still remember that night on the way to the clinic; the last thing I ever saw was the moon in the sky. I never got to see again. ‘I was taken to Adelaide for rehabilitation, and at the Blind Institute I got a three-month trial to work as a brush maker, making brushes for brooms. I ended up working there for 13 years and 10 months – they called me A dust cloud rises from a British nuclear bomb test in Maralinga. a broomologist by the end of it! Then Some soldiers who were involved in They survived the bomb of 1953, I got a new job as an interpreter in the the tests also got crook, and they and now hope that they can live in a hospitals and courts for my mob who spoke out about what happened to nuclear free world in the future so that couldn’t speak English. I interpreted them too. We all kicked up a fuss so their people and their culture, along from our language, Yankunytjatjara. that someone had to listen to us!’ with everybody else’s, can survive.

‘I remember one day in 1980, I had the Since 1984, Yami has focused most ‘War makes me scared. War is scary. fl u so I didn’t go to work. I stayed at of his time and energy on raising But war with nuclear bombs would home and I listened to the radio for a awareness of the effects of the be even scarier – just thinking about little while. They were talking about a nuclear tests in Emu Junction and it makes me shiver. No one would be man called Sir Ernest Titterton who was Maralinga on Indigenous peoples safe in nuclear war. Those nuclear an English nuclear scientist. He said living there. Yami moved back home that the tests conducted in Maralinga to Walatina in 1992. Some of the bombs are no good, we gotta make and Emu Junction were all done safely. local water supplies tested overly sure nobody uses them, and we gotta I thought that was a big lie! So that’s high for radiation, but there are support anyone who’s trying to stop when I decided to speak out. A few currently two bores which can be them. It’s not going to be easy to stop years later, in 1985, we got a Royal drunk out of. Yami lives in Walatina governments making nuclear bombs, Commission up to look into what with his family; his son and his they don’t always listen to people like happened at Emu Junction in 1953. grandchildren, six people in total. me, but we gotta try.’

IHL magazine 15 the ICRC’sthe notion approachof

ICRC delegate Dr Marcel Junod was the fi rst foreign doctor to arrive in Hiroshima after the catastrophe. ICRC Photo.

By Peter Herby – Head Dating back to this early involvement, Nations General Assembly in 2007, of the Arms Unit in the the ICRC, a neutral and independent the Secretary-General of the United Legal Division of the organisation whose purely Nations “Five Point Plan on Nuclear humanitarian mission is to protect Disarmament”, the fi rst-ever Security International Committee the lives and dignity of victims of Council Summit on nuclear weapons of the Red Cross. armed confl ict and other situations of and non-proliferation in September violence, has called on States to take 2009, and the joint reaffi rmation by steps to reach an agreement on the Dr Marcel Junod, an International the United States, Russia, China, prohibition of nuclear weapons. Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) France and the United Kingdom delegate in the Far East, was the In a public statement on 5 April 1950, in May 2010 of their ‘responsibility fi rst non-Japanese doctor to deliver the ICRC called on States to take to take concrete and credible steps towards irreversible [nuclear] assistance in the aftermath of the ‘all steps to reach an agreement on disarmament’ are encouraging signs. dropping of the atomic bomb, on 6 the prohibition of atomic weapons” As Kellenberger notes ‘the currency of August 1945, on Hiroshima. Dr Junod noting “[s]uch arms will not spare this debate must ultimately be about described the scenes: hospitals, prisoner of war camps and civilians. Their inevitable consequence human beings, about the fundamental ‘We (…) witnessed a sight totally is extermination, pure and simple…. rules of international humanitarian unlike anything we had ever seen [Their] effects, immediate and lasting, law, and about the collective future of before. The centre of the city was prevent access to the wounded and humanity’. a sort of white patch, fl attened and their treatment.’ Naturally the focus of the ICRC’s smooth like the palm of a hand. This call was reignited by ICRC attention on this issue is the horrifi c Nothing remained. The slightest President Jakob Kellenberger in humanitarian consequences of trace of houses seemed to have April 2010, when he appealed to all the use of nuclear weapons. disappeared. The white patch was States to ‘bring the era of nuclear Communicating about the about two kilometres in diameter. weapons to an end’. Recent years human costs of warfare and the Around its edge was a red belt, have seen a growing interest among unacceptability of preventable marking the area where houses the global community in the vision suffering has been at the heart of the had burned, extending quite a long of a “nuclear-weapon-free world”. mission of the Red Cross since its way further (…) covering almost all The Model Nuclear Weapons founding by in 1863. the rest of the city.’ Convention submitted to the United Likewise, ensuring the protection of Communicating medical workers and their equipment In the view of the ICRC, preventing about the in confl ict, through law and education, the use of nuclear weapons requires is a core mandate of the ICRC. fulfi lment of existing legal obligations human costs of to pursue negotiations aimed at As Dr Junod saw fi rst-hand, prohibiting and completely eliminating warfare and the destruction of the magnitude infl icted such weapons through a legally by nuclear weapons does not spare unacceptability binding international treaty. It also medical infrastructure or doctors means preventing their proliferation and their materials. The Japanese of preventable and controlling access to materials Red Cross hospital in Hiroshima suffering has been astonishingly remained standing. and technology that can be used However, it could no longer function to produce them. Referring to the at the heart of the as its laboratory equipment was fi ve new international humanitarian unusable, a third of its staff had been law treaties adopted in the previous mission of the Red killed and there was no possibility of 15 years, an October 2010 ICRC blood transfusion as potential donors statement to the United Nations Cross since its were either dead or had disappeared. General Assembly concluded that: founding by Henry In an address to the 19th World ‘States can and must set the limits Dunant in 1863. Congress of International Physicians at which “the necessities of war for the Prevention of Nuclear ought to yield to the requirements War in August 2010, ICRC Vice of humanity”, in the words of the President Christine Beerli noted the 1868 St Petersburg Declaration. of the International Court of Justice organisation’s belief: [These treaties] demonstrate that which, in its 1996 Advisory Opinion humanity is not powerless in the on nuclear weapons, concluded that ‘that the debate about nuclear face of the harmful effects of the ‘the use of nuclear weapons would weapons must be conducted technologies it creates. … [they] generally be contrary to the principles not only on the basis of military can inspire and guide us together doctrines and power politics but and rules of international humanitarian in pursuing the objective of a world law’. Yet, because of the virtually also on the basis of public health without nuclear weapons and and human security. The existence limitless destructive power of nuclear with standards for the responsible of nuclear weapons poses some weapons the ICRC has appealed to all transfer of conventional arms.’ of the most profound questions States to ensure that such weapons about the point at which the rights The ICRC welcomes all concrete are never used again, regardless of of States must yield to the interests steps by States and others towards the views of individual States on the of humanity, the capacity of our these ends, including the contribution legality of such use. species to master the technology it creates, the reach of international humanitarian law, and the extent of human suffering that people are willing to infl ict, or to permit, in warfare.’ The position of the ICRC, as a humanitarian organisation, goes – and must go – beyond a purely legal analysis. To paraphrase the 1996 Advisory Opinion judgment of the International Court of Justice and quote Ms Beerli, ‘nuclear weapons are unique in their destructive power, in the unspeakable human suffering they cause, in the impossibility of controlling their effects in space and time, in the risks of escalation they create, and in the threat they pose to the environment, to future generations, and indeed to the survival of humanity’. Ruins of Hiroshima. UN Photo/Eluchi Matsumoto.

IHL magazine 17 the nuclear weapons case

By Reverend Professor indeed it was urged to do so on the such was the political signifi cance of Michael Tate AO – former grounds that the question posed the matter that the Solicitor General Federal Minister for Justice was too abstract and was best left was joined by the Minister for Foreign and Ambassador to the to political processes elsewhere. Affairs, Gareth Evans QC, as counsel Netherlands. The Court did not fi nd that argument presenting argument to the Court. compelling and decided to conduct hearings in late 1995. States were It was a fascinating case to watch Following considerable activity by the invited to make written submissions unfolding. For example, Japan allowed World Health Organisation in the early and present oral argument. its allocated hour to be taken up by 1990s, the General Assembly of the the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki United Nations resolved in late 1994 Given Australia’s strong stance with their powerful descriptions of the to request the International Court of against France’s testing of nuclear devastation wreaked on the civilian Justice (ICJ) to urgently render an weapons in the South Pacifi c and population of their cities by the atomic Advisory Opinion on the question: “Is given the public mood of hostility bombs dropped on them by order of the threat or use of nuclear weapons towards France over the 1985 attack the US President. in any circumstances permitted under by its security personnel on the The Australian Foreign Minister international law?” Rainbow Warrior (an NGO protest vessel) in Auckland Harbour, Australia described how, over the course of The ICJ has a discretion to refuse was an active participant at the 50 years, nuclear weapons were to respond to such a request, and Peace Palace in The Hague. In fact, now recognised to be inherently of such a character that their use would in all cases transgress the tenets of international law. Indeed, a series of regional treaties and various resolutions of international health and environmental conferences did indicate growing international sentiment against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons. Everyone in the Australian team contributed various strands to the submission. I recall focussing on the “intergenerational argument”, that is that even if the use of a nuclear weapon was used to destroy enemy combatants, the radiation released would persist in the environment in such a way as to endanger subsequent civilian generations. They should be prospectively preserved from such Gates of the Peace Palace in The Hague, seat of the International Court of Justice. danger under the ordinary rules of UN Photo/P. Sudharkaran. international humanitarian law (IHL). The International Court of Justice in session. UN Photo/Mark Garten.

Sir Nicholas Lyell, Attorney General for elements of fact at its disposal, the Charter, then it might use nuclear the United Kingdom, in the course of Court cannot conclude defi nitively weapons in violation of the principles of his oral submission noted something whether the threat or use of nuclear IHL (e.g. against civilian populations of of a discrepancy between Australia’s weapons would be lawful or unlawful the aggressor state). The ICJ refused to submission before the Court and its in an extreme circumstance of self- say that such use would be unlawful. published war fi ghting doctrine, which defence, in which the very survival of In my view, this was a most unfortunate included reference to the nuclear a State would be at stake. opinion to foist on the world. None of arsenal of our major ally, the United So, President Bedjaoui’s casting vote the parties before the Court had actually States. led to an Advisory Opinion which is argued along those lines and it was truly What would the Court decide? We had very unsettling in its ambiguity. a shock to all. not adverted to the fact that only 14 In the fi rst paragraph what does The Court salved its conscience by judges sat (one having passed away the word “generally” really mean? prior to the hearing). That led to an concluding: To put it the other way, the Court is extraordinary result. I extract that part advising that there will be occasions 105F. Unanimously: of the advisory opinion of most interest when the use or threat of use of to the readers of this magazine. There exists an obligation to pursue nuclear weapons does not violate the in good faith and bring to a 105E. By seven votes to seven, by principles and rules of IHL. conclusion negotiations leading the President’s casting vote, As to the second paragraph, from to nuclear disarmament in all its It follows from the above-mentioned one point of view it is an astounding aspects under strict and effective requirements that the threat or use of assertion by the (artifi cial) majority international control. that there is no law to determine the nuclear weapons would generally be The Red Cross pre-eminently, and question. But the paragraph really contrary to the rules of international other humanitarian organisations, are goes beyond that. law applicable in armed confl ict, and determined to press such negotiations. in particular the principles and rules It seems to be saying that where a But, I don’t think there can be any of humanitarian law; State is threatened with obliteration doubt that the ICJ opinion of 8 However, in view of the current and has a right of self defence in July 1996 set the cause back very state of international law, and the conformity with the United Nations signifi cantly.

IHL magazine 19 raising awareness

Cranes in Nagasaki. ICAN Photo/Tim Wright. humanitarianabout the consequences of nuclear weapons

Petra Ball is the part of the work of Australian Red towns. They provided hands-on relief International Humanitarian Cross in 2011 to raise awareness to the victims of the fi rst nuclear bomb, Law Offi cer for Red Cross about the humanitarian consequences which marked the commencement in South Australia. Chris of the use of nuclear weapons of Red Cross work responding to the Kwong is a co-opted and why their total and absolute reality of a world with nuclear weapons. prohibition is imperative. member of the National Japanese Red Cross also had a Youth Advisory Committee. The Red Cross and Red Crescent hospital in Hiroshima, one of the very Movement has been at the forefront few buildings left standing, and those Inspired by the April 2010 appeal by of moves towards the eradication fi rst-on-the-scene teams helped the the President of the ICRC, Jakob of nuclear weapons for decades. staff there, while others set up tents Kellenberger, to all States to ‘bring Japanese Red Cross unfortunately as improvised dispensaries around the the era of nuclear weapons to an has a history of direct observation ruined city. A total of 792 Japanese end’, Australian Red Cross is taking of the humanitarian consequences Red Cross staff and volunteers treated a position of leadership within the of nuclear weapons. The day after some 31,000 patients during the International Red Cross and Red the bombing of Hiroshima, in August three weeks following the devastating Crescent Movement towards this 1945, several medical teams from explosion. Sadly, many of those relief goal. Indeed, as the CEO’s editorial Japanese Red Cross arrived at the workers also became victims of the mentions, this magazine constitutes devastated city from neighbouring radiation. Australian Red Cross has worked closely with members and volunteers to develop materials to convey its core message that even wars have laws.

In May 2011 Australian Red Cross, Red Cross works with those groups and volunteers to develop materials together with Japanese Red Cross directly involved in confl ict, such as to convey its core message that even and Norwegian Red Cross, co-hosted the Australian Defence Force, the wars have laws. The Even Wars Have an international meeting of over a Australian Federal Police, civil defence Laws public awareness campaign in dozen Red Cross and Red Crescent agencies, humanitarian workers and 2010, focusing on the use of child societies from every corner of the journalists, to ensure that the rights soldiers in confl ict, the effects of globe. The meetings, in Oslo, brought and obligations under IHL are known landmines and the absolute prohibition together many prominent academics to them. on torture brought this message to the and practitioners in the fi elds of Australian public in an innovative and Australian Red Cross also has a role and nuclear arms, confronting way. some of whom are contributors to to play in working with the Australian this publication. Discussions focused government to encourage compliance In 2011, Australian Red Cross will raise on the human and societal costs of with new developments to limit the public awareness around the horrifi c nuclear weapons, the international effects of war. In bringing about laws humanitarian consequences of using legal political context on nuclear to prohibit the use of cluster munitions nuclear weapons and the real dangers weapons and the potential role of Australian Red Cross joined, as inherent in their continued existence Red Cross and Red Crescent national observers, the Australian delegation through an engaging public national societies in this space. Discussions to the Diplomatic Conference on campaign, and call for the international were also included on the theme Cluster Munitions held in Dublin in prohibition of the use of nuclear of the development of a Movement 2008 and were also invited to make weapons. The voice of this campaign position on nuclear weapons and the oral submissions before the Senate will be carried by Australian Red Cross inclusion of this topic as a resolution hearing, in March 2011, which volunteers nationwide across various for the Council of Delegates of the considered Australia’s implementing media. Both IHL and youth members Movement. legislation of the Dublin treaty. On the and volunteers will help lead the way topic of nuclear weapons Australian in ensuring the voices of tomorrow are In the last 20 years Australian Red Red Cross has already written to all heard on this issue reminding us that Cross has developed a reputation federal members of parliament to seek the devastating effects of the use of for championing international their support for the work it is doing in nuclear weapons are both immediate humanitarian law (IHL) in the Australian this space. and lasting. community. Through education and dissemination programs instigated In recent years, Australian Red Cross To fi nd out more or to get involved visit by the IHL department, Australian has worked closely with members www.redcross.org.au

IHL magazine 21 International Humanitarian Law (IHL) Program

Australian Red Cross is part of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, the largest humanitarian network in the world. IHL is something Red Cross thinks everyone should be aware of. We run an IHL Program providing training and education highlighting IHL issues to key target groups identifi ed as having a role to play in situations of armed confl ict.

Red Cross has a mandate to promote Photo: ©ICRC/Boris Heger an understanding of, The IHL Program focuses on the following target groups: • Australian Defence Force and respect for, the • Australian Federal Police law in times of armed • Non-government organisations • Commonwealth Government agencies confl ict – International • Key professions (law, medicine, journalism) • Tertiary and secondary education sectors Humanitarian • Wider community. Law (IHL). The IHL Program specifi cally offers training programs to sectors of the Australian Defence Force such as military medics and military police, in addition to being invited to participate in Australian Defence Force training exercises. More broadly, we run education For more information on the IHL Program seminars for members of the general community who have an please visit: www.redcross.org.au/ihl or interest in humanitarian issues and whose work is affected by the email: [email protected] application of IHL. fundamental principles

Ajdabiya, Libya. An ICRC delegate and a Libyan Red Crescent volunteer talk to stranded Bangladeshis who had been working for a road cleaning fi rm before fi ghting broke out in Libya. Photo © ICRC/J. Björgvinsson. In all activities our volunteers Independence The Movement is independent. The and staff are guided by the National Societies, while auxiliaries in the humanitarian services of their Fundamental Principles of the governments and subject to the laws of their respective countries, must always Red Cross and Red Crescent maintain their autonomy so that they may be able at all times to act in accordance Movement. with the principles of the Movement. Voluntary Service Humanity Impartiality It is a voluntary relief movement not The International Red Cross and It makes no discrimination as to prompted in any manner by desire Red Crescent Movement, born nationality, race, religious beliefs, for gain. of a desire to bring assistance class or political opinions. It without discrimination to the endeavours to relieve the suffering Unity wounded on the battlefi eld, of individuals, being guided solely by There can be only one Red Cross or Red endeavours, in its international their needs, and to give priority to the Crescent Society in any one country. It and national capacity, to prevent most urgent cases of distress. must be open to all. It must carry on its and alleviate human suffering humanitarian work throughout its territory. wherever it may be found. Its Neutrality purpose is to protect life and In order to continue to enjoy the Universality health and ensure respect for confi dence of all, the Movement The International Red Cross and Red the human being. It promotes may not take sides in hostilities or Crescent Movement, in which all Societies mutual understanding, friendship, engage at any time in controversies have equal status and share equal co-operation and lasting peace of a political, racial, religious or responsibilities and duties in helping each amongst all people. ideological nature. other, is worldwide. National Offi ce Queensland Western Australia 155 Pelham Street 49 Park Road 110 Goderich Street Carlton VIC 3053 Milton QLD 4064 East Perth WA 6004 Tel 03 9345 1800 Tel 07 3367 7222 Tel 08 9325 5111

Australian Capital Territory South Australia Cnr. Hindmarsh Drive & 207-217 Wakefi eld Street Palmer Street Adelaide SA 5000 Garran ACT 2605 Tel 08 8100 4500 Tel 02 6234 7600 Tasmania New South Wales 40 Melville Street General enquiries 1 800 246 850 159 Clarence Street Hobart TAS 7000 Mailing address Sydney NSW 2000 Tel 03 6235 6077 159 Clarence Street Tel 02 9229 4111 Victoria Sydney NSW 2000 Northern Territory 23-47 Villiers Street Donations 1 800 811 700 Cnr. Lambell Terrace & Schultz Street North Melbourne First Aid enquiries 1 300 367 428 Larrakeyah NT 0820 VIC 3051 Tel 08 8924 3900 Tel 03 8327 7700 Blood Donor enquiries 13 14 95

Editors Sub-Editors Designer Joe Cropp Alexandra Hunter Sarah Hickey Elizabeth Cook Peter Giugni Zoe Hutchinson Charles Deutscher Printer Eve Massingham Matt Sherman Peachy Print

The International Humanitarian Law Magazine is generously supported by Mallesons Stephen Jaques, which has been a nation-wide partner of Australian Red Cross since 2001.