(NPT/CONF.2000/PC.I/WP.10, Para 5) Significant progress has been achieved in recent years in disarmament: inter alia the conclusion and the entry into force of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction; adoption and the commencement of the preparatory process for the implementation of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, adoption of an amended Protocol II and Protocol IV of the Convention on Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects; the conclusion of the treaties on the establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones in Southeast Asia (Bangkok Treaty) and in Africa (Pelindaba Treaty), which effectively mean that the entire southern hemisphere is covered by nuclear-weapon-free zones; and the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons. However, the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries continues to believe that many important and significant tasks remain ahead of it, particularly on the shaping of the future agenda for nuclear disarmament. 

(NPT/CONF.2000/PC.II/WP.5, Para 24) The States Parties in particular the nuclear-weapon States shall inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the efforts and measures they have taken on the implementation of the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. 

(NPT/CONF.2000/PC.III/WP.1, Para 26) The States Parties in particular the nuclear-weapon States shall inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the efforts and measures they have taken on the implementation of the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. 

(NPT/CONF.2000/WP.18, Para 30) The States Parties in particular the nuclear-weapon States shall inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the efforts and measures they have taken on the implementation of the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. 

(NPT/CONF.2005/PC.I/WP.2, Para 11) In this regard, allow us to reflect on some developments of concern to the Movement since the 2000 Review Conference: (a) We remain concerned at the slow progress towards disarmament; (b) Although some progress has been made in bilateral and unilateral reductions, the total number of nuclear weapons deployed and in stockpiles still amount to many thousands; (c) There is to date no evidence of agreed measures to reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons; (d) Strategic defense doctrines continue to set out rationales for the use of nuclear weapons, as demonstrated by the recent policy review by one of the Nuclear Weapon States to consider expanding the circumstances under which nuclear weapons could be used and the countries that they could be used against; (e) We are also concerned by the recent developments that threaten the principle of irreversibility of nuclear disarmament, nuclear and other arms control and reduction measures; (f) The possible consequences of the decision by one of the States Parties to the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missiles (ABM) to withdraw from the Treaty bring new challenges to strategic stability and to the issue of the prevention of an arms race in outer space. In accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 56/23, we emphasize the urgent need for commencement of substantive work on the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The NAM States Parties to the NPT believe that the implementation of a national missile defense system could trigger an arms race and the further development of advanced missile systems and an increase in the number of nuclear weapons; (g) The lack of progress in the entry into force of the CTBT. In this regard, we call upon all States, in particular the Nuclear Weapon States, whose ratification is a prerequisite for the entry into force of the CTBT, to continue their efforts to ensure the early entry into force of the Treaty. We reiterate our belief that if the objectives of the Treaty were to be fully realized, the continued commitment of all States signatories, especially the Nuclear Weapon States, to nuclear disarmament would be essential; (h) The continued inflexible postures of some of the Nuclear Weapon States that continue to prevent the Conference on Disarmament, the sole multilateral negotiating body on disarmament, from establishing an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament. We continue to believe in the need for negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention, and in this regard reiterate our call for the establishment as soon as possible and as the highest priority of an Ad Hoc Committee on Nuclear Disarmament. In this context, we underline once again the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and to bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. We regret that no progress has been made in the fulfilment of this obligation despite the lapse of five years; (i) The continued inability of the Conference of Disarmament to resume its negotiations on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices taking into account both nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation objectives; and (j) The lack of progress in diminishing the role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that these weapons will ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination. 

(NPT/CONF.2005/PC.II/WP.19, Para 15) In this regard, allow us, Mr. Chairman, to reflect on some developments of concern to the Movement since the First Session of the Preparatory Committee as follows: (a) We remain concerned at the lack of progress towards achieving the total elimination of nuclear weapons; (b) Despite some progress made in the context of bilateral and unilateral reductions, thousands of these weapons are deployed and their numbers are unconfirmed, given the lack of transparency in various weapons programs; (c) While noting the signing of the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reduction between the Russian Federation and the United States on 24 May 2002, we stress that reductions in deployments and in operational status cannot substitute for irreversible cuts in, and the total elimination of, nuclear weapons; (d) There is to date no further evidence of agreed measures to reduce the operational status of these weapons; (e) Strategic defense doctrines continue to set out rationales for the use of such weapons, as demonstrated by the recent policy review by one of the nuclear weapon states to consider expanding the circumstances under which these weapons could be used and the countries against whom they could be used; (f) The possible development of new weapons and new targeting options to serve aggressive counter-proliferation purposes further undermines disarmament commitments; (g) The abrogation of the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missiles (ABM) brings new challenges to strategic stability and the prevention of an arms race in outer space. We remain concerned that the implementation of a national missile defence system could trigger an arms race(s) and the further development of advanced missile systems and an increase in the number of nuclear weapons. In accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 57/57, we emphasize the urgent need for the commencement of substantive work, in the Conference on Disarmament, on the prevention of an arms race in outer space; (h) The lack of progress in the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT.). The Movement stresses the significance of achieving universal adherence to the CTBT, including by all the nuclear weapon states, which, inter alia, should contribute to the process of nuclear disarmament. The Movement expresses its satisfaction that 167 States have signed the Treaty and 98 States have ratified it thus far. NAM reaffirms that if the objectives of the Treaty were to be fully realized, the continued commitment of all States signatories, especially the nuclear weapon states, to nuclear disarmament would be essential; (i) The continued inflexible postures of some nuclear weapon states that has prevented the Conference on Disarmament, the sole multilateral negotiating body on disarmament, from establishing an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament. We continue to believe in the need for negotiations on a phased program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention. In this regard, we reiterate our call to establish, as soon as possible, and as the highest priority, an Ad Hoc Committee on Nuclear Disarmament. The Movement underlines once again the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and to bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. NAM regrets that no progress has been made in the fulfillment of this obligation despite the lapse of almost seven years. (j) The continued inability of the Conference on Disarmament to resume its negotiations on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices, taking into account both nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation objectives; (k) The lack of progress in diminishing the role of nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that these weapons will ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination; and (l) The inability of the UNDC to reach a consensus document on “ways and means to achieve nuclear disarmament” at its third and last substantive session in 2003. 

(NPT/CONF.2005/PC.III/WP.24, Para 17) In view of the above, the Movement would like to address some developments since the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee: (a) The Movement remains concerned at the lack of progress towards achieving the total elimination of nuclear weapons. Despite some reports of bilateral and unilateral reductions, thousands of these weapons continue to be deployed and their numbers are unconfirmed, given the lack of transparency in various nuclear weapons programs; (b) While noting the signing of the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reduction between the Russian Federation and the United States on 24 May 2002, the Movement stresses that reductions in deployments and in operational status cannot substitute for irreversible cuts in, and the total elimination of, nuclear weapons. There is to date no further evidence of agreed measures to reduce the operational status of these weapons. The Movement also expresses its concerns that the non-entry into force of START II is a setback to the 13 practical steps in the field of nuclear disarmament adopted at the 2000 Review Conference. (c) Strategic defense doctrines continue to set out rationales for the use of such weapons, as demonstrated by the recent policy review by one of the nuclear-weapon-states to consider expanding the circumstances under which these weapons could be used and the countries against whom they could be used; (d) The possible development of new types of nuclear weapons and new targeting options to serve aggressive counter-proliferation purposes further undermine disarmament commitments; (e) The abrogation of the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missiles (ABM) has brought new challenges to strategic stability and the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The Movement remains concerned that the implementation of a national missile defence system could trigger an arms race(s), the further development of advanced missile systems and an increase in the number of nuclear weapons. In accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 58/36, the Movement emphasizes the urgent need for the commencement of substantive work, in the Conference on Disarmament, on the prevention of an arms race in outer space; (f) The Movement expresses its satisfaction that 171 States have signed the CTBT and 112 States have ratified it thus far. The Movement reaffirms that if the objectives of the Treaty were to be fully realized, the continued commitment of all States signatories, especially the nuclear-weapon-states, to nuclear disarmament would be essential. In this regard, the Movement welcomes the recent ratification of CTBT by Afghanistan, Algeria, Belize, Eritrea, Honduras, Kuwait and Oman. However, the Movement remains concerned with the lack of progress in the early entry into force of the CTBT. (g) The continued inflexible postures of some nuclear-weapon-states that have prevented the Conference on Disarmament, the sole multilateral negotiating body on disarmament, from establishing an Ad Hoc Committee on nuclear disarmament. The Movement continues to believe in the need for negotiations on a phased program for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons with a specified framework of time, including a Nuclear Weapons Convention. In this regard, the Movement reiterates its call to establish, as soon as possible, and as the highest priority, an Ad Hoc Committee on Nuclear Disarmament. The Movement underlines once again the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and to bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. The Movement regrets that no progress has been made in the fulfilment of this obligation despite the lapse of almost seven years. (h) The continued inability of the Conference on Disarmament to resume its negotiations on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons and other explosive devices, taking into account both nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation objectives; (i) The lack of progress in diminishing the role of nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that these weapons will ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination; and (j) The inability of the United Nations Disarmament Commission to reach a consensus on substantive agenda items, taking into account decision 52/492, in its 2004 session as mandated by United Nations General Assembly resolution 58/67. 

(NPT/CONF.2005/WP.8, Para 33) The States parties, in particular the nuclear-weapon States, shall inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the efforts and measures they have taken on the implementation of the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and to bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. 

(NPT/CONF.2005/WP.18, Para 9) The Group of Non-Aligned States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons underlines the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and to bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. 

(NPT/CONF.2010/PC.I/WP.8, Para 9) The Group of Non-Aligned States parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons underlines the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and to bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. 

(NPT/CONF.2010/WP.47, Para 2) To achieve the total elimination of their nuclear weapons, the nuclear-weapon States need to implement the unequivocal undertaking agreed upon in 2000. The 13 practical steps for systematic and progressive efforts to implement Article VI should be fully implemented in accordance with the principles of transparency, verifiability and irreversibility. The nuclear-weapon States should be urged to start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of their nuclear weapons within a specified time framework, including a nuclear weapons convention. It should also be recalled that there is a unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice regarding the obligation to pursue in good faith and to bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. 

(NPT/CONF.2015/PC.I/WP.36, Para 20) The Group underlines the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and to bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. 

(NPT/CONF.2015/PC.I/WP.36, Para 25) In this regard, the Group recalls the advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons that there is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons and that the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law. 

(NPT/CONF.2015/PC.I/WP.36, Para 26) Accordingly, the Group is of the view that, pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, as the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, the nuclear-weapon States must seriously refrain, under any circumstances, from the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty. In the view of the Group, any such use or threat of use would be in violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, in particular international humanitarian law. The Group further believes that the mere possession of nuclear weapons is inconsistent with the principles of international humanitarian law. In this regard, the Group strongly calls upon all States, in particular the nuclear-weapon States, to exclude completely the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons from their military doctrines. 

(NPT/CONF.2015/PC.I/WP.36, Para A2) To achieve the total elimination of their nuclear weapons, the nuclear-weapon States need to implement the unequivocal undertaking agreed upon in 2000. The 13 practical steps for systematic and progressive efforts to implement Article VI should be fully implemented in accordance with the principles of transparency, verifiability and irreversibility. The nuclear-weapon States should be urged to start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of their nuclear weapons within a specified time framework, including a nuclear weapons convention. It should also be recalled that there is a unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice regarding the obligation to pursue in good faith and to bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. 

(NPT/CONF.2015/PC.II/WP.14, Para 20) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty underlines the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and to bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. 

(NPT/CONF.2015/PC.II/WP.14, Para 25) In this regard, the Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty recalls the advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons that “there is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons” and that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law”. 

(NPT/CONF.2015/PC.II/WP.14, Para 26) Accordingly, the Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty is of the view that, pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, as the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, the nuclear-weapon States shall seriously refrain, at any circumstances, from the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty. In the view of the Group, any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would be in violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, in particular international humanitarian law. The Group further believes that the mere possession of nuclear weapons is inconsistent with the principles of international humanitarian law. In this regard, the Group strongly calls upon all States, in particular the nuclear-weapon States, to exclude completely the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons from their military doctrines. 

(NPT/CONF.2015/PC.II/WP.14, Para A2) To achieve the total elimination of their nuclear weapons, the nuclear-weapon States need to implement the unequivocal undertaking agreed upon in 2000. The 13 practical steps for systematic and progressive efforts to implement article VI should be fully implemented in accordance with the principles of transparency, verifiability and irreversibility. The nuclear-weapon States should be urged to start negotiations on a phased programme for the complete elimination of their nuclear weapons within a specified time framework, including a nuclear weapons convention. It should also be recalled that there is a unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice regarding the obligation to pursue in good faith and to bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. 

(NPT/CONF.2015/PC.II/WP.15, Para 7) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty reaffirms that, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. While recalling the advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, the Group believes that, pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, as the only absolute guarantee against the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the nuclear-weapon States shall seriously refrain, in any circumstances, from the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty. 

(NPT/CONF.2015/PC.II/WP.15, Para 8) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty firmly believes that the mere possession or any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would be in violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, in particular, international humanitarian law. 

(NPT/CONF.2015/PC.III/WP.15, Para 22) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty underlines the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and to bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. 

(NPT/CONF.2015/PC.III/WP.15, Para 26) In this regard, the Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty recalls the advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons that “there is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons” and that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law”. 

(NPT/CONF.2015/PC.III/WP.15, Para 27) Accordingly, the Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty is of the view that, pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, as the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, the nuclear-weapon States shall seriously refrain, at any circumstances, from the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty. In the view of the Group, any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would be in violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, in particular international humanitarian law. The Group further believes that the mere possession of nuclear weapons is inconsistent with the principles of international humanitarian law. In this regard, the Group strongly calls for the complete exclusion of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons from military doctrines. 

(NPT/CONF.2015/PC.III/WP.16, Para 7) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty reaffirms that, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. While recalling the advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the Group believes that, pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, as the only absolute guarantee against the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the nuclear-weapon States shall seriously refrain, in any circumstances, from the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty. 

(NPT/CONF.2015/PC.III/WP.16, Para 8) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty firmly believes that the mere possession or any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would be in violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, in particular, international humanitarian law. 

(NPT/CONF.2015/WP.2, Para 7) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty reaffirms that, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996 on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the Group believes that, pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, which is the only absolute guarantee against the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the nuclear-weapon States should seriously refrain, in any circumstances, from the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon States party to the Treaty. 

(NPT/CONF.2015/WP.2, Para 8) The Movement expresses its deepest concern over the immediate, indiscriminate and massive death and destruction that would be caused by any nuclear weapon detonation and its long-term catastrophic consequences for human health, the environment, and other vital economic resources, thus endangering the life of present and future generations. The Group affirms the importance of humanitarian considerations in the context of all deliberations and efforts in promoting the goal of nuclear disarmament. In that regard, it welcomed the convening of the Vienna Conference on the Humanitarian Impact of Nuclear Weapons, held in Vienna on 8 and 9 December 2014. 

(NPT/CONF.2015/WP.2, Para 9) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty firmly believes that any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would be a crime against humanity and a violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, in particular international humanitarian law. The Group further believes that the mere possession of nuclear weapons is inconsistent with the principles of international humanitarian law. 

(NPT/CONF.2015/WP.2, Para 10) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty reaffirms the validity of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, that “there is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons” and that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law”. 

(NPT/CONF.2015/WP.13, Para 7) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty underlines the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and to bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. 

(NPT/CONF.2015/WP.13, Para 30) In this regard, the Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty recalls the advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons that “there is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons” and that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law”. 

(NPT/CONF.2015/WP.13, Para 31) Accordingly, the Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty is of the view that, pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, as the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, the nuclear-weapon States shall seriously refrain, at any circumstances, from the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty. In the view of the Group, any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would be a crime against humanity and a violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, in particular international humanitarian law. The Group further believes that the mere possession of nuclear weapons is inconsistent with the principles of international humanitarian law. In this regard, the Group strongly calls for the complete exclusion of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons from military doctrines. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/PC.I/WP.24, Para 7) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty underlines the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and to bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/PC.I/WP.24, Para 30) In this regard, the Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty recalls the advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons that “there is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons” and that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law”. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/PC.I/WP.24, Para 31) Accordingly, the Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty is of the view that, pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, as the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, the nuclear-weapon States shall seriously refrain, at any circumstances, from the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty. In the view of the Group, any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would be a crime against humanity and a violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, in particular international humanitarian law. The Group further believes that the mere possession of nuclear weapons is inconsistent with the principles of international humanitarian law. In this regard, the Group strongly calls for the complete exclusion of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons from military doctrines. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/PC.I/WP.25, Para 7) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty reaffirms that, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996 on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the Group believes that, pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, which is the only absolute guarantee against the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the nuclear-weapon States should seriously refrain, in any circumstances, from the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/PC.I/WP.25, Para 8) The Movement expresses its deepest concern over the immediate, indiscriminateand massive death and destruction that would be caused by any nuclear weapon detonation and its long-term catastrophic consequences for human health, the environmentand other vital economic resources, thus endangering the life of present and future generations. The Group affirms the importance of humanitarian considerations in the context of all deliberations and efforts in promoting the goal of nuclear disarmament. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/PC.I/WP.25, Para 9) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty firmly believes that any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would be a crime against humanity and a violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, in particular international humanitarian law. The Group further believes that the mere possession of nuclear weapons is inconsistent with the principles of international humanitarian law. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/PC.I/WP.25, Para 10) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty reaffirms the validity of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, that “there is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons” and that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law”. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/PC.II/WP.17, Para 7) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty underlines the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and to bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/PC.II/WP.17, Para 30) In this regard, the Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty recalls the advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons that “there is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons” and that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law”. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/PC.II/WP.17, Para 31) Accordingly, the Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty is of the view that, pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, as the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, the nuclear-weapon States shall seriously refrain, at any circumstances, from the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty. In the view of the Group, any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would be a crime against humanity and a violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, in particular international humanitarian law. The Group further believes that the mere possession of nuclear weapons is inconsistent with the principles of international humanitarian law. In this regard, the Group strongly calls for the complete exclusion of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons from military doctrines. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/PC.II/WP.22, Para 7) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty reaffirms that, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996 on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the Group believes that, pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, which is the only absolute guarantee against the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the nuclear-weapon States should seriously refrain, in any circumstances, from the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/PC.II/WP.22, Para 8) The Movement expresses its deepest concern over the immediate, indiscriminate and massive death and destruction that would be caused by any nuclear weapon detonation and its long-term catastrophic consequences for human health, the environment and other vital economic resources, thus endangering the life of present and future generations. The Group affirms the importance of humanitarian considerations in the context of all deliberations and efforts in promoting the goal of nuclear disarmament. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/PC.II/WP.22, Para 9) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty firmly believes that any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would be a crime against humanity and a violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, in particular international humanitarian law. The Group further believes that the mere possession of nuclear weapons is inconsistent with the principles of international humanitarian law. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/PC.II/WP.22, Para 10) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty reaffirms the validity of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, that “there is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons ” and that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law”. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/PC.III/WP.12, Para 7) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty underlines the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and to bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/PC.III/WP.12, Para 30) In this regard, the Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty recalls the advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons that “there is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons” and that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law”. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/PC.III/WP.12, Para 31) Accordingly, the Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty is of the view that, pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, as the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, the nuclear-weapon States shall seriously refrain, at any circumstances, from the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty. In the view of the Group, any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would be a crime against humanity and a violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, in particular international humanitarian law.The Group further believes that the mere possession of nuclear weapons is inconsistent withthe principles of international humanitarian law. In this regard, the Group strongly calls for the complete exclusion of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons from military doctrines. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/PC.III/WP.15, Para 7) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty reaffirms that, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996 on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the Group believes that, pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, which is the only absolute guarantee against the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the nuclear-weapon States should seriously refrain, in any circumstances, from the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/PC.III/WP.15, Para 8) The Movement expresses its deepest concern over the immediate, indiscriminate and massive death and destruction that would be caused by any nuclear weapon detonation and its long-term catastrophic consequences for human health, the environment and other vital economic resources, thus endangering the life of present and future generations. The Group affirms the importance of humanitarian considerations in the context of all deliberations and efforts in promoting the goal of nuclear disarmament. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/PC.III/WP.15, Para 9) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty firmly believes that any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would be a crime against humanity and a violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, in particular international humanitarian law. The Group further believes that the mere possession of nuclear weapons is inconsistent with the principles of international humanitarian law. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/PC.III/WP.15, Para 10) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty reaffirms the validity of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, that “there is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons ” and that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law”. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/WP.20, Para 8) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty underlines the unanimous conclusion of the International Court of Justice that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and to bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/WP.20, Para 31) In this regard, the Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty recalls the advisory opinion of 8 July 1996 of the International Court of Justice on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons that “there is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons” and that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law”. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/WP.20, Para 32) Accordingly, the Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty is of the view that, pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, as the only absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons, the nuclear-weapon States shall seriously refrain, at any circumstances, from the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon States parties to the Treaty. In the view of the Group, any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would be a crime against humanity and a violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, in particular international humanitarian law. The Group further believes that the mere possession of nuclear weapons is inconsistent with the principles of international humanitarian law. In this regard, the Group strongly calls for the complete exclusion of the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons from military doctrines. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/WP.23, Para 7) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty reaffirms that, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, States must refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Recalling the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice of 8 July 1996 on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the Group believes that, pending the total elimination of nuclear weapons, which is the only absolute guarantee against the threat or use of nuclear weapons, the nuclear-weapon States should seriously refrain, in any circumstances, from the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear-weapon State party to the Treaty. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/WP.23, Para 8) The Movement expresses its deepest concern over the immediate, indiscriminate and massive death and destruction that would be caused by any nuclear weapon detonation and its long-term catastrophic consequences for human health, the environment and other vital economic resources, thus endangering the life of present and future generations. The Group affirms the importance of humanitarian considerations in the context of all deliberations and efforts in promoting the goal of nuclear disarmament. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/WP.23, Para 9) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty firmly believes that any use or threat of use of nuclear weapons would be a crime against humanity and a violation of the principles of the Charter of the United Nations and international law, in particular international humanitarian law. The Group further believes that the mere possession of nuclear weapons is inconsistent with the principles of international humanitarian law. 

(NPT/CONF.2020/WP.23, Para 10) The Group of Non-Aligned States Parties to the Treaty reaffirms the validity of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, that “there is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons” and that “the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law”.