Библиографическое описание:

Болат А. А., Ашимова Д. И. Disarmament as the main guarantor of international security // Молодой ученый. — 2016. — №19. — С. 231-233.



The present time for preservation of a way of provide the international security and peace is the most important factor in the world is disarmament, but occurred in Ukraine and Syria’s a political crisis and the world renewed terrorist wave shook the peace all over the world. Political instability between the West countries and Russia, as well as due to the general instability in the world, each country in an attempt to enhance their security nearer lead the world to a large armed conflict.So at the moment the application of the principle of disarmament is actual as never before. First of all the application of the principle of disarmament requires to solve all sorts of problems arising between the two countries through diplomacy and peace.Secondly, the attitude of the world today, it is a human right to life and freedom and armed action that violates the principle of freedom of human life and the world in general.The Republic of Kazakhstan since independence, power and the number of strategic nuclear weapons was in 4th place, but adhering to the policy of peace and disarmament, putting in first place the safety of human life and completely renounced nuclear weapons.

Disarmamentis the act of reducing, limiting, or abolishing weapons. Disarmament generally refers to a country’smilitaryor specific type of weaponry. Disarmament is often taken to mean total elimination ofweapons of mass destruction, such asnuclear arms. General and Complete Disarmament was defined by the United Nations General Assembly as the elimination of all WMD, coupled with the «balanced reduction of armed forces and conventional armaments, based on the principle of undiminished security of the parties with a view to promoting or enhancing stability at a lower military level, taking into account the need of all States to protect their security» [1, p. 880].

The nature of conflict and the weaponry used to fight it have changed dramatically in the last 100 years. Before the twentieth century, few countries maintained large armies and their weapons-while certainly deadly-mostly limited damage to the immediate vicinity of battle. The majority of those killed and wounded in pre-twentieth century conflicts were active combatants. By contrast, twentieth-century battles were often struggles that encompassed entire societies, and in the case of the two world wars, engulfed nearly the entire globe. World War I left an estimated 8.5 million soldiers dead and 5 to 10 million civilian casualties. In World War II, some 55 million died. Weapons with more and more indiscriminate destructive power-weapons of mass destruction-were developed and used, including chemical and biological weapons and, for the first time, nuclear weapons, which were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, in 1945. The second half of the twentieth century was dominated by the Cold War and its attendant «proxy wars», wars of national liberation, intrastate conflicts, genocides, and related humanitarian crises. Although experts vary on their estimates of the number of people who have died as a result of these conflicts, there is general agreement that the number is upwards of 60 million and perhaps as much as 100 million people, many of them non-combatants. States engaged in an all out arms race, spending US$ 1,000 billion annually by the mid-1980s to build arsenals capable of inflicting massive destruction anywhere on the globe. 2 Then with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, came a lessening of tensions between the two superpowers and military budgets began to fall. Unfortunately the shrinking of military budgets was a short-lived trend, coming to an end in the late 1990s. Between 2001 and 2009, military spending increased by an average of 5.1 per cent annually [2, p. 171].

The overwhelming majority of violent conflicts today are fought within States, their victims mostly civilians. Certain marginalized populations-women, children, the elderly, the disabled, the poor-are particularly vulnerable in conflict and bear the brunt of its harm globally. Most conflicts are fought primarily with small arms and light weapons, which account for 60 to 90 per cent of direct conflict deaths-some 250,000 each year, according to the Small Arms Survey (2007). While war still takes a huge toll globally, the number of conflicts and the number of casualties are down since the end of the Cold War. In 2010, there were 15 major armed conflicts, according to SIPRI. The most severe conflicts and the number of genocides have declined dramatically in recent years (Human Security Brief 2007). With a few exceptions (notably Iraq and Afghanistan), conflicts in the post-Cold War period have been fought in low-income countries by small, poorly trained armies. The 2009 Human Security Report noted that mortality rates actually decline in wartime because they are already declining in peacetime and few of today’s wars kill enough people to reverse the pre-war trend. Most war deaths, however, are not a direct result of combat, but instead result from war-exacerbated disease and malnutrition. In some wars there are 10 or more deaths from disease and malnutrition for every death from violent combat injury.

Despite the downward trend in conflict, in 2010, the world’s Governments spent an estimated US$ 1.63 trillion on mili- 3 tary expenditures, a level of spending not seen since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. This figure amounts to $229 for each person in the world. The United States alone accounts for $698 billion or more than 43 per cent of the total. The economic drain associated with defence spending, particularly in a time of global economic crisis, is dramatic, and nowhere more so than in the developing world, where the poor suffer disproportionately as a result of conflict. For many of the world’s poor people, war and criminal violence are directly impeding their chances of development. The United Kingdom’s Department for International Development has estimated that half of the world’s poorest people could be living in States that are experiencing, or are at risk of, violent conflict. According to the World Bank, no low income, fragile or conflict-affected State has yet achieved a single Millennium Development Goal [3, p. 564].

The world is awash in weapons. There are an estimated 875 million or more small arms in circulation, according to the Small Arms Survey. At the beginning of 2014, nuclear-weapon States possessed more than 24,500 nuclear warheads, more than 7000 of which are deployed and ready for use; almost 2800 of these are kept on high alert (SIPRI), ready to be launched within minutes. World stocks of fissile materials, the materials used to make nuclear weapons, are nearly 2000 tons, enough to produce tens of thousands of new warheads (International Panel on Fissile Materials). Seventy-three countries continue to stockpiЯle billions of cluster bombs and other munitions, which, according to Human Rights Watch, have been used in Iraq, Lebanon, Georgia and the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in recent years. More than 79 countries are still affected to some degree by landmines and unexploded ordnance or other remnants of war. Women and children are increasingly becoming casualties of war. More than 275000 children have been exploited as soldiers 4 and hundreds of thousands of women have been raped in conflict situations.

As a united nations messenger of peace say that, — «I believe disarmament is a great cause serving all mankind. It is my passion. Twice in the twentieth century, the massive build-up of offensive weapons have led to two world wars, with the latter ending in the world witnessing the most destructive weapon ever conceived by man, the atomic bomb. The development of the atomic bomb led to a nuclear arms race which culminated in the United States and the Soviet Union possessing a total of some 70,000 nuclear weapons between them during the height of the Cold War, a staggering number that had the potential to annihilate all life from our fragile planet. Atomic bombs were the not the only weapons of mass destruction. Man has invented, and the world has witnessed, the use of chemical and biological weapons. Chemical weapons were a mainstay of the First World War when chlorine and mustard gases choked the life out of young soldiers who died agonizing deaths in trenches along the fighting fronts across Europe. Some histories of biological weapons date back to antiquity or the Middle Ages when warriors would catapult the bodies of plague victims over the walls of defending armies. By the twentieth century, scientists were concocting biological agents and developing missiles that could deliver massive lethal doses of anthrax and even smallpox halfway around the world. Controlling these biological poisons, once unleashed, would be impossible and the victims would be average citizens, mothers, fathers and children, who never signed up for battle» — Michel Douglas, United Nations Messenger of Peace [4, p.11].

It is a moment of challenge for many arms control regimes, most notably the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), whose nuclear- and non-nuclear-weapon States parties have differed over the basic aims and goals of the NPT. Nuclear weapon States, 40 years after the NPT entered into force, have failed to hold up their end of the nuclear bargain, to pursue «in good faith» negotiations on nuclear disarmament, as mandated by the NPT. On the flip side of that coin, nuclear proliferation is a growing concern globally. After more than a decade of no progress-indeed, many setbacks-in this area, there are now some positive signs, including consensus reached at the 2010 NPT Review Conference on actions for advancing the Treaty’s principles and objectives, and calls for nuclear abolition from prominent current and former leaders of Government and civil society. The question now is whether these will be translated into serious, irreversible action towards nuclear disarmament. In what many see as a time of new opportunities in arms control, there is much work to be done. There are no legally binding treaties in place to deal with missiles or the trade in small arms and light weapons, two extremely important areas. The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which bans all nuclear testing, has yet to enter into force, awaiting ratification by key nuclear weapon States and other countries of concern. The United States and the Russian Federation, which have been destroying huge chemical weapons stockpiles, are likely to miss the 2012 deadline to eliminate these weapons. Not all the news, however, is discouraging. In 2008, more than 100 countries successfully negotiated a ban on cluster munitions, which continues to gather support and entered into force in 2010. The membership of the Mine Ban Convention, which has effectively halted the global trade in landmines, also continues to grow. 5 There is also strong support for negotiating both a ban on the materials used to make nuclear weapons and an arms trade treaty to better regulate the global trade in conventional arms. While support is strong it is not universal, and negotiations on both are likely to be contentious [5, p. 261].

As scary as weapons of mass destruction are, most wars are fought with conventional weapons, which are not only large ones such as battlefield tanks and artillery canons but also include small arms such as machine guns, assault rifles and handguns. Around the world, these weapons are not only used in battle, but are all too often diverted through payoffs and corruption to terrorist groups, drug lords and criminal organizations. They are then often used to terrorize communities and to undermine peace and development.

So what can we do? In the pages that follow, you will learn the basics of disarmament, including what the United Nations, Governments and civil society groups are doing to reduce and abolish weapons that have brought so much anguish and suffering to so many. Treaties now exist to eliminate biological and chemical weapons, and to outlaw certain types of conventional weapons. Most people now believe, even if some Governments haven’t yet realized it, that nuclear weapons are not a security shield, but are a collective threat to all of us. A world free of nuclear weapons is a world that I wish for this generation and all future generations.

Read, learn and become involved. Knowledge and information, and not weapons, are the true sources of power [6, p. 635].

Finally, even for just the principle of disarmament stepsdeal, today, many high reputation in the study of topical issues of the international organizations it is difficult to adjust and try to deal with it. Only because only together with the world to spread peace throughout the world.

This is the question I offering the following guidelines:

  1. The principle of disarmament, the actual definition of the content of the regulatory and legal approval as follows:

– сarrying out practical steps for disarmament to save the work on the reduction of the contract, control and destruction of weapons.;

– To strengthen the legal force of the arms and on the reduction of armed forces;

  1. To analyze the definitions of full and partial disarmament, due to the fact that both of these concepts are known only in the overall context and, therefore, in the future we hope to separate them as two great definitions;
  2. Disarmament and arms limitation talks with the existing international legal mechanisms, in turn, structure and implementation of the unit to create a functional system;
  3. Disarmament is open description of the application of the legal principle of modern study.

References:

  1. Movement Litigation and UnilateralDisarmament: Abortion and the Right to DieАвтор:Price, Richard S.; Keck, Thomas M.LAW AND SOCIAL INQUIRY-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN BAR FOUNDATION Том:40Выпуск:4Стр.:880–907Опубликовано:FAL 2015
  2. SIPRI Yearbook 2014 — Armaments,Disarmamentand International Security.Автор:Birch, MarionMedicine, conflict, and survivalТом:31Выпуск:3–4Стр.:179–81Опубликовано:2015 Jul-Dec(Epub2015 Dec 13)
  3. Nuclear war and the city: perspectives on municipal interventions in defence (Great Britain, New Zealand, West Germany, USA, 1980–1985)Автор:Schregel, SusanneURBAN HISTORY Том:42Выпуск:4Стр.:564–583Опубликовано:NOV 2015
  4. Today's nuclear dilemmaАвтор:Schlosser, EricBULLETIN OF THE ATOMIC SCIENTISTS Том:71Выпуск:6Стр.:11–17Опубликовано:NOV-DEC 2015
  5. Struggling Against the Bomb or Against the Bloc Divide? The Dutch Peace Movement and Eastern EuropeАвтор:Miedema, ChristieDUTCH CROSSING-JOURNAL OF LOW COUNTRIES STUDIES Том:39Выпуск:3Стр.:261–274Опубликовано:NOV 2015
  6. NuclearDisarmamentMovementsАвтор:Wittner, Lawrence S.CONTEMPORANEA Том:18Выпуск:4Стр.:635–639Опубликовано:OCT-DEC 2015

Обсуждение

Социальные комментарии Cackle