DYB2011-Part-II-web

Disarmament resolutions and decisions listed by chapter
conducive to the complete elimination of all nuclear weapons. Brazil cited paragraphs
in the Final Document of the 2010 NPT Review Conference, noting the proposals to
consider negotiations on a nuclear weapons convention or agreement on a framework
of separate, mutually reinforcing instruments with a strong system of verification, as
well as pursuing the final phase of the nuclear disarmament process within an agreed
legal framework, which should include specified timelines.
66/49. Compliance with non-proliferation, arms limitation and
disarmament agreements and commitments
By this resolution, which was last
introduced in 2008, the General Assembly
welcomed efforts by all States to pursue additional
areas of cooperation to increase confidence in
compliance with existing non-proliferation, arms
limitation and disarmament agreements and
reduce the possibility of misinterpretation and
misunderstanding. The Assembly also called upon
Introduced by: United States (27 Oct.)
GA vote: 161-0-18 (2 Dec.)
1st Cttee vote: 157-0-18 (27 Oct.)
For text, sponsors and voting pattern, see
Yearbook, Part I, pp. 129-132.
Member States to support efforts aimed at the resolution of compliance questions by
means consistent with such agreements and with international law, and welcomed
the role that the United Nations had played and continued to play in restoring the
integrity of, and fostering negotiations on, certain arms limitation and disarmament
and non-proliferation agreements and in the removal of threats to peace.
First Committee. In a general statement before the vote, the United States
recalled that it had been sponsoring the draft resolution for more than 25 years and
thanked the current sponsors. It drew attention to the two new paragraphs, 5 and 6,
drawn from the compliance resolution adopted by consensus in 2002 and it hoped for
the broadest possible support for the draft resolution.
After the vote, India stated that it was in favour of the draft resolution since it
believed in the responsibility of States to fully comply with their obligations in the
various agreements to which they were party. It believed that States, in encouraging
the compliance of other States, should do so in a manner consistent with the United
Nations Charter and international law. It emphasized the importance of multilateralism
in issues pertaining to disarmament, arms limitation and non-proliferation agreements.
Six States that abstained in the vote took the floor:
• The Islamic Republic of Iran believed that all States should comply, on
a non-discriminatory basis, with their obligations under all provisions of
the treaties to which they were party. However, it stressed that unilateral
assessments of non-compliance and attempts to use such assessments as foreign
policy leverage would undermine international disarmament efforts. It joined
the sponsors of the draft resolution in urging those States that were not in
compliance to make a strategic decision and to fully and immediately meet their
obligations. It added that continued failure of States to comply with their NPT
obligations would undermine the effectiveness of the Treaty.
• Egypt said that unfortunately, and despite a few improvements in the text,
the draft resolution retained the language that extended the scope of the draft
resolution beyond disarmament, non-proliferation and arms control agreements.
281