I’ve been in London for the last month and have heard policymakers react to the wake up call Elon Musk just delivered. The decision of the U.S. to shut off intelligence and throttle the military v…
So you say that one side of the treaty (restoring Germany’s sovereignity) is valid while the other side (Germany’s assurance to never have nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, banning nuclear weapons stationed in former Eastern Germany and so on…) isn’t?
That’s an interesting idea, although one were you might not find a lot of people agreeing. Especially not as the the German side of assurances also includes no territorial claims over any former German areas now belonging to Poland. Do they know that international law is seemingly bullshit and you can just pick which agreements to uphold?
I’m saying your interpretation of the treaty is incorrect. Immediately after the two sentences you quoted is a third one clarifying that the “rights and obligations arising from the [NPT] will continue to apply to the united Germany”, meaning that Germany retains the right to withdraw from the NPT under Article X like any other signatory.
The actual text says the opposite as it continues:
“[…]They declare that the united Germany, too, will abide by these commitments. In particular, rights and obligations arising from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968 will continue to apply to the united Germany.”
Sorry, but reading those two sentences as “we will abide by the renunciation of nuclear weapons, by keeping the right to withdraw from the NPT” is quite frankly insane.
The letter and spirit of the paragraph both seem quite clear to me. The united Germany was to become party to the same treaties as West and East Germany with regard to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The NPT is the legal text of the “renunciation” of nuclear weapons, even though that specific word doesn’t actually appear in the NPT. Germany’s rights and obligations under the NPT are the same as those of all other signatories.
So you say that one side of the treaty (restoring Germany’s sovereignity) is valid while the other side (Germany’s assurance to never have nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, banning nuclear weapons stationed in former Eastern Germany and so on…) isn’t?
That’s an interesting idea, although one were you might not find a lot of people agreeing. Especially not as the the German side of assurances also includes no territorial claims over any former German areas now belonging to Poland. Do they know that international law is seemingly bullshit and you can just pick which agreements to uphold?
I’m saying your interpretation of the treaty is incorrect. Immediately after the two sentences you quoted is a third one clarifying that the “rights and obligations arising from the [NPT] will continue to apply to the united Germany”, meaning that Germany retains the right to withdraw from the NPT under Article X like any other signatory.
The actual text says the opposite as it continues:
“[…]They declare that the united Germany, too, will abide by these commitments. In particular, rights and obligations arising from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1 July 1968 will continue to apply to the united Germany.”
Sorry, but reading those two sentences as “we will abide by the renunciation of nuclear weapons, by keeping the right to withdraw from the NPT” is quite frankly insane.
The letter and spirit of the paragraph both seem quite clear to me. The united Germany was to become party to the same treaties as West and East Germany with regard to nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The NPT is the legal text of the “renunciation” of nuclear weapons, even though that specific word doesn’t actually appear in the NPT. Germany’s rights and obligations under the NPT are the same as those of all other signatories.