A new day of debates in the Legal Committee started with an unmoderated caucus. Maybe they were a bit tired after the Diplomatic Reception, which had taken place the evening before, but they were eager to work on their draft resolution on the amendments to the Article 10 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, resulted from two merged variants.
This was followed by the presentation of common points and aspects upon which some countries did not agree. The Russian delegate pointed firmly: “We and the United States of America do not agree with the three years of verifications after the withdrawal from the NPT!”. The USA also added: “The objectives of the US policy are depicted in this form and we want a more general status, not a specific one!”.
During the next debates, Israel stressed out the importance of focusing on the states which want to withdraw, not on the ones that had already withdrawn. Moreover, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) accused big states of not listening to the smaller ones, like India and Pakistan, and even them. In response, the USA argued that they are a democracy and North Korea is not, which degenerated in a controversial discussion between the two countries. DPRK supported the Israelian opinion that the NPT is not effective and added that it cannot be effective neither in 2015 nor in the future.
The discussions got more and more exciting when the delegates argued their positions, which generated contradictory debates, with pros and cons for the NPT regulations. Non-compliant countries, non-effectiveness during war, not according with little states principles, not reflecting the international stage situation – those are only some of the key-words of the very interesting debates which took place in the Legal Committee.