Dilange wrote:Risottia wrote:
If they think it's a good treaty, why don't they sign it themselves?
And I didn't say "hypocritical".
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article13764.html This is why. If you sign the NPT then you must adhere by it. Thats what India is telling Iran. Its not saying its a good treaty, but if you signed. You have to follow it.
In the NPT treaty there is an article called Article X.
Article X allows a state to leave the treaty if "extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country", giving three months' (ninety days') notice. The state is required to give reasons for leaving the NPT in this notice.
NATO states argue that when there is a state of "general war" the treaty no longer applies, effectively allowing the states involved to leave the treaty with no notice. This is a necessary argument to support the NATO nuclear weapons sharing policy, but a troubling one for the logic of the treaty. NATO's argument is based on the phrase "the consequent need to make every effort to avert the danger of such a war" in the treaty preamble, inserted at the behest of U.S. diplomats, arguing that the treaty would at that point have failed to fulfill its function of prohibiting a general war and thus no longer be binding.[24] Many states do not accept this argument. See United States-NATO nuclear weapons sharing above.
North Korea has also caused an uproar by its use of this provision of the treaty. Article X.1 only requires a state to give three months' notice in total, and does not provide for other states to question a state's interpretation of "supreme interests of its country".
