The industrial revolution resulted in a growing mechanization of war and rapid progress in the development of firearms; The increased potential for devastation (later visible on the battlefields of World War I) led Tsar Nicholas II of Russia to summon the leaders of 26 nations for the First Hague Conference in 1899. The conference resulted in the signing of the Hague Convention of 1899, which gave rise to rules for the declaration and conduct of war, as well as on the use of modern weapons, and also resulted in the creation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Nations can stay in a treaty while trying to break the boundaries of that treaty instead of just withdrawing from that treaty. There are two main reasons for this. Openly opposing an agreement, even if it withdrew, is often viewed politically in a bad light and can have diplomatic repercussions. If you stay in agreement, competitors that are also participatory can be kept to the limits of the conditions, while withdrawal frees your opponents to make the same developments as you do, limiting the advantage of this evolution. After the First World War, the League of Nations was founded to try to limit and reduce weapons. [15] However, the implementation of this policy has not been effective. Various naval conferences, such as the Washington Naval Conference, were held between World War I and World War II to limit the number and size of large warships of the five major naval forces. Recent arms control contracts provide for stricter conditions for enforcement of offences and verification. The latter has been a major obstacle to effective implementation, as offenders often attempt to secretly circumvent the terms of the agreements. The audit determines whether or not a nation is complying with the terms of an agreement, and it is a combination of the disclosure of that information by participants[8] and a way to verify each other`s information to verify that information.

[9] This often involves as much negotiation as the borders themselves and, in some cases, revision issues have led to the failure of contract negotiations (for example. B, the revision was mentioned as a major concern by opponents of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which was ultimately not ratified by the United States). [10] [11] Scholars and practitioners such as John Steinbruner, Jonathan Dean and Stuart Croft have worked hard to theoretically support arms control. Arms control must break the security problem. It aims at mutual security between partners and general stability (whether in a crisis situation, a major strategy or great stability to end an arms race). Beyond stability, arms control is added to cost reduction and damage limitation. It is different from disarmament, because maintaining stability could allow for mutually controlled armament and not adopt an unarmed attitude of peace. Nevertheless, arms control is in principle a defensive strategy, because transparency, equality and stability are not part of an offensive strategy. Intergovernmental arms control organizations are as follows: the protocol does not deserve full recognition. Chemical weapons are heavy in the fight (but not impossible).

The great fighters were concerned about retaliatory attacks (although this did not prevent the use of strategic bombing or an endless war of submarines). Toxic gas had already gained a terrible reputation before the protocol (like other forms of war). Finally, the treaty left a large number of loopholes that states could have exploited if they saw fit. While arms control agreements are seen by many proponents of peace as a key instrument against war, participants often see them as a means of limiting the high cost of arms development and construction and even reducing the costs associated with the war itself.

auto hájek

H&M INVEST s.r.o.

Hájek Martin
Dr. Steinera, Kladno 272 01

603 223 320

[contact-form-7 404 "Not Found"]