Global Policy Addressing Nuclear Weapons Legacies Is Weak and Fragmentary 3 GLOBAL POLICY ADDRESSING NUCLEAR WEAPONS LEGACIES IS WEAK AND FRAGMENTARY Several states particularly impacted by the legacy of nu­clear weapons have established national(and occasionally regional) policies and programs addressing humanitarian and environmental concerns. However, few of these efforts adequately address the needs of affected communities. 17 A weak and fragmentary global policy framework has failed to exert pressure to provide better victim assistance and environmental remediation and has stymied initiatives for countries to cooperate and aid affected communities across international boundaries. One can find a nascent but truncated norm of assistance in the final outcome documents of NPT Review Conferences. Since 1995, outcome documents have called on states parties to develop»rigorous national measures and international cooperation« for radioactive waste management. 18 The 2000 outcome highlights»bilateral and multilateral activities that have enhanced the capabilities of the international commu­nity to study, minimize, and mitigate the consequences of the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in support of the actions taken by the Governments concerned.« 19 The most recent outcome, from 2010, acknowledged»the catastrophic humanitarian consequences« of nuclear det­onations. 20 It welcomed»attention to problems of safety and contamination related to the discontinuation of nuclear operations formerly associated with nuclear-weapons pro­grammes, including, where appropriate, safe resettlement of any displaced human populations and the restoration of economic productivity to affected areas.« Echoing language also found in the 2000 document, 21 the 2010 outcome »encourages all Governments and international organiza­tions that have expertise in the field of clean-up and disposal of radioactive contaminants to consider giving appropriate assistance as may be requested for remedial purposes in these affected areas…« However, the NPT policy framework for assisting affected communities is weak. 22 It is normative rather than legally-­binding—encouraging states to take action rather than requiring them to do so. It lacks a human rights framing. NPT Review Conferences are widely recognized as privileging the voices of nuclear-armed states, marginalizing survivors, civil society, and non-nuclear-armed states, particularly those from the Global South. The discourse of the NPT favors ab­stract discussions on deterrence and strategic stability over humanitarian, human security, human rights, and environ­mental concerns. The NPT Review Conferences are often ac­rimonious spaces. The interpretation of the consensus rule of decision-making is all too often wielded as a veto by the most intransigent nuclear-armed states. 23 The last conference, in 2015, collapsed without an agreed outcome. Given current international tensions, many commentators worry about the obstacles to achieving a successful conclusion in 2022. 24 There are other signs of an emerging norm of assistance scattered across the international system. The 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples(UNDRIP) recognizes the right»to the conservation and protection of the environment«(Article 29[1]), and calls on states to»take effective measures« to address the impact of»storage or disposal of hazardous materials,« through»programmes for monitoring, maintaining and restoring the health of indige­nous peoples«(Article 29[2&3]). It also calls for the demil­itarization of indigenous lands(Article 30). 25 Similarly, UN Environment Assembly(UNEA) resolutions on protecting the environment in armed conflict stress the»critical importance of protecting the environment at all times,« as well as»its restoration« following damage caused by military activities. 26 But neither the UNDRIP nor the UNEA specifically address the impact of nuclear weapons. During the 1990s, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed resolutions on nuclear testing that requested states to inform the agency»of any adverse impact on health, safety and the environment as a consequence of … nuclear testing.« It called on states to»to ensure that sites where nu­clear tests have been conducted are monitored scrupulously and to take appropriate steps to avoid adverse impacts on health, safety and the environment.« 27 This resulted in several studies of radiological conditions at former test sites. 28 More recently, the UN General Assembly has passed res­olutions concerning the humanitarian and environmental impact at the Semi/Semipalatinsk Soviet nuclear weapons test site in Kazakhstan, 29 in Maohi Nui / French Polynesia, 30 and the Chernobyl-affected region. 31 All the latest versions of these resolutions were passed unanimously(and thus include the support of all nuclear-armed and nuclear-allied states). The Maohi Nui / French Polynesia resolution»encourages« France to»take steps« regarding»recognition and compen­sation of victims of nuclear tests« and requests that the UN 5