Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
1. The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) provides for a comprehensive mechanism for the resolution of insolvency proceedings. The IBC sets up the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) as the adjudicating authority for corporate insolvency resolution proceedings. As a result, the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal may be limited. 2. Section 238 of the IBC provides that the provisions of the
Typology: Schemes and Mind Maps
1 / 20
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
The project would not have been feasible without the unwavering support of many people. I'd like to express my deepest gratitude to Prof. Dr. Raka Arya for leading me through the growth of this paper into a cohesive whole by offering valuable observations and sharing her brilliant expertise. I'd also like to thank the officials at the Gyan Mandir, NLIU, for assisting us in finding suitable testing materials for this report. I am eternally grateful to my parents, seniors, and peers for their spiritual guidance and motivation. Shruti Ukey 2021BALLB
The role of nuclear weapons in security and international affairs is evolving. Significantly, these processes are appearing for two different types of nations in opposite ways. The use of nuclear weapons is decreasing in affluent, militarily robust countries' defence plans. On the other hand, certain nations with underdeveloped militaries may start to see nuclear weapons as essential, if not ideal, for their defence. The disparities between these two groups are highlighted by the fact that two dictators who stopped their nuclear projects in the past ten years lost their governments and their lives. As a result, authoritarian regimes could suddenly have a reason to want to keep pursuing nuclear weapons. By reducing the link that has grown over the past ten years between the destruction of nuclear weapons programmes, the overthrow of dictators, and the taking of tyrannical leaders' lives, U.S. interests will be advanced. The role of nuclear weapons in security and international affairs is evolving. Significantly, these processes are appearing for two different types of nations in opposite ways. The use of nuclear weapons is decreasing in affluent, militarily robust countries' defence plans. Nuclear weapons are less selective and less accessible than cutting-edge conventional military systems. Nuclear weapons may be seen by nations who lack the capacity to defend themselves against sophisticated Western military technology as becoming more and more necessary or desirable for their defence. The First Nuclear Age came to an end in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The end of bipolarity, perhaps the most tranquil time in European history, sparked new worries about national security, especially the use of nuclear weapons abroad. At this time, nuclear weapons were implicitly utilised as a sort of deterrence rather than being used outright. Even though we are in the second nuclear era, the use of nuclear weapons is still controversial. Should they be retained or released, if possible? Is deterrence still an effective strategy? Will we take part in global discussions without them? From Washington to Moscow, London to Beijing, Paris to New Delhi, philosophers, scholars, moralists, statesmen, and military commanders are debating these and other topics. This essay
Nuclear weapon, European security, and regional Deterrence, By - Phil Williams: - Foreign affairs experts now have access to new and exciting, if somewhat overwhelming, prospects due to the conclusion of the Cold War. Not the least of these worries is how nuclear weapons will fit into the new global order and what effect they will have. During the Cold War era, nuclear weapons played a crucial role in creating the superpower relationship as well as in determining important parts of the global community. Nevertheless, their position and impact are much less obvious today. This is particularly true in Europe, a key Cold War theatre that has subsequently seen the most dramatic transition to new institutions and partnerships. India’s Nuclear Weapon and the Impact on Global Proliferation, By – George Perkovich: - India's May 1998 explosion of five nuclear bombs in the Rajasthan desert shocked the whole globe, including many of its own citizens. Since 149 nations had agreed to a ban on nuclear testing, why would India want nuclear weapon status? Why did India's new Hindu nationalist administration decide to end decades of nuclear restraint, which no other nation with equal capability had shown? How has India's decision-making been impacted by US non-proliferation policy? "India's Nuclear Bomb" is the comprehensive history of how the most powerful nation in the world has struggled with the conflicting desires to own and reject the bomb. Important historical revelations are presented in each chapter, drawn from dozens of in-depth interviews with influential Indian scientists, military leaders, diplomats, and politicians as well as declassified American government documents and conversations with US officials. Perkovich clarifies the cultural, ethical, and colonial remnants factors that support India's ostensibly conflicting position. Leading theories on the motivations for the acquisition and maintenance of nuclear weapons are called into question by India's nuclear past, raising serious issues for the philosophy of international relations and security studies. The worldwide non-proliferation machinery has been shaken by the incidents in Rajasthan as well.
Nuclear Weapon and Foreign Policy, By- Henry Kissinger In an effort to change people's perspectives on war, diplomacy, and the meaning of peace, this book investigates how nuclear weapons have affected American foreign policy. It identifies the factors that can guide policy and strategy as well as the shortcomings of traditional security paradigms. The Spread of the Nuclear Weapon and International Conflict, By- Michael Horowitz: - This book explores the reasons why a state's nuclear weapons arsenal influences both its own behaviour and the behaviour of its enemies during militarised wars. Using a variety of prediction models and illustrative examples, the book shows that while having nuclear weapons makes governments far more likely to respond militarily to challenges and have their challenges responded to, the impact eventually reverses. This variation in outcomes over time, as opposed to a static conception of nuclear energy, underscores the difficulties faced by nuclear proliferation.
What are the effects of nuclear weapons on international relations and how do they alter state friendships. Also, the nuclear weapons today's most essential possessions for nations and do these nuclear-armed nations outnumber those without them.
What is the actual status of relations between nations in regards to nuclear weapons? Also, how have nations aided in this, why the effect of nuclear weapons must lessen in global politics and international relations, and why nations are lagging behind the nuclear weapon.
Every time we discuss peace or progress in general, we tend to focus on one of the key factors that may be the source of friction between states: nuclear power. All of the nations with nuclear
In order to unleash radioactive energy from nuclear fusion, nuclear fission, or a combination of the two processes, nuclear weapons are devices. Fission devices are also referred to as atomic bombs. Fusion weapons, sometimes known as thermonuclear bombs or, more frequently, hydrogen bombs, are nuclear weapons that derive at least some of their energy from nuclear fusion.^1 Many explosives are produced by nuclear weapons. To further understand their importance, consider the terms kiloton (1,000 tonnes) and megaton (1,000,000,000 tonnes), which express their explosion energy in terms of traditional chemical explosive TNT equivalent weights. For instance, the 1945 atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, released energy equal to around 15 kilotons of nuclear explosive despite only containing 64 kg (140 pounds) of highly enriched uranium. A powerful shock wave, a tonne of heat, and lethal ionising radiation were all immediately discharged after the explosion. Convection currents from the explosion carried dust and other airborne particles into the atmosphere, resulting in the mushroom-shaped cloud that has come to be recognised as the unmistakable sign of a nuclear explosion. Moreover, nuclear waste was carried into the air by clouds before falling as radioactive fallout on Earth. The Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings three days later caused unimaginable destruction, death, sicknesses, and illnesses that were unequalled by any other weapon. Governments have ratified arms control agreements like the Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty of 1963 and the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons of 1968 out of concern for the terrible repercussions that such weapons could have. This is true even though many nations have created nuclear missiles that are significantly more powerful than those that were used to attack Japanese cities in the decades since 1945.^2 The unmatched disruptive capability of these weapons has given military strategists and planners a new area of study known as nuclear policy. The theories and internal logic of this discipline are unique. Rockets fired from aircraft were the first chemical weapons. Strategic ballistic missile (^1) https://nuclear.gepower.com/company-info/nuclear-power-basics (^2) https://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/nuclear-power-in-the-world- today.aspx
warheads were subsequently developed and have by far been the most potent nuclear weapons. For torpedoes, shorter-range ballistic and cruise missiles, anti-submarine depth charges, and artillery rounds, smaller tactical nuclear weapons have also been produced.
Whether or not either side of a dyad possesses nuclear weapons—Side A possessing nuclear weapons and Side B possessing nuclear weapons—represents the first set of independent variables of relevance. A 0 indicates that a nation does not possess nuclear weapons, whereas a 1 indicates that it does. Although the possession of nuclear weapons is sometimes considered to be a simple matter— either a state possesses a nuclear weapon or it does not—recent research by Singh and Way (Singh and Way 2004) shows the need of exercising caution when deciding how to code nuclear weapons. Throughout the past fifty years, there have been many changes in the ways that analysts have coded national nuclear arsenals. 3 For instance, some people designate the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Israel as occurring in 1966, while others think it happened in 1972 or even 1973. While some believe that India first had the potential to produce nuclear weapons in 1974 when it exploded a non-lethal nuclear bomb, others assert that India did not acquire nuclear weapons until 1988, 1990, or even 1998. The duration a country has possessed nuclear weapons, sometimes referred to as Side A nuclear age and Side B nuclear age, is the second category of independent variables of importance. On Side A and Side B, there are two nuclear eras. A counter keeps track of the number of years each nation has had nuclear weapons, with year 1 designating either the nation's first or second year of nuclear weapon ownership.^4 (^3) The post-Soviet states are excluded. (Gartzke and Kroenig, this issue). Including them does not substantively change the results. (^4) The results that follow are robust even when run on different nuclear possession coding.
The moment has come to reevaluate the function and organisation of our potential nuclear capabilities. For new technologies to advance from the prototype stage to the point where we will depend on them for the security of our country, at least ten years must pass. Moreover, work is already in progress to replace our nuclear-capable weapons, battleships, and submarines.
In today's culture, terrorism is a well-known occurrence. Nonetheless, the possibility of militant groups gaining nuclear weapons has been considered since the 1970s and has persisted for a very long period. With the current rise in terrorism, the rise of religious extremism, and the advent of the so-called "rogue" state, some argue that nuclear power and deterrence are useless against a stateless foe. In the event that terrorists gain nuclear weapons, there are no flexible alternatives available due to the state-centric nature of deterrence and the indiscriminate disruptive nature of nuclear weapons. Since criminal organisations are not states, their behaviour (or that of "nuclear terrorists") will differ from that of regimes. Terrorists seek to destroy the "old" order and install a new one in its place. As they are not competing with other countries or currencies, nor do they have to consider capital protection or conserving territory, their interests are very different from those of policymakers.^7 As a result, the existence of nuclear weapons is a double-edged sword since it is extremely possible for the power to be used against its creator. Since these forces reject or even ignore the idea of reason, terrorism motivated by politics or (as we are all too acquainted with) faith has become more evident and impossible to forecast. For instance, death is not always a loss in the case of religious fundamentalism, whether it be that of friends, a nation, or even oneself (thus the increase in suicide bombers and "millenarianism"). Maybe more dangerous than a state with a thousand nuclear weapons is a terrorist with a nuclear bomb. This is confirmed by the fact that extremist groups operate globally and independently, rather than being confined to a certain area^8. (^7) Rosenbaum, D. M. (1977) ‘Nuclear Terror.’ International Security , Vol. 1, No. 3, pp. 140-161. (^8) Mearsheimer, J. J. (1985) ‘Nuclear Weapons and Deterrence in Europe.’ International Security , Vol. 9, No. 3, pp. 19-46.
As a result, the relationship that militant organisations have on a global scale makes obtaining nuclear material more simpler for them. How can we prevent a militant group possessing a nuclear weapon from using it? Both deterrence and any technology used in retaliation will be futile. Ironically, nuclear weapons have established a reputation in international relations that is hard to shake.
The current nuclear powers see the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries or non- state entities unfavourably. Again, the employment of nuclear weapons is to be discouraged, especially by so-called "rogue" governments or those with a dubious reputation. Waltz is a proponent of the "gradual spread" of nuclear weapons, as was previously said, as a means of guaranteeing stability. This is a "hair-raising strategy of accomplishing defence," according to Gerald Segal. He makes the argument that weak states or regimes, together with tiny nations with minimal nuclear development, are far from "reassuring”.^9 It is important to remember, nevertheless, that discussions over whether nations have the legal authority to develop and possess nuclear weapons only serve to enhance such nations' standing in international society. If the goal is to eradicate nuclear weapons from society, then it would seem that more pertinent discussions should centre on either: a) preventing the start (or continuation) of nuclear programmes (for instance, the US's current alliance with Iran), b) reducing the number of nuclear warheads, or c) achieving complete disarmament. Because having nuclear weapons gives them a voice in international discussion, it appears that countries, especially Western powers, are reluctant to make firm judgements. Furthermore, their arguments are in conflict with one another^10. They contend that proliferation is a dangerous phenomenon that might make adversarial nations more advanced. Waltz and Segal are correct to point out that nations normally only desire nuclear weapons for security purposes, and that any attempt to stop the proliferation or production of nuclear weapons will ultimately fail. Four more nations—India, Pakistan, North Korea, and Israel—have nuclear weapons or are thought to have them, in addition to the five states with nuclear weapons that have been officially (^9) Tannenwald, Nina (2013). "Justice and Fairness in the Nuclear Non-proliferation Regime" (^10) "Proliferation and/or Alliance? The Federal Republic of Germany", in Leopoldo Nuti and Cyril Buffet (eds.): Dividing the Atom, special issue of Storia delle Relazioni Internazionali (Autumn 1998).
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a multinational agreement with three pillars: (1) Non-proliferation, (2) Disarmament, and (3) peaceful nuclear energy—is meant to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. Among them is a "grand deal" between the non-nuclear armed nations and the five nuclear power powers.^13
under Article VII the right to sign regional agreements to guarantee the absence of nuclear weapons on their respective lands (nuclear-weapon-free zone treaties). The following writings have a procedural bent. UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 255 (19 June 1968) on NPT NNWS security assurances came after the NPT. The five NWS provided NNWS parties to the NPT with harmonised negative security assurances by UNSCR 984 on April 11, 1995. Disarmament Both Parties must conduct good faith negotiations on measures that will put a stop to the nuclear arms race and lead to nuclear disarmament, as well as a protocol on general and complete disarmament under stringent and effective international supervision (Article VI).^15 Leaving the treaty A state must give three months' (ninety days') notice to leave the pact if "exceptional circumstances pertaining to the subject matter of this Treaty have compromised the country's paramount interests," according to Article X. The state is anticipated to provide justifications for quitting the NPT in this notification.^16 (^15) "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons". United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs. (^16) Brian Donnelly, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, The Nuclear Weapons Non-Proliferation Articles I, II and VI of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
peacekeeping system. The term "balance of terror," also known as "reciprocal deterrence," describes a situation in which two (or more) adversarial nations are so terrified of one another that neither is likely to risk taking any action that may result in a military attack by the other. Organski, A.F. In the age of balance of terror, the nuclear powers have a deep-seated animosity for one another and have been determined to avoid conflict at all costs. A new peace in international relation It is undeniable that the use of nuclear weapons in international relations gives the concept of peace a new relevance. In the past, people believed that peace was a positive condition characterised by cooperation, fellowship, and reciprocal benevolence. Contrarily, "peace in the face of fear" used to be the term for peace in the nuclear era. It changed into a gloomy harmony, or one that technology had forced. It changed into a fragile peace that was tempered by fear, a peace defined by injustice, threats, and distrust, as well as a peace that was ready to go to war in its entirety. A change in a role of diplomacy The complexity of utilising nuclear weapons lessened the threat of war's significance on international negotiations. To accomplish the desirable objectives of its foreign policy, diplomacy may rely on the threat of military action or conflict. But, the near-uselessness of nuclear energy made such a threat of force less credible in diplomatic discussions. Using the threat of conflict to obtain its aims is no longer working for diplomacy (total war).
