Chemical and radiational dimension of security

does not need to prove. In states that do not have nuclear weapons and does not have other types of weapons of mass destruction, whose doctrine precluded their use, there is a high awareness. So the arms race inevitably leads to increased international tensions and the threat of war. It contradicts the idea of the UN Charter and international law, the modern idea of securing peace, security and peaceful cooperation between states and the principle of disarmament, which is formulated in a series of international agreements.

In theory, international law, there is no dispute or that any previously obtained concrete measures of disarmament is of great importance for developing and strengthening the effectiveness of international law.

Given the interconnectedness and interdependence issues of international prohibitions relating to weapons of mass destruction and disarmament, make marginal controversy and debate over which of contemporary international law, such questions belong. The problem is generally much larger. Not more word on whether they belong to the right of international security, disarmament law, the international law of armed conflict in the broadest sense of the word.

Observing the whole problem and the implications of weapons of mass destruction not only from the point of view of possible application thereof on the war, but also in terms of their activity in the normal state we call peace, particularly in relation to the exercise of basic rights of man, for example, the right to life, and in relation to ecocide, which is still in the testing phase and the production of these weapons, then it will disappear compelling reasons that cause controversy about belonging.

Our belief that satisfies all the institutes concerning the prohibition of weapons of mass destruction are part of modern international law, which has to be upgraded in the function of general and complete disarmament.

Over time, as they have developed and other international legal institutions, is likely to create more informed assumptions to form a special field of international law of which would constitute a case of gravity editing of international issues related to weapons of mass destruction but also the limitations of other means of warfare.

Thus, at this level of analysis, we opt not to any argument that these issues are set aside in a special area of new and modern international law.