The Illegality of the Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki from the Perspective of Customary International Law at the Time of 1945

IALANA board member Toshinori Yamada and IALANA co-president Daniel Rietiker attended a conference on the abolition of nuclear weapons in South Korea this summer. The conference was organized by SPARK (Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea).

Please find below the presentations of Toshinori Yamada as well as the discussion paper of Daniel Rietiker.

Link to the conference report (Korean):

IALANA Germany demands immediate release of Julian Assange

17 August 2023
Joint Appeal from IPPNW and IALANA*

Julian Assange is now facing deportation every day! We demand his immediate release. The German government must speak plainly to President Biden.

In the process by which the US is demanding the extradition of Julian Assange to stand trial under the Espionage Act, legal recourse in the British courts is almost exhausted. The High Court’s de­ci­s­ion on the appeal in the final instance is immi­nent. Should Assange fail here as well, the way would be clear for the British Home Secretary Suella Braverman to fly Assange out to the USA immediately.

Assange’s lawyers can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, but this has no suspensive effect. However, if an additional app­lication for provisional measures under Article 39 of the ECtHR’s Rules of Procedure is success­ful, the ECtHR can provisionally suspend Assan­ge’s extradition to the US in order to ensure effec­tive legal protection through the main proceedings.

However, it remains to be seen whether the Brit­ish government would comply with an order by the ECtHR to suspend the deportation. This is becau­se Minister Bravermann is act­ing in favour of Brit­ain’s withdrawal from the ECHR.

For more than a decade, Assange has sought to avoid extradition to the US, where he faces an un­fair trial, a virtual life sentence and indefinite soli­tary confinement. According to medical examina­tions, Assange shows all the signs of psychologi­cal torture and suffers particularly from solitary con­finement in Belmarsh. If deportation were to oc­cur, there would be an increased risk of suicide. The prospect of never being released and dying in detention would rob Assange of any hope, even if the prison authorities waive additional “supermax standards” and “Special Administrative Measures” (SAMS), which they only promised on appeal on the condition that Assange’s behaviour would not make such measures necessary after all.

The international peace movement and civil soci­ety owe Assange a debt of gratitude: his revela­tions about war crimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, for example, supported the pressure on the US government to end the war. Assange’s motto: “If wars can be started by lies, peace can be started by truth.”

Great danger also exists for the freedom of the investigative press, should the proceedings agai­n­st Assange continue. While he was vice-presi­dent under Obama, Biden rejected steps against Assange and WikiLeaks because otherwise, in addition to WikiLeaks, five international newspa­pers, including the New York Times, which had also published the secret material leaked by Chel­sea Manning, would also have had to be charged. In November 2022, the five jointly called on the US government to stop prosecuting Assange in an open letter. They stressed: never before had the anti-espionage law been used to put publish­ers or journalists on trial. ” This indictment sets a dangerous precedent, and threatens to undermine America’s First Amendment and the freedom of the press. Holding governments accountable is part of the core mission of a free press in a demo­cracy. Obtaining and disclosing sensitive informa­tion when necessary in the public interest is a core part of the daily work of journalists. If that work is criminalised, our public discourse and our democracies are made significantly weaker.” 

Despite widespread international protests from human rights groups and journalist organisations, most recently including the Australian government, the US government under President Biden is showing itself intransigent and continuing Trump’s line.

Annalena Baerbock is now particularly in the spotlight, as she demanded the immediate release of Assange before the change of government, citing “serious violations” of “fundamental freedoms under the European Convention on Human Rights”. Where is her usual strong protest against this massive attack on press freedom?

We call on the German government, for the sake of press freedom and to save the journalist Assange, who was unjustly prosecuted for publishing information leaked to him, to protest in clear terms to US President Biden against the threatened extradition and to demand the end of the criminal proceedings against Assange.

*The appeal is supported by the German chapters of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW Germany) and International Association Of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms (IALANA Germany).

Nuclear Sharing

By Bernd Hahnfeld, Board member IALANA Germany

The text was first published in German in December 2021 and updated in October 2022.

Summary: In keeping a decades-old tradition, Germany continues to maintain delivery systems for U.S. nuclear bombs stationed in the country. In case of deployment, the nuclear bombs are transported and dropped by Bundeswehr soldiers using Tornado fighter-bombers. This nuclear sharing is part of NATO’s strategic concept, which has been agreed upon by the member countries without a legal basis. The use of nuclear bombs and the threat of the use of nuclear weapons are prohibited by international humanitarian law and the human right to life. In addition, the use violates the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which prohibits Germany, a non-nuclear-weapon state, from any co-disposal of nuclear weapons. With the development of nuclear Trident missiles with small explosive power for the Ohio-class U.S. nuclear submarines, the tactical nuclear bombs stationed in Germany have lost their military significance anyway.

Download the pdf
Download the pdf in German

Article: Are Nuclear Weapons Illegal?

By Amela Skiljan, LL.M.Eur
Vice-Chair IALANA Deutschland e.V. – Vereinigung für Friedensrecht – Deutsche Sektion der International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms, Marienstr. 19-20, 10117 Berlin,

This article was first published in “Die Friedens-Warte Journal of International Peace and Organization”, December 2021, Issue 3-4, pp 418-444
DOI 10.35998/fw-2021-0020
ISBN 2009460321D
The Issue may be bought as print version or E-Book here:


Humanity has been developing legal responses to the threat of nuclear weapons since 1945. These responses are not only reflected in international treaties like the NPT or the TPNW, but also in the many norms derived from international humanitarian law, human rights law, environmental law and international criminal law. Many of them are of a customary nature, which makes them binding for all states, such as the general prohibition on the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons. This paper shows that many norms from different fields of international law reinforce each other in confirming the illegality of nuclear weapons in various aspects. In this regard, the TPNW is a landmark in nuclear disarmament, which not only confirms existing law, but develops it further.

Seit 1945 ist die Menschheit mit der Bedrohung durch Atomwaffen konfrontiert, und seither gab es rechtliche Antworten auf diese Bedrohung. Diese spiegeln sich nicht nur in internationalen Verträgen wie dem NVV oder dem AVV wieder, sondern auch in vielen Normen, die sich aus dem humanitären Völkerrecht, den Menschenrechten, dem Umweltrecht oder dem internationalen Strafrecht ergeben. Viele dieser Normen haben Gewohnheitscharakter, was sie für alle Staaten verbindlich macht, wie das generelle Verbot des Einsatzes und der Androhung des Einsatzes von Kernwaffen. Dieser Beitrag zeigt, dass viele Normen aus verschiedenen Bereichen des Völkerrechts sich gegenseitig in der Bestätigung der Illegalität von Atomwaffen in verschiedenen Aspekten bekräftigen. In dieser Hinsicht ist der AVV ein Meilenstein der nuklearen Abrüstung, der nicht nur bestehendes Recht bestätigt, sondern es auch weiterentwickelt.

Keywords: nuclear weapons, international law, customary law, disarmament, NPT, TPNW

Download the full article below or here

Download the overview (table) Are Nuclear Weapons illegal? below or here

Overview of national litigation in Japan

The following is some examples of national court cases that JALANA supports:

No More Hibakusha Lawsuits (A-Bomb Illness Certification Lawsuits) – The A-Bomb survivors are fighting court cases against Japanese government maintaining a practice of administration on assistance for A-Bomb survivors very limitedly. The Supreme Court recently made an unjust judgment that upheld the government’s practice.

“Black Rain” Lawsuit – 84 plaintiffs, who were outside the target area for state assistance but suffered health damage owing to the “black rain” containing radioactive substances that fell immediately after the atomic bombing, filed a lawsuit against the government, Hiroshima Prefecture, and Hiroshima City, demanding issuance of A-Bomb Survivor Health Handbooks. On July 29, 2020, Hiroshima District Court ruled in favour of all plaintiffs, but the defendants appealed.
  On July 14th, 2021, Hiroshima High Court upheld the District Court’s ruling that recognized the plaintiffs as hibakusha, and further expanded the “black rain area.” On July 26th, 2021, Japan’s then Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga said that the government had decided not to file a final appeal. He said his administration would further examine the issue so that relief measures could be extended to others who were exposed to the radioactive rain.

For more information on the “Black Rain” Lawsuit read the newspaper articles in THE ASAHI SHIMBUN and Japan Times.

Bikini Occupational Accidents Lawsuit – Owing to the 1954 US hydrogen bomb tests, fishermen and crews on fishing boats and cargo ships operating around the Bikini Atoll were irradiated and developed diseases such as cancers. We support a lawsuit which they filed to claim certification of occupational accidents, payment of insurance, and national compensation for having lost their rights to claim it to the US by the US-Japan Agreement.

Fukushima Nuclear Disaster and Lifework Lawsuits – The accident of Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant that occurred on March 11, 2011, deprived many residents of their places to live and livelihood. Lawsuits are pending to hold accountable the electric power company (operator of the nuclear plant), who has failed to take measures to counter disasters even after being informed of possibility of tsunami and earthquakes, and the government, who did not play a role of regulation authority. So far three of four high court decisions recognized a responsibility of the electric power company and the government. All the four cases are now pending at the Supreme Court.

This text was originally published on

IALANA Germany Signatory Appeal: Join the TPNW – Stop Germany’s Nuclear Armament


We hereby address you and all members of the Federal Government as well as the members of the German Bundestag with an urgent appeal: 

Sign and ratify the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons! 

Stop the deployment of the new US American B 61-12 atomic bombs at the German Air Force base in Büchel and the resulting new dangerous nuclear armament on German soil! 

Refrain from the planned acquisition of 45 US American F 18 fighter jets as nuclear weapon carriers for the Tactical Air Force Wing 33 of the Bundeswehr!

Continue reading “IALANA Germany Signatory Appeal: Join the TPNW – Stop Germany’s Nuclear Armament”

JALANA Statement on EIF of TPNW

Statement to welcome the entry into force of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons and pursue a “world without nuclear weapons and war”

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (“the Treaty” hereinafter) has come into effect today.
The Treaty has been a long-time wish of the Hibakusha (A-Bomb survivors). People around the world including the Hibakusha, who seek peace and nuclear disarmament, have continued to stress that “human beings cannot coexist with nuclear weapons,” and their call finally has led the Treaty to take effect.
The entry into force of the Treaty prohibits its States Parties from developing, testing, possessing, transferring, using or threatening to use nuclear weapons, and it legally obligates them to abolish such weapons. And even in relation with non-State Parties, this entry into force advances illegalization of nuclear weapons under international customary law and their delegitimization.
The entry into force of the Treaty is a historical step toward a “world without nuclear weapons” while the world is going to arms buildup despite the global crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic. We welcome the entry into force of the Treaty from the bottom of our hearts.

This Treaty recognizes that: the only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons are never used again is their complete elimination; a legally binding prohibition of nuclear weapons constitutes an important contribution towards the achievement and maintenance of a world free of nuclear weapons; and it is a global public good of the highest order, serving both national and collective security interests. In addition, the Treaty considers that any use of nuclear weapons would be contrary to the principles and rules of international humanitarian law.
Although the Treaty does not directly or legally bind the nuclear weapons states which are not parties to it, it has a great influence on interpretation of the international humanitarian law concerning nuclear weapons use. Nuclear weapons states know this, and therefore they are hostile to the Treaty. The legal significance of the entry into force of the Treaty is never small in a way to realize a “world without nuclear weapons.”
In addition, Article 4 of the Treaty (Towards the total elimination of nuclear weapons) opens a way for nuclear weapons states to join the Treaty. Article 12 provides that “(e)ach State Party shall encourage States not party to this Treaty to sign, ratify, …the Treaty, with the goal of universal adherence of all States to the Treaty.” It seeks universalization of the Treaty.
However, the government of Japan, the only country to have suffered nuclear attacks in wartime, is not willing to sign or ratify the Treaty. The reason is that Japan bases its security on the extended nuclear deterrence relying on the US nuclear umbrella. Such an attitude of the Japanese government shows that they do not look straightly at the catastrophic humanitarian consequences resulting from nuclear
weapons use, which is by no means acceptable for the only country to have suffered atomic bombings in wartime. Nuclear deterrence cannot be a base for security, and the security of Japan should be pursued by joining the Treaty.
Japanese government should take the lead in signing and ratifying the Treaty.
We must not forget that the prohibition of nuclear weapons is not enough to abolish use of force using conventional weapons or realize a “world without nuclear weapons and war.” We need to universalize worldwide a thorough norm of non-military pacifism, in other words, renunciation of war, non-possession of armed forces, and denial of the right of belligerency provided in Article 9 of the Japanese constitution.
We strongly demand that states possessing or depending on nuclear weapons including Japan sign and ratify the Treaty at an early date.
Finally, we pledge to continue our efforts to realize a “world without nuclear weapons and war” at the earliest possible date through universalizing worldwide the norm of non-military pacifism of Article 9 of the Japanese constitution, trusting in the justice and faith of the peace-loving peoples of the world including the Hibakusha.
January 22, 2021
Kenichi Okubo, President,
Japan Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms

Open letter by IALANA Italy to President Giuseppe Conte

Translated with (free version)
View the original in Italian

Dear President Prof. Giuseppe Conte

Next January 22, 2020 – 75 years after Hiroshima – the new Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPAN) will enter into force.

In 2017 with the favorable vote at the UN of 121 States and ratification by 51 States, finally the majority of States decided to implement the international obligation, ex art.6 of the Treaty of Non-Proliferation of 1968 “to pursue in good faith and conclude negotiations leading to global nuclear disarmament and under strict and effective international control” (see also: The device letter F of the Advisory opinion of 8.7.1996 International Court of Justice).

Nuclear states and their allies including Italy have unlawfully refused to participate in negotiations and/or adhere to this new treaty prohibiting the threat and use, possession, production and sale of nuclear weapons and have, on December 4, 2019, declared from London: “NATO will remain a nuclear alliance.” In October 2020, Italian troops participated in the steadfast noon 2020 exercise to perfect the evidence of a nuclear war against Russia by virtually destroying urban and industrial centers in the territorial depth of Central Asia. Unfortunately, there is no lack of other signs from the nuclear states and their allies of wanting to use these weapons, which draw their supreme advantage only from the fact of their unusability, that is, from the abnormality of their destructive power.

In this context, the writers believe it appropriate to point out that the joint planning of the use of nuclear weapons in Italy by NATO, through the decision of the American president, in addition to being contrary to Articles 10 and 11 of our Constitution and the Treaty of Non-Proliferation, exposes the Italian population to severe dangers especially in situations of political and social instability such as those we have witnessed in recent days.

Faced with the growing threat of these weapons of mass destruction being used, it seems right that Italy should fulfill its international obligation to adhere to the new TPAN and/or to renounce their use and to free Italian territory from these weapons that violate the humanitarian norms of the ius in bello. Your government and you personally are therefore called to the historic task of contributing to the final elimination of a danger to the very existence of the human race and every other form of life on our planet and urgently authorize the ratification in Italy of the new TPAN (See draft motion of May 29, 2019 by Senator Loredana De Petris).

Sincerely, lawyer Dr.Joachim Lau

Opposition to the Federal Government’s assertion that the nuclear sharing practiced by Germany within the framework of NATO does not violate the Non-Proliferation Treaty

A text by Bernd Hahnfeld, Board Member IALANA Germany

The Bundeswehr Fighter-Bomber Wing 33 is stationed in Büchel. It has the task, within the framework of NATO’s nuclear cooperation, of practicing with its Tornado aircraft the transport and dropping of the atomic bombs stationed there. In the event of war, Fighter-Bomber Wing 33 would deliver nuclear bombs to their targets following their release by the US President and operational authorization through the U.S. chain of command. In the event of war, the German soldiers thus acquire the “power of disposal” over nuclear weapons under the auspices of NATO. This is so despite the fact that the release of the weapons is only effective for dropping them on targets chosen by the U.S. There are no indications that peacetime nuclear exercises have involved actual nuclear weapons rather than practice bombs.

As a party to the NPT, the Federal Republic of Germany as a non-nuclear weapons state is obliged under Art. 2 NPT not to “accept nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or the power of disposal thereof from anyone, directly or indirectly”.

Read the full text here or in the pdf below.

Kriegsgeschäfte-Initiative: Ein JA im Interesse der Nachhaltigkeit und des Finanzplatzes Schweiz

Dr. iur. Daniel Rietiker; Lehrbeauftragter im Völkerrecht Universität Lausanne, Vorsitzender des Vereins Schweizer Anwälte für Nukleare Abrüstung (SAFNA)

Am 29. November 2020 entscheidet die Schweizer Stimmbevölkerung über die von der GsoA und den Jungen Grünen eingereichte Initiative “Für ein Verbot der Finanzierung von Kriegsmaterialproduzenten” (Kriegsgeschäfte-Initiative). Sie will, dass die Schweizer Nationalbank, die AHV und die Pensionskassen ihr Geld so anlegen, dass internationale Waffenproduzenten nicht davon profitieren. Der Autor vertritt die Meinung, dass die Initiative rechtlich und politisch unproblematisch ist und den hiesigen Grundwerten entspricht. Deshalb sollte sie angenommen werden.

Was will die Initiative?

Kriege sind nicht nur mit unfassbarem menschlichen Leid verbunden, sondern auch sehr kostspielig und können nur geführt werden, wenn genügend Geld für sie vorhanden ist. Auch Kriegsmaterialproduzenten sind auf finanzielle Mittel von Dritten angewiesen. Diese erhalten sie unter anderem über ihre Präsenz auf dem internationalen Finanzmarkt. Investitionen in internationale Finanzprodukte sind attraktive Anlagemöglichkeiten, auch für Schweizer Banken, Vorsorgeinstitute und Stiftungen. Auch die Schweizer Nationalbank (SNB) legt ihr Vermögen grenzüberschreitend an. Die Pensionskassen investieren jährlich mehrere Milliarden Franken in Rüstungskonzerne und die SNB investierte 2019 allein im ersten Halbjahr fast 1,5 Mia Dollar in US-amerikanische Firmen, die Kriegsmaterial herstellen, inklusive geächtetes und humanitär kaum zu verantwortendes (wie Landminen, Streumunition oder Massenvernichtungswaffen).

Als Beispiel kann das US-amerikanische Unternehmen Boeing angeführt werden, das meist als Mischkonzern bezeichnet wird und dem durchschnittlichen Konsumenten höchstens wegen der Flugzeugsparte des Konzerns etwas sagt, wobei der Rüstungszweig fast 30% des Gesamtumfangs ausmacht. Ende 2019 hatte die SNB mehr als 549 Mio USD in Boeing angelegt, die UBS sogar 2,78 Mia USD. Boeing produziert hauptsächlich Kampfflugzeuge, ist aber auch im Atomwaffengeschäft tätig.

Angesichts der globalen Herausforderungen wie Klimawandel, Pandemien oder massive Flüchtlingsströme ist weltweite Aufrüstung nicht der richtige Weg. Die Schweiz ist zwar als neutrales Land nicht in kriegerische Auseinandersetzungen involviert, aber zur Bewaffnung der Welt trägt sie dennoch bei. Die Kriegsgeschäfte-Initiative will genau diesen Missstand beheben indem kein Schweizer Geld mehr in die Rüstungsindustrie fliessen soll. Dabei soll insbesondere der Besitz von Aktien von Kriegsmaterialproduzenten sowie von Anteilen an Fonds, die solche Aktien enthalten, verboten werden.

Warum das aktuelle System nicht funktioniert?

Natürlich können die genannten Institute auch heute schon proaktiv gewisse Firmen oder gesamte Sektoren aus ihrem Anlageportfolio ausschliessen, was aber bloss in Einzelfällen passiert. Und auch anwendbaren rechtlichen Regeln greifen nicht.

Das im Jahr 2013 revidierte Kriegsmaterialgesetz (KMG) verbietet die Finanzierung von verbotenem Kriegsmaterial. Unter das Verbot fallen Atom-, biologische und chemische Waffen. Das Gesetz verbietet direkte sowie indirekte Finanzierung. Unter die direkte Finanzierung fallen u.a. die unmittelbare Gewährung von Krediten, Darlehen und Schenkungen. Indirekte Finanzierung, die in der Praxis eine weit grössere Rolle spielt, ist hingegen nur verboten, wenn damit das Verbot der direkten Finanzierung umgangen werden soll. Genau hier will die Initiative Abhilfe schaffen und diese Art von Finanzierung generell verbieten. Unter den Begriff “indirekte Finanzierung” fallen die Beteiligung an Gesellschaften, die verbotenes Kriegsmaterial entwickeln, herstellen oder erwerben, sowie der Erwerb von Obligationen und anderen Anlageprodukten, die durch solche Gesellschaften ausgegeben werden.

In der Praxis stellt sich das KMG als stumpfe Waffe heraus.Ein ziemlich offensichtliches Problem ergibt sich zunächst durch das Prinzip der self-regulation. In der Tat obliegt die Umsetzung und Überwachung des Finanzierungsverbots im KMG weitgehend den entsprechenden Normadressaten. Das reicht kaum für eine effektive Umsetzung des Finanzierungsverbots. Zweitens bleiben die strafrechtlichen Bestimmungen des KMG oft weitgehend ineffektiv. Wenn jemand die Möglichkeit einer Widerhandlung gegen das Finanzierungsverbot lediglich in Kauf nimmt, im Sinne eines Eventualvorsatzes, kommt er nämlich straffrei davon. Drittens ist in der Praxis die Absicht der Umgehung des Verbots sehr schwierig zu beweisen.

Fadenscheinige Argumente gegen die Initiative

Eines der Hauptargumente der Gegner der Initiative, inclusive Bundesrat, sind die angeblich negativen Auswirkungen auf die Rüstungsindustrie der Schweiz, inklusive dem Verlust von Arbeitsplätzen in den Rüstungsbetrieben und ihren Zulieferern. Dem lässt sich entgegnen, dass die hiesige Rüstungsindustrie nur sekundär betroffen wäre und dass das Finanzierungsverbot in erster Linie die SNB, Stiftungen und Vorsorgeeinrichtungen trifft. Kaum ein Schweizer Rüstungsunternehmen ist gross genug, in einem geläufigen internationalen Fond, in den die SNB oder Pensionskassen investieren, abgebildet zu sein.

Es wird ferner behauptet, dass der Ausschluss von Rüstungsproduzenten aus Anlageportfolien die Rentensicherheit gefährden oder die Gewinne schmälern würde. Die rasanten Entwicklungen im Bereich der Steuerung von Finanzflüssen in nachhaltige Aktivitäten (sustainable finance) beweisen aber das Gegenteil: nachhaltiges Investieren ist gewinnbringend und die Zukunft des Finanzsektors.

Stichhaltige Argumente für die Initiative

Eine Annahme der Initiative hätte zahlreiche positive Auswirkungen.

1.  Weniger Waffen und Gewalt: Das Geschäft mit den Waffen floriert. Seit dem Ende des Kalten Krieges ist eine stetige Zunahme von Waffen und eine erschreckende Innovation von Waffentechnologie feststellbar. Je mehr Waffen im Umlauf sind, desto gefährlicher können schon kleine Konflikte und Reibereien werden. Ferner wird das Risiko der Verbreitung von Massenvernichtungswaffen, incl. Atomwaffen, akzentuiert.

2.  Bekämpfung der Flüchtlingsströme: Millionen Menschen werden weltweit durch Kriege und Konflikte aus ihrer Heimat vertrieben. Werden potentiellen Kriegen und Konflikten durch das Versieben von Waffenlieferungen der Boden entzogen, trägt das zur Bekämpfung der Fluchtursachen bei.

3. Friedensförderung: Das Engagement der Schweiz in der Friedensförderung, Menschenrechtspolitik und Entwicklungszusammenarbeit ist zentral für die Verhinderung von bewaffneten Konflikten. Die Schweiz kann stolz sein auf ihre humanitäre Tradition und ihre Neutralität, sowie auf ihre Rolle als Mediator zwischen Konfliktsparteien. Wenn nun aber Milliarden von Schweizer Franken in die Kassen der Kriegsmaterialproduzenten fliessen, deren Waffen Kriege und Blutvergiessen erst ermöglichen, erscheint das weder kohärent noch glaubwürdig.

4. Bekämpfung des Klimawandels: Der Klimawandel stellt ohne Frage eine der grössten Bedrohungen der Menschheit dar. Die Rüstungsindustrie gehört zu den schmutzigsten Sektoren der Wirtschaft überhaupt und verpestet die Umwelt sowohl durch die Produktion wie auch den Einsatz von Kriegsmaterial gleich doppelt. Kriege bedeuten grundsätzlich die direkte Zerstörung der Umwelt durch die Verschmutzung von Boden und der Verseuchung von Trinkwasser.

5. Nachhaltigkeit des Finanzplatz Schweiz:  Die Bedeutung von Nachhaltigkeit ist ein Thema, das Staaten und Experten auf der ganzen Welt beschäftigt. Der Markt an nachhaltigen Investitionen ist im Jahr 2019 um 62% gestiegen. Ein nachhaltiger Finanzplatz ist das beste Aushängeschild, das sich die Schweiz wünschen kann.


Die Initiative drückt ganz klar die Werte und Bedürfnisse der Schweiz aus. Aus all diesen Gründen ist es wichtig, am 29. November der Kriegsgeschäftsinitiative zuzustimmen.