| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
120491
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The accident's impact on global expansion of nuclear power may be modest. China is among those who will continue to build and operate plants, and should be a leader in finding ways to do so safely and securely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
122014
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2013.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Just days after the March 2011 Fukushima accident, China's State Council suspended approvals of new nuclear power plants and created a range of rigorous measures aimed at improving the country's nuclear-safety provisions. It was not until October 2012 that the council cautiously lifted the ban on new construction. Then-Premier Wen Jiabao announced that all newly approved reactors would need to meet third-generation criteria, meaning that they should have certain advanced inbuilt safety features lacking in most conventional second-generation reactors. China's actions demonstrate a new resolve among its leadership to give greater consideration to the safety, rather than the economic benefits, of nuclear power. Fukushima caused concern that a similar accident in China would put the government's nuclear programme, which is the fastest growing in the world, at serious risk. Of even greater concern was the possibility that an accident could strengthen opposition to the rule of the Communist Party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 3 |
ID:
008876
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
1995.
|
| Description |
55-184
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 4 |
ID:
008880
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
1995.
|
| Description |
153-162
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 5 |
ID:
008881
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
1995.
|
| Description |
163-173
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 6 |
ID:
008884
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
1995.
|
| Description |
98-111
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 7 |
ID:
008883
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
1995.
|
| Description |
112-119
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 8 |
ID:
008879
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
1995.
|
| Description |
139-152
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 9 |
ID:
008878
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
1995.
|
| Description |
70-86
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 10 |
ID:
010797
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
April 1996.
|
| Description |
113-131
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 11 |
ID:
008748
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
1995.
|
| Description |
185-196
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 12 |
ID:
008882
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
1995.
|
| Description |
174-184
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 13 |
ID:
156301
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
If the disagreements between Russia and the United States over compliance with the 1987 Treaty on Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF Treaty) cannot be resolved, there is a risk that it will be abandoned. While the agreement is of indefinite duration, the parties to it have the right to withdraw if they decide that extraordinary events related to its subject matter jeopardise key national interests. The notice period prior to withdrawal is only six months, so the treaty could be lost very quickly.1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 14 |
ID:
011137
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
Jan 1997.
|
| Description |
16-20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 15 |
ID:
008875
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
1995.
|
| Description |
55-69
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 16 |
ID:
045916
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
New Delhi, Kilaso Books, 2004.
|
| Description |
xvi, 368p.
|
| Standard Number |
8179080102
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Copies: C:1/I:0,R:0,Q:0
Circulation
| Accession# | Call# | Current Location | Status | Policy | Location |
| 046920 | 355.4/ADH 046920 | Main | On Shelf | General | |
|
|
|
|
| 17 |
ID:
008231
|
|
|
| 18 |
ID:
158017
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Future historians may record summer 2017 as the beginning of the end of the nuclear age. On 7 July 2017, 122 states adopted the text of a legally binding international treaty that provides for a comprehensive ban on nuclear weapons (or ‘ban treaty’).1 The treaty was opened for signature on 20 September 2017, and at the time of writing, 56 states had signed and five had ratified.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 19 |
ID:
008332
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
1995.
|
| Description |
135-144
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 20 |
ID:
127318
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
One thing that is clear about the interim nuclear deal with Iran, reached on 24 November in Geneva, is that much of the world supports it. Nearly 70 nations have expressed that support formally. Nations liked that it capped Iran's programme, averted prospects for war, and showed light at the end of the sanctions tunnel. When members of the US Congress talk about legislating what a final deal with Iran must achieve, they ought to consider that the other parties to the negotiation also have a vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|