text: established. Facilities would have to be entered in that register and subsequently inspected before enjoying protection. This suggestion seems to us to have a number of advantages. First, no distinction is made between civilian and military facilities, which would be desirable if we really wish to aim at a comprehensive régime preventing mass destruction. It further offers the advantage that each government can decide for itself which facilities it wished to enter into the register and, therefore, which of its facilities would be offered for inspection and would subsequently enjoy protection. Under the Swedish proposal, therefore, mass destruction would be the criterion, whereas the register procedure would ensure the proper implementation. What about systems proposed by delegations in which IAEA inspection plays in one way or another a role? First, it is clear that the exclusive use of the IAEA safeguards criterion would bring many facilities under protection which pose no danger of mass destruction. In a recent document, CL/594 j submitted by a group of socialist countries, a combination is suggested of the IAEA safeguards criterion and the mass destruction criterion. Although such a system would ensure that protection will be limited to cases of potential mass destruction, it would, in our view, not cover all relevant cases. Military nuclear facilities would be excluded as well as other facilities to which up to now, for a variety of reasons, IAEA inspectors have not had access. The Swedish proposal would not put such limits on the scope of the agreement. A State party having decided to place its installations under protection, will simply offer them for inspection under the terms of the treaty. Let me add that in actual practice many of the relevant installations will be under IAEA safeguards. In those cases IAEA data can be used for inspection. 
analysis: The text discusses the establishment of a register for nuclear facilities and the inspection procedures to ensure that facilities that pose a threat of mass destruction are protected. The proposal seems to be focused on international security and non-proliferation, rather than any economic or social development aspect.