text: an international legal instrument, continue to be widely apart. CD/PV.J21 17 (Mr. Van Schaik, Netherlands ) Most of the criteria advanced by delegations are thus far based on a sort of a fundamental dichotomy, for example, civilian versus military facilities, or with a certain overlap but not coinciding with the previous distinction, peaceful versus non-peaceful use of facilities. Still another criterion is based on IAEA safeguards. In recent years, the criterion of mass desctruction has been gaining wider acceptance. In some cases these criteria have been used by delegations in combination. As a starting-point it seems reasonable to us to underline that our main concern stems from the risks of the release of large amounts of radiation as a result of an attack on a nuclear facility. This would in many cases seriously endanger the lives of combatants and non-combatants alike. International law has in analogous cases sought to address this through the concept of "indiscriminate warfare". In our view, the most reasonable approach in dealing with the question of attacks on nuclear facilities would be to build upon this concept, which is also to be found in the 1977 additional protocols to the Geneva conventions. This could be done by working out a legal prohibition of attacks on those nuclear facilities that contain radioactive materials in sufficient quantities to present the risk that, in case of an attack, indiscriminate effects on the human environment will ensue through mass destruction. If we base the future legal instrument on the notion of mass destruction, what implications would this have for other criteria thus far suggested by delegations? First the criterion according to which it is sufficient for a given nuclear installation, to be of a peaceful nature in order to qualify for protection would place many installations under protection that pose no or very little risk to 
analysis: The text discusses international legal instruments and criteria for the protection of nuclear facilities, highlighting the risks of mass destruction and indiscriminate effects on human life and the environment. The focus is on the legal framework and the implications of different approaches, rather than specific economic, social, or environmental issues.