text: the amendment of an existing treaty prior to final solution of outstanding technical as well as political problems cannot be regarded as a feasible option. The concept of legally binding assurances given by nuclear-weapon States not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon States can, it would seem to us, never really serve its purpose. In a politically stable international environment, there would probably be no need for such assurances, whereas in the event of international crises, even legally binding assurances would not give adequate protection, unless nuclear weapons were under international control. Additional problems are related to definitions of terms such as "nuclear-weapon State", and to a feasible verification regime. Therefore, real progress, let alone the conclusion of a legally binding instrument, is not to be expected for the near future. Regarding the prohibition of radiological weapons, it is tempting to conclude that the initial expectations of easy negotiations in this respect have proved to be unrealistic. Therefore, the finalization of legally binding instruments is beyond reach, at least in the short term. The prohibition of radiological weapons in the narrow sense involves difficulties since, according to common understanding, such weapons are not in existence yet. The problem of verifying such non-existent weapons seems to go beyond feasible solutions. The prohibition of attacks on nuclear facilities used for peaceful purposes raises similar problems, at least in its current methodological approach. Only the prohibition of attacks on any nuclear installation would, in our view, lead to satisfactory solutions. Distinctions between criteria of definition, such as use for military purposes or military headquarters, would, however, not allow adequate verification. Let me conclude these remarks on a more general note. What we have first and foremost in mind in disarmament talks, in particular in multilateral 
analysis: The text appears to be discussing international relations, disarmament, and arms control, which are all related to the realm of international politics. It also touches on the concept of international control and verification of certain weapons, which suggests a connection to international security and diplomacy. Given the language and content, it is likely that the text is focused on issues related to international cooperation and governance.