India and the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty: Policy Options
Abstract The international community inside and outside the Conference of Disarmament is underscoring the need for concluding a fissile material cut-off treaty (FMCT). The Indian government, for a long period, has been sponsoring the idea. Notwithstanding the international stagnation, the issue has been instigating periodic debate in India on the Indian approach. The periodic revival of the issue requires that India revisit its policy on fissile material production as well as its approach towards a possible FMCT. This article examines the question: should India's approach to conclude an FMCT be within the UN institutional framework? The new international reality is pushing for a new context, new realignments and a fresh outlook for an FMCT. India should take its own time to support conclusion of an FMCT so that its national interests and security are not adversely affected.
Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and options for India (NIAS Working Paper No. WP1-1999)
Fissile material cut-off was first proposed as a U.S-U.S.S.R 
arms control measure by President D. Eisenhower in 1956* 
but was rejected by U.S.S.R., since it felt that it was an 
American tactic to freeze them at an inferior level. In the 
intervening years, between 1956 and January 1989 when 
President Mikhail Gorbachev was willing to discuss the 
proposal, several developments took place (Annex-1), and 
attempts were made to stop production of fissile material but 
without any success. Despite the new Russian flexibility under 
Gorbachev, however, the Bush administration was opposed to 
the idea, most likely due to the U.S.S.R.’s nuclear stockpile 
being higher than that of the U.S. Indeed until 1993, the U.S. 
remained an opponent to cut-off when President Clinton revised 
the policy position from “opposition
Public health in eight European countries: an international comparison of terminology.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this paper was to assess the use of different terms pertaining to public health in selected Member States of the European Union.


STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS
Qualitative research methods were used to compare the terminology among eight Member States. Seven to nine core terms were defined for each country, and a search was performed for these terms in the names of institutions and professional titles, organized into three comparable categories.


RESULTS
The data analysis showed considerable diversity in terminology. The three most commonly used terms for each country, and the frequency distribution of the core terms for all eight countries were determined.


CONCLUSION
Public health terminology and underlying concepts vary among Member States of the European Union. A large number of loosely related terms are in use, indicating the lack of a common conceptual framework for the discipline of public health. The most commonly used terms pertaining to public health are 'health sciences' and 'health promotion'. 'Public health' is not among the most commonly used terms.