斯德哥尔摩国际和平研究所-Engagement-on-nuclear-disarmament-between-nuclear-weapon_42页_1mb

Summary of "Engagement on Nuclear Disarmament Between Nuclear Weapon-Possessing States and Non-Nuclear Weapon States"

Core Content

This document by Tariq Rauf from the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) examines the evolving dynamics and challenges in nuclear disarmament engagement between nuclear weapon-possessing states (NWPS) and non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS). It highlights the increasing divergence in perspectives and actions on nuclear disarmament, especially in the context of the 2020 NPT Review Conference and the ongoing negotiations on a treaty banning nuclear weapons.

Main Points and Key Information

NPT and Article VI

• The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which entered into force in 1968, obligates all states parties to "pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament" (Article VI).
• The 1995 indefinite extension of the NPT included a consensus on "principles and objectives on non-proliferation and disarmament," which served as a framework for assessing treaty implementation.
• The 2000 Final Document outlined thirteen "practical steps" to implement Article VI, emphasizing the unequivocal undertaking by NWS to eliminate their nuclear arsenals.
• The 2010 Review Conference reaffirmed the 2000 practical steps and added 22 actions on nuclear disarmament, expressing deep concern over the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons use.

Humanitarian Impact and Ban Treaty

• The Vienna Conference (2014) and other international conferences highlighted the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons, including long-term health and environmental impacts.
• A pledge was initiated at the Vienna Conference, supported by nearly 100 NNWS, but it was not adopted at the 2015 NPT Review Conference.
• The 2016 UN General Assembly Resolution 258 called for the commencement of negotiations on a treaty banning nuclear weapons.
• The first session of the ban treaty negotiations was held in March 2017, with a second session planned for June–July 2017.
• All nine NWS and most umbrella states boycotted the ban treaty negotiations, viewing them as inappropriate.

Challenges and Divergences

• The 2020 NPT Review Conference is taking place amid a deteriorating international security environment, including:
  • Strained relations between Russia and the West
  • Nuclear modernization by all nine NWS
  • Advancing nuclear and missile programs by North Korea
  • Stalemate on the Middle East NWFZ
  • Unfinished CTBT ratification
  • Civil nuclear cooperation with non-NPT states by the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG)
• The NWS have not fulfilled their obligations under Article VI, leading to polarization between NNWS and NWS, and between umbrella states and other NNWS.

Engagement and Dialogue

• To preserve the integrity and authority of the NPT, restoring engagement and dialogue between NWS and NNWS is essential.
• Two key approaches are suggested:
  1. Revisiting roles and responsibilities of NWS and NNWS
  2. Enhancing transparency measures to reduce nuclear risks and support disarmament
• The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has emphasized the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons, stating that their existence is a challenge to humanitarian law.

Roles and Responsibilities

• NWS (five states under the NPT) have a greater responsibility for nuclear disarmament due to their possession of nuclear military capabilities.
• NNWS have contributed to nuclear disarmament through:
  • Membership in the NPT
  • Establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZs) in Latin America, the South Pacific, Southeast Asia, Africa, and Central Asia
  • Participation in global arms control treaties, such as the Partial-Test-Ban Treaty, Outer Space Treaty, Sea-Bed Arms Control Treaty, Moon Agreement, and Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)

Shared Responsibility?

• While the NPT requires all states to pursue disarmament, the NWS and their allies bear a special responsibility due to their military nuclear capabilities.
• The argument of shared responsibility is not equivalent to equal responsibility, as emphasized by Ambassador Jayantha Dhanapala.
• The NWS must address their implementation deficit in nuclear disarmament before NNWS should accept additional responsibilities.

Conclusion

The document underscores the urgent need for renewed engagement between NWS and NNWS to ensure the viability of the NPT and progress toward a world free of nuclear weapons. It calls for a reassessment of roles and responsibilities, enhanced transparency, and greater adherence to international humanitarian law to reduce nuclear risks and move toward disarmament. The ban treaty and humanitarian conferences have played a significant role in shifting the discourse, but the non-implementation of prior agreements by NWS has led to increased polarization and distrust in the disarmament process.