NUCLEAR DISARMAMAMENTARTICLE VI OF NPT: CURRENT ISSUES &

DEVELOPMENTS

DR TUGHRAL YAMINASSOCIATE DEAN CIPS

NUST

AIM OF THE PRESENTATION

TO DISCUSS:• WHY THERE IS SO LITTLE MOVEMENT ON

ARTICLE VI OF THE NPT? • WHY MEMBER STATES SHOULD PURSUE ITS

IMPLEMENTATION MORE FORCEFULLY

NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATIONTREATY (NPT)

• ENTRY INTO FORCE. MARCH 5, 1970• MEMBERS. 43, INCLUDING THREE OF THE FIVE

NUCLEAR-WEAPON STATES (NWS): – THE SOVIET UNION– THE UNITED KINGDOM– THE UNITED STATES

• THREE PILLARS OF NPT: – NONPROLIFERATION – PEACEFUL USE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY– DISARMAMENT (ARTICLE VI)

ARTICLE VI OF NPT“EACH OF THE PARTIES TO THE TREATY UNDERTAKES TO PURSUE NEGOTIATIONS IN GOOD FAITH ON EFFECTIVE MEASURES RELATING TO CESSATION OF THE NUCLEAR ARMS RACE AT AN EARLY DATE AND TO NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, AND ON A TREATY ON GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT UNDER STRICT AND EFFECTIVE INTERNATIONAL CONTROL.”

1996 ICJ OPINION ON THE LEGALITY OF THE THREAT OR USE OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS

• ARTICLE VI OF THE TREATY COMPELS THE MEMBER-STATES TO MORE THAN SIMPLY AN “ACTION,” BUT TO A FINAL “RESULT” OBLIGATION.

• IN PARAGRAPH F, THE FIFTEEN JUDGE PANEL DECIDED UNANIMOUSLY THAT, “THERE EXISTS AN OBLIGATION TO PURSUE IN GOOD FAITH AND BRING TO A CONCLUSION NEGOTIATIONS LEADING TO NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT IN ALL ITS ASPECTS UNDER STRICT AND EFFECTIVE INTERNATIONAL CONTROL.”

IMPLICATIONS OF THE ICJ RULING

THE NPT MEMBER-STATE PARTIES CAN PURSUE AN INJUNCTION IN THE ICJ AGAINST THE FIVE NUCLEAR WEAPON STATES UNDER THE LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT THEIR PROLIFERATION ACTIONS ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE GOOD-FAITH DUTY TO NEGOTIATE AND ACTUALLY CREATE AN ULTIMATE NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT UNDER THE ARTICLE VI OF NPT.

ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF ARTICLE VI

• ITS LEGALLY BINDING• ITS ETHICALLY & MORALLY CORRECT• IT PAVES THE WAY FOR GENERAL & COMPLETE

DISARMAMENT

STATEMENT OF THE NWS ON ART VI IN REVCON 2015

4. AS NPT NUCLEAR-WEAPON STATES, WE REAFFIRM THE SHARED GOAL OF NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT AND GENERAL AND COMPLETE DISARMAMENT AS REFERENCED IN THE PREAMBLE AND PROVIDED FOR IN ARTICLE VI OF THE NPT. IN THIS REGARD, WE REMAIN STEADFAST IN OUR COMMITMENT TO SEEKING A SAFER WORLD FOR ALL AND ACHIEVING A WORLD WITHOUT NUCLEAR WEAPONS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GOALS OF THE NPT. WE CONTINUE TO PURSUE PROGRESSIVE AND CONCRETE STEPS TOWARDS THIS END, INCLUDING THE RELEVANT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ACTION PLAN (2010), IN A WAY THAT PROMOTES INTERNATIONAL STABILITY, PEACE AND SECURITY, AND BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE OF INCREASED AND UNDIMINISHED SECURITY FOR ALL.

NWS STATEMENT - CONTD• WE CONTINUE TO BELIEVE THAT AN INCREMENTAL, STEP-BY-

STEP APPROACH IS THE ONLY PRACTICAL OPTION FOR MAKING PROGRESS TOWARDS NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT, WHILE UPHOLDING GLOBAL STRATEGIC SECURITY AND STABILITY. THIS GOAL IS WHAT MOTIVATES OUR CONCERTED EFFORTS TO PURSUE PRACTICAL STEPS TOWARD NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT. ALL STATES CAN HELP FULFILL THIS GOAL BY CREATING THE NECESSARY SECURITY ENVIRONMENT THROUGH RESOLVING REGIONAL TENSIONS, TACKLING PROLIFERATION CHALLENGES, PROMOTING COLLECTIVE SECURITY, AND MAKING PROGRESS IN ALL AREAS OF DISARMAMENT.

WHAT ARE THE CHANCES OF ARTICLE VI BEING IMPLEMENTED?

LITTLE OR REMOTE CHANCES BECAUSE:• NWS HAVE LITTLE INTEREST IN ENDING AN

ARMS RACE OR INITIATING GENERAL OR COMPLETE DISARMAMENT

• THEY’LL KEEP CITING A PRECARIOUS SECURITY SITUATION TO JUSTIFY RETAINING THEIR WEAPONS

RAY OF HOPE• ON OCTOBER 15, A GROUP OF NON-NUCLEAR-WEAPONS

STATES IN A DRAFT RESOLUTION IN THE UNGA CALLED FOR NEGOTIATIONS IN 2017 ON A TREATY BANNING NUCLEAR WEAPONS

• THERE WAS STRONG OPPOSITION & ARM TWISTING FROM NUCLEAR STATES WITH PERMANENT SEATS ON THE SECURITY COUNCIL - PARTICULARLY RUSSIA, THE U.S., U.K. AND FRANCE.

• LED BY AUSTRIA, MEXICO, SOUTH AFRICA, IRELAND, BRAZIL AND NIGERIA, THE RESOLUTION HAS GAINED THE SUPPORT OF 33 CO-SPONSORS AND IS EXPECTED TO BE ADOPTED BY A MAJORITY IN THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY SOMETIME BETWEEN OCT. 26 AND NOV. 2.

CURRENT STATISTICS OF NUCLAR WEAPONS

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION