DOCSLIB.ORG

NPR73: NPT Export Controls and the Zangger Committee

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
NPR73: NPT Export Controls and the Zangger Committee FRITZ SCHMIDT Report NPT Export Controls and the Zangger Committee FRITZ SCHMIDT Fritz Schmidt is the Chairman of the Zangger Committee and Director for Nuclear Nonproliferation in the Austrian Federal Ministry for Economy and Labor. He has dealt with nonproliferation matters since 1971 and has participated in every NPT review conference to date. While the opinions expressed in this viewpoint are not necessarily shared in toto by all members of the Zangger Committee, they do reflect the views of the Austrian Federal Ministry and elements of its policy for future activities in international fora. s required by Art. VIII.3, the Review Conference and coordination of export policies among all interested of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear states parties, and how the Zangger Committee could help AWeapons (NPT) was held from April 24 to May increase cooperation between suppliers and recipients. A 19, 2000, “to review the operation of this Treaty” since new and increasingly important element in these consid- the last conference in 1995 “with a view to assuring that erations is the role the International Atomic Energy Agency the purposes of the Preamble and the provisions of the (IAEA) should play in the framework of NPT export con- Treaty are being realized.”1 At the NPT Review and Ex- trols. In particular, IAEA information-collection activities tension Conference in 1995 (NPTREC), the parties de- could provide a way to reduce the burdens that export cided without a vote to extend the Treaty indefinitely. As controls currently place on individual states. part of the indefinite extension package, they adopted de- cisions on “Strengthening the Review Process for the THE ROLE OF EXPORT CONTROLS IN THE Treaty” and on “Principles and Objectives for Nuclear NPT FRAMEWORK Non-Proliferation and Disarmament.”2 The principal goal of the NPT, specified in Articles I The focus of this viewpoint is on export control require- and II, is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. The ments in the framework of the NPT. It describes the prin- NPT prohibits nuclear weapon states (NWS) from sup- cipal obligations in this area that apply to each Treaty plying nuclear weapons to or contributing to weapons member. It tries to explain what the Treaty demands and programs in non-nuclear weapon states (NNWS). It also what new conclusions should be drawn from the deci- prohibits NNWS from acquiring or developing nuclear sions taken by the NPTREC. It also discusses the pur- weapons on their own. Article III contains tools to as- pose and the work of the Zangger Committee, and why certain whether nuclear material and equipment have the results of its work should be important for all mem- been diverted “from peaceful purposes to nuclear weap- bers of the NPT. During the 2000 review conference, dis- ons or other nuclear explosive devices” in a NNWS. cussions were held on better cooperation in export controls Article III provides two tools to meet these objectives: 136 The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2000 FRITZ SCHMIDT safeguards for verification of activities inside states (Art. THE PURPOSE AND PROCEDURES OF THE III.1) and export controls for transfers between states (Art. ZANGGER COMMITTEE III.2). For this reason, in March 1971, after the NPT’s entry Article III.1 states that each NNWS party accepts safe- into force, suppliers or potential suppliers of nuclear ma- guards, which are based on a system developed in 1970 terial and equipment came together to discuss and clarify by the IAEA. The IAEA verification activities (e.g., re- the technical implications and requirements of NPT ex- porting and inspections) relate to all nuclear material in port controls. This meeting was the origin of the Zangger all peaceful nuclear activities within the territory of each Committee, named after the first chairman, Professor state, under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its con- Claude Zangger from Switzerland. trol anywhere. The supplier countries formed the Committee to de- This safeguards system, because of its scope, is called cide how to interpret the NPT’s rather general export the “Full Scope (or Comprehensive) Safeguards System” control obligations. They established a list of goods, (FSSG).3 A recent expansion of the FSSG through an called the “Trigger List” (any export of such items “trig- Additional Protocol4 will be discussed below. gers” safeguards), and defined procedures and conditions Article III.2 contains the provisions for nuclear ex- under which nuclear exports could be licensed. The port controls; it specifies that parties not transfer to Zangger Committee’s “Understandings” were published 5 NNWS nuclear material, as well as certain equipment in September 1974 as IAEA document INFCIRC/209, and non-nuclear materials, unless the nuclear material and since then the Trigger List has been amended sev- shall be subject to the required safeguards. This section eral times. raises two important questions: (1) what are the criteria The Zangger Committee6 meets regularly in spring for applying export controls, and (2) what specific equip- and autumn every year. Its agenda includes matters that ment and materials should be submitted to export con- either deal with amendments to the Understandings (the trols? Trigger List and its procedures) or with organizational The first question can be answered rather easily: All questions. A lot of work is done intersessionally, and criteria and conditions for supply are contained in the therefore two formal meetings suffice to keep all mem- NPT. NPT parties are permitted to export to NNWS bers up-to-date and to make any necessary decisions. under three conditions: (1) the transferred items will be The Committee does not decide “ex cathedra” what used for peaceful purposes only; (2) the recipient state the export control requirements of the NPT should be. has a safeguards agreement with the IAEA in place; and Instead, its members—NPT parties who are major sup- (3) in case of a re-transfer to a third country, the re-ex- pliers confronted regularly with the question of how to porting state has to assure itself that the criteria of the interpret Art. III.2 obligations—meet to negotiate what NPT are applied in the recipient country. minimum requirements should be applied. They seek to The second question—what equipment and materials harmonize their understandings, aiming at the widest shall be submitted to export controls—cannot be an- possible membership, to try to prevent commercial trans- swered as easily as the first question. There is possible actions from weakening nonproliferation objectives. uncertainty in what the relevant treaty language in this The Committee’s Understandings are published in two area means, and therefore in what items fall within its separate memoranda. Each memorandum defines and scope. NPT Article III.2 requires states parties not to provides for export controls on a category of commodi- provide a NNWS with “equipment or material especially ties described in Article III.2. Memorandum A covers designed or prepared for the processing, use or produc- source and special fissionable material, while Memoran- tion of special fissionable material” unless the recipient dum B covers equipment and material specifically de- has NPT safeguards in place. However, the Treaty does signed or prepared for the processing, use, or production not define what constitutes such equipment or material. of special fissionable material.7 Attached to the Trigger List is an annex “clarifying” or defining in some detail the equipment and material listed in Memorandum B. The Committee is regularly engaged in considering possible revisions to the Trig- The Nonproliferation Review/Fall-Winter 2000 137 FRITZ SCHMIDT ger List to cover new developments in technology, and these guidelines and thus left to the Zangger Committee the original annex has thus become increasingly detailed. further improvements to the Trigger List. To date, the Committee has made eight clarifications; most In 1992, after the Gulf War, when the world commu- recently, in June 1999, it added a chapter on conversion nity found out that Iraq, an NPT member, was develop- equipment for uranium and plutonium. The consolidated ing a clandestine nuclear weapons program, supplier Understandings were published by the IAEA in March states revitalized the London Group as the NSG, and 8 2000, as document INFCIRC 209/Rev.2. added to the existing regime (now referred to as Part 1, To fulfill the requirements of NPT Article III.2, the containing the NSG’s Trigger List) a second part, the Zangger Committee Understandings contain three ba- “nuclear-related dual-use regime.” This regime intended sic conditions of supply for these items: to introduce export controls on items used in conven- 1. the nuclear material either directly transferred, or tional industries that can also be used for nuclear pur- produced, processed, or used in the facility for which poses. This Part 2 was the main reason why the NSG the transferred item is intended, shall not be diverted was created. As the “dual-use regime” did not have its to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; legal foundation in the NPT, it has been the target of 2. such nuclear material, as well as transferred equip- criticism since its inception, particularly from “non- ment and non-nuclear material, shall be subject to aligned movement” (NAM) countries. safeguards under an agreement with the IAEA; and As Part 1 of the NSG Guidelines is similar to the 3. the nuclear material, equipment, and non-nuclear Zangger Committee’s Trigger List and as many states are material shall not be re-exported to a third state un- members of both groups, there has been a strong interest less the recipient state accepts the same conditions that in harmonizing the two practically identical lists. The were placed on the re-exporting state.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Nordic Countries and the European Security and Defence Policy
    bailes_hb.qxd 21/3/06 2:14 pm Page 1 Alyson J. K. Bailes (United Kingdom) is A special feature of Europe’s Nordic region the Director of SIPRI. She has served in the is that only one of its states has joined both British Diplomatic Service, most recently as the European Union and NATO. Nordic British Ambassador to Finland. She spent countries also share a certain distrust of several periods on detachment outside the B Recent and forthcoming SIPRI books from Oxford University Press A approaches to security that rely too much service, including two academic sabbaticals, A N on force or that may disrupt the logic and I a two-year period with the British Ministry of D SIPRI Yearbook 2005: L liberties of civil society. Impacting on this Defence, and assignments to the European E Armaments, Disarmament and International Security S environment, the EU’s decision in 1999 to S Union and the Western European Union. U THE NORDIC develop its own military capacities for crisis , She has published extensively in international N Budgeting for the Military Sector in Africa: H management—taken together with other journals on politico-military affairs, European D The Processes and Mechanisms of Control E integration and Central European affairs as E ongoing shifts in Western security agendas Edited by Wuyi Omitoogun and Eboe Hutchful R L and in USA–Europe relations—has created well as on Chinese foreign policy. Her most O I COUNTRIES AND U complex challenges for Nordic policy recent SIPRI publication is The European Europe and Iran: Perspectives on Non-proliferation L S Security Strategy: An Evolutionary History, Edited by Shannon N.
    [Show full text]
  • Preparatory Committee for the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties To
    NPT/CONF.2020/PC.III/7 Preparatory Committee for the 2020 Review Distr.: General Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the 25 April 2019 Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Original: English Third session New York, 29 April–10 May 2019 National Report Pursuant to Actions 5, 20, and 21 of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) 2010 Review Conference Final Document Report submitted by the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Introduction This is a draft document which we share with a wide audience to gather feedback on what we are doing well and what we could do differently. We will then produce a final version of the report for the Review Conference next year. The report outlines our commitment to achieving our long-term goal of a world without nuclear weapons by highlighting our efforts on disarmament, verification and safeguards. We firmly believe the best way to achieve this is through gradual nuclear disarmament, negotiated using a step-by-step approach within existing international frameworks, taking into account current and future security risks. The NPT has been so successful because it addresses the concerns of the Non-Nuclear Weapon States whilst also taking into account the security climate that provides the context for the Nuclear Weapons States’ possession of nuclear weapons. We have already achieved substantial reductions in our nuclear weapon stockpile. We believe developing effective measures for verifying nuclear disarmament will be vital for enabling the fulfilment of the goals of Article VI of the NPT. The UK believes that a Comprehensive Safeguards Agreement plus an Additional Protocol is the universal verification standard and we support the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) continued efforts to strengthen the international safeguards system across the world.
    [Show full text]
  • Preparatory Committee for the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the 13 March 2018
    NPT/CONF.2020/PC.II/WP.12 Preparatory Committee for the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the 13 March 2018 Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Original: English Second session Geneva, 23 April–4 May 2018 Procedures in relation to exports of nuclear materials and certain categories of equipment and material under article III (2) of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Working paper submitted by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and United States of America as the members of the Zangger Committee The co-sponsors propose that the Preparatory Committee submit to the 2020 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons the following language for inclusion in the final document of the Review Conference: That the Review Conference: (a) Note that a number of States parties meet regularly in an informal group known as the Zangger Committee in order to coordinate their implementation of article III (2) of the Treaty related to the supply of nuclear material and equipment. To this end, those States parties have adopted two memorandums, A and B, which include a list of items triggering International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards, for their exports to non-nuclear-weapon States not parties to the Treaty, as set forth in IAEA document INFCIRC/209, as amended.
    [Show full text]
  • Approved 1540 Committee Matrix
    APPROVED 1540 COMMITTEE MATRIX The information in the matrices originates primarily from national reports and is complemented by official government information, including that made available to inter-governmental organizations. The matrices are prepared under the direction of the 1540 Committee. The 1540 Committee intends to use the matrices as a reference tool for facilitating technical assistance and to enable the Committee to continue to enhance its dialogue with States on their implementation of Security Council Resolution 1540. The matrices are not a tool for measuring compliance of States in their non-proliferation obligations but for facilitating the implementation of Security Council Resolutions 1540 (2004), 1673 (2006), 1810 (2008), 1977 (2011), 2055 (2012) and 2325 (2016). They do not reflect or prejudice any ongoing discussions outside of the Committee, in the Security Council or any of its organs, of a State's compliance with its non-proliferation or any other obligations. Information on voluntary commitments is for reporting purpose only and does not constitute in any way a legal obligation arising from resolution 1540 or its successive resolutions. Matrix entries are only indicators of fact and not indicators of the degree of compliance under resolution 1540 (2004) and its successor resolutions. Thus: An “X” in any data field signifies only that the 1540 Committee considers that a State has taken the steps required, and/or has provided specific references to the applicable legal basis or executive behaviour as evidence of such steps. An “X” against any data field does not necessarily signify that a State has met in full its 1540 obligations for that data field.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Statement the Chairman of the Nuclear Non
    Press Statement The Chairman of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Exporter’s Committee is pleased to note that 11 March 2001 marked the 30th anniversary of the first meeting of the group. Known as the Zangger Committee, in honor of its first Chairman Prof. Claude Zangger, the Committee was formed following the coming into force of the NPT, to serve as the "faithful interpreter" of its Article III.2, to harmonize the interpretation of nuclear export control policies for NPT Parties. The Committee has been focussing on what is meant in Article III.2 of the Treaty by "especially designed or prepared equipment or material for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material." The Zangger Committee maintains a Trigger List (triggering safeguards as a condition of supply) of nuclear-related strategic goods to assist NPT Parties in identifying equipment and materials subject to export controls. Today the Zangger Committee has 35 members including all the nuclear weapons states. Its Trigger List includes illustrative examples of equipment and materials judged to be within the understandings of the Committee. The Trigger List and the Zangger Committee’s understandings are published by the IAEA in the INFCIRC/209 series. At this time the current Chairman of the Zangger Committee, Dr. Fritz Schmidt of Austria, would like to recognize the important contributions that all members of the Committee have made to strengthening the Committee’s understandings and the nuclear nonproliferation regime. In particular, the Committee recognizes its previous Chairmen Dr. Claude Zangger of Switzerland and Ilkka Mäkipentti of Finland; and the U.K.
    [Show full text]
  • NUCLEAR LAW BULLETIN No. 46
    NUCLEAR LAW BULLETIN No. 46 Contents Detailed Table of Contents Studies and Articles Case Law and Administrative Decisions National Legrslative and Regulatory Actrvrtres International Regulatory Activitres Agreements Texts Bibliography ThlS BulletIn ulcludeo a supplement December 1990 Nuclear Energy Agency Orgamsakan for Economic Co-operahon and Development Pursuant to article I of the Convention ugncd m Pdns on 14th December 1960 and u hlch came mm force on 30th September 1961. the Organ~satwn for F.conom~c Gopcrat~on and Development (OECD) shall promote pols~cs deagned - to achwe the hlghat sustamahk economw growth and employment and a nrmg standard of lwmg m Member countna whde mamtammg linanaal stablIlt, and thus to mntnhute to the ckvclopment of the world economy - to contnbutc to sound cconom~c cxpansmn m Member as well as non-member countnes tn the prams of ec~norn~c development and - to contnbute to the expansmn of world trade on a mululateral nondwnmmatory basis m accordance wth mtcntatmnal obbgattons The ongmal Member countnes of the OECD are Austna Beigmm Canada Denmark France the Federal Rcpubbc of Germany, Greece Iceland Ireland Italy Luxembourg the Netherlands Norway, Portugal Spam Sweden Swttzerland Turkey the Umted Kmgdom and the Umted Stata Tbe followmg countnes became Members subsequentI) through accewon at the data mdtcated hereafter Japan (28th Apnl 1964) Finland (28th Januan 1969) Autraba (7th June 1971) and New Zealand (29th May 1973) The Soaabst Federal Repubbc of Yugoslavia takes part m some of the work of the
    [Show full text]
  • NPR 1.1: the Nuclear Suppliers Group
    The Nuclear Suppliers Group by Tadeusz Strulak Ambassador Tadeusz Strulak served as Chairman of the Nuclear Suppliers Group meeting in 1992. He has been an ambassador to the International Atomic Energy Agency, and is currently an Advisor to the Polish Minister of Foreign Affairs. This article is adapted from a paper prepared for a workshop on "The New Role of International Organizations in Nonproliferation" held at the Monterey Institute of International Studies, August 27-29, 1993. Nuclear Export Control: The Early Stages Article III.2 of the NPT) should govern the exports of these items to non-nuclear weapon states not party to the NPT. The question of nuclear export control arose as early as the These requirements obligated nuclear suppliers: exports themselves. Suppliers first sought safeguards and a) to obtain the recipient's assurance excluding uses of the assurances of the peaceful use of exported items in the exported items for a nuclear explosion; 1950s. They sought these assurances through the b) to subject those items, as well as the material on the implementation of bilateral agreements. At that time, the Trigger List produced through their use, to IAEA application of safeguards was entrusted to the International safeguards; Atomic Energy Agency after its creation in 1957, and to c) to ensure that Trigger List items are not re-exported to Euratom, which safeguarded exports to its member states. a third party unless the third party recipient meets the conditions of a) and b). The parties who signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation These requirements and the Trigger List were of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) in 1968 agreed "..
    [Show full text]
  • 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
    NPT/CONF.2000/17 2000 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation 18 April 2000 of Nuclear Weapons Original: English New York, 24 April-19 May 2000 Multilateral nuclear supply principles of the Zangger Committee Working paper submitted by Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, China, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, Romania, the Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America as members of the Zangger Committee Introduction proliferation and disarmament” stated that “transparency in nuclear export controls should be 1. Previous Review Conferences of the Parties to the promoted within the framework of dialogue and Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons cooperation among all interested States party to the (NPT), when reviewing the implementation of the Treaty.” Treaty in the area of export controls, have repeatedly 3. Attached to this working paper are the statements noted the role of the Zangger Committee. The of previous NPT Review Conferences referring to the Committee, also known as the “NPT Exporters Zangger Committee. Committee”, essentially contributes to the interpretation of article III, paragraph 2, of the Treaty and thereby offers guidance to all parties to the Treaty. Zangger Committee The Committee and its work were mentioned in final documents or in Committee reports of Review Article III, paragraph 2 Conferences from 1975, 1985, 1990 and 1995. 2. The purpose of the present working paper is to 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Legislation in OECD and NEA Countries © OECD 2016
    N uclear Legislation in OECD and NEA Countries Regulatory and Institutional Framework for Nuclear Activities Greece Nuclear Legislation in OECD and NEA Countries © OECD 2016 Greece I. General Regulatory Regime ................................................................. 2 1. Introduction ............................................................................................... 2 2. Mining regime ............................................................................................. 3 3. Radioactive substances, nuclear fuel and equipment ........................................ 3 4. Nuclear installations .................................................................................... 3 a) Licensing and inspection, including nuclear safety ....................................... 3 b) Emergency response ............................................................................... 4 5. Trade in nuclear materials and equipment ...................................................... 5 6. Radiation protection .................................................................................... 5 7. Radioactive waste management .................................................................... 7 8. Nuclear security .......................................................................................... 7 9. Transport ................................................................................................... 8 10. Nuclear third party liability ..........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Public Statement Plenary Meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group Bern, Switzerland, 22–23 June 2017
    PUBLIC STATEMENT PLENARY MEETING OF THE NUCLEAR SUPPLIERS GROUP BERN, SWITZERLAND, 22–23 JUNE 2017 The twenty-seventh Plenary Meeting of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), 1 chaired by Ambassador Benno Laggner of Switzerland, was held in Bern, Switzerland, on 22 and 23 June 2017. The President of the Swiss Confederation, H.E. Ms. Doris Leuthard, welcomed the Participating Governments on behalf of the Swiss Government and reaffirmed Switzerland’s commitment to the work of the Group at a time when the principle of nuclear non-proliferation continued to be at the centre of international stability. The President highlighted the central role of the NSG in international efforts against the spread of nuclear weapons and its contribution to the international nuclear non-proliferation architecture with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) at its centre. The NSG took stock of developments since the last meeting in Seoul in 2016. Participating Governments reiterated their firm support for the full, complete and effective implementation of the NPT as the cornerstone of the international non-proliferation regime. Within the framework of the NSG’s mandate, the Group exchanged information on and expressed its concerns regarding continued global proliferation activities and reaffirmed its determination to continue to cooperate closely in order to deter, hinder and prevent the transfer of controlled items or technology that could contribute to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices. The Participating Governments reconfirmed their commitment to UNSCRs 1718 (2006), 1874 (2009), 2087 (2013), 2094 (2013), 2270 (2016), 2321 (2016) and 2356 (2017), which strongly condemned the DPRK‘s nuclear tests.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Nonproliferation and Arms Control Primer Prepared for the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’S Nuclear Future
    PNNL-20432 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Nuclear Nonproliferation and Arms Control Primer Prepared for the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future LS Williams May 2011 PNNL-20432 Nuclear Nonproliferation and Arms Control Primer Prepared for the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future LS Williams May 2011 Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract DE-AC05-76RL01830 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Richland, Washington 99352 PNNL-20432 Although the list of U.S. nuclear nonproliferation and arms control is too extensive to be described fully in these pages, the subset of arms control and nonproliferation initiatives that are most relevant to managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle includes the following: Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG): The NSG is a group of 46 nuclear supplier states—including the United States—“that have voluntarily agreed to coordinate their export controls governing transfers of civilian nuclear material and nuclear-related equipment and technology to non-nuclear weapon states.”1 These states agree to forego exports of nuclear material and technology to states that fail to join or comply with international nuclear nonproliferation regimes such as the NPT and nuclear weapon free zone agreements (e.g., North Korea, Pakistan). Fissile materials, nuclear reactors, reprocessing and enrichment technology are among the controlled items in the NSG Guidelines. In addition to other nonproliferation commitments, recipient states must commit not to transfer these imports to a third country without the supplier’s permission, and must ensure adequate physical security measures to prevent theft or unauthorized use.
    [Show full text]
  • Its History and Future Role
    Fritz W. Schmidt THE ZANGGER COMMITTEE: ITS HISTORY AND FUTURE ROLE by Fritz W. Schmidt Dr. Fritz W. Schmidt is the current Chairman of the Zangger Committee and Director for Nuclear Nonproliferation in the Austrian Federal Chancellery. He has dealt with nonproliferation matters since 1971 and has participated in every NPT review conference to date. This article is partly based on a paper he presented with William Dickson, the former Secretary of the Zangger Committee, to a workshop on “universal reporting” in September 1993 at the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. he following article is in- and the linkage between its para- states party to the NPT. The text of tended to provide some in- graphs 1 and 2. this model agreement was published T sight into the development of as IAEA Document Information international nuclear export controls HISTORY OF THE ZAC Circular 153 (hereafter “INFCIRC/ under the Treaty on the Non-Prolif- 153”). eration of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The text of Article III of the NPT Immediately after the committee It deals with the history of the formulated the twin obligations for finished its work, a number of ma- Zangger Committee (ZAC), the safeguards and export control rather jor supplier countries—some already Trigger List, the ZAC’s practices generally. Thus, there was a need to party to the NPT, some only intend- and procedures, and its future work. interpret this language into concrete ing to become members—met in In the history section, the article also details and further clarify the respec- March 1971 under the chairmanship touches upon parallel nonprolifera- tive requirements.
    [Show full text]