DOCSLIB.ORG

Country Perspectives on the Challenges to Nuclear Disarmament

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Country Perspectives on the Challenges to Nuclear Disarmament Reducing and Eliminating Nuclear Weapons: Country Perspectives on the Challenges to Nuclear Disarmament Reducing and Eliminating Nuclear Weapons: Country Perspectives on the Challenges to Nuclear Disarmament www.fissilematerials.org © 2010 International Panel on Fissile Materials This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial License To view a copy of this license, visit www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0 Table of Contents About the IPFM 1 Overview 2 Country Perspectives China 10 France 16 Germany 22 India 26 Iran 30 Israel 36 Japan 46 North Korea 56 South Korea 63 Pakistan 67 Russia 74 United Kingdom 84 United States 93 Endnotes 102 Contributors 123 About the IPFM The International Panel on Fissile Materials (IPFM) was founded in January 2006. It is an independent group of arms-control and nonproliferation experts from seventeen countries, including both nuclear weapon and non-nuclear weapon states. The mission of the IPFM is to analyze the technical basis for practical and achievable policy initiatives to secure, consolidate, and reduce stockpiles of highly enriched urani- um and plutonium. These fissile materials are the key ingredients in nuclear weapons, and their control is critical to nuclear disarmament, halting the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and ensuring that terrorists do not acquire nuclear weapons. Both military and civilian stocks of fissile materials have to be addressed. The nuclear weapon states still have enough fissile materials in their weapon stockpiles for tens of thousands of nuclear weapons. On the civilian side, enough plutonium has been sepa- rated to make a similarly large number of weapons. Highly enriched uranium is used in civilian reactor fuel in more than one hundred locations. The total amount used for this purpose is sufficient to make about one thousand Hiroshima-type bombs, a design potentially within the capabilities of terrorist groups. The Panel is co-chaired by Professor R. Rajaraman of Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi and Professor Frank von Hippel of Princeton University. Its members include nuclear experts from Brazil, China, France, Germany, India, Ireland, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Russia, South Africa, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. Professor José Goldemberg of Brazil stepped down as co-chair of IPFM on July 1, 2007. He continues as a member of IPFM. IPFM research and reports are shared with international organizations, national governments and nongovernmental groups. It has full panel meetings twice a year in capitals around the world in addition to specialist workshops. These meetings and workshops are often in conjunction with international conferences at which IPFM panels and experts are invited to make presentations. Princeton University’s Program on Science and Global Security provides administra- tive and research support for the IPFM. IPFM’s initial support is provided by a five-year grant to Princeton University from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation of Chicago. This report was made pos- sible by additional support from the Princeton Institute of International and Regional Studies (PIIRS) for a workshop on “The Control and Disposition of Fissile Material in a Transition to a Nuclear-Weapon Free World,” held at Princeton in May 2009. About the IPFM 1 Overview This report explores the major policy obstacles that stand in the way of the nuclear- armed states deciding to eliminate their weapons. It includes perspectives from thir- teen countries: the current nine nuclear-weapon states, and four non-nuclear states (Germany, Japan, South Korea, and Iran). The report is a companion to Global Fissile Material Report 2009: A Path to Nuclear Disarmament, which used the lens of fissile- materials policies to examine challenges to the achievement of a nuclear-weapon-free world. The broad subjects covered in the country perspectives presented here are: • The commitment by states to the elimination of nuclear weapons as reflected in their public statements, their plans to modernize their weapon complexes, and their views on the potential uses of nuclear weapons; • The linkages to other security issues that they see as standing in the way of progress towards the goal of nuclear weapon elimination; • Their views regarding the increased transparency and verification that would be re- quired by nuclear disarmament; and, • Their perspectives on control of fissile materials, including a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, which would provide a basis for the process of nuclear disarmament. The country perspectives are based on government statements and national debates on nuclear disarmament. The preliminary and speculative nature of the perspectives reflects the fact that, for the most part, governments have not yet focused seriously on the practical, near-term steps required by the adoption of nuclear-weapons abolition as a major policy goal. Commitment to elimination There is a long history of all of today’s nuclear weapon states committing in principle to nuclear disarmament. Article VI of the 1970 nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) commits its five nuclear-weapon-state parties: the United States, Russia, United King- dom, France and China, as a matter of international law “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.” In a 1996 Advisory Opinion, the World Court interpreted the Article VI obligation as requiring states to bring such negotiations to a successful conclusion. The weapon states outside the NPT, Israel, India, North Korea and Pakistan, also have made political commitments to disarmament. 2 Overview The United States and Russia are reducing the size of their deployed arsenals but the gen- eral view among the other nuclear-armed states is that the two “nuclear superpowers” must reduce the numbers of their nuclear warheads from thousands to hundreds each before the other nuclear-armed states will consider seriously taking significant steps to- ward nuclear disarmament. The country studies reveal that most nuclear weapon states consider the achievement of nuclear disarmament to lie far beyond any planning ho- rizon and are therefore investing in significant modernization of their nuclear-weapon complexes and delivery systems. In 2009, President Barack Obama declared that the United States was committed to seeking “the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.”1 He qualified this commitment, however, by stating that “This goal will not be reached quickly—perhaps not in my lifetime.” He also added that “as long as nuclear weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure, and effective arsenal.” The report of the Obama Administration’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) released in April 2010, formalized this perspective by establishing a goal of nuclear disarmament but also commitments to retain the U.S. triad of nuclear-weapon delivery systems, life extensions for more than one thousand nuclear warheads, and the modernization of the U.S. nuclear-weapon production complex.2 In its most direct reference to nuclear disarmament, the NPR called for: “initiating a comprehensive national research and development program to support continued progress toward a world free of nuclear weapons, including work on verification technologies and the development of transparency measures.”3 In 2009, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev joined President Obama in expressing support for “a nuclear weapon free world.” But, as the chapter on Russia explains, “the prevailing view in Russia’s political-military leadership is that nuclear weapons play a key role in ensuring Russia’s security.” Indeed, Russia is replacing its aging strategic nu- clear-weapon delivery systems—although not at a rate equal to their rate of retirement. President Medvedev has argued that, “The whole world is doing this … this process will continue and our nuclear shield will always be effective and sufficient for protecting our national interest.”4 Similarly, in early 2009, the United Kingdom issued an official study, “Lifting the Nuclear Shadow: Creating the Conditions for Abolishing Nuclear Weapons.”5 This laid out a perspective on moving towards disarmament. The UK continues, however, to invest in upgrading its nuclear-warhead R&D and production complex, and is moving forward in implementing a controversial decision to replace its ballistic-missile subma- rines. The missiles are leased from the United States. In July 2009, France joined the U.S., Russia the U.K. and the other G8 countries in a joint statement that “we are all committed to seeking a safer world for all and to creating the conditions for a word without nuclear weapons.” This is for France an un- precedented expression of support for nuclear weapons elimination. France has cut its nuclear arsenal since the end of the Cold War, which is now half of its Cold War peak. France also has closed its nuclear weapons test site and military fissile material produc- tion facilities. France too, however, has been deploying new warheads and delivery systems and modernizing its weapons R&D and maintenance infrastructure. In a September 2009 Security Council Resolution, China joined the other permanent members of the UN Security Council in a commitment “to seek a safer world for all and to create the conditions for a world without nuclear weapons.”6 China, unlike the United States, Russia, U.K. and France, has supported calls for the negotiation of a con- vention to ban nuclear weapons at an early date. In the meantime, however, China is introducing more survivable land-mobile and submarine-based nuclear-armed missiles. Overview 3 India, Israel and Pakistan, the three nuclear-armed states that never joined the NPT, and North Korea, which withdrew from the Treaty in 2003, have all indicated support in one way or another for the goal of nuclear disarmament. India, although an early advocate for a time-bound process for nuclear-weapon elimination, has made clear that it will maintain a nuclear arsenal until there is global nuclear disarmament.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Richard G. Hewlett and Jack M. Holl. Atoms
    ATOMS PEACE WAR Eisenhower and the Atomic Energy Commission Richard G. Hewlett and lack M. Roll With a Foreword by Richard S. Kirkendall and an Essay on Sources by Roger M. Anders University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London Published 1989 by the University of California Press Berkeley and Los Angeles, California University of California Press, Ltd. London, England Prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission; work made for hire. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Hewlett, Richard G. Atoms for peace and war, 1953-1961. (California studies in the history of science) Bibliography: p. Includes index. 1. Nuclear energy—United States—History. 2. U.S. Atomic Energy Commission—History. 3. Eisenhower, Dwight D. (Dwight David), 1890-1969. 4. United States—Politics and government-1953-1961. I. Holl, Jack M. II. Title. III. Series. QC792. 7. H48 1989 333.79'24'0973 88-29578 ISBN 0-520-06018-0 (alk. paper) Printed in the United States of America 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 CONTENTS List of Illustrations vii List of Figures and Tables ix Foreword by Richard S. Kirkendall xi Preface xix Acknowledgements xxvii 1. A Secret Mission 1 2. The Eisenhower Imprint 17 3. The President and the Bomb 34 4. The Oppenheimer Case 73 5. The Political Arena 113 6. Nuclear Weapons: A New Reality 144 7. Nuclear Power for the Marketplace 183 8. Atoms for Peace: Building American Policy 209 9. Pursuit of the Peaceful Atom 238 10. The Seeds of Anxiety 271 11. Safeguards, EURATOM, and the International Agency 305 12.
    [Show full text]
  • Emergency Notifications Tested
    THE The Independent Newspaper Serving Notre Dame and Saint Mary's OLUME 42: ISSUE 25 MONDAY, OCTOBER l, 2007 NDSMCOBSERVER.COM Emergency notifications tested Author Text security system requires student response; Connect-ED will send messages via cell phones celebrated its new mass notification of that or give them the the messages that reach the By MARCELA BERRIOS system - which would serve option to opt out of that. It's campus community. The Associate News Editor to swiftly inform the campus not something the University Office of the Registrar at College of emergencies through e­ chose to do on its own, but informed students via e-mail Notre Dame sent out a mails, text messages and rather something Connect­ Tuesday that those who Talks part of annual wave of text messages to voice mails - mobile phone ED asked us to do because signed up for emergency more than 7 5 percent of stu­ users had to confirm their many of the carriers require alerts on their mobile CWIL colloquium dents Wednesday, asking willingness to receive these it., phones would be receiving a them to confirm their regis­ text messages, as required Connect-ED, the company text message from Connect­ By ASHLEY CHARNLEY tration in the SMS portion of by most carriers. Notre Dame contracted to ED that was actually pro­ News Writer the University's emergency "The majority of cellular serid the text- and voice­ duced by the University. notil'ication system - but [phone] carriers will not based notifications to thou­ The e-mail said the text the future success of this send text messages to mass sands of mobile phones, has message would read: "Univ Encouraging women to chal­ aspect of the initiative is mailing lists without individ­ an online interface where of Notre Dame: You have lenge a male-dominant system contingent on the students' ual confirmation," Steed the Office of the Registrar asked to receive SMS alerts was a key theme in Colleen response rate, said Jay said.
    [Show full text]
  • The United Kingdom's Defence Nuclear Weapons Programme
    Publications and Reports The United Kingdom's Defence Nuclear Weapons Programme A Summary Report by The Ministry of Defence on the Role of Historical Accounting for Fissile Material in the Nuclear Disarmament Process, and on Plutonium for the United Kingdom's Defence Nuclear Programme Introduction 1. The Government is committed to transparency and openness about the defence nuclear programme when compatible with continuing national security requirements and the United Kingdom’s international obligations under Article I of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The Government is also committed to work towards the goal of the global elimination of nuclear weapons As the Strategic Defence Review stated, eliminating nuclear weapons will require States which have had nuclear programmes outside international safeguards to account for the fissile material that they have produced. This contributes to the process of nuclear disarmament by developing confidence that as States reduce and eventually eliminate their nuclear weapons, they have not retained concealed stocks of fissile material outside international supervision with which to construct clandestine nuclear weapons. Such accounting was crucial to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s initial verification of the comprehensive safeguards agreement signed by South Africa when it eliminated its nuclear weapons programme and joined the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear-weapon State. The United States has produced a comprehensive report on its production of plutonium for defence purposes, and is working on a similar study on its production of High Enriched Uranium. 2. It is important not to overestimate the contribution such historical accounting can make to the verification of the reduction and elimination of nuclear weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright by Paul Harold Rubinson 2008
    Copyright by Paul Harold Rubinson 2008 The Dissertation Committee for Paul Harold Rubinson certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: Containing Science: The U.S. National Security State and Scientists’ Challenge to Nuclear Weapons during the Cold War Committee: —————————————————— Mark A. Lawrence, Supervisor —————————————————— Francis J. Gavin —————————————————— Bruce J. Hunt —————————————————— David M. Oshinsky —————————————————— Michael B. Stoff Containing Science: The U.S. National Security State and Scientists’ Challenge to Nuclear Weapons during the Cold War by Paul Harold Rubinson, B.A.; M.A. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin August 2008 Acknowledgements Thanks first and foremost to Mark Lawrence for his guidance, support, and enthusiasm throughout this project. It would be impossible to overstate how essential his insight and mentoring have been to this dissertation and my career in general. Just as important has been his camaraderie, which made the researching and writing of this dissertation infinitely more rewarding. Thanks as well to Bruce Hunt for his support. Especially helpful was his incisive feedback, which both encouraged me to think through my ideas more thoroughly, and reined me in when my writing overshot my argument. I offer my sincerest gratitude to the Smith Richardson Foundation and Yale University International Security Studies for the Predoctoral Fellowship that allowed me to do the bulk of the writing of this dissertation. Thanks also to the Brady-Johnson Program in Grand Strategy at Yale University, and John Gaddis and the incomparable Ann Carter-Drier at ISS.
    [Show full text]
  • Democratic People's Republic of Korea
    ; Democratic People's Republic ofKorea PERMANENT MISSION TO THE UNITED NATIONS 820 Second Avenue, 13th Floor, New York, N.V: 1001.7 Tel: (212) 972-3105/3106 Fax: (212) 972-3154 Press Release Please Check against Delivery STATEMENT BY H.E. Mr. PAKKIL YON VICE MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS DEMOCRATIC PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF KOREA AT THE HIGH-LEVEL MEETING ON NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT OF THE 68th UN GENERALASSEMBLY NEW YORK, 26 SEPTEMBER 2013 Mr. President, First ofall, on behalf ofthe delegation ofthe Democratic People's Republic ofKorea (DPRK), I would like to congratulate you for your assumption of the important duty as the president of this session. Furthermore, I am confident that under your able leadership, this meeting will be a significant occasion in the United Nation's endeavors for nuclear disarmament. Mr. President, Prevention of nuclear arms race and realization of the world free from nuclear weapons through nuclear disarmament is becoming a pressing task in ensuring peace and security of the world. 45 years ago, nuclear powers made a commitment to nuclear disarmament through the Treaty on Nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT) and ~hey put obligations on non-nuclear weapon states to use atomic power for peaceful purposes only. These commitments for nuclear disarmament were reconfirmed in 1995 when the NPT was extended for indefinite period without any amendments and through "Thirteen Action Plan for Nuclear Disarmament" which was taken at the NPT Review Conference in 2000. However, notwithstanding this, there is a tendency in which. priority is being given to non-proliferation, rather than nuclear disarmament. Under .the pretext of nuclear disarmament, development of new types of nuclear weapons of enhanced capability are constantly pushed ahead and furthermore maneuvers to conduct.
    [Show full text]
  • NATO and the Frameworks of Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament
    NATO and the Frameworks of Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament: Challenges for the for 10th and Disarmament: Challenges Conference NPT Review Non-proliferation of Nuclear and the Frameworks NATO Research Paper Tim Caughley, with Yasmin Afina International Security Programme | May 2020 NATO and the Frameworks of Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament Challenges for the 10th NPT Review Conference Tim Caughley, with Yasmin Afina with Yasmin Caughley, Tim Chatham House Contents Summary 2 1 Introduction 3 2 Background 5 3 NATO and the NPT 8 4 NATO: the NPT and the TPNW 15 5 NATO and the TPNW: Legal Issues 20 6 Conclusions 24 About the Authors 28 Acknowledgments 29 1 | Chatham House NATO and the Frameworks of Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament Summary • The 10th five-yearly Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (the NPT) was due to take place in April–May 2020, but has been postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic. • In force since 1970 and with 191 states parties, the NPT is hailed as the cornerstone of a rules-based international arms control and non-proliferation regime, and an essential basis for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament. But successive review conferences have been riven by disagreement between the five nuclear weapon states and many non-nuclear weapon states over the appropriate way to implement the treaty’s nuclear disarmament pillar. • Although the number of nuclear weapons committed to NATO defence has been reduced by over 90 per cent since the depths of the Cold War, NATO nuclear weapon states, and their allies that depend on the doctrine of extended nuclear deterrence for their own defence, favour continued retention of the remaining nuclear weapons until the international security situation is conducive to further progress on nuclear disarmament.
    [Show full text]
  • Resource Guide on Nuclear Disarmament for Religious Leaders
    RESOURCE GUIDE ON nuclear disarmament FOR RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND COMMUNITIES RESOURCE GUIDE ON nuclear disarmament FOR RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND COMMUNITIES Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds. — J. Robert Oppenheimer, Director of the Manhattan Project, which created the first atom bomb, quoting the Bhagavad Gita as he witnessed the atom bomb test at Alamogordo, New Mexico, on July 16, 1945 When scientific power outruns spiritual power, we end up with guided missiles and misguided men. — Martin Luther King, Jr. Inside cover: Baker Test, Marshall Islands, July 25, 1946. Photo: U.S. Department of Defense. CATASTROPHIC IMPACT OF NUCLEAR TESTS ON HUMAN HEALTH Now we have this problem of what we call “jelly-fish babies.” These babies are born like jelly-fish. They have no eyes. They have no heads. They have no arms. They have no legs. They do not shape like human beings at all. When they die they are buried right away. A lot of times they don’t allow the mother to see this kind of baby because she will go crazy. It is too inhumane. — Darlene Keju-Johnson, Director of Family Planning 1987–1992, Marshall Islands, on the impact of U.S. nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Religions for Peace (RfP) would like to express its gratitude and appreciation to the Norwegian Min- istry of Foreign Affairs and Rissho Kosei-Kai for their years of generous support and partnership in RfP’s education and advocacy program to mobilize religious leaders and their constituencies around a credible, cohesive and bold advocacy and action agenda for peace and shared security, particularly in the area of nuclear disarmament.
    [Show full text]
  • OSP11: Nuclear Weapons Policy 1967-1998
    OPERATIONAL SELECTION POLICY OSP11 NUCLEAR WEAPONS POLICY 1967-1998 Revised November 2005 1 Authority 1.1 The National Archives' Acquisition Policy announced the Archive's intention of developing Operational Selection Policies across government. These would apply the collection themes described in the overall policy to the records of individual departments and agencies. 1.2 Operational Selection Policies are intended to be working tools for those involved in the selection of public records. This policy may therefore be reviewed and revised in the light of comments from users of the records or from archive professionals, the experience of departments in using the policy, or as a result of newly discovered information. There is no formal cycle of review, but comments would be welcomed at any time. The extent of any review or revision exercise will be determined according to the nature of the comments received. If you have any comments upon this policy, please e-mail records- [email protected] or write to: Acquisition and Disposition Policy Manager Records Management Department The National Archives Kew Richmond Surrey TW9 4DU 1.3 Operational Selection Policies do not provide guidance on access to selected records. 2 Scope 2.1 This policy relates to all public records on British nuclear weapons policy and development. The departments and agencies concerned are the Prime Minister’s Office, the Cabinet Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Security Policy Department, Defence Department, Atomic Energy and Disarmament Department, and Arms Control and Disarmament Department), HM Treasury (Defence and Material Department), the Department of Trade and Industry (Atomic Energy, and Export Control and Non-Proliferation Directorate), the Ministry of Defence (MOD), the Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA).
    [Show full text]
  • Pursuing Disarmament
    PURSUING DISARMAMENT hortly after the September 11 clear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) program has now been terrorist attacks on Amer- cancelled, the administration is pursuing a plan, labeled ica, Under-Secretary- the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW), which will General for the United Na- see the development of a range of new nuclear bombs tions (UN) Disarmament Affairs to replace all weapons currently in the arsenal. It is Jayantha Dhanapala highlighted likely that, over the long run, nuclear testing will be nec- the link between preventing nu- essary for the RRW program. 6 clear terrorism and nuclear disar- mament: “we need to eliminate weapons of mass de- The United States’ proposed option to use nuclear 1 struction before they fall into the hands of terrorists.” weapons against non-nuclear weapon states and for purposes other than retaliation Thus, while the U.S. works with the international com- blurs the distinction between nu- munity to secure more quickly all nuclear weapons clear and conventional warfare. and bomb-making material worldwide, we must also The U.S. government cannot con- realize that a comprehensive approach to prevention tinue to tell other nations, like includes reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons North Korea and Iran, that nuclear and materials from global stockpiles. Indeed, even proliferation is wrong while it pur- before 9/11, signors of the Nuclear Nonproliferation of sues new and more “usable” nu- Treaty (NPT), including the United States, agreed that clear weapons here at home. As a “the total elimination of nuclear weapons is the only Salt Lake City Tribune editorial put absolute guarantee against the use or threat of use of it, “If the United States, which nuclear weapons.” 2 This sentiment is well supported commands the most powerful con- Polaris C4 Ballistic Missile being launched from the by the American public.
    [Show full text]
  • Subject Categories and Scope Descriptions Co Q
    International Nuclear Information System (INIS) • LU Q CD XA0202260 D) c CO IAEA-ETDE/TNIS-2 o X LU CO -I—• SUBJECT CATEGORIES AND SCOPE DESCRIPTIONS CO Q ETDE/INIS Joint Reference Series No. 2 CT O c > LU O O E "- =3 CO I? O cB CD C , LU • CD 3 CO -Q T3 CD >- c •a « C c CD o o CD «2 i- CO .3-3/33 CO ,_ CD a) O % 3 O •z. a. Renewable energy technologies • Radiation protection • Energy storage, conversion, and consumption Radioactive waste management • Energy policy • Radiation effects on living organisms • Fossil fuels INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY, VIENNA, JULY 2002 ETDE/INIS Joint Reference Series No. 2 SUBJECT CATEGORIES AND SCOPE DESCRIPTIONS INTERNATIONAL ATOMIC ENERGY AGENCY VIENNA, JULY 2002 SUBJECT CATEGORIES AND SCOPE DESCRIPTIONS IAEA, VIENNA, 2002 IAEA-ETDE/INIS-2 ISBN 92-0-112902-5 ISSN 1684-095X © IAEA, 2002 Printed by the IAEA in Austria July 2002 PREFACE This document is one in a series of publications known as the ETDE/INIS Joint Reference Series. It defines the subject categories and provides the scope descriptions to be used for categorization of the nuclear literature for the preparation of INIS input by national and regional centers. Together with volumes of the INIS Reference Series and ETDE/INIS Joint Reference Series it defines the rules, standards and practices and provides the authorities to be used in the International Nuclear Information System. A list of the volumes published in the IMS Reference Series and ETDE/ENIS Joint Reference Series can be found at the end of this publication.
    [Show full text]
  • Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons: the Role
    TREATY ON THE PROHIBITION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS: THE ROLE PLAYED BY GLOBAL CIVIL SOCIETY A dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of International Relations and Diplomacy University of Canterbury by Tilly Hampton University of Canterbury 2018 Abstract On 7 July 2017, the United Nations General Assembly voted in favour of adopting the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The negotiations which took place leading to this historic agreement marked the first time in over twenty years that international negotiations on nuclear disarmament had taken place. Amongst several states that supported the adoption of such a treaty, a significant number of civil society organisations were also involved during the process, some of whom can be described as being part of ‘global civil society’. Of particular note, the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons were the principal coordinator for civil society. Using the international relations approach of constructivism, this paper explores the role of global civil society in the period leading to the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. The ‘norm life cycle’ from International Norm Dynamics and Political Change by Martha Finnemore and Katherine Sikkink, provides a framework to answer this question. This is applied to two distinctive periods leading to the adoption of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons; the Humanitarian Initiative and the negotiations for the treaty itself. Following analysis of specific engagements undertaken by global civil society during these periods, this paper finds that global civil society played the role of ‘norm entrepreneurs’ for the emerging norm of a comprehensive ban on nuclear weapons.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Weapons and World Order Syllabus
    II. Nuclear Weapons and World Order Prof. Daniel Deudney Johns Hopkins University DESCRIPTION: Over the six plus decades of their existence, nuclear weapons have been of paramount concern for international politics and international theory. Vast disagreements exist about many aspects of this topic. This course examines what is perhaps the most basic question, what political arrangements are consistent with security from nuclear weapons? Debate about this question falls into roughly two parts, the First Debate during the years of the Cold War, and the Second Debate beginning roughly twenty years ago and encompassing the problem of non-state actors. The first part of the course is an intensive examination of the major school of thought during the first great debate, culminating in the role of nuclear weapons at the end of the Cold War. This debate was centered on the implications of nuclear weapons for interstate and great power relations, and came to be overwhelmingly dominated by deterrence and the measures necessary to achieve it. The second part is an intensive examination of the major issues and positions of the much newer and less settled second great debate. The scope of issues at play in the second debate is much more extensive, encompassing non-state actors as well as states, and the internal features of states, as well as their relations. The third part of the course examines in depth four select topics which have not been accorded sufficient attention by theorists. REQUIREMENTS: 1. Reading Assignments and Class Participation 2. Three (3) ten (10) page papers evaluating the debate on a topic.
    [Show full text]