DOCSLIB.ORG

Major Proposals to Strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty a Resource Guide for the 2010 Review Conference

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Major Proposals to Strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty a Resource Guide for the 2010 Review Conference Arms Control Association Major Proposals to Strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty A ResouRce Guide foR the 2010 Review confeRence March 2010 Cole Harvey with the ACA Research Staff Arms Control Association Major Proposals to Strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty A ResouRce Guide foR the 2010 Review confeRence March 2010 Cole Harvey with the ACA Research Staff About the Author Cole Harvey served as a Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellow at the Arms Control Association from February through November 2009. He is a graduate of the University of Pittsburgh and currently works as a Research Associate for the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Washington, D.C. Acknowledgements I would like to thank the Arms Control Association, and in particular Daryl Kimball, for the opportunity to research and write on the variety of nuclear policy issues contained in this report. The process has been enormously instructive. I would also like to thank Tom Collina, Peter Crail, and Dan Horner for reading drafts of the report as it neared completion. Their close reading saved me from the embarrassment of a few subtle, but important errors. Thanks also to Brian Creamer for layout and design, and to Brian Allen for copyediting above and beyond the call of duty. I would also like to acknowledge the authors of the 2005 version of this research guide, Clare Applegarth and Rhianna Tyson, for their important work and inspiration for this, the 2010 edition. Lastly, I am indebted to the Scoville Fellowship for the privilege of entering the arms control field at such an exciting time. Note on Sources The majority of research for this project was conducted using official documents of NPT Preparatory Committees and Review Conferences, the Conference on Disarmament, and the United Nations General Assembly First Committee on Disarmament and International Security. These documents are available at www.reachingcriticalwill.org as well as via the UN disarmament homepage, http://www.un.org/disarmament. Proposals and state positions listed in the report are based on the most recently available documents. Web addresses listed in the end notes are not maintained by ACA, and may change. Cover Photo UN Secretary General Kofi Annan addresses the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference May 2, 2005 in New York, UN PHOTO/Mark Garten. TAble of CoNTeNTS 1 introduction Key ISSueS 5 verification 9 nuclear fuel cycle 12 export controls and interdiction 15 • sidebar: the indian nuclear deal 16 disarmament 22 fissile Material 24 nuclear testing 26 negative security Assurances 28 nuclear-weapon-free Zones 31 withdrawal 34 strategic Policy 37 institutional issues 39 universality 41 nuclear security 43 notes 50 Appendix 1. Glossary of terms 53 Appendix 2. text of the treaty on the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons 57 Appendix 3. un security council Resolution 1887 61 Appendix 4. the 13 Practical steps, a summary 62 Appendix 5. Principles and objectives for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament (adopted by the 1995 Review and extension conference) 65 Appendix 6. nPt states-parties, comp. safeguards Agreements and Additional Protocols 68 Appendix 7. timeline of the nPt The 2010 NPT Review Conference: introduction An Opportunity to Strengthen the Regime orty years ago, the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) set into place one of the most important international security bargains of all time: states without nuclear weapons Fpledged not to acquire them, while nuclear-armed states committed to eventually give them up. At the same time, the NPT allowed for the peaceful use of nuclear technology by non- nuclear-weapon states under strict and verifiable control. The NPT is a good deal that must be honored and strengthened. Since its inception, the NPT has helped to limit fostering greater stability and predictability. the number of nuclear-weapon states to the five The bargain between the nuclear weapons haves with nuclear weapons at the time of its entry into and have-nots was further solidified at the 1995 force (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, NPT Review and Extension Conference, which and the United States) and the four other known led to a decision to extend the treaty indefinitely. nuclear-weapon states (India, Israel, North Korea, and That decision was based on a set of interlocking Pakistan), which are not party to the treaty. Dozens commitments on nonproliferation, the peaceful uses of other states might have the bomb today if not for of nuclear energy, and disarmament that included the NPT and associated measures. Over the years, the the conclusion of negotiations on the CTBT by 1996, NPT security framework, combined with effective the initiation of negotiations on a fissile material diplomacy, has led states such as Argentina, Brazil, cutoff treaty (FMCT), the universalization of the NPT, Sweden, and Libya to abandon their nuclear weapons and the application of comprehensive safeguards ambitions. Belarus, Kazakhstan, South Africa, and as a condition for the supply of nuclear fuel and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons and joined the technology. NPT in the 1990s. In the context of the pivotal 1995 NPT conference, The NPT also makes it far more difficult for non- the nuclear-weapon states issued nonbinding nuclear-weapon states to acquire the material and negative security assurances—pledges not to use technology needed to build such weapons and, if they nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon NPT do, to do so without detection. Intrusive international members—thereby reducing incentives for others to inspections and safeguards against diversion of seek nuclear arms for defense. nuclear technology and material for weapons Leaders from across the globe have worked to purposes are now standard practice. create regional nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZs) The NPT process and sustained nongovernmental that further reinforce the norm against nuclear pressure have encouraged the United States and weapons possession and use. These include the Russia to take action on several nuclear arms control Treaty of Tlatelolco, which covers Latin America; and arms reduction initiatives, from strategic nuclear the Treaty of Rarotonga governing the South Pacific; Association weapons reductions to a halt on nuclear weapons the Pelindaba Treaty, which establishes an African testing and the negotiation of the Comprehensive NWFZ; the Treaty of Semipalatinsk, which created Control Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). These arms control an NWFZ in Central Asia; and the Bangkok Treaty agreements have reduced U.S.-Russian nuclear arms on a Southeast Asian NWFZ. The 1995 and 2000 Arms competition and increased transparency, thereby NPT conferences further reinforced the NWFZ 1 concept and, at the urging of a key coalition of non- offensive missile options open, Washington nuclear-weapon states, called for progress toward the unilaterally withdrew from the 1972 ABM Treaty, realization of a Middle East NWFZ. effectively sinking prospects for START II, and The 2000 NPT Review Conference again reiterated instead pursued a one-page agreement with Russia to and refined the political commitments of the reduce their operationally deployed strategic nuclear NPT states-parties to strengthen the treaty in all warheads to no more than 2,200 each by 2012, aspects. Most notably, the 2000 conference led to but without any additional verification provisions. the expression of “an unequivocal undertaking by In 2003 the Bush administration sought and was the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total later refused congressional support for funding for elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to modifications to a U.S. nuclear warhead that would nuclear disarmament to which all States parties are have improved its earth-penetrating capabilities. committed under Article VI” and to the agreement on At the same time, new proliferation challenges a set of 13 “practical steps” on nuclear disarmament, emerged that have shaken the foundation of the including: NPT regime in other ways. In October 2002, U.S. and North Korean negotiators met for the first time since • Achievement of the early entry into force the Bush administration took office. At the meeting, of the CTBT; the U.S. side accused North Korea of seeking uranium- enrichment technology in violation of the 1994 • further irreversible and verifiable Agreed Framework, which froze Pyongyang’s nuclear reductions in nuclear arsenals, including program and put its major nuclear complex under entry into force of START II and preservation international inspection. Washington, along with its of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty; Japanese and South Korean allies, soon suspended heavy fuel oil shipments to North Korea that were • concrete measures to reduce the part of the Agreed Framework. In January 2003, North operational status of deployed nuclear Korea declared it would withdraw from the NPT, weapons; ejected IAEA inspectors, and resumed work related to the production of plutonium for nuclear weapons. • the start of FMCT negotiations and the Weeks later, it became known that Iran had establishment of a subsidiary body to discuss been secretly pursuing nuclear activities for years, nuclear disarmament at the Conference on including work on a large uranium-enrichment Disarmament; and complex at Natanz, in violation of its IAEA safeguards obligations. Less than a year later, in early 2004, U.S. • a commitment to the “diminishing role officials revealed that the head of Pakistan’s nuclear for nuclear weapons in security
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Status of the Implementation of the NPT 13 Steps and Nuclear Disarmament
    Status of the Implementation of the NPT 13 Steps and Nuclear Disarmament By Senator Douglas Roche, O.C. Chairman, Middle Powers Initiative Sponsored by United Nations Centre for Peace, Disarmament and Development in Latin America and the Caribbean, Department for Disarmament Affairs United Nations, New York, March 14, 2002 Hon. Senator Douglas Roche, O.C., Room 202-Victoria Bldg., Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0A4 Tel (613) 943-9559 Fax (613) 943-9561 WebSite: http://send.parl.gc.ca/droche At the 2000 Review of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the states parties agreed to take 13 practical steps to manifest their systematic and progressive efforts to implement Article VI of the NPT. The first PrepComm, in 2002, for the 2005 Review provides an opportunity to assess the amount of progress. I propose here to refer to each of the steps* and then to offer a comment on the status of implementation1. Step 1. Entry-into-force of the CTBT To date, 161 states have signed and 87 have ratified the CTBT. Of the 44 nuclear-capable countries required to ratify it, 13 states have not yet done so. Most of these have signed and are in the various stages of the legislative process for ratification. India, Pakistan and North Korea have not signed. Israel has signed, but has said that ratification will depend on, inter alia, Israel’s sovereign equality status and developments in the region. The United States presents a serious problem because it is the only one of *The precise wording of the steps, as contained in the NPT 2000 Review Final Document, appears in Appendix A or at website: http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Press/Events/Npt/npt-2000.shtml 1 I am indebted to Tariq Rauf, formerly of the Monterey Institute of International Studies, for his analysis of the 13 steps contained in “Towards NPT 2005: An Action Plan for the 13 Steps,” prepared for a Strategy Consultation held by the Middle Powers Initiative (MPI) April 29-May 1, 2001.
    [Show full text]
  • Nuclear Suppliers Group
    Nuclear Suppliers Group February 23, 2016 23rd Asian Export Control Seminar Tokyo Ambassador Rafael Mariano Grossi 2015-2016 NSG Chair Export Controls and the International Nonproliferation Regime • Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons – 1970 entry into force – Foundation of global non-proliferation regime – Calls on States party to implement conditions of supply for sensitive equipment and material transfers • NPT Article III.2 Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to provide: (a) source or special fissionable material, or (b) equipment or material especially designed or prepared for the processing, use or production of special fissionable material, to any non-nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes, unless the source or special fissionable material shall be subjec t to the sa feguar ds requ ire d by this Ar tic le. 116 United Nations Member States have adopted nuclear export controls Export Controls and the International Nonproliferation Regime Nuclear export controls are just one means of halting the spread of nuclear weapons, along with: – IAEA safeguards – physical protection – material control and accounting measures MULTILATERAL NUCLEAR EXPORT CONTROLS Prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons by: • creating international standards for countries to support a principled position on nuclear nonproliferation • learning how proliferators exploit weaknesses to procure materials and capabilities necessary for a nuclear program Opportunities for Preventing Proliferation Vary • Fissile material production involves:
    [Show full text]
  • Npr12.2 India and the New Look of U.S. Nonproliferation Policy
    VIEWPOINT INDIA AND THE NEW LOOK OF U.S. NONPROLIFERATION POLICY William C. Potter U.S. nuclear export policy has undergone major transformations since 1945, and the most recent change, as expressed in the July 18, 2005, India-U.S. Joint Statement, represents an especially significant shift in policy. The document reverses more than a quarter century of U.S. declaratory policy, suggesting that the current U.S. administration regards nuclear proliferation to be both inevitable and not necessarily a bad thing. This article investigates this policy shift, looking at the history of U.S. nuclear export policy and the potential ramifications of the new policy on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The author also touches on the potential effects of the Joint Statement on Indian-Pakistani relations. Finally, it is suggested that it is not too late for India and the United States to change the new policy with more consideration for the NPT and the Nuclear Suppliers Group Initiative. KEYWORDS: India; U.S. nonproliferation policy; Nonproliferation; Nuclear; Nuclear exports; Nuclear proliferation The old football adage ‘‘You can’t tell the players without a program’’ applies increasingly to the international politics of nonproliferation. Gone are the days when the United States routinely lined up on the side of those pursuing the goal of halting and reversing the spread of nuclear weapons. This change in Washington’s nonproliferation game plan has been under way for some time, but it was most clearly expressed in the July 18, 2005, India-U.S. Joint Statement. This extraordinary document, which reverses more than a quarter-century of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Czech Republic
    THE POLISH INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS THE CENTRAL ANd EASTERN EUROPEAN RESOURCE COLLECTION ON NUCLEAR issues CZECH REPUBLIC UPdated ON 28 APRIL 2015 CZECH REPUBLIC The Czech Republic is a member of both the EU and NATO and a signatory to multiple international disarmament and non-proliferation treaties. The Czech Republic vocally supports continued nuclear-sharing arrangements within NATO and a step-by-step approach to the total elimination of nuclear weapons. The Czech Republic is an active participant of the NPT review process, and in cooperation in the fields of nuclear non- proliferation, nuclear security and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The Czech WMD unit has also taken part in numerous international operations. Nuclear The Czech Republic does not possess, (IAEA) in force, and is a participating state in produce or host nuclear weapons on its the Wassenaar Arrangement. territory.1 The Czech Republic is party to the The Czech Republic’s capital, Prague, Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and has hosted important nuclear-disarmament- ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban related events, particularly the introduction of Treaty (CTBT), as the first European country the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons to do so. The country is a member of the issued by U.S. President Barack Obama in Nuclear Suppliers Group and the Zangger a 2009 speech and the signing ceremony Committee, has an Additional Protocol with of the U.S.–Russia New Start Treaty in May the International Atomic Energy Agency 2010. Nuclear DeterreNce,
    [Show full text]
  • Varelaszina.Pdf (428Kb)
    ANALYZING THE 2005-2008 U.S.-INDO CIVIL NUCLEAR COOPERATION DEAL AS A MODEL FOR DEALING WITH NUCLEAR RISING POWERS A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Security Studies By Zina Varelas, B.A. Washington, D.C. April 15, 2011 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! Copyright 2011 by Zina Varelas All Rights ! ""! ANALYZING THE 2005-2008 U.S.-INDO CIVIL NUCLEAR COOPERATION DEAL AS A MODEL FOR DEALING WITH NUCLEAR RISING POWERS Zina Varelas, B.A. Thesis Advisor: Jennifer Sims, Professor, Ph.D. ABSTRACT Post 9/11, the United States and India overcame their traditional stances towards each other. Convergence of mutual interests in international politics, such as promoting democracy and fighting terrorism has led both countries to forge a strategic partnership. Collaboration extends across the economy, technology, and energy, sectors and includes a controversial civil nuclear cooperation deal. Since the deal, India is now the only country that can trade in nuclear materials without being a signatory to the Nuclear Non- proliferation Treaty.1 As a result, critics of the 2005-2008 deal are most concerned with its likely impact on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and stability in South Asia. This paper analyzes the US-Indo nuclear cooperation deal present-day and its impact on military developments and deterrence stability in both Pakistan and South Asia. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 Thompson, Elspeth, and Dickson Yeo. "India and the Nuclear Suppliers Group: ESI Bulletin on Energy Trends and Development." Bulletein Article. Energy Studies Institute, Dec.
    [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]
  • Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists
    DOI: 10.2968/066004001 Bulletin Assessing the 2010 NPT Review of the Conference Atomic a necessary political success, this year’s Scientists conference has far-reaching implications. By ReBecca jOhnsOn hen the president of the 2010 Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, Li- bran Cabactulan, tapped his gavel at 3:40 p.m. on W May 28, there was a moment of stunned silence be- fore applause erupted in the hall of the U.N. General Assembly. After four weeks of discussions, the conference, which is held every five years, ended with the adoption of a substantive final document that is expected to frame nonproliferation and disarmament objec- tives for some years to come. This consensus outcome reflects agreement on 64 recommend- ed actions covering nuclear disarmament, nonproliferation, nucle- ar energy for nonmilitary purposes, and a conference to facilitate progress on eliminating nuclear, chemical and biological weapons from the Middle East. In addition, there was a review section cov- ering the major issues and concerns discussed during the review conference, including criticisms of the nuclear powers and North Korea. This section also contained majority views and ideas that did not make it into the consensus action plans, for example on strengthening compliance and implementation and for responding more effectively if countries try to withdraw from the NPT to de- velop nuclear weapons, as North Korea did in 2003.1 Though time ran out before this part could be fully negotiated and agreed, it con- stitutes an important overview of the major issues, problems, and perspectives facing the NPT. That any substantive agreements were adopted at all is no small victory.
    [Show full text]
  • Preparatory Committee for the 2005 Review Conference of the Parties To
    NPT/CONF.2005/PC.I/SR.1 Preparatory Committee for the 2005 Review Distr.: General Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the 4 June 2002 Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Original: English Summary record of the 1st meeting Held at Headquarters, New York, on Monday, 8 April 2002, at 10 a.m. Temporary Chairman: Mr. Dhanapala (Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs) Chairman: Mr. Salander. .(Sweden) Contents Opening of the session Election of the Chairman Adoption of the agenda Organization of work of the Preparatory Committee: (a) Election of officers (b) Dates and venues for further sessions (c) Methods of work: (i) Decision-making (ii) Participation (iii) Working languages (iv) Records and documents General debate on issues related to all aspects of the work of the Preparatory Committee This record is subject to correction. Corrections should be submitted in one of the working languages. They should be set forth in a memorandum and also incorporated in a copy of the record. They should be sent within one week of the date of this document to the Chief, Official Records Editing Section, room DC2-750, 2 United Nations Plaza. Any corrections to the record of this meeting and of other meetings will be issued in a corrigendum. 02-32169 (E) * 0 2 3 2 1 6 9 * NPT/CONF.2005/PC.I/SR.1 The meeting was called to order at 10.15 a.m. events since that Conference had cast a shadow on the prospects for progress. Despite the strong reaffirmation at the 2001 Conference on Facilitating the Entry into Opening of the session Force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty 1.
    [Show full text]
  • 2015 Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non
    NPT/CONF.2015/SR.5 2015 Review Conference of the Parties Distr.: General to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation 26 May 2015 of Nuclear Weapons Original: English Summary record of the 5th meeting Held at Headquarters, New York, on Wednesday, 29 April 2015, at 10 a.m. President: Mr. Labbé (Vice-President) ......................................... (Chile) later: Mr. Biontino (Vice-President) .................................... (Germany) Contents General debate (continued) This record is subject to correction. Corrections should be submitted in one of the working languages. They should be set forth in a memorandum and also incorporated in a copy of the record. They should be sent as soon as possible to the Chief of the Documents Control Unit ([email protected]). Corrected records will be reissued electronically on the Official Document System of the United Nations (http://documents.un.org/). 15-06744 (E) *1506744* NPT/CONF.2015/SR.5 The meeting was called to order at 10.05 a.m. urged universalization of the Treaty, the conclusion of a fissile material cut-off treaty, and the establishment General debate (continued) of a zone free of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. It had 1. Mr. Klimkin (Ukraine) said that his country had supported both General Assembly resolution 67/56, voluntarily renounced nuclear weapons and had which had established the open-ended working group eliminated its nuclear arsenal inherited from the former to develop proposals to take forward multilateral Soviet Union. However, the Ukrainian success story nuclear disarmament negotiations, and the conferences had been ruined by the recent Russian aggression, on the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons held in which blatantly violated the 1994 Memorandum on Oslo, Nayarit, Mexico, and Vienna.
    [Show full text]
  • Transparency and Accountability: NPT Reporting
    TRANSPARENCY and ACCOUNTABILITY NPT REPORTING 2002-2012 TRANSPARENCY AND ACCOUNTABILITY NPT Reporting 2002-2012 About this Publication As agreed in 2000, States Parties to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty are called to submit regular reports on their efforts to implement Article VI of the NPT—nuclear disarmament and the eventual elimination of nuclear weapons. This paper tabulates and summarizes reporting at the nine NPT review process meetings since then: the three Preparatory Committee sessions leading up to the 2005 Review Conference (2002-4), the 2005 Review Conference itself, the four Preparatory Committee sessions for the 2010 Review Conference, the 2010 Review Conference itself, and the first Preparatory Committee session for the 2015 Review Conference, held in 2012. The paper briefly reviews the background to the reporting obligation and offers recommendations for enhanced reporting that would more effectively reflect the “permanence with accountability” framework that is at its core. The paper was prepared by Project Ploughshares Program Officer Cesar Jaramillo. Previous editions were prepared by Cesar Jaramillo, Ernie Regehr, and Jessica West, with assistance from interns Adam Parsons, Laura Ashfield, and Melanie Ferrier. Acknowledgements We acknowledge with gratitude the financial support of The Simons Foundation of Vancouver. Project Ploughshares Project Ploughshares is the peace centre of The Canadian Council of Churches. Project Ploughshares works with churches, nongovernmental organizations, and governments, in Canada
    [Show full text]
  • Workshop on South Korea As a Responsible Nuclear Supplier
    Proliferation Prevention Program Workshop on South Korea as a Responsible Nuclear Supplier ABOUT THE WORKSHOP | Seoul, South Korea, February 18, 2013 Participating Scholars he Center for Strategic and Interna- Ttional Studies and the Asan Institute Dr. Emma Belcher for Policy Studies cohosted a workshop on “Korea as a Responsible Nuclear Supplier” Dr. Jor-shan Choi on February 18, 2013, at the Asan Insti- tute in Seoul. Experts from government, Dr. Ferenc Dalnoki-Veress academia, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), and industry participated under Dr. Robert Gallucci Chatham House rules. Discussion focused on the opportunities and challenges the Dr. Alan Hanson Republic of Korea (ROK) will face as a new PNNL’s Gretchen Hund speaking on corporate nuclear exporter. For the past 30 years, South responsibilities. Mr. Mark Hibbs Korea has worked hard to acquire the capa- bilities to build its own nuclear power reactors, and in 2009, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Ms. Gretchen Hund chose a South Korean consortium led by KEPCO to build four APR-1400 reactors at Baraka. In light of these developments, the workshop sought to define the responsibilities that accompany Dr. Jun Bong-Geun nuclear supply and to explore how to carry out such responsibilities in practice. Dr. Lee Jong-Ho The discussion paper (Appendix A) suggested definitions of responsible nuclear supply. The workshop agenda (Appendix B) divided discussion into four main areas: capacity Dr. Lee Kun Jai issues that the South Korean nuclear industry will experience at home; trends in inter- national nuclear supply; building export capacity in Korea; and elements of responsible Dr. Steven Miller nuclear supply.
    [Show full text]
  • A New Look at the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT)
    A New Look at the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) International Group on Global Security (IGGS) Anthony Aust Masahiko Asada Edward Ifft Nicholas Kyriakopoulos Jenifer Mackby Bernard Massinon Arend Meerburg Bernard Sitt September 2008 Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael CIP-Data Koninklijke bibliotheek, Den Haag Anthony Aust Masahiko Asada Edward Ifft Nicholas Kyriakopoulos Jenifer Mackby Bernard Massinon Arend Meerburg Bernard Sitt A New Look at the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT) / The Hague, Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael. ISBN: 978-90-5031-130-4 This publication was supported by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Desk top publishing by: Karin van Egmond Nederlands Instituut voor Internationale Betrekkingen Clingendael Clingendael 7 2597 VH Den Haag Phone: +31 (0)70 – 3245384 Fax: +31 (0)70 – 3746667 P.O.Box 93080 2509 AB Den Haag E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.clingendael.nl © Netherlands Institute of International Relations Clingendael. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the copyright holders. Clingendael Institute, P.O. Box 93080, 2509 AB The Hague, The Netherlands Contents Abbreviations and Technical Terms ............................................................. i Foreword..................................................................................................
    [Show full text]