Controlling Nuclear Proliferation - Research Paper Example

Controlling Nuclear Proliferation Name Institution Tutor Date Abstract The international community faces resurgence in the proliferation of nuclear weapon. Since nuclear weapon was used by the United States on Nagasaki and Hiroshima in 1945 -- during World War II -- leading to the Japanese surrender, the international community has endeavored to prevent any future use of the weapon (Njolstad, 2003; McFee & Nixon, 2009). It is however difficult to ascertain whether non-proliferation of nuclear weapon can be achieved entirely. This paper argues that even though some people believe that each county has the right to protect itself even if it needs to get nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation should be controlled with strict global rules from the United Nations, which prohibit the development, testing, production, stockpiling, transfer, use, and threat of use of nuclear weapons (McFee & Nixon, 2009). Controlling Nuclear Proliferation Nuclear weapons are arguably the most destructive of all weapons of mass destruction, capable of causing indiscriminate, unnecessary and long-term human suffering and environmental damage (Sidel & Levy, 2007). Even though different countries have defended their decisions to acquire and maintain stockpiles of nuclear weapons as having been motivated by the “right to protect themselves,’ there is a need to control nuclear proliferation through strict rules and principles set out by the United Nations, which state that no country can purchase, supply, or create materials for nuclear weapons. The United Nations has consistently portrayed nuclear proliferation as a legal and humanitarian imperative. Controlling nuclear proliferation with strict regulations watched over by the United Nations has been triggered by deep concerns for possible catastrophes of deployment of nuclear weapon. The regulations confirm the need for countries to comply with international humanitarian law. The attempts by the UN to eliminate nuclear weapons have in actual sense reaffirmed the irreconcilability of nuclear weapons with the applicable international law, such as the international humanitarian law. It further seeks to express the inestimable human loss and suffering that could be expected from any deployment of nuclear weapons. The efforts further urge nations to agree to negotiations to ban and eliminate nuclear weapons through legally binding agreements (Duarte, 2009). By applying the international law in the matters of nuclear weapon proliferations, the United Nations has the potential to pave the way for genuine progress in nuclear weapon non-proliferation and disarmament. By focusing international law on the humanitarian effects of the nuclear weapons, an imperative for prohibiting the weapons is promoted. A major advantage of using this approach is that international humanitarian law is recognized and acknowledged as binding by all UN Member States. This implies that nations have to rethink their approaches to security. For instance, if the law renders use of nuclear weapons as illegal, then specific nations have to develop seek alternatives that replace their reliance on nuclear weapons, and use weapons that are compatible with the law (Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2012). Proliferation and use of nuclear weapons pose a great destructive threat. Amid controversies over whether each country has the right to protect itself, nuclear proliferation should be controlled with strict rules from the United Nations, specifying that no country can purchase, supply or create materials for nuclear weapons. Efforts to reverse or control proliferation of nuclear come in two forms. First, either the production of nuclear material, such as centrifuges, uranium or superfast switches, is controlled, or information on nuclear, such as schematics, blueprints or scientific expertise, is controlled (Gordin, 2009). Nation-states have seemingly overlooked the material approach in favor of the information approach. However, information is particularly difficult to restrict, given the growing number of countries that have managed to acquire nuclear weapons since physicist Albert Einstein and his colleague Leo Szilard made the first atomic bomb in 1939 for the United States (Njolstad, 2003). In the formulation of regulations, the United Nations has focused on the materials-centric approach to control nuclear proliferation. Depending on the types of proliferation, UN’s approach has been less effective to a significant extend, as more and more countries have continued to engage in nuclear proliferation. However, in addition to controlling nuclear proliferation with strict rules from the United Nations, there is a need for the UN to apply both approaches with equal measure (Njolstad, 2003). There are two forms of proliferations, namely horizontal proliferation and vertical proliferation. In horizontal proliferation, countries that do not have nuclear weapons acquire them. Vertical proliferation refers to countries that have nuclear weapons and are still increasing their stock of such weapons, or developing new weapons (Sidel & Levy, 2007). In both cases however, since these countries may threaten to use or even use such weapons need methods of delivering them, the UN should set out rules that restrict publishing nuclear-weapon-related information on delivery of such weapons as well as rules that restrict the delivery mechanisms. Even as each country has the right to protect itself, they are not obligated to acquire the nuclear weapons. Indeed, it can be argued that countries have had different ideologies regarding nuclear weapons, with some threatening to deploy them. For this perspective, countries have been divided over the nuclear proliferation, with the UN acting as the omnipresent arbitrator. Such divisions were seen in 1996 when the International Court of Justice asserted that the use or threat of nuclear weapons is by and large irreconcilable with international laws that govern warfare, including the international humanitarian law (Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2012). Following this perspective, since a sizeable number of Member States depended on nuclear for their security, the States were divided on their interpretation of the declaration, prompting the conclusion that the Court was inconclusive on the role of nuclear weapons in certain circumstances where nations threatened with nuclear attack could protect themselves. Individual countries can therefore not be trusted with nuclear weapons (Duarte, 2009). Countries are not justified to acquire nuclear weapons to protect themselves. Indeed, strict global rules by the UN have led to progress on nuclear disarmament as well as prevented proliferation. However, ongoing policies of nuclear acquisition as well as the threat of deploying the weapons have provided some countries, such as South Korea and India, with a rationale to acquire nuclear weapons for the defenses. The idea has further justified their refusal to implement comprehensive safeguards on their individual nuclear energy programs (Craig, 2008). Additionally, the existence of nuclear weapon technologies as well as fissile materials has enabled countries to acquire the technical capacity for nuclear weapon proliferation, and even the potential to acquire such weapons on the black market (Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2012). Quite the reverse, the formulation of comprehensive legal, institutional and technical systems to eliminate the weapons by the UN could make it tricky or even impossible for countries to acquire the weapons conveniently. For instance, the UN Security Council has focused on non-proliferation in response to nuclear tests by India, Democratic Republic of Korea and Pakistan and threats by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (Craig, 2008). Aside from formulation of regulations that prohibit the use and creation of nuclear weapons, there are other mechanisms that the United Nations can use to ensure that no country can purchase, supply, or create materials for nuclear weapons. The United Nations, more than any nation in the world, has the capacity to adequately prevent and restrict proliferation of nuclear weapons. The UN has been actively involved in efforts to establish a legal obligation to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons, particularly in 1996 by UN’s highest judicial authority the International Court of Justice during its turning point Advisory Opinion of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, when it proclaimed that the threat or use of nuclear weapons contravenes the rules of international law “applicable in armed conflict” and more specifically, the rules and principles of humanitarian law (Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2012). The UN also has the capacity to rally nation-states, particularly its member states, to foster disarmament under strict internal control. To achieve global prohibition and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, the nations will have to be mobilized. The United Nation has a key role to play in this process (Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2012). Subsequent to the proclamation of the Advisory Opinion, the United Nations General Assembly has since then adopted a resolution summoning all nations to fulfill the disarmament obligation by initiating multilateral negotiations that have resulted to premature termination of nuclear weapons conventions banning the production, development, testing, threat, using, stockpiling and transfer of nuclear weapons, and laying grounds for their elimination (Duarte, 2009; Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2012). The UN has since 1996 reiterated that each of its member states has an obligation to act in good faith in bringing to conclusion negotiations that lead to nuclear disarmament with respect to all the aspects of the weapon and under strict and effectual international control. The United Nations, more than any other country, has the longest experience in fostering nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament policies, and therefore is best placed to restrict nuclear proliferation. Since the onset of the nuclear age, the UN has endeavored to promote nuclear proliferation and disarmament, even as certain countries have been critical of these endeavors. The UN General Assembly adopted the first resolution in January 1946, which was intended to eliminate nuclear weapons, as well as other weapons of mass destruction. Historically however, since 1946, some countries had relegated nuclear weapons to a special category of weapons, which they claim is legitimate for them to own. At some point, some countries such as the United States, South Korea and Iran have accepted that non-proliferation of nuclear weapon is a desirable goal, but one that is unrealistic until a better security framework is developed (Inter-Parliamentary Union, 2012). In conclusion, nuclear weapons present a pattern of risks to life. A set of strict regulations set out and implemented by the United Nations has to a considerable extent served to promote nuclear weapons disarmament and non-proliferation. Indeed the argument by some nations that they have to maintain stockpiles of nuclear weapons for protection has been met with criticism with some experts weapons sitting in stockpiles threaten all potential adversaries. Based on the readiness to use nuclear weapons by countries possessing them, a range of risks are inherent in a nuclear weapon regime, including the risk of unauthorized launch accidental launch, theft and launch based on inexact information (Duarte, 2009). References Craig, M.(2008). The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty: Achieving International Security Through Diplomacy. Web. Accessed 4 July 2008 Duarte, D. (2009). 'Nuclear Weapons and the Rule of Law.' Fordham International Law Journal, 33(2), pp.573-583 Gordin, M. (2009). U.N. shifts strategy for nuclear arms control. Los Angeles Times. Web. Accessed 4 July 2013 Inter-Parliamentary Union. (2012). Supporting Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. Handbook for Parliamentarians No.19 - 2012.Web. < http://www.ipu.org/PDF/publications/nnp-e.pdf> Accessed 5 July 2013 McFee, J. & Nixon, S. (2009). Nuclear Weapons: The World’s Greatest Threat to Peace. Asheville: University of North Carolina. Njolstad, O. (2003). The Development and Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Nobel Prize. Web. Accessed 5 July 2013 Sidel, V. & Levy, B. (2007). 'Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons: Opportunities for Control and Abolition.' Am J Public Health. 2007 September, 97(9): 1589–1594. Read More