TREATY ON THE

NON
PROLIFERATION OF
NUCLEAR
WEAPONS (NPT)

MAHNOOR

N O WA I L TA R I Q

U M A I R WA H E E D

ZEESHAN SADDIQUEI
 PRINCIPLE OF NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION
WAS ADDRESSED IN NEGOTIATIONS AS EARLY AS
1957. (UN)

 THE NPT PROCESS WAS LAUNCHED BY FRANK

AIKEN, IRISH MINISTER FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS,
IN 1958.

HISTORY
 BETWEEN 1965 AND 1968, THE TREATY WAS
NEGOTIATED BY THE EIGHTEEN NATION
COMMITTEE ON DISARMAMENT, A UNITED

|
NATIONS-SPONSORED ORGANIZATION BASED
IN GENEVA, SWITZERLAND.

 IN JUNE 1968, UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY

RECOGNIZED THE NPT WITH GENERAL ASSEMBLY
RESOLUTION 2373.
BACKGROUND
 JULY 1968, OPENED FOR SIGNATURE IN
WASHINGTON DC, LONDON AND MOSCOW.

 FINLAND THE FIRST STATE TO SIGN.

 ENTERED IN TO FORCE IN 1970.

 LIMIT THE SPREAD OF NUCLEAR
WEAPONS & TECHNOLOGY.

 PROMOTE COOPERATION IN THE

PEACEFUL USES OF NUCLEAR ENERGY.

 GOAL OF ACHIEVING NUCLEAR OBJECTIVES

DISARMAMENT.

 GENERAL AND COMPLETE

DISARMAMENT.
 188 MEMBER STATES.

 FOUR STATES INDIA, ISRAEL,

PAKISTAN, AND SOUTH SUDAN HAVE
NEVER SIGNED THE TREATY.

 INDIA AND PAKISTAN HAVE PUBLICLY PARTIES AND

NON-PARTIES
DISCLOSED THEIR NUCLEAR WEAPON
PROGRAMS, AND ISRAEL HAS A LONG-
STANDING POLICY OF DELIBERATE
AMBIGUITY.

 NORTH KOREA (EXIT)

 WHY STATES AREN’T
SIGNING NPT ?
 INDIA

NPT ALLOWS ONLY THOSE FIVE NATIONS

MANUFACTURED AND EXPLODED A NUCLEAR WEAPON
BEFORE JANUARY 1, 1967 TO RETAIN THEIR WEAPONS
AFTER SIGNING THE TREATY. INDIA OPPOSES THIS
DISCRIMINATIVE DISARMAMENT POLICY AND ARGUES
FOR THE COMPLETE BAN OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS AND
HENCE, STILL NOT A SIGNATORY OF THE NPT.

 PAKISTAN

IT IS A DISCRIMINATORY TREATY. PAKISTAN HAS THE

RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF, SO PAKISTAN WILL NOT SIGN
THE NPT. WHY SHOULD WE?
 WHY STATES AREN’T
SIGNING NPT ?
 ISRAEL
THIS RESOLUTION IS DEEPLY FLAWED AND
HYPOCRITICAL IT IGNORES THE REALITIES OF
MIDDLE EAST AND REAL THREATS PHASING THE
REGION AND THE ENTIRE WORLD.

 SOUTH SUDAN
JOINED THE UN IN 2011, AND DOES NOT POSSESS
ANY NUCLEAR WEAPONS ARE REMAINING OUTSIDE
THE NPT.
 SUCCESS
 MOST SUCCESSFUL ARMS CONTROL
TREATY IN HUMAN HISTORY.

 REDUCTIONS BY 1/5TH THE SIZE OF

WHAT THEY WERE HALF CENTURY
AGO.

 POTENTIAL PROLIFERATORS TO ACTIVE

NON-PROLIFERATION SUPPORTERS.
SUCCESS AND
 ESTABLISHMENT OF AN
FAILURE
INTERNATIONAL NORM.

 ESTABLISHMENT OF REGIONAL
NUCLEAR WEAPON-FREE ZONES.

 PEACEFUL USE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY.

 FAILURE
 STILL NO PROSPECT OF NUCLEAR
DISARMAMENT.
 NUCLEAR WEAPON-FREE ZONES.
 INABILITY TO STOP
PROLIFERATION.
SUCCESS AND
 ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL NOT
SIGNED BY 30 STATES FAILURE
 INABILITY OF IAEA SAFEGUARD
SYSTEM
 QUESTION OF ACQUIRING HEU
 DEPLOYMENT OF SMALL NUCLEAR
REACTORS
10 NPT CONFERENCE
th
AUGUST 1ST 2022 - AUGUST 26TH 2022

 IT WAS DOOMED , HOWEVER IT ALMOST SUCCEEDED.

 SURPRISINGLY BUSINESS-LIKE ATMOSPHERE AT THE

CONFERENCE THAT RAISED EXPECTATIONS AMONG THE
DELEGATES.

 RELATIVELY LOW LEVEL OF ENGAGEMENT BY THE RUSSIAN

DELEGATION .

 THE COMMITMENT OF THE MAJORITY OF STATES-PARTIES TO

ACHIEVING AN AGREED OUTCOME.

 NO COMMON GROUND REGARDING RUSSIA – UKRAINE.

 NO STEP TOWARDS DISARMAMENT BY NUCLEAR STATES.

• STATES CONTINUING
PROLIFERATION EFFORTS.

• GLOBAL RESURGENCE OF ASSESSING POTENTIAL

NATIONALISM. CHALLENGES TO NPT
EFFECTIVENESS
• COMPETITION AMONG THE
GREAT POWERS.
• THE SPREAD OF NUCLEAR
TECHNOLOGY AND BURDENS ON
THE IAEA SAFEGUARDS.
ASSESSING POTENTIAL
• GROWING POLARIZATION
CHALLENGES TO NPT
AMONG NPT MEMBER STATES
EFFECTIVENESS
 Imposed Regime

 "a conspiracy of the nuclear 'haves' to

keep the nuclear 'have-nots' in their
place“

 "Discriminated against states not Critique and response

possessing nuclear weapons on 1
January 1967,“

 Warheads possessed by five

authorized states

 "NPT has one giant loophole"

FUTURE OF THE NON-PROLIFERATION
TREATY

 (NPT) IS GENERALLY REGARDED AS THE KEY PILLAR OF THE

WORLD NUCLEAR ORDER. WITH 188 PARTIES, IT IS THE MOST
UNIVERSAL ARMS CONTROL TREATY IN WORLD HISTORY.

 THE NPT CONSTITUTES A HISTORICAL ANOMALY. THROUGH

MEMBERSHIP, IN CONTRAST, MOST STATES RENOUNCE MOST
POWERFUL WEAPON OF THEIR TIME, WHILE A SMALL
MINORITY IS PERMITTED TO POSSESS THEM TEMPORARILY,
AND A FEW MORE STATES HAVE ACQUIRED THEM AS NON-
MEMBERS OF THE NPT.

 IN OTHER WORDS, THE TREATY CONSTITUTES AN UNEQUAL

WORLD—AT LEAST FOR THE TIME BEING.
 FUTURE OF NPT THROUGH
DIMENSIONS OF INEQUALITY

 FIRST, THERE IS THE UNEQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF

THE PARTIES TO THE NPT: THIS DIMENSION DISTINGUISHES THE NWS
FROM THE NNWS.

 NWS, AS MENTIONED, ARE PERMITTED FOR THE TIME BEING TO POSSESS

NUCLEAR WEAPONS, NNWS ARE PROHIBITED FROM ACQUIRING AND
POSSESSING THEM.

 THUS, THE NPT DISTRIBUTES MILITARY POWER UNEQUALLY AMONG ITS

MEMBERSHIP.
 FUTURE OF NPT THROUGH
DIMENSIONS OF INEQUALITY

 SECOND DIMENSION CONCERNS THE PRECISION BY WHICH DUTIES ARE

DEFINED. THE PROHIBITION FOR THE NNWS IS RELATIVELY CLEAR. THIS
PROHIBITION IS TO BE VERIFIED BY THE (IAEA) AND WHAT VERIFICATION
ENTAILS IS DETAILED.

 IN CONTRAST, THE DISARMAMENT OBLIGATION IN ART. VI IS VAGUE.

NEITHER THE TIME FRAME IS PRESCRIBED, NOR ARE THE STEPS THAT
ARE OBLIGATORY CLEARLY STATED.
 FUTURE OF NPT THROUGH
DIMENSIONS OF INEQUALITY
 THIRD DIMENSION CONCERNS THE PROCEDURES FOR ADDRESSING
NON-COMPLIANCE DISPUTES AND ENFORCEMENT DECISIONS.

 THESE PROCEDURES EMPOWER THE NPT NWS THROUGH THEIR UNSC

PERMANENT SEATS.

 SINCE THE UNSC, READING THE NPT, THE COMPREHENSIVE SAFEGUARDS

AGREEMENT, AND THE IAEA REGULATION IN THEIR MUTUAL
RELATIONSHIP, IS PUT IN THE ROLE OF THE ULTIMATE ARBITER IN NON-
COMPLIANCE CASES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW.

 THIS SITUATION HAS BEEN DESCRIBED SARCASTICALLY AS THE

ALCOHOLICS EMPOWERED TO ENSURE RESTRAINT.
 FUTURE OF NPT THROUGH
DIMENSIONS OF INEQUALITY
THERE IS A FOURTH TYPE OF INEQUALITY WHICH MUST BE NOTED, AN
INEQUALITY OF A REGIONAL KIND:

 THE INEQUALITY IN THE CONFLICT-RIDDEN REGION OF THE MIDDLE

EAST, WHERE ISRAEL IS THE SINGLE NUCLEAR WEAPONS POSSESSOR.

 THIS REGIONAL INEQUALITY TRIGGERED THE SAME IMPULSE FOR

CATCHING UP, AND LED NO LESS THAN FOUR REGIONAL STATES TO
MAKE ATTEMPTS TO DO SO: LIBYA, SYRIA, IRAQ AND IRAN. LIKE AT THE
GLOBAL LEVEL, THERE IS A REGIONAL APPROACH TO CREATE EQUALITY
BY DISARMAMENT AND REGIONAL DIPLOMACY.

 SO THIS IS THE MOTIVATION FOR THE REGIONAL PROJECT OF A

NUCLEAR WEAPON.
 FUTURE?
 THERE HAS BEEN NO NEW NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT TREATY
SINCE 2010.

 ABM TREATY, SCRAPPED BY THE GEORGE W. BUSH

ADMINISTRATION.
 THE PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION AGREEMENT OF 2010 HAS BEEN
SUSPENDED BY MOSCOW.

 THE CTBT IS NOT IN FORCE 21 YEARS AFTER ITS NEGOTIATIONS

WERE CONCLUDED, BECAUSE STATES LIKE THE US, CHINA, INDIA,
PAKISTAN, INDIA, ISRAEL AND NORTH KOREA HAVE NOT
BECOME PARTIES.

 THE US AND RUSSIA ACCUSE EACH OTHER OF VIOLATING THE

INF TREATY; THIS PILLAR OF NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT MIGHT
FALL BY THE WAYSIDE IN THE NEXT FEW YEARS.
 THANK YOU!

ANY
QUESTIONS?