NUCLEAR TREATIES.   Term Paper ID:23021 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Examines treaties in effect in early 1996. Purposes, goals, signatory nations, legality, testing, focusing on Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.... More...

6 Pages / 1350 Words 7 sources, 17 Citations, TURABIAN Format $24.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Examines treaties in effect in early 1996. Purposes, goals, signatory nations, legality, testing, focusing on Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Paper Introduction: CURRENT NUCLEAR TREATIES Introduction This research reviews major nuclear treaties in effect or negotiated and awaiting ratification in early-1996 with respect to treaty purposes, goals, and signatory nations. Conclusions are drawn in relation to the legality under these treaties of either the hostile use of nuclear weapons or the testing of such weapons. Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) became effective in March 1970 for a 25-year period following ratification by 178 nations. The NPT was re-negotiated and renewed at a conference attended by 175 nations of the original 178 nations in 1995. The NPT was extended indefinitely on 11 May 1995. In the extensi Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. TheUnited States opposed the resolution, and intense negotiations led to lesscontroversial language.[6] The new resolution, sponsored by the UnitedStates, Russia, and Britain, endorsed the Middle East peace process, calledon all states in the Middle East that had not yet done so to accede to theNPT as soon as possible and place their nuclear facilities under full-scopeIAEA safeguards, and urged all states in the Middle East and all parties tothe NPT to cooperate in the early establishment of a zone free of nuclearand other weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems in theMiddle East. Nuclear treaties, therefore, while desirable in concept arelargely ineffective. In any case, the extension decision may well have lessimpact on the future of the treaty than will the changing military andpolitical situation in the world. A compromise package of three linked proposals based onCanada's extension proposal as well as on specific ideas put forward by thecore group of 14 Arab nations, as well as by Mexico, Indonesia, and SouthAfrica was developed. On May 11, a procedure sometimes used atthe United Nations when there is not quite a consensus for a proposal wasemployed. Other Nuclear Treaties Negotiations for a comprehensive nuclear test-ban treaty continue,although no agreement has been reached.[14] The United States tut-tuttedas France conducted tests in the Pacific in late-1995 and early-1996;however, the United States also refuses to forego the prerogative toconduct nuclear tests in the future on the basis of same justificationcited by France-validating existing nuclear deterrent capabilities. [11]Ibid., 28. "Indefinite Extension-With Increased Accountability." Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 51 (July/August 1995): 27-3 ."Finish What You Have STARTed." Economist 338 (27 January 1996): 17-18."Keep That Test Ban Promise." Economist 335 (24 June 1995): 18, 2 .Kumagai, J. These decisions were as follows:[11] 1. The participants simply agreed-bytheir silence-to accept the carefully crafted compromise without theformality of a vote. A preparatory committee would meet fortwo weeks in each of the three years prior to a review conference, to give"focused consideration" to "specific issues relevant to the treaty."[12] 2. The 14 non-aligned states did not get 25-year rolling extensions, andneither they nor Mexico got the other requested conditions.[4] Textsadopted at the conference, however, implied some degree of conditionalityas well as greater accountability by the nuclear powers. [14]"Keep That Test Ban Promise," Economist 335 (24 June 1995): 2 . [17]"China's Broken Promises," Economist 336 (8 July 1995): 17-18. The NPT was extended indefinitely on11 May 1995.[2] In the extension of the NPT, no state got all it wanted, although thenuclear weapon states had more reason to be gratified than the non nuclearweapon states.[3] The United States, Russia, Britain, and France wantedthe treaty extended indefinitely and unconditionally. A core group of 14 non-aligned states,led by Indonesia, wanted the treaty extended for a series of rolling fixedperiods of 25 years, subject to reaching certain goals during each timeperiod. The decision related to the principles and objectives fornuclear non-proliferation and disarmament reaffirmed the treaty's ultimategoals-the complete elimination of nuclear weapons and the achievement of atreaty on general and complete disarmament. Through extension of the NPT, the nuclear powers managed to maintaintheir monopoly on nuclear weapons.[13] A continued insistence by thenuclear powers that national security for themselves depends on theindefinite retention of nuclear weapons, however, likely will place theextended NPT in jeopardy, as some non nuclear states have equally validsecurity concerns. The Missile-Technology Control Regime (MTCR) and the NuclearSafeguards Agreement (NSA) are intended to keep missile delivery technologyout of the hands of states that might use nuclear weapons (MTCR), and toprevent the use of nuclear reactors intended for peaceful uses from beingused to produce weapons-grade nuclear material (NSA).[17] Widespreadacceptance and adherence to these protocols continues to elude the globalcommunity of nations. Although the nuclear powers were prepared to proceed to a vote, someof their allies feared that a vote could leave a significant dissatisfiedminority that might weaken rather than strengthen the treaty.[1 ] In aneffort to sidestep a vote, the conference authorized a continuation to seeka consensus. The Arab states, led by Egypt, refused to endorse any proposal for theextension of the NPT, unless pressure was brought on Israel to accede tothe NPT and accept full-scope safeguards.[5] A draft resolution preparedby 14 Arab states called upon Israel to accede to the NPT without delay andplace all of its nuclear activities under full-scope IAEA safeguards. Only the first partof their wish was fully granted. The decision to strengthen the review process provided for areview conference every five years, as had been the case for the past 25years. [13]Ibid., 3 . Although representatives ofthe United States said this was tantamount to a consensus, there was infact no unanimity and no consensus. [3]W. 3. All parties are fully awarethat any party can withdraw from the treaty, by giving the requisite threemonths notice. A CTB TREATY has been neither negotiated nor ratified,and the NPT and other nuclear treaties permit the use of nuclear weapons inself-defense-unfortunately, the treaties leave the determination of whatconstitutes an act of national self-defense up to the state using nuclearweapons. [16]"Finish What You Have STARTed," Economist 338 (27 January 1996):17. Thelonger agreement on a CTB treaty is delayed, the less likely the treatyever will be ratified. [7]Ibid., 29. Mexico, in return for acceptingan indefinite extension, asked for a program of action similar to that ofthe non-aligned states-but more specific: a CTB must be achieved by 1996;the nuclear powers must end the production of nuclear weapons and worktoward reducing their arsenals to zero; International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) safeguards must be made more effective; and all states (the nuclear-weapon powers in particular) must support and respect the new nuclear-weapon-free zones. It had becomeclear, however, that a consensus on indefinite extension was not likely,unless there were binding commitments by the nuclear powers to comply fullywith their obligations under the treaty, and unless some system was devisedthat would lead to greater accountability. Bibliography"China's Broken Promises." Economist 336 (8 July 1995): 17-18.Epstein, W. Their demands included a comprehensive test ban treaty (CTB),legally binding assurances to non-nuclear states against the use or threatof use of nuclear weapons, a cut-off of the production of and theelimination of stockpiles of weapon and usable fissile material, theelimination of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, theestablishment of additional nuclear-weapon-free zones, the non-discriminatory transfer of nuclear technology for peaceful purposes, andthe achievement of universality-bringing Israel, India, and Pakistan-allundeclared nuclear powers-into the fold. CURRENT NUCLEAR TREATIES Introduction This research reviews major nuclear treaties in effect or negotiatedand awaiting ratification in early-1996 with respect to treaty purposes,goals, and signatory nations. [8]Ibid. The package eventually consisted of three documentsor decisions, which appeared to be generally acceptable and which couldcommand a near consensus. [2]J. [9]Ibid. Conclusions are drawn in relation to thelegality under these treaties of either the hostile use of nuclear weaponsor the testing of such weapons. [5]Ibid. [4]Ibid., 28. The third decision on the extension of the treaty simplynoted that because a majority favored an indefinite extension, the treatywould be extended indefinitely. The United States and the successor states of the Former Soviet Unionimplemented and are continuing the process of destroying nuclear weaponsprovided in START-I (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty).[16] There arepressures among conservative law makers in the United States, however, toabrogate START-I, and even stronger pressures to refuse to negotiate START-II. This decision contained a setof 2 principles and objectives dealing with seven issues: universality,nonproliferation, nuclear disarmament, nuclear-weapon-free zones, securityassurances, safeguards, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Each of thedecisions then were declared to be adopted. "To Win NPT Extension, Nuclear States Promise Test Ban and Disarmament-Again." Physics Today 335 (24 June 1995): 18-19."N-Tests Over, France Agrees to Sign Treaty." Globe and Mail (Toronto), 1 February 1996, A6."Nuclear Nonproliferation Talks Open." Facts on File 55 (2 April 1995): 28 -281.----------------------- [1]"Nuclear Nonproliferation Talks Open," Facts on File 55 (2 April1995): 28 . The NPT is not likely to endure indefinitely if onlythe security of the nuclear powers is assured. Kumagai, "To Win NPT Extension, Nuclear States Promise Test Banand Disarmament-Again," Physics Today 335 (24 June 1995): 18. In the future, there will be more systematic preparation for theconferences on substantive issues. Conclusion While the testing of nuclear weapons and the use of nuclear weaponsmay be socially unacceptable, neither is illegal within the context ofinternational law. [15]"N-Tests Over, France Agrees to Sign Treaty," Globe and Mail(Toronto), 1 February 1996, A6. [1 ]Ibid. [12]Ibid. Epstein, "Indefinite Extension-With Increased Accountability,"Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 51 (July/August 1995): 27. If a vote were taken,indefinite extension would have more than enough votes. Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) became effective in March197 for a 25-year period following ratification by 178 nations.[1] TheNPT was re-negotiated and renewed at a conference attended by 175 nationsof the original 178 nations in 1995. As of 31 January 1996, said that it will sign atreaty prohibiting nuclear testing in a nuclear-free zone in the SouthPacific.[15] This action is similar to that of persons who have just hadan abortion endorsing the anti-abortion movement. The consent of the delegations to proceed with the adoption ofthe three draft decisions without a vote was obtained. [6]Ibid., 3 . Canada led the effort at the conference to achieve an indefiniteextension, but it dropped the unconditional requirement, which had muchless support.[7] Canada submitted a simple proposal co-sponsored by 1 3(later, 111) parties that said the conference "decides that the Treatyshall continue in force indefinitely."[8] Canada, too, called for aconsensus decision, and for a "deeper commitment to accountability andimplementation" of the treaty.[9] Because the number of co-sponsorsexceeded the 9 parties required for a majority decision to extend the NPT,this action effectively settled the question. If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.

Many of our Papers can be Downloaded From This Site!

PLEASE READ THIS, IT IS IMPORTANT!

Office hours are Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). You may place orders for custom research over the phone during office hours. E-mail requests can be made to our graduate and undergraduate department any time, and will be reviewed during office hours. You may also contact customer service any time through e-mail, and we will review your message during business hours. A great many papers can be downloaded right from this site, but not all of them. If you would like to know if a particular paper is downloadable, just look in the description for: "Available for Internet Download: Y" or "Available for Internet Download: N" If you wish to purchase a paper which is NOT available for immediate download, you will need to make other shipping arrangements. Also, please be aware that these orders are processed Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). If you place your order after 4:45pm on Friday, it will not be processed until the following Monday morning. We charge $8 per page for all of our pre-written reports, plus shipping (and tax for California residents). However, the highest cost of any ONE report is $136, or 17 pages. Please, take a moment. Make sure you have chosen the report you want or need BEFORE you complete your order. If you are not sure, allow us to help you. We do not offer refunds or exchanges, so it is important for you to let us answer your questions during office hours. Reports which are e-mailed or downloaded are in Microsoft Word format. We are making more reports available for e-mail delivery faster than we can update our listings. Please call to check on the status of particular reports. There are many other shipping options which are listed on the Checkout page.