Nuclear Disarmament: Some Aspects of International Legal Regulation

Belozertsev Sergei Mikhailovich ORCID: 0000-0003-2143-9170 PhD in History Associate Professor of the Department of State and Legal Disciplines East Siberian Institute of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation 664074, Russia, Irkutsk region, Irkutsk, Lermontov str., 110 zuyn03@mail.ru Other publications by this author

                                                                                                                         The creation and successful testing of the world's first atomic bomb has led to the emergence of a new type of threat to international security.

Along with the technogenic factor of the danger of using nuclear charges for military purposes, the question of the inadmissibility of global proliferation of nuclear weapons has arisen.

According to officially recognized data, the "nuclear club" currently includes nine States, but only five of them legally possess nuclear weapons and are the founding countries of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

The question of the critical need for nuclear nonproliferation arose simultaneously with the emergence of atomic weapons. The founding States of the UN and the permanent members of the Security Council are aware of what can happen if nuclear weapons fall into the hands of various criminal groups or "dangerous" States. However, according to various sources, it was thanks to the help of the nuclear five that some "illegally" nuclear-weapon States received it. In particular, the United States in the 1960s helped the Iranian Shah's government in obtaining a peaceful atom, and Russia and China did this already in the 1990s, providing technological and practical assistance. Also, information has repeatedly appeared in the press that the White House is a sponsor of Israeli and Pakistani nuclear weapons ^[1]. It is worth noting here that in accordance with the NPT, the States that have signed the Treaty and its Protocols have the right to use peaceful nuclear energy, which is one of the elements of the non-proliferation system. Based on these facts, it can be concluded that the international community is still able to restrain the spread of nuclear technologies, despite the fact that some States still managed to acquire nuclear weapons illegally.

The NPT has occupied a key position in the nuclear nonproliferation system since 1968. The Treaty on the Non–Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons today is the most extensive intergovernmental agreement, to which 189 States have joined, and five States are recognized as the sole legitimate owners of nuclear weapons. This document calls for establishing security for all States, preventing the outbreak of nuclear war or conflicts, directing States to the path of global nuclear disarmament, for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons, and their use only for peaceful purposes^[2].

It should be noted that the NPT is a multilateral treaty and belongs to general international treaties, since the object of its operation and the purpose of the treaty are of comprehensive interest to absolutely every State.

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons obliges the signatory States to conduct negotiations aimed at universal nuclear disarmament, which in turn will help the world come to a total restriction on the use of nuclear weapons for military and negative actions ^[3].

In the current politically unstable situation, international disputes and conflicts arise more and more often, and threats to the international security system are becoming more and more. The idea of using such weapons, which can help in the conflict, increasingly raises the question of the use of nuclear weapons, so there are very few guarantees that States will abandon nuclear development and will use nuclear energy only for peaceful purposes.

Complete nuclear disarmament is simply impossible today, since there are many terrorist organizations and States whose goal is to master nuclear technologies both for its use for criminal purposes and for protection from ideological opponents. In such a situation, the international community has to try to restrain such aspirations and stop them at the current level, while not ceasing to achieve total nuclear disarmament.

Independent development of programs for the use of nuclear weapons is quite a difficult task for many developing States, which is why the issue of unhindered receipt of foreign equipment, technologies and materials for the use and storage of nuclear weapons is relevant.

Many countries that are not part of the international community on nuclear disarmament want to use it for illegal purposes, that is:

- to solve various political problematic issues with the help of a nuclear arsenal;

- use important innovative developments of opponents;

-to subject other countries to various political sanctions, thereby carrying out terrorist actions against them^[4].

One of the most important steps in the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons is the timely detection of violations of the disarmament regime. Considering that since the signing of the NPT, four States have managed to acquire nuclear warheads, it can be concluded that there are questions about the existing non-proliferation system. In addition, the fact that some states, despite existing restrictions, managed to create nuclear weapons, while others (Libya, Syria, Iran, etc.) came close to creating them, proves the imperfection of the system and dictates the need to change it.

The central element of the global system for detecting violations of the disarmament regime is the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), as well as the International Monitoring System (IMS) created to ensure its implementation. The CTBT and the IMS represent two elements of the system, one of which provides the legal aspect of the disarmament regime, and the second is a practical tool of the first. The Treaty imposes an obligation on the signatories not to test nuclear weapons ^[5]. The monitoring system, in turn, examines seismic, infrasound, hydrosonic and other indicators to record the facts of nuclear weapons tests anywhere in the world ^[6].

The IMS is an extremely large-scale system, whose observation capabilities cover almost the entire surface of the earth, thanks to which the international community monitors nuclear tests in a timely manner ^[7]. It is difficult to call this system ideal, since since its creation a number of States have successfully tested nuclear charges, nevertheless, the existence of a worldwide nuclear test control system continues to be an important element in maintaining the global disarmament regime.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) plays a significant role in identifying violations in the field of nuclear proliferation, whose main activity is the detection of traces of enrichment of radioactive substances. Despite the fact that today the bulk of the supervisory activities of this institute are concentrated on monitoring declared nuclear infrastructure facilities, the agency has tools to take various samples from the environment in order to detect violations of the disarmament regime. Unfortunately, the development of technology does not allow us to create a global sampling system mainly because of the huge cost of such a project. However, it is possible that in the near future a technological leap will be able to significantly reduce the cost of this procedure, making it possible to create a more global and reliable system for detecting violations ^[8]. The disarmament regime can also be improved through non-traditional surveillance tools, such as big data and social networks. Traditionally, the monitoring functions of compliance with the disarmament regime were assigned to States, as well as to international organizations, such as the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Throughout the twentieth century, no other structure had sufficient financial and organizational resources for effective and timely detection of violations. The active introduction of digital technologies into modern society can contribute to strengthening the disarmament regime by shifting part of the supervisory burden from States and international organizations to other structures.

More and more goods sent abroad are undergoing the procedure of digital fixation; billions of people use social networks; dozens of states have publicly available land cadastres – all this, like other publicly available information, with proper analysis can give an answer to the question whether there are violations of the disarmament regime in certain states. Many different scientific studies are conducted, the purpose of which is to demonstrate that public and publicly available information can contribute to the detection of violations of the nuclear disarmament regime ^[9].

Thus, the existing system of nuclear non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament is not fully effective. The receipt by some States of the military component of nuclear energy and the desire of others for the same demonstrates the need to review and reform the elements of this system.

In the modern nuclear disarmament agenda, the issue of the return of States that have received atomic weapons bypassing the NPT to compliance with the disarmament regime is particularly acute. Despite the fact that there are only four such States so far (Israel, the DPRK, Pakistan and India), the presence of nuclear weapons in their hands poses a significant threat to both the disarmament regime and global peace, including world security. The disarmament of these States seems to be an extremely complex process, and it is hardly possible to develop a universal approach applicable to any violator. North Korea, which has repeatedly shown threatening protests and attempts to frighten its oppositionists with nuclear shots, poses a high danger to the whole world and the international community ^[10]. In order for North Korea to earn for itself the status of a "non-nuclear" state, the international community and Pyongyang must come to a consensus on this issue and resolve conflict issues bilaterally. It is important to create an algorithm of actions, by mutual agreement of both sides, which will describe in detail the actions of the DPRK on the nuclear disarmament regime, as well as the disarmament of the Korean peninsula. This step-by-step plan of mutual concessions on the part of North Korea and the international community should be designed, first of all, to create an atmosphere of trust.

The gradual resumption of North Korea's diplomatic relations with both its regional and non-regional adversaries may pave the way for real steps towards the nuclear disarmament of the state, the lifting of economic sanctions against it and the subsequent reintegration of North Korea into the international community ^[11].

Along with the DPRK's nuclear program, the problem of the Iranian nuclear project has also remained relevant for a long time. In our opinion, it is the situation around Tehran's nuclear ambitions that is the most dangerous at the current time.

International efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis, the acute phase of which occurred in the mid-2000s, simultaneously demonstrated two opposite trends to the world community. On the one hand, the disparate international platforms for resolving the crisis (separate negotiations between the EU and Iran, Russia and Iran, the refusal of the United States to participate in them) have turned into a single P5+1 format (the five permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany) and Iran. This demonstrated that the states really want to find consensus on the issue of Tehran's nuclear project. On the other hand, Washington's unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) showed that not all states are ready to adhere to agreements, and the question arises about the need for such agreements in general.

The Iranian problem of nonproliferation of nuclear weapons has a number of features. First, Iran, unlike Israel, India and Pakistan, has signed the NPT and its Protocol, which allows it to develop programs for the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Secondly, the Iranian nuclear case was discussed the most, with the main players of the international nuclear arena participating in the negotiations. Thanks to diplomatic efforts in Iran, it was possible to conduct IAEA inspections, agree on the export of spent nuclear fuel (SNF), and it is also impossible not to mention the initiative of the Russian side to create international enrichment centers. Although this did not lead to a complete solution to the Iranian issue, but all this helped to reduce the tension around the program.

Pakistan, unlike Iran, is not a party to the NPT, while it has been proven that it has nuclear weapons. In addition, Pakistan is the only Islamic State in which nuclear weapons not only exist, but there is a real risk of these weapons falling into the hands of Muslim extremists.

The danger of having nuclear weapons in Pakistan is determined not only by the mentioned risk of its falling into the hands of extremists, but also by the issue of regional security. Islamabad's main rival in the region is India, which also owns a nuclear arsenal. The escalation of the conflict between these States into full-fledged hostilities may provoke the mutual use of nuclear warheads.

The current situation in relations between Russia and Ukraine has caused a new wave of discussions about the possibility of the parties using nuclear weapons, but Ukraine does not have nuclear weapons. The Kiev authorities have repeatedly addressed this topic. Among the threats to Ukraine in this context are the following: the question of revising the nuclear-free status of Ukraine and the question of the need for a preventive nuclear strike by NATO countries against Russia. Such rhetoric from the Ukrainian authorities can be regarded as an attempt to unleash a nuclear war and completely stop the process of nuclear non-proliferation in the world, however, in our opinion, the authorities of Russia and Western states understand the extreme absurdity of Kiev's ideas.

A significant threat to the disarmament regime is the policy of the United States of America on the strategic deployment of its nuclear arsenal on the territory of its allies. At the moment, the nuclear weapons of the United States of America are located on the territories of their numerous allies, some of which are located in extremely unstable regions of the world.

It is important to note that the standardization of support for the nuclear disarmament regime, which was created in the twentieth century, regardless of the success of their use, absolutely does not correspond to the ongoing conflicting worldview of many states, the aggression that is present in society, and therefore needs a total reformation.

The international communities leading nuclear disarmament and keeping it under control should understand that such a transformation of nuclear disarmament standards is possible only with the common interactions of all States.

The key position on this issue relates to countries that have the right to store and maintain nuclear weapons and capabilities, have experience with nuclear weapons, and have shown themselves to be non–conflict and safe states in this matter - these are Russia, China, the United States of America, Great Britain and France. The basis for the future stabilization of general nuclear disarmament will depend only on the self-restrictive measures of these States^[12].

It is difficult to speak with confidence about positive prospects in the field of the disarmament and non-proliferation regime, since the reality of the XXI century forces the world to face new opportunities for obtaining and using nuclear weapons. The development of technologies for the enrichment of radioactive substances, the emergence of new threats and other factors create significant obstacles to the preservation of the nuclear disarmament regime.

Table of available nuclear weapons in the modern world ^[13]:

You can simply select and copy link from below text field.