卡内基国际和平基金会-The-Nuclear-Ban-Treaty-What-Would-Follow__30页_310kb

The Nuclear Ban Treaty: What Would Follow?

Core Content

The document, The Nuclear Ban Treaty: What Would Follow by George Perkovich, examines the implications of the 2017 United Nations draft convention to prohibit nuclear weapons. It explores the motivations behind the treaty, its potential consequences, and the need for alternative approaches to nuclear disarmament.

The treaty, which was supported by 113 countries, aims to accelerate global nuclear disarmament by establishing a legal framework to ban nuclear weapons. However, the author argues that while the treaty may have moral and humanitarian appeal, it is likely to be ineffective and could even hinder the progress of nuclear disarmament.

Main Views

Why the Nuclear Prohibition Treaty Became Inevitable

• The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), particularly Article VI, has long been a source of contention due to its vague language and lack of enforceable commitments.
• The nuclear-armed states have not fulfilled their political commitments to disarmament, leading to frustration among non-nuclear-weapon states.
• Non-nuclear-weapon states argue that the current nuclear order is not equitable and that the humanitarian consequences of nuclear war are too severe to ignore.
• The humanitarian argument emphasizes the catastrophic effects of even limited nuclear exchanges, such as global famine and environmental devastation.
• The security concerns of nuclear-armed states, particularly those in the West, have been seen as insufficient to justify the retention of nuclear weapons, especially in light of the nuclear taboo and the risks of nuclear war.

Why the Prohibition Treaty Is Inadequate

• The treaty lacks rigorous verification and enforcement mechanisms, making it difficult to ensure compliance.
• It may undermine nuclear deterrence, especially if it is perceived as not binding by nuclear-armed states, which could lead to increased risks of conflict.
• The treaty could weaken solidarity among democratic allies, making them more vulnerable to aggression from non-democratic states.
• Nuclear-armed states such as Russia, China, and North Korea are unlikely to be influenced by the treaty, as they are not signatories.
• The treaty does not address non-nuclear threats, such as biological warfare, which are increasingly relevant in modern security contexts.

Key Information

Background

• The NPT was signed in 1968 and has been a cornerstone of the global nuclear order.
• Article VI of the NPT obligates signatories to pursue nuclear disarmament, but its language is ambiguous and lacks enforceable mechanisms.
• The 2017 UN negotiations on a nuclear ban treaty were supported by 113 countries, but all nuclear-armed states except North Korea boycotted the process.

Proponents' Arguments

• The treaty is seen as a moral and humanitarian imperative.
• It aims to create a new global norm against nuclear weapons.
• It could moralize and delegitimize nuclear weapons, pressuring nuclear-armed states to reduce their arsenals.

Opponents' Concerns

• The treaty may distract from the nonproliferation regime, which has been effective in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons.
• It may undermine deterrence by not addressing the real security needs of nuclear-armed states.
• The lack of verification makes it hard to enforce and monitor compliance.
• The treaty may deepen divisions between nuclear and non-nuclear states, as well as among non-nuclear states.

What Should Be Done?

• Nuclear-armed states should take nuclear disarmament obligations more seriously and specify how they would design a verifiable and enforceable disarmament regime.
• There is a need for international debate on the conditions under which the first use of nuclear weapons could be legitimate.
• The use of nuclear weapons should be considered under the International Criminal Court to reinforce legal accountability.
• Bilateral and multilateral engagement with resistant states like China, Russia, and North Korea is essential to address their concerns and interests.
• A comprehensive approach that includes both nonproliferation and disarmament, along with addressing non-nuclear threats, is necessary for meaningful progress.

Conclusion

While the nuclear prohibition treaty has gained momentum due to the perceived failure of nuclear-armed states to fulfill disarmament commitments and the growing awareness of the humanitarian risks of nuclear war, it is unlikely to achieve its intended goals. The treaty's lack of enforcement and its potential to weaken deterrence and solidarity among allies make it a flawed approach. A more balanced and realistic strategy, involving all states and addressing broader security concerns, is needed to advance the cause of nuclear disarmament.