Daniel H. Joyner
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- September 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780199227358
- eISBN:
- 9780191728488
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199227358.001.0001
- Subject:
- Law, Public International Law
The 1968 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty has proven the most complicated and controversial of all arms control treaties, both in principle and in practice. Statements of nuclear-weapon States from ...
More
The 1968 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty has proven the most complicated and controversial of all arms control treaties, both in principle and in practice. Statements of nuclear-weapon States from the Cold War to the present, led by the United States, show a disproportionate prioritization of the non-proliferation pillar of the Treaty, and an unwarranted underprioritization of the civilian energy development and disarmament pillars of the treaty. This book argues that the way in which nuclear-weapon States have interpreted the Treaty has laid the legal foundation for a number of policies related to trade in civilian nuclear energy technologies and nuclear weapons disarmament. These policies circumscribe the rights of non-nuclear-weapon States under Article IV of the Treaty by imposing conditions on the supply of civilian nuclear technologies. They also provide for the renewal and maintenance, and in some cases further development, of the nuclear weapons arsenals of nuclear-weapon States. The book provides a legal analysis of this trend in treaty interpretation by nuclear-weapon States and the policies for which it has provided legal justification. It argues, through a close and systematic examination of the Treaty by reference to the rules of treaty interpretation found in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that this disproportionate prioritization of the non-proliferation pillar of the Treaty leads to erroneous legal interpretations in light of the original balance of principles underlying the Treaty, prejudicing the legitimate legal interests of non-nuclear-weapon States.Less
The 1968 Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty has proven the most complicated and controversial of all arms control treaties, both in principle and in practice. Statements of nuclear-weapon States from the Cold War to the present, led by the United States, show a disproportionate prioritization of the non-proliferation pillar of the Treaty, and an unwarranted underprioritization of the civilian energy development and disarmament pillars of the treaty. This book argues that the way in which nuclear-weapon States have interpreted the Treaty has laid the legal foundation for a number of policies related to trade in civilian nuclear energy technologies and nuclear weapons disarmament. These policies circumscribe the rights of non-nuclear-weapon States under Article IV of the Treaty by imposing conditions on the supply of civilian nuclear technologies. They also provide for the renewal and maintenance, and in some cases further development, of the nuclear weapons arsenals of nuclear-weapon States. The book provides a legal analysis of this trend in treaty interpretation by nuclear-weapon States and the policies for which it has provided legal justification. It argues, through a close and systematic examination of the Treaty by reference to the rules of treaty interpretation found in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, that this disproportionate prioritization of the non-proliferation pillar of the Treaty leads to erroneous legal interpretations in light of the original balance of principles underlying the Treaty, prejudicing the legitimate legal interests of non-nuclear-weapon States.
Natalia Jevglevskaja and Rain Liivoja
- Published in print:
- 2021
- Published Online:
- April 2021
- ISBN:
- 9780197546048
- eISBN:
- 9780197546079
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/oso/9780197546048.003.0008
- Subject:
- Law, Human Rights and Immigration
Disagreements about the humanitarian risk-benefit balance of weapons technology are not new. The history of arms control negotiations offers many examples of weaponry that was regarded ‘inhumane’ by ...
More
Disagreements about the humanitarian risk-benefit balance of weapons technology are not new. The history of arms control negotiations offers many examples of weaponry that was regarded ‘inhumane’ by some, while hailed by others as a means to reduce injury or suffering in conflict. The debate about autonomous weapons systems reflects this dynamic, yet also stands out in some respects, notably largely hypothetical nature of concerns raised in regard to these systems as well as ostensible disparities in States’ approaches to conceptualizing autonomy. This chapter considers how misconceptions surrounding autonomous weapons technology impede the progress of the deliberations of the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems. An obvious tendency to focus on the perceived risks posed by these systems, much more so than potential operational and humanitarian advantages they offer, is likely to jeopardize the prospect of finding a meaningful resolution to the debate.Less
Disagreements about the humanitarian risk-benefit balance of weapons technology are not new. The history of arms control negotiations offers many examples of weaponry that was regarded ‘inhumane’ by some, while hailed by others as a means to reduce injury or suffering in conflict. The debate about autonomous weapons systems reflects this dynamic, yet also stands out in some respects, notably largely hypothetical nature of concerns raised in regard to these systems as well as ostensible disparities in States’ approaches to conceptualizing autonomy. This chapter considers how misconceptions surrounding autonomous weapons technology impede the progress of the deliberations of the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems. An obvious tendency to focus on the perceived risks posed by these systems, much more so than potential operational and humanitarian advantages they offer, is likely to jeopardize the prospect of finding a meaningful resolution to the debate.
