 |
|
The role NWFZs play in strengthening the security of participating NNWS
states was recognized by the drafters of the NPT. Article VII of the NPT was
therefore created to assure the right of states to establish specified zones
free of nuclear weapons. According to Article VII: "Nothing in this Treaty affects the right of any group of
States to conclude regional treaties in order to assure the total absence of
nuclear weapons in their respective territories." NWFZs are increasingly
perceived as important supplementary elements of the nuclear nonproliferation
regime.
While existing NWFZ treaties resemble the NPT, several significant differences between
these treaties are notable. First and foremost, NWFZ treaties completely ban nuclear weapons
from all territories within
the respective zones, making NWFZ treaties more restrictive than the NPT.
Another difference between NWFZs and the NPT is their scope of influence - while
the NPT takes a global approach to nonproliferation and disarmament, the
establishment of NWFZs represents a regional effort to attain the same goals.
The three main pillars of the NPT are nonproliferation, disarmament, and the
peaceful use of nuclear energy. While NWFZ treaties include these
pillars, treaties establishing nuclear-weapon-free zones additionally require that the NWS
who are signatories provide
assurances to that they will not use or threaten to use
nuclear weapons against any country in the respective zones. These
negative security
assurances are included in the
protocols to all NWFZs as an integral part of each treaty.
The main difference between
the NPT and NWFZ treaties is evident in the different treatment of the issue of
nuclear weapons deployment. All NWFZ treaties explicitly prohibit any
deployment of nuclear weapons inside their respective zones. The NPT, however, does not specifically prohibit the deployment of nuclear weapons possessed
by NWS inside the territories of NNWS, although most states parties to the NPT
assume such a ban under the treaty. While vague on the issue of
deployment, the NPT clearly prohibits the transfer of nuclear weapons from NWS to NNWS.
The ambiguous treatment of deployment means that U.S.-controlled nuclear weapons can be deployed in the territories of NNWS
who are NATO members, so long as control of the weapons is not transferred to
those nations. In 2004, U.S. nuclear weapons remain deployed in Belgium,
Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Turkey, and the United Kingdom
(although
the number of U.S. nuclear weapons in Europe
dramatically decreased after the
Cold War.)
Under the NPT, all NNWS promise
to use nuclear energy exclusively for peaceful purposes,
and to accept
comprehensive (or "full-scope") safeguards applied on all source or special
nuclear material (including uranium, plutonium, and thorium). NNWS may not acquire nuclear weapons or other
nuclear explosive devices. NWS may provide nuclear technologies to NNWS
exclusively for peaceful purposes. Similarly, no provisions exist in NWFZ
treaties to prevent the use of nuclear science and technology for peaceful
purposes.
As with the NPT, all four existing NWFZ treaties also
require state parties to adopt IAEA safeguards
to verify compliance with their
obligations under the treaty.
However, some of the NWFZ treaties are also supplemented by additional safeguards
with regional mechanisms and procedures. For example, the
Agency for the
Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in Latin America and the Caribbean (OPANAL) was
created by the Treaty of Tlatelolco to ensure that the obligations of the treaty
are met.
|
|