 |
|
In return for their pledge under the NPT to not develop nuclear weapons,
non-nuclear-weapon states, in particular the "non-aligned" states (those states
not part of Cold War security alliances), sought guarantees to protect
themselves from becoming victims of the possible use or threat of use of nuclear
weapons. Although NNWS pushed for
security assurances to be covered by the NPT, three of the five nuclear-weapon states - the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and United States - insisted
that the matter should be pursued "in the context of action relating to the
United Nations, outside the treaty itself but in close conjunction with it."
Ultimately, the NNWS agreed to let the issue of security assurances be addressed
by the UN Security Council and the protocols to NWFZ treaties.
In 1968,
the UN Security Council adopted
Resolution 255 which recognized that the Security
Council would act immediately to
provide assistance to a NNWS state that was victim to an act of aggression with
nuclear weapons or object of threat of such aggression. This commitment,
termed a positive security assurance,
was offered as an incentive for NNWS to join the NPT. Although the NNWS welcomed this commitment, the
non-aligned states continued to argue for legally binding negative security
assurances during the NPT negotiations.
After the NPT was signed and entered into
force, the NWS were slow to offer negative security assurances. At the
first United Nations Special Session on Disarmament (UNSSOD-1) in 1978, China,
France, the Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and United States all issued
unilateral statements on negative security assurances, but only China offered
these assurances unconditionally. More recently, in 1995,
UN Security Council Resolution 984 formally
acknowledged the commitments of the NWS with regards to providing NNWS negative security assurances, but
the resolution did
not address the need for legally binding guarantees. Although several proposals
have been made for including legally binding negative security assurances as a
protocol to the NPT, no progress toward agreement has been made. While these assurances are not covered by the NPT, the existing NWFZ
treaties includes protocols which obligate the nuclear-weapon states to
give negative security assurances to states in the zone of application.
Obtaining a security guarantee that they will not to be attacked by
nuclear-weapon states with a nuclear weapon can be a major benefit for NWFZ member states. However, not all NWFZ protocols regarding
these negative security assurances have been ratified by all NWS, and
some NWS reserve the right to use nuclear weapons against NNWS if
attacked by other non-conventional forces.
|
|