By: Enkhsaikhan Jargalsaikhan, IPB Board Member and Blue Banner Chairman
Growing importance of NWFZs
Nuclear-weapon-free zones (NWFZs) are important and practical regional measures of non-nuclear-weapon states (NNWSs) in promoting the goals of maintaining strategic stability, nuclear non-proliferation and strengthening confidence among states. Today there are more than 115 states the territories of which cover about 84 mln km2 of the world’s landmass, representing 39% of its population and making up almost 60% of United Nations membership. Thus much has been achieved in the past half a century. However, the past rich experience should serve as a tool of strengthening and broadening further the NWFZ regime leading to creating a nuclear-weapon-free-world (NWFW). When oceans and seas that cover about 70% of the Earth’s surface are to be included, the NWFZ regime would cover most of the NWFW.
Concept of NWFZs
The current definition of NWFZs is based on the outcome of the first comprehensive UN study of 1975 that recognizes the total absence of nuclear weapons in the zone area. It defines zones as “group state” acts, i.e. established “on the basis of arrangements agreed upon by the states of the region concerned”. They are considered as traditional or first generation zones. The accent in 1970s understandably was to encourage as many NNWSs as possible to involve ‘group states’ as reflected in Article VII of the NPT[1]. A condition for establishing NWFZs was conclusion by NNWSs of the region concerned of an international treaty or convention reaffirming total absence of nuclear weapons in the zone and supported by an agreed system of verification and control. As to nuclear weapon states (NWSs or the P5)[2], they were expected to respect the status of the zone and provide legally binding security assurances to the States parties to the zone not to threaten or use nuclear weapons against them.
Currently there are three regions where the issue of establishing traditional zones are either being considered or discussed. Thus establishment of a WMD-free zone in the Middle East[3] is currently under discussion. Also informal exchanges of views and proposals by some think tanks and NGOs are underway to establish a NWFZ in Northeast Asia. As a result of the climate change the geopolitical importance of the Arctic is increasing and requires establishment of an agreed Arctic cooperative regime[4]. There are also states that due to the current definition of NWFZs cannot be part of the regime. All these cases can be considered as involving the second generation zones since they involve regions with international disputes or where such weapons actually exist or where the NWSs have particular stakes or individual states. . They include over two dozen states that due to “group state” approach to NWFZs are excluded from the current NWFZ concept and regime. [5] Cumulatively in their number these states and the territories that they cover are much larger than for example the Central Asian or Southeast Asian NWFZs.
Special attention needs to be paid to small island states. Though most of them have a small population, nevertheless in terms of contemporary international law they are in fact large ocean nations due to their extensive exclusive economic zones (EEZs) that are rich in biodiversity and mineral resources. When the world population is growing and the use of the planet’s living and mineral resources are expected to increase almost by five-fold by the middle of this century, the importance of these states would increase enormously. Many of them are also in strategic locations that affect vital military and commercial shipping routes. No wonder great powers are currently showering some such states with special attention.
On the other hand the world is witnessing a gradual change of the nuclear deterrence concept to a hybrid one that involves the threat or use of nuclear weapons even in conventional conflicts and even against NNWSs. That should not be allowed to become a new normal. The war in Ukraine would surely lead to changes in nuclear doctrines and policies that would most probably weaken the nuclear weapons use taboo and even lower the threshold of their use. With that the temptation of great powers to use non-committed individual states as pawns in their proxy wars orused them otherwise would only increase. The saying lupus non mordet lupum, i.e. wolf does not bite a wolf cautions that involving un-committed states in nuclear and non-nuclear conflicts is not only not excluded but almost implied.
Hence there is a need to involve the un-committed individual states in the NWFZ regime. That includes the Indo-Pacific region where a new Great game reminiscent of the XIX century rivalry between the British and Russian empires is being played out especially in the Pacific region between the U.S. aimed at maintaining and strengthening its influence there and the rising of China and of its influence.[6] That is why for the sake of stability it is important to have the U.S. and China to agree not to involve the un-committed individual states in their geopolitical rivalry but instead encourage and support their inclusion in the NWFZ regime.
Recognition and support of the rights of un-committed individual states needs a new definition and concept of NWFZs involving these states. Disregarding security interests of these states would thus negatively affect regional or global stability.
Time, space and technology are becoming major geopolitical factors. As UNSG António Guterres has recently pointed out nuclear weapons are growing in power, range and stealth.[7] With that the role of many of un-committed states, that is individual states that are not parties to current NWFZs are acquiring great importance. Therefore these states need to be encouraged to adopt national legislations reflecting their security interests or adopt individually or jointly declarations thereon and thus contribute to developing a comparatively softer form of NWFZs that might require equally softer assurances with fully reliable system of verification and control based on the latest technical achievements in the field. The actual content of such legislation and declarations could be considered and agreed together with the P5.
On their part, the NWSs, unlike during the cold war period can provide security assurances to un-committed states that can take the form of a P5 joint declaration or in the case of small island states of the Pacific region a U.S.-Chinese bilateral declaration that would formally recognize those states as part of the NWFZ regime, pledge not to pressure them to commit acts that would adversely affect their and others’ interests, respect their laws or declarations and not to contribute to any act that would affect their policies.
From international legal standpoint excluding un-committed states from promoting their interests would be a violation of the UN Charter especially the principle of sovereign equality of states and the right of states to individual or collective self-defense reflected in its Article 51.
At its 79th session United Nations General Assembly has adopted a resolution to undertake the second comprehensive study of NWFZs[8] which is intended to make the NWFZ regime inclusive and consider ways to make the P5 assurances more credible. This would be an important step in strengthening the NWFZ regime. NGOs need to take an active part in undertaking the study and strengthening the NWFZ regime.
[1] 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.
[2] In this article the author used both abbreviation P5 (as five permanent members of UNSC) and NWSs (as nuclear weapon states recognized as such by the NPT). For easier reading in most cases it used expression P5 and P3 as western members of the P5.
[3] known now as a Weapons of Mass Destruction Free Zone in the Middle East
[4] Melting of ice in the Arctic due to climate change is opening up the possibility to tap its enormous resources, including natural gas and oil as well as opening of shipping routes for commercial and military activities.
[5] They include land-locked and neutral states, South Asian states and numerous small island states.
[6] This is reflected in such headlines as Great Power Geopolitics and the Scramble for Oceania, With China looming, US signs MoU with another Pacific island State, A rising China Has Pacific Islands in Its Sights, US Pledges More Than $800 Million to Pacific Islands to Thwart China, ‘Great Game’ unfolds in Pacific as US, China Vie for Backing, NATO needs to look toward Pacific because of current realities, Jens Stoltenberg says, etc.
[7] UNSG’s statement at UNSC meeting on 18 March 2024
[8] The first such study had been undertake as far back as in 1975.
Download the article here: