The Moral Implications of the Subversion of the Nonproliferation Treaty Regime

Thomas E Doyle

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2551524

Abstract

All non-nuclear-weapon states are morally and legally obliged by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) to refrain from acquiring nuclear weapons. These obligations cannot be overridden for reasons of mere prudence. Only (i) material breaches of the treaty and/or a corresponding; (ii) ‘fundamental change in circumstances’ (rebus sic stantibus) that undermines the integrity of the NPT may override states parties’ legal nonproliferation duties.More than the violations of the NPT by ‘rogue’ states like North Korea or Iran, I argue that the failure of the de jure nuclear-weapon powers since 2001 to uphold their informal and some formal NPT commitments suggests the possibility of material breach and/or institutional subversion. If NPT subversion were to occur, the non-nuclear-weapon states’ collective responsibility to avoid complicity in that subversion leads them to choose between (a) individually seeking nuclear weapons capability for state security; or, more preferably, (b) a publicly announced and collective withdrawal from the NPT that simultaneously refuses to pursue the nuclear weapons option.

Highlights

In his essay Towards Perpetual Peace, Immanuel Kant’s Sixth Preliminary Article states that ‘No state at war with another shall allow itself such acts of hostility as would have to make mutual trust impossible during a future peace.’[1]
Moral implications of the subversion of the Nonproliferation Treaty regime includes an informal promise by each nuclear-weapon state of ‘no-first-use’ of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear-weapon states.[34]
The Clinton Administration supported the AntiBallistic Missile Treaty (ABM) treaty in the 1990s, but the Bush Administration believed that an adequate missile defense system was needed in the Czech Republic and Poland to deter terrorist organizations and their state sponsors (i.e. Iran) from attacking the USA or its allies following September 11, 2001.45 Russia and China adamantly oppose American policy here, believing that the missiles might be aimed at them.[46]

Summary

Introduction

In his essay Towards Perpetual Peace, Immanuel Kant’s Sixth Preliminary Article states that ‘No state at war with another shall allow itself such acts of hostility as would have to make mutual trust impossible during a future peace.’[1]. Moral implications of the subversion of the Nonproliferation Treaty regime all states parties to contain further nuclear weapons proliferation and to establish and implement effective disarmament mechanisms.

Results

Conclusion