Current NWFZs – Common Elements and Individualities

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or the NPT, is the cornerstone of global non-proliferation efforts. Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones complement this agreement by strengthening nonproliferation and disarmament norms. These zonal arrangements also restrict the maneuvering capability of nuclear-weapon-states with regards to the stationing and the use of nuclear weapons. This is why Article VII of the NPT recognizes the right of any group of states to conclude regional treaties which ban nuclear weapons in their respective territories. Besides, Nuclear Weapon-Free Zone arrangements make a step forward by unquestionably banning the stationing of nuclear weapons, which the NPT could not entirely prohibit. Over time, the establishment of these zones was triggered by different historic, geographic, and political considerations. However, there are several common benefits of Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones. The most important security benefit for the states of the region is provided by the negative security assurance of the nuclear weapon states. In the framework of these legally binding assurances, the five nuclear-weapon-states promise not to use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against members of the zone.

Besides, these zones also reinforce the right of members to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. From a global perspective, Nuclear Weapon-Free Zones are considered a step towards the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free world by freeing considerable areas of nuclear weapons. These zones also facilitate technical cooperation among nations, and constitute important confidence-building measures in conflict-torn regions. In certain cases, they can also promote environmental protection by outlawing nuclear tests and by restricting the dumping of radioactive waste in the oceans, and they can also strengthen nuclear security by introducing strict safety standards for nuclear materials.

In light of all these benefits, Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones constitute an important contribution to global peace and security, and their future expansion would continue to serve these goals.

Today, more than a hundred states have already joined one of the existing Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones. These zones cover the entire Southern Hemisphere and a large part of the Northern Hemisphere. This means almost 40% of the world’s

Above the seabed, however, the oceans are not covered by Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones as the freedom of seas does not allow restrictions in international waters. Therefore, the transit of nuclear weapons is possible both in international waters and in outer space as well.

Regarding their duration, all Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone treaties are in force indefinitely but states-parties have the right to withdraw and end their treaty obligations. In terms of verification, each zonal arrangement requires the states-parties to conclude Comprehensive Safeguards Agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency, which verifies that none of the member states starts pursuing nuclear weapons. In this regard, the Treaty of Semipalatinsk introduced the strictest conditions, as it requires the ratification of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Additional Protocol, as well. The territory of the zones includes land, internal waters, territorial seas, and archipelagic waters. The Bangkok Treaty, however, also included Exclusive Economic Zones and continental shelves, which is why none of the nuclear-weapon-states has ratified its protocols as of today.

Regarding the principle obligations, all zones share some guiding principles. They all prohibit the development, manufacturing, control, possession, testing, or transporting of any type of nuclear explosive device by states-parties. The treaties also prohibit the stationing of any such devices within the zone by any other states. However, each state-party has the sovereign right to allow or to ban the overflight and the transit of nuclear equipped vessels in their own territories. Besides, the treaties guarantee the right to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and, in terms of trade, most of them require comprehensive safeguards as a condition of supply.

The Treaty of Tlatelolco introduced the basic obligations and mechanisms of Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones. Due to the different historic circumstances in the 1960s, it allows nuclear explosions for peaceful purposes, which none of the later agreements included. It was also ground-breaking as it established the precedent for the relevant extra-regional states to contribute to Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones. These commitments by extra-regional states are included in protocols. The most important type of protocols includes the negative security assurances of nuclear-weapon-states. The second type of protocols requires the consent of those extra-regional powers which administer colonies within the zone.

The Treaty of Rarotonga was the next that was opened for signature. In addition to the basic prohibitions, a ban on testing and stationing was more explicitly described, as well as a prohibition on dumping nuclear waste in the South Pacific. It also introduced a third type of protocol in which nuclear-weapon-states had to pledge not to test nuclear weapons in the region. This prohibition was also enacted by the Pelindaba Treaty. Besides, the Treaty of Rarotonga was also the first one to tie the trade of nuclear materials to comprehensive safeguards agreements with the IAEA.

The Treaty of Bangkok also addresses the issue of dumping, and it includes definitions for radioactive material and waste. It requires the handling of nuclear materials in accordance with IAEA standards and procedures. It also obligates the members to accede to the Convention on Early Notification of Nuclear Accidents. The Treaties of Pelindaba and Semipalatinsk also make reference to nuclear safety and security, and the Central Asian zone specifically requires accession to the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Materials. The Treaty of Semipalatinsk also prohibits disposal of radioactive waste in the zone by other states, and it promotes environmental rehabilitation of contaminated territories. The mostly unique feature of the Bangkok Treaty was the delineation of the zone, which includes the Exclusive Economic Zones and continental shelves. According to nuclear-weapon-states, this provision creates political control over sea territories, not allowed by the Law of the Sea. Therefore, to guarantee the free-transit of their nuclear armed and powered vessels, they are not willing to ratify the protocols.

The novel provision of the Treaty of Pelindaba relates to the existing nuclear weapons programme within the region. Accordingly, parties have to declare their capabilities to manufacture nuclear explosive devices, and they also have to dismantle such devices. It also includes a unique provision against armed attacks on any nuclear installations. The Treaty of Semipalatinsk was the first zone established entirely in the Northern Hemisphere. As mentioned before, it enacted enhanced verification and safety measures.

Besides, this was the first agreement, where transit by land was specifically addressed, and states-parties were individually given the right to decide over transit rights. The most problematic part of the document was the treaty’s relation to other agreements, most importantly the Tashkent Collective Security Treaty with Russia. While the zone requires all necessary measures for effective implementation, it also reaffirms the parties’ rights and obligations under previous treaties. The US found this problematic in light of the provisions of the Tashkent Treaty to provide all necessary assistance in case of aggression. Although Washington finally ratified the protocol of the Treaty of Semipalatinsk, interpretive statements by the US Senate have been attached.