NATO’s Nuclear Sharing Arrangements Revisited in Light of the NPT and the TPNW

IF 1.1 Q2 LAW JOURNAL OF CONFLICT & SECURITY LAW Pub Date : 2021-09-25 DOI:10.1093/jcsl/krab015
Mika Hayashi
{"title":"NATO’s Nuclear Sharing Arrangements Revisited in Light of the NPT and the TPNW","authors":"Mika Hayashi","doi":"10.1093/jcsl/krab015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The nuclear sharing arrangements of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are arrangements that pre-date the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This article revisits the nuclear sharing arrangements in light of the NPT, then examines the issues in light of a new treaty, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). The question of the compatibility between these arrangements and the NPT was initially solved by an understanding that the stationing of the US nuclear weapons in host States did not involve transfer of ownership or transfer of control of these weapons to host States. Compared to the initial acceptance of this interpretation, the contemporary acceptance is less solid. The nuclear sharing arrangements are questioned or criticised in the NPT Review process, both by non-nuclear-weapon States and nuclear-weapon States. In contrast, with regard to the TPNW, there seems to be no controversy; the TPNW explicitly provides that the States Parties must not allow stationing of nuclear weapons. The nuclear sharing arrangements would be incompatible with this prohibition. The article also briefly deals with a separate question, whether a client State of extended nuclear deterrence that does not allow stationing of nuclear weapons in its territory would also contravene the prohibitions in the TPNW. Given the scope and the nature of provisions of the TPNW, the article concludes that it would, if such a client State joins the treaty without a change in its policy regarding extended deterrence.","PeriodicalId":43908,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CONFLICT & SECURITY LAW","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF CONFLICT & SECURITY LAW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krab015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The nuclear sharing arrangements of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) are arrangements that pre-date the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This article revisits the nuclear sharing arrangements in light of the NPT, then examines the issues in light of a new treaty, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). The question of the compatibility between these arrangements and the NPT was initially solved by an understanding that the stationing of the US nuclear weapons in host States did not involve transfer of ownership or transfer of control of these weapons to host States. Compared to the initial acceptance of this interpretation, the contemporary acceptance is less solid. The nuclear sharing arrangements are questioned or criticised in the NPT Review process, both by non-nuclear-weapon States and nuclear-weapon States. In contrast, with regard to the TPNW, there seems to be no controversy; the TPNW explicitly provides that the States Parties must not allow stationing of nuclear weapons. The nuclear sharing arrangements would be incompatible with this prohibition. The article also briefly deals with a separate question, whether a client State of extended nuclear deterrence that does not allow stationing of nuclear weapons in its territory would also contravene the prohibitions in the TPNW. Given the scope and the nature of provisions of the TPNW, the article concludes that it would, if such a client State joins the treaty without a change in its policy regarding extended deterrence.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
根据《不扩散条约》和《全面禁止核武器条约》修改北约的核共享安排
北大西洋公约组织(北约)的核共享安排是早于《核不扩散条约》(不扩散条约)的安排。本文根据《不扩散条约》重新审视了核共享安排,然后根据新条约《禁止核武器条约》审查了这些问题。这些安排与《不扩散条约》之间的兼容性问题最初是通过一项谅解得到解决的,即美国在东道国部署核武器并不涉及将这些武器的所有权或控制权转让给东道国。与最初对这一解释的接受相比,当代人的接受程度较低。核共享安排在《不扩散条约》审议进程中受到无核武器国家和核武器国家的质疑或批评。相比之下,关于TPNW,似乎没有争议;TPNW明确规定,缔约国不得允许部署核武器。核共享安排将不符合这一禁令。该条还简要讨论了另一个问题,即不允许在其领土上部署核武器的扩大核威慑的客户国是否也会违反《禁止核武器条约》的禁令。鉴于《全面禁止核武器条约》条款的范围和性质,该条的结论是,如果这样一个客户国在不改变其扩大威慑政策的情况下加入该条约,它就会加入。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
25.00%
发文量
33
期刊介绍: The Journal of Conflict & Security Law is a thrice yearly refereed journal aimed at academics, government officials, military lawyers and lawyers working in the area, as well as individuals interested in the areas of arms control law, the law of armed conflict (international humanitarian law) and collective security law. The Journal covers the whole spectrum of international law relating to armed conflict from the pre-conflict stage when the issues include those of arms control, disarmament, and conflict prevention and discussions of the legality of the resort to force, through to the outbreak of armed conflict when attention turns to the coverage of the conduct of military operations and the protection of non-combatants by international humanitarian law.
期刊最新文献
The practice of non-recognition and economic sanctions: The case study of Ukraine, Manchuria and South Africa Roadblocks to Disarmament in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty System Recent Developments in the National Implementation of Biological Weapons Convention: What Happened Since Resolution 1540? Why Prosecuting Aggression in Ukraine as a Crime Against Humanity Might Make Sense From Theory to Reality: A Definition for the Termination of Non-International Armed Conflicts
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1