Security from the threat of aggression from other human groups remains the principal goal of nation-states. The distinction between the lawful use of weaponry within a society for the purpose of maintaining law and order, and the retention of weapons as a deterrence or a defence against aggression from another society remains fundamental. When a global community emerges that maintains weapons exclusively for the sanctioned purpose of suppressing criminal acts, the species will have matured. So long as the peoples of the world are divided into sovereign groups, whether nation-states or regional blocs, the threat of ‘external’ aggression remains and the inflationary push to possess weaponry with it
Weapons of mass destruction were defined by the 1948 UN Commission for Conventional Armaments as “those which include atomic explosive weapons, radioactive, material weapons, lethal chemical and biological weapons, and any weapon developed in the future which have characteristics comparable in destructive effect to those of the atomic bomb or other weapons mentioned above.”
The UN General Assembly has registered its deep concern over the nature
of the global threat facing humanity:
“. ... the continued arms race means a growing threat to international
peace and security and even to the very survival of mankind. [It]
threatens to ... hinder the solution of other vital problems facing mankind.
... Mankind is confronted with an unprecedented threat of self-extinction
arising from the massive and competitive accumulation of the most destructive
weapons ever produced. ...The vast stockpiles and tremendous build-up of
arms and armed forces and the competition for qualitative refinement of
weapons of all kinds, to which scientific resources and technological advances
are diverted, poses incalculable threats to peace. ... It is essential
that not only Governments but also the peoples of the world recognise and
understand the dangers of the present situation.. ... Mankind is faced
with a choice: we must halt the arms race and proceed to disarmament or
face annihilation.”
The global objective and strategy
The General Assembly has expressed the planetary interest clearly.
It effectively constitutes a qualitative break with the past, from the
traditional perception of security through national defence to security
through global co-operation:
“The attainment of security, which is an inseparable part of peace,
has always been one of the most profound aspirations of humanity. ...
The ending of the arms race and the achievement of real disarmament are
tasks of primary importance and urgency. To meet this historic challenge
is in the political and economic interests of all the nations and peoples
of the world, as well as in the interests of ensuring their genuine security
and peaceful future. All the peoples of the world have a vital interest
in the success of disarmament negotiations.”
The global objective was perceived by the General Assembly as early
as its first regular session in 1946, when, in its first resolution of
1946, it recommended that atomic weapons and all other weapons of mass
destruction be eliminated from national arsenals. But in its Programme
of Action of 1978, it drew a dual time-frame for that attainment.
In the short-term, the ‘immediate goal’ was the ending and the reversal
of the arms race; in the long-term, the ‘final objective’ was general and
complete disarmament:
“While the final objective of the efforts of all States should continue
to be general and complete disarmament under effective international control,
the immediate goal is that of the elimination of the danger of nuclear
war and the implementation of measures to halt and reverse the arms race
and clear the path towards lasting peace.”
The General Assembly in 1959 defined the concept of general and complete
disarmament. It is:
“..a system of international security in which States will possess
armed forces for the purposes only of (i) maintaining internal order, and
(ii) providing agreed personnel for a UN Peace Force.”
How is the international community to move towards these short-term and long-term objectives? Fundamentally, what is required is a psychological shift on the part of humankind. In fact a paradigmatic shift, by no means complete, is underway. The traditional belief has been that the safety of one’s people rests on national security through military defence. The 1978 Final Document renounced that perception:
In its Programme of Action, the General Assembly sought to ‘lay the foundations’ of an international disarmament strategy aimed, ultimately, at general and complete disarmament. The Programme focused principally on short-term priorities and measures that States should urgently undertake. These concerned nuclear weapons, other weapons of mass destruction, conventional weapons and setting the reduction of armed forces. The Programme focused exclusively on such short-term measures, leaving aside the long-term goal. Progress towards general and complete disarmament, said the Final Document, could only be achieved through the implementation of a separate programme of action on disarmament.
Taking its cue from the Action Programme, the Committee on Disarmament in 1979 adopted the ‘decalogue’, a permanent agenda for its work consisting of ten areas which included nuclear and chemical weapons and other weapons of mass destruction. In the event, however, the CD has not pursued many of these issues systematically, and has on occasion failed even to agree on an annual work programme because of procedural deadlocks.
The three multilateral treaties dealing with weapons of mass destruction also identify their total elimination as the goal of the global strategy. The Non Proliferation Treaty (1967) envisages the ‘elimination of nuclear weapons from national arsenals’ as the goal’. The subsequent Biological Weapons Convention (1972) and Chemical Weapons Convention (1993) identify the broader goal of the elimination of all weapons of mass destruction. It was left unclear in the NPT whether the absence of nuclear weapons from national arsenals implies a nuclear-free world, or whether a stage will be reached, either temporary or permanent, in which a few nuclear weapons are retained under the collective ownership of the international community, perhaps through the UN Security Council. But the subsequent multilateral treaties do make it clear: the world is to be free of all weapons of mass destruction, whether held in national arsenals or through multilateral ownership.
In 1992 the UN Security Council, in its only summit meeting to date, judged that ‘the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction constitutes a threat to international peace and security’. This effectively enables the Council to use its enforcement powers under Chapter VII to prevent the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by any other State. The Council had already acted under enforcement powers to deprive one Member State, Iraq, from possessing such weapons. Each nation-state has traditionally been free in its sovereign discretion to withdraw from arms control treaties such as the NPT or the Biological Weapons Convention provided extraordinary events, in its own judgement, jeopardise its ‘supreme interests’.
The Council has said nothing about the current possession of weapons of mass destruction by its own permanent members apart from ‘the need for all Member States to fulfil their obligations to arms control and disarmament’. The implication is that these weapons do not constitute, in its judgement, a threat to the peace. But the normative goal of a world free of weapons of mass destruction enshrined in the chemical and biological weapons conventions still applies, including to the Council’s permanent members. And there is a binding legal obligation on the Permanent Five under the NPT’s article VI to negotiate nuclear disarmament measures in good faith. It would therefore seem that acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by any country except the Council’s permanent members constitutes a threat to the peace, whereas their possession by the Permanent Five is not a threat to the peace but imposes a legal obligation upon them to ensure their elimination.