Unexpectedly, the court also interpreted the disarmament obligation set forth in Article VI of the NPT, holding unanimously that it requires states to bring to a conclusion negotiations on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. In other words, the Court said talk on nuclear disarmament is not enough—there needs to be a result, namely the achievement of the elimination of nuclear weapons. All of this was in good measure the result of a worldwide NGO campaign.

What implications does the US-led “War on Terror” have on global efforts for nuclear disarmament?

Interestingly, in 2001, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1373, requiring every state to adopt measures to suppress terrorism. These measures included controlling money laundering and prosecuting or extraditing suspected terrorists. This concern about terrorism was prompted not only by the September 11, 2001 attacks, but also by the realization that terrorist groups that acquired nuclear explosives would likely use them. This, in effect, was global legislation by the Security Council, which in the past has been done by multilateral treaties.

Then, in April of 2004, there was another resolution that used the same model of global legislation. Security Council Resolution 1540 requires all states to take measures to prevent non-state actors from acquiring and trafficking nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. “Non-state actors” refer to businesses and terrorists, but also to unauthorized state officials. The resolution requires states to adopt export controls and physical security and accounting measures to prevent trafficking of such weapons.

I do not think it has been widely noticed outside of specialist circles that the Bush Administration has really been innovative and creative in its approach to how the international community should deal with the risk of terrorism. However, the LCNP has some misgivings about the approach of Resolution 1540. The Bush Administration has emphasized prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation to states and terrorists, but its attitude towards arms control measures applying to the United States and other established nuclear powers leaves much to be desired. This imbalance is a source of a lot of criticism from both governments and NGOs.

Secondly, while preventing nuclear terrorism is of pressing importance, the Security Council is probably not the most effective body to engage in this project. It is not a representative body and it lacks legislative capabilities and legitimacy inherent in negotiation of a multilateral treaty where expertise is contributed by many countries over an extended period of time. I would certainly like to see what the Security Council has done in Resolution 1540 now carried forward by multilateral agreements, but one problem is that the Bush Administration remains allergic to the idea of multilateral agreements that apply equally to the United States as they do to other countries. The United States, as a very influential member of the Security Council, is able to avoid that problem by using the Council to issue directives to the world.