What has the UN achieved in terms of disarmament and arms control
The main goal of the United Nations is well known: the maintenance of peace and security on the planet. It is generally accepted that this goal is achievable only as a result of the creation of an international security architecture. And the main direction of this process is the reduction of the means of warfare by States while maintaining a balance of interests, reasonable sufficiency of defense, and the implementation of the principle of equal security of the parties. What exactly has the UN done on this path?
MECHANISMS AND CONTRACTS
All 78 years of the UN's existence, negotiation mechanisms have been officially in operation. The UN multilateral Disarmament Mechanism consists of the First Committee of the UN General Assembly (GA), the Conference on Disarmament, and the Disarmament Commission. The developed treaties, conventions, agreements form a whole set of documents on the legal regulation of disarmament and arms control processes. The absolute majority of types of weapons and military equipment fall under this regulation. At the same time, the UN is not the only organization that deals with disarmament issues.
The UN has made a serious contribution to preventing a thermonuclear war. After intense negotiations, the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere, Outer Space and Under Water, the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (NWFZ) turned out to be the dry residue.
The first of them was signed in Moscow on August 5, 1963 by the USSR, the USA and the UK. Its main goal is "to reach an agreement on general and complete disarmament under strict international control in accordance with the UN goals, which would put an end to the arms race and eliminate the incentive to produce and test all types of weapons, including nuclear weapons." The Moscow Treaty prohibited nuclear tests in three environments: in the atmosphere, in space and under water.
Resolution 2373 (XXII) of the UN General Assembly of June 12, 1968 approved the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). It entered into force on March 5, 1970.
There were five nuclear-weapon States in the world at that time. The authors of the document proceeded from the fact that new nuclear powers should not appear.
The Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty is also important. Its adoption on September 10, 1996 is assessed by experts as one of the key outcomes of the 50th session of the UN General Assembly. Compared with the 1963 Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapons Tests in the Atmosphere, Outer Space and Under Water, we are dealing with the expansion of a limited regime to an unconditional framework.
PROHIBITIONS, BUT NOT COMPREHENSIVE
The essence of the 1996 CTBT is formulated in article I: "Each State Party undertakes not to carry out any test explosion of nuclear weapons and any other nuclear explosion, as well as to prohibit and prevent any such nuclear explosion in any place under its jurisdiction or control. Each State Party further undertakes to refrain from inducing, encouraging or participating in any way in the conduct of any nuclear weapons test explosion and any other nuclear explosion."
The CTBT has been signed by 183 States. It would seem that everything is fine with him. But there were too many pitfalls. The most sensitive one is in Appendix 2. A group of States with nuclear power reactors is highlighted here. By the time the CTBT was signed, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) had an exhaustive answer to the question: "How many States have such reactors?" All States of this group were required to sign and ratify the CTBT. If at least one State out of 44 does not do this, then the question of the entry into force of the Treaty remains open.
27 years have passed since then. India, Pakistan and the DPRK have not signed the CTBT. And the USA, China and Israel have signed, but not ratified. Of course, I would like these States to no longer hold a barrier on the way to the entry into force of the JNR. Otherwise, it will never come to the creation of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO). Although the participating States prescribed back in the 1990s what the CTBTO should do. First, to control the ban on nuclear tests. Secondly, to manage the global system of their monitoring. Thirdly, to inspect the facilities.
The JIAO is presented as "the first worldwide multilateral agreement aimed at the comprehensive prohibition of nuclear weapons." This agreement had fewer problems with entry into force. The JIAO passed the adoption stage at the UN Diplomatic Conference on July 7, 2017. In 37 months, the JIAO has been signed and ratified by 50 States.
All the instruments of ratification were deposited with the depositary. When he received the 50th instrument of ratification, it meant that the necessary minimum had been reached. Which predetermined the entry into force of the JIAO on January 22, 2021.
Will this treaty become truly comprehensive? Not for the foreseeable future. But countries that do not want to acquire nuclear weapons can express their position by joining it. And if such countries are in the absolute majority, they will put serious pressure on the nuclear powers.
ROCKET TECHNOLOGY
Missile weapons largely determine the general state of the armed forces of any state. Their most well–known functions are carriers of conventional and nuclear warheads. Missile weapons are widely used in local conflicts.
Of course, there is a problem complex here, and it must be removed. But it is difficult to imagine that it will come to the adoption of a comprehensive legally binding multilateral document on their prohibition.
But it would be foolish to blame the UN for everything. The East River (the figurative name of the UN headquarters in New York) does not follow the slogan: all or nothing. A number of UNGA resolutions have been adopted. Three groups of governmental experts are associated with them. They already have the Hague Code of Conduct (GCP) and the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in their assets.
In short, something concrete has been done. A contribution has been made to preventing the proliferation of a whole class of weapons and related technologies. Here, of course, we are talking about smaller-scale multilateral regimes.
BACTERIA, VIRUSES, TOXINS
On April 10, 1972, the signing of the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (BTWC) began. To understand its significance, let us ask ourselves: have international treaties been signed before that put an end to the production of an entire class of weapons? The answer is negative. It was this document that was the first international treaty of its kind. On March 26, 1975, the Convention entered into force.
The basis of this document can be traced in the first three articles. The participating States have committed themselves to:
– under no circumstances develop, produce, acquire or accumulate biological weapons (BW);
– destroy or switch to peaceful purposes everything connected with the BO;
– not to transfer, not to help in any way, not to encourage or compel anyone to acquire and accumulate BO.
The BTWC has been signed by 187 States and ratified by 183. But then I remember the slogan of former US President Ronald Reagan, which he managed to pronounce in Russian: "Trust, but check!" Stanislav Petrov and Mikhail Supotnitsky write: "The BTWC does not have a legally binding verification regime. An attempt by an Ad Hoc Group of Experts established by the UN Disarmament Committee to strengthen the BTWC by developing a legally binding document – protocol in July 2001 was blocked by the United States."
The protocol was not signed under George W. Bush, Barack Obama, or Donald Trump. Joseph Biden is not going to do this either. The result is obvious: the effectiveness of the implementation of the BTWC leaves much to be desired.
We can agree with Petrov and Supotnitsky that "in fact, it is not possible to verify Washington's compliance with the BTWC using international legal means." Just one example. With the beginning of Russia's special operation in Ukraine, the Kremlin accused the American side of creating secret biological laboratories on the territory of Ukraine. But it is still impossible to say unequivocally whether weapons of mass destruction were developed in them: there is no verification mechanism.
CHEMICAL WEAPONS
On January 13, 1993, the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and Their Destruction was signed. It entered into force on April 29, 1997. Today, the situation with signing and ratification is as follows. The number of participating States is 191. Israel has signed, but the issue of ratification has not yet been discussed in the Knesset. Egypt, the DPRK, and South Sudan have not announced their intention to sign the Convention and are unlikely to change their position in the foreseeable future.
The main obligation assumed by the participating States is "the renunciation of the production and use of chemical weapons and the destruction of all their stocks." The control mechanism of the destruction process of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) is effective. By September 2023, more than 90% of chemical weapons stocks on a planetary scale had passed the destruction stage.
Following the spirit and letter of the Convention, the participating States generally demonstrate a civilized attitude to the control of military chemical facilities. The same can be said about investigations into allegations of the production and use of chemical weapons.
ANTI-PERSONNEL MINES AND CLUSTER MUNITIONS
The UN experts were constantly faced with the task of not breaking firewood by turning to the legal regulation of issues related to conventional weapons.
Of course, it is impossible to imagine the army of any state without conventional weapons. Their presence at the level of reasonable sufficiency of defense is a normal phenomenon. The main thing is that there are no contradictions to the UN Charter and the principles of international humanitarian law.
Any military expert will agree with this thought: "Some types of conventional weapons may cause concern because of the way they are used or because of their design." In this regard, it is worth paying attention to the following chronological series.
On December 2, 1983, the Convention on Inhumane Weapons (CCW) entered into force. Its purpose is "to prohibit or restrict the use of specific types of conventional weapons capable of causing unnecessary or unjustified suffering to combatants or having an indiscriminate effect on the civilian population."
There are 126 States parties to the CCW. The Convention should be considered as a whole together with the five Protocols.
On March 1, 1999, the Ottawa Treaty, or Convention on the Prohibition of Anti-personnel Mines, entered into force. It prohibits the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. At the same time, the treaty "provides for the complete destruction of all stocks of non-directional anti-personnel mines (with the exception of a small number of mines necessary for mine clearance training) and the elimination of minefields." As of December 14, 2017, 163 States were parties to the treaty.
On August 1, 2010, the Convention on Cluster Munitions entered into force. As of September 2013, 113 countries have signed the agreement, 84 countries have ratified it; there are no data for subsequent years. Here is the most important fragment of the agreement: "The Convention prohibits under any circumstances the use, development, production, acquisition, accumulation and transfer of cluster munitions... The Convention provides a comprehensive international response to the suffering caused by the use of cluster munitions and their remnants in order to prevent the proliferation and future use of these weapons."
The signing of the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) in April 2013 can also be called a milestone event. Previously, the global trade in conventional weapons was not regulated in any way. The authors of the document formulated sound international standards.
Brest
Mikhail Sagittarius
Mikhail Vasilyevich Strelets – Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor.
