Non-Proliferation Treaty

• Each NPT Review Conference (RevCon) is tasked with review of the implementation of the NPT over the preceding five years
• Article VIII.3 of the NPT mandates that: “Five years after the entry into force of this Treaty, a conference of Parties to the Treaty shall be held ….in order to review the operation of this Treaty…”
• By the time of the first Review Conference in May 1975, the NPT had ninety-one parties
• States parties were able to reach agreement on a final declaration containing substantive language on the implementation of the NPT’s various articles in 1975, 1985, and 2000
• The 2000 and 2010 RevCons’ Final Documents identified future steps for furthering the goals of the NPT’s various articles, the ”13 Practical Steps” and the “Action Plan,” respectively
• In 1995, while the states parties could not agree on a document reviewing treaty implementation, they adopted a package of decisions to extend the treaty indefinitely
• In between RevCons, NPT states parties meet to begin preparatory work for the RevCon. These sessions are called Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) meetings. In most cases, there are three PrepComs leading up to the RevCon, but if necessary, a fourth PrepCom may be held in the year of the RevCon

• The purpose of the PrepCom meetings is to address both substantive and procedural matters ahead of the Review Conferences
• The 1975 RevCon created a standard format for future conferences of holding short PrepCom sessions tasked with procedural matters
• At the 1995 Review and Extension Conference, states parties decided to “strengthen” the review process and convene ten-day PrepCom meetings in each of the three years preceding the RevCon to begin work on substantive as well as procedural issues
• The first two PrepCom sessions consider “principles, objectives and ways in order to promote the full implementation of the Treaty as well as its universality,” while the third session is expected to adopt the agenda for the Review Conference and make substantive recommendations to the RevCon (none of the PrepComs to date, however, have managed to adopt substantive recommendations)

1995 “Review and Extension Conference”

• Twenty-five year benchmark at which, under Article X.II of the NPT, states parties had to decide whether to extend the NPT indefinitely or for an additional fixed period
• Majority of states parties favored the NPT’s indefinite extension, but some NNWS wanted the treaty extended for a fixed period of twenty-five years to try to exert leverage on NWS to make progress on nuclear disarmament
• Result: Package of decisions
  • Decision 1: “Strengthening the Review Process of the Treaty”
  • States parties agreed to hold PrepComs for the Review Conferences in each of the three years preceding a Review Conference
  • Decision 2: “Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament”
  • Called for a program of action on nuclear disarmament: CTBT ratification, FM(C)T negotiation, step-by-step progress toward nuclear disarmament
  • Decision 3: Indefinite extension of the NPT
• 1995 Resolution on the Middle East
  • Called on all states in the region to join the NPT and put all nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards
  • Called for the establishment of a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the region

2000 RevCon + 13 Practical Steps Toward Nuclear Disarmament

• Produced a consensus Final Document which, among other things, contained 13 Practical Steps for nuclear disarmament
• These steps dealt with a number of matters in the 1995 Package of Decisions, multilateral and bilateral steps toward nuclear disarmament, and the role of international organizations in nuclear disarmament

2010 RevCon + Action Plan

• Failed to produce a consensus review of treaty implementation, but agreed on forward-looking Conclusions and Recommendations for Follow-on Actions
• Conclusions and Recommendations contain an Action Plan on disarmament, nonproliferation, and peaceful uses of nuclear energy, as well as a set of recommendations on the implementation of the 1995 Middle East Resolution:
  • 64 action items across the “three pillars” of the NPT: nuclear disarmament (actions 1-22), nonproliferation (action 23-46), and peaceful uses of nuclear energy (action 47-64)
  • Middle East decisions: Request that the UN Secretary-General, together with the three NPT depositaries (Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), convene a WMD-free zone in the Middle East conference in 2012, to be attended by all states of the region; request the UN Secretary-General, together with the three NPT depositaries and in consultations with states in the region, to designate a host government for the conference and appoint a Facilitator to assist in preparations for the Middle East conference and implementation of its decision
  • Conclusions and Recommendations developed from what was originally conceived as only a disarmament Action Plan
  Assessment of implementation of the Action Plan, particularly its disarmament and Middle East sections, was a contentious issue at the 2015 RevCon

2015 RevCon + Failure to Reach Consensus, Again

• Main concerns were the issue of the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons and the implementation of the 1995 Resolution on the Middle East to set up a Nuclear-Weapon-Free-Zone (NWFZ)
• Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) and Non-nuclear Weapon States (NNWS) could not come to a consensus on the issue of nuclear disarmament and the humanitarian impact of nuclear weapons. NWS strongly opposed any specific timelines and did not accept the seriousness of humanitarian impact
• Proposals for establishing working groups to define various aspects of the Middle East NWFZ such as scope and verification measures were not passed as a result of the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada not supporting the final draft document. They cited the language of the proposals and stated that the conference to be held later in the year to define the NWFZ was not based on consensus and equity and protested the deadlines attached to the conference

The 2020 Review Conference was postponed several times due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The postponed Review Conference took place in 2022

• The two main topics of the 2022 RevCon were how to make progress on a Middle East WMD Free Zone and how to address dangers posed by Russian military forces to Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant. States Parties raised their concerns about Russia’s frequent nuclear threats
• China raised nonproliferation concerns about the trilateral agreement by Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States to share nuclear submarine propulsion technology
• Discussions about whether the States Parties of the NPT were making sufficient progress to fulfil their disarmament commitments also took place. Leaders of the five NPT nuclear-weapon states (China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) issued a joint statement titled, “Preventing Nuclear War and Avoiding Arms Races,” which was the first statement of its kind.
• The 2022 RevCon ended without a consensus final document due to Russia’s objections

• Historical basis:
  • 1974: United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) first endorsed calls for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone (NWFZ) in the region following a proposal by Iran and Egypt
    • Resolution continues to be passed annually at the UNGA
    • 1988: UN Secretary-General Javier Perez de Cuellar undertook a study looking at conditions surrounding the creation of a NWFZ and made a number of recommendations
    • 1990: Egypt put forward a proposal for a WMD-Free Zone (WMDFZ)
    • 1995 Review and Extension Conference: Resolution, co-sponsored by Russia, United Kingdom and the United States, calls for “the establishment of an effectively verifiable Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical and biological, and their delivery systems” as part of the indefinite extension package
    • 2010 Review Conference: States agreed to five practical steps to implement the 1995 Resolution
      • Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States, together with the UN Secretary-General, were obligated by the 2010 recommendations to convene a regional conference on the establishment of a WMDFZ and to designate a facilitator to assist in preparations for the conference. In October 2011, Finnish Undersecretary of State Ambassador Jaakko Laajava was named as the Facilitator.
      • In November 2012, the conference was postponed indefinitely due to disagreements between the Arab states and Israel on the agenda and modalities for the conference. The Arab Group and Iran have been critical of the non-convening of the conference; Egypt staged a walkout during the 2013 PrepCom to protest the lack of progress.
      • Between October 2013 and June 2014, Ambassador Laajava hosted a series of multilateral consultations among the regional states and the three co-conveners on the agenda, rules of procedure, and possible outcome of the Middle East WMDFZ conference. The sides could not reach an agreement, and the consultations stopped
      • Failure to convene the Middle East WMDFZ conference as mandated by the 2010 NPT Action Plan was one of the central contentious issues at the 2015 NPT Review Conference. Disagreement between Egypt and Russia on the one hand, and the United States and the United Kingdom on the other, on the language concerning the way forward resulted in the failure to adopt the final document of the 2015 RevCon
      • In 2018, UN General Assembly adopted a decision, sponsored by the Arab Group, mandating the UN Secretary-General to convene by end of 2019, and subsequently every year, a regional conference on the establishment of a WMDFZ in the Middle East. The first session of the conference took place on November 17-22, 2019 and adopted a political declaration, in which the participants pledged to pursue, “in an inclusive manner,” a legally binding treaty to establish a WMD-free zone in the Middle East “on the basis of arrangements freely arrived at by consensus by the States of the region.” Subsequent sessions followed in 2021 (postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic), 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025. While the last two sessions saw some procedural and substantive progress, challenges remain.
      • During the second session of the zone conference that took place in 2021, rules of procedure and a mechanism for organizing intersessional work were established. The rules of procedure established that all conference decisions must be made by consensus. It also requires that the final text of a treaty on the zone can only be adopted formally if all conference members are present and vote in favor of the draft, which means that Israel would have to reverse their opposition to the treaty. Just like at the first session that occurred in 2019, Israel and the United States did not attend the second session
      • During the 2022 RevCon, the Group of Arab States submitted a working paper on the regional issues and implementation of the Middle East NWFZ. They noted that the establishment of NWF zones in other regions of the world has benefitted those zones and reaffirmed the necessity of establishing a zone in the Middle East. They stated that the State Parties’ failure to fulfil their commitments to the 1995 resolution on the Middle East has increased instability in the Middle East and called on State Parties to stop serving the “interests of Israel, a State that is not a party to the Treaty.” They called on Israel to join the NPT as a NNWS and for States Parties to pressure Israel to uphold internationally binding resolutions and accede to the Treaty. The working paper also notes that the five NWS have a particular responsibility to upholding the Treaty and to implementing the 1995 resolution
• Challenges to implementing the 2010 Middle East recommendation:
  • Only the Arab States and Iran have committed to attend the conference, while Israel has not yet committed to attending
  • Agreeing on an agenda and proposed outcome: the Arab states want the conference to establish a formal process for creating a WMD-free zone, while Israel has to date refused to negotiate a zone in the absence of peace in the region
  • Proposals to dispense with the facilitator and three of the conveners to leave the UN Secretary General as the sole authority for holding a WMDFZ conference were made during the 2015 NPT RevCon but were not supported in the final draft document
  • The scope, geographic demarcation, prohibitions, interim measures, verification measures and implementation mechanisms have yet to be agreed upon. During the 2015 RevCon, Egypt proposed creating two working groups to address these issues, but was not conferred during the conference
  • The Group of Arab States has identified Israel as a major roadblock to achieving the Middle East NWFZ. Israel is not a party to the NPT yet is able to stop a consensus and is supported by State Parties such as the United States. They note that as long as Israel does not adhere to the NPT and its resolutions, the region will become more unstable as a result