Arms of mass Destruction and International Law - Term Paper Example

Arms of mass Destruction and International Law Abstract Whereas the possession and possible use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) raises serious moral questions, such weapons also manifest profound implications for international law and security. Undoubtedly, the world’s hopes to eradicate such weapons will be capped critically on the evolvement of the legal instruments (such as treaties) and the changing perceptions on security by states. The threat posed by weapons of mass destruction (WMD) has grown to become a significant, if not the most critical, issue on security and foreign policy agenda right from the start of the 21st Century. The paper explores the topic of weapon of mass destruction in light of international law. The paper concludes that, although, international law has managed to stop and/or keep low the proliferation of WMD, the conflicting nature of international norms puts into doubt the efficacy of international law in eradicating WMD. Introduction The world today confronts a perplexed and possibly extremely risky subject in its present incongruous treatment of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. In the analysis of foreign policy and security, weapons of mass destruction is a concept, which encompasses biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and in rare cases, the radiological weapons (Joyner, 2009). A collectively attained norm has been established which bans use and even possession of WMD while the possession and some employment of nuclear weapon by the five nuclear-weapon states remain legal, within certain limitations, and the nuclear weapon possibility states such as Israel, Pakistan, and India remain tacitly approved by the nuclear powers. Hence, nuclear weapons that have been demonstrated as most destructive remains lawful within certain restrictions while biological and chemical weapons (with a considerably limited and problematic effectiveness) have been proscribed. The conflicting nature of the outlined international norms raises questions on the capability of international law in regulating the development, and use of WMD and its efficacy in responding to the growing threat of WMD. As a result, the process of arms control and activities carried out has created divisions among nations, and this division has led to the birth of new challenges in international security and foreign policy. Significant security concerns regarding WMD have also ballooned and become alarming; especially with cantering on North Korea’s nuclear weapons ability and Iran’s possible nuclear weapons program. The recorded developments detailing the threat presented by WMD mirror a trend within the security arena stretching back to the last two decades. The end of the Cold War sparked a series of concerns centering on WMD within the hands of rogue states and terrorists making scholars, policy makers, and pundits to assess the severity of the WMD threat and assemble responses designed to address it (Joyner, 2009). Role of International Law in Controlling Weapons of Mass Destruction Evidently, international law has a lasting association with the endeavors to manage weapons of mass destruction, which followed the development of prohibitions (treaty) on the employment of poisonous gases in war (Busch & Joyner, 2009). Three bodies on international law can be delineated as regulating WMD, namely: arms control treaties, international law guiding the use of force, and international humanitarian law. Historically, the most outstanding and direct utilization of international law in relation to WMD was via arms control treaties. This denotes international agreements fashioned to ban or limit the development, ownership, and employment of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons by states. The international law on the use of force addresses the threat or the application of force rather than the development of weapons. On the use of WMD, international law on the use of force establishes legal justifications for the alternative to force, rather than rules detailing the weapons states may utilize. On the use of WMD, international humanitarian law outlines the kinds of weapons that can be employed in armed conflict such as outlawing the use of weapons that can render superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. Arms control treaties, on the other hand, specifically control the development of WMD and proscribe the utilization of chemical and biological weapons. This body of international law mirrors the “arms control approach” to WMD detailing formal agreements among states to control the use and development of WMD. The arms control approach draws from international humanitarian laws banning of the utilization of weapons that render superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. The growth of concerns regarding WMD proliferation and their potential utilization by states and non-state actors has placed the arms control approach to WMD under extreme scrutiny, generating controversy regarding whether arms control treaties on WMD facilitate national security and, ultimately, international peace. This treaty stipulates the international agreement intended to limit or prohibit the possession, development and application of weapons of mass destruction (Joyner, 2009). It is imperative to note that the treaties of arms control and pre-emptive checks for arms of mass destruction have generated a lot of opposition and bitter rivalry among nations due to controversies and suspicions, which surround these practices (Busch & Joyner, 2009) Weapons of Mass Destruction-International Legal Approach International law has extensive relationship with efforts to control WMD that started as early 19th Century, with the establishment of treaty prohibitions on the employment of poisonous gas in welfare. The 1968 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) forms the cornerstone of contemporary nuclear non-proliferation regime. Consequent to the conclusion of the NPT, efforts were laid out to conclude equivalent multilateral non-proliferation agreements in the arena of biological and chemical weapons (Joyner, 2009). These efforts played a part in the conclusion arrive at in the Biological Weapons Convention (1972) and the Chemical Weapons Convention (1993). Traditional International legal approaches to WMD In both security and foreign policy perspectives, weapons of mass destruction entail nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, sometimes encompassing radiological weapons. Contemporary international legal analysis mainly aligns with this traditional definition of WMD. The prevailing international legal activity on WMD has largely centered on the negotiation and implementation of arms control treaties (Busch & Joyner, 2009). The arms control approach mirrored three objectives: to discourage the use of WMD by states (such as nuclear arms control treaties between the U.S. and the Soviet Union), to ban the emplacement and testing of WMD in certain areas (such as treaties forbidding WMD within the orbit or on the ocean floor), and to generate WMD disarmament (such as treaties banning development and utilization of biological and chemical weapons) (Joyner, 2009). The Transformation of the WMD Policy and Legal Environment Within the post-Cold War era, political and technological development generated three WMD challenges that made historical dependence on arms control treaties suspect. First, in the 1990s, concerns increased regarding WMD proliferation by state and among terrorist groups as arms control approach became inadequate in responding to either form of proliferation. Second, experts pointed out that the technological difficulties conventionally confronted in developing WMD were narrowing for both state and non-state actors (Busch & Joyner, 2009). The advancement registered in biotechnology and genetic engineering transformed, for instance, the technological context of bio weapons. The arms control approach had for a long period struggled with the challenges presented by the dual-use of all WMD technologies, and the revolutionized technological contexts exacerbated the dual-use challenge and intricate verification efforts within arms control in all WMD facets (Joyner, 2009). Third, the prevailing political and technological developments outlined above compelled governments to confront the vulnerabilities that the societies face from cases of terror involving WMD. The arms control approach to WMD failed to address the vulnerability crises that countries faced within the post-Cold War era. International Law in the New WMD Environment The revolution registered in the WMD policy and legal environment has generated awareness regarding the observation that the arms control approach fails to sufficiently address the challenges centering on the technological, political, and preparedness (Joyner, 2009). Although, arms control remains critical, the changing WMD environment is undergoing a diversification in the manner in which states and international organization utilize international law in relation to the WMD threat. In line with the perceived increase in WMD proliferation among both states and non-state actors, fresh international legal efforts and proposals directed at reinforcing deterrence against WMD development and use have emerged (Busch & Joyner, 2009). These entail: UN Security action against countries purported to feature WMD programs; countries such as the U.S. extending the right of anticipatory self-defense to validate military action in “pre-emptive self-defense” against aggressive regimes; outlawing WMD terrorism within treaty law; and, proposals to render the development, preservation, and attainment of WMD a crime as per the international law. International cooperation and legal activity have started to address the rising technological feasibility of WMD (Joyner, 2009). International efforts to enhance national control and regulation of access to, and conveying of, WMD materials have been launched. Multilateral initiatives such as the G-8 Global Partnership against the spread of WMD also contribute to international activities designed to safeguard WMD materials from malevolent appropriation (Busch & Joyner, 2009). The alteration of the policy of weapons of mass destruction, as well as the legal environment, gave people the awareness that the approach of the arms control does not sufficiently address the technological, political and challenges of preparedness, which affect many countries today (Busch & Joyner, 2009). International legal activity and cooperation have started to address the escalating technological feasibility, which targets the weapons of mass destruction (Busch & Joyner, 2009). There are other initiatives from G-8 nations, which strengthen the international activities that respond to the restriction of spread and access to weapons that can cause disastrous damage to the human population. The urge to strengthen and streamline domestic vigilance against weapons of mass destruction terrorism has become the chief agenda in every multilateral forum (Busch & Joyner, 2009). The international law and other bodies that regulate the production and transport of nuclear arms should prohibit the production of such arms and declare the destruction of existing arms of mass destruction (Joyner, 2009). Conclusion Whereas disarmament will occur in the event that it advances security interests, the rule of law can have many significant roles to play in informing the perceptions of such interests and in guaranteeing the sustainability of disarmament as a global public good. Experts of security and international policies have suggested new treaties that can improve the security and safety of people from malicious employment of disastrous arms. More diversification on the steps that international organizations and states employ should be undertaken so as the reinforce efforts to end the proliferation of WMD. Annotated Bibliography 1 Busch, E. B & Joyner, D. H. (2009). Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Future of International Nonproliferation Policy. Georgia: University of Georgia Press. This is an essential book that explores nonproliferation policy that is international of arms of mass destruction. The book is superbly written and organized with many topics that address the key issue of the problems and risks that are posed by weapons of mass destruction. Further, the authors of this book are experienced writer who communicate their ideas in a concise and clear manner to ensure that the audience gets the information, without difficulties. The initial part of the book shades light on the chief issues of terrorism of weapons of mass destruction, as well as proliferation of the same. These descriptions are done within the first couple of chapters. The second part of this book analysis the formal and informal approaches and strategies to the regulation of weapons of mass destruction. The fourth part of the book discusses the forceful tactics, unilateral and proactive policies, which combat the proliferation of arms of mass destruction. Part four of the book provides updated information concerning nations with proliferation and non proliferation cases of nuclear arms including China, Iran, nuclear security culture of Russia, and US-Russian cooperative nonproliferation among others. Though the book does not have a chapter to sum up the contents, it can serve both academic and general readers; as it is extremely rich in information. However, the most suited readers of this book are the undergraduates and post graduate students. Annotated Bibliography 2 Joyner, D. H. (2009). International Law and the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. This book discusses the most urgent and intricate problems and issues of national security. Further, the book addresses the historical origin and the source of the modern security problems, which are continually affecting mankind. Essentially, the book touches on the most provocative and dangerous threat to stability presently. The book was targeting lawyers to a great extent than other people, and it details a thorough and comprehensive recorded analysis of the principles domestic and international legal texts and sources. Notably, the book does not limit other the general public from enjoying its audience due to the comprehensive policy of counter-proliferation and nonproliferation with outstanding clarity. The book gives moving insights to the readers and suggests concrete solution to the problems of nuclear weapons and their regulation and control strategies. This book easily earns a position in the shelves of citizens who wish to remain informed about issues of security and international law. This book is well structured and clear, and it handles the challenging questions adequately instead of avoiding the questions like other authors. The author directly addresses the security community and its actors, as well as the challenges that impact the law of non-proliferation today. This book is essential for academicians and other scholars, as well as the post graduate courses. The most outstanding section the book is that it does not present a blunt criticism of the law of non-proliferation, but also suggest concrete strategies and approaches that can be adopted, by law to eliminate the challenges. References Busch, E. B & Joyner, D. H. (2009). Combating Weapons of Mass Destruction: The Future of International Nonproliferation Policy. Georgia: University of Georgia Press. Joyner, D. H. (2009). International Law and the Proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More