핵무기비확산조약(NPT) 체제의 분석과 국제법적 평가
Analysis & Evaluations of “the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons” (NPT) Regime from International Law Point of Views
0
조회
0
다운로드
5
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article analyzes and evaluates “the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”(NPT) regime from International Law Point of Views. This article is directly connected with Denuclearization on Korean Peninsula and nuclear weapon issues of North Korea. Since the NPT entered into force 1970, nuclear weapons states have shown scant inclination to abide by their promise of good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. Without a serious effort by nuclear weapons states to achieve nuclear disarmament, the NPT will continue to promote double standards that allow some states to continue to expand and improve their nuclear arsenal while denying others of the same rights. In order to meet the challenges of today, the NPT and the non-proliferation regime is in urgent need of reconstruction. The NPT rests on three pillars; non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful nuclear cooperation. The continuation of the current NPT regime that ignores existing double standards is destined to result in further nuclear proliferation and the use of nuclear weapons. Only by embracing significant changes that end existing double standards and elevate nuclear disarmament obligations can the non-proliferation regime succeed. The significant changes should include commencing negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention, universal application o the NPT to all states under a strict timetable, entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty(CTBT), universal and equal application of the Additional Protocol, and the phased elimination of nuclear power. The NPT regime obligations are having less and less success in restraining the irresponsible behavior of nations, especially the treaty's nuclear weapons states, and the United States in particular. As nuclear weapons states move further away from their obligations under the treaty, they are simultaneously weakening incentives for non-nuclear weapons states to the treaty to remain within the NPT regime. If such regressions continue, they will inevitably lead to an abandonment of disarmament goals and gradual lack of interest by non-nuclear weapons states parties to remain within the regime's boundaries. It is time for members of the NPT regime to issue a clear statement outlining how the treaty is being undermined and by whom. In this context, the role of civilian grassroots and nongovernmental organization (NGOs)are very important in educating the public and influencing top level policy decisions among different countries in order to improve the NPT and non -proliferation regime. There is a good example such as ICBL( International Campaign to Ban Landmines) initiative for concluding the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty.
Abstract
This article analyzes and evaluates “the Treaty on the Non- Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons”(NPT) regime from International Law Point of Views. This article is directly connected with Denuclearization on Korean Peninsula and nuclear weapon issues of North Korea. Since the NPT entered into force 1970, nuclear weapons states have shown scant inclination to abide by their promise of good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. Without a serious effort by nuclear weapons states to achieve nuclear disarmament, the NPT will continue to promote double standards that allow some states to continue to expand and improve their nuclear arsenal while denying others of the same rights. In order to meet the challenges of today, the NPT and the non-proliferation regime is in urgent need of reconstruction. The NPT rests on three pillars; non-proliferation, disarmament and peaceful nuclear cooperation. The continuation of the current NPT regime that ignores existing double standards is destined to result in further nuclear proliferation and the use of nuclear weapons. Only by embracing significant changes that end existing double standards and elevate nuclear disarmament obligations can the non-proliferation regime succeed. The significant changes should include commencing negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention, universal application o the NPT to all states under a strict timetable, entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty(CTBT), universal and equal application of the Additional Protocol, and the phased elimination of nuclear power. The NPT regime obligations are having less and less success in restraining the irresponsible behavior of nations, especially the treaty's nuclear weapons states, and the United States in particular. As nuclear weapons states move further away from their obligations under the treaty, they are simultaneously weakening incentives for non-nuclear weapons states to the treaty to remain within the NPT regime. If such regressions continue, they will inevitably lead to an abandonment of disarmament goals and gradual lack of interest by non-nuclear weapons states parties to remain within the regime's boundaries. It is time for members of the NPT regime to issue a clear statement outlining how the treaty is being undermined and by whom. In this context, the role of civilian grassroots and nongovernmental organization (NGOs)are very important in educating the public and influencing top level policy decisions among different countries in order to improve the NPT and non -proliferation regime. There is a good example such as ICBL( International Campaign to Ban Landmines) initiative for concluding the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty.
참고문헌 (21)
- Langdon, Frank, "Japan's Foreign Policy, Vancouver: 5 University of British Columbia,1973", ~ (1973)
- Pogony, Istvan, "International Law, Avebury, Aldershot. Brookfield USA. Hong Kong. Singapore. Sydney,1987", ~ (1987)
- Peter Hayes, "American Nuclear Dilemmas in Korea" (1989), Lexington Books
- ICBL, "Landmine Monitor Report 2000", ~
- "Nuclear Weapons: A Comprehensive Study" (1991), United Nations
- Woodliffe, John, "“Nuclear weapons and non-proliferation: the legal aspects", Istvan Pogony(ed.), Nuclear Weapons and International Law, Avebury, Adelshot. Brookfield USA. Hong Kong. Singapore. Sydney, 1987, pp.85-87", ~ (1987)
- 박경순, "북한핵실험 의도 및 국제사회의 반응,북한핵실험이후 한반도 정세와 대응방안, 긴급정책토론회", 정책토론 자료집 (2006), 아시아사회과학연구원
- 이용호, "핵실험통제의 한계", 국제법학회논총, 51(3), pp.193~217 (2006), 대한국제법학회
- 이장희, "핵무기비확산조약의 법적 문제점과 개선방안", 반전. 반핵. 평화 동아시아국제회의 논문집, pp.87~93 (2007)
- 이장희, "“미국의 한반도 비핵화정책”, 한반도 비핵지대화와 국제법, 소화, 한림과학원 총서 64,1999년, pp. 167-216", ~ (1999)
- 이장희, "유엔안보리 대북제재조치의 분석과 대응방안, 북한핵실험이후 한반도정세와 대응방안, 긴급정책토론회", 정책토론자료집, pp.44~62 (2006), 아시아사회과학연구원
- 이철기, "동북아 군축론" (1993), 호암출판사
- "제5회 국내학술회의 자료집", 1992, ~, pp.민족통일연구원
- 전성훈, "1995년 NPT 연장회의와 한국의 정책" (1994), 민족통일연구원
- 정옥임, "북핵 588일, 국제정책연구소" (1995), 서울 프레스
- 한국대인지뢰대책회의(KCBL), , 주한미군의 한반도 내 대인지뢰 매설과 그 피해 현황 조사 결과 발표 자료집 (2002)
- 황영채, "NPT 어떤 조약인가" (1995), 한울 아카데미
- 황영채, "“한반도와 비핵화와”, 한반도 비핵지대화와 국제법, 소화, 한림과학원 총서 64, 1999년, pp. 73-166", ~ (1999)
- 홍현익, "북한핵실험 의도 및 국제사회의 반응, 북한핵실험이후 한반도 정세와 대응방안, 긴급정책토론회", 정책토론자료집, pp.1~22 (2006), 아시아사회과학연구원
- 민족통일연구원, "일본의 핵정책", ~ (1993)
- 법무부, "국제법상의 핵질서, 법무자료 제184집, 1994년", ~ (1994)
