Paper
George Perkovich
{
"authors": [
"George Perkovich"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "NPP",
"programs": [
"Nuclear Policy",
"South Asia"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Iran",
"Israel",
"South Asia",
"India",
"Pakistan"
],
"topics": [
"Nuclear Policy"
]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE
In The Media
Strengthening non-proliferation rules and norms- the three state problem
Published on Dec 2, 2004
Source: United Nations Institue for Disarmament Research
From the beginning, champions of nuclear non-proliferation have envisioned the participation of all states in the system of rules framed by the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT). This vision largely has been achieved. Nearly all states adhere more or less fully with the terms of the NPT. Today the main exceptions are North Korea (which was in non-compliance when it abandoned the treaty), Iran (which is not in full compliance with its related obligations), and India, Israel and Pakistan (which have not yet joined).
The latter three states pose unique challenges individually and as a group. India and Pakistan have demonstrated their possession of nuclear weapons and proclaim themselves to be nuclear-weapon states. They now press supporters of the non-proliferation regime to remove technology embargoes applied to them. Israel neither confirms nor denies possession of nuclear weapons. Importantly, unlike India and Pakistan, it does not seek recognition or international prestige from nuclear weapons. Nor do Israeli politicians seek political gains through nuclear posturing.
Still, Israel’s nuclear status causes turmoil within the non-proliferation regime. Although these three states retain the sovereign ‘right’ to possess nuclear weapons, never having signed the NPT, their standing outside the system of non-proliferation obligations and rules undermines global security. Many experts and governments therefore seek ways to bring these three states into a process of strengthening non-proliferation norms and rules.
Click here for full text
About the Author
George Perkovich
Japan Chair for a World Without Nuclear Weapons, Senior Fellow
George Perkovich is the Japan Chair for a World Without Nuclear Weapons and a senior fellow in the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Nuclear Policy Program. He works primarily on nuclear deterrence, nonproliferation, and disarmament issues, and is leading a study on nuclear signaling in the 21st century.
- How to Assess Nuclear ‘Threats’ in the Twenty-First Century
- “A House of Dynamite” Shows Why No Leader Should Have a Nuclear TriggerCommentary
George Perkovich
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Europe
- Europe and the Arab Gulf Must Come TogetherCommentary
The war in Iran proves the United States is now a destabilizing actor for Europe and the Arab Gulf. From protect their economies and energy supplies to safeguarding their territorial integrity, both regions have much to gain from forming a new kind of partnership together.
Rym Momtaz
- Taking the Pulse: Is France’s New Nuclear Doctrine Ambitious Enough?Commentary
French President Emmanuel Macron has unveiled his country’s new nuclear doctrine. Are the changes he has made enough to reassure France’s European partners in the current geopolitical context?
Rym Momtaz, ed.
- The Iran War’s Dangerous Fallout for EuropeCommentary
The drone strike on the British air base in Akrotiri brings Europe’s proximity to the conflict in Iran into sharp relief. In the fog of war, old tensions in the Eastern Mediterranean risk being reignited, and regional stakeholders must avoid escalation.
Marc Pierini
- The EU Needs a Third Way in IranCommentary
European reactions to the war in Iran have lost sight of wider political dynamics. The EU must position itself for the next phase of the crisis without giving up on its principles.
Richard Youngs
- Europe on Iran: Gone with the WindCommentary
Europe’s reaction to the war in Iran has been disunited and meek, a far cry from its previously leading role in diplomacy with Tehran. To avoid being condemned to the sidelines while escalation continues, Brussels needs to stand up for international law.
Pierre Vimont
