Rule of Law, Politics and Nuclear Nonproliferation

{
  "authors": [
    "Pierre Goldschmidt"
  ],
  "type": "other",
  "centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
  "centers": [
    "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
  ],
  "collections": [
    "Korean Peninsula"
  ],
  "englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
  "nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
  "primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
  "programAffiliation": "NPP",
  "programs": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ],
  "projects": [],
  "regions": [
    "Middle East",
    "Iran",
    "South Korea"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Nuclear Policy"
  ]
}

Other

Rule of Law, Politics and Nuclear Nonproliferation

Legal ambiguities and contractual loopholes in provisions of the NPT and IAEA safeguards agreements usually serve the purpose of those who wish to evade their obligations while claiming that they are doing nothing illegal.

By Pierre Goldschmidt

Published on Sep 7, 2007

Source: Presentation to the Ecole Internationale de Droit Nucléaire (International School of Nuclear Law) at the University of Montpellier in France

Legal ambiguities and contractual loopholes in provisions of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and IAEA safeguards agreements usually serve the purpose of those who wish to evade their obligations while claiming that they are doing nothing illegal. It is therefore the task of legal professionals, not influenced by political considerations, to correct legal misinterpretations or misunderstandings and to prevent the re-occurrence of crises similar to those experienced with North Korea and Iran.

About the Author

Pierre Goldschmidt

Former Nonresident Senior Associate, Nuclear Policy Program

Goldschmidt was a nonresident senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment.

Recent Work

Article
A Realistic Approach Toward a Middle East Free of WMD
- Pierre Goldschmidt
Article
Serious Deficiencies Exposed by Latest IAEA Safeguards Implementation Report
- Pierre Goldschmidt

Nuclear Policy Middle East Iran South Korea

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 Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center

Commentary
Diwan
A Military Balance Sheet in the U.S. and Israeli War With Iran
In an interview, Jim Lamson discusses the ongoing regional conflict and sees an unclear picture when it comes to winners and losers.
Michael Young
Commentary
Diwan
Egypt’s Discrete Role in the Ceasefire with Iran
Cairo’s efforts send a message to the United States and the region that it still has a place at the diplomatic table.
Angie Omar
Commentary
Diwan
Realism and the Lebanon-Israel Talks
Beirut’s desire to break free from Iranian hegemony may push it into a situation where it has to accept Israel’s hegemony.
Michael Young
Commentary
Diwan
The United States and Iran Have Agreed to a Two-Week Ceasefire
Spot analysis from Carnegie scholars on events relating to the Middle East and North Africa.
Michael Young
Commentary
Diwan
Hezbollah’s Wartime Strategy
The party’s objectives involve tying together the Lebanese and Iranian fronts, while surviving militarily and politically at home.
Mohamad Fawaz

More Work from Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center