• Research
  • Politika
  • About
Carnegie Russia Eurasia center logoCarnegie lettermark logo
  • Donate
{
  "authors": [
    "Toby Dalton"
  ],
  "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": [
    "East Asia",
    "South Korea"
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Nuclear Policy",
    "Nuclear Energy"
  ]
}

Source: Getty

Other

Nuclear Governance: South Korea’s Efforts to Strengthen Regimes and Frameworks for the Safe and Secure Use of Nuclear Energy

South Korea stands in a unique position among the global nuclear elite: it is the top user of nuclear power that is not also a nuclear weapon state.

Link Copied
By Toby Dalton
Published on Jun 24, 2015

Source: Council on Foreign Relations

South Korea stands in a unique position among the global nuclear elite: it is the top user of nuclear power that is not also a nuclear weapon state. The only states producing more nuclear power than the ROK (China, France, Russia, and the United States) all have nuclear weapons. Thus South Korea’s rise to this position gives it a special standing and legitimacy in its commitment to nonproliferation. In many senses it serves as a poster child for the efficacy of the nuclear regimes that regulate nuclear energy and trade while seeking to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation. That these regimes were largely built by the weapon states to protect their own interests—and, some would argue, to perpetuate their technological dominance at the expense of developing countries— makes the ROK’s emergence all the more interesting as an example of how a middle power can gain a position of prominence in the international system. This special standing in turn has yielded opportunities for South Korea to shape the regimes that govern its nuclear activities.

This position is still relatively new for the ROK, having coalesced in the 2009–2012 time frame. Before 2009, South Korea had been a participant in the nuclear regimes, but it rarely (if ever) sought leadership in nuclear diplomacy. Two events, which coincided with the Lee Myungbak administration’s Global Korea initiative, changed the ROK’s nuclear diplomacy calculus. First, on May 25, 2009, North Korea (the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, or DPRK) conducted a second nuclear explosive test. South Korea’s actions after the test demonstrate sharp movement away from its history of DPRK-centric nuclear diplomacy toward aggressive activities in international nuclear regimes. On May 26, the ROK joined the Proliferation Security Initiative—a counterproliferation mechanism whose members seek to interdict illicit trafficking of nuclear goods—and shortly thereafter elevated its involvement with another group, the Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism. Second, in late December 2009, South Korea concluded a $20 billion agreement to construct four nuclear power plants in the United Arab Emirates. This deal marked the ROK’s emergence as a nuclear exporter and its aspirations for nuclear industry to become a major export sector alongside automobiles, electronics, and steel.

These two events catalyzed a broadening of Seoul’s vision of its nuclear policy, planting the seeds of South Korea’s interest to play more of a leadership role in international efforts to strengthen nuclear safety and security. Events after 2009 allowed these seeds to grow. North Korea’s further provocations in 2010 (the sinking of the Cheonan and shelling of Yeonpyeong), the Fukushima nuclear accident in March 2011, and the initiation of U.S.-ROK negotiations on a renewal of their bilateral nuclear cooperation agreement elevated nuclear issues to the top of South Korea’s national security and diplomacy priorities. Seoul’s emerging leadership in nuclear regimes served multiple interests. Those interests seemingly coalesced in the Lee administration’s initiative to host the 2012 Nuclear Security Summit (NSS) in Seoul, which serves as this chapter’s focus for examining South Korea’s role as a middle power in international nuclear safety and security governance.

The full chapter can be found in the report "Middle-Power Korea" by the Council on Foreign Relations.

About the Author

Toby Dalton

Senior Fellow and Co-director, Nuclear Policy Program

Toby Dalton is a senior fellow and co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment. An expert on nonproliferation and nuclear energy, his work addresses regional security challenges and the evolution of the global nuclear order.

    Recent Work

  • Article
    Promoting Responsible Nuclear Energy Conduct: An Agenda for International Cooperation

      Ariel (Eli) Levite, Toby Dalton

  • Research
    A New Era of Nuclear-Powered Submarines Is Making Waves in Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zones
      • +5

      Toby Dalton, Jamie Kwong, Ryan A. Musto, …

Toby Dalton
Senior Fellow and Co-director, Nuclear Policy Program
Toby Dalton
Nuclear PolicyNuclear EnergyEast AsiaSouth 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 Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    For Putin, Increasing Russia’s Nuclear Threat Matters More Than the Triad’s Modernization

    For Putin, upgrading Russia’s nuclear forces was a secondary goal. The main aim was to gain an advantage over the West, including by strengthening the nuclear threat on all fronts. That made growth in missile arsenals and a new arms race inevitable.

      Maxim Starchak

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russia’s Latest Weapons Have Left Strategic Stability on the Brink of Collapse

    The Kremlin will only be prepared to negotiate strategic arms limitations if it is confident it can secure significant concessions from the United States. Otherwise, meaningful dialogue is unlikely, and the international system of strategic stability will continue to teeter on the brink of total collapse.

      Maxim Starchak

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Russia-Türkiye Ties Falter Amid Stresses of Ukraine War

    Mutual suspicion between Moscow and Ankara is growing as Türkiye cozies up to Washington and NATO while reducing its dependence on Russian energy.  

      Ruslan Suleymanov

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    Iran’s Twelve-Day War Has Only Boosted Its Cooperation With Russia

    Tehran’s most urgent task is to reduce the risk of further Israeli and U.S. airstrikes. Russia’s role as a deterrent in this respect is more multifaceted than simply supplying weapons, whose real impact will only become apparent many years from now.

      Nikita Smagin

  • Commentary
    Carnegie Politika
    How the Kremlin Lost Trump

    The collapse of the Budapest summit is an inevitable result of the Russian system of artificially creating foreign policy crises in order to achieve a desired outcome.

      Alexander Baunov

Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
Carnegie Russia Eurasia logo, white
  • Research
  • Politika
  • About
  • Experts
  • Events
  • Contact
  • Privacy
  • For Media
Get more news and analysis from
Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
© 2026 Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. All rights reserved.