Section 3
Nuclear Energy Critical Question: How should the NWC handle the nuclear fuel cycle? Nuclear Energy Unlike the NPT, the Model NWC discourages the use of nuclear energy, recognizing that the continued reliance on nuclear power and its potential expansion pose a challenge to verification of a nuclear-weapons-free world. Recent high-profile cases, including the crises over the nuclear programs in Iran and the North Korea, have brought the risks associated with the proliferation of nuclear fuel-cycle technology to the forefront of the international agenda. Article IV of the NPT refers to an “inalienable right” of non-nuclear-weapon states to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. A possible problem for the confident achievement and sustainability of a world free of nuclear weapons, this current norm allows for states to build up the capacity and infrastructure––through ostensibly civilian energy and research programs––to produce nuclear weapons within a brief time period. However, any right must be exercised in conformity with international law, as is illustrated by the NPT itself, which makes the exercise of the Article IV right contingent on the obligation not to manufacture nuclear weapons. More broadly, the Article IV right is subject to limits based upon the environmental and security rights of other States and the global community. Further, while states surely are entitled to develop energy sources as part of the sovereign right of development, that right is subject to restrictions – including on particular energy sources – in the common interest. Accordingly, the qualification of the NPT right to peaceful nuclear energy as “inalienable” should be understood in the context of the NPT bargain, and not as a claim that it is a fundamental aspect of sovereignty. It therefore may be limited or extinguished over time by subsequent developments and agreements, as has the NPT Article V promise of access to the “benefits” of peaceful nuclear explosions – a provision which catered for the possibility of digging canals and mining operations with nuclear explosive devices, but which has subsequently become understood as too environmentally damaging and has been prohibited in the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The question of the relationship of nuclear power to the achievement of a nuclearweapons free world remains crucial. Appreciation of the extreme environmental risks of nuclear energy, as demonstrated by the Chernobyl disaster, have been partially offset by a push to reduce reliance on fossil fuels creating a new demand for nuclear energy, with a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study predicting a three-fold expansion in nuclear energy by 2050. Should these predictions be accurate, the need for nuclear fuel-cycle services will expand as well. With some adjustment, the very same facilities and equipment used to produce low-enriched uranium fuel for power reactors can produce high-enriched uranium suitable for use in a nuclear weapon. The separation and reprocessing of plutonium from spent reactor fuel as mixed-oxide fuel is a potentially greater proliferation challenge, as all separated plutonium is directly usable in nuclear weapons. All existing commercial nuclear power reactors produce plutonium as a by-product. The spread of these technologies increases the risk that such facilities might be misused and nuclear material diverted to use in weapons or into the hands of terrorists, or that the knowledge gained from operating such facilities might be employed in a clandestine nuclear bomb program. The spread of nuclear technology also increases the risk of terrorist attack on reactors and their spent fuel stores. Verification of nuclear non-proliferation objectives historically has been limited in order to maintain the balance between rights and obligations of NPT states parties. NPT Safeguards, administered by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
Securing our Survival (SOS): The Case for a Nuclear Weapons Convention
133