30 Sep Does Iran Have a Right to Develop Nuclear Technology?
I have to admit I really don’t know for sure, but this WSJ op-ed makes me think this issue is likely to be an important one as the crisis over Iran’s compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty comes to a head. According to the author, the U.S./E.U. concession that Iran has a right to peaceful nuclear technology is both wrong as a matter of law (and wrong-headed as a matter of policy.) I can see the policy argument, but I have no idea what the author’s legal argument is. Basically, it appears to be that because Iran’s constitution commits it to develop comprehensive military weapon systems, the author argues that the NPT’s guarantee of a right to develop peaceful nuclear technology shouldn’t apply?
An Islamist state like Iran can by definition not be considered a bona fide signatory to the NPT. The mullahs, although opposed to the treaty’s overall purpose, never withdrew from the NPT to take advantage of the privileges the document grants its signatories.
Huh? I don’t buy this one. Either they are in the treaty or they are not, and if they are in, they have to comply with the treaty’s inspection provisions while at the same time getting the treaty’s benefits. Iran’s leaders may be corrupt, genocidal, lunatics of whom we should be very afraid, but I think they can still sign treaties. Can’t they?
As far as I understand, Persia/Iran signed and ratified the NPT in the 1970s. Iran might have breached some reporting obligations, but maintains the right to develop civilian nuclear energy programmes. The treaty actually speaks of the ‘inalienable right’ of sovereign States to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes (Article 4(1)) – assumingly this right derives from international law and can only be restricted by treaty or subsequent custom.
The fact that the only country which has ever used atomic weapons in war was a democratic country appears to undermine the usefulness of the distinction between ‘Islamist state’ and other States when discussing their development and use…
Perhaps the op-ed argument depends more on good faith in treaty law. Every state posesses the capacity to conclude treaties. Every state should also conclude treaties in good faith. This seems especially tricky to demonstrate in cases where states shroud their intentions in confidentiality.
If other NPT parties fear (or discover) that they rely upon Iran acting in good faith to their detriment, they might be able to (threaten to) suspend the Islamic Republic’s rights under the treaty as a countermeasure. But I wonder if an article of a constitution can be considered evidence of non-compliance in international law. Is there any case law on this point?
As much as one might wish to segregate the world into righteous, good-willed states that can develop nuclear technology and those that are untrustworthy to do so, a basic principle of international law remains – all states are sovereign, equal entities, free to enter into legally-binding agreements as they see fit. Statements like “An Islamist state like Iran can by definition not be considered a bona fide signatory to the NPT” are purely contradictory to general principles of international law. By signing onto the NPT and becoming a party to its obligations, Iran did not inherent a “right” to peaceful nuclear power. So long as Iran has the technology and expertise, it can develop nuclear capabilities. Although the ability to develop nuclear power for peaceful purposes was codified and legally recognized in the NPT, it was not created. I do not think it is fair to analyze the problem of Iran’s noncompliance by determining whether or not Iran has a “right” to nuclear power. Iran doesn’t recognize its “right,” as prescribed by the NPT, to peaceful nuclear power just as much as it refuses to recognize that it doesn’t have a “right” to develop nuclear weapons. If parties to the… Read more »