The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is often alleged to be at risk of “crumbling” or "damaged beyond repair”. Kjølv Egeland, Fellow at the Norwegian Academy of International Law, argues that this fear-mongering is unfounded. The NPT is one of the most widely supported international agreements that exist today. The challenge facing its supporters is not damage-limitation or “protecting what we’ve got” but extending the disarmament norm.
92 results found
Page 1 of 16
Dr Heather Williams, Lecturer in the Defence Studies Department at King's College London (KCL) and Amelia Morgan, Research Assistant at KCL's Centre for Science and Security Studies (CSSS) examine how the United States and Russia could become more responsible nuclear actors and strengthen the global nuclear order at a time when it is most fragile.
Shata Shetty, ELN Deputy Director and Denitsa Raynova, ELN Policy Fellow highlight that in the current deteriorating security environment there should be no complacency over the health and future of the NPT. The case must be re-made for the security benefits of this vital treaty. The current situation can be turned into an opportunity to revisit old assumptions, re-assess priorities and consider modest, but practical arrangements which can serve as bridge-builders between polarised communities.
Continuing our series of guest commentaries on the ban treaty, Dr. Brad Roberts, Director of the Center for Global Security Research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, argues that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons is essentially a protest vote which may end up harming much more than it helps.
Łukasz Kulesa, Research Director for the ELN, argues that while some in Europe will welcome the new NPR, its findings and recommendations are likely to cause friction in US-Europe relations.
To examine the implications of the nuclear ban treaty, the ELN has brought together contributions from a distinguished group of nuclear policy and arms control experts who present and analyse national and institutional attitudes towards the ban treaty and assess whether these are likely to change over time. The aim is to encourage a better understanding of the underlying motives and objectives of the treaty as well as the rationale of those who still remain cautious or hostile.